Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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)

Chilean TOO files

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

Some of the files include:

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

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

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

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khoshnevis Mansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Jüri Antsmaa.jpg

I do not see any valid reason for deletion. We have over 100,000 images using the license but this image is being held to a higher standard of proof than the others. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not just generalized FUD to delete an image. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That rationale is en:WP:OTHERSTUFF. User:From Hill To Shore was correct in that an internet search is insufficient to establish the research needed to say a photograph was truly anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Awesome, but you are quoting something from English Wikipedia, the Commons rule is the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle which requires "significant doubt", not just generalized FUD to delete an image. Even if the en:WP:OTHERSTUFF rule applied here, 100,000 "stuffs" means that we have a consensus on the due diligence required to show that an image is anonymous. The argument that searching through 15 billion images is enough, has been accepted by over 100,000 images. You can always argue that if we just look under one more rock, a named author will be found, but that is just FUD, and could be applied to any of the 100,000 images, and it is not "significant doubt" or actionable evidence. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • RAN, you're forgetting that this was a crop of a physical photograph, and the uploader might be cropped out the physical information on the photograph itself like a credit to the photograph or the photograph might have a credit on its backside. As said below, many photographs are not online, and we were missing crucial information which could have determine whether this 1916-1920 photograph was truly anonymous or had a credit that the uploader had left out for possibly innocuous reasons. Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Claiming that a photo is "anonymous" when not even a proper original source is given cannot be accepted, and just searching the internet is not enough. While "15 billion images" sounds impressive, that is only a fraction of of those existing overall, not all of which are even available via the internet. --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Much like the original discussion, RAN makes another sweeping generalisation with flawed logic. RAN identifies that around 100,000 files use the same anonymous licence template but then makes the unfounded leap of logic that all 100,000 have been justified through internet searches alone. Ergo, if those 100,000 are kept this must be kept too; or conversely, if this file is deleted, all 100,000 must be deleted. It is a logical fallacy.

While I am not going to make my own sweeping generalisations, I suspect that the majority of the 100,000 will have included a source. We will know the file has come from a book, an archive, a family album or some other named source. We will assume good faith in the uploader and accept their claim that the author is not named in the source. An internet search in those situations merely corroborates what the uploader has told us.

In this case the uploader made no claim that the author was unknown and (speaking from memory) I don't think they identified a source. It is quite plausible that the source included a named photographer but the uploader failed to mention them. However, without any knowledge of the original source, RAN has declared that because they can't find the source, it must be anonymous. All the failed internet search tells us is that we don't know where the image has come from. It is another leap of logic to jump from "We don't know the source," to "The work must be anonymous." From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The uploader never provided a source, only stating it as an "own work" (which could have been them misunderstanding our definition as they appear to have taken a photograph of the original photograph which was cropped). Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• People scan original images all the time. That there could have been a named photographer if we just looked harder, or rescanned is just FUD and does not rise to the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle required "significant doubt". You can cast doubt on every anonymous image with this argument. --RAN (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  See my point above. We assume good faith in uploaders who tell us the work was anonymous at source. Your argument goes one step further and says, "We will assume any unsourced work is anonymous because it is convenient." That is not what the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is meant to cover. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Support I can't find a copy on the Net, so self-scanned is quite probable. Most images from that area are anonymous. It is quite reasonable to assume that as default, unless proved otherwise. Yann (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done, nobody knows where this photo came from, except the uploader, who chose not to take part in the deletion request. Most likely a studio portrait made by a professional photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:3-Hydroxypropionic-acid-2D-skeletal.svg

The file was deleted minutes after nomination, which is unacceptable! I didn't have the time to respond properly. I hereby nominate the file for undeletion because it was drawn with a completely different style compared to the suggested replacement (File:Structural formula of 3-hydroxypropionic acid.svg). In the Commons:WikiProject Chemistry we have guidelines for drawing chemical structures and this structure followed the Manual of Style guidelines from the English Wikipedia, whereas the proposed replacement was drawn for the German Wikpedia project. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just an ignorant non-chemist, but to me they don't look like they are in "completely different style"s. Some proportions might be slightly different, but that's it. --Rosenzweig τ 07:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Those proportions are each exactly according to specific and (as you note) slightly different style guidelines. Each is a consensus on their respective Wikipedia site. DMacks (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not that it is Commons's place to question *wiki good-faith EDUSE, but Chem Sim 2001 I know the enwiki guidelines are taken from ACS. Do you know the basis for the dewiki guidelines (de:Wikipedia:Wie erstelle ich Strukturformeln?/Tutorial Strukturformeln)? I do not speak any German. But User:Rosenzweig, you can see from those two pages that the graphical parameters are indeed not the same. DMacks (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, the en.wiki guidelines are based on the ACS suggestions. As far as I know, the de.wiki guidelines are based on decisions and evaluations made by the de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Chemie (the German Wikipedia chemistry project) long ago and have since been widely applied and established in the German Wikipedia. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support OK, if the chemists insist that they need both of these slightly different drawings I won't stand in the way. Maybe put a note in both file descriptions that they are drawn accd. to de.wp or en.wp specifications and link the other version(s)? --Rosenzweig τ 09:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, since there are no objections anymore, can we restore the file? — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Usually that is done by someone else a day later. --Rosenzweig τ 19:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting for the record that undeletion of a speedy-deletion (that's not a copyvio) appears to be the automatic default action upon good-faith request, per COM:D policy, where objecting to a speedy is allowed and instead would lead to regular SD. Chem Sim 2001, I'm not sure if you are able to see that User:The Squirrel Conspiracy was the one who did the actual deletion, but sometimes it's easier to ask an admin directly about an action they take (and can quickly undo on their own when given a good reason) rather than a central notice-board that is sometimes more sluggish. I know you patiently explained to the tagger about this MOS difference, and they have now recognized the situation for the future. DMacks (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: <shrug> Sure, have at it. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

File: rythme et chant Beninois.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

File:1963 asalto.png

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

---

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

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

tatintsian.com

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

---

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

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

File:Aleksandr Veprev Soarele cartofilor.jpg

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

---

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

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

File:Dexter Goldberg.jpg

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

File:Maria Hunziker et Friedrich Sutermeister.jpg

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Bob_van_der_Houven_(2022).jpeg

See: [Ticket#2024021110002142]

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

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

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Grounding Countries.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

File:Anto Finnegan.jpg

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

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

---

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

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

File:Tour Perret, parc Paul Mistral.jpg

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

File:Ishaan Dhawan in 2023.jpg

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

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

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

---

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

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

File:Riya Sharma in 2023.jpg

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

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

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

---

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

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

File:John Howard Davies c. 1951.jpg

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

File:Hans_Martin_Sutermeister_1961_(cropped).jpg

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

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

File:Lina Baumberger (grayscale).jpg

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

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

File:AWH MP 2021 CC BY 4.0.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:RTL D Boris Breuer.jpg Bitte um Wiederherstellung

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

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

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

---

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