Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

(Redirected from Commons:Visszaállítási kérések)
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 42% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Törlés (Törlési irányelvek)


Finding out why a file was deleted

Először is nézd meg a törlési naplót, hogy miért törölték a fájlt. Ha a Commonson a képhez találsz egy piros linket, és arra kattintasz, akkor megnyílik egy szerkesztési ablak, de a baloldali navigációs menü Mi hivatkozik erre pontjából utánajárhatsz, hogy hol említették meg a fájlt (például egy törlési vitában). Másodsorban pedig olvasd el a Commons feltételeit, a licencfeltételeket és a törlési irányelveket.

Ha a törlésre adott indoklás nem érthető, vagy ha nem értesz vele egyet, akkor felveheted a kapcsolatot a képet törlő adminisztrátorral. Magyarázatot kérhetsz tõle vagy akár új bizonyítékot is benyújthatsz be a törlés indoka ellen. Felveheted továbbá a kapcsolatot egy másik adminisztrátorral is – a magyarul beszélő adminisztrátorok ebben a listában vannak. Ha a törlés hibás volt, akkor a fájlt visszaállítják.

Fellebbezés

Ha a törlés a jelenlegi Commons feltételek és licencfeltételek szerint indokolt volt, akkor az adott feltétel vitalapján emelhetsz panaszt a feltétel ellen.

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy a kép nem sértette a szerzői jogokat és a Commons feltételeinek is megfelel:

  • Először a vitát lezáró adminnal lenne érdemes kapcsolatba lépni. Megkérheted, hogy a bővebben fejtse ki az indoklását, vagy hogy mutasson be bizonyítékokat.
  • Ha nem szeretnél senkivel se közvetlenül kapcsolatba lépni, vagy ha egy adminisztrátor megtagadta a visszaállítást, esetleg több embert szeretnél bevonni a vitába, akkor a lentiek szerint ezen az oldalon kérvényezheted a visszaállítást.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Átmeneti visszaállítás

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

A fair use elvet engedélyező projektek felhasználói kérvényezhetnek egy két napos átmeneti visszaállítást, hogy a letörölt fájlt átvihessék a saját projektjükbe. A szerkesztőnek meg kell mondania, hogy melyik projektbe szeretné a fájlt átvinni, és be kell linkelni az adott projekt fair use állásfoglalását. A magyar Wikipédia nem fogad be fair use fájlokat. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Új kérés beadása

Kattints ide, és megnyílik az az oldal, ahova a visszaállítási kérésedet írhatod be. Ugyanezt kézzel is megcsinálhatod, ha a mai dátum melletti "szerkesztés" hivatkozásra bököl. A kérésedet a lap aljára írd be, és ne feledkezz meg az alábbiakról:

  • A Subject: mezőbe írj be egy megfelelő témát. Ha csak egyetlen egy fájl visszaállítását kéred, akkor melegen ajánlott az [[:Image:TöröltFájl.jpg]]. (Ne feledkezz meg az első kettőspontról, az hivatkozik a képre.)
  • Sorold fel a fájlt vagy fájlokat amire a visszaállítási kérésed vonatkozik, és mindegyik képhez adj meg egy hivatkozást (lásd feljebb). Ha nem emlékszel a fájl nevére, akkor a lehető legtöbb mindent adj meg. Ha egy kérésből nem derül ki, hogy mit is kellene visszaállítani, akkor az a kérés nagyon hamar archiválásra kerülhet.
  • Sorold fel indokaidat a visszaállításra.
  • Írd alá a kérésedet négy hullámvonallal(~~~~). Ha a Commonsban van felhasználói fiókod, akkor jelentkezz be. Ha te töltötted fel a képet, akkor így az adminok sokkal hamarabb megtalálják.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch View Edit

File:Reproducibility Spectrum.png

This needs discussion, IMO. User_talk:Revent#File:Reproducibility_Spectrum.png is relevant.

The file was deleted as missing permission. OTRS now has a 'clearly legitimate' release from the author of the paper in which it is published (and the paper is under CC-BY-SA) The issue is that the image is attributed, in that paper, as adapted 'with permission' from a diagram in another paper (that is under CC-BY-NC). The relevant images are https://imagebin.ca/v/3Lgr0x1ROLQX (the image uploaded here) and https://imagebin.ca/v/3LgroarrRwy9 (the original). The author has asserted, to paraphrase into copyright-speak, that the source image was merely an inspiration, and that all that was used from the original was the (uncopyrightable) 'idea' of such a diagram. Personally, I am inclined to agree with this, in this specific case, but I believe it's a judgement call that needs a consensus.

Pinging Jeff G. (talk · contribs) and Comtebenoit (talk · contribs) as involved parties. - Reventtalk 00:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the images uploaded to imagebin are screenshots of the published PDFs... not the specific image upload here (which was the actual 'image' itself). - Reventtalk 00:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable, given my limited information and Ticket:2017021710016854.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This matter could have been resolved definitively with OTRS permission from the author of the original paper, if we had the proper email address. BU Rob13 asked the uploader for such permission on 12 April, and we got an excuse instead. If such permission were given and in evidence, I think it would have been submitted by now. The 'with permission' quoted by Revent above indicates that the uploader thought such permission was necessary, and so do I. Absent evidence of it, since this looks like derivative work, I {{o}} restoration.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What I see as the question here is not if the image is 'derivative' in the non-technical sense (it clearly is), but if it actually used any aspects of the original work that are copyrightable. I'm inclined to think that what was used were only the uncopyrightable 'ideas' underlying such a diagram (which is essentially what the author claimed in the most recent email on that ticket) but I don't think it's clearcut. - Reventtalk 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: IMHO "reproducibility spectrum" is a direct English translation of the copyrighted Spanish text "gradiente de reproducibilidad".   — Jeff G. ツ 07:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, it is. However, "Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are not copyrightable because they contain a de minimis amount of authorship. See 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a)." (Copyright Compendium, 313.4(C)[1]). The phrase 'reproducibility spectrum' is the obvious way to state the underlying idea in English. - Reventtalk 08:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Ok, it's not clearcut. You've dragged me over to   Neutral.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Pinging other users who have taken action on this file and its duplicate File:Spectrum of reproducible research.png: @EugeneZelenko, Jcb, Ronhjones, Daphne Lantier:   — Jeff G. ツ 08:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Bergström/Wallgren

Please undelete the following files:

Swedish OTRS agent (verify): These files has a valid OTRS release, only that the template was added by the uploader and sender rather than an OTRS agent. I can, however, confirm that the release is valid and that the file should be ok. The files were deleted due by a reason not related to this ticket, and on a technicallity, rather than anything being actually wrong, should have been tagged with OTRS pending instead. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @Josve05a: I think this is enough to look at for now... we can worry about the others once these are addressed. They actually needed to be temporarily undeleted for review, even by admins, because the filesizes are extremely large....without being able to see the thumbnails, it would be a matter of downloading several gigabytes of data to look at each set. Even undeleting them was rather slow, as it lagged the database a bit. - Reventtalk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Files from MapQuest

According to the DR's below it does not seem that MapQuest published under a free license. But there are a lot's of files that created with ShareMap (Category:Created with ShareMap). The EXIF indicate that the file is CC-BY-SA 3.0 but the source also mentioned MapQuest as one of the sources (example). If files from ShareMap are ok then those DR's should be undeleted.

Also raised it in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#files from MapQuest. -- Geagea (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose File:Belarus (night train).svg shows a ShareMap source, which would be OK (Sharemap is CC-BY-SA-3.0), but it is not the same map as the one one Sharemap -- it has more detail in the countryside. It mentions six data sources, of which only MapQuest is not freely licensed, but that is enough to make it unusable here.

The third and fourth cases are taken directly from MapQuest and clearly cannot be kept here. The first two are from a a now discontinued "MapQuest Open", for which license information is not available any more. Since we can't cite the now-missing license there, I think we must assume that the DRs were correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it's also means that files from ShareMap are not ok as well. -- Geagea (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Grabados de José, Jesús y María,.jpg

User sent an OTRS ticket, but I can't figure out if the image is a photo or own-made art. Superzerocool (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like a photo of a religious drawing. Daphne Lantier 17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is definitely a card with the drawings put on top or glued onto some background paper. So we need to know if the uploader is also the original artist. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • According the user, he claims the authorship. I asked him if he drew the image or he just took a photo to upload to Commons. Hang on there! Superzerocool (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

‪File:Славица Гароња.jpg

There are some updates related to this image. It was my mistake for putting the name of Karlo Fridrih, he is not the copyright holder. I have contacted the person who appears on that photo and she clarified that she is the only owner or copyright holder of this photograph. It is her own photo and no one has rights on this photo except her. Also, the previous photo which was uploaded and published on her page seems to be the violation of the rights. The woman explained to me that someone literally stole her photo from some USB and published on Wikipedia as his own. That's why I am tryng to publish some other photo that this woman agrees with. She doesn't agree with that first photo as it was her private and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Practically she would like the file "‪File:Славица Гароња.jpg to be publsihed on her Wikipedia page. I am aware of all the rules, but what about the opinions and wishes of those people (who are alive) and whose wish we should respect while we are making articles on. I would really like you to help me on this, 'cause the woman is devastated knowing that someone missused her own property, practically the photo which she doesn't want to be on Wikipedia is published and the one she wants it to be ("‪File:Славица Гароња.jpg) is deleted. If it's necessary she can contact you and explain the whole matter. Once again I will repeat that it was my mistake for mentioning Karlo Fridrih, he is not the copyright holder of this photograph. Is there anything to be done to change this, should I upload it again, could you help on this matter? Thank you ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerglobe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.  — Jeff G. ツ 19:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Славица Гароња.jpg. You have not clarified how copyright has been transferred from the deceased photographer to you. Thuresson (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Writerglobe: Was Karlo Fridrih the photographer? What happened to that person's possessions? The current holder of copyright needs to send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Pier bridge of allepey.jpg

Invalid rationale for deletion. The picture was uploaded here by the author himself. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Roland zh: Please license it cc-by-sa or cc-by on Flickr, then reply.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Challiyan: - please do so. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:保定市乐凯小学校长马福平.jpg

这是我本人的照片,我将它上传到维基共享资源里去,帮助完善维基百科上的乐凯小学条目。请恢复此文件,谢谢。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma Fuping (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  Oppose The file description gives the source as
https://baike.baidu.com/pic/马福平/20487568/0/e7cd7b899e510fb3eec8be65d033c895d0430c6b?fr=lemma&ct=single#aid=0&pic=e7cd7b899e510fb3eec8be65d033c895d0430c6b
where it appears without a free license. The file description also says that the photographer is 谷燕, which does not appear to be you.
Both of these require that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose @Ma Fuping: (Google translated: This is my own photo, I will upload it to the wiki to share resources to help improve the Wikipedia on the Lok Kai primary school entries. Please reply to this file, thanks.) Please send permission via OTRS. (请通过OTRS发送许可。)   — Jeff G. ツ 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Paulo Dybala Palermo.jpg

I think this should not be deleted because I got it from creative commons and used a license. Explain to me why this was deleted and what I should do next time I try to upload. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This can be found all over the internet: [2]. Files uploaded to Commons should either be taken by you with your own camera, or should be available under a free license. Please refer to COM:CB and COM:L. Daphne Lantier 01:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:N.Sambasiva Rao IPS.jpgFile:N Samba Siva Rao DGP.jpg

The reason for undeletion request is that the image of N.Samba Siva Rao IPS is taken from Google Images. I have furnished response to Dharmadhyaksha twice using talk page but did not receive any response to my explanation till date. Hence, I believe that the explanation given by me is satisfactory. Hence, please undelete the image of N.Samba Siva Rao IPS for Wikiuniformed forces CSHN Murthy (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that your were the photographer. Now you acknowledge that you took the file from an outside source. Putting incorrect source and author on a file is a violation of Commons rules and simply creates work for all of us.

The image appears in a number of places on the Web without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Sara Shrawan.jpg

"I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons." Please Guide me how can i stop its deletion.

Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shrinivaskulkarni1388: You should have provided author or copyright holder info a week ago, when you were asked to. You should also have stopped uploading copyright violations. Now, you can send that permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you can have the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. Licenses forwarded by the uploader are not acceptable -- we have seen too many forgeries here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Bharat Scouts and Guides.svg

This is the official Emblem of the Bharat Scouts and Guides, India. All copyrights are reserved to the Bharat Scouts and Guides and being a contributor i have uploaded the image to it's official wiki page. So deletion of this image is not necessary. Source: http://bsgindia.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmi Kiran (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose As per all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)