Commons:Undeletion requests

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

80 copyvios • 6 duplicates • 3 adverts • 27 selfies • 81 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

• You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
• If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
• 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.
• If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

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

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. 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.

Projects that accept fair use

* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

• Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
• Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
• In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
• Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
• State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
• Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

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. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf

Guten Abend, es handelt sich bei dem gelöschten File um ein familiengeschichtlich relevantes Dokument der Plessen-Familie. Das Dokument ist bzgl. des abgewickelten Rittergutes Dolgen von zentraler Relevanz und erklärt historische Fakten nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands. Das Rittergut Dolgen ist insgesamt von enzyklopädischer Relevanz. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

All of the people mentioned are identified by their real names by the Chairman of the Plessen-Family and I therefore see no violations of personal rights through the historical family document. - My mother Rosemarie Pfeiffer (geb. von Plessen) is dead. This is a historical- and one of the last documents of the Dolgener-Plessen-Family and it was the last with of my dead mother to complete the family documents, regarding "Rittergut Dolgen" of her suicided father Leopold Freiherr von Plessen, in an encyclopedic format for all Plessen-members and Wiki-readers. I think the chairman of the Plessen family - User:Christian von Plessen - also agrees, since he has publicly named everyone's real names. " Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Raymond du hast offenbar eine Oversight Anfrage zu dieser Datei bekommen und diese durchgeführt. Abgesehen davon waren die Angaben zu Autor und Urheberrecht falsche, es müsste auch geklärt werden, woher das Dokument stammt. GPSLeo (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo Das ist richtig. Der Benutzer mag sich gerne für eine Überprüfung wieder an die Oversighter, aber logischerweise nicht an mich, wenden. Raymond (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@(Christian von Plessen möge sich zur mögl. Freischaltung äußern) - Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. Ich bitte hiermit um Freischaltung des Dokuments, da es im Interesse einer enzyklopädisch korrekten Außendarstellung der Ur-Adelsfamilie derer von Plessen liegt. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support My vote, the reasons have been explained. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gordito1869: you cannot vote on your own undeletion request. Günther Frager (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I only wanted to express my argument visually. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The activation of this historical document +++ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 +++ would be even more important, as it clearly documents the final and historical demise of the Dolgen manor. All people were publicly expelled from Commons by the chairman of the Plessen-family association +++ here +++. I therefore do not recognize any data protection violations. I would very politely ask you to also unlock this encyclopedic and contemporary historical document. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - PS : "...das Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" ist das enzyklopädische Ziel; deshalb ist die Freischaltung i.S. des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen enzyklopädisch dringend geboten & absolut erwünscht, so denke ich. ... vgl. auch +++ hier +++; die neuesten Forschungsstände zum abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen wurden leider bisher noch nicht enzyklopädisch erfasst resp. dokumentiert. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)-

@(Christian von Plessen have now been repeatedly asked publicly to support the activation by publicly agreeing; since it is a verified user Template:User account verified I suggest that the support team made a corresponding request to the verified User / Benutzer Christian von Plessen via e-mail. The matter is very important for all Plessen and CvP will certainly agree, I think. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

...zur vollständigen familiengeschichtlichen-, historischen- und auch enzyklopädischen Dokumentation der Abwicklung des historischen Rittergutes Dolgen wäre sicherlich insgesamt die Freischaltung folgender - gelöschter - Files wünschenswert und im enzyklopädischen Interesse der Familie von Plessen :

• File:Rückabwicklung des Plessengutes Dolgen am See.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Einlassungen eines unberechtigten Dritten Vorsitzender des Familienverbandes der Plessen.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen gemeinschaftlicher EALG-Antrag an LARoV Hartwig von Plessen, Rosemarie Pfeiffer, 10-1994.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Notarvertrag zum Erbe des Rittergutsbesitzers zu Dolgen Leopold Freiherr von Plessen.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen LARV Schwerin Entscheidung nach AusglLG.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Flächenerwerbsabsicht auf dem vormaligen Rittergut Dolgen nach ALG.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Beschluss Deutscher Bundestag zu vollmachtloser BVVG-Vetternwirtschaft zu Damshagen, mit Auswirkung auf Dolgen.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - BVVG Landerwerbszusage nach ALG bzgl Dolgen.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Widerruf der BVVG bzgl einer zuvor bereits mehrfach durch LARoV und BVVG schriftlich erteilten ALG-Landerwerbszusage auf dem Rittergut Dolgen am See.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Aufkauf der (E)ALG-Rechtsansprüche an Plessengütern in der vormaligen SBZ.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-1.pdf
• File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-2.pdf

Die Freischaltung der vorstehenden Files würde die komplette jüngere Vergangenheit der sog. "Nach-Wende-Zeit" vollständig visuell ab dieser Zeit abbilden; genau das liegt exakt im erklärten wissenschaftlichen Forschungs-Interesse des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen @(Christian von Plessen, so denke ich. Beste Grüße --Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) --- ps : es liegt leider die absolute Vermutung nahe, wir könnten es hier mit einem Hochstapler der PLESSEN zu tun haben, der sich als vorgeblicher Rechtsanwalt in eigener Sache mutmaßlich widerrechtlich ausgegeben haben könnte, so denke ich (nach meiner sehr validen Kenntnis familiärer Zusammenhänge ist CvP kein (!) Rechtsanwalt ... und auch niemals Rechtsanwalt gewesen, so denke ich. - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) ... ps II. - ich denke, die aktive Untätigkeit des Vorsitzenden der Plessen - @(Christian von Plessen - resp. Rechtsanwalt (?) Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen - könnte als passive Zustimmung zur Freischaltung der historischen- & familiengeschichtlich besonders wertvollen Dokumente ausgelegt werden. Vielleicht kann mit der Freischaltung des ersten Dokuments begonnen werden, das den Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen sehr persönlich angeht ? - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, CvP liest - wie eigentlich immer - vollständig hier mit; wenn nunmehr auch noch eine e-mail Anfrage des support teams an @(Christian von Plessen ohne Reaktion verläuft, sollte m.E. freigeschaltet werden. Die unvollständige & absolut beschönigende resp. wahrheitswidrige Plessen-Saga des Edelherren Christian von Plessen muss unverzüglich geschichtsfest fortgeschrieben werden, so denke ich. - Ich habe ein aller-letztes Mal persönlich versucht, mit familiären & sehr persönlichen Worten, diesen offenbar völlig "abgetauchten" User "aus der Reserve" zu locken. - Alle entscheidenden familiären Zusammenhänge waren dem Vorsitzenden der Plessen bekanntlich leider bisher nicht bekannt, das sollte sich durch Freischaltung der hist. und enzyklopädisch wertvollen Familiendokumente aller Plessen sicherlich ändern können, so denke ich. --- Wie vermutlich einige (deutschsprachige) User bereits festgestellt haben werden, haben wir es mit dem widerwärtigsten und ehrlosesten VERRAT in der 1000-jährigen Geschichte der Plessen zu tun; Wiki-Commons ist m.E. der würdigste Ort, Geschichte enzyklopädisch und familienhistorisch korrekt zu schreiben resp. zu dokumentieren. - Wikipedia und Wiki-Commons sind "Orte", die sich der Wahrheit verschrieben haben und deren User/Benutzer nicht käuflich sind (ich selbst war und bin als Mensch und Bundebeamter niemals im Leben käuflich) : nur deshalb war ich lange Jahre Wikipedia Autor (158-Artikel & Listen) ... und bin seit ewigen Zeiten Wiki-Commons-User. Geschichte muss immer & überall auf UNSERER Welt auf nackter & ungeschönter Wahrheit beruhen, so denke ich ! - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, wenn @(Christian von Plessen keinerlei "Lebenszeichen" mehr seit nunmehr 3-Jahren - als vormals sehr aktiver Commons-User & hochtalentierter Wikipedia-Schriftsteller - von sich gibt, ist das sicherlich kein gutes Zeichen. (Bei Wikipedia gibt es für diesen Fall eigens die "Liste der vermissten Wikipedianer". Eine Anfrage unter dessen hinterlegter e-mail Adresse wäre vor Aufnahme in die Vermisstenliste - rein aus Fürsorgegründen - dringend geboten, so denke ich. Auch die durch Herrn Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von PLESSEN vor 3-Jahren bereits angekündigte enzyklopädische Fortschreibung der "Plessen-Sage" darf m.E. nicht auf unbestimmte Zeit ausgesetzt werden, so denke ich. --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Guten Abend + kurz nachgefragt : Spricht etwas dagegen, die enyklopädisch- und insbes. familiengeschichtlich- resp. historisch relevanten Dokumente in anonymisierter Form (wie z.B. hier : geschwärzt) ggf. neu hochzuladen ? - H.E. steht nicht mehr zu erwarten, dass der mannigfach "angepingte" User einer Publizierung zustimmen wird; ich denke, die Gründe dafür sollten hinlänglich bekannt sein. Das Anonymisieren von Akten ist allgemein üblich - ohne die zu dokumentierenden Fakten auszublenden. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Guten Morgen, gibt es administrativ irgend eine Vorstellung, wie meine "undeletion requests" zum Abschluss gebracht werden könn(t)en ? - Ich möchte nochmals höflich darauf hinweisen, dass die familiengeschichtlichen Dokumente der "Plessen-Family" zum Verständnis der komplexen historischen Situation nach 1990 (Wiedervereinigung) von zentraler Bedeutung sind und - auch enzyklopädisch relevante - Zusammenhänge wahrheitsgemäß geschichtsfest dokumentieren (...ggf. mögen einzelne Namen und Adressen - aus Datenschutzgründen - geschwärzt werden; das ist/wäre ein absolut übliches Verfahren). - Herr (Rechtsanwalt (?)) Dr. jur. @(Christian von Plessen wird sich aus nachvollziehbaren Gründen sicherlich nicht mehr zum endgültig abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - Die historischen Dokumente gehören allesamt +++ hier hin +++. --- MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Minorax: , @Odder: , @Rama: We need an oversighter here, and Raymond was already involved and says others should take it on. Any other admins won't be able to do anything here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm that it is agreed that the privacy concern with regards to the files has been addressed and this is a successful undeletion request? --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't even see the files, nor do I have access to oversighter communication channels, so I cannot confirm anything. Presumably the privacy concern has not been addressed, but that's what an oversighter would need to look into and possibly tell the uploader which parts of the documents would need to be covered/blocked/removed for a re-upload which was already suggested by the uploader (and then probably close this undeletion request as unsuccessful). Any other admins won't be able to move this forward. --Rosenzweig τ 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Raymond: Mind commenting on this? Google translate doesn't seem to be helping me to understand the situation. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They are documents of Plessen-family history and historical value. Professor Ernst Münch (University of Rostock)-, the renowned writer Elisabeth Plessen and other experts were involved in the important Plessen documents and the matter at all; activation is also expected for scientific reasons. If there are data protection concerns, certain information may need to be blacked out, which is common practice. - If it causes "a headache", please at least unblock this one document regarding Dolgen-Manor : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 --- All people involved were named personally by @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen, the chairman of the Plessen-Family himself; Data protection violations are therefore not apparent. - Best regards : --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Minorax Email sent. Raymond (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen wird sich - mehr als offensichtlich & aus allseits bekannten Gründen - nicht zu den historisch & familiengeschichtlich (enzyklopädisch) wertvollen (hier leider gelöschten) Familiendokumenten bzgl. Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - PS : Bei Ratten im Langzeitversuch verursachte GVO in der Nahrungskette diverse Krebserkrankungen; ich hoffe dringend, meinem "lieben" Verwandten a.d.H. 19205 Schönfeld blieb- resp. bleibt das Schicksal der armen & kranken Genraps-Ratten erspart ... und der Edelherr äußert sich nun ggf. aus gesundheitlichen Gründen nicht mehr, obwohl er seine "Plessen-Saga" noch allumfassend & in seinem Sinne fortschreiben & bebildern wollte (?) - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Please check through. Thanks. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You are a true man of honor and hero of our democracy : Thank you on behalf of my dead Plessen mother and my dead grandfather Leopold from the Dolgen Manor house !!! - Best regards, Michael J. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Minorax: I've looked at some, but will need a bit more time to read them all and form an opinion about their copyright status, if they're in scope, and about possible privacy concerns. --Rosenzweig τ 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

(Please don't forget : all real names were published by the @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen (@Christian von Plessen: ) personally. The documents regarding Dolgen manor are of central importance for a truthful continuation of the encyclopedic and family history-relevant "Plessen saga". - Best regards, Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC) )

Chilean TOO files

Hello there. I want to ask for the undeletion of some images from Chile that have been deleted as a result of the misleading effect a now-removed phrase included on the COM:TOO Chile had. Per my reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AbcdinLogo.svg, these files are not copyrighted in Chile as they are way too simple, and the former claim that the "Estamos bien los 33" was copyrighted was not correct, there was a "presumed copyright" which has since been disputed in court.

Some of the files include:

• File:Primera dama logo.png
• File:MegaDementeLogo.jpg
• File:Estación Vivaceta.png
• File:Mega.png
• File:Logotipo de Teletrece (1994-1995).png
• File:Logotipo de Teletrece (1970-1972).png

--Bedivere (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Was your statement in that DR a ruling by the court, or just an argument by one of the parties? Not sure we can take an argument by one party in a court case as evidence that they will win on that argument. That all said, if the authority that registered the phrase earlier did not have any obligation to determine if it was above the threshold of originality in the first place, then not sure the registration can be taken as evidence for their being a copyright (unlike the U.S., where a copyright registration comes with that determination, so if published as a registered work there, it's likely above the threshold). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's correct. The registration authority just complies with registration requests without actually pronunciating or determining the registered work is or not copyrightable, that's what I've called presumed copyright. The court case is still ongoing (has been for several years for causes unrelated to the actual Leitmotiv). Sernageomin's position (to my knowledge of Chilean law, and as a graduate) is entirely correct, but it just helps (within the DR comment) to illustrate why giving the "Estamos bien..." registration as the cause for deletion of files such as those I've mentioned is not prudential, as the registration does not imply a copyright was actually generated, and including it in the TOO Chile page was not helping. You've understood the whole point though Carl. Just a close look at the pertinent law clears up the whole picture Bedivere (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have restored Primera dama, MegaDemente and Mega as they seem to me, very clearly, too simple to be copyrighted in Chile, which was the reason to delete them originally. I'm unsure for the others, they are not trivial. Simpler versions of the Teletrece logos could be uploaded by leaving just the letters. I withdraw the request to undelete Estación Vivaceta as it is not too simple (as I thought it was when nominating). --Bedivere (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khoshnevis Mansion

@Krd: I'm repeating my request here, to you or someone else. Once again, seven deleted files show a historical building, almost 200 years old. That's pretty clear from it's infobox (Khoshnevis Mansion) which states it's style is the Qajar architecture, further linking to parent categories which shows it's the 1789–1925 period. Also, I used four references for the style in Wikidata (which I always do for historical monuments). A lot of time of searching, reading and referencing, all for nothing, because the careless editor A1Cafel nominated all for deletion, without a basic check. Really frustrating. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The WP:FA article tells us only that, as you say, the building dates to the Qajar period, which ended in 1925. While the building may well be 200 years old, we have no evidence of that. A 1925 building is far too recent to assume that it is out of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: there is nothing, I'll repeat, absolutely NOTHING of Qajar architecture which is copyrighted. I personally passed over 1000 locations and there was never a copyright issue. Even virtually all Pahlavi architecture (1925–1979) sites are today free (30 years passed since public presentation). Please elaborate your claim that "a 1925 building is far too recent to assume that it is out of copyright". It makes zero sense. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Iran has a very short copyright duration, so anything from 1925 or before is certainly in the public domain. Yann (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Consulting COM:Iran says copyright for architectural works are expired if the author died more than 50 years ago (1973) or if they had died before 22 August 1980, for works that their copyright expired before 22 August 2010 according to the 1970 law. 1925 is too young for even a 100 year assumption (1923 would be the last year as far as that goes), and an author who created something in 1925 could have lived beyond 1980. I agree with Jim here.  Oppose (see below) Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: did you read the rest of the COM:Iran? "In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will go into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation"? This is really getting more and more bizarre. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the page mentions "financial rights" while the template PD-Iran has the wording you quote. When one tries to remember the copyright laws for 200+ countries, occasionally one forgets the finer details, we are only human after all. Usually this is where we'd try to ascertain whether the building in question belongs or rights were transferred to a legal personality. Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

IMO this is greatly exaggerated. We have accepted many pictures of works from the time of the Shah regime, as sufficiently old. The 50 years pma duration supposes that the architect is known. For pre-1925 works, it is very unlikely. Even with 50 years pma, they works are most probably in the public domain. Architects of pre-1925 works most probably died more than 50 years ago. Yann (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Krd: @Jameslwoodward: @Abzeronow: feel free to delete thousands of other sites. I don't care any more. Thanks for proving this website isn't for professionals but destructive charlatans. This is really below my civilizational and intellectual level, so I'm out of this savagery. Goodbye. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very sorry for these excessive positions which led Orientolog to abandon its precious work on Commons. Invoking copyright for works created 100 years ago (and 1925 is 100 years ago) leaves me very perplexed. Best regards, DenghiùComm (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. We use a 120 years rule when the copyright duration is 70 years pma, so for Iran, where the copyright duration is at most 50 years pma, a 100 years rule seems appropriate. Yann (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the above speaks as if we have exact knowledge of when the building was built. It may be 150 years old, or 100, or 75. PCP requires us to have proof beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: It can not be "75 years old" because the Qajar period lasted until 1925. That's 99 years ago. To summarize:

1. Dating: no precise information, unfortunately. The website of Iranian architectural encyclopedia is down at the moment, so I can not check is there any indication about dating. I strongly believe it's the second half of the 19th century, considering the comparative analysis with other Qajar houses from that area, but we can ignore it as personal guessing.
2. "Young" architect: even if we take "1925" as the year of construction, it is impossible that in strict patriarchal society like Qajar Iran some nobleman will give the construction of his mansion to a young apprentice architect who is 20-25 years old. That's totally out of question.
3. Architect's lifespan: even if we take the (im)possibility that architect was born around 1900, the life expectancy in Iran in the middle of 20th century was less than 40 years old (yup, less than forty). An average person would be dead by 1940. Even if we assume he lived 80% longer than average person, 50 years still passed since his death. For that reason, there is no way that anything from Qajar period can be copyrighted. It relies on multiple impossibilities.
4. The property is almost certainly acquired by ministry of culture or other governmental organization decades ago (likely there's info about it on the down website), as is the case with over 90% cultural monuments, and then leased to a private owner who use it as hotel (as sourced). It means 30 years passed from the date of public presentation.

Again, this is not the issue of the Khoshnevis Mansion in particular, but about over 1000 Qajar sites on Commons. If they're endangered by bizarre interpretation, I'm really out of this project. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Orijentolog, Architectural design eras do not have exact boundaries. While the Qajar period lasted until 1925, buildings designed in that style may have been built long after the period formally ended. Houses in the Victorian style are still being built, although Victoria died in 1901. It is, as I said, entirely possible that this building was not built until 1950 or later. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Not correct, for Iranarchpedia the "Qajar architecture" means the period strictly between 1789 and 1925, not a year later. The same goes for other periods. There's not a single exception, I know it because I personally edited and checked virtually all Cultural heritage monuments in Iran here (>2000) and many more on Wikidata. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: For example: in a strict architectural sense, the Cossack House (Tehran) was built in the Russian neoclassical style, but Iranarchpedia treats it as "Qajar and Pahlavi" (قدمت: قاجاریه و پهلوی) because it was built in the Qajar period and renovated in the Pahlavi period. In other words, their periodization ain't artistic but purely historical. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting a few days for the Iranian architectural encyclopedia to come back online, if it can be shown that this building dates from the second 19th century, then I'll strike my oppose and support your request. Even if it can be shown this was from 1915, I'd probably support your request. It would definitely be helpful if someone else who was an expert in Iran weighed in on this. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: some items have permanently broken links to the PDF files, as the Iranarchpedia's director explained me few months ago when we exchanged emails. I can ask him. This article confirms my latest point, a newly established hotel was opened by Ali Asghar Mounesan, then minister of Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism, and other regional cultural officials. The property is state-owned, and leased to a private investor. There's the nearby Pahlavanpur Garden, again Qajar architecture and sourced as the 20th century (UNESCO's file, p.391). The document speaks about original owners as the former ones (p.390), and explains the registered gardens in general are under state ownership (p.664-). For sure it implies for Khoshnevis Mansion also. The architect of much recent Azadi Tower is still alive, but many times it was explained that it's under gov/municipal ownership and 30 years passed since public presentation. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, striked my oppose.  Support as public domain as a government owned building. Abzeronow (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You have to be careful with using life exectancy. Life expectancies of 40 generally indicate high infant mortality. See the graph at Mapping History - University of Oregon. When the US had a life expectancy of around 40, a 20-year-old man would be likely to hit 60, and a 40-year-old man would be likely to see 65.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but even taking that into account, it is very unlikely that an architect working in 1925 would still be alive in 1973. Yann (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Abzeronow and my comments above. --Yann (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File: rythme et chant Beninois.jpg

Salut. Ce file sert de témoin au gagnant du wiki love folklore 2023 que je suis. Wiki media ne vend pas les œuvres ils les conserve pour partager les connaissances donc cela permet la visibilité à l'artiste puis au soutien au contributeur gagnant. Car c'est juste du bénévolat et par ce prix vous nous consolez et soutenez nos recherches. L'art en Afrique se repose sur la renommée et l'image le reste il y a pas de gain. Donc la visibilité pour ses artistes traditionnels qui sont oubliés doivent être soutenu. User:Komavo, 24 février 2024 à 10h44 (UTC).

 Comment I'm assuming this is actually about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rythme et chant - Béninois.ogg. --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Komavo: What about the license: which license, who granted it and where? Per US copyright law almost all recordings are copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I added a message in the uploader's talk page in French requesting permission from performer(s). Yann (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Uncertain copyright. Please ask the performer to send a permission via COM:VRT. You can also do that on paper, and then scan it, if the performer doesn't have Internet access. --Yann (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:1963 asalto.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:1963 asalto.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Per Deletion requests/File:1963 asalto.png. Deleted in 2018, the file has entered the public domain a few months ago per {{PD-Venezuela}} NoonIcarus (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Still protected in the USA until the end of 2058. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Rosenzweig. Will be under USA copyright until 1/1/2059. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

tatintsian.com

Please, undelete File:PeterHalley1.jpg, File:Peter_halley_at_GTG4.jpg, File:Peter_halley_at_GTG1.jpg, File:Chuck_Close._Infinite.jpg as far as ticket:2024020510006678 is received and accepted. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 19:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @User:Lvova: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Aleksandr Veprev Soarele cartofilor.jpg

ticket:2024022310007919 is received and approved. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 19:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @User:Lvova: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dexter Goldberg.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024021610004686. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @User:Mussklprozz: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sutermeister, H M. Zwischen zwei Welten (1942).JPG

The book cover lacks originality.--194.230.160.99 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support {{PD-ineligible}} The logo in the middle could be blurred if needed. Yann (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the deleting admin @Jameslwoodward: as I do not understand the deletion reason. Any evidence that the logo was still copyrighted 75 years after publication? Trademark protection is irrelevant. Ankry (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the logo seems to be from 1940s, so it became PD is Switzedland in 2010s (before 2013) and is still protected by URAA. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you just answered your own question. It seems to me the design in the center of the cover -- I assume it is the publisher's colophon, but it doesn't matter what it is -- is above the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, it could be blurred, and the file would still be useful. Yann (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support hosting the file with blurred logo; but does it require undeletion or just uploading a new file? Ankry (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: Image overwritten with blurred logo, so that history is preserved. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Maria Hunziker et Friedrich Sutermeister.jpg

The photograph of Friedrich Sutermeister (1873–1934) is old enough to assume that the author died more than 70 years ago (compare this discussion to another image where Friedrich is depicted with other people.).--194.230.160.99 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not from 1896, is it? Do you have an estimate of the year? Thuresson (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

He married the depicted Marie Hunziker (1875–1947) in 1901. The photo shows them as a young couple. Due to their facial features, the photo was surely taken before 1910.--194.230.160.99 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support Probably taken shortly after the wedding. {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Yann (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done as per Yann: it seems to be a wedding photo. Also undeleted the cropped version File:Maria Hunziker et Friedrich Sutermeister (cropped, Friedrich Sutermeister).jpg. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Bob_van_der_Houven_(2022).jpeg

See: [Ticket#2024021110002142]

Since I am the person in the picture, I bought it from the photographer, Ben Eekhof, and have his written permission (see ticket) to use it for any purpose. I use it for press/media purposes, e.g. for newspaper interviews. So I am the owner and subject of the photograph.

I hereby affirm that I Bob van der Houven, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: Bob_van_der_Houven_(2022).jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Bob van der Houven Copyright holder --Bobtales (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Flag of Grounding Countries.svg

I would like to nominate this file for undeletion, I believe it was wrongfully deleted as it is not copyrighted and there wasn't a clear reason given to delete it. Furthermore, I actually know Grounding Countries on YT and I helped him come up with the flag design. Don't believe me? Just ask him on his YT Channel. I hope you understand all of this.

--TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it is too simple for copyright in the US, but I don't see an educational use for this. Is Grounding Countries a notable YouTube channel? Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but when he saw that I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, he did not show any signs of disapproval. In fact, it's quite the opposite of disapproval. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much that indicates Grounding Countries is notable as far as independent press coverage of them (I do see they are on a Fandom wiki). Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"I don't see an educational use for this."

There could be some use in this, people can use it to express themselves better in some way that you and I don't know about. I don't know, that was just one possibility. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment per deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Grounding Countries.svg it was deleted not for copyright reasons but for being out of scope for Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  If that was the case, then all fictional flags would have been deleted by now. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  All fictional flags which are not in project scope should indeed be deleted from Commons. There may be occasional famous or notable fictional flags with legitimate educational value within project scope, but random flags people make up certainly don't belong here. (There are many other places on the internet for such things.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Just undelete it and that would take away all the stress that is in me right now. I could explain why it's not just a "random" flag if you want. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  It will certainly not be undeleted as it is out of the scope of Commons. Grounding Countries is not a notable YouTube channel and does not even have a Wikipedia entry. I strongly oppose undeleting it. Bedivere (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Where did you even come from? TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am a Commons user just like you. No point in getting angry because I disagree with you Bedivere (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was not even angry, it just seemed like you came out of nowhere. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please remember this is a community. I did not come out of nowhere. You posted in a public forum to request undeletion of an image that is out of the project scope. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Commons is actually more lenient than English Wikipedia concerning notability, but we are definitely stricter than Wikidata (which doesn't have an entry for Grounding Countries). Sydney Leff (1901-2005) d:Q110656097 doesn't have a Wikipedia page either, but is definitely notable enough for Commons. Category:Sydney Leff. Abzeronow (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  So what? It can be used on someone's user page. And even if it doesn't, there are still so many files on Commons that never get used. So I don't see what your point is. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a valid argument for keeping or restoring a file. Please read w:Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments, which is also valid here. Yann (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I still won't rest until the file is restored. It's as simple as that. Also, I will not allow anyone to close this discussion as I still feel misunderstood. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TheKumquatGuy2662: Being a pest is generally not useful in getting a decision reversed despite community consensus. It is, however, often a good way of getting your account blocked. Please note, this is not a threat, this is an observation from a long time regular user. For your information and consideration. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  What did I do wrong? TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  You uploaded image that is out of Wikimedia Commons scope. And you are disputing the policy that community decisions are final here. Ankry (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Look, calling me a pest all because I was explaining from my perspective is not okay, and neither is attacking me and threatening me like other people have. I try my best to be civil most of the time, but now I must admit that all of you are horrible. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please refrain from making personal attacks @TheKumquatGuy2662. You have been told the YouTube channel is non notable, does not have a Wikipedia article, does not have a Wikidata entry, has not received press coverage, it is not notable at all, therefore it is out of our scope and it will not be restored at this time. Bedivere (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Personal attacks? Others have done it to me first! TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your saying "I still won't rest until the file is restored. It's as simple as that. Also, I will not allow anyone to close this discussion" seemed to me a specific threat to be a pest, which is why I used the term. I cautioned you not to go on that path. If you think you can make useful contributions to Commons I suggest you put some of your attention elsewhere than making your sole purpose arguing about a single flag that you have not seemed to convince anyone else is important for project scope. Your efforts in this direction seem at best wasting the time of yourself and the rest of us. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had a horrible and stressful day because of this and it appears that you have no feelings or consideration for me whatsoever. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion does seem to have gone a bit sideways. Central to Commons though is Commons:Project scope, which is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Mainly, we want media targeted to illustrating Wikipedia articles, or Wikibooks, or Wikivoyage articles, or from actual historical documents which are transcluded on Wikisource, and so on -- in other words, media targeted at also being used on one of those projects, or an article which could realistically exist in the future on one of those projects, or maybe internet articles on similar topics. We do not want to be a host for everyone's vacation photos (Commons:WEBHOST) -- so we need some dividing line somewhere to disallow those, while allowing the photos of common points of interest, even if some try to argue that 10,000 vacation photos could be used to illustrate typical fashion choices. So, "realistically useful" is different than "theoretically useful" -- there needs to be a something more concrete than a very unlikely but theoretically possible reason. There are certainly some fictional flags here, though we delete many, and I'm sure some exist which would be deleted if brought to attention. When it comes to those, it's more about the entity the flag is representing -- is that interesting to enough people for its symbols to be interesting by association. For better or worse, we often look to Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines used to determine if an article is interesting enough to keep on Wikipedia -- which in turn look for independent "reliable sources" of others writing about the entity, and not the entity simply trying to promote itself. National or state or municipal flags which were proposed and seriously considered by a government are enough, even if they were never used (though more modern ones may have copyright issues if they never became public domain). Images used as part of popular games (provided they are too simple for copyright) may exist. There can be reasons to keep fictional flags -- but also reasons to delete them. As with most anything, there are always gray areas. You can search on deletion requests involving fictional flags, to see some of the arguments which have come before. (And like court cases, I'm sure there are some inconsistencies in the decisions.) In this case, if the YouTube channel of "Grounding Countries" is notable, then the symbols they use become of interest by association. If it's not notable, then that aspect for keeping them does not exist, and it's unlikely to find another reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I call on all parts to remain calm and amiable, as well as exercise restraint:

-To experienced users: It is true that fictional flags are not only being permitted but also included in Wikipedia articles in lieu of real flags. Name calling from more experienced is not part of community guidelines (actually it suggests the contrary).

-To the user: Keep bringing the same points that are not convincing other users should give you a hint to change tactics or give another rationale. Any user can jump in to voice their opinions, this is a communit, and we are part of it (or we want to be part of it) Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is that this "flag" does not represent anything but a YouTube channel which is non notable by any Wikimedia project standard, therefore outside of the project scope. Bedivere (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Anto Finnegan.jpg

The photo of Anto Finnegan is running the other direction and the photo that they should he was running the left side, which makes that they don't owner the image of he running the right side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupusareawesome (talk • contribs)

• File:Anto Finnegan.jpg was tagged for speedy deletion "Very cleverly reversed version of image at [1]" -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mirror flipping a photo by someone else from 2015 does not make it a photo by you from 2024. You have no authority to claim to be the author. Making some modification of someone else's copyrighted work does not remove the original author's copyright and does not transfer rights to you. This was a clear and blatant copyright violation. See COM:DW, COM:Copyright. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Complete nonsense argument. Copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Tour Perret, parc Paul Mistral.jpg

As of today, this building is not any more under copyright since Auguste Perret died on 25 February 1954. The Architect is dead for over 70 years. So this picture can be undeleted since it's now under free licence. regards, --Silex (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Copyright expires on 1 January after 70 years have passed, so the restriction you mention will be removed on 1 January 2025. I can't see the file myself, is this just the source country's copyright? Will the US copyright also have expired by next year? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To answer From Hill To Shore's it's a French copyright problem indeed. Thank you for the information about the 1st January, I was not aware about this rule. --Silex (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This can be undeleted next January. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To answer From Hill To Shore's question, architecture in the US did not have a copyright until December 1990, so there is no US copyright in buildings created before then. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ishaan Dhawan in 2023.jpg

This file is of mine. So it shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarapriya (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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 I blocked this user for uploading copyright violations. They got a last warning on February 11th, but continued to upload copyvios after that. Seeing the history, it is very unlikely that they are the copyright holder. Owning a picture doesn't make you the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Riya Sharma in 2023.jpg

This file is of mine. So it shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarapriya (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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 I blocked this user for uploading copyright violations. They got a last warning on February 11th, but continued to upload copyvios after that. Seeing the history, it is very unlikely that they are the copyright holder. Owning a picture doesn't make you the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:John Howard Davies c. 1951.jpg

This old photograph is in the public domain what I replaced on Wikipedia, but it was deleted before. --2001:4452:16B:1900:F8B8:CCCA:F110:DAC7 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose 1951 presumably British photo, deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Howard Davies c. 1951.jpg; still protected in the US until the end of 2046. Per [2], it's from the Hulton Archive, so I'm not sure it is in the public domain in the UK. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Info The photo has the initials "PP" which probably stands for Popperfoto; London based photographer Paul Popper died in 1969. Thuresson (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Under copyright in the UK until 1/1/2040 and the USA until 1/1/2046. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ASSURE WCD system - Garment, Style B.jpg

The photo was deleted because of copyright reasons and showed it on the website: https://sessions.hub.heart.org/sponsored/kestra-medical-technologies/modern-wearable-defibrillation/6345bd9b3a44c70001c69077

That website however, doesn't own the image either. It was also leant by Kestra Medical Technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick98115 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In cases like this, we will need some evidence that the copyright owner has released the copyright under a suitable licence. You can do that through following the process at COM:VRT. If you include the name of the deleted file in the email to VRT, it will be undeleted once the team agrees the evidence is valid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick98115: It isn't a good idea to reupload the same file while the undeletion discussion is still open. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction. This may be a separate file from the same photo session but I would still recommend following the VRT process. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hans_Martin_Sutermeister_1961_(cropped).jpg

The photo is a cropped version of this photo. If the original photo wasn't deleted after this discussion, why was the cropped photo deleted? Thank you in advance for restoring the cropped photo.--194.230.160.86 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Martin Sutermeister at home, aug. 1961.JPG. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: IMO there was no valid reason for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Martin Sutermeister at home, aug. 1961.JPG. --Yann (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Lina Baumberger (grayscale).jpg

The photo is a version of this photo grayscaled by User:MagentaGreen. If the original photo wasn't deleted after this discussion, why was the modified photo deleted? Thank you in advance for restoring the grayscaled photo.--194.230.160.86 21:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The other version was not deleted as nobody provided a valid deletion reason. And, I see no valid undeletion reason in the above request. Maybe, the other photo should also be deleted due to invalid copyright template, but this is not the right venue to roquest that. Ankry (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done No valid undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 09:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AWH MP 2021 CC BY 4.0.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:AWH MP 2021 CC BY 4.0.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The source page notes that the image is under CC BY 4.0. Thanks, Frostly (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The source is given as [3] which brings up a 404 error. It was never Flickreviewed. The Flickr editor has used several different licenses and the fact that it is no longer present on Flickr gives rise to the question of whether its use there was challenged. Since we don't know the license, we cannot keep it on Commons.

The page cited by Frostly above is not the same image and contrary to Frostly's claim, is marked with an explicit copyright notice and the ToS allows only non-commercial use..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Somewhere in the bottom it says, "Click here for an official photo of Andrew Hastie under CC BY 4.0" and the blue link takes one to this image which is same as the deleted one. However, I am really unsure where on the the original source is the file released under CC BY 4.0? as Andrewhastie.com doesn't appear to be the original copyrights holder. Nonetheless, Frostly is right in their statement. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Right you are, good catch, thank you. However, it is obvious that Hastie is not the photographer, so it is impossible to use the image under the CC-BY license since the license requires naming the photographer and we cannot do that. Also, of course, the usual license from a professional portrait photographer would allow Hastie to use the image for his political purposes but would not allow him to freely license it to others. I think we need a license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I also tend to  Oppose. This requires an evidence that the file is sourced under CC-BY at the original website, and I can't access this website, and nationbuilder.com doesn't appear to be of any help either. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:RTL D Boris Breuer.jpg Bitte um Wiederherstellung

Ich möchte um die Wiederherstellung des o.g. Bildes bitten. Das Foto ist im Rahmen von Sascha Schwingels Tätigkeit bei der RTL Group entstanden, der Urheber ist Boris Breuer. Auf folgenden Seiten wird der Urheber genannt: https://www.ufa.de/die-ufa/management/sascha-schwingel, https://www.blickpunktfilm.de/en/bewegtbild-tv/fuehrungswechsel-sascha-schwingel-wird-ufa-ceo-nico-hofmann-bleibt-als-chairman-in-der-geschaeftsfuehrung-7bb474f802f4faa0507f8558925b567d

--VerLie2012 (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, ich habe die Antwort zum vorheringen LÖschantrag übersehen. Betrachtet diesen Eintrag als irrelevant. --VerLie2012 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: request was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 14:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Anja Savcic in 2018.jpg

Please undelete. -Stonnman (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Obvious copyvio. https://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotografie-di-cronaca/actress-anja-savcic-arrives-at-the-2014-ubcp-fotografie-di-cronaca/459460556 Abzeronow (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Nonsense request. Blatant COM:NETCOPYVIO. Эlcobbola _talk 20:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Terry Harmonica Bean.jpg

This photo was used by permission of Terry Bean on https://msfolkdirectory.org/terry-harmonica-bean/. I am a friend of Terry Bean and have worked with him. Why is this photo not being allowed to be used on his Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packersfans6870 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 February 2024‎ (UTC)

@Packersfans6870: Please contact the copyright owner, normally the photographer, and ask her or him to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT to verify that this photo is freely licensed. Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:On formulas for factorials and values of factorials of negative integers arising from them.pdf

The file File:On formulas for factorials and values of factorials of negative integers arising from them.pdf was mistakenly deleted because it was thought to show an already known result about the gamma function when it is not about that and the file was not reviewed properly. It should be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Ewan Milner (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 February 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:On formulas for factorials and values of factorials of negative integers arising from them.pdf. Looks like user generated text in PDF format. Thuresson (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Thuresson -- out of scope --we do not keep papers of this sort unless the author and the work are notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Margaret Perry (1913-2007) portrait.jpg

Deleted despite all agreed it was not a frame of the film, but a public domain publicity image for the film. The confusion occurs by referring to both types of images as a "still" as opposed to one called a "publicity image" or "publicity still". --RAN (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment RAN had added a {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag to the file (of a 1932 US photograph), but did not explain why that image would be "not renewed". --Rosenzweig τ 08:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Which not renewed copyright record did you mean? Ankry (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• To be eligible for a USA copyright up to 1964, you were required to provide notice per {{PD-US-no notice}} on every perceivable copy of the image, and were required to register for the copyright, and then renew that copyright. While the film was registered and renewed, there is no indication that the publicity images were registered or renewed. They do not appear in either the registration or renewal database. To answer why: Publicity images were purposely not copyrighted to maximize their reproduction by newspapers and magazines for free publicity, the alternative was for the producers to pay for an advertisement. --RAN (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. It certainly looks like a publicity shot, which if distributed at the time without notice would have made it PD. It probably is, just by its nature. However, do we have evidence of a copy which was actually distributed then, say something like this publicity photo on EBay? It remains possible that a work which was not published at the time only got published after 1989, which would mean it would still be under copyright. Loss of copyright did require actual copies to be distributed. While it probably is OK, I can understand people believing that there is still a significant doubt without any other source information beyond IMDB (which does not give a source itself from what I can see). Especially as a crop may have cropped out a copyright notice, as unlikely as they were in that era -- it helps to see the full original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Some publicity shots did have a copyright notice. File:Press photo of William Holden and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (front).jpg is an example from 1950 with a copyright notice and the remark Permission granted for Newspaper and Magazine reproduction. --Rosenzweig τ 08:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I did check the Catalogs of Copyright Entries at IA for New Morals for Old and did find registration and renewal for the 1932 motion picture itself, but neither for any promotional materials for that film. --Rosenzweig τ 08:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Matthew S Rosen head shot MGH Martinos Center.png

We have a permission release ticket Ticket:2024022710012021 for this image from the author. Please restore. Ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 08:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

Bonsoir je ne comprendspas pour quelle raison vous avez supprimé la photo de Guy Gibout. Cette dernière ma été fournie par son fils Melen Gibout. Cdlt Gilbert Boni alias Talchan

Ps dans le souhait que cette photo sera replacé dans son contexte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talchan (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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 @Talchan: Merci de demander au détenteur des droits d'auteur de confirmer l'autorisation de publication avec une licence libre via COM:VRT/fr. Cordialement,

Please ask the copyright holder to confirm the permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Yann This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chinese Muslims by country

Please restore the following pages:

• Category:Chinese Muslims by country

Reason: not unuseful empty category. RZuo (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: Not empty. --Yann (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ms. Oyindamola Lami Adeyemi.jpg

The file is my own work, and it has not been previously published on another website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeners (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

---

 Not done: Not currently deleted, but image without permission. --Yann (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Baton Rouge Tigers.jpg

It's our club logo. How else could we possibly update it? Seems like asinine bureaucracy, as you have given no other method of actually updating our logo on Wiki (which is all I have done). The work belongs to us, as we created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:a0f:1500:850c:d904:7592:db2 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Then the copyright holder should confirm the permission via COM:VRT, as for any work previously published elsewhere. Yann (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Yann This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:9870 of DJ Arif.jpg

To whom it may concern The reason for deletion was stated as a spam, but the problem is that I am an artist, and its not a spam, you can even google DJ Arif, and it will show that I am a musical producer, please reconsider your decision and help to create a page about me in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moettchandon (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Info Used at en:Draft:DJ Arif. Thuresson (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Usage in Wikipedia Draft namespace is not in COM:SCOPE. @Moettchandon: Feel free to request again after the Wikipedia article is accepted. Ankry (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Please request undeletion if the draft is accepted. --Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Khatchkar abovyan street

Hi,

I am looking for an picture now deleted from wikipedia where I can find it ?

Thanks a lot.

Aram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:5e64:fb80:ff:9be5:650e:79d1 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 February 2024‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done: No file name provided. Please log in, and provide a file name. --Yann (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Map of DSB Campus, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Map of DSB Campus, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This file is my own creation, I created it on photoshop myself. The university brochure being mentioned here was provided the file by me. I have not handed off the copyright to the university and I am the sole owner of the copyright. Any file similar to this one uploaded anywhere has either my name, Harshit Rautela mentioned at the bottom of the map, or my logo would be hidden somewhere inside the file. I also have pictures of the maps physically present in the university where they bear my name as designer and creator. Harshit SR (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done Procedural close" image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Sharlin Farzana 2024.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Sharlin Farzana 2024.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: It's our own picture and we are allowed to use this picture. The Facebook link was from her official page. Haque2ehsan (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose @Haque2ehsan: If you are the photographer, you need to contact COM:VRT with the original camera EXIF to verify that it's your photograph. There is no indication of a CC-Zero license on the Facebook page. Abzeronow (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to change the license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. I have already declared it to Facebook image. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=888121466088140&set=pb.100046708852145.-2207520000. Please let me if I need to do anything else. Haque2ehsan (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for updating the Facebook page. The license can be changed to that stated on the Facebook page when it is restored. @Túrelio: Abzeronow (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

But the comment on FB is from the subject, not from the photographer, Raufun Noor Ratul. Or I didn't understand something. Yann (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. @Haque2ehsan: Copyright usually vests with the photographer, and not the subject. We'd need Raufun Noor Ratul to write COM:VRT saying they agree to a free license of the photograph or if this was a work for hire, you'd need to give the relevant documentation to COM:VRT. Abzeronow (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Swmovies.jpg

File shows collection of Star Wars movies. Please undelete it because it should be on Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This one seems tricky to me because it definitely has boxart for Star Wars VHS tapes, and other Star Wars media. Not sure if it's de minimis. Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose If there were no Star Wars Pictures there wouldn't be no content at all on this photo. Emha (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Please read COM:DW. Nothing but copyrighted content. --Yann (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ema Peter.jpg

This is my own headshot that I can use freely. I own the rights.--Ema Peter (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ema Peter:

1. for any image that has been published elsewhere prior to its upload to Commons we need either (a) an evidence of free license at the initial publication or (b) a free license permission sent via email following VRT instructions. Per policy, the Own work declaration cannot be used for them.
2. why the image is in COM:SCOPE?

Ankry (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I probably misunderstood when I was uploading as it was my first time. After reading the rights explanation I thought this is the best location. Can you please advise how is it best to upload those type of images? Thank you for your help and I will send an email now. Ema Peter (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe here, but licensing issues need to be resolved. See VRT. You may also need to provide a copy of the copyright transfer contract to them. Ankry (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely I am a professional photographer so know well all the ins and outs of licensing! It is how you want it listed that I am trying to understand especially when it is a portrait for usage in every possible way by yourself how do you classify it. So appreciate your inside. I have emailed! Ema Peter (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This will be undeleted when the permission is validated by the VRT team. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Calgary born, Olympic Gold Medal Winner, Great High-Five Giver, and all around great guy!.jpg

This is a picture of Kyle and it belongs to Kyle. I work for him. Hence the email, sara@ksgymnastics.com He requested that I change the picture as he asked the Twitter to change it for him before and someone changed it to the picture of him at the banquet from 14 years ago.

The picture belongs to Kyle. It is his linkdin picture. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-shewfelt/?originalSubdomain=ca --Sarabiegun (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sarabiegun: At upload, you claimed that you are the photographer who made the photo. False authorship claim is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies. In order to host the image, we need a free license prom the copyright holder (who is in most cases the photographer) sent to our VRT team. Ankry (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gummy Bear IgM antibody.jpg

This is my own picture that I've uploaded to both of the web resources.--Pecatum (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pecatum:

1. for any image that has been published elsewhere prior to its upload to Commons we need either (a) an evidence of free license at the initial publication or (b) a free license permission sent via email following VRT instructions. Per policy, the Own work declaration cannot be used for them.
2. why the image is in COM:SCOPE?

Ankry (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Emperor Hui of Han.jpg

This is PD OLD,so it must be revived — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historydiver (talk • contribs)

•  Comment "Sourced" only to a blog post which give no information; I do not see anything establishing it to be PD-Old. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Flag Creator: "Lacking information to establish if actually old". No new information has been provided. So,  Oppose. --Bedivere (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Please provide factual information regarding the copyright status of the file. --Bedivere (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Emperor Ping of Han.jpg

This Had a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historydiver (talk • contribs)

From Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Flag Creator: "Lacking information to establish if actually old". No new information has been provided. So,  Oppose. --Bedivere (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment the weblink has text mostly in English, which gives no information as to original source or date of image. There is also Chinese text embedded on the image. I do not know how to read Chinese; if the Chinese text gives specific source and date information allowing it to be established as PD, fine, otherwise not. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose @Historydiver: The source website lacks information needed to determine or estimate death date of the painter. This information is needed for PD-old declaration. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Please provide factual information regarding the copyright status of the file. --Bedivere (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File: Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge.svg

Don't delete this file, because I will still develop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es Krim 5 juta Rasa (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29. Feb. 2024 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

---

 Not done: not currently deleted. I will close the DR as the nominator apparently wishes to withdraw the nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Robert Biedroń 2023.jpg

Plik znajduje się w serwisie filckr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/193098256@N08/52606902633/, gdzie posiada odpowiednią licencję zgodną z Wikimedia Commons.

• Also File:File:Robert Biedroń 2023 (cropped).jpg

 Oppose PDM is compatible with Commons if it is declared by the photographer. Klub Lewicy is not the photographer and we even do not know if copyright has been transferred to them in a written contract. Moreover, Klub Lewicy not a legal entity that can hold copyright. Only its particular members are. Ankry (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Семејство во носии од с. Рудари, Долна Преспа.png

I'd like to have this brought back, as it is dated to 1928/1929 in the original facebook post, and the current process for uploading says that something is in the public domain in the us if it was published before 1929 – Big ooga booga mf (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it a Facebook user in the photo? Who is the man in the back? Thuresson (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not know, I have never noticed him thus far . . . Big ooga booga mf (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Big ooga booga mf: Where exactly was it published before 1929? Definitely not on Facebook. Being made before 1929 is not enough for PD status. Ankry (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Фотографија од @Valja Trajkovska / Photograph from (repeat)"

the uploader was provided the photo by the woman mentioned above Big ooga booga mf (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not about publication. I suspect that this is a private photo, unpublished before Facebook publication. Unless we know who the photographer is, it would be copyrighted 70 years since the FB post. At least in Russia. In US it may become PD 120 years afret creation, in 2050 (1929+120+1). Ankry (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

it seems to me as well that it might be a private photo, as a specific photographer is never mentioned anywhere, just a list of the family members & who "donated" the photo to the uploader Big ooga booga mf (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support {{PD-Russia-1996}} should be OK with this one. Yann (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ok with russian copyright? Big ooga booga mf (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

as in, specifically russian copyright Big ooga booga mf (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose This was posted at a Macedonian Facebook page so Russian copyright law is probably not relevant. More importantly though, it looks like a Facebook user photoshopped himself into the photo (backrow), hence out of scope. Thuresson (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

perhaps, as it is strange that the left shoulder is missing on the background man, yet I've never seen the actual face of the guy behind the page "Егејскиот дел на Македонија". who knows who it could be Big ooga booga mf (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It is also probably in the public domain in Macedonia ({{PD-North Macedonia}}), but I can't support a photoshopped image. Yann (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Amandine-marshall-pierre-beteille-recadrée.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024022910004474. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

•  Done. @Mussklprozz: , please update permissions. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File2. flora.jpg

This is work by number9ine and the fine art of 9 Patrick di Santo the American artist. It is to be used as an example of his work 1980-2000 (AmatterOFmind (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC))

 Comment The closest I could find from number9ine's deleted contributions is File:Flora Glasses.jpg. Is that the file you mean? Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Deleted for being an advertisement, no answer from uploader. --Yann (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

File:GONG logo.jpg.

I have uploaded the GONG logo as I am the founder of GONG Media channel I don't understand why this GONG logo was deleted for copyright reasons. the company I created is the owner of the copyright (obviously). you can see a lot of this proof over the internet... I don't even understand why this was suspected of a copyright infringement! Please undelete the logo file of our company. many tks.Adesemlyen (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adesemlyen: You provided no evidence of the declared free license. {{Own}} licensing declaration can be used here only for unpublished, original images. Unpublished logos are generally out of scope. There is a message in the deletion log explaining what you are expected to do in order to get the file restored. Ankry (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support This is PD-textlogo, and it should be in scope, with 3 articles about this company, i.e. fr:Gong (chaîne de télévision) with the logo. Yann (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

File: File:Marith.jpg was deleted though there is permission to use it.

This file was deleted though Bert Vis has provided permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelhoger (talk • contribs) 14:03, 1 March 2024‎ (UTC)

@Karelhoger: Has Bert Vis contacted COM:VRT? Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Pantry Panic title cards

About a month ago, files from the cartoon "Pantry Panic" were deleted (as per this deletion request) since, while the cartoon is in public domain, Woody Woodpecker is a copyrighted character. Fair enough, but Woody isn't on the title cards, they didn't have to be deleted too, not the "Pantry Panic" category either. It would be nice to have those brought back. Grey ghost (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support The title cards are public domain and they don't show Woody. Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Jeremy Porter & The Tucos and Those Crosstown Rivals - Louisville KY - 2014.jpg

Hello - Requesting undeletion of this file: Jeremy Porter & The Tucos and Those Crosstown Rivals - Louisville KY - 2014.jpg

because I own and have full rights to use it in every capacity. I've sent an email to permissions-commons with the declaration of Consent. I thought this was done previously, but a bot flagged it for removal.

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do, other than re-up it as content to my page.

Many thanks for your time and dilligence.

Jeremy/Jonny.Beatnik.Detroit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny.beatnik.detroit (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Done File:Jeremy Porter & The Tucos and Those Crosstown Rivals - Louisville KY - 2014.jpg was undeleted on March 1, currently processed by VRT Thuresson (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)