Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Map of South Asia.svg

This file was deleted because "it is not correctly rendered by the software here". This is not a valid reason for deletion, or at least I don't find anything like that in the deletion policies. The file is in the scope of Commons because it contains vector map source for several bitmap maps used on Wikivoyage. We store all language versions in one svg file and later export png files in individual languages. This is made very explicit by mutual links between the png files (here and here) and the svg file (now deleted). The svg file must be restored because it is needed by the Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (обсуждение) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support — Without the contribution history of this SVG file, the derivative PNG files are potentially in violation of their CC-BY-SA licenses. In my opinion that is reason enough to undelete this file. —RP88 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the deleting Admin. None of this was made clear in the DR. I freely admit that I don't understand the technicalities here -- only that this image is essentially invisible to the ordinary Commons user -- it shows only a portion of Alaska and Canada and nothing anywhere near South Asia.
It seems to me a violation of fundamental WMF principles for us to be storing images used on the project in a format that is not generally accessible. Wikivoyage is by no means the only project of WMF that requires maps in multiple languages -- how do other projects handle this? As for the opening sentence above, we delete such files whenever we see them -- there's no policy on the subject because it is obvious -- for a file to be kept on Commons it must be "freely usable" -- "freely" goes not only to the license but also to its actual usability. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If the map shows Alaska, it may be useful as a map of Alaska, regardless of what the filename says. This is a simple argument beyond all technicalities and copyright issues already mentioned.
Wikivoyage (Wikitravel) is using multilingual svg - single-language png maps since 2003, which is, well, at least the same time period as locator and navigation maps developed on Wikipedia. I will not explain at length here why the mechanism used on Wikipedia is far from ideal for a travel guide, but, again, a simple argument is that hundreds of maps are created this way, and nobody will spend effort on changing them.
Finally, deletion of images is a very general issue that concerns all WMF projects. Therefore, deletion policies should be as clear and precise as possible, and they should be followed in a transparent manner. Something that is "obvious" for you is by far not obvious for me. --Alexander (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Alaska image which shows is not useful - it is only part of Alaska in solid blue and part of the Yukon in solid magenta with gray ocean at the edge of a map projection which distorts at the edges.
Your other arguments make sense though, particularly the "grandfathering" of this old system, but I still think we should not be storing images that are not visible here. I'll stay Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on the question and see what our colleagues think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:JeffreyVance2011.jpg

I have all the rights to this Image as I own it. I appreciate wikipedia for wanting to follow copywrite laws but in this case there is a mistake that was made. Please, communicate how you would like me to prove that this Image was indeed uploaded legally and within my rights. Thank you!

--Wool3linen (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the only mistake here is yours. At http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3029566720/nm1084708?ref_=nm_ov_ph%29 the image is shown as "Photo by Manoah Bowman - © 2011 Jeffrey Vance". Since you cannot be both Manoah Bowman and Jeffrey Vance, either the image is not "own work" as you claimed or you do not have the right to license it. Since the image has been posted previously on a copyrighted Web site, policy requires that the copyright owner send a free license to OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from a domain that is traceable to one or the other. GMail and similar anonymous e-mails will not be accepted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All pictures were declared as free2use

The first three pictures are based on scans, that's right. But all of this pictures are originally part of the Collection H. Grün with a handover to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence. Rodener Notkirche.jpg is a scan from a photo given from the Rodener Pathfinders to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence too. After rescanning the copies and photoshopping, to use this images into a book publication/postcard, i uploaded the pictures to the commons too. --Okami-san (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. In the image description, you claimed these photographs were taken by you. That is obviously not the case. They were taken recently enough so that they are probably still under copyright. It is,of course, possible that the photographer donated the images and the copyrights to the Rodena Verein, but that would require a written agreement, not merely giving a copy of the photos. In any case, in order to restore them, we will need evidence that they are free to use -- either a web source that shows them that way, or an e-mail from the copyright owner, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Fidel Leon Cadavid.jpg

el archivo Fidel Leon Cadavid no viola las normas no estoy robando derechos de autor por que especifique que era de otro creador

Jhonest001 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you said in the image description, you took the image from Facebook. Since you are not the photographer, you have no right to freely license the image here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg

This profile who requesting all my picture deleted is fake, and claiming fake deletation requests

Please check the proifle credibility before delteing my pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.77.183 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello six seven eight two seven seven one eight three. Since you're so concerned with credibility, you might want to sign into your account, so we know who we're talking to. Once you've done that, you might want to start addressing the reasons the file was deleted rather than attacking the people involved. For the record, Tokyogirl79 is not "fake" (whatever you mean by that in this context) and (with 45k edits across eight Wikimedia projects since 2006) has plenty of credibility.
A valid argument might have been that File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg could not have been copied from americanbazaaronline.com, because the file here on Commons was uploaded seven months before the American Bazaar story and had a resolution that was close to 32 times higher.
That said, it looks like the file in question was a crop of File:Bill Clinton and Deelip.jpg, of which you claim to be the author. However, it's clear that the real author of that photo is Beatrice Moritz, and presumably, you're not Beatrice Moritz.
And on that basis, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion. LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was deleted by Yann after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg. It was uploaded by User:Humanhorizon who is blocked indefinitely on WP:EN:

"Reason: Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia."
The image is all over the web and very unlikely "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Atlas.of.War.and.Tourism.jpeg

Dharmadhyaksha (who I notice is deleting a large number of files very quickly) deleted this as "Copyright violation". That's quite a surprise to me, because: (i) the image consists of a photograph plus very simple lettering, (ii) the photograph is by Rob Hornstra, (iii) borotov.com is indisputably the website of Rob Hornstra, (iv) somebody (presumably Hornstra) clearly announces on borotov.com/media/ that this image is among several "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license", (v) when uploading the file, I linked to borotov.com/media/. What is unsatisfactory about this file? And/or: What did I do wrongly? -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Everything you say appears to be correct. As a general rule, when you upload an image from a Web site that has a free license, you should ask an Admin or an image reviewer to verify the license and add a {{licensereview}} tag to show that the off-site license has been reviewed by a third party. This protects you and Commons in case the source site changes the license or takes the image down. This can be done easily at COM:ANB. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the "support", and also for the advice. The advice comes as a bit of a surprise, as I was fairly careful to read what I was told while uploading (via some "wizard"), and don't remember being told this. Anyway, I've now posted a message here within COM:ANB. - Hoary (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
PS Now fixed by Russavia, I think and hope. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed request per above. Alan (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Aloysius Pang Profile Picture.jpg

Request for undeletion.

For the above picture that I've uploaded, I'm the rightful image copyright ownner.

--Dasmond Koh (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you uploaded the image at 3744x5616px strongly suggests that you didn't just take it off the web, but since the image has appeared in many places, policy requires that the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jesuscariglinoreunion.jpg

Hello, well this picture wasn't just downloaded of the Internet, but given to me by the author, to extend an article I requested Mayor's office to provide me of photos, I have the contact details and info if an admin wants to know. Balthasar02 (talk)

File:GustavoFranciscoMonteiro2.jpg

About this file, I am the copyright owner, it's mine, it was taken originally in an interview in 2008, I am a reporter, I have taken many of the pictures of local politicians you can find on the Internet, the image was edited and used for different tasks since then, the white background is the first of these editions, thanks for your time. Balthasar02 (talk)

File:John Ausonius.jpg

I'd like a review of this deletion. Towpilot has been a long-term, communicative and established contributor. They're not particularly active anymore, apparently because of numerous deletion discussions from people doubting their authorship claims (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desmond Llewelyn 01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I Rossellini A Hopkins.jpg etc. and User talk:Towpilot). As stated on sv:Användare:Towpilot, Towpilot has worked as a professional photographer. While such claims are commonly false, I personally find Towpilot's claims credible.

In the deletion closure, Ellin Beltz stated that https://emajmagazine.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/racism-behind-attacks-on-immigrants-in-sweden/ predated the upload on Commons and was larger. However, the Commons upload was made in 2007, and the blog post was published in 2010 (hence the URL). Last time I checked, 2010 happened after 2007. The size of the file is also not much to go by, since https://emajmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/john_ausonius.jpg has obvious upscaling artefacts. The blog post somewhat vaguely attributes the photo to Nyheter24 – presumably it was grabbed from http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/inrikes/481380-lasermannen-blir-utan-besked, which claims that the photograph was created by Privat (which just means "private" – a lazy non-attribution typical of today's Swedish journalistic professionalism). LX (talk, contribs) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you are right, but for professional pictures which copies (even smaller) are available on the Internet, a permission would be best. I think a general ticket saying that he works(ed) as professional and that all images he uploads on Commons are his would fix any doubt, especially for old pictures scanned from argentic. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's already been suggested by User:LtPowers. Since that hasn't happened yet, I don't it will. Nor do I think it should be required for undeletion. An e-mail wouldn't really add anything in a situation like this. We're not dealing with an online source published before the Commons upload, and there is no online source attributing an author whose identity an e-mail could help confirm. LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)