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

Files uploaded by MARTA MANCINICons

Mostly scans of photos over a century old. Except one, they all had date/description and sufficient author information, plus a copyright tag. Blatant deletion mistake. Nemo 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree. As they stand they could not be kept and the DR was open for a month without the uploader fixing them.

In several cases I looked at, it would be easy to determine the author and, probably, his date of death, that should have been done before upload. The uploader certainly cannot claim "own work" for any of these, as was done without source in several cases. Come back with this request one by one with the necessary information supplied, and we can restore them -- but not en masse. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Support Some of them already contains required licensing information so they should never be deleted while procession this DR. In some cases the information may be incomplete or incorrect (eg. PD-anon-EU template for a US work), but this was not raised in the DR. As per above oppose, I suggest reopening the DR and continue dispute there. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the uploader had a full month to deal with the various problems and made no effort to do so. I don't see that opening an unwieldy DR solves anything. If you have any specific files that you think should be restored, please list them and the community will consider them, but my look over the list suggests that the bulk of them cannot be kept as they are now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Note, that:
  1. the UDR request is not from the uploader; so any requirements directed to the uploader are irrelevant here
  2. most of the images already had proper copyright info fixed before they were deleted; so the deletion in the DR process was not correct, IMO. I have restored them: feel free to re-nominate for deletion (en masse, or one-by-one) if you wish
  3. we are all volunteers so we cannot require a specific user will respond in a specified period of time; we should be able to deal with such cases even if the uploader did not respond
  4. assumption that we can delete any image because its uploader did not respond is not the right way, IMO
  5. for few remaining images you are right: more information is required (@Nemo bis: eg. the death date of G[iovanni] Gussoni from Milano) to resolve their copyright status.
I think, we can close this case. Or anything else can be done/said here? Ankry (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely out of process for you to restore these images when there are only two opposing comments on the UnDR. I suggest you redelete them and wait until there is more support for your side of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose - none of them had a valid license, the files with a license only had a US PD rationale, and no license on the source country - Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New York seems to be located in US. What source country rationale is expected then?
Anonymous-EU is a valid Italian copyright tag when no author/publisher info is provided on the work itself. (work = diploma form; the written text is purely informative and so not eligible for copyright); AFAIK, in some countries such diplomas can be considered "official documents", not eligible for copyright, but unsure about Italy here.
Italian diplomas with author/publisher info remain deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The diplomas are clearly above TOO, so eligible for copyright. Also several pictures of people are involved. To use Anonymous-EU, you have to show that the author actually published the work without disclosing his identity. This is completely different from 'we at Commons do not know the name of the author'. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Indeed, clear copyright mark: "Mishkin Studio, New York", "(C) H. Mishkin, N.Y." and clearly pre-1923 published. Why they needed to be deleted? Ankry (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the images seems to origin from the US, so it's not sufficient to only deal with the US copyright situation. (I wrote that earlier, as you can see a few lines above). Jcb (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
False asumption. "Boston Conservatory of Music" is probably a Russian school. And two photos were created in New York near Rome. They were photographed in Italy, but it is irrelevant for definition of their country of origin. Some works are Italian, one is definitely German (also PD) and at least three are US. Ankry (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what you write is very difficult to understand and very vague. E.g. what is "created in New York near Rome" suppose to mean? And claims like "one is definitely German (also PD)" should come with a file name and a PD rationale. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: This means that you deleted images with valid author/copyright information without even looking at them. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Boston Conservatory of Music is here. This and this images have clear copyright mark from a New York photographer. How did you find them to be non-US works? this has clear authorship of a German photographer (death date unknown, but active since 1864, so PD-old-assumed is an appropriate rationale). And recent deletion reason is clearly fake for them.
Regarding File:Agide Jacchia 04.jpg, the same photo-card has been published under a CC-by-4 licence by Deutsche Fotothek, so we could either restore this one accordingly or upload the Fotothek image. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) restore it. The autographs seen in Agide Jacchia 04.jpg are not copyrightable and if the photograph is available under CC-by I support restoration. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Vitral_Templo_Maipu.JPG and File:PlacaVDS.JPG

Deleted ignoring Chile has FOP. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Vitral Templo Maipu.JPG is a view from inside of a temple, so I doubt FoP Chile applies.
File:PlacaVDS.JPG restored. It is a small resolution image, so feel free to renominate on another rationale.
Ankry (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose The first is, as noted, an interior image and the FOP exception is limited to outdoor works. The second is text, which is classified as a literary work, not an artistic work, and therefore not included in the FOP exception.

WIPO translation of Article 71F: "...monuments, statues and, in general, those artistic works that adorn squares, avenues and public places on a permanent basis..."

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: While, you may be right in the second case, it should go through proper DR. no-FoP deletion reason is clearly invalid here. IMO, it is disputable whether this is a literary work or just purely informative text (I do not know Spanish, however, so cannot judge here). Ankry (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The FOP apply only if the work is actually protected under the Copyright Law of Chile. I could reseach for the author and the date of creation of the vitral. If it is not attributed to a single architect (it is Anonymous or Pseudonymous or by an organization), this may be already in the PD.
And for the plaque, need some research. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I   Support undeletion of the first image. The stained glass window was designed by Adolfo Winternitz (d. 1993) but since it is a window you can see the same image from outside the temple too, so FoP should apply. As to the text plaque, this is hardly a literary work because it only states that Víctor Domingo Silva was born "under the roof of this house". The text content is probably too simple for copyright. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There already was a discussion about such a case (in Switzerland). I don't know Chilean law, but if FoP is restricted to outside, it probably doesn't apply into such a case. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This is why I mentined I'll research. The "Templo Votivo de Maipú" is so close to me, but I have no time to schedule a visite and get the information. I'll keep updated you. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:pivolendmk.jpg

This is my own photo from my bands gig in our city last year. i want it to be undeleted becouse its my own photography and i need it to be displayed on my wikipedia page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiceditormk (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Musiceditormk: Please send an email to the OTRS, if you are really the photographer of the image. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, Poké95 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose When you posted the same request on March 24, I asked, " Were you the actual photographer of this image? Did you create the background shown? Do you or your band have a Wikipedia article or other evidence of notability?" You did not respond. We cannot help you if you do not answer questions. If you cannot show that your band is notable, sending a license to OTRS will not get the image restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Buchumschlag.pdf

Frage zum Ticket#2017032810011827 ist es unter "Zero in Version 1.0" freigegeben und gibt es andere Probleme mit dem Bild? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Die Lizenz war {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} durch den Uploader Erich Marti. Gelöscht wurde die Datei, weil es für diese Lizensierung bzw. Autorenschaft keinen Beweis gab, z. B. kein "OTRS pending". Also "missing permission". De728631 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hatsune Miku

The Files

were cropped not to be fully deleted but only revisions of them (See Category:Commons:Files with deleted versions to be restored) --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Labranda Hotels und Resorts.jpg

Das Logo wurde von uns erstellt Own work --FTI GROUP (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose No prove the account represents authors of the logo. I think it does not meet criteria for PD per COM:TO. @FTI GROUP: Wenn Sie der Autor sind, senden sie bitte eine Genehmigung zur E-mail Adresse permissions-de@wikimedia.org. Das Schlagwort findet sich auf Commons:OTRS/de. Danke --Mates (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Bitte beachten Sie auch, dass nach deutschem Recht, das Urheberrecht nicht übertragen werden kann. Die FTI Touristik GmbH mag zwar die Nutzungsrechte an dem Logo haben, aber eine freie Lizenz kann nur direkt durch den Inhaber des Urheberrechts vergeben werden. Das ist/sind in dem Fall der oder die ausführenden Designer. De728631 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Világokon át DVD-borító.jpg

This file contained a reproduction of the 1888 Flammarion Woodcut (therefore PD) and the rest may respect COM:TOO. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

{o} Aside from the Flammarion engraving which is, as you say, PD, I think the DVD cover contains enough creative design to have a copyright. We need a free license from the creator via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Emden Neue Kirche Nordostportal (2).JPG

Moin zusammen, welche Probleme gibt es hier Ticket#2017032910015545 Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Moin. Soll das eine Frage an uns sein, oder die Feststellung, dass es keine Probleme mit der Freigabe gibt? De728631 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Die Datei hatte seit Januar den Hinweis "OTRS pending", aber das Ticket war bis gestern noch nicht durch das OTRS-Team bestätigt worden. Also offenbar ein Opfer des Arbeitsstaus. Die Lizenz war Cc-by-4.0 und wurde laut Zitat in der Beschreibung durch einen gewissen Reinhard Penzek vergeben. De728631 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Angel Beccassino.jpg

Please undelete as it pertains to an active wikipedia page. I own the rights of this image.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salgamosvolando (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 March 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 In your original file descriptions, you claimed that you were the photographer of all three. Now you imply that you were not the photographer, but own the rights. It is wastes time when uploaders do not give correct information. Please try to be accurate in the future.

We do not keep PDFs of images, so the second file is unacceptable under any circumstances. The first and third can be restored if the actual copyright holder -- the photographer in the first case and the publisher in the third -- each send free licenses using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


File:RJ Arslan Sheraz.jpg

Hey WikiPedia, recently you've removed the picture I've uploaded due to copyright violation but I want to let you know that they were not copyrighted photo so please bring it back. --Zaib Abbasi 04:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itszaib (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)