From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:恢复请求)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 50% 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.

Outdated translations are marked like this.


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎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.

Commons deletion (policy)


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 您的讨论页是否有关于删除的任何消息。


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(兴许是 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。




  • 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.



  • Subject:栏中填入适当的标题。如果仅申请恢复一个文件,建议使用[[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]]格式。(注意方括号后的半角冒号。)
  • 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(~~~~)签名在申请中签名。如果你在Commons上拥有帐号,则请先登录。若你是原图片的上传者,这将有助于管理员找到这些图片。



关闭的请求会被每日存档 存档

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shahr Theatre

City Theater of Tehran is WFH and based on Intellectual property in Iran after 30 years it's free. There are many photos from this building here. MasoodHA (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support 70 pma definitely does not apply to Iran. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt we can go on here without explanation how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran, especially concerning architecture. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, while it is true that 70pma does not apply, it is still 50 pma in Iran (30 pma for deaths before 22 August 1980). Second, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis -- they almost always retain copyright in their work. There is no evidence that this building was work for hire. The architect, Ali Sardar Afkhami, was alive in 2004, so the building will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2055. Third, the building has been added to after its 1972 construction. That work may or may not be in the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@MasoodHA: Could you provide an evidence that this particular work is considered to be a work for hire in Iranian legal system? The Wikipedia article you pointed out is about US law, which is irrelevant here (PD in US because Iran is not a member of Berne convention). Ankry (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry:In this case Iran's copyright law is not clear. But this is a public building that was built under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. MasoodHA (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As previously discussed, the architect's copyright only lasts 30 years in Iran. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand that. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran is clear that architectural works have a copyright that lasts 50 years pma. The thirty year limit in Article 16 extends only to financial rights, and does not include all of the other author's rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be based on Article 16. Iranian "work for hire" for architects may not be the same as U.S. norms, especially when it comes to past regimes or items built for the state. Article 16 also isn't particularly clear on ownership of the copyright or ownership of a single physical work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Avicenna Mausoleum and Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower. I don't see any difference with this request. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of those were based on a misreading of Article 16 -- it does not say that work is PD after 30 years, but only that the author's financial rights terminate. Other rights remain in place for 50 pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I would equate "financial" rights with the economic right, and any other rights as moral rights. Iranian law says that only the financial rights are transferable, so those are the only rights you can sell. Also, the "intellectual rights" have no time limit in their law. It is only financial rights which are normally 50pma, in Article 12, but that term seems to be explicitly limited by Article 16 in those situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A theatre cannot be something different than a work for hire (it's not the architect's personal house). As Yann said: the 30 years after creation rule holds. --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • What logic is that? If you hire someone to create a creative work for you, it frequently can be cheaper to not mess with work for hire, if you don't need the copyright (and a building is a big case where you might not care.) In the US, a building can not be work for hire; there's a list of things that can be, and architecture is not one of them. Iran is hard, because we don't have many good Persian speakers and I don't think they cribbed their copyright law from someone else like many other nations did. But let's not jump to conclusions without knowledge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khayam mausoleum 01.JPG

WFH for 55 years ago (See also:Category:Omar Khayyam Mausoleum). MasoodHA (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per previous discussion. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Again. If an architect were to work for hire, he would be constrained from using details or features that he had included in any building in subsequent buildings. Therefore, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis in any country that I am aware of. No one has provided any evidence to show that Iran is different from the rest of the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Can theese cases be closed? Or maybe the above discussion should be moved to COM:VPC? It does not seem that any Iranian user is willing to help us to resolve these cases. So IMO, keeping them open here is pointless. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I have opened a thread on COM:VPC. Very few people speaking Farsi and having a knowledge of Iranian copyright law are active, but Mhhossein said he will look into it. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Yann: 30 years after creation rule hold here. --Ruthven (msg) 08:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Manila skyline day.jpg

Skyline images are not covered by FOP restrictions. Skyline images containing buildings still under copyright rather falls under de minimis, as they are all incidental. Lack of FOP is not a good reason to delete skyline images.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 08:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per TagaSanPedroAko. Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The test of de minimis is that the copyrighted content is dm if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted content were removed from the image. In cases where almost everything shown in the image is copyrighted, that is obviously not possible. While any one of these buildings is certainly dm, removing all of them would leave us with a white page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You may use censoring out the buildings to test the DM argument if they are such, and, I support undeletion under that argument (as what you pointed, removing X (the copyrighted buildings) would make the file useless). I agree the buildings form the elements of the skyline and are an unavoidable feature. This can be listed as another example of use of DM as an argument for undeletion. This can be undeleted, with addition of the {{de minimis}} tag after the image license. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I have no opinion here. Another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The buildings occupy approx 40% of the image, I think that is too much copyright content, if the photographer had included more water and sky - it might be a different answer - but the way it's cropped, highlights the buildings. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Davezelenka

Why was this and my other Christian artwork deleted? Strange. They have been used and accessed for free for years. This artwork is available copyright-free everywhere on the Internet. --Davezelenka (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This artwork is mine and should not have been deleted. It is available to users anywhere on the internet at no cost. --Davezelenka (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please undelete. This file is my own work and is available copyright-free everywhere. Thank you.--Davezelenka (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

When did it begin that artists can't upload their own work to Wikimedia? I have sent an email to Commons:OTRS. They say that there's a 23 day wait. How do I "prove" it's my own work? It's not available for sale anywhere on the Internet. I provide it under CC share or which ever one I set it to originally 10 years ago. So, all artwork must have ownership proved through Commons:OTRS before it can be posted on Wikimedia? --Davezelenka (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davezelenka: Yes, if it's been deleted via a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, On the Commons:OTRS page, they state: When contacting OTRS is unnecessary: "I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image/ file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted.

I created the painting myself. It hasn't been previously published, and I and the sole owner off its copyright. So, it seems that it is unnecessary for me to contact Commons:OTRS and that I'm wasting their time. This is the same for all three of the files listed above. Why do you doubt that I am the creator and owner of the copyright? --Davezelenka (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, according to the file description, at least one of the paintings has appeared at -- now a dead link. The first of them appears without a free license at Therefore, a free license from the creator using OTRS is required. More important, however, is the question of whether these works are within the scope of Commons. There is no WP article on Dave Zelenka and all of the Google hits appear to be self-promotion, not independent reviews or mentions. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Many people have reproduced the "Baptism of Christ" image, in print and on the Internet. If you Google Image search "Baptism of Christ," you'll find that numerous people have it posted on their websites. I have had numerous requests over the years and they always receive a "Yes, it's yours to use and reproduce." Besides this painting, I am not notable. However, this painting is widely used and has been reproduced over the years. I have made no money on it and want it continued to be available to anyone, which is why I am making a silly effort to keep it on Wikimedia. I don't market myself and try to keep a low profile. The only reason I have a personal website is to make a very small living. People post their photos on Wikimedia, what's the difference with a painting? It's a representation of something that happened long ago, an age without cameras. Here's just one more example of how it has been used over the years: It's been reprinted in a church in Ireland. Should I compile a list of the requests? Additionally, in regards to self-promotion: if self-promotion was my goal, why wouldn't I upload all my paintings to Wikimedia. I have many paintings that I have done over the years. I have only a few things uploaded within the Commons. Providing Baptism of Christ was about offering a freely available resource to others. I am also a United States Finalist in Wikimedia Science Competition (File:Earthquakes_in_Cascadia_Subduction_Zone.jpg). Should this artwork be deleted as well? I provide other items as well under CC ShareAlike. --Davezelenka (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The images were uploaded here by Davezelenka in 2007. I doubt you can point out an older version in the Internet. It is very likely that all external uses originate from Commons. However, we have still a COM:SCOPE problem here. Ankry (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I note that Ciell has restored two of these after receiving a license via OTRS. That takes care of the license issue, but the question of scope remains open. I see nothing on WP or Google that suggests that this artist is anywhere close to our standard requirement for notability, which usually includes works in galleries or museums and critical reviews in recognized publications. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the permission is indeed complete: sorry I didn't look at the DR. I restore the deletion template on the images, since I have no opinion on the Scope of these images. Ciell (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been restored. Thank you. Please do not remove it again. I think the scope issue has to do with certain people not believing that modern Christian art is of any educational value. So, let me get this straight, in order to upload artwork to Wikimedia, I have to be notable? If you wish to remove it, then you should also recommend that my other artwork be removed, such as: File:Earthquakes_in_Cascadia_Subduction_Zone.jpg. This file recently became a finalist in Wikimedia's 2017 Science Competition. Philosophical differences should not play a role in scope. There is a theological story being told in the Baptism of Christ. Learn from Agustin what the waters represent. Learn from the Aquinas what the Trinity means. Find out what the Plurality of persons means in regards to the manhood and Godhead we see depicted in the artwork. There is a theological story being told. It is educational even if you disagree with the story. --Davezelenka (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons, and the world at large, makes a clear distinction between art and scientific illustration. Your illustration is excellent and like the many photographs on Commons, serves a distinct educational purpose. On the other hand, Commons has a clear policy of not keeping personal art -- that is, art from persons who are not themselves notable as artists. That generally means that their work must have been exhibited in museums or galleries or that they have had critical reviews in independent publications. You clearly do not qualify. Let me emphasize that this policy has nothing to do with the content of your work. It is easy to call out "prejudice" when the value of your work is questioned, but Commons policy applies to all personal art, no matter what the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Baptism of Christ was provided to the Alamosa Christian Reformed Church for display in 2005 on "permanent loan." I certainly do not use the Commons as my personal gallery, if I did, it would have hundreds of pieces of art. The Commons has only received a few that I feel are important to be made freely available to the public. As a graphic designer, my work has been displayed in many locations over the years. By doing a brief search through the Commons, I see many, many pieces of art by non-notable artists. Are all of those on the list for deletion? If my goal was self-promotion, I would have tried to upload all my work long ago. You will need to explain how this work does not meet the "scope" of the Commons. If I am required to be notable, how do you define that? If you think this work is not educational, then you'll need to research the baptism of Christ and see if the elements in the painting are educational. The only reason I call "prejudice" is because I see no other reason why this work would be removed. Maybe I missing it, but I can't find where I am required to be notable to upload art nor how notable is defined. I have seven other mathematical designs that I've uploaded to the Commons (out of hundreds), should we remove those as well? In 2017, one of my related math/art films was accepted into 2017 Bridges Short Film Festival, but I'm still not notable. --Davezelenka (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Illustration of notable events fall within Commons scope, specially when no good photographs of those event exists. Illustration of historical, religious or fictional notable events aren't different from scientific diagrams.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That is generally correct. However, we have several hundred images by notable artists in Category:Baptism of Jesus Christ. There is no reason here to violate our policy of not keeping images by non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355 forgotten files

User:Materialscientist kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355, but a lot of files were deleted out of process and are hiding in the history of this page. Please restore the files listed at [1], [2], [3] & [4]. These files are not low quality and are not out of scope. Should be undeleted. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - these files were not deleted "out of the process". Till now, among the thousands of files only a handful have been identified as useful. Almost all the files are low quality and don't depict any notable thing. - Jcb (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support There was at least one used image, many high quality and many with no replacement among nominated by User:Mitte27. Eg. File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg this image is used, is high quality and I do not see many replacemnts for it as declared. The DR nominations by this user require at least careful review. @Jcb: I thing they were not carefully reviewed while closing the DRs. Ankry (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg = Category:Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol. —Mitte27 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mitte27: I do not see another photo of this ruined object there that could be used as a replacement. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A little off topic, but what does "Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol" mean? I'm pretty sure there's a better way to write that in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
ru:Самозахват земельных участков в Крыму. — Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb’s sysop doesn’t necessarily make all his actions “[due] process”, and his insistence to argue about this case—where he was clearly a party—shows partiality and wears off the community’s trust in any process to which Jcb is a party. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to state. Do you think I should not voice my opinion in this UDR, because I participated in the DR? Jcb (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I try to state that Jcb has authority to close a delreq, but shouldn’t wave it here, mistaking this authority alone for the [due] process. Jcb certainly has the right to voice opinion, like any other legitimate member, but it only has weight of an opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just like the opinion of everybody else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apparently you just want to be critical, without having a message? Jcb (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Русский: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, Зачем я пытался систематизировать, категоризировать, переименовывать файлы данного автора? Зачем просил администратора расставить ботом соответствующую категорию? Потратил кучу времени, как выясняется, впустую. У данного автора есть множество хороших фото, однако многие должны быть удалены как бесполезные. Если вы считаете, что подобное тут нужно, то ок. Даже упомянутый File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg, чем полезен викискладу непонятно.— Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some are very likely in scope, but it's true that a significant part have a bad quality. Now they are deleted it's hard to sort the bad ones and the good ones. Much, much, much, much too big DR. Although I was firstly thinking at an undeletion, I now wonder if it is not to much work for little gain. Indeed I think Mitte27 really tried to sort the images, I agree that some cases are questionable but almost have bad quality and should stay deleted. Now that the harm is done, maybe administrators who want to restore some files, should do it on their own initiative only for the files that deserve it.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Now that the harm is done, and because a significant part have a (very) bad quality. However I strongly Symbol support vote.svg Support individual undeletions for some files on the initiative of administrators who wants that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I must agree with Christian here. Do you suggest particular files to be restored, or can we close this as {{Not done}}? Ankry (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
We should ask too to @Jcb: Are you agree that me or other administrators undelete a few selected images at our initiative? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. These files were not deleted for copyright issues. If some of them are somehow useful, undeletion should not be a big deal. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

G Force One

Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentFile:Astronauts_disembark_G-Force_One_at_NASA_Ames.png was taken by my fiancée just following a parabolic microgravity flight at NASA Ames in Summer 2009. Several other photos from the same series are seen here. Matt Rutherford, our Media Producer, is seen kneeling in the background of this photo. Wiki User:bonnibellemv, aka Flickr bonnibella@Ames, herein credited as Commons Author: Bonnibelle Ventura [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , has been working in collaboration with several others in correspondence with OTRS over the last several weeks through @Majora: who has further detail and extended private information, to compile formal permissions to release several sets of photos drawn from travels and spaceflight training at NASA Ames, Johnson Space Center, and commercial astronaut training facilities around the country.

One of tickets


sent to OTRS contains file permissions for this photo in particular.

This is one of many files she forwarded licensing information on over the last month for release under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

For additional context please please see : Talk page.

Please Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Thank you! — Altman (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This request was declined earlier today: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-02#G_Force_One. If you sent a valid permission to OTRS, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion if they verify the permission. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Roger that. I'll double check with OTRS and @Majora: to confirm on this file in particular. Thanks, — Altman (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Let's wait for an OTRS agent request while processing theese tickets. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I must have missed that one. There were quite a few files listed in that ticket. My mistake. Ankry, could you undelete File:Astronauts disembark G-Force One at NASA Ames.png it is part of ticket:2018020410005487. Again. My mistake. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Done, for this one. Ankry (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! All set. --Majora (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Majora: and @Ankry: for getting it sorted. Now I've just got to get to my storage unit in Amsterdam and my backup hard drives to upload the original in full resolution. Soon! ... — Altmantalk 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Altman: I don't mean to rush you, but how long is that process likely to take?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Hahahahaha, longer than I'd like!—my Ducati shares the same space. It's just not right to keep it bottled up like that. A minor downside to otherwise exciting travel and adventures ... Thanks again — Altmantalk 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion request for a file on Wikipedia Ligure

A few days ago a file has been deleted from Wikipedia Ligure: File:Firefoxinzeneize.jpg

As you may know, Firefox is an open project. Mr. Alessio Gastaldi, an IT specialist, has worked for a couple of years on a Firefox project, namely translating Firefox into Genoese (called zeneize), so now the Genoese/Ligurian version is officially available worldwide and can be downloaded at any time free of charge. See for this purpose the link: (downloading under the name Ligurian). Mr. Alessio Gastaldi is known on our Wikipedia Ligure with the user name GASTAZ. He has finished working on his project last year. Results are published here: . Current updates are available on

As Mozilla allows advertising like using Firefox banners and linking to it, I hereby request undeletion for the file Firefoxinzeneize.jpg Luenséin (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question The add-on by Mr. Gastaldi as well as the original Mozilla Firefox seem to be licensed under MPL, but the main page of site does not seem to be free (or at least I cannot find such information). @Luenséin: can you point out where *exactly* this logo is used under MPL? If it is not a part of the add-on, it may be non-free. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Luenséin: See also COM:VPC#logos of free software?.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mozilla is clear that its logos are not freely licensed.
"Mozilla Public License 2.0
2.3. Limitations on Grant Scope:....
This License does not grant any rights in the trademarks, service marks, or logos of any Contributor (except as may be necessary to comply with the notice requirements in Section 3.4)".
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Current FF logo versions are CC-BY licensed; just trademark-based restrictions apply. This logo, however, is based on old version of FF logo. Ankry (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

TIMELY OBJECTION (to : @Ankry: @Jeff G.: and @Jameslwoodward: Mr. Alessio Gastaldi was undoubtedly authorized to work on and publish a Genoese version of Firefox as you can clearly see on the Firefox download page of all Firefox versions: (choose Ligurian). Mozilla/Firefox is an open source project as they maintain. He was undoubtedly authorized to use the Firefox logo on his web page in the past three years, and there you can also download his software as well as his add-ons complying to the Mozilla/Firefox policy. The Mozilla/Firefox policy is clearly stated on their FAQs at (and I quote): Can I put Firefox banners on my website? Can I link to you? Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. Our style guide has additional assets you may need: Firefox logo Firefox wordmarks Thunderbird logo Thunderbird wordmarks'.

Awaiting undeletion Luenséin (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, the Additional Guidelines at are quite clear that most modifications and many uses are not permitted. This is inconsistent with the CC-BY declaration, but we must respect it. Also, as I noted above, they clearly exempt logos from the free software license that applies to the software itself. This is not strange -- WMF does not freely license its logos either.
At, cited above, it clearly says:
"Can I make a t-shirt/desktop wallpaper/baseball cap with the logo on?
Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands (although see the question about high-res versions)."
That's an NC restriction, which we do not permit, and:
"Approval is not required for the following fair uses of the Mozilla marks:
1) screenshots of our software or our web site in magazine articles or reviews of our software
2) the inclusion of Mozilla browser windows in screenshots of other web sites for non-commercial uses such as web site reviews..." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
@Jameslwoodward: Just a correction addendum: "WMF does not freely license its logos either" Since a few years (3-4) ago, WMF does license all its copyrightable logos under CC-By-SA 3.0. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't provide a cite for that, but it is a technicality. WMF's trademark policy statement makes it clear that WMF logos are not freely licensed -- for example, you cannot make and sell tee shirts with any of the logos. While this relies more on trademark law than copyright, it has the same effect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Unrelated to this unreq, but here’s a cite for you ;) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ONE MORE OBJECTION (to : @Ankry: @Jeff G.: and @Jameslwoodward: I have read what you wrote above and it seems to me that there are some clear contradictions ("WMF does not freely license its logos either" and then "WMF does license all its copyrightable logos under CC-By-SA 3.0". So now I ask you all: what is your stance on all the firefox logos I see everywhere on Wikipedia, for example on Wikipedia Italia under Mozilla Firefox at ? Luenséin (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how the discussion and file you cite have any relevance to this UnDR. As for the more general question, I don't think we can keep any Firefox logos here -- they don't pass my simple test of whether the licensor allows you to make and sell tee shirts with the image on them. However the fact that there are other problematic images on Commons does not affect this decision. We have more than 40 million images here. Undoubtedly several hundred thousand of them should not be kept. We delete around two thousand images every day, but we have a long way to go and the backlog is growing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: selling tee shirts is more a problem of trademark (a kind of non-copyright protection), not copyright. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That raises an interesting question. Commons says that its images must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. Since trademark law precludes commercial use, it amounts to the same thing as an NC license. Why is it that we do not host images with an NC copyright license, but will host images with a trademark based restriction that amounts to exactly the same thing? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Luenséin: Current FF logos are declared on this page to be CC-BY 3.0/MPL 2.0 licensed (trademark restrictions apply, but this is irrelevant for us). The logo you wish to restore is based on older FF logo. You need to prove that the older FF logo is also freely licensed as well as modifications introduced by Alessio Gastaldi are. No clear evidence for those till now. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:TOM Exterior view 1 - PHO10793983 - copyright IOC.jpg

Good Morning,

At this point, I do not understand why the picture was deleted. It is not a picture take from the website Lausanne Musé reason why it was blocked.

I am actually working at The Olympic Museum and this picture was shot by our company photograph. The picture has been send to Lausanne Musé in purpose for them to make our promotion.

When I arrived on The Olympic Museum French page of Wikipedia, I have seen that it was an old picture on the right box. It was still the old museum before its renovation dating from 2014. I thought that it will be better to upload a new one from the company to assure a representative view of how the museum looks today.

I assure you that the pictures was taken by our company in purpose of promotion.

Lausanne, 16.02.2018 I assume, me, Flavien Dérupaz, having written this message to upload again the picture and assure that it is belonging our company.

Flavien Dérupaz Promotion Internship The Museum Olympic Quai d'Ouchy 1 1006 Lausanne, Suisse — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuséeOlympique (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@MuséeOlympique: Please send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg

The uploader only replied to enquiries at AN/U after these files had been deleted for their confusing exif. The uploader does seem to be the copyright holder after all of File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg and File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User_MarkVII88 - Takeaway (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Files deleted by Sreejithk2000

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Le fotografie risultano,essere di dominio pubblico e sono state prese dal sito ufficiale del Senato della Reupplica Italiana.Vi sono altre foto della stessa foto che sono onsiderate di dominio pubblico come per esempio:

This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92) Mark 75 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info To have them restored at least proper license template should be suggested. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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


Photograph was most probably made in the UK. So the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is applicable. Unknown photographer; photograph published at the time. To my best knowledge, this means: copyright has expired 70 years after publication. As Crapper died in 1910, this expiration took place somewhere in the last century. Vysotsky (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - There is no evidence that the photographer would have been unknown. The UK has a term of 70 years after the death of the photographer. 1910 is too recent to assume PD-old. Jcb (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Certainly before 1910. This photograph was most likely published in 1902 ("according to Getty the photo was in a brochure from 1902" -see link above), but the photo probably originates from an earlier date, if we look at Crapper's physique -1890s at the latest. Moreover: Crapper retired in 1904. I checked all large image databases in the UK (BL, Wellcome, etc.) and some US databases (LoC. Smithsonian etc.) -to no avail. So not even is there "no evidence that the photographer would have been unknown": the photographer is unknown and will most likely remain unknown. No copyright infringement. Vysotsky (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as {{Anonymous-EU}} Ankry (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as there is no indication that this would be anonymous work, this template will be invalid. anonymous is not the same as we can't find out with Google. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I know perfectly well that Google is not enough. Even better: one of the courses I have teached was called: "Why Google is not enough". I consult books and paper encyclopedias (too). Back to this case: I didn't find the name of the photographer of this photo in the books I consulted. That's why I looked in all relevant databases. This photograph is made by an (as yet) unknown photographer. Vysotsky (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Vysotsky. Please fill up the missing fields. --Yann (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:L'amour et la révolution.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license creative common 3 is present on the bottom right of the picture. DameFarnese (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support That's correct, both in the copy on Commons and also in the original at .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question what mean "creative common 3"? that can be a NC/ND license as well. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gisele Afeche.jpg


I sent the permission for this file, it is a personal photo, could you please undelete it?

I am sorry I reposted, as I have sent the permission I thought I could, I am new to Wiki.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giseleafeche (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Giseleafeche: If you have sent a permission through OTRS, it will be processed once the ticket is seen, keep in mind that OTRS as well as Commons is composed of volunteers and the answers may take some days or weeks. If the file is deleted, don't worry, it will be restored once the permission has been validated. Regards. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Giseleafeche: Not deleted. EXIF doesn't match uploader name.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission, or the file will be deleted. --Yann (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Casualties of 2017–18 Iranian protests - a map by VOAIran.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not understand why this simple graphical map got deleted. It was created by VOA, so it was in the public domain. It had a source, a license tag, and other necessary information. I see no consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casualties of 2017–18 Iranian protests - a map by VOAIran.jpg to remove the file. Please note that User:Yann had only converted the speedy deletion request to a normal DR. The original request had been made by User:Mhhoseein who was also the only person casting a delete vote. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think there is no reasonable doubt about VOA's authorship here. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Paraclete For You Ministries logo.jpg

This Ministry is operate by Sutlej Reformed Church of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Winners™.jpg

I am requesting undeletion of the image because the name of the program enjoys a copyright but the image itself does not. I created the image and the company that owns the copyright of the program name (Palladium), which the image is about, readily allows use of the image (in its entirety) as its use promotes good strategy management practices (which is in-line with the mission of Palladium).

To summarize, the name (Palladium Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame for Executing Strategy™) enjoys a copyright but the image does not. As such, the image is not a violation of Wikipedia's policies.


~David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpmcmillan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Neron singh.jpg

t is good to have an image of the respective personality whose article is been published as far as education is concern delete all celebrities pictures from Wikipedia since they are not educational also and i think outb of lacs of editors only Hian has some problem with my postings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source2205 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Photo has not been deleted. Any comments should go here, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neron singh.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo de Radio Campus Tours.png

undeleted —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB00:8304:AF00:9007:8C1A:FB7:23E8 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No valid reason explained here for restore this file. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 21:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

All files from

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amir Habibollah Sayyari.jpg

To be honest I have no idea why this image was kept when Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian Supreme Leader leading Eid al-Fitr prayer.jpg was deleted, but if Tasnim images with watermark are OK now I request undeletion of all of them. - Alexis Jazz 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, Is there more than one? Please make a list. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes, I'm sure there are more. However, I cannot search deleted file pages. I have found the 5 files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali Khamenei in his office.jpg but there are probably more that were speedy deleted. I don't know if insource:"" (maybe you first need to enable a deleted pages category, I don't know how it works) shows deleted pages for you, if it does that would be the list. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Why did you keep this image Dyolf77? If it is because of the Tasnim watermark, we just had this discussion on another DR. Images taglined or do not fall under the Tasnim licensing scheme. Only photos directly by their photographers are under that license. That is the entire reason Tasnim is under a license review type situation. To make sure those images that are taglined as such are marked for deletion. INC also reviewed a bunch of photos that had to be deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from Apparently his sock reviewed this one. As far as I can tell, does not have a Creative Commons license. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I was confused as well, but I had linked a DR that said the same thing and it was kept. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Anjali Nayar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I owned the copyright of this image and grant it creative commons usage. 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)