Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

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

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

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

Kérjük, olvasd el az útmutatót alább a visszaállítás kérése előtt.

Adj meg egy leíró címet és kattints a gombra:

This is a dashboard widget.

Törlés (Törlési irányelvek)

• Törlési kérések (Törlendő képek)

(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (Azonnali törlés)

Jogsértő • Duplikátum • 43 selfies • Egyéb azonnali törlések

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Törlési napló
• Visszaállítási kérések

---

Annak megállapítása, hogy miért törölték a fájlt

Először is nézd meg a törlési naplót, hogy miért törölték a fájlt. Ha a Commonson a képhez találsz egy piros linket, és arra kattintasz, akkor megnyílik egy szerkesztési ablak, de a baloldali navigációs menü Mi hivatkozik erre pontjából utánajárhatsz, hogy hol említették meg a fájlt (például egy törlési vitában). Másodsorban pedig olvasd el a Commons feltételeit, a licencfeltételeket és a törlési irányelveket.

Ha a törlésre adott indoklás nem érthető, vagy ha nem értesz vele egyet, akkor felveheted a kapcsolatot a képet törlő adminisztrátorral. Magyarázatot kérhetsz tőle vagy akár új bizonyítékot is benyújthatsz be a törlés indoka ellen. Felveheted továbbá a kapcsolatot egy másik adminisztrátorral is – a magyarul beszélő adminisztrátorok ebben a listában vannak. Ha a törlés hibás volt, akkor a fájlt visszaállítják.

Fellebbezés

Ha a törlés a jelenlegi Commons feltételek és licencfeltételek szerint indokolt volt, akkor az adott feltétel vitalapján emelhetsz panaszt a feltétel ellen.

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy a kép nem sértette a szerzői jogokat és a Commons feltételeinek is megfelel:

• Először a vitát lezáró adminnal lenne érdemes kapcsolatba lépni. Megkérheted, hogy a bővebben fejtse ki az indoklását, vagy hogy mutasson be bizonyítékokat.
• Ha nem szeretnél senkivel se közvetlenül kapcsolatba lépni, vagy ha egy adminisztrátor megtagadta a visszaállítást, esetleg több embert szeretnél bevonni a vitába, akkor a lentiek szerint ezen az oldalon kérvényezheted a visszaállítást.
• If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
• If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Átmeneti visszaállítás

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

A fair use elvet engedélyező projektek felhasználói kérvényezhetnek egy két napos átmeneti visszaállítást, hogy a letörölt fájlt átvihessék a saját projektjükbe. A szerkesztőnek meg kell mondania, hogy melyik projektbe szeretné a fájlt átvinni, és be kell linkelni az adott projekt fair use állásfoglalását. A magyar Wikipédia nem fogad be fair use fájlokat. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept 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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Új kérés beadása

Kattints ide, és megnyílik az az oldal, ahova a visszaállítási kérésedet írhatod be. Ugyanezt kézzel is megcsinálhatod, ha a mai dátum melletti "szerkesztés" hivatkozásra bököl. A kérésedet a lap aljára írd be, és ne feledkezz meg az alábbiakról:

• Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
• Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
• A Subject: mezőbe írj be egy megfelelő témát. Ha csak egyetlen egy fájl visszaállítását kéred, akkor melegen ajánlott az [[:Image:TöröltFájl.jpg]]. (Ne feledkezz meg az első kettőspontról, az hivatkozik a képre.)
• Sorold fel a fájlt vagy fájlokat amire a visszaállítási kérésed vonatkozik, és mindegyik képhez adj meg egy hivatkozást (lásd feljebb). Ha nem emlékszel a fájl nevére, akkor a lehető legtöbb mindent adj meg. Ha egy kérésből nem derül ki, hogy mit is kellene visszaállítani, akkor az a kérés nagyon hamar archiválásra kerülhet.
• Sorold fel indokaidat a visszaállításra.
• Írd alá a kérésedet négy hullámvonallal(~~~~). Ha a Commonsban van felhasználói fiókod, akkor jelentkezz be. Ha te töltötted fel a képet, akkor így az adminok sokkal hamarabb megtalálják.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

 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)

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)

@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)

@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)

Reopened per request. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

File:พลเอก อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:พลเอก อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Even though the website is protected by copyright, as mentioned in the source, the sole picture is mentioned as "CC BY-SA," which is allowed to be in the Commons. Wutkh (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There is "CC-BY-SA" on the image at https://kongsompong.or.th/news/, so the image should probably be restored. I note, however, that the uploader claimed "own work" which is plainly wrong and the source is not mentioned in the upload. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, this image has been deleted and re-uploaded several times. Sometimes it has been tagged with wrong copyright information. It could be great if it has been corrected. --Wutkh (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:黃晴雯 個人照.jpg

The original source of this photo is me, and it was provided by us for use on other websites. The previous complaint was unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sogo100111100 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://magazine.feg.com.tw/magazine/cn/magazine_detail.aspx?id=14842 with an explicit copyright notice and no free license. In order for it to be restored here the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Billy_Bragg_on_After_Dark.JPG

I have been editing sporadically since 2007. My user page gives details about the permission I have to upload certain images: User:AnOpenMedium

I followed the correct protocol at the time I uploaded the image, which was probably over ten years ago. It was stable until removed this year.

With apologies I am not clear as to the reason why this image was deleted. My understanding is that VRT stands for the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team but am unclear as to why their input is necessary in this case. I ask that the image be reverted or a more detailed explanation for deletion be given.

With thanks for your attention

AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support The image was deleted because there is nothing on the image file that indicates that you have permission to upload images from Open Media, so it appears to be a simple copyvio. However, as you note above, User:AnOpenMedium in fact shows such permission, so the image should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support per Jim. @Abzeronow, @Krd, since you were involved with the deletion I'm leaving it up to you. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't oppose restoration but some kind of permission template should be with the file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:سلطان القنيدي.jpg سلطان القنيدي

تحية طيبة

لقد قمت برفع صورة سلطان القنيدي الشخصية بهدف ان أرفعها في السيرة الذاتية الخاصة بسلطان القنيدي

ولكنها حذفت من قبلكم

نأمل إلغاء حذف وإعادتها — Preceding unsigned comment added by عبدالله العزب (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@عبدالله العزب: The image was deleted because it is a professional photograph found elsewhere on the internet and we have no proof that you own the copyright. Please see Commons:Licensing/ar to understand more about licensing and read what you may do. Machine translation follows:

(ترجمة آلية) تم حذف الصورة لأنها صورة فوتوغرافية احترافية موجودة في مكان آخر على الإنترنت وليس لدينا دليل على أنك تمتلك حقوق الطبع والنشر.

يرجى الاطلاع على Commons:Licensing/ar لفهم المزيد حول الترخيص وقراءة ما يمكنك فعله. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Bastique. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Images of the Venezia Santa Lucia train station

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

• File:VENEZIA fs.jpg
• File:Venezia Santa Lucia railway station.jpg
• File:Venezia Stazione di Venezia Santa Lucia 001.JPG
• File:Venezia Stazione di Venezia Santa Lucia 002.JPG
• File:VeneziaFS.jpg
• File:Venice Scene 78.jpg
• File:Venice station.jpg
• Image:Venice - Railway station.jpg

They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR, except for the last one, deleted in 2007 after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Venice - Railway station.jpg. All the images depict the en:Venezia Santa Lucia railway station. The contemporary station was designed in two steps: A first project was made in 1936 by en:Angiolo Mazzoni (who, as we have already seen in many previous DRs, was an employee of the Ministry for Communications, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) and Virgilio Vallot, who had won a public contest in 1934 (see here, here and here. The construction works though halted in 1943 because of the WWII. After the war the Ministry decided to modify the pre-war project and this task was given to it:Paolo Perilli, another employee of the Ministry for Communications (see here). The building was finally completed in 1952. As we have seen all the designers were either public employees or had won a public contest and received a public order, therefore the building fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1973. The station was built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support This would agree with the information at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Government_works Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Vinny Troia photo.jpg

File is public and should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinaCommonsEditor (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose File copied from the Internet. No evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:HoracioMarcal.jpg undelete

A fotografia HoracioMarcal.jpg foi disponibilizada pelo filho de Horácio Marçal (Nelson Marçal), que é o detentor dos direitos de autor.

André R.S. Marçal 24 Dezembro 2024

AndreRSMarcal (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright holder (probably the photographer) should send a permission via COM:VRT. Do not reupload the file. Yann (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Josef Gabčík, portrétová fotografie.jpg

It is anonymous photography from year 1941, so it is free image under the license {{PD-anon-70-EU}} --Gampe (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose It is PD in the EU since 2011, but since that is after the URAA date, it will have a USA copyright until 1/1/2037. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support Would appear to be {{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}}. If it was still under copyright in the country of origin in 1996, its U.S. copyright would have been restored and still valid, preventing upload. But presuming it was first published in Czechoslovakia (meaning it would be considered simultaneously published in Czechia and Slovakia today I think), the copyright law for anonymous works was 50 years from publication, which were not increased to 70 years in either Czechia or Slovakia until after the URAA date, and it had expired before 1996. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No evidence was presented that the original was published before 1946 in Czechoslovakia. Also no evidence presented that the author cannot be found. Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Sen Brian Campion 2023.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Sen Brian Campion 2023.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This is a headshot of VT State Senator Brian Campion, from his official listing on the VT Legislature Website. Knowing that state websites aren't necessarily open to use, I checked and received verbal confirmation from the VT Chief Marketing Officer that the image was open for use, contingent on approval from the subject (Brian Campion) himself, which was also given. Given that this image is from a state government website, this seemed to be the only limiting factor, which has been overcome. Jacisjoe99 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

We require such permission in writing so we'd need an authorized person to contact COM:VRT Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)