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 • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

271 copyvios • 9 duplicates • 1 advert • 35 selfies • 245 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) )

@Minorax: I've looked at them all now. As far as copyright is concerned, this is a bunch of letters by lawyers and official agencies as well as contracts, all in a rather factual language and not very original, so I think one could say the texts are below COM:TOO Germany. As far as privacy is concerned, we have a bunch of names here as well as birth dates and street addresses, but the people involved have either already died several years ago or don't seem to be terribly bothered by these letters being public. It's not that the letters contain any intimate secrets anyway, it's all about buying back family property that had been expropriated in the Communist eastern part of Germany after the Second World War.

Which brings us to the 3rd point, project scope. These letters etc. are all documenting a dispute about property and money between various members of this family. It seems the whole thing was pursued in a rather litigious manner, we have a decision by the petition committee of the German federal parliament (the Bundestag) here, and apparently one side tried to bring the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg into this, unsuccesfully as far as I can see.

Gordito1869 argues that all these letters are somehow about the de:Herrenhaus Dolgen manor and therefore share its notability, but I don't quite see it that way. The letters are barely about the house at all, but about agricultural lands that were once attached to it (and were then expropriated), about who will be able to buy them back or get a compensation for them in money etc. That all seems hardly enclycopaedic to me, and probably we should delete the whole bunch of files again (or technically, decline the undeletion request) as being out of scope.

That's how I see it anyway, but we'd need more opinions by others (and we already know that Gordito1869 wants them permanently undeleted, so no need to write that again). You'd need to be able to read German though to understand the content. @Achim55: From what I've seen, you seem to have edited some of the files. Dou you have an opinion regarding the problems above, leave the files undeleted permanently or delete them again, copyright, privacy concerns, project scope? Or anyone else able to read German and understand the files? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Achim55: Hallo Achim, zugegeben, die Themen "Flucht & Vertreibung", "Lügen vs. Wahrheit" sind nicht einfach und nicht zwingend enzyklopädisch - aber sie gehören imho zur zeitgeschichtlichen & wahrheitsgemäßen Reflexion in seriösen Nachschlagwerken dazu (...und Wikipedia zähle ich ganz sicherlich dazu, sonst wäre nicht kürzlich mein 10.000 Edit unter Commons gewürdigt worden ... und auch meine unzähligen Bilder (seit ca. 15-Jahren) hatten im Masse einigen enzyklopädischen "Wert"). - Die Plessen sind ganz ohne Frage enzyklopädisch relevant - und mein leiblicher und ehelicher Ur-Ur-Urgroßvater Leopold von Plessen und dessen Rittergut Dolgen besaßen bis 1990 Ansehen, Würde und EHRE. - Meine hochgeladenen Dokumente, die hier einmal mehr diskutiert werden, dokumentieren unzweifelhaft, wie das Rittergut Dolgen des LvP durch unberechtigte Dritte endgültig irreversibel zerschlagen und abgewickelt wurde; ich halte das für zeit- und familiengeschichtlich sehr relevant und es entspricht unbedingt auch dem erklärten Ziel von User:Christian von Plessen, der das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" offen legen will : genau das will ich ja auch - aber wahrheitsgemäß und faktenbasiert. - Das Plessengut Damshagen, das dem Onkel Hans-Balduin von Plessen des hiesigen Users:Christian von Plessen rechtmäßig gehörte, findet hier breite wissenschaftliche Beachtung und mannigfache Würdigung in einem Nachschlagwerk ... und auch Dolgen darf imho nicht familiengeschichtlich-, wissenschaftlich-, enzyklopädisch völlig "unter den Teppich gekehrt werden", denke ich. - Ich bitte deshalb sehr höflich darum, die wenigen historischen Dokumente und Urkunden, die Dolgen und seine traurige Geschichte nach 1990 betreffen, zu erhalten. (Wie ich bereits mehrfach vorgeschlagen hatte, mögen ja datenschutzrechtlich bedenkliche Stellen in den Dokumenten gerne geschwärzt werden; das entspricht z.B. auch absolut gängiger rechtlich korrekter Praxis bei der Verwendung/Auswertung von Strafakten, wie ich aus meiner langjährigen Dienstzeit als Bundesbeamter beim (BA)MAD konkret weiß). Da mit dem Nationalsozialisten Reimar von Plessen (2. Vorsitzender der antidemokratischen Herrengesellschaft Mecklenburg) und dem absolut widerwärtigen (!) Nationalsozialisten & Gauwirtschaftsberater der NSDAP, Hennecke von Plessen bereits zwei mehr als fragwürdige und unseriöse Nazi-Schergen den Familienvorsitz der Plessen führten, gilt es heute, das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" im Sinne des aktuellen Vorsitzenden der Plessen - User:Christian von Plessen - besonders emotionsfrei und sachlich - aber insbes. (wissenschaftlich korrekt) geschichtsfest zu dokumentieren. (q.e.d.) - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) - ps : "By the way" : Der durch User:Christian von Plessen unter Klarnamen & unter Wiki-Commons genannte- und mannigfach vs. Dolgen involvierte Rechtsanwalt Dr. von Hugo war Geschäftsführer der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Agrarfragen (AfA) und Beschwerdeführer von SBZ-Alteigentümern vor dem EGMR : bitte schauen Sie sich das "Rechts(staats)verständnis" der AfA an (nur völlig "durgeknallte" Reichsbürger würden solche Hass- und Hetzschriften vs. unseren Rechtsstaat und unsere unabhängige Justiz öffentlich publizieren, so denke ich); nur durch eine absolut unheilige Allianz von Vettern-BVVG und der AfA wurden solche (rechtsstaatlichen ?) Machenschaften und faktiischen Insich-Geschäfte überhaupt erst ermöglicht ... und NEIN : User:Christian von Plessen war und ist nachweislich KEIN (!) Rechtsanwalt, der SEINE VETTERN-BVVG in eigener Sache (Damshagen) mannigfach vertreten hatte. - Man darf & kann nur hoffen, dass sich unser Staatsschutz den absolut fragwürdigen Machenschaften von AfA & Vettern-BVVG & und ihren Günstlingen - resp. vertretenden Nicht-Rechtsanwälten im "Outfit" von vermeintlichen "Edelherren" - endgültig rechtsstaatlich annimmt ! --- Achim, wenn sie die +++ realen heutigen Zustände +++ in ihrer und UNSERER geliebten Heimat in der vormaligen SBZ / DDR emotionsfrei und sachlich zur Kenntnis nehmen - dann löschen sie bitte relevante Beweisakten und historisch / enzyklopädisch wertvolle Dokumente (insbes. zum Rittergut Dolgen) nicht; diese "Geschichte resp. Plessen-Saga" von AfA & Vettern-BVVG vs. redliche-, gutgläubige und ehrbare (!) Menschen in Ost und West ist leider immer noch nicht zu Ende "erzählt" worden. - MfG Michael Pfeiffer, investigativer User und vormaliger Nachrichtendienstler alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) --- ps II : Es sollte mir ferner gestattet sein, eine öffentliche Gegendarstellung (an Ort und Stelle) zu dieser (öffentlichen-, verleumderischen und nachweislich unwahren) Tatsachenbehauptung seitens meines Verwandten User:Christian von Plessen faktenbasiert-, beweiskräftig und wahrheitsgemäß zu publizieren : Zitat User:Christian von Plessen "Sie haben mich wider besseres Wissen wiederholt öffentlich als Schurken hingestellt. Das war keine Fehde zwischen uns, sondern es war üble Nachrede Ihrerseits, die erst durch Rechtsanwalt Kossyk gerichtlich beigelegt wurde." (Zitat-Ende). - NEIN, ich habe User:Christian von Plessen NICHT (!) wider besseres Wissen als Schurken öffentlich hingestellt; meine hochgeladenen Dokumente und Urkunden beweisen familiengeschichtlich-, historisch-, wissenschaftlich und auch strafrechtlich das exakte Gegenteil : (Niemand (...und schon garnicht als treuer Staatsdiener a.D.) muss sich unter Wiki-Commons - öffentlich & ohne Gegendarstellung - durch einen User wahrheitswidrig verleumden lassen, so denke ich.) q.e.d. (Bitte lösche die Dokumente aus zahlreichen Gründen nicht, Achim; wer sich an den nackten Fakten stört wird sich ggf. melden.) --- MfG M. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Diese Tirade lässt mich umso mehr zu der Ansicht tendieren, dass diese ganzen Briefe usw. nichts für Wikimedia Commons sind. Dass bestimmte Personen oder Gebäude usw. für Wikipedia & Co. relevant sind, heißt nicht, dass wir allen möglichen Schriftverkehr dazu haben und aufbewahren wollen. Hier geht es um irgendwelche Privatstreitigkeiten, und wir sind nicht die Plattform, auf der die beteiligten Parteien oder auch nur eine davon ihre Sichtweisen dazu ausbreiten können. --Rosenzweig τ 09:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wenn ich sie oben richtig verstanden habe, wurde @Achim55: von Ihnen um "dritte Meinung" (but we'd need more opinions by others) gebeten (ihre rein pers. Meinung hatten sie doch bereits artikuliert). - Eine sog. "Tirade" ist auch nicht Gegenstand dieser Diskussion (sondern diente ausschließlich Achim zur reinen Klarstellung der komplexen Situation; wer sollte sich an historisch-/familiengeschichtlich-/zeitgeschichtlich sehr relevanten Dokumenten & Urkunden stören können, die eine Enzyklopädie imho bereichern ?) --- Die Freischaltung der vormals gelöschten Dokumente wurde hier seit dem 27. Januar 2024 umfassend diskutiert; erst danach ist die Freischaltung erfolgt. Die nach demokratischer Willensbildung wieder hergestellten Dokumente sollen doch wohl jetzt - auf blanken Zuruf hin - nicht einmal mehr gelöscht werden ? - Wird hier ein "Ping-Pong-Spiel" auf dem Rücken von Usern & Betroffenen ausgetragen, oder was soll das hier werden ? - Der Abschiedsbrief des Leopold Frhr. von Plessen vom 29. April 1945 auf Dolgen wurde - nach umfassender Diskussion - auch nicht gelöscht; die nunmehr wieder freigeschalteten Dokumente betreffen das Rittergut Dolgen und die Ehre & Reputation dieses Mannes - und die Dokumente haben insgesamt einen erheblichen familiengeschichtlichen & wissenschaftlichen Erkenntniswert und dienen damit Wikipedia. - MfG M. Pfeiffer --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Demokratische Willensbildung? Jetzt ist aber gut, das ist keine Abstimmung hier. Die Dateien wurden vorläufig wiederhergestellt, damit man sie überhaupt erst einmal einsehen (ging vorher nicht, weil "oversighted") und beurteilen kann. Mehr nicht. --Rosenzweig τ 11:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

ok, wenn perverse Pornobilder und abnormale Sex-Videos (sog. "Sexual intercourse in...") einen ganz erheblichen erzieherischen und insbes. enzyklopädischen "Wert" für minderjährige Kinder haben (sollen) - warum dann aber nicht auch zeitgeschichtlich- und enzyklopädisch absolut seriöse und valide Dokumente ? - Wenn es tatsächlich keine mehrheitliche (demokratische) Willensbildung bei Wiki-Commons gibt, dann bin- resp. wäre ich hier - als Demokrat und passionierter Rechtsstaatler - tatsächlich fehl am Platze. Tschüss --Gordito1869 (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait Emmelmann.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Hello,

I am the autho of the article "Claus Emmelmann" and uploaded the file "Portrait Emmelmann.jpg". The copyright owner of this file (Claus Emmelmann) has send a mail to the following adress to state that I have the right to use his picture in this arcticle. permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

If this is not enough proof I have also added the original source below: https://www.hamburg-news.hamburg/innovation-wissenschaft/der-siegeszug-des-3d-drucks-das-sind-die-treiber-der-technologie

Please let me know what else I have to do so that the file gets undeleted and the article gets uploaded to the public Wikipedia.

Best regards, Jan Hue Jan Hue (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hallo @Jan Hue, Du hast auf Deine Mail am 25. Januar auch eine Antwort bekommen, in der drin steht, was Du machen musst. Du hast dann nicht mehr reagiert. Kannst Du mit der Antwort etwas anfangen?

Kurz gesagt: Wir brauchen die Freigabe für die freie Lizenz direkt entweder vom Urheber oder vom Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte.

Du kannst den Text auch ausdrucken, unterschreiben lassen und dann digitalisiert als Antwort auf die Mail zurück senden - vielleicht ist das in diesem Fall der einfachste Weg.

Unter de:WP:Bildfreigabe findet Du den Text, der unterschrieben werden muss.

Viele Grüße, Emha (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hallo Emha,

vielen Dank für deine Antwort. Ich persönlich hatte nicht mehr auf die Mail reagiert, da ich den Copyright-Inhaber direkt eine Mail an "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" schicken lassen habe. Auf eine erneute Mail hat er gestern auch eine Antwort erhalten.

Wird der Artikel denn online gestellt sobald das Bild wieder frei gegeben wird oder ist der Artikel auch noch in Prüfung? Und kannst du mir eine ganz grobe Zeitspanne nennen, in der ähnliche Artikel normalerweise freigeschaltet werden?

Viele Grüße

Jan Jan Hue (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jan Hue: Might be worth going to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard and getting the VRT details and adding here to allow the undelete to progress.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi billinghurst,

I can´t find my case under the link you provided. What exactly do you mean with "VRT details"?

Best regards, Jan Jan Hue (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jan Hue: Specifically the VRT ticket number (should be in the reply e-mail) would proably be helpful. --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This ist the ticket number the copyright holder (Claus Emmelmann) got in the subject of the response mail from "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons"

Ticket#2024031210010184

Is this the VRT ticket number you asked for?

Best regards, Jan Jan Hue (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jan Hue: Yes. But as I see, VRT is already on it (you wrote that they replied to the copyright holder's mail two days ago). So we should wait how that works out. I'm not a VRT agent, I don't know what is going on in this matter. If VRT is satisfied, they'll let us know and ask for undeletion of the file. --Rosenzweig τ 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay then I´ll wait for their descision. Thank you for your help! Jan Hue (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done, processed by VRT. Thuresson (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Files of Category:Het_licht_der_bergen

• File:Het_Licht_der_Bergen.jpg
• File:Het_Licht_der_Bergen_-_Toon_Storms.jpg
• File:Het_Licht_der_Bergen_-_Tirol.jpg
• File:Het_Licht_der_Bergen_-_Luc_Vermeiren.jpg
• File:Het_Licht_der_Bergen_-_Herman_Vermeiren.jpg

As I corrected after deletion request, all these files are published on https://abs.lias.be/query/detail.aspx?ID=911214 at the archival storage. Free use, no permission needed and public accessibility.I think no reason for deletion. Ouwejokke (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ouwejokke: Current information about the image seems unclear to me: according to Wikidata the author died in 1941, but the work was created in 1955. Also, the permission (if indeed granted by the actual copyright holder - we may need to verify this) is not CC0 as declared. If this is a site-specific license, the appropriate template needs to be created and accepted by the community in COM:VPC discussion. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Logos for Kosovo ethnic Serb municipalities

Please permanently undelete these files:

• File:Stema e Komunës Mitrovicë e Veriut.svg
• File:Stema e Komunës Zubin Potok.svg
• File:Stema e Komunës Zveçan.svg
• File:Stema e Komunës Leposaviq.svg

The deletion requests were:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stema e Komunës Mitrovicë e Veriut.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stema e Komunës Zubin Potok.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stema e Komunës Zveçan.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stema e Komunës Leposaviq.svg

The nominator User:AceDouble gave the rationale "Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: [...]". Similar files have since been kept following deletion requests, on the basis that these emblems are probably not fictional but are emblems of towns or regions in Kosovo that have ethnic Serb majorities, so these files are in COM:SCOPE. The deleting admin has no objection to undeletion, see User talk:Infrogmation#Deleted requests for Kosovo Serb files.

Several similar deletion requests have since been issued with the same rationale, as follows:

• Kept by User:Strakhov, with 'no valid reason for deletion':
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Leposavić.png
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Leposavić (vertical), Kosovo.svg
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of North Mitrovica.svg
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of North Mitrovica.png
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Zubin Potok.png
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:COA Zvečan.png
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb-zvecan.gif
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb-zubin-potok.gif
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Leposavić, Kosovo.svg

• Still open
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Leposavic.png
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb-leposavic.gif

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Are you able to provide evidence that the logos are really used in public space if the abovementioned DRs are reopened? Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: These "logos" were never adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/

The forementioned files should be removed as well (Leposavic, Zvecan, North Mitrovica, Zubin potok) .png .gif .svg AceDouble (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@AceDouble: we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Being official / adopted by any government is not required to host an image in Commons. Being actually used is enough. However, if the image is not official, we cannot apply any copyright exception related to government and official works and so we need an evidence that the image is too simple for copyright protection or a free license from the author. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ankry: Verbcatcher has no evidence for the use of these nonexisting symbols in public spaces whatsoever.

Sources:

• • [[1]] - North Mitrovica
  • [[2]] - Zvecan
  • [[3]] - Zubin Potok
  • [[4]] - Leposavic

AceDouble (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@AceDouble: , I do have evidence. As I said above "Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here." I will add some links soon. Your new links only identify the symbols used by the Kosovo Government. They do not relate to the symbols discussed here. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are links that confirm that the symbols are used. I do not have access to the deleted files, but the placenames indicated in the file names match our current files and it is probable that they have the same symbols. I don't understand these languages and I cannot confirm the reliability of these sources.

• File:Stema e Komunës Mitrovicë e Veriut.svg – North Mitrovica (I assume)
  • Confirmation links:[5][6]
  • Current files: File:Flag of North Mitrovica.svg and File:Flag of North Mitrovica.png
• File:Stema e Komunës Zubin Potok.svg – Zubin Potok
  • Confirmation link:[7]
  • Current files: File:Grb-zubin-potok.gif and File:Flag of Zubin Potok.png
• File:Stema e Komunës Zveçan.svg – Zvečan
  • Confirmation links: [8][9]
  • Current files: File:COA Zvečan.png and File:Grb-zvecan.gif
• File:Stema e Komunës Leposaviq.svg – Leposavić
  • Confirmation links:[10][11][12]
  • Current files: File:Flag of Leposavić.png, File:Flag of Leposavić (vertical), Kosovo.svg, File:Flag of Leposavić, Kosovo.svg, File:Flag of Leposavic.png and File:Grb-leposavic.gif

@Vanjagenije: you commented on some of the recent deletion requests, can you comment here? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are Google Maps photos that show the symbols displayed in two of these places.

• North Mitrovica[13]
• Zubin Potok[14]

Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

These Municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo full stop. By quoting unofficial links and trying to make them "legal" is not the proper way to enrich wikipedian articles.

Official sites:

• [[15]] North Mitrovica
• [[16]] Zvecan
• [[17]] Zubin Potok
• [[18]] Leposavic
• [[19]] Novoberda
• [[20]] Gracanica
• [[21]] Ranillug
• [[22]] Partesh
• [[23]] Kllokot
• [[24]] Shterpce

AceDouble (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support undeletion and reopening the DRs as they may need wider discussion about their status. While they are not "official", the declaraion that they are "fictional" is a lie if they are actually in use. However, the {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} cannot be applied to unofficial emblems and so we need a valid copyright tag (probably a free licese declaration by their human authors). Ankry (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@AceDouble: we are not trying to make these 'legal'. There are other symbols on Commons that are probably illegal in their recognised nation state, such as the flag of Islamic State. If these files should not be used in specific Wikipedia articles then please discuss in on their talk pages, or in a Wikiproject such as w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo. If it is reliably established that these symbols are illegal under the law of Kosovo then we could indicate this in the description on the file page, or a template could be created.Verbcatcher (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose They are not in use, per given source.

AceDouble (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Hi. I declined a few deletion requests on the basis the rationale was not a valid reason for deletion, but I pointed out copyright status was a more sensible reason for deleting them (for example here), since I took a look on the template used there ({{PD-SerbiaGov}}) and I was not entirely convinced on its applicability. Strakhov (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I accept that these files may have a risk of copyright violation because both {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} look invalid. The four deleted files should be undeleted (they might have a valid license), and a mass deletion request should be raised for all these files. There are various reasons by which they could be 'free': these could be old public domain symbols, possibly dating from the Yugoslav period. Alternatively, someone with local contacts might identify the authors or copyright holders, and establish free licenses. The municipal authorities might be able to issue valid licenses even if the Kosovo national government did not recognise these authorities. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I can assure you that these don't have valid licenses neither they date back from the yugoslav period. And something i almost forgot.. The UN Habitat programme in Kosovo which has partnership with the municipalities of Kosovo, check out these symbols they have for Zvecan, Zubin potok and Leposavic on their site:
  • [[25]] Zvecan
  • [[26]] Zubin Potok
  • [[27]] Leposavic

  AceDouble (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Spree TV 2020 logo.png

The file was first deleted on 9 June 2022, under CSD F5, then I recreated the file on 17 January 2023, then the file was deleted for the second time on the same day, as a result of a copyright violation. I would like the file to be undeleted please, because I would like to add the file to the Spree TV article obviously. I also would like someone to move the file to the English Wikipedia's database of files please, because I do not want the file on the Commons database anyway. That is where I will edit the Spree TV logo file to provide credit to Network 10. Can you please tell me your opinion on undeting this Network 10 logo? --TechGeek105 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) (edited 10:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC))

@TechGeek105: The logo is too complex to consider it PD-textlogo. We need an evidence that the logo copyright holder did grant a free license for their logo. IMO, it can ube used as Fair Use in Wikipedias that allow Fair Use (uploading directly to Wikipedia, not here). Ankry (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Network 10 is the copyright holder. They did not provide a free license for the logo while they had the Spree TV channel except for the programming with Brand Developers. See their main logo on their 10Play website, as an example. 10Play TechGeek105 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: {{Temporarily undeleted}}. Please, notify here when done. Ankry (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have provided a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license and am ready for someone to transfer the file to the English Wikipedia, as Fandom (the provider of the file) uses a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. TechGeek105 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Dreamy Pastel Girls logo.png

Accidently speedily deleted as a suspected copyvio as a complex logo but it actually is their own work per this link. Restore it and initiate a regular deletion request along with their other logo files here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmaster Huon (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 March 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.

Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx

1. Template:PD-GermanGov — Dieses Werk gilt gemäß dem deutschen Urheberrecht als gemeinfrei, weil es Teil der Statute, Verordnung oder ein gesetzlicher Erlass (Amtliches Werk) ist, das durch eine deutsche Behörde bzw. durch ein deutsches Gericht veröffentlicht wurde.
2. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).
3. Die Vorschriften des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sind auf die vor dem Wirksamwerden des Beitritts geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden (Einigungsvertrag).

• @Infrogmation, @Rosenzweig. If the image was created by a state act, and images of awards and ribbon bars for them are prescribed in legislative acts, then such images are not protected by copyright. The year of death of the artist-author of the award design has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. If the image of an award created by a legislative act of the Federal Republic of Germany is not protected by copyright, then, therefore, the image created by a legislative act of the GDR is not protected either. This is even written in Wikipedia. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So which official work of Germany do you think created this medal design? I mean, not just the decoration as such, but its specific design? --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The order was established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 69). The statute of the order with a description of the images of the order and the ribbon bar for it was also established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 610). Do you not consider the Council of Ministers of the GDR to be an official institution? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The decoration is described in words there. This does not make the medal itself an official work in the legal sense, because the design is not part of this decree. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Laut Bundesgerichtshof müssen derartige Bekanntmachung „regelnden Inhalt“ aufweisen — Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany/de. «Der Bundesadler ist mangels Schöpfungshöhe gemeinfrei, Blücherorden als amtliches Werk, genauso wie Bundesverdienstkreuz und andere staatlich herausgegebene Medaillen oder Orden» (1). In a number of countries it is stipulated that images of awards are not protected by copyright, but in general this is a completely normal state of affairs - that independently taken photographs of state awards or images of ribbon bars made based on original images are not protected by copyright. Give me at least one law of at least one country in which images of state awards are protected by copyright. Unless it is expressly stated in the law, this does not mean that you can claim copyright protection for images of government awards. Can you see for yourself how many inclusions there are here and there? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not about the law of other countries and what is “normal” there, it's only about German law. Unless there are clearly defined exceptions, the regular rules of German copyright law apply: Works are created by authors and protected for 70 years post mortem auctoris. There is an exception for official works, but it is quite restrictive compared to some other countries. German copyright statute law (the Urheberrechtsgesetz) is often less clear than we wish it would be, and that is when (in some cases at least) the courts step in. In the past, we thought that German stamps were in the public domain as official works (until a court told us they're not), and we've also come to the conclusion that German coins are not official works (COM:CUR Germany), and in that context a court even ruled that the official works exception only applies to text, not images. It's a rather low court, one of several, so that is not universal, but it does show a tendency.

I'm curious about these rather random German quotes you're inserting. Do you understand their content (you're not listing German among the languages in your userbox)? For example, the one about "regelnden Inhalt" says that not just any Bekanntmachung is an official work in the legal sense, but that this category is restricted to those Bekanntmachungen with regulatory content only. How does that have anything to do with the question at hand? The quote about the Bundesverdienstkreuz etc. is not a law, court decision or similar, but the opinion of a contributor to the Urheberrechtsfragen, de.wp's version of COM:VPC. I don't agree with all of it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

PEGI symbols

• File:PEGI Bad language white.png
• File:PEGI Bad language.jpg
• File:PEGI Bad language.png
• File:PEGI Nudity annotated.png
• File:PEGI Sex annotated.png
• File:PEGI Sex annotated.svg
• File:PEGI Sex white.png
• File:PEGI Sex.png
• File:PEGI Sex.svg

Below the threshold of originality in Belgium. Simple geometric shapes--Trade (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: Too simple to have a copyright. I don't understand why these files were deleted after being here for 14 years. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Keiichi Tanaami.jpg

Здравствуйте!

Это изображение было сделано мной во время открытия выставки художника в 2017 году - https://tatintsian.com/exhibitions/keiichi-tanaami/exhibition-view/. Оно действительно могло быть выгружено на другие сайты, в том числе на Tripadviser, однако этим сайтам изображение не принадлежит.

---

 Not done: Not currently deleted. You can comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keiichi Tanaami.jpg. --Yann (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Techno cut 8jo WATANABEhachijo.jpg

This image is a selfie of me. I also announced that on my X (Twitter) accountwhen I uploaded it to Wiki commons.

The same also applies to the following files,

• File:低用量圧縮＿senmen washing 8jo WATANABEhachijo.gif
• File:Niramekko 8jo WATANABEhachijo.gif
• File:Yubibue hanage 8jo WATANABEhachijo.jpg
• File:Hirateuchi slapping 8jo WATANABEhachijo.gif
• File:Itaminokijunha hanage 8jo WATANABEhachijo.jpg
• File:Noodle-harassment 8jo WATANABEhachijo.webm
• File:Kuribotch 8jo WATANABEhachijo.jpg
• File:Mjikaikyaku 8jo WATANABEhachijo.jpg
• File:Akanbee 8jo hachijoWATANABE.jpg
• File:SAITAMApose 8jo WATANABEhachijo.jpg

I can attest that there are absolutely no rights issues with these files, as I have given my own permission to upload them.
However, I am a non-English speaking person, so I do not know how to prove it. Please tell me how to do it in a clear way.
(I have sent the permission documents to VRT by email)--8joKeaton (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Question And how do your selfies fit within COM:SCOPE? Yann (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My selfies are educationalcontent.

For example, "techno cut" is a minor Japanese hairstyle. Until I uploaded the image, Commons had no image of this haircut.

Therefore, I uploaded a selfie－― haircut is techno cut－― by myself.

I believe this is in line with the Commons philosophy. 8joKeaton (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• So if the admin was right (because all admins are unimpeachable), you're not even going to try to justify the claimed deletion reason as it was so clearly wrong, but you're just going to cast around and see if you can find some other reason to delete these?

These should never have been anywhere near speedy deletion, the rationale was nonsense, requiring VRT for these out of nowhere is just yet more bullying and gatekeeping, and if anything they should have gone to DR. But this was an admin who seems to see speedy deletion as a convenient route to delete whatever they like, without having to justify it. That's never something we should then try to find excuses for. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support It was wrong to speedy delete these for not having a source. Undelete all these images and put them up for a regular deletion request instead. Ping @Fitindia: as deleting admin. Thuresson (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.Glad to hear you understand.

"put them up for a regular deletion request instead." If this happens, how can we completely remove the concern of deletion? 8joKeaton (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Restore These were a bulk speedy deletion by @Shizhao: , then enacted by @Fitindia: . They were a clear abuse of the speedy deletion process as the claimed "no permission" justification was a very obvious falsehood. Shizhao was asked to explain this, but did not: see User_talk:8joKeaton#File_tagging_File:Techno_cut_8jo_WATANABEhachijo.jpg_2 and User_talk:Shizhao#8joKeaton. They're doing this to other editors' uploads too see File:Zac Harvey, the Math Wizard.jpg (deleted by @Krd: ) and File:2011年焦糖風通化夜市攤車創始店.jpg.

Speedy deletion is not there for "I don't like it but I can't be bothered to make a case at a DR" deletions. They should also not be blindly actioned by other admins when they're using such obviously false rationales. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Andy Dingley,Thank you for the supplemental information.

I have not included it in this offer,In addition to the images I have applied for this time, Shizuko has received many other bulk speedy deletions.

They are listed in User_talk:8joKeaton#File_tagging_File:Techno_cut_8jo_WATANABEhachijo.jpg.

Hope to have that removed as well. 8joKeaton (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: created new DR under Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 8joKeaton. They are COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (Yiotis Fotiadis) deleted photos

Hello! I want to ask for the undeletion of some images of the singer "Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (Yiotis Fotiadis)". They were deleted for Copyright reasons. The source of the photos is the artist's official website. At the Gallery page there used to be note that was not sufficient for use on Wikimedia Commons but now it mention that the photos may be freely used for any reason by anyone.

• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (Yiotis Fotiadis).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (1).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (2).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (3).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (4).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (6).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (7).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (8).jpg
• File:Γιώτης Φωτιάδης (9).jpg

--Digital Matters (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose These were deleted for inconsistent EXIF. It is likely that the web page is license laundering. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Tanja Lažetić.jpg

VRT permission received and confirmed now, accessible as ticket #2024031310009578. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Yerpo: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Le stagioni della vita di una donna di Ania Nikitenko.jpg

Administrator Seawolf35 deleted my drawing due to vandalism! But it is not true, I drew this drawing as well as others that you banned! I don't want to insult someone, what's the point of me doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoouch (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Personal art by non-professional. Thuresson (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

😐 Whoouch (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Out of scope. --Bedivere (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Partido camina.jpg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure el Logo del Partido Regional CAMINA, forma parte del Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}}) porque el Logo que contiene de texto con un símbolo que se parece a una cruz o algún tipo de geometry shape. Nota:agregue el tag {{Copyvio}} por error y el Usuario Turelio removió el Logo. AbchyZa22 00:38, 15 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Doesn't seem too simple to me. Bedivere (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Ok, Por favor cierra el UDR por favor, i withdrawn my nomination AbchyZa22 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Bedivere (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Begimbetov Nyssangali.jpg

Просьба восстановить файл Begimbetov Nyssangali.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeodalPatriarh (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 March 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.

 Oppose No reason given. Source page has explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Copyrighted. --Bedivere (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Category:Royal palaces

The category was deleted in 2009 without reason. While most Royal residences are palaces, this is not always the case (for instance, Windsor Castle is a royal residence, but not a palace). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Sbb1413: Please fill up it with at least one subcategory or one file, otherwise it would be deleted again as empty. Yann (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: Done by Yann. --Bedivere (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Question for UnDR regular editors User:Yann, User:Ankry, User:Thuresson, User:Rosenzweig, User:Abzeronow

I don't know the process for archiving closed requests, but it seems to have broken down recently. We have closed requests here that were closed on March 9. Is there any reason that one of us should not simply archive them? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No, there is not. In fact Thuresson, Yann, Ankry, myself (and possibly others?) have already done it over the last few months. --Rosenzweig τ 13:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For the past three months, UDR archives have had to be done manually. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Question answered, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Bruna Rossi, Palazzo Comunale Montecatini Terme, La bellezza è di casa, 7.jpg

Hi, I'm requesting the undeletion of the file File:Bruna Rossi, Palazzo Comunale Montecatini Terme, La bellezza è di casa, 7.jpg, deleted in 2022 in this DR for allegedly violating the copyright of the author, en:Galileo Chini (1873-1956). The image represents the inner decorations of the city hall of Montecatini Terme, commissioned by the municipality of Montecatini in 1911 and finished between 1913 and 1920 (the decorations by Chini were realised between 1918 and 1919), see here and here. It falls therefore under Template:PD-ItalyGov since 1939 (way before the URAA, so no issue with US copyright).--Friniate (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support Same as File:I-MN-Mantova24.JPG. --Rosenzweig τ 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: per request and Rosenzweig. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File: Mohammedzaidmansoori.jpg

This person is notable Mohammed Zaid mansoori is musical artist in india he launched many music in mamny platforms like Spotify and YouTube music — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40d2:5f:2fb9:8000:: (talk • contribs)

---

 Not done: No file by that name exists. --Bedivere (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Logomaximalista.png

Logo was deleted for being too complex for its stated PD-logo license. As the logo was a Portuguese work published c. 1920 as the work of a collective person(s), this logo could fall under PD-Portugal-URAA. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@HapHaxion:  Support if you can point out the 1920 source. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Logo can be seen on the organization's statutes, published in 1919. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 22:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Benedek Huszár Botond3.jpg

This is my photo, my property. Dont take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedek Huszár Botond (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2024‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done: self promotional+unlikely own work. --Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:BHB2.jpg

The picture belongs to me. It is my property, so dont delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedek Huszár Botond (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 March 2024‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done: self promotional. --Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:TerryJerryPLb.svg

Uh, unsure how this whole thing works, but I'm using this file as a placeholder for a creative work. I will be deleting it myself in appx 60 days. I am hoping that wikimedia commons will have mercy on me, as this creative work requires this file to be done in haste. Thank you.

--TerryJerry19 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons is not a webhost. Günther Frager (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Gunther. --Bedivere (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Epal tarpaulin sample.png

The image was deleted under the vague rationale "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing". I suspect that the derivative AI-generated image of the person in the file was the offending image if there was indeed a copyright violation. If yes, I would at least want to removed the offending material from the file, I no longer have a copy of the file myself. The other elements including the fictitious seal and emblem are own work.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Everything here is fiction. I don't see how this is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you even have access to the file? It is basically a mock of a local propaganda poster for a mayor-governor level politician. It was created so that it would not put WP:UNDUE negative focus on a particular politician for the Epal (politics) article from Town A rather than Town B. Do you see what the purpose of the file is? It is for BLP issues. While for example File:0041jfSan Miguel Ildefonso Bulacan Welcome arch sign Roadsfvf 35.jpg exist, do we use that because that's one of the free files available at commons? Congresswoman Lorna Silverio and town Ildefonso Mayor Carla Galvez-Tan gets to be the unlucky people to get featured as the main article just because they happen to have posters available at Commons and not the other hundreds of other Congressmen out there? Do you see where I am going for?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is to illustrate an epal poster without giving UNDUE negative focus over an incumbent governor/mayor over hundreds of other local politicians of the same level. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MAYOR-SURONO-3-05-896x540.jpg

File:MAYOR-SURONO-3-05-896x540.jpg About this picture is the real history of Darul Islam.

It is, however, not your image. Please don’t upload unfree images from the web. Thank you, --Polarlys (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Obviously not. Copyright violation. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Polaraero new.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Please undelete this file. Our aircompany Polar Airlines has license for using it. It's available here: https://onlinepatent.ru/trademarks/911495 Can you say, should we wait for undelete or reupload the file? Atlantic65 (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose @Atlantic65: Please follow the instructions at your talk page regarding VRT. Thuresson (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:BrandskonLogo.png

This logo isn’t meant for promotional purposes, it is a representation of the company and what it stands for. It was made with canva, pls do well to undelete the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaltyblogspot (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 March 2024‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, file has never been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Francesca Alderisi dati senato 2018.jpg

The user should have used {{Senato.it}} for the licensing. Please undelete the file and ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it the same file as File:Francesca Alderisi datisenato 2018.jpg? -- 0x0a (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support Yes, they are the same, but the deleted image is much larger, so we should restore it and delete the other. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: per above. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Ana Gabriela Ross.png

Hi, the present work is covered under CC BY 4.0. The disclaimer is included in the home page of the site, the work is from the Legislatve Assembly of Costa Rica. Please undelete, thanks in advance. Mito0504 (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support At the bottom of its site-map and its Terms of Use page, I do see a CC-BY-4.0 mark. I'm surprised this does not appear (according to Google-translate) to be mentioned in the body of that ToU page, but nor does it mention any more-restrictive or special-case licensing. And there is no further restriction listed (but oddly no CC mark) on the specific source of the image itself. DMacks (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: per DMacks. --Bedivere (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Wedding Photo Rose Hulse.jpg

This photo was taken with my camera from a family member and I own the rights of this photo. There is no copyright breach here.--80.249.217.176 14:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wedding Photo Rose Hulse.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask the copyright holder (the photographer) to send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:WWE 2K22 steam game cover art.jpg

This game was published on March 10, 2022, and Game Cover Copyright belongs to 2K Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DZKO (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 March 2024‎ (UTC)

@DZKO: , we'd need permission from 2K Games to host it here since fair use is not allowed on Commons.  Oppose as deleting admin. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:WWE 2K23 steam game cover art.jpg

This game was published on March 17, 2023 and Game Cover Copyright belongs to 2K Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DZKO (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No fair use on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:WWE 2K24 steam game cover art.jpg

This game was published on March 8, 2024, and Game Cover Copyright belongs to 2K Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DZKO (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 March 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.

 Oppose No fair use on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Fornebu FK.png

This logo is the official logo of Fornebu Fotballklubb - and created by myself as chairman of the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksel.solvang (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 March 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.

@Aksel.solvang: Please confirm the license and permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:MyHouse.wad title screen.png

File was freely licensed and in scope.

• Free: The work that the image is contained in is licensed under CC-BY 4.0. License is found inside of work's original download online (from original Doomworld link by Veddge), at the end of "files/MyHouse.txt" file. Relevant text reads:

* Copyright / Permissions *

Authors MAY NOT use the maps in this wad as a base for additional maps.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

• In scope: In use at w:Draft:MyHouse.wad. Relevant text reads:

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like.

WhoAteMyButter (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bitte um Wiederherstellung folgender Dateien

•File:IMG Wertmarke.jpg • File:IMG babyspeck.jpg File:IMG-Emos2023.jpg • File:IMG Asian Flush young woman.jpg • File:Sofa in Gebrauch.jpg • File:IMG Asian Flush.jpg • File:IMG Frau mit medizinischer Maske.jpg • File:IMG Schlafende.jpg • File:IMG Bikinistreifen.jpg • File:IMG Metal Frisur.jpg • File:IMG Girl Camping.jpg • File:IMG DeepDream.jpg • File:Deep Dream Art 02.jpg File:Schwule Zweisamkeit.jpg • File:IMG woman "manspreading".jpg File:IMG Goaß Maß.jpg • File:IMG Rauchende.jpg • File:IMG-Taco.jpg • File:PXL 20230810 142604420.PORTRAIT.jpg • File:IMG-Nachdenklichkeit.jpg • File:Image Duschender.jpg • File:PXL Camping.jpg • File:IMG Strandurlaub.jpg • File:IMG Lesende.jpg • File:IMG MannundMaßkrug.jpg • File:IMGStrandkorb.jpg • File:IMG Armstulpen.jpg • File:IMG Brille.jpg • File:IMG Mann trägt Brille.jpg • File:IMG-Dozent JCI.jpg • File:IMG Bánh mì.jpg • File:IMG Biertrinker.jpg • File:IMG Sonnenbrille.jpg • File:IMG Pfeffi.jpg • File:IMG WGT.jpg File:IMG Armstulpen.jpg • File:IMG Brille.jpg • File:IMG Mann trägt Brille.jpg • File:IMG-Dozent JCI.jpg • File:IMG Bánh mì.jpg • File:IMG Biertrinker.jpg • File:IMG Sonnenbrille.jpg • File:IMG Pfeffi.jpg • File:IMG WGT.jpg • File:IMG Noctolus.jpg • File:IMG-Frau isst Kuchen.jpg • File:IMG Bierschaum.jpg • File:IMG-Paddle.jpg • File:IMG Nicolas Samuel Lietzau-Schreiber.jpg • File:IMG Schirmmütze junge Frau.jpg • File:IMG Frau spielt Dart in Kneipe.jpg • File:IMG Drei Freunde Alltagsmaske.jpg • File: DeepDream.jpg

Diese Dateien wurden von einem Admin gelöscht, obwohl sie weder gegen ein Urheberrecht verstoßen (ich selbst habe die Fotos gemacht, sie zeigen meine Kunst oder fallen unter die Panorama Freiheit) noch private Fotos darstellen, ohne in Wikipedia-Projekte eingebunden zu sein. Die Fotos wurden angefertigt, um Wikipedia-Artikel zu unterstützen oder um meine selbstgeschriebenen Artikel zu illustrieren.

Mitumial (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)