共享资源:恢复请求

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

在此页面，用户可以请求恢复一个被删除的页面或文件（下文主要介绍文件）。用户可以在请求上评论附带上标记，例如保持删除或恢复，并附加相关原因。

此页面不是维基百科的一部分。此页面是关于维基共享资源的内容。维基共享资源是维基媒体基金会各个项目的公共媒体文件库。维基共享资源不收录百科全书条目。 如您要请求恢复中文维基百科中被删除的文章或其他内容，请前往该项目的存废复核请求页面。

请在提请恢复前阅读以下指导。

输入描述标题并按下按钮：

This is a dashboard widget.

共享资源删除 (方针)

• 常规删除 (候选)

(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed

• 快速删除 (候选)

162侵犯著作权 • 117重复 • 116其他

---

• 没有许可协议的媒体文件
• 没有来源的媒体文件
• 缺少许可的媒体文件
• 孤立的讨论页

---

• 删除日志
• 还原请求

---

文件被删除的原因

首先，检查删除日志并找出文件被删除的原因。 并且通过链入页面检查是否有链接到页面上的讨论。若您上传了该文件，则请查看您的讨论页是否有任何关于删除的消息。 然后，请再次阅读删除方针、项目范围方针和许可协议方针以了解图片是否适合共享资源。

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

申诉删除

基于目前删除方针、项目范围和授权协议而执行的无误删除不能撤销。但可在这几项方针的讨论页中讨论改进事宜。

如果您认为被删除的图片既不侵犯版权又不超出目前的项目范围：

• 建议您先与删除文件的管理员进行讨论。 您可以要求管理员提供详细的解释或显示证据以支持恢复文件。
• 如果您不希望直接与任何人联系，或者某个管理员拒绝恢复文件，或者希望有更多人参与讨论，则可以在此页面上请求恢复文件。
• 如果文件因无法证明获得了版权持有者的许可而被删除，请参照提交授权许可证明的程序。 如果您已经这样做了，那么没有必要在此处请求恢复文件。如果提交的授权许可文件符合规定，在处理授权时，文件将被恢复。请耐心等待，因为取决于当前的积压工作量和志愿者的数量，这可能需要几周的时间。
• 如果被删除的文件中的“描述”一栏缺乏部分信息，您可能会被询问一些问题。一般来说，您回复后志愿者会在24小时之后回复。

临时恢复

出于协助讨论恢复请求，或是允许其他用户转移图片至其他允许合理使用的项目的目的，文件可能被临时恢复。请在相关的恢复请求中使用{{Request temporary undeletion}}模板，并给出您的理由。

1. 如果临时恢复旨在协助讨论，请解释为什么临时恢复文件对恢复请求的讨论有帮助，或
2. 如果临时恢复旨在转移文件至一个允许合理使用的项目，请说明您打算将文件转移到哪个项目站点，并给出该项目的合理使用声明。

为了帮助讨论

如果用户在看不到文件的情况下很难决定是否应批准恢复请求，那么文件可以被临时恢复以帮助讨论。如果对文件的描述，或一段文件描述页面的引用已经足够，管理员可以提供这些信息并拒绝临时恢复请求。 某些情况下出于某些其他因素（例如，恢复可能引起问题的可辨识的人物照片，哪怕只是临时），即使临时恢复图片有助于讨论，管理员可能依旧会拒绝请求。除非删除讨论被关闭，出于协助讨论的目的恢复的文件将在至多30天后删除。

要允许合理使用内容转移到另一个项目

与中文维基百科和其他一些维基媒体项目不同，共享资源不接受合理使用的非自由内容。 如果被删除的文件符合另一个维基媒体项目的合理使用要求，用户可以请求临时恢复该文件，以便将其转移到那里。这类请求通常可以无需讨论而迅速得到处理。 出于转移的目的而临时恢复的文件将在两天后再次删除。在请求临时恢复文件时，请说明您计划将文件转移到哪个项目，并提供对应项目的合理使用声明。

允许合理使用的项目

* 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en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− Note: This list might be outdated.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.

添加申请

首先，确保您阅读了文件被删除的原因。其次请在添加申请前阅读下列指导：

• 请不要请求恢复一个未被删除的文件。
• 请不要向公布自己或他人电子邮件地址或电话号码。
• 在Subject:字段中，请输入适当的对象。如果仅申请恢复一个文件，建议使用[[:File:删除的文件.jpg]]格式。（请记住链接中应以半角冒号开头。）
• 鉴别你所申请的文件，可如上提供文件链接。若你不知道准确名称，则请尽可能多地提供该文件的信息。无法提供足够信息的恢复申请将会不经提示而被存档。
• 为恢复申请说明理由。
• 使用四个半角波浪号（~~~~）在申请中签名。如果您在共享资源上拥有账户，则请先登录。若您是原图片的上传者，这将有助于管理员找到这些图片。

请在页面底部加入申请点此进入您应添加申请的位置。同样你可以通过点当前日期下的击“编辑”链接提交申请。请监视您的申请一节以获得更新。

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

对管理员的指导

请使用常识思考。例如若图片因缺乏来源而被删除且其摄影师请求恢复图片，则无需讨论即可恢复。如果用户希望添加指定的许可证，你可为其代劳或让其自行完成，但是请一定移除页面中的所有快速删除模板。一般来说，请按照有良好意图的用户的提议处理。例如，可将文件恢复令用户可以看到被删除的文件而不关闭恢复请求。 执行删除的管理员可在共识达成或已有足够信息的情况下恢复图片。执行删除的管理员也可参加讨论，但不应当关闭正在进行的请求。 只要认可重要观点，或是提供更多信息时，删除的管理员可以恢复文件。删除的管理员也可以参与讨论。然而删除的管理员不应当将有争议的请求关闭为“未完成”。 当得到共识时，请以“未完成”或“已恢复”在请求底部标记并将{{Udelh}}置于请求标题之前，将{{Udelf}}置于请求最后以关闭请求。关闭的请求将会被自动存档。 恢复文件时，请在编辑摘要中注明讨论链接，例如“Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading”。 用于转移目的的临时恢复文件应当标注{{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}。这会将页面放置在删除候选的子分类临时恢复文件中，并在两天后自动提请快速删除。用于协助讨论目的的临时恢复文件应标记{{Temporarily undeleted}}，这些文件会在30天后被自动提请快速删除。

存档

关闭的请求会被每日存档存档。

当前的申请

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)

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

File:Suldaan_Samater_Sul_ibrahim.png

Suldaan Samatar suldan ibrahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeq rooble wacays (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor, out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done per Yann Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)