Commons:Demandes de restauration

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 96% 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.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

Cette page a pour but de permettre aux utilisateurs de déposer une requête pour qu'une page ou un fichier (ci-après indifféremment désignés par le mot fichier) soit restauré. Les utilisateurs peuvent commenter les requêtes déposées en indiquant leur opinion ne pas restaurer ou restaurer, suivi de leurs arguments.

Cette page ne fait pas partie de Wikipédia. Cette page concerne le contenu de Wikimedia Commons, un recueil de fichiers multimédia librement utilisables par Wikipédia et d'autres projets Wikimédia. Wikimedia Commons ne contient pas d'articles encyclopédiques. Pour solliciter la restauration d'un article ou un autre contenu qui a été effacé de l'édition de Wikipédia en anglais, merci de voir la page deletion review sur ce site.

Suppression en Commons (guide)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
non libre • redondant • publicité • selfie • autres cas
v • d • m

Trouver les raisons de l'effacement d'un fichier

Consultez d'abord le journal des effacements et notez le nom de la personne ayant supprimé le fichier. Utilisez également Special:Whatlinkshere (depuis la page de l'image, cela fonctionne même si le fichier a été supprimé) pour voir s'il y a eu débat quelque part avant que la suppression ait eu lieu. Deuxièmement, merci de lire la politique de suppression, les objectifs du projet, et la politique de licences pour découvrir pourquoi le fichier n'est peut-être admissible sur Wikimedia Commons.

Si la raison avancée n'est pas claire ou si vous êtes en désaccord avec elle, vous pouvez contacter l'administrateur ayant effectué la suppression pour lui demander des explications ou lui fournir des preuves allant à l'encontre de la raison de la suppression. Vous pouvez aussi contacter n'importe quel administrateur actif (peut-être une personne parlant votre langue maternelle) — la plupart seront ravis de vous apporter leur aide, et si une erreur a été commise, de rectifier la situation.

Mode d'emploi

Les suppressions qui sont correctement basées sur les politiques en vigueur concernant la suppression, les objectifs du projet ou les licences ne seront pas remises en question. Les propositions de modification des politiques doivent être faites sur les pages de discussion de ces politiques.

Si vous pensez que le fichier en question ne violait pas de droits d'auteur ni ne se trouvait en contradiction avec les objectifs du projet :

  • Vous pouvez avoir envie de discuter avec l'administrateur qui a supprimé le fichier. Vous pouvez lui demander une explication détaillée ou lui apporter des preuves pour étayer la restauration du fichier.
  • Si vous ne désirez contacter personne directement, ou si un administrateur en particulier a décliné votre demande de restauration, ou si vous voulez donnez l'occasion à plus de personnes de participer à la discussion, vous pouvez demander la restauration du fichier sur cette page.
  • Si le fichier a été supprimé par manque de preuves de l’existence d'une permission de placement sous une licence par le détenteur des droits, merci de suivre la procédure pour apporter des preuves de l'existence d'une permission. Si vous avez déjà fait cela, il n'est pas nécessaire de demander une restauration ici. Si la permission indiquée est en ordre, le fichier sera restauré lorsque la permission sera traitée. Veuillez vous montrer patient, car cela peut prendre plusieurs semaines en fonction de la charge de travail du moment et du nombre de bénévoles disponibles.
  • Si certaines informations sont manquantes dans la description de l'image supprimée, il se peut qu'on vous pose des questions. Une réponse à ces questions est généralement attendue dans les 24 heures suivantes.

Restauration temporaire

Les fichiers peuvent être restaurés temporairement soit pour faciliter une discussion à propos d'une restauration de ce fichier, soit pour permettre le transfert vers un projet qui autorise l'usage loyal (fair use). Utilisez le modèle {{Request temporary undeletion}} sur le demande de restauration concernée et fournissez une explication.

  1. si la restauration temporaire est réalisée dans le but de faciliter un débat, expliquez en quoi elle pourrait être utile pour ce débat, ou
  2. si la restauration temporaire est destinée à permettre un transfert vers un projet acceptant l'usage légitime (fair use), précisez vers quel projet vous désirez transférer le fichier et proposez un lien vers la page du projet mentionnant sa politique en matière d'usage légitime.

Pour aider dans une discussion

Des fichiers peuvent être temporairement restaurés afin de donner des éléments lors d'un débat s'il apparaît difficile aux participants de décider si une demande de restauration doit être validée ou non tant qu'ils n'ont pas accès au fichier en question. Si une description ou une citation du fichier est suffisante, un administrateur peut les fournir au lieu d'accéder à la demande de restauration temporaire. Les demandes peuvent être rejetées si l'utilité pour la discussion est réduite par d'autres facteurs (comme la restauration, même temporaire, de fichiers où il existe des enjeux importants en matière de Commons:Photos de personnes identifiables). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour faciliter une discussion seront de nouveau supprimés après 30 jours, ou lorsque la demande est clôturée (en prenant le délai le plus court).

Pour permettre le transfert de contenu en fair use vers un autre projet

À l'inverse de Wikipédia en anglais et de quelques autres projets Wikimedia, Commons n'accepte pas d'héberger du contenu non libre dans le cadre de l'usage loyal (fair use). Si un fichier supprimé correspond aux critères pour un usage loyal (fait use) sur un autre projet Wikimedia, les utilisateurs peuvent demander sa restauration temporaire afin de le transférer vers cet autre projet. De telles requêtes peuvent en général être traitées rapidement (sans débat). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour être transférés seront supprimés après deux jours. Lors de la demande de restauration temporaire, veuillez préciser sur quel projet vous comptez transférer le fichier et fournir un lien vers la page du projet définissant les modalités de l'usage loyal (fair use) sur ce projet.

Liste des projets acceptant le fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Ajouter une demande

Assurez-vous en premier que vous avez essayé de trouver la raison pour laquelle le fichier a été supprimé. Ensuite, veuillez lire ces instructions sur la manière de rédiger la demande avant de l'ajouter :

  • Ne demandez pas la restauration d'un fichier qui n'a pas été supprimé.
  • Ne publiez pas votre adresse de courriel ou votre numéro de téléphone, ni ceux d'autres personnes.
  • dans le champ Subject:, saisissez un sujet approprié. Si vous demander la restauration d'un seul fichier, un titre comme [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] est conseillé (souvenez-vous du caractère deux-points initial dans le lien).
  • identifiez le ou les fichiers dont vous demandez la restauration et fournissez des liens vers les images (voir plus haut). Si vous ne connaissez pas le nom exact, fournissez autant d'informations que possible. Les demandes sans informations suffisantes sur ce qui doit être restauré peuvent être archivées sans préavis.
  • donnez le ou les motifs de la demande de restauration.
  • signez votre demande avec les quatre caractères tilde (~~~~). Si vous avez un compte sur Commons, connectez-vous d'abord. Si vous êtes la personne ayant téléversé le fichier en question, cela peut aider les administrateurs à l'identifier.

Ajoutez la demande à la fin de la page. Cliquez ici pour ouvrir la page à l'endroit où vous devriez ajouter votre demande. Sinon, vous pouvez cliquer sur le lien "modifier" situé à côté de la date, ci-dessous. Surveillez les mises à jour apportées à la section correspondant à votre demande.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Les débats clôturés concernant les restaurations sont archivés quotidiennement.

Requêtes en cours

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg
This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from
File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.
A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StudentLoansCompany.png

It's a logo for a UK government agency, so I don't think it should be a problem to use it.--Aŭstriano (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Logos aren't covered by OGL and logo is more recent than 1974 and appears to be above threshold of originality in the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Peso Ley Banknotes

Both files deleted in 2011 by this deletion request. ARL 1000 banknotes were released in 1973 (see: https://www.bcra.gob.ar/MediosPago/Emisiones_anteriores.asp#pesoL) and are now in PD and can be tagged with {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose They became PD in Argentina in 2023, long after the URAA date, so they will have a USA copyright until 1/1/2067. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As these files were uploaded in 2011, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can be added. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The duration of copyright in Argentina is 70 years PM, not 50 years after publication. Thuresson (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Not for "anonymous works belonging to an institution, corporation or legal entity, registered in Argentina" which is 50 years. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know" is not the same as "anonymous". Only a very qualified craftsman will be hired to engrave stamps and bank notes. There is no reason to believe that this master engraver is anonymous and I presume that it would easy to find the names of those who engraved stamps and bank notes of Argentina in the last 100 years. Thuresson (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is moot. Fifty or seventy doesn't matter because in either case the works became PD after the URAA date, so, as I said above, they have a USA copyright until 1/1/2067. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Χουρδάκης στη ΔΕΘ.jpg

i own the copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCh-321 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I can't find a copy of this one on the Internet, but seeing the user's history, a confirmation of the permission via COM:VRT is needed. @Didym : as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minha Criança Trans.png and File:Thamirys Nunes com bandeira Minha Criança Trans.jpg

Files deleted in a monocratic decision. The files were obviously free. I request that a deletion request be opened instead. Skyshifter (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that the user is clearly biased regarding these files, as he has opened a deletion request for Thamirys Nunes in pt.wiki and has been adding transphobic content to the Minha Criança Trans article. These files should've never been deleted monocratically by such user. Skyshifter (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeleting File:Minha Criança Trans.png only, considering that it was deleted by DarwIn, who is currently in conflict with the uploader on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. The logo in question is in the public domain as per PD-textlogo, or its unilateral deletion is, at the very least, controversial, which makes the opening of a deletion request necessary. File:Thamirys Nunes com bandeira Minha Criança Trans.jpg should not be undeleted though, as it features very prominently a copyrighted artwork. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't believe this is PD-textlogo, though it would be if the figure in a heart were cropped out. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil does have a high ToO so it could be PD in Brazil. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow No way that logo is PD in Brazil. Brazil has an high threshold indeed, but that's not the same as anything goes. Darwin Ahoy! 00:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to your expertise here regarding Brazilian copyright law. Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol Kobrzycki w 1927.jpg

Witam, zdjęcie pochodzi z mojego archiwum domowego ma ok. 100 lat, nie jest objęte żadnymi prawami autorskimi. Nie jest znany autor tego zdjęcia. Oczywiście zrobiłem kopię tego zdjęcia. Nie mam doświadczenia i nie jest moją intencją łamać jakiekolwiek prawa autorskie. Pozdrawiam.--Historiapomojemu (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support PD-Poland should apply. Yann (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JAZMIN YANELI VILLANUEVA MOO.jpg

A quien corresponda, Por medio de la presente hago constar que el archivo jpg esta en previa edición y todos los derechos de autor me corresponde. Sin embargo es mi primera vez editando, solicito de la manera mas amable y atenta no borrar el archivo porque si me gustaría conservarlo. Poco a poco le iré afinando los detalles. Por su atención, gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CindyVillanueva17 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from Facebook. Please upload the original picture with EXIF data, or send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centenary University Seal.jpg

This image is the seal of Centenary University. I created this file because Wikimedia Commons does not have the seal of this University in its database as do the colleges and universities. I believe the reason the file was deleted was because it perhaps lacked proper licensing. I mostly wanted to include this file on Centenary University's Wikipedia page because most other Wikipedia pages for colleges include their official seal. Clearly I did not include the proper licensing, etc. I am only an amateur editor interested in editing small pages that are important to me. Is there a way to have this file undeleted or reuploaded properly? Thanks! Leahcim098 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want is for it to be used in an article, you can upload it as a non-free file to English Wikipedia. For it to be hosted here it has to be public domain or given a free license by Centenary University. How old is this logo? Abzeronow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The seal has the date 1867 on it. If it was used before 1930 (as of Wednesday), it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

Hola, necesito que restablezcan estos archivos que fueron borrados arbitrariamente ya que según la legislación peruana, los himnos de ciudades o departamentos son de uso educativos, prácticos e enciclopédicos.

(Santyie17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santyie17 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Santyie17 : Where does the Creative Commons license come from? How old are these orchestral works? Thuresson (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No es por antiguedad estimado, no hay leyes peruanas de que los himnos tengan copyright, aquellos himnos a los Departamentos, Ciudades o Distritos son de dominio público y por lo tanto cualquiera lo puede subir a diferentes plataformas, es más ni el propio Himno Nacional del Perú tiene copyright, es de libre uso y cualquiera puede poner en un video, escuela o para fines académicos como este medio, gracias por leer este minúsculo fragmento de texto. Santyie17 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I see nothing in Peruvian law that suggests that anthems do not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Por eso, no existe legislación alguna que lo digan que tengan o no, es un vacío legal y tranquilamente se puede utilizar. Santyie17 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Myungjik.jpg

This file is transferred from Korean Wikipedia, and Samswlee uploaded his own work under free license. He is the owner of photo and also a descendant of the person in the photo. (talk)

Despite all of this, the person in the photo was born in 1865 and died in 1915, so {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-photo}} would be applied. Original link is now dead; archive available.--Namoroka (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

All images that have been uploaded are fully owned by the user Kevin P. Donaldson. This has happened several times that the image owned by the user have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealKevinDonaldson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1735469345867.jpg

There has been deletion for the image many times.There is no copyright for the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remjeud (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/fr&oldid=972453154"