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 deletedEdit

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.

FellebbezésEdit

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 visszaállításEdit

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 discussionEdit

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 projectEdit

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 beadásaEdit

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.

ArchivesEdit

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Nyitott visszaállítási kérésekEdit

Watch View Edit

File:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is in the public domain ({{PD-US-Medical imaging}}), so copyright isn't a problem. There was an IRC discussion where the doctor who took the MRI wanted it removed. He said he wants to use the image for a board exam question and not have the answer available online.

As of yesterday, the image was in use on multiple wikis. We also have no other images of its kind. Category:Scimitar syndrome only contains two versions of the same X-ray. This file is a much more illustrative MRI. Guanaco (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, BU Rob13, Bawolff, Doc James, Radswiki: Pinging everyone I know to be involved in discussion about this file. Guanaco (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think {{PD-US-Medical imaging}} applies because the author mentioned doing substantial work in Photoshop to clean up the image. That is creative; it is not merely a machine process. ~ Rob13Talk 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
They have said that they will get another image of the condition in question for us to use. I would request some time to figure that out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I made the call, but I concede it is a close call. In fact, I went back and forth myself before deciding to make the deletion. I'm led to believe that it isn't clear-cut that it's in the public domain. In my opinion, if, as promised, we get another image that is suitably licensed, that is the best solution. I hope that happens soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the IRC discussion about wanting to use it in a board exam is information that I did not have at the time I made the deletion. While the information I saw wasn't perfectly clear-cut, I got the impression that the uploader, in GF, believed it was public domain, but later realized that might be wrong (perhaps because patient's permission was needed). Deleting because the uploader unilaterally decided they prefer it no longer be available is obviously fundamentally different than deleting because the original claim of copyright status was incorrect. I still stand by my observation that if we can get a replacement image, that's the best solution all around.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm highly skeptical of the claim that there were digital alterations which exceed the threshold of originality. I'll withdraw my request if we get a replacement image soon, as that's definitely the ideal solution. Guanaco (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Images from Radswiki are in Category:Images from RadsWiki and tagged with {{Radswiki-attribution}}, which asserts a {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license based on Ticket:2013052110003987. The problem is that there is no mention of that specific license, or any specific license, in that ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: I agree the ticket is problematic, but what about {{PD-US-Medical imaging}}? Guanaco (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Guanaco: The digital post-processing by the radiologist in Photoshop created a new copyrighted work, which was then uploaded to RadsWiki and Commons. That radiologist never provided a versioned license, and has repudiated what he did provide.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You would have to add something creative in Photoshop for there to be a copyright. Image cleanup takes skill, but usually not creativity, and typically will not create a copyright. What kind of manipulations would add creative expression to the finished product, do you think? Deleting because it would unexpectedly harm the uploader can be a valid reason. Is there a date we could undelete it, if that is the case? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
To follow up -- Chapter 900 of the Copyright Compendium has this to say:
The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.
The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.
So you would need to identify new material or substantial changes made during the post-processing for there to be a copyright. The request to hold off until after an exam seems reasonable to me though, if we know a date we can restore it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Japanese Empire.pngEdit

File:Japanese Empire.png (image originally uploaded on 22 September 2005 and modified on 6 October 2005) was deleted in 2007 with the deletion comment "dupe Japanese Empire2.png" (see logs). Also note in the the upload log that there was information about the origins of the file (hopefully that information was also present on the description page, because in the upload log the end of the comment is cut). "File:Japanese Empire2.png" was uploaded on 22 December 2005 as a modified version of "File:Japanese Empire.png", by a user who is not the same as the author(s) of "File:Japanese Empire.png". "File:Japanese Empire2.png" did link to its source "File:Japanese Empire.png", allowing readers to know the author(s) of the source images. However, the 2007 deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png" made all the information vanish from the view of casual readers (if not entirely from users who dig into the logs, as we are doing now, but that should not normally be required from users in order to find the essential information about a file). The information should at least have been copied to "File:Japanese Empire2.png" before deleting "File:Japanese Empire.png". From the license of "File:Japanese Empire2.png", I guess that "File:Japanese Empire.png" may have been under the GFDL, which requires attribution. If so, the deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png", thus removing information about authorship, had the consequence of turning "File:Japanese Empire2.png" into a copyright violation. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Original author seems to have been en:User:Kokiri, and it was indeed {{GFDL}}. Second upload was a minor modification (borders from black to white, minor color improvements) that was uploaded by Huhsunqu - the modifications are probably minor enough not to create a secondary copyright claim, however per the license they probably do need credit. I have tried to clean up the file description on the kept file... @Asclepias: do you think that adequately does the job? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Good job there, Storkk. I have also added the original Wikipedia upload log, and I think there is nothing more to do. We can now close this section. De728631 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Goni Aug 22 2015 Precipitation Daily Accumulated.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, suitable for commons. B dash (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Doesn't obviously fall under any of the five criteria listed there. Which are you saying applies? - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • fixed. --B dash (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      I still don't see it. That template lists 5 criteria:
      1. The constitution, acts, regulations, or official documents.
      2. Translations or compilations by central or local government agencies of works referred to in the preceding subparagraph.
      3. Slogans and common symbols, terms, formulas, numerical charts, forms, notebooks, or almanacs.
      4. Oral and literary works for news reports that are intended strictly to communicate facts.
      5. Test questions and alternative test questions from all kinds of examinations held pursuant to laws or regulations.
      Which are you saying applies? - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • No. 2: "Translations or compilations by central or local government agencies of works referred to in the preceding subparagraph." --B dash (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also under license {{OGDL}}, see File:Khanun Oct 11-15 2017 Precipitation Accumulated in Taiwan.jpg as an example. --B dash (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Coats of arms by Tomas.urbanEdit

In January, user Macucal (talk · contribs) nominated several coats of arms, all by Tomas.urban (talk · contribs), claiming copyright violation because they were "too small to be original." Administrator P199 (talk · contribs) rescued one file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Galis Tomáš CoA.jpg) noting that "too small to be original" is NOT valid deletion criteria and there was undue suspicion. He also tried to rescue File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg (closing as keep) but it was renominated for deletion by Macucal and deleted by another administrator. Another image of Tomas's was nominated by Ellin Beltz in 2014, linking to I believe a church website. That link is now broken and I can't see the file, but it is probably another original coat of arms.

These files were deleted with no proof of copyright violations. To the contrary, all evidence seems to indicate that these are original files created by Tomas.urban, who has been contributing to Commons since May 2007. All anyone had to do was look at this user's history. He has created hundreds of original coats of arms and flags over the past decade, several of which no doubt have found their way onto various websites, as many are fairly obscure and not available until he created them. Some of his files are small size, some are larger, some are jpg, some are svg etc but all have the same consistent style, which you would not have if he were uploading other people's work as he found it. You can see samples of his ecclesiastical coats of arms here on his user page on the Czech Wikipedia, and additional galleries here (municipal arms) and here here (municipal flags). Some of his works include a small "T.U." that someone thought was a copyright claim, but that matches his user name, which should have been a clue he created them. According to discussions on his talk page on Commons and on the Czech Wikipedia, he has fulfilled requests to create designs, made modifications people suggested and emailed higher-resolution files to people requesting them. For some reason, he did not respond to the deletion nominations, but he shouldn't have had to, as there was no valid reason for deletion. Please undelete these files. Wikimandia (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose This is a difficult one, which is probably why it has been here for almost a month without comment. First, note that it is not up to us to prove that the image is not free. It is up to the uploader (or anyone who wants to have an image restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is free.

I have looked at a variety of this editor's work, both the images above and those that are still active -- see [1]. I cannot imagine drawing images as complex as this at this small size. It would be much easier to draw them much larger. That argues for their deletion. On the other hand, there is, as noted above, a consistent style that suggests that many of them were created by the same hand. That hand might or might not be our uploader. Given the ambiguity here, I think the Precautionary Principle requires that they not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with Jim that the small size creates a suspicion. @Tomas.urban: If these are your works, could you import the original files? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The uploader has some larger ones done more recently in a very similar style: File:Kapitula_Litoměřice.jpg, File:Biskup Kindermann Jan Ferdinand rev C2.jpg, and probably others. The uploader clearly has some vector source material they are working with, given those, and given the similarity in style with the earlier ones, I think I   Support undeletion. If they have been lifted from the net, we should be able to find a source. Long-term uploading of new works with the same style seems more the mark of an original author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Taiwan Province (PRC) prfc map.pngEdit

Chinese: 我觉得这张图片是从fotoseimagenes.net搬来的可能性不大,反倒有可能是fotoseimagenes.net从维基共享搬走的,因为fotoseimagenes.net上的那张图片的分辨率比维基共享的这张图低很多,图片上的文字没有维基共享的这张图片清晰。

English: This image may not copy from fotoseimagenes.net. Image in fotoseimagenes.net is smaller than this image, words are hard to read. Maybe fotoseimagenes.net copy this image from here.

Sorry my not good English. ——彭鹏 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I agree that it looks unlikely that the Commons image was copied from http://www.fotoseimagenes.net/provincia-de-taiwan. Possibly it was the other way around.

However, I do not believe that this is entirely the "own work" of User:ASDFGHJ. I think that it is very unlikely that he or she created this without using a base map from somewhere. In order for us to restore this, User:ASDFGHJ must show that the base map used is PD or freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Kawaii Jumbo Squishy Strawberry.jpgEdit

A "Squishy" is a generic term for any soft product made out of a spongy-like material that can be compressed while coming back to the original form. There are 100's of "Squishy" things, like items for pets, etc., that meet this definition. It should not fall under copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8133 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 November 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.

  OpposeThe several holders of registered trademarks for the word Squishy in reference to toys would object strongly to your claim that the term is generic. However, that is irrelevant as we do not concern ourselves with trademark here. Trademarked or not, 100's of them or not, there is no reason why this toy, and the other similar toys you uploaded, are not copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Society_of_Students_Against_Poverty.svgEdit

UPDATE: Because User:Jameslwoodward Archive the request WITHOUT RESALABLE STATEMENT. I have to make it for third time.

Read this BEFORE MAKE DECISION.

Case like me: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg

Rule apply in Iran: Commons:Threshold of originality#Iran Rule apply in Germany: Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany

Firouzyan (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This happen when User:Jameslwoodward archive request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-11#File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg 2

There is NO CONCLUSION! You make two different decisions by EXACTLY SAME CASE. I have problem with it. Firouzyan (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also Commons:Threshold of originality#Iran which about Iran, and logos are fine when "the mark presented". Your action is clearly out of scope and leave me without choice except complaint about it in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard Firouzyan (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Please also decide about File:KNTU LOGO.svg. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose For the third time. This is a copyrighted logo and making an SVG of it is a derivative work which requires a license from the holder of the original copyright. Arguing that there are other similar files on Commons is never valid -- we have more than 40 million files here and at least several hundred thousand should be deleted.

I won't close this this time, but I encourage a colleague to do so..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Ok! Because there is another opposite opinion about it I don't make the argument go further and try to contact to community to send E-Mail to OTRS. But ONLY FOR CLEARANCE, your arguing isn't true as well. There is clearly a problem if this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg can host here but mine isn't. This somehow look like discrimination for me. Best Firouzyan (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Fastcom 12 login.pngEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures (The images synthesized by Fastcom 12, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed (whole / fragments) - based on the Creative Commons license.

http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures#FLOGIN TRustRust (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
WEB archive from 2014: images are synthesized by Fastcom, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed as a whole, or fragments: http://web.archive.org/web/20140119202743/http://fastcom.fors.ru:80/web_files/Info/Pictures. TRustRust (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  Support This looks like a PD-author type of licence or at least a custom free licence. Copying, and distributing and the making of derivatives (which is included in distribution "in fragments") are covered by the archived statement. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Permission is on software manufacturer web site. I don't see a problem that it appeared later then files were uploaded. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)== File:Stella Von Klutch - Mistress of The Pharaoh.png ==

I am actually the owner of anything Stella Von Klutch. I use Tunecore to promote my music across multiple platforms, while only having to access one site (Tunecore) to manage them all. I do own all the copyrights to all of my Music, and Album Art, including Mistress of The Pharaoh which has been deleted (and I presume my other Album Arts will soon Follow)

Files I'm requesting for undeletion at this moment include: File:Stella Von Klutch - Mistress of The Pharaoh.png

Others that I presume will flag up as potential copyright include: File:Stella Von Klutch - D.I.V.A!.png File:Stella Von Klutch - Like a Unicorn.png File:Stella Von Klutch - Judging Panel.png File:Tomas Luke - Smoke & Mirrors feat. Stella Von Klutch.png

--Tomasluke (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose For media that have already been published elsewhere we require a permission sent by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Alternatively you could release these images under a free licence like Creative Commons by attribution 4.0 on your official website and then post a link to the site here. 23:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This: http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures. (see the first sentence - an indication of Creative Commons by attribution 4.0). Do you need more? TRustRust (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Raphaël Ferret février 2017.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Need to asses permission provided with Ticket:2017111610005458. Please notify me when it's done. Ty Arthur Crbz (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: I have restored the file. De728631 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Poor formatting.pngEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}, which is a {{Free screenshot}}. 158.182.231.135 07:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the corresponding Wikimedia page so we can verify this. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ticket:2017102410013524Edit

All those pictures and logos are my own pictures which I have all the right to publish and use to writing an article.

I assure you that it is not a property of any other person or organisation rather than me and my self. I will be the only responsible person if anyone can prove that those pictures are not belongs to me. You can also delete those pictures if anyone can prove that those pictures are not mine. So please give me a permission to use them here and to be a contributor in Wikimedia community. Please think about it. It is my humble request to you.

Thanking you

Djzarkin (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I processed this ticket, and as I explained in the email, these were deleted as outside the project scope. Generally speaking, Wikimedia Commons isn't a good place for self-promotion. Guanaco (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Official portrait of Pierre HerméEdit

Please can this official portrait of Pierre Hermé be used for his page ? I am in charge of communication at Pierre Hermé Pars and Pierre Hermé has requested the unofficial image currently on the page be removed!

Thanks, Jennifer Lilley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlilley123 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:SDJMC Proclamation.jpgEdit

This photo was taken by Ruth Hertz Weber's husband who owns the photo and has given me (her son) permission to upload it to her wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enricomusic (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose We need a permission by email coming directly from Mrs. Weber's husband. We get dozens of uploads by fans and imposters every day so please understand that we cannot rely on claims of permission made on this board. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Once the email has been processed, the image will be restored, but this may take several weeks due to a huge backlog. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Hydrelia albifera.jpgEdit

Image has been deleted as incorrectly licensed cc-by-nc-sa. It has been released cc-by-3.0 however here. Lymantria (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Example.jpgEdit

Já se s tím seru a vy to vymažete? Měli byste se stydět a na wikipedii skončit, akorát to sabotujete, lotři. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Google Translate: "I'm going to * you with that serum and you're going to erase it? You should be ashamed and end up wikipedia, you just sabotage it, *." (Expletives removed). Thuresson (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Vojtaruzek: Please clarify if this is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Vojtaruzek. Thuresson (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by TohaomgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Received permissions: ticket:2017083010009291 and ticket:2017111510006968 TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)