Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

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.

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.

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:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image: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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg

This file has been nominated by Green Giant, indicating the Privacy Policies of the SECOM (based on the the Decree 100 of 2006) forbids the comermcial uses of the media published in the government Websites.

But, in 2010, Ena von Baer wrote and published the Oficio Ord. 112/14 in reference of the Law 19.032, that explicitilly instructs all the media released by the Government of Chile and its institutions must be licensed under the CC-BY. Therefore, all the media works (pictures, audio and video) released/published after the December 30 of 2010 are automatically covered under the {{CC-GobCL}}, according to the current Law.

Also, the Article 4 of the Decree 14 0f 2014 derogated the Decree 100 of 2006, making the Privacy Policies indicated by Green Giant also derogated and not longer valid. Only the Oficio Ord. 112/14 of 2010, the Law 19.799 and the Law 19.032 (and other Laws) are now valid and legal for this effect. So, this older file is also covered under the CC-BY license.

In summary, the file is efefctivelly covered under the CC-BY license according to the current Chilean Laws. So, please undelete this file.

Anyway, I' ve contacted to the Government of Chile according to the Ley de Transparencia, in order to clarify the doubts of the non-chilean people that are not familiar with the Chilean laws, and specifically, the licensing of the National Anthem of Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Amitie has explained here (for the first time) that the decree on which the problematic privacy policy is based has been overruled. That's good. However, there is also the question of whether the Chilean government actually owns all of the necessary copyrights in order to make this performance PD. The national anthem, as a work, is probably PD, but musical performances have many copyrights and it is not clear that all of them are PD in this case.
Orchestral works have separate copyrights for the music, for the lyrics (if any), for the arrangement (the composer of a national anthem usually writes it for one instrument -- an orchestral performance requires that it be arranged separately for each of the orchestral instruments), and for the performance itself. Even if the government says that the work is PD, please make sure that you can prove that the government actually owns the copyright to the performance -- I don't know the Chilean law on the subject, but in the USA for that to be true, all of the orchestra would have to be employees of the Federal government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No doubts about all the works released after December 30 of 2010 are automatically covered under the CC-BY (that the Chilean Laws say clearly), but the licensing of the works released between June to December of 2010 (like this specific file) is disputed, I agree; as I know, these works are also covered under the CC-BY (unlike the Patrimonio cultural común or PD, as I previously mentioned). So, as I said, I've contacted to the Government of Chile, so the answer will clarify the actual licensing of the National Anthem, and will be the definitive answer to the case. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I just recived the answer from the Government of Chile. The official answer says the file is efefctivelly covered under the CC-BY license. Bellow is the email recived (in spanish) (publicly available according to the Ley de Transparencia):

Therefore, please restore this file. Anyway, I sended a message to OTRS. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The people at Presidency have, basically, derivated the request to another State organ, the Government General Subsecretariat. We will have to wait until the guys at the Subsecretariat respond to your query. This email does not prove the anthem is CC-BY. In fact, it does not say anything of value. --Diego Grez return fire 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is just the message recived. The original message with an attached document with the ORD.: 001 has been sended to OTRS. Si, I'll update any newer answer and I'll send the to OTRS too. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I have made several transparency requests over time to the Presidency of Chile, and based on the text you've attached above, they haven't given you any response in regard to the copyright status of the Chilean anthem. As I told you, we'll have to wait until the Subsecretariat responds, regards, Diego Grez return fire 17:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Then, I'll just wait. And also, for the other UD bellow, I'm waiting for more than a month from the Gendarmerie of Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo sot.jpg

I've previously requested the undeletion of this file, but because the lack of evidences provided by me, Administrators decided to keep the file deleted.

Therefore, I've investigated deeper and requested information to the INAPI, DIBAM and the Gendarmerie of Chile, but I'm still awaiting an official answer.

But, according to the Oficio Ord. 112/14 of 2010 and the Law 19.032, all the media released by the Government of Chile and its institutions (including the Gendarmerie of Chile) after 2010, are covered under the CC-BY license. This is discussed deeper in an above thread, requesting the UD of another important file (the National Anthem).

The file has been released and uploaded to Commons after 2010, so it is covered under the CC-BY license according to the Laws. Please restore. I'll edit the description to add the correct license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo of which organization is this? --Diego Grez return fire 19:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The logo is from Gendarmerie of Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Where did you obtain the file? (So I can have a look at it) Diego Grez return fire 08:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The file has been uploaded arround June of 2010, but I don't remember the exact date. An admin can answer them. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:MediaWiki_Vagrant_Visualization.jpg (And possibly other files uploaded by Willowbl00)

I'd like to use File:MediaWiki_Vagrant_Visualization.jpg on mw:MediaWiki-Vagrant, to help break up what is currently quite a large wall of text. It was originally deleted for being out of scope (see Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Willowbl00). If I did use it on that page (And other editors don't disagree with my adding it and revert me), that would automatically take care of the scope issue for that file. I also think that perhaps Willowbl00's other files could use more careful discussion about if they are in scope. They seem more useful for an educational purpose than a significant portion of things that are regularly uploaded and kept here. It should be noted that there is also a related thread at Commons:Village_pump#Visual_representations_of_lectures.2C_concepts.2C_and_theories. Thanks. Bawolff (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I restored this file. I can restore more if you think that they are useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't have a use for the other files (The vagrant one is the only one that really applies to a wiki where I edit). I find the deletion rationale for the files somewhat questionable as it seems to me like the material is clearly educational in nature (albeit not with the formal tone necessary to say illustrate Wikipedia) and thus probably in scope (Or at least I guess them to be, I can't look at said files). Bawolff (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I reopened the discussion closed by Fastily, seeing comment by Bawolff. I would support undeletion. @INeverCry, EugeneZelenko: Other opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure where is the best place to respond, so I guess here, I would also support undeletion, I suspect this is just a misunderstanding and that the nominator and the deleter did not realise the use of these files Oxyman (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Also not sure where to respond. Posted the following over here:
AkiraChix Women In Technology Conference], which they've use on their site about engaging with high school girls with in-school programs towards the empowerment of Kenyan women in technology, would be legitimate? If so, what process do I go through? Request an undelete with a reference to the stubbed page here, the less relevant page here, and add Category:Technology_stubs as there doesn't seem to be a page dedicated to ICT for girls in Kenya?
As another example, to be sure I understand, the framework for consent policies currently in use by the Engine Room and Amnesty International to teach people about how to address consent in their digital initiatives (I just loaded the image directly to their servers instead), do I need to tag that as Amnesty, even though it's not directly on their Wikipedia page? And then, do I request it be undeleted?
Willowbl00 (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I think education is process of becoming adult, so concepts should be adult, not forever childish. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Out of that large DR, we've so far had one person ask for restoration of one file they had a specific use for. This doesn't lead me to agree that the whole huge bunch, none of which were in use at the time of the deletion should be restored. INeverCry 23:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm ok with this, tho a bit sad. In future, at Wikimania etc, should I link specific files to the topic it is relevant to? Should I not upload things unless specifically requested? Etc. SJ, any thoughts on this? Willowbl00 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko: Respectfully, I don't think that's how I'd define education. I would say its about learning something that someone didn't know before (Or to quote COM:EDUSE - "providing knowledge; instructional or informative [broadly construed]"). Educational material comes in a multitude of forms, and what sort of form is appropriate depends on the audience, the context and what is attempted to be taught. Material that is entirely inappropriate in one context could still be usefully educational in another. The reason I bring up the subject of undeletion for the remaining images is that it seems inconsistent that these files be deleted well other files are considered unquestionably in scope as "educational" well at the same time are probably in reality much less likely to educate someone. If you hit the random file button, you get an image like File:Hutchinson_Island_FL_Gilberts_HoR_beach06.jpg (First one I got when I hit the random file button). Now I think images like that one are important and should be here, but realistically, someone is more likely to learn something from Willowbl00's images than that picture of the beach (And this isn't even bringing up the more questionable areas of commons' collection, like anything ever uploaded from mobile). Finally, while usage outside of Wikimedia shouldn't really affect whether a file is in scope, as that is an intrinsic property of the file for non-in use files, if material is being used outside of Wikimedia in educational contexts (And isn't what COM:SCOPE calls "Excluded educational content"), I'm not sure how one could reasonably say that the material could not realistically be used for an educational purpose, given the existence of such a counter-example. Bawolff (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody prevents to create same diagrams in formal style. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The style of the file is irrelevant, what matters is the information it contains Oxyman (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Will be good idea to see will mainstream scientific publications develop same attitude or not. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant, opinion. I'm surprised at the bigotry against disabled people expressed here, on commons of all places. Isn't there supposed to be laws demanding organisations make reasonable adoptions for disabled people? Now I did try to assume good faith originally, supposing that there was a misunderstanding. but if the the Nominator and deleter actually understand the use of these files, yet continue to oppose them here the only conclusion left is that they are very bigoted individuals, there really is no other alternative to consider. In the face of such bigotry is it possible to have an independent individual, without some sort of hateful agenda against people with learning disabilities look at this case? Oxyman (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore I have a difficulty to understand opinions like "I think education is process of becoming adult, so concepts should be adult, not forever childish"; which is an insult to the artist. Further, "Nobody prevents to create same diagrams in formal style." Note "formal" may very boring and so incapable to bring the attraction of the viewers. It seems wrong people (not all people are capable to understand the value of all topics) evaluate the matter. Better reopen the DR (and temporarily restore the files) and allow some fresh eyes to re evaluate them. Jee 11:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Corvus_orru_map.jpg

A very simple map of a bird distribution that was made by User:Steve_nova on the English Wikipedia and uploaded there in 2004 and when the Commons project was created, it was automatically moved. Apparently the author was indicated as User:Steve_nova but the source was not marked as "own work". Image has been around for 10 years and there is no indication that this has been copied from any pre-existing source. It was speedily deleted (without evidence of copyright violation) - deletions of old images should go through a better process - these files were uploaded before policies were in place or even before Commons came into existence. Shyamal (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What you say makes sense, however we are still left with a map that has no source. Obviously the base map is not the work of Steve Nova -- he took it from somewhere. Back in 2004 PD base maps were not as easy to find as they are now, so we cannot assume that the base map is PD. I also think that this map would be better if it were not on a world map, but one of Indonesia and Australia, since that is the only area where Corvus orru appears. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your point - the source can be fixed as own work - whether that base map is PD or not seems to be arguable and should therefore go via a deletion discussion. I agree also with the point that a better map can be made with SVG with just the region in focus. The use of speedy deletion to remove what appears to be unsourced (which might even be the result of vandalism) of content that has been around for a decade sets a very unfortunate precedent for unaccounted content erosion. In other words, undelete and if needed, use the deletion discussion process. Shyamal (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Handling of old files are tough, and I think Ellin Beltz should be more careful. If I remember well, he she added "no source" to some US Gov files recently which was reverted by Dennis. Better ask expert opinion than deleting files in use for years. Jee 11:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ellin is a woman, a very active Admin. I agree that it would be good if we had a policy that files that predate Commons should always go to DR rather than being a {{speedy}}, so I will Symbol support vote.svg Support restoring this file if the Admin restoring it starts a DR at the same time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems a wise opinion; thanks. Jee 12:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There is also the point of the Source of the Information. That map (and it's base map) didn't spring into being without a source of information. How is one to know that this is a real map, based on real data without a source? I'm sorry if Jkadavoor thinks I should be "more careful", I do the best I can assuming AGF at all times. I don't mind if my "no sources" are reverted by other admins, this is a cooperative project we're supposed to work together for the benefit of the Commons, and the very few "speedies", "no sources" and "no permissions" which have been "problems" pale in the light of the thousands I've dealt with which have not been "problems." I will be delighted to send old files with problems to DR's instead as suggested by (Jameslwoodward). Sounds like a great idea. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Ellin Beltz, the file was used as an example of how an "ideal" bird taxobox should look on the English language bird wikiproject, so it has had a fair number of eyes looking over its accuracy. That said it is most certainly not "ideal". Glad you agree that the deletion request is preferable to speedy deletion. Shyamal (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Ellin Beltz: It seems (I can't see deleted files or its histories) that file is here for more than ten years, transferred from other wiki, and in use. So such files need to be discussed (DRed). I've no doubt about your intentions; but old files are a mess, and need to be handled carefully. Please don't add {{No permission}} or {{No source}} on them. :) Jee 02:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo-webrtc.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: If this file contains what I think it does, it may well be seen as a case for template:PD-textlogo, so we don't need any permission.

I'd say it is a fitting case, but I'd also like to hear other opinions on how high we should consider the threshold of originality to be... Kulandru mor (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FK Sarajevo crest history.jpg

The file in question was made by me on Photoshop. The usage of the club logo is licence-free, as can be seen on the official website of the club: http://www.fcsarajevo.ba/en/grb. Furthermore, the historical logos that I used in my Photoshop work are also licence-free because they have been debunked for years and can be found here: http://kassiesa.nl/uefa/clubs/html/FK-Sarajevo.html. PeppermintSA (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What I see at the named site is a clear copyright notice. There is no indication whatever of a free license. "Debunked for years" does make anything free of copyright. Depending on the life-span of the creator, a copyright can easily be in place for 100 years after creation and 150 years is by no means impossible. The second site cited above has no indication of a free license and specifically notes that permission of the copyright holder may be needed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)