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)

29 copyvios • 2 duplicates • 9 selfies • 6 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)

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)

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

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.

 Oppose The image was unused in Wikimedia. Unused logos are considered out of scope. @Grandmaster Huon: So before we go to copyright issues, please explain why should this image be hosted in Wikimedia Commons? Ankry (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ankry: Could be a hypothetical complex anime logo. -- Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Out of scope. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

•  Oppose Used in a draft is not considered in scope. Please, make the request after the draft is accepted as an article. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  SCOPE doesn't say anything about drafts; only 'in use on one of the other projects.' I apologize if I missed a policy, but I don't see any additional restrictions (or that one specifically). WhoAteMyButter (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd  Support restoration if the draft gets accepted. But nevertheless, the file is freely licensed and makes no harm to have since it can be used in Doom mod articles. Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I fully intend to publish the draft as an article. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Stop the A68 Dalkeith Bypass.jpg

VRT ticket:2024031210008044 suggests that these three files come from Flickr and the license information there is the correct one, and the uploader has made some errors while uploading. As such:

• File:Stop the A68 Dalkeith Bypass.jpg comes from here
• File:Torness demonstration - from the SCRAM archive co Friends of the Earth Scotland.jpg comes from here and
• File:Save Druridge Bay, Northumberland (1980s) - from the SCRAM archive co Friends of the Earth Scotland.jpg comes from here.
  • I just don't wanted to restore these files directlty. Opinions? Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    • For the first file, I think we'd need permission from Colin Hattersley who is freelance (EXIF data states this). Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support restoration of second and third files as PDMark-Owner. Abzeronow (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

      okay. I have sent a follow-up with regards to the first image in the ticket. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Tarjeta_Elctoral_de_Convergencia.jpg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure el Logo del Partido Convergencia porque está en el Dominio Público (PD-textlogo) porque el Logo que contiene era un triángulo con letras. (Notas:Este logo fue removido por Kdr por "missing permission"). AbchyZa22 (talk)20:55, 23 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No me parece que sea un logotipo trivial, por lo que no debería ser restaurado. Bedivere (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere:era un triángulo de color verde por ejemplo https://convergenciavenezuela.com.ve/comunicado-convergencia-popular-cristiana-rechaza-la-celebracion-del-foro-de-sao-paulo-en-venezuela/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

El logo subido tiene sombras que me hacen dudar de si esa licencia aplica. Si hay una versión simple (solo el triángulo) puedes subirla. Bedivere (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Según las fuentes https://www.elnacional.com/venezuela/estas-son-las-tarjetas-electorales-que-aprobo-el-cne-para-las-presidenciales/ la imagen del Tarjetón eléctoral 2021 el Logo de Convergencia aparece a la izquierda. AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Según el {{PD-textlogo}} dice en inglés:"This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22 El logo tiene unas sombras que invalidan aquello, pues no se trata de simples formas geométricas sino que tienen un complemento creativo que son las sombras. No me parece que sea suficientemente simple. Mantengo mi posición. Bedivere (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose. Does not look like simple logo. Every triangle is simple, but their combination is not. For example, number of yellow, green and red little triangles is not 7-7-7, but 8-7-6. Taivo (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are some other version of this logo still up on the site, should these be nominated for deletion? Bedivere (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Question:Pinging @Abzeronow:Una pregunta para tu opinión este logo debería ser restaurada o oponerse?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about the ToO of Venezuela, but I think I agree with Taivo here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to doubt that could get a U.S. copyright, but little idea of Venezuela's threshold. While true that a creative arrangement of PD shapes can get a U.S. copyright, the arrangement is also just a triangle. The color variations are minor to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Withdrawn my nomination el Usuario Taivo y tú tienes razón el Logo no es simple (el triangulo es simple pero está combinación no) cierra el UDR, por favor AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Mt samat shrine 1 (no freedom of panorama phl blacked-out).png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Sultan Hajji Hassanal Bolkhia Mosque 1 (no freedom of panorama phl blacked-out).png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Mt samat shrine 1 (no freedom of panorama phl blacked-out).png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: can now be in usable scope. To be used in meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama advocacy page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @JWilz12345: FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

File:AlexandriaFlag.svg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Yes, I did get the base flag from https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-mnalx.html, however, on that website it is uploaded as 359 x 216 pixel gif file. I recreated the image as an SVG in Inkscape and the exact shapes are not perfect. Therefore it is my work. Bradinator33 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These are always hard. There is an image of an actual flag here; you would have to identify expression present in the crwflags version which is *not* in the real flag, but which does end up in the .svg, to actually be derivative of the crwflags image. The crwflags image is not a pure creation of that author. I can't see the deleted image, but my guess is that is unlikely. The thornier question is does the town own a copyright over the particular graphic depiction in the flag. If the exact design is part of a law, then probably not (PD-EdictGov). If the flag was done in the 1980s, probably not (published without notice). Normally we have allowed third-party renditions of government flags, and just try to avoid copying exact drawings made by others (or close renditions that are obviously derivative of a particular drawing). There is still some gray area of course, but those may just be theoretical doubts. I may lean  Support, though without seeing if there is something particular about the SVG and the crwflags version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In the CRW flags version, it is clear that the blue color of the boat is more purple, it also seems as though the inner ring (the one surrounding the logo) is thinner than in that of the image. Bradinator33 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Info Temporarily undeleted for the purposes of this discussion. —RP88 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we need more information on when the city created the flag. If before March 1989, it is probably public domain. If afterwards, the flag is still copyrighted by the city. The flag seems a little too close to the crwflags version for comfort, the lettering of Alexandria, Minnesota is different but the seal looks practically identical for example the bottom of the heart is the same as the crwflags version while the real flag has a pointed bottom. Abzeronow (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at them, there are some small details which does suggest the SVG was traced from the CRW image, but the differences between that and the original are so slight I'm not sure there really is a copyright on them (such as the shape of letters or position of commas). The inner ring being a thicker blue in the real flag and a thinner black in the two drawings is another indicator. But... not sure those differences are separate copyrightable expression for the CRW image in the first place, just very minor variations on the actual flag. As for the origin of the flag, reading the crwflags page it seems it may be a one-off design -- something donated to the City Hall in the "1980s or 1990s" which of course straddles the date we care about. It says a "similar logo" was used by their chamber of commerce, so some of the design may have predated the flag. That all sounds murky. If there is an official flag, not sure we should be disallowing original drawings of it. If a state chooses a new flag, do we bar *any* drawing of it from Commons? That seems excessive. Those public symbols do end up having something of a special status, and certainly anything in law which makes it official would be PD. One-off flags like this may be slightly odd situations though, especially if not actually enshrined in law but just used in practice. All sorts of theoretical doubts can exist around stuff like this, but not sure they rise to significant doubts. So I'd probably still lean support, though any tweaks to bring it closer to the actual flag would be a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a revision to the image to make it look more like the real flag found here. Bradinator33 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment What about the actual flag design itself? From when, and can it please be demonstrated that the original design is out of copyright.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:清乾隆三十四年（1769）己丑科陳初哲狀元及第匾.jpg

圖片來源於公共平臺public domain:http://www.qhqjw.gov.cn/?list_46/265.html 。— Preceding unsigned comment added by BridjingDK (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 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 @BridjingDK: You are misinterpreting the concept of "public domain". Being in the public domain is not the same as being publicly available on the Internet. I suggest you read our licensing policy first. 0x0a (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The source cited above includes "All rights reserved". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Shaunak Chakraborty

I want to create a gallery page for Indian social worker Shaunak Chakraborty, so I request kindly undelete this page. As I can see this was deleted because of empty or single image gallery or it looks like an advertisement. So by this I can understand that I need the change the content of this page. So I request kindly undelete this page and give some time so I can restructure this page or kindly shift it to draft for this work, whatever it suitable according to the policies. Kindly restore this page, I will truly ensure to follow the policies of this platform. Thank you. Pokai (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We won't be able to undelete it until the proposed gallery meets what is at Commons:Galleries. Why not just use a category at Category:Shaunak Chakraborty, if f there are any legit images of this person here and you want them to categorise rightly? ─ Aafī (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't create galleries for non notable people. With only 2,980 results, this person is not notable enough to be on Commons. Yann (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I just suspect self-promotion. See: File:User Kitaab Ka Kida.jpg (selfie), File:Shaunak.jpg, File:Shaunak Chakraborty Conducting Computer Class For Underprivileged Children.jpg. I mean, the guy in selfie is same as Shaunak, whom this user is promoting. This user was renamed from Kitaab Ka Kida to Pokai in 2019 December. A big  Oppose to this self-promotion. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I deleted the gallery twice, so I won't close this, but this was a no-image encyclopedic article. Perhaps OK for WP:EN, but not here. I note also that the account User:Shaunak Chakraborty has been globally locked for abusing multiple accounts. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Images of Bolzano/Bozen Victory Monument

Hi, I'm requesting the undeletion of many images of the en:Bolzano Victory Monument: File:Leuchtring siegesdenkmal bozen.JPG, deleted in 2014 in this DR; File:Bozen Siegesdenkmal Inschrift.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen Bolzano.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen east.JPG, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen south.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen west.jpg, File:SiegesdenkmalBZ.jpg, File:SiegesdenkmalInschrift.2008-11-08.png, all deleted in 2013 in this DR; Image:Siegesdenkmal bozen.JPG, deleted in 2007 in this DR; Image:Bozner Siegesdenkmal.jpg, deleted in 2007 in this DR. The monument was commissioned in 1926 by the Chief of Government (Mussolini) and by the Ministry of Education to en:Marcello Piacentini, and it was inaugurated in 1928 (for the details see here pages 125 and 133). Therefore it should fall under Template:PD-ItalyGov at least since 1949 (way before the URAA, so no issue with the US copyright). The warning put in the category in 2023 by User:G.dallorto should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:پشت صحنه 2.jpg

hi This photo is licensed by Nama Film Institute. I can send the license if you want. Na.234996.ouz (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose @Na.234996.ouz: Then ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 12:02, 25 March 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) 13:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:法證先鋒6 倖存者的救贖.jpg

Fair Use — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoTrustin (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Commons doesn't allow fair use. Requestor is also indeffed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:執法者們.jpg

Fair Use — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoTrustin (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No fair use on Commons, requestor is indeffed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

File:X Japan logo.svg

Previously deleted per belief that "The X may have some artistic appreciation putting it above COM:TOO Japan.", now with User:Nacaru's rationale for keeping File:Xenoblade 3 logo.webp, I am requesting undeletion of this listed logo.

Thank you. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Mick-a-Matic front.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Mick-a-Matic front.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The Mickey design here seems like early Mickey with the ears, and the white skin tone. The eye color here is blue. This is possibly derivative of now public domain Mickey Mouse designs. (Edit: a different image of the camera https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/45/714) Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:T Raja Singh Old.jpg

It's a work by Government of Telangana. Government works are in the public domain, paid for by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skratata69 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 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.

No, works by the Government of Telangana are not in the public domain. Some works by public offices in India are under a free license, but it must be proved. Yann (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Bishop of New Guinea.jpg

Reason: Copyright holder has released the photo into the public domain: https://flickr.com/photos/uon/9662505368/ --Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, there is no reason to believe that the Flickr user has any right to make the image PD. That right belongs (or belonged) to the heirs of the actual painter. We don't know whether this is still under copyright or not.

Second, we do not know the name of the subject. I looked through the few images of bishops linked at Anglican_Church_of_Papua_New_Guinea and could not find a match. Although the source calls him "Bishop of New Guinea", he is dressed as a priest (bishops wear purple shirts). Without a name, I don't see any educational use for the image. Even if the copyright issue could be answered I can't see that a nameless and ambiguous image of a priest is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I was also hesitant on this since it is an undated painting, but the Flickr user is part of a GLAM, and it's possible that the University of Newcastle Library is the copyright holder. I also agree with you on scope. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Trillick GFC Crest.jpg

There is no basis to this alleged "copyright violation". There is no evidence provided to suggest that my claim in copyright is "not credible". There is no evidence provided that the image itself is even copyrighted! The image that I produced was not orignally found on the web. The image that was uploaded by me contained a watermarking that proved that this image was mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypso50 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 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.

 Question What about the copyright of the club who originally made the logo? When was this logo created by the club? Abzeronow (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose You have the burden of proof in the wrong place. It is up to you to prove that the logo is PD. The only reason that that might be true is if it were created and published before 1929, as anything after that date may have a UK copyright and must have a US copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:ACER mural being painted.jpg

Only the older revision of this file needed to be deleted, not the whole thing. @Bedivere said that the cropped version was fine, the image is unused and so out of scope. — but being used is not a requirement for photos on Commons. It is for fair-use photos, but this isn't claiming fair use, it's claiming that the cropped version doesn't include enough of the mural to be copying the mural artwork. Sam Wilson 07:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The cropped version shows approximately the lower half of the mural. That's far more than might be allowed by de minimis. Remember that a single paragraph from a thousand page novel will have the novel's copyright. The same reasoning applies to art works, particularly when they are the only interesting thing in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Jim, cropped version still has too much of the mural to be de minimis. Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Cortinarius1.jpg File:Cortinarius2.jpg

The author has changed the copyrigth license. --Hzoli96 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose A page on which the image appears, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/192941059, is CC0-1.0. The page containing the basic image, the one cited in the upload, https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/338824045, is CC BY-NC 4.0. Therefore the article is free, but the image is not, so we cannot restore the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, check it again. Now the images should be CC0-1.0. Thank you. Hzoli96 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Vildmarksdivan.jpg

A document stating the permission to use this movie poster as well as personal images of Swedish filmmaker vMattias Löw freely has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org [Ticket#: 2024032610013781].

Thank you,

Hatyai2024--Hatyai2024 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The file is not deleted yet. If the file is deleted, a VRT member will either restore it themselves or ask us to restore it if permission is accepted. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg

The image was deleted per discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg. Anyway, after consulting with the website about the differences between the cc-by-sa license in the front and the legal notice, the legal notice itself has changed to reflect that all the images are under cc-by-sa license, while the texts are (strangely enough) under cc-by-nc-sa license. The image should be restored accordingly. Pinging @Impru20: , and @Holly Cheng: , who discussed about this issue. -Theklan (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)