Commons:恢复请求

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:恢复请求)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 50% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Outdated translations are marked like this.

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

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎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.

Commons deletion (policy)


文件被删除的原因

首先,检查删除日志并找出文件被删除的原因。 并且通过'链入页面检查是否有链接到页面上的讨论。若您上传了该文件,则请查看 您的讨论页是否有关于删除的任何消息。

然后,请再次阅读删除政策项目范围授权协议以了解图片是否适合Commons。

如果删除原因含糊或您认为其有争议,您可以联系执行删除的管理员并要求他们解释删除的原因或向他们提供反对删除的新证据 您同样可以联系其他活跃的管理员(兴许是 会说您的母语的管理员)。他们将乐于提供帮助,并在删除出错时纠正该错误。

申请删除

基于目前删除政策项目范围授权协议而无误的删除不能撤销。但可在这几项方针的讨论页中讨论改进事宜。

如果您认为被删除的图片既不侵犯版权又不超出目前的项目范围:

  • 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.

添加申请

首先,确保您阅读了文件被删除的原因。其次请在添加申请前阅读下列指导。

  • Subject:栏中填入适当的标题。如果仅申请恢复一个文件,建议使用[[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]]格式。(注意方括号后的半角冒号。)
  • 鉴别你所申请的文件,可如上提供文件链接。若你不知道准确名称,则请尽可能多地提供该文件的信息。无法提供足够信息的恢复申请将会不经提示而被存档。
  • 为恢复申请说明理由
  • 使用四个半角波浪号(~~~~)签名在申请中签名。如果你在Commons上拥有帐号,则请先登录。若你是原图片的上传者,这将有助于管理员找到这些图片。

请在页面底部加入申请点此进入你应添加申请的位置。同样你可以通过点当前日期下的击“编辑”链接提交申请。

存档

关闭的请求会被每日存档 存档

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Energir logo.png

The closing sysop, Ellin Beltz, ignored the discussion and did not produce any rationale accessible for the common people (few oracles not included). My argument, in short: there is no other English logo of Énergir on Wikimedia Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings: I didn't ignore the discussion, I saw several instances of blocked user contributions and no clear indication of permission. Image is available in SVG at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%89nergir_logo.svg. I would not personally contest its restoration, but would prefer a higher quality version if restored. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I might miss a discourse about either “permission” or “quality” in relation to Energir_logo.png – where did it happen? Moreover, a burst of ©-paranoia wrt a {{PD-textlogo}} uploaded by Gasexpert, a Meterrs/ConsumersDistributingonline sock, prompted by a delreq made by Tikrest, another Meterrs/ConsumersDistributingonline sock, showcases Commons practices as ridiculous, at best. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Please state your point without sarcasm or insult. The file was unused. There is a higher quality SVG. We don't usually waste time meanly debating the fine points of unused "own work" or on such low quality images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I never saw Wikimedia Commons deleting files because a replacement exists in English Wikipedia, never before. Does it become an accepted practice? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would ordinarily agree with IM -- we should not delete the only Commons version of a logo just because an SVG exists on WP:EN. In fact, we do not routinely delete preexisting raster versions even if the SVG is on Commons. That said, however, this is such poor quality that I agree that deletion is justified. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi, Ellin Beltz, Jameslwoodward: Would this PNG rendering of the enwiki SVG at its designated size be considered a suitable replacement as {{subst:PD-Trademark-Text-Logo}}?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not an expert on logos. As as image expert I certify that Energir_logo.png is not identical to a rendered Énergir_logo.svg, and as a sock buster I certify than all three suspicious accs in the history grew on the same farm. And again, there can be good and poor replacements, but the reason behind Ellin’s deletion is still unclear to me and I am puzzled why certain high-ranking Commons member indirectly encourage ConsumersDistributingonline to bring his crap. My proposal to protect the file—as an item on which the community already spent some resources—and kick all puppets off without deliberation was ignored. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I share your concern, but can the SVG be fixed to make it render better?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Xavierd80

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017042510022873.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. Face-smile.svg AntonierCH (d) 21:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC) AntonierCH (d) 21:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:Jacques Flèchemuller 1.jpg is a derivative work from a picture. Do we have a permission from the photographer? Not talking about scope... Yann (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "..I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it..." => I will have a look when all medias are restored so I can go back to the OTRS client to bring him all issues (if any). --AntonierCH (d) 14:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: ✓ Done. Yann (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by VoidWanderer

Several files of mine were deleted, and I have reasons why they should be restored.

1. I've received a permission by Pavel Netesov, the author of the Blokpost Pamyati exhibition {{PermissionOTRS|2018040410013134}}:

2. Large batch of files are exhibition plates, and are falling under {{PD-text}}, because simple geometrical shapes, logos and tiny pictures may not be considered as copyright violation:

“The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.”

--VoidWanderer (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose

1) These must wait their turn at OTRS. When they reach the head of the queue there in about 50 days, if the license is acceptable they will be automatically restored.
2) I looked at about half of these and all of the ones I looked at have photographs and/or drawings which have copyrights and all have far more text then is necessary for a copyright. I don't see how we can restore them without a free license from the copyright holders. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, all of the photos in a nomination are taken by me personally. OTRS ticket was aquired for the exhibition as a whole, not the pictures whose author I am already. So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued.
Are you really saying exhibition plates that I took photo of are violating the copyrights? --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

1) I understood your comment to mean that the creator(s) of the works portrayed had sent a free license to OTRS. I have now looked at them, and in every case that will be required. In some cases, there are photographs, text, and other copyrighted works in the images, so the copyrights for those will also have to be freely licensed.

I do not understand "So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued." OTRS Ticket 2018040410013134, which you cite above, is in the OTRS queue. It will be read and acted on by an OTRS volunteer when it reaches the head of the queue, which will be around June 1.

2) Yes. All of the images that I examined infringe on the copyrights for the drawings, photographs, and the texts shown in them. While I did not look at all of them, I doubt very much that any of them can be kept on Commons. This should not surprise you. Sealle, Christian Ferrer, and I, all experienced Commons Admins, all reached the same conclusion -- that they are all far above the threshold of originality anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, I mean how would those photos be possibly restored, if I have no guarantee OTRS Ticket even have those exact pictures mentioned? I suppose there's only the author's permission to take pictures of his exhibition. So I doubt volunteer will be even notified there're deleted photos that require to be restored. --VoidWanderer (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim, if the permission is valid then the images will be automatically restored. When you take a photo of something then you own the copyright on your photo, that is true, but if the thing depicted is protected by copyright (which is the case as soon as there is creativity) then the copyright holder of the depicted thing has also some rights on the publication of your photo, and in such cases it is required that we have his permission to publish here the photos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ticket 2018040410013134 has permission for the Exhibition "Блокпост Пам'яті" from Pavel Netesov. It looks OK for me. But I do not know what pictures are from this exhibition.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Stuttgarter Kantorei.jpg

Permission available with OTRS ticket 2009050810019351, picture from the same verified source. -- Uwe Martens (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 59 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The ticket is already from 2009! Several pics of the right owner are already online here. By the way - also the users account has been verified. -- Uwe Martens (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know that the ticket is that old. On the other hand, the file page did not have any OTRS identifier and the uploader Stiftsmusik Stuttgart hasn't put any note on their Commons user page either. @Stepro, Steinsplitter:, could you please have a look at this ticket? The photo in question is credited to Christian Hass / Sandra Wolf. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stiftsmusik Stuttgart: Under German law, copyright cannot be held by an organisation but rests exclusively with the individual photographer, e.g. Woerz or Christian Hass / Sandra Wolf. You may have gotten a right of use from the photographers but that does not put you in a legal position to grant a Creative Commons license to anyone else. If you provided evidence during your email verification that your organisation was authorised by any photographer to upload their images at Commons, that will be checked and the images may be restored. Otherwise we need permissions coming directly from the photographers.

P. S. Wikimedia Commons ist mehrsprachig, also können wir dies bei Bedarf auch auf Deutsch erörtern. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I will discuss it with the user on Monday by phone. -- Uwe Martens (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See also the duplicative File:Stuttgarter Kantorei.jpg 2 section already closed as not done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Florian Oßner 2017.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung und Freigabe der Portraitaufnahme des Politikers Florian Oßners!

Die Nutzungsrechte befinden sich unter folgendem Link:

Nutzungsrechte für die Portraitaufnahme von Florian Oßner


--Manhart (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Das reicht leider nicht. Dateien auf Commons und auf Wikipedia müssen für jedermann und für alle Zwecke frei verwendbar sein, inklusive kommerzielle Verwendung und Bearbeitungen. Das ist mit dieser Genehmigung leider nicht abgedeckt, die ja nicht einmal Wikipedia oder ähnliches erwähnt. Selbst die "Veröffentlichung im Internet" bezieht sich nur auf die Online-Version von Das Parlament. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"für alle Zwecke frei verwendbar sein, inklusive kommerzielle Verwendung und Bearbeitungen" - stimmt so nicht und kommt ganz auf die Lizenz drauf an. Aber die gepostete Lizenz war tatsächlich unzureichend. --Saippuakauppias (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)--Saippuakauppias (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Trudeau à Strasbourg.png

it's my job,(like all my pictures) I work for news agencies, I am based in Strasbourg.... --Nicoleon (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Andy Scott entrepreneur.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All pic has © COPYRIGHT ANDY SCOTT Bertassin (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the deleted images, the author is Anthony Harve and <no one>. We need the permission for a free license send by the copyright owner (mostly the person who took the picture) to Commons:OTRS, in order for us to restore the images. Ciell (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Régis Campo et Fabrice di Falco durant une répétition de Quai-ouest (2014).png

Sorry but THIS photo File:Régis Campo et Fabrice di Falco durant une répétition de Quai-ouest (2014).png is free (just taken by a friend of the composer Régis Campo). Please undeleted the photo. Thank by advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianthebrain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If an already published photo (eg. here http://quaiouestregiscampo. blogspot .com/2014/12/blog-post.html) is free we need a clear evidence that the autor wished it to be free. Preferably, on the initial publication page or via COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order for the photo to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder -- the friend of the composer -- must send a free license using OTRS. The e-mail will reach the head of the OTRS queue in about 59 days. Then, if the license meets Commons requirements and is approved, the image will be automatically restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Team Unicorn SAFH.jpg

Requesting the photo to be undeleted. As the producer of the project, the photograph is owned by me, and me only. Deadline.com was given permission to use the photograph but does not own the photograph.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenUnikorn (talk • contribs) 00:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hot Springs Report.jpg

--Ezdesigner (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why shoid it be undeleted? Any evidence that it is free? Ankry (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose https://hotspringsreport.com/ shows "© 2018 HotSpringsReport.com". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:MikeGalsworthy.jpg

Hi there Please restore the image. There shouldn't be any copyright issue here. Mike Galsworthy, founder of SfEU (which owns the image), has given permission for this image to be used. Please let me know if there's still a problem. Regards Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenvintageshoe (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)