Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@(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)[reply]
 Support My vote, the reasons have been explained. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gordito1869: you cannot vote on your own undeletion request. Günther Frager (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only wanted to express my argument visually. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)-[reply]
@(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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Minorax Email sent. Raymond (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen wird sich - mehr als offensichtlich & aus allseits bekannten Gründen - nicht zu den historisch & familiengeschichtlich (enzyklopädisch) wertvollen (hier leider gelöschten) Familiendokumenten bzgl. Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - PS : Bei Ratten im Langzeitversuch verursachte GVO in der Nahrungskette diverse Krebserkrankungen; ich hoffe dringend, meinem "lieben" Verwandten a.d.H. 19205 Schönfeld blieb- resp. bleibt das Schicksal der armen & kranken Genraps-Ratten erspart ... und der Edelherr äußert sich nun ggf. aus gesundheitlichen Gründen nicht mehr, obwohl er seine "Plessen-Saga" noch allumfassend & in seinem Sinne fortschreiben & bebildern wollte (?) - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Please check through. Thanks. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a true man of honor and hero of our democracy : Thank you on behalf of my dead Plessen mother and my dead grandfather Leopold from the Dolgen Manor house !!! - Best regards, Michael J. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax: I've looked at some, but will need a bit more time to read them all and form an opinion about their copyright status, if they're in scope, and about possible privacy concerns. --Rosenzweig τ 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please don't forget : all real names were published by the @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen (@Christian von Plessen: ) personally. The documents regarding Dolgen manor are of central importance for a truthful continuation of the encyclopedic and family history-relevant "Plessen saga". - Best regards, Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC) )[reply]
@Minorax: I've looked at them all now. As far as copyright is concerned, this is a bunch of letters by lawyers and official agencies as well as contracts, all in a rather factual language and not very original, so I think one could say the texts are below COM:TOO Germany. As far as privacy is concerned, we have a bunch of names here as well as birth dates and street addresses, but the people involved have either already died several years ago or don't seem to be terribly bothered by these letters being public. It's not that the letters contain any intimate secrets anyway, it's all about buying back family property that had been expropriated in the Communist eastern part of Germany after the Second World War.
Which brings us to the 3rd point, project scope. These letters etc. are all documenting a dispute about property and money between various members of this family. It seems the whole thing was pursued in a rather litigious manner, we have a decision by the petition committee of the German federal parliament (the Bundestag) here, and apparently one side tried to bring the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg into this, unsuccesfully as far as I can see.
Gordito1869 argues that all these letters are somehow about the de:Herrenhaus Dolgen manor and therefore share its notability, but I don't quite see it that way. The letters are barely about the house at all, but about agricultural lands that were once attached to it (and were then expropriated), about who will be able to buy them back or get a compensation for them in money etc. That all seems hardly enclycopaedic to me, and probably we should delete the whole bunch of files again (or technically, decline the undeletion request) as being out of scope.
That's how I see it anyway, but we'd need more opinions by others (and we already know that Gordito1869 wants them permanently undeleted, so no need to write that again). You'd need to be able to read German though to understand the content. @Achim55: From what I've seen, you seem to have edited some of the files. Dou you have an opinion regarding the problems above, leave the files undeleted permanently or delete them again, copyright, privacy concerns, project scope? Or anyone else able to read German and understand the files? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55: Hallo Achim, zugegeben, die Themen "Flucht & Vertreibung", "Lügen vs. Wahrheit" sind nicht einfach und nicht zwingend enzyklopädisch - aber sie gehören imho zur zeitgeschichtlichen & wahrheitsgemäßen Reflexion in seriösen Nachschlagwerken dazu (...und Wikipedia zähle ich ganz sicherlich dazu, sonst wäre nicht kürzlich mein 10.000 Edit unter Commons gewürdigt worden ... und auch meine unzähligen Bilder (seit ca. 15-Jahren) hatten im Masse einigen enzyklopädischen "Wert"). - Die Plessen sind ganz ohne Frage enzyklopädisch relevant - und mein leiblicher und ehelicher Ur-Ur-Urgroßvater Leopold von Plessen und dessen Rittergut Dolgen besaßen bis 1990 Ansehen, Würde und EHRE. - Meine hochgeladenen Dokumente, die hier einmal mehr diskutiert werden, dokumentieren unzweifelhaft, wie das Rittergut Dolgen des LvP durch unberechtigte Dritte endgültig irreversibel zerschlagen und abgewickelt wurde; ich halte das für zeit- und familiengeschichtlich sehr relevant und es entspricht unbedingt auch dem erklärten Ziel von User:Christian von Plessen, der das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" offen legen will : genau das will ich ja auch - aber wahrheitsgemäß und faktenbasiert. - Das Plessengut Damshagen, das dem Onkel Hans-Balduin von Plessen des hiesigen Users:Christian von Plessen rechtmäßig gehörte, findet hier breite wissenschaftliche Beachtung und mannigfache Würdigung in einem Nachschlagwerk ... und auch Dolgen darf imho nicht familiengeschichtlich-, wissenschaftlich-, enzyklopädisch völlig "unter den Teppich gekehrt werden", denke ich. - Ich bitte deshalb sehr höflich darum, die wenigen historischen Dokumente und Urkunden, die Dolgen und seine traurige Geschichte nach 1990 betreffen, zu erhalten. (Wie ich bereits mehrfach vorgeschlagen hatte, mögen ja datenschutzrechtlich bedenkliche Stellen in den Dokumenten gerne geschwärzt werden; das entspricht z.B. auch absolut gängiger rechtlich korrekter Praxis bei der Verwendung/Auswertung von Strafakten, wie ich aus meiner langjährigen Dienstzeit als Bundesbeamter beim (BA)MAD konkret weiß). Da mit dem Nationalsozialisten Reimar von Plessen (2. Vorsitzender der antidemokratischen Herrengesellschaft Mecklenburg) und dem absolut widerwärtigen (!) Nationalsozialisten & Gauwirtschaftsberater der NSDAP, Hennecke von Plessen bereits zwei mehr als fragwürdige und unseriöse Nazi-Schergen den Familienvorsitz der Plessen führten, gilt es heute, das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" im Sinne des aktuellen Vorsitzenden der Plessen - User:Christian von Plessen - besonders emotionsfrei und sachlich - aber insbes. (wissenschaftlich korrekt) geschichtsfest zu dokumentieren. (q.e.d.) - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) - ps : "By the way" : Der durch User:Christian von Plessen unter Klarnamen & unter Wiki-Commons genannte- und mannigfach vs. Dolgen involvierte Rechtsanwalt Dr. von Hugo war Geschäftsführer der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Agrarfragen (AfA) und Beschwerdeführer von SBZ-Alteigentümern vor dem EGMR : bitte schauen Sie sich das "Rechts(staats)verständnis" der AfA an (nur völlig "durgeknallte" Reichsbürger würden solche Hass- und Hetzschriften vs. unseren Rechtsstaat und unsere unabhängige Justiz öffentlich publizieren, so denke ich); nur durch eine absolut unheilige Allianz von Vettern-BVVG und der AfA wurden solche (rechtsstaatlichen ?) Machenschaften und faktiischen Insich-Geschäfte überhaupt erst ermöglicht ... und NEIN : User:Christian von Plessen war und ist nachweislich KEIN (!) Rechtsanwalt, der SEINE VETTERN-BVVG in eigener Sache (Damshagen) mannigfach vertreten hatte. - Man darf & kann nur hoffen, dass sich unser Staatsschutz den absolut fragwürdigen Machenschaften von AfA & Vettern-BVVG & und ihren Günstlingen - resp. vertretenden Nicht-Rechtsanwälten im "Outfit" von vermeintlichen "Edelherren" - endgültig rechtsstaatlich annimmt ! --- Achim, wenn sie die +++ realen heutigen Zustände +++ in ihrer und UNSERER geliebten Heimat in der vormaligen SBZ / DDR emotionsfrei und sachlich zur Kenntnis nehmen - dann löschen sie bitte relevante Beweisakten und historisch / enzyklopädisch wertvolle Dokumente (insbes. zum Rittergut Dolgen) nicht; diese "Geschichte resp. Plessen-Saga" von AfA & Vettern-BVVG vs. redliche-, gutgläubige und ehrbare (!) Menschen in Ost und West ist leider immer noch nicht zu Ende "erzählt" worden. - MfG Michael Pfeiffer, investigativer User und vormaliger Nachrichtendienstler alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) --- ps II : Es sollte mir ferner gestattet sein, eine öffentliche Gegendarstellung (an Ort und Stelle) zu dieser (öffentlichen-, verleumderischen und nachweislich unwahren) Tatsachenbehauptung seitens meines Verwandten User:Christian von Plessen faktenbasiert-, beweiskräftig und wahrheitsgemäß zu publizieren : Zitat User:Christian von Plessen "Sie haben mich wider besseres Wissen wiederholt öffentlich als Schurken hingestellt. Das war keine Fehde zwischen uns, sondern es war üble Nachrede Ihrerseits, die erst durch Rechtsanwalt Kossyk gerichtlich beigelegt wurde." (Zitat-Ende). - NEIN, ich habe User:Christian von Plessen NICHT (!) wider besseres Wissen als Schurken öffentlich hingestellt; meine hochgeladenen Dokumente und Urkunden beweisen familiengeschichtlich-, historisch-, wissenschaftlich und auch strafrechtlich das exakte Gegenteil : (Niemand (...und schon garnicht als treuer Staatsdiener a.D.) muss sich unter Wiki-Commons - öffentlich & ohne Gegendarstellung - durch einen User wahrheitswidrig verleumden lassen, so denke ich.) q.e.d. (Bitte lösche die Dokumente aus zahlreichen Gründen nicht, Achim; wer sich an den nackten Fakten stört wird sich ggf. melden.) --- MfG M. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wenn ich sie oben richtig verstanden habe, wurde @Achim55: von Ihnen um "dritte Meinung" (but we'd need more opinions by others) gebeten (ihre rein pers. Meinung hatten sie doch bereits artikuliert). - Eine sog. "Tirade" ist auch nicht Gegenstand dieser Diskussion (sondern diente ausschließlich Achim zur reinen Klarstellung der komplexen Situation; wer sollte sich an historisch-/familiengeschichtlich-/zeitgeschichtlich sehr relevanten Dokumenten & Urkunden stören können, die eine Enzyklopädie imho bereichern ?) --- Die Freischaltung der vormals gelöschten Dokumente wurde hier seit dem 27. Januar 2024 umfassend diskutiert; erst danach ist die Freischaltung erfolgt. Die nach demokratischer Willensbildung wieder hergestellten Dokumente sollen doch wohl jetzt - auf blanken Zuruf hin - nicht einmal mehr gelöscht werden ? - Wird hier ein "Ping-Pong-Spiel" auf dem Rücken von Usern & Betroffenen ausgetragen, oder was soll das hier werden ? - Der Abschiedsbrief des Leopold Frhr. von Plessen vom 29. April 1945 auf Dolgen wurde - nach umfassender Diskussion - auch nicht gelöscht; die nunmehr wieder freigeschalteten Dokumente betreffen das Rittergut Dolgen und die Ehre & Reputation dieses Mannes - und die Dokumente haben insgesamt einen erheblichen familiengeschichtlichen & wissenschaftlichen Erkenntniswert und dienen damit Wikipedia. - MfG M. Pfeiffer --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demokratische Willensbildung? Jetzt ist aber gut, das ist keine Abstimmung hier. Die Dateien wurden vorläufig wiederhergestellt, damit man sie überhaupt erst einmal einsehen (ging vorher nicht, weil "oversighted") und beurteilen kann. Mehr nicht. --Rosenzweig τ 11:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, wenn perverse Pornobilder und abnormale Sex-Videos (sog. "Sexual intercourse in...") einen ganz erheblichen erzieherischen und insbes. enzyklopädischen "Wert" für minderjährige Kinder haben (sollen) - warum dann aber nicht auch zeitgeschichtlich- und enzyklopädisch absolut seriöse und valide Dokumente ? - Wenn es tatsächlich keine mehrheitliche (demokratische) Willensbildung bei Wiki-Commons gibt, dann bin- resp. wäre ich hier - als Demokrat und passionierter Rechtsstaatler - tatsächlich fehl am Platze. Tschüss --Gordito1869 (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files of Category:Het_licht_der_bergen

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

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


Logos for Kosovo ethnic Serb municipalities

Please permanently undelete these files:

The deletion requests were:

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

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

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

@Verbcatcher: Are you able to provide evidence that the logos are really used in public space if the abovementioned DRs are reopened? Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: These "logos" were never adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/
The forementioned files should be removed as well (Leposavic, Zvecan, North Mitrovica, Zubin potok) .png .gif .svg AceDouble (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being official / adopted by any government is not required to host an image in Commons. Being actually used is enough. However, if the image is not official, we cannot apply any copyright exception related to government and official works and so we need an evidence that the image is too simple for copyright protection or a free license from the author. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Verbcatcher has no evidence for the use of these nonexisting symbols in public spaces whatsoever.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Here are Google Maps photos that show the symbols displayed in two of these places.
Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These Municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo full stop. By quoting unofficial links and trying to make them "legal" is not the proper way to enrich wikipedian articles.
Official sites:
AceDouble (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion and reopening the DRs as they may need wider discussion about their status. While they are not "official", the declaraion that they are "fictional" is a lie if they are actually in use. However, the {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} cannot be applied to unofficial emblems and so we need a valid copyright tag (probably a free licese declaration by their human authors). Ankry (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we are not trying to make these 'legal'. There are other symbols on Commons that are probably illegal in their recognised nation state, such as the flag of Islamic State. If these files should not be used in specific Wikipedia articles then please discuss in on their talk pages, or in a Wikiproject such as w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo. If it is reliably established that these symbols are illegal under the law of Kosovo then we could indicate this in the description on the file page, or a template could be created.Verbcatcher (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose They are not in use, per given source.
AceDouble (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hi. I declined a few deletion requests on the basis the rationale was not a valid reason for deletion, but I pointed out copyright status was a more sensible reason for deleting them (for example here), since I took a look on the template used there ({{PD-SerbiaGov}}) and I was not entirely convinced on its applicability. Strakhov (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that these files may have a risk of copyright violation because both {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} look invalid. The four deleted files should be undeleted (they might have a valid license), and a mass deletion request should be raised for all these files. There are various reasons by which they could be 'free': these could be old public domain symbols, possibly dating from the Yugoslav period. Alternatively, someone with local contacts might identify the authors or copyright holders, and establish free licenses. The municipal authorities might be able to issue valid licenses even if the Kosovo national government did not recognise these authorities. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that these don't have valid licenses neither they date back from the yugoslav period. And something i almost forgot.. The UN Habitat programme in Kosovo which has partnership with the municipalities of Kosovo, check out these symbols they have for Zvecan, Zubin potok and Leposavic on their site:
    • [[25]] Zvecan
    • [[26]] Zubin Potok
    • [[27]] Leposavic
    AceDouble (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx

  1. Template:PD-GermanGov — Dieses Werk gilt gemäß dem deutschen Urheberrecht als gemeinfrei, weil es Teil der Statute, Verordnung oder ein gesetzlicher Erlass (Amtliches Werk) ist, das durch eine deutsche Behörde bzw. durch ein deutsches Gericht veröffentlicht wurde.
  2. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  3. Die Vorschriften des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sind auf die vor dem Wirksamwerden des Beitritts geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden (Einigungsvertrag).
  • @Infrogmation, @Rosenzweig. If the image was created by a state act, and images of awards and ribbon bars for them are prescribed in legislative acts, then such images are not protected by copyright. The year of death of the artist-author of the award design has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. If the image of an award created by a legislative act of the Federal Republic of Germany is not protected by copyright, then, therefore, the image created by a legislative act of the GDR is not protected either. This is even written in Wikipedia. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So which official work of Germany do you think created this medal design? I mean, not just the decoration as such, but its specific design? --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order was established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 69). The statute of the order with a description of the images of the order and the ribbon bar for it was also established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 610). Do you not consider the Council of Ministers of the GDR to be an official institution? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The decoration is described in words there. This does not make the medal itself an official work in the legal sense, because the design is not part of this decree. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Laut Bundesgerichtshof müssen derartige Bekanntmachung „regelnden Inhalt“ aufweisen — Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany/de. «Der Bundesadler ist mangels Schöpfungshöhe gemeinfrei, Blücherorden als amtliches Werk, genauso wie Bundesverdienstkreuz und andere staatlich herausgegebene Medaillen oder Orden» (1). In a number of countries it is stipulated that images of awards are not protected by copyright, but in general this is a completely normal state of affairs - that independently taken photographs of state awards or images of ribbon bars made based on original images are not protected by copyright. Give me at least one law of at least one country in which images of state awards are protected by copyright. Unless it is expressly stated in the law, this does not mean that you can claim copyright protection for images of government awards. Can you see for yourself how many inclusions there are here and there? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the law of other countries and what is “normal” there, it's only about German law. Unless there are clearly defined exceptions, the regular rules of German copyright law apply: Works are created by authors and protected for 70 years post mortem auctoris. There is an exception for official works, but it is quite restrictive compared to some other countries. German copyright statute law (the Urheberrechtsgesetz) is often less clear than we wish it would be, and that is when (in some cases at least) the courts step in. In the past, we thought that German stamps were in the public domain as official works (until a court told us they're not), and we've also come to the conclusion that German coins are not official works (COM:CUR Germany), and in that context a court even ruled that the official works exception only applies to text, not images. It's a rather low court, one of several, so that is not universal, but it does show a tendency.
I'm curious about these rather random German quotes you're inserting. Do you understand their content (you're not listing German among the languages in your userbox)? For example, the one about "regelnden Inhalt" says that not just any Bekanntmachung is an official work in the legal sense, but that this category is restricted to those Bekanntmachungen with regulatory content only. How does that have anything to do with the question at hand? The quote about the Bundesverdienstkreuz etc. is not a law, court decision or similar, but the opinion of a contributor to the Urheberrechtsfragen, de.wp's version of COM:VPC. I don't agree with all of it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No further reply for more than two weeks, no convincing argument why the files would be in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 23:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MyHouse.wad title screen.png

File was freely licensed and in scope.

* Copyright / Permissions *

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

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

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

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

✓ Done: Seeing the article, this looks to be notable enough for Commons. --Yann (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stop the A68 Dalkeith Bypass.jpg

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

✓ Done: 2 files undeleted, as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of Bolzano/Bozen Victory Monument

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

 Support as in the other undeletions of Italian works commissioned by the Italian state or one of its subdivisions. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and previous requests of Italian government commissioned works. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:X Japan logo.svg

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

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

✓ Done: This looks quite simple. No opposition. --Yann (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mick-a-Matic front.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

I'm not sure. If the camera were from 1928 or so, it would be clear, but it is from 1971. And with just the head it is kind of hard to determine if it is a derivative of the earliest MM incarnation or of a later one. It doesn't look like either really. --Rosenzweig τ 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: The picture is free, Mickey is in the public domain. If anyone has an issue with this file, please create a new DR. --Yann (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishop of New Guinea.jpg

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

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

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

I was also hesitant on this since it is an undated painting, but the Flickr user is part of a GLAM, and it's possible that the University of Newcastle Library is the copyright holder. I also agree with you on scope. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is Bishop Philip Strong (see comparison photos here, here) and will be used on the Philip Strong page. It's not a painting, it's a colorised photographic slide. According to the University of Newcastle Library, the Library acquired the photo and has the authority to grant usage (see here); the Flickr page license makes clear it has been released into the public domain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On flickr, it's not released into the PD, it's merely tagged with a PD mark, i.e. "free of known restrictions under copyright law". Similarly, on the newcastle.edu.au website, the Library does not claim to hold a copyright or authority, it merely states its opinion that "the photos in this collection are in the public domain" [28], which may well be correct in Australia. The various items were collected by Williamson. Apparently, the creators of the items are unknown to the Library and the Library concludes that the items are old enough that their copyrights have expired in Australia by the effect of law. The item "Bishop of New Guinea" looks like it could be from circa the 1940s, based on the looks of the subject. (The Library says that the items are from "until the mid-1930s". According to the Wikipedia article, Strong was Bishop of New Guinea from 1936 to 1962.) Assuming a first publication in Australia and assuming that the identity of the creator is indeed lost and impossible to know, that would probably make it eligible for the Commons tag PD-Australia. Not sure what its U.S. status can be. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, he is dressed as a priest, not a bishop. If this is Strong -- it's not obvious to me that this is Strong -- then he was made a Bishop in 1936, so the image must have been taken before that. However, we have no knowledge of when it was first published. Before 2005, the Australian rule for anonymous works was 50 years after publication, so if it was published before 1946 if missed the URAA date and is PD in the USA. It is PD in Australia if published before 1974. However, without any evidence of publication before 1946, I don't see how we can keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old pictures were published shortly after they were taken. This seems to be from around 1930, so it is OK with {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australian photographs were 50 years from creation, not publication, before 2005. The colorization may have a different status, but it seems to be before whatever scratches or dust marks that are in this scan, so it would seem they were done at the time. This seems virtually certain to have been published at the time; copies had to get their way into the archive somehow, and it seems to be a publicity portrait. It's certainly in scope even if not identified now; identification can easily come later. Papua New Guinea law would be 50 years from making available to the public, I think. The dates of the collection are up to the mid 1930s so it would have had to be in the Australian collection since then, presumably published. I can't see any significant doubts that the copyright still existed in either country in 1996.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, without more evidence, it's not obvious if it is a photo of Strong. It might be a photo of any other priest, for example a circa 1900 photo of Gerald Sharp. Commons currently has at least 371 files from the same collection (Category:Archdeacon A.N. Williamson Collection) and their publication histories are probably undocumented also. But given that they're supposed to be from before 1940, they would be PD at least in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg

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

Aurich

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subbass1 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The uploader is not the author and there is no evidence of permission from the author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, permission was sent and there also was a unpleasant discussion. Deleting was an error as there was and is no reason to do so. pls talk tp the deleter. --Subbass1 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see in the deleted files, they were marked as "permission received" on December 8, 2023 and then deleted one month later on January 8, 2024 as "No ticket permission since 8 December 2023", suggesting that the permission was not accepted. Something might have been missing, or maybe there were unanswered questions still not answered after that month. I can only speculate, as I'm not a VRT member. Without an accepted VRT permission,  Oppose the undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the December 8 action by Krdbot makes it is clear that something was received at VRT, but Krd, who runs Krdbot and who is a VRT member, deleted the file for no permission on January 8, so it is clear that whatever was received was not a satisfactory free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the permission was sent fully complete and ok. The error lies on the OTRS member side. --Subbass1 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: You wrote that "there also was a unpleasant discussion." What does that refer to? If, as you are alleging, there was an error on the VRT side, COM:UNDEL is the wrong place for this discussion. You should take it to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. --Rosenzweig τ 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was there already and was pointed here. And could you please refrain from closing this topic over and over again, as it is in no way solved. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link: Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#ticket:2023120810006959. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: This topic was not closed. You removed the tag related to the next topic. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tending to support temporary undeletion in order to have a normal deletion request allowing an ordinary discussion of the FoP issue. From what I understand (n.b.: this is only from the little information publicly available and I could be missing something), the VRT ticket was about the photographs, it was the permission from the photographer. There does not seem to be a problem with the ticket, as shown by the photographs with the same ticket that are not deleted. Apparently, the deletion of the deleted files was unrelated to the ticket and it was about a different issue, a possible FoP thing about a part of the architecture of the building shown. Basically, Krd thinks that something is copyrighted and presents a FoP problem, and Subbass1 thinks that there is no FoP problem. They have not really explained their respective conclusions beyond stating them. IMO, that is the type of issue that is normally discussed and finds its solution in an ordinary deletion request. The protagonists can explain their respective views there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: Why didn't you write right away that you already inquired at the VRT notice board instead of just vaguely referring to an "unpleasant discussion"? If you had done that, the problem would have been apparent right away and all of us would have been spared the waste of time above. Your behavior is not helpful. And as Asclepias has already pointed out, this topic was not closed by anybody (if it had, the complete text would be on a blue background).
That being said, I have temporarily restored the files to aid this discussion. Per the article de:Lambertikirche (Aurich), this church is from 1835 and was altered in 1885, 1899, and 1960. The 1960 alterations seem to have been mainly restricted to removing one of the galleries, closing up two windows with bricks, moving the pulpit elsewhere and bringing back the original white paintwork. If that was all that was changed in 1960, and everything else goes back to the 19th century, there is most likely not a copyright problem with the interior architecture of this church. --Rosenzweig τ 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Lula's official photographs

All the photographs are available here, here, and here on Commons. Pinging Túrelio. They were simply reposted by an official Flickr account and are not exact duplicates. Quite worrying they were deleted without any warning. Hadn't I seen their logs on my watchlist, no one would ever noticed. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7:
  • Regarding the borderless ones: these images seem to have somewhat different editing from the CC-BY licensed ones. I don't know whether that could be creative enough to attract a copyright (either in the US or Brazil)--does anyone else?
  • Regarding the ones with borders: what is the educational use for them (as opposed to borderless images)?
—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of restoring the "com borda" files. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits are certainly de minimis. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
  • Regarding the images with borders, their educational use is quite obvious. Quite sad you even ask. Not only they were published by the official account of the President of Brazil (!!!), but they are also the versions that are used publicly (see the portrait on the wall here, for example). For the non-Brazilians here, the man there is our Vice-President.
Inviting DarwIn. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess so. I still don't think these photos with borders serve any purpose other than ... people downloading them and recreating them? How would you use them in a Wikimedia project? Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, images aren't on Commons to be used in a Wikimedia project. "People downloading" is more than sufficient, but even that isn't neccessary. You're an administrator and you're supposed to know that better than anyone. But you don't?!?! RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know! I just don't see the point of hosting these images with borders and without them, when there is absolutely nothing creative that adds up to them! For example, we have file:Fotografía oficial del Presidente Sebastián Piñera.jpg, which has an added border but it also contains their name and the coats of arms. I think such an image is acceptable to host. But these have nothing but the frame! Bedivere (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't see any free license at the stated source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward The portraits themselves are already under a free license, as mentioned above. The only difference is the border, but frankly I can't see any good reason to keep them here, unless they were in use (apparently not). Darwin Ahoy! 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EdaEce1990.png

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [29] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR does seem to conflate the author with the copyright owner, which are not necessarily the same person or entity. If the director was employed by Fox, then Fox is the copyright owner. Article 10 of Turkey's law even states that for a joint work, the owner is the one who brings the collaborators together, and Article 18 is their work-for-hire clause. I don't know much about that television program. If there was production company, they probably own the rights. If Fox was just the distributor and not the copyright owner, they could not license it. But if Fox was the production company as well and as such owns the rights, it would seem to be fine. The question is if the YouTube account is the copyright owner of the material (which may be different than the author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The video cited as the source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qG-9LDLj-4, returns "Video unavailable. This video is private." The uploader did not request and we did not do a {{License review}}, so we have no confirmation of the license status of the YouTube page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least as of November 2021, that link had that license, per the Internet archive, which I think was a year and a half after the upload. Interesting that it has been taken down now, though. That often happens when Youtube gets a copyright complaint which is not defended. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zoso.svg File:Zoso-square-layout.svgFile:Zoso Jimmy Page Saturn sigil.svg

These files were removed because of the "ZoSo" symbol, which was considered a protected logo, but wrongly because it is an old astrological symbol, seen for example in this book from 1847 [30].Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support based on that. I could not find any discussion where we had previously deemed the "Zoso" symbol a problem, as stated at Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Led Zeppelin's fourth album. We had kept them many years earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoso.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zoso.svg. Pinging @Moxy as the one who made that statement. This may also mean that File:LedZeppelin.png should be undeleted as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and Carl. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parth Siddhpura at an event in 2023.jpg

The deletion of the photo, attributed to the reason "Personal photo by non-contributors," is erroneous. I hereby submit an appeal for the reinstatement of said photo. --PARTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathaniya (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This was copied from fandom.com, and the copyright is owned by the photographer, not the subject. And what's the educational use of this picture? Yann (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: LTA nonsense. --Эlcobbola talk 18:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pola Gonciarz.jpg

To zdjęcie jest aktualnym zdjęciem Poli Gonciarz. Zgodnie z prawdą wypełniłam wszystko, co musiałam. Łącznie z wykonawcą zdjęcia i skąd te zdjęcie pochodzi.

Te zdjęcie nie powinno zostać usunięte, ponieważ dodałam je aby Pola Gonciarz miała aktualne zdjęcie w Wikipedii. Tak wygląda aktorka teraz i powinno te zdjęcie być na jej stronie w Wikipedii.

--Poludki (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate: "This photo is a current photo of Pola Gonciarz. I truthfully completed everything I had to do. Including who took the photo and where the photo comes from.
This photo should not be deleted because I added it so that Pola Gonciarz had an up-to-date photo on Wikipedia. This is what the actress looks like now and this photo should be on her Wikipedia page."
@Poludki: Is there a source that can verify that this particular photo is freely licensed by the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source of the photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/CR1np-gMelY/?igsh=MThpMnlkejRnZTRjZQ==
This is the official account of Pola Gonciarz on Instagram. Poludki (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But where does the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0 license come from? And are you quite sure that this is a selfie? And what was Konrad Szymczak's role in this? Thuresson (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Konrad Szymczak is the stylist who was responsible for Pola's outfit Poludki (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a selfie. When I added the photo to Wikipedia, I wrote who took the photo. Justyna Kozera is a photographer and she took this photo. Poludki (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And the license? Thuresson (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is permission from the author of the photo sufficient? I don't understand what exactly you expect. Poludki (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time adding a photo here and if I did something wrong or didn't do something, I want to know. Poludki (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poludki: As for any content previously published elsewhere or not authored by you, we need a formal written permission from Justyna Kozera for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuizPineda.jpg

From what I gather, this is an image of en:Leonardo Ruiz Pineda, who was killed in 1952. The picture has to be from before this date, and audiovisual works enter in Venezuela's public domain 60 years after its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Two problems. First, although the image must have been taken before he died, its first publication might have been after he died. In fact we have no evidence that it was published at all before its appearance here.
Second, if it was first published after 1945, it would have been PD only after the URAA date and therefore would be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Durga Puja, Singrauli M.P.jpg

I want the file to be undeleted as the creator of the artwork portrayed in the image is me so it doesn't violate the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhavyaTarun17 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from [31]. No permission. Yann (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photos by agence FRA Architectes / Loci Anima

Please undelete

We have permission per Ticket:2024032010011444.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Claude_Brosset_par_Jordan_Diow.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024032810011528. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:19 Aurangabad - औरंगाबाद - اورنگ آباد.png and 47 other

Dear Administrator,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the Lok Sabha Maharashtra constituencies map images that were previously deleted from Wikimedia Commons.

File(s) in Question:

Reasons for the Request:

The map images were created by me, and I hold the full and exclusive copyright to these works. The maps accurately depict the electoral boundaries of Lok Sabha constituencies in Maharashtra, providing valuable information to users. These images were intended to contribute to the understanding of political geography and electoral processes in Maharashtra. The maps were created in compliance with Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines, ensuring they meet the standards for free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I kindly request the restoration of these map images to Wikimedia Commons so that they can continue to serve as educational resources for users.

Thank you for considering my request. If you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, --Eaglespirit (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I checked only two of these, but I'd guess they are all the same. They have:

source={{Own}}
author=Eaglespirit
permission=
other versions=
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{t|self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

They were tagged and deleted for "no permission", but obviously own work with a CC-BY-SA has permission even though the permission line is blank. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying Timtrent (nominator) in case they have information about this. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for hire by Angiolo Mazzoni

Hello everyone. I'm requesting the undeletion of File:La Spezia - Palazzo delle Poste.jpg, File:Messina Centrale RFI Station Entrance.jpg, File:Palazzo delle Poste di Nuoro.jpg, File:Palazzo delle poste, pistoia.JPG, File:Palermo-Post-bjs.jpg, File:Poste Centrali Ferrara.JPG, File:Siena FS 1.JPG, File:Stazione Corridoio Trento Italia.jpg, File:07220008trentotrainstationstreetside.JPG, File:Stazione di reggio emilia.JPG, File:Gorica posta.JPG, File:Stazione Latina.jpg all deleted in this DR in 2013.

The photographed buildings are: it:Palazzo delle Poste (Nuoro) (1927), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Ferrara) (1930), Palazzo delle Poste di Gorizia (1930-1932), en:Latina railway station (1929-1932), it:Palazzo delle Poste (La Spezia) (1933), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Sabaudia) (1932-1934), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Palermo) (1934), en:Reggio Emilia railway station (1934-1935), en:Siena railway station (1935), it:Stazione di Trento (1932-1936), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Pistoia) (1937-1939), en:Messina Centrale railway station (rebuilt in 1939).

They are all general post offices and railway stations, designed by Angiolo Mazzoni in his role as engineer at the Ministry for Communications between 1924 and 1944 (see here for more informations, note that at that time both the Railways and the Post Service were part of the State administration under the direct control of the Ministry for Communications, before their transformation in private societies in the 1990s). They are therefore works for hire, the most recent building between them fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1960 and they are all buildings built before 1990 so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocky's Fight Against Apollo Creed - Rocky - Prime Video.webm

This file was deleted with reason "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Although this video was licensed under CC on YouTube, Prime Video is not the copyright owner for the Rocky film". This decision is seemingly an oversight due to the YouTube account being an official account of Amazon, and Amazon having procured MGM studios and rights to the Rocky franchise per [32]. Second guessing whether a studio/label owning a movie franchise really did intend to release something with a CC-BY license was dealt with in some depth at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy (outcome was 'Keep') and a decision to second guess Amazon for Rocky would be highly inconsistent with that past decision (and others like it). Note that this YouTube account in question only releases some, not all, videos with a CC-BY license, and the process of selecting a CC-BY license in YouTube's interface is opt-in. The YouTube account of Amazon was created in 2016 and the various CC-BY licensed videos have been published for over a year. --Dhx1 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=865180552"