Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.


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)

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: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File: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. Watch your request's section for updates.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Coats of arms by Tomas.urban

In January, user Macucal (talk · contribs) nominated several coats of arms, all by Tomas.urban (talk · contribs), claiming copyright violation because they were "too small to be original." Administrator P199 (talk · contribs) rescued one file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Galis Tomáš CoA.jpg) noting that "too small to be original" is NOT valid deletion criteria and there was undue suspicion. He also tried to rescue File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg (closing as keep) but it was renominated for deletion by Macucal and deleted by another administrator. Another image of Tomas's was nominated by Ellin Beltz in 2014, linking to I believe a church website. That link is now broken and I can't see the file, but it is probably another original coat of arms.

These files were deleted with no proof of copyright violations. To the contrary, all evidence seems to indicate that these are original files created by Tomas.urban, who has been contributing to Commons since May 2007. All anyone had to do was look at this user's history. He has created hundreds of original coats of arms and flags over the past decade, several of which no doubt have found their way onto various websites, as many are fairly obscure and not available until he created them. Some of his files are small size, some are larger, some are jpg, some are svg etc but all have the same consistent style, which you would not have if he were uploading other people's work as he found it. You can see samples of his ecclesiastical coats of arms here on his user page on the Czech Wikipedia, and additional galleries here (municipal arms) and here here (municipal flags). Some of his works include a small "T.U." that someone thought was a copyright claim, but that matches his user name, which should have been a clue he created them. According to discussions on his talk page on Commons and on the Czech Wikipedia, he has fulfilled requests to create designs, made modifications people suggested and emailed higher-resolution files to people requesting them. For some reason, he did not respond to the deletion nominations, but he shouldn't have had to, as there was no valid reason for deletion. Please undelete these files. Wikimandia (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a difficult one, which is probably why it has been here for almost a month without comment. First, note that it is not up to us to prove that the image is not free. It is up to the uploader (or anyone who wants to have an image restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is free.

I have looked at a variety of this editor's work, both the images above and those that are still active -- see [1]. I cannot imagine drawing images as complex as this at this small size. It would be much easier to draw them much larger. That argues for their deletion. On the other hand, there is, as noted above, a consistent style that suggests that many of them were created by the same hand. That hand might or might not be our uploader. Given the ambiguity here, I think the Precautionary Principle requires that they not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with Jim that the small size creates a suspicion. @Tomas.urban: If these are your works, could you import the original files? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The uploader has some larger ones done more recently in a very similar style: File:Kapitula_Litoměřice.jpg, File:Biskup Kindermann Jan Ferdinand rev C2.jpg, and probably others. The uploader clearly has some vector source material they are working with, given those, and given the similarity in style with the earlier ones, I think I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. If they have been lifted from the net, we should be able to find a source. Long-term uploading of new works with the same style seems more the mark of an original author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Even those were clearly not drawn at the size uploaded here -- they have antialiasing artifacts from being scanned or considerably down-sized. I think this is just further evidence that these were taken from someplace else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't see that -- I see the artifacts due to converting to .jpg, but not much else. The ones that are in .png (a better format for this type of thing), like File:Biskup Vokál Jan rev C.png, don't show any of that. I will say there is a signature of sorts on the three I linked, at the bottom right of the shield, and many of his uploads have a similar mark tucked in in different places. Not all of them have it though. If we can find a site which uses that mark, that may be better evidence -- but if there is a trove of these images out there, we really should be able to find them. They feel like legitimate uploads, to me, in general. He has done plenty of direct SVG uploads as well, like File:Pardubice Region CoA CZ.svg. I don't see an SVG of that particular tassel graphic -- perhaps he wants to keep the vector source of that to himself. Some very old versions of that graphic, such as File:Biskup Esterka Petr CoA.jpg and File:Biskup Cikrle Vojtech CoA.jpg and several others, have a different signature on it -- can't quite make it out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Older images have a "TU" monogram. Newer images are symbol. I have all the pictures in SVG format, but because of abuse release the pictures in jpg or png. I declare that I created all the images myself. Tomas.Urban 05:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, thought that might be "TU" on the older ones. Support undeletion, more firmly now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Fastcom 12 login.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: (The images synthesized by Fastcom 12, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed (whole / fragments) - based on the Creative Commons license. TRustRust (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (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 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
WEB archive from 2014: images are synthesized by Fastcom, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed as a whole, or fragments: TRustRust (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks like a PD-author type of licence or at least a custom free licence. Copying, and distributing and the making of derivatives (which is included in distribution "in fragments") are covered by the archived statement. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Permission is on software manufacturer web site. I don't see a problem that it appeared later then files were uploaded. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This: (see the first sentence - an indication of Creative Commons by attribution 4.0). Do you need more? TRustRust (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

File:ATTILA - thumbnail US Half-Sheet 1958.jpg

The US release poster art work for "Attila" was copyrighted in 1958 by Attila Associates for use in the promotion, distribution, and exhibiting of the film through the expiration of all US distribution rights in March, 1968. No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by Attila Associates, Lux Films, or Ponti-Delaurentiis. Attila Associates owned all rights to their poster artwork, outright. US Promotional artwork did not become the property of the European film licensing firms (Lux Films/Canal-Plus) when the US distribution license expired in 1968. When they renewed US copyright for their film in 1986, there was no renewal of the first term copyright for the Attila Associates' artwork. At that time, per poster artwork created before 1977 with no rights reverting to original artist or others, the artwork would have fallen into the Public Domain. As such, the "Attila" US release poster artwork was free to be used for the 2013 DVD released of the film in Italy by Golem Video. Hence, all Attila Associates US poster artwork for "Attila" would appear to be in the Public Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This qualifies for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, the file was deleted because you uploaded it with a Creative Commons licence, which may have lead to confusion. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree with:

"No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by ..."

Just as a writer does not have to copyright every page of a book, a movie producer does not have to separately copyright every frame. The whole movie is copyrighted at once, including all of its frames. It's not obvious whether the three scenes on this poster are actual stills from the movie or are paintings from stills, but in the latter case they are derivative works and therefore just as much under copyright as they would be if they were actual stills.

Therefore, since the poster is a DW of a movie that is still under copyright, it is not PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If the poster was published first, then it wouldn't be a DW of the unpublished movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It may well have been created and published before the movie was released, but that does not change the fact that if the scenes are taken from the movie, either as actual frames or as paintings made from actual frames, then it is a DW of the movie. The only way it is not a DW is if the scenes on the poster were made up out of the artist's imagination. That would have to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No, if the poster was published first, then the movie would basically be a derivative work of the poster. If the movie was published (or registered) first, then yes that could change things. If the poster is still derivative of copyrighted characters, then it's still a problem. But if the copyright on the characters was created by the movie, then a previously-published poster cannot be derivative of them. Also, the poster would need to have an actual frame from the movie to be derivative. If it was a related drawing, or a photo taken on set but not a movie frame, it would not be derivative of the movie. (Derivative of characters, particularly for animated stuff, is certainly possible.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Carl, I think you are missing an important point. This is an Italian movie, so Italian copyright attached at the moment of creation, not at the moment of publication. The poster, however, is US, so copyright did not attach until publication. Furthermore, the movie was released in Italy in 1954 and in the USA in 1958 (see Attila (1954 film)). I doubt very much that the US poster was created four years before the US release.
So, as I said above, unless the scenes on the poster came out of the artists imagination -- if they are actual frames from the movie or paintings made from actual frames -- the poster is DW of the movie. The movie's US copyright was renewed in 1986, so, as a DW of a movie still under copyright in both the USA and Italy, we cannot keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, did not know it was Italian. However... Italian law has an explicit clause that clamps the copyright of film stills at the term of simple photographs (20 years from creation). {{PD-Italy}}. Gray area for the U.S., if they would use Italian law to determine copyright ownership of the poster, or if it would count as a derivative work under U.S. law regardless. But the movie would still be under copyright, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


There is no copyright violation here. I took the photo. It's my own work, and I grant permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick99nack (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See COM:DW. Yann (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
May be OK, as per Jim below. Yann (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is the entrance to The Great Movie Ride, a discontinued ride at Disney's Hollywood Studios. There are two issues here.
First. is this utilitarian? Is it architecture? If the first, it does not have a copyright. If the second, it is pre-1990 US architecture and, therefore, also not copyrighted. I am inclined to think that it is architecture and therefore OK.
Second, we have several other versions of the marquee. File:The Great Movie Ride indoor marquee.jpg, is a similar image which is in use and shows that marquee in a better way without as many people in the way.
Therefore, while I think this is OK, I think it is inferior to the other version and should not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg

All ESC 2007 pics in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin have been revieved by User:Adrignola in 2011. So it makes no sense to delete this one but keep the rest. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is probably the other way around. This was deleted because it was apparently license laundering. The others should also be reviewed for the same problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If You don't trust reviewer User:Adrignola , you may trust reviewer User:Lymantria in File:ESC 2007 - Sopho Khalvashi - Visionary Dream.jpg or its uploader User:Thuresson Mutter Erde (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The reasoning used to delete this image has been somewhat peculiar: license of crop differs from license at original, so both must be incorrect and thus license laundering. Only the original has been reviewed as licensed with the license as indicated in the "permission" section of the information-template. The crop indeed links to the same license as permission, but translates it incorrectly as {{PD-author}}. That may be the case, it is not really license laundering, as I have seen no start of evidence that the original website was laundering here. Lymantria (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the file have been reviewed by a trusted user, such publication under such license is irrevocable, even if the source is no longer available. I think the source was ok.
Exemple File:Alenka Gotar 2007 Eurovision.jpg was coming from the same web site and was also reviewed by User:Adrignola. The source did not work anymore, however I found this archive, and no prior publications. I think it is the same case for the deleted image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't like to cast things in terms of "trust" -- if we can't trust a colleague, then we should block him or her.

In this case, we must chose between Yann, who deleted the image or Adrignola and Lymantria. When Yann and I disagree, he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete, so I am more comfortable following him in this situation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete" → yes me too. The image have been published under free license, uploaded here, reviewed and I searched with Google for a publication prior to the date of the archive above with no catches. Is there another reason for Yann, or for you to think there is a copyright issue other than the fact that the source is not available anymore? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Although I understand that in an initial deletion is judged who is pleading for deletion or not, when something is brought forward to be reconsidered, I prefer that facts are considered. Lymantria (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely. However, in this case the source is no longer available, so those of us who did not see the source must rely on the judgement of others. I pinged Yann above -- I hope he can shed some light on this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Lymantria and (Jameslwoodward), it may be an english language issue from me, as I do not understand "I prefer that facts are considered", is not this archive a fact? it's not me who talked about Yann, it was Jim and I only answered. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I have a website screenshot from May 13, 2007, of how Indrek Galetin licensensed one of the 2007 ESC photos, one in a series of the Serbian winning entry, File:ESC 2007 Serbia - Marija Serifovic - Molitva.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is clear that Yann nominated this file for deletion because the user (who was new at the time) who uploaded a crop File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761 (crop).png put on the crop a "bogus" license. Sorry but if we delete all the images in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin, and if we question the entire system of "License Review" just because a newby made something wrong, I'm not sure I saw something more silly in Wikimedia Commons. Of course undelete it, unless the account on nagi is not trustable, I mean if there is at least a beginning of doubt... at least a single example of copyvio (prior to the publication in nagi), in that case, yes, the account may be not trustable and then, yes, a deletion is justifiable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think trust should play any role here. The license review is technically valid, as shown by the WayBack Machine. But I have some doubt about the license of these images: 1. They were deleted from the source, 2. They are all very small and without EXIF data. 3. And 2 copies of the same image (one cropped) were uploaded with different licenses. Ultimately, if there is a question of trust, it is about this website, not the reviewer or me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody needs a nonsense crop with a nonsense licence, uploaded some years after ESC 2007. We are talking here about the original File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg and/or all other images by Indrek Galentin.
@Jim: I have found a third trusted reviewer in File:Belaussia_2007_Eurovision_SC.jpg. It is User:Rubin16. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Example.jpgmy pics for dermatology educational purpose,it scientific

Mohammad mahmoud 13:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC) My pics for dermatology learning, with different positions for diagnosis and choice of the treatment,it been for educationally purpose,you shouldn't delete because many people benefit from,my price educational,scientific form,my prices current,more updates every day, interactive I think my pics it the most scientific educational form in wiki competition,I offer real learning for people and medical students — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masryy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The only file from that user's contributions that was deleted is File:Scleroderma new page.jpg, for being a copyright violation. There are otherwise a large number of current uploads. seb26 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Masryy for the remainder of his uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has an explicit copyright notice in a watermark. In order for it to be restored, an authorized official of Blackwell Science Ltd. must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Chaisson's figure.jpg

I believe I have obtained all necessary permissions for posting this figure in Wikipedia. I obtained written permission from the author and the journal in which it was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagersmith (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 December 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order for this to be restored to Commons, the author, Eric J. Chaisson, must send a free license directly to OTRS. Note also that "all necessary permissions for posting this figure in Wikipedia" is insufficient. Both WP:EN and Commons require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use, and not just in Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

File:leven and his girls.jpg

This picture was tagged with proper licence and has been in use in multiple sites on Wikipedia. Since when is "personal picture" a reason for deletion. If the title is 'sexist' - rename it.--Lamilli (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Here is a clear statement that user:Cele4 owns the webseite , where the photo is hosted too. --Itu (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortumately, statements of this kind made on-wiki are not clear at all. We get loads of imposters and fake accounts each day who claim to be an original author. What we need is either a COM:OTRS email, or Cele4 adding a free licence statement at the Tierlexikon website. De728631 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this request is obviously not about the current upload but about a different photograph that was previously hosted under the same name and was deleted back in 2011. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any issue about the identity of the uploader.

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the file which was here from 2005 to 2011 is restored, I suggest it be split from the current file.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sie können ja alle Bilder löschen. Ist mir soweit eigentlich egal. ist meine Webseite und alle hier in Wikipedia veröffentlichten Fotos habe ich selber gemacht. Wenn ihr sie gebrauchen möchten, ok, sonst könnt ihr sie löschen. Cele4 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Whois might prove, if it were working, who the owner of the web site actually is. That is not the issue. The question here is whether User:Cele4 is actually who he says he is. As De728631 says, we frequently get imposters who attempt to steal an identity in order to have images hosted here. That is why policy requires that when an image has appeared without a free license on the Web, the uploader must prove his identity. That can be done by (a) adding a note to that user:Cele4 is the owner of the site and has the right to freely license images that appear there, (b) changing the " © 2017" on the site to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0, or (c) sending a free license from an address at using OTRS. (a) and (b) can be acted upon immediately. (c) may take several months for the permission to be processed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The uploader identified himself in 2005 on the linked upload (and on their user page). He appears to be a long (LONG) time contributor on de-wiki. I can't see the file, but it sounds like the quality etc. is in line with the user's other uploads. This does not feel like someone uploading someone else's photographs, to me. Secondly, these files were uploaded before OTRS existed, and as such would also qualify for COM:GOF. I think assuming good faith on these is the most appropriate course of action. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think File:Gelbbrustara.jpg may be in the same boat. Agreed that this file should be renamed if it is restored though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


This is my pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeedkhanbozdar786 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, all three of your images have appeared on the Web without a free license, so policy requires that in ordeer to keep them, the actual photographer, not the subject (unless it is a selfie), must send a free license using OTRS.

Second, While we allow a limited number of personal images for the user pages of active contributors, "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. See COM:SCOPE.. Even if the photographer were to send a free license, they would not be restored unless and until you become an active contributor of images useful for educational purposes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Plano francés" - Revista Jarocha (1966) - L'Illustration (1914)

Please undelete this image: File:PLANO_FRANCES_-_Pasquel,_Rev_Jarocha,_Abr-1966,_p30_Prairie_en_amarillo,_Florida_y_Utah_en_rojo.jpg

It is my adaptation of the "plan" that is now in Wikisource Plano francés

The "plan" was originally published by "L'Illustration" in 1914. I used the copy that was published in 1966 by "Revista Jarocha".

I have both of these magazine issues. I took the five photos that are now in Wikisource and uploaded them, as I remember, to Wikimedia.

Thanks,--Wkboonec (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems reasonable.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


This is a photo of Rev. Dr. Nomikos Vaporis (deceased) taken at his place of employment, Hellenic College, which has provided the photo and the permission to publish it. I have a copy of the permission letter but see no place to upload it. I will copy it below. Please allow it to be published as part of the biography.

Thank you,


November 3, 2017

To Whom it may Concern,

Hellenic College Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (HCHC) grants permission to Dr. Constantine N. Vaporis to use/distribute/post the attached picture.

The referenced picture is a photograph of his father, Rev. Dr. Nomikos M. Vaporis. The original picture is the property of HCHC, resides here on our campus, and was taken during his time here.

Thank you.

Kosta E. Alexis Vice President, Institutional Advancement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvaporis (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
@Cvaporis: Please have them send it via OTRS. I think this was regarding File:Rev. Dr. Nomikos Michael Vaporis.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cvaporis please note that the fact that the college may own a paper copy of a photo says nothing about their owning the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer or his heirs. If the college sends a free license using OTRS as requested above, they must include proof that they actually own the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Pixel 2 Box & Phone Photo .jpg

This photo was taken in my studio with my equipment under my business. The screen saver is original work by me as well. Why is this being flagged?--Idallas (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Idallas: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as COM:DW unless you also designed the phone and packaging.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Idallas: I am the one who marked that image for speedy deletion because it's a photo primarily depicting the copyrighted product by Google. Please see Commons:Derivative works. Unless you have somehow gotten permission from Google to take pictures of their products, I'm afraid it'll have to stay deleted, whenever it was shot by a studio or not. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree with my two colleagues above. The phone itself is a utilitarian object and does not have a copyright in the USA. However, there are two photographs in the image -- the one on the phone and the one on the box. Both of them have copyrights and this is a DW of them. While it is possible that the photograph shown on the phone was taken by Idallas, the one on the box is obviously from Google. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ib logo copy.jpg

با سلام تصویر آپلود شده با لوگو شرکت که برای مناسبات اداری استفاده میشود متفاوت است لوگو مذکور جهت شبکه های اجتماعی و ویکی پدیا تهیه شده و از طرف طراح و شرکت تامین سرمایه نوین اجازه تکثیر دارد در ضمن حذف کل صفحه منطقی به نظر نمی آید با توجه به لینک های ارائه شده از منابع معتبر لطفا در بازیابی صفحه همکاری لازم را انجام دهید. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimishadi (talk • contribs) 06:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the image uploaded with the company logo that is used for office administration is different. The logo is for social networking and Wikipedia, and it is authorized by the designer and the company to provide new capital, while removing the whole page does not look logical. Pay attention to the links provided by the authoritative resources.
translator: Google
  • 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. Image has been reuploaded. Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


Este escudo pertenece a un club de balonmano desaparecido en 1995. Así que no tiene ningún derecho de autor. --Jompy (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This shield belongs to a handball club that disappeared in 1995. So it does not have any copyright.
translator: Google Translate

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fact that the club is no longer in existence does not mean that there is no copyright. It may be owned by the designer of the logo, one of the people or companies who participated in the closure of the club, or it may be an Orphan Copyright. We do not host copyrighted works, even if they are orphans. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Edwina Rogers - 2017.jpg

I have permission from Edwina Rogers to upload the file. She sent the necessary Creative Commons Attribution email to from her email address at the organization ( where the image appears online. Nathan Wailes (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 68 days before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.

  — Jeff G. ツ 07:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


We are the owners of this content and agree to use it in Wikipedia according to your policy .

Why are they being omitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayabel (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you help @Jeff G.: --Alaa :)..! 12:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


This is a photograph that I took myself and uploaded to wikipedia. Why was this image deleted? Now the article for "idle no more" has no images and is lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve348 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 December 2017 (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. @Steve348: Please read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idlenomore2012ottawa.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Palembang Administrative Map.png

I don't think this file has low or inconsistent resolution. The reason this file should been kept because this is the only map of Palembang that contains administration division. Bondguevara (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fact that it is "the only map of Palembang that contains administration division" is irrelevant if it is a copyright violation. Given your record, the fact that the map is small suggests that it is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:SirTheBaptist-8 (002).png

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017091210020247 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: Thuresson (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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


Please undelete this image: Mapa_Tampico_-_Muelle_Fiscal_a_Fuerte_Iturbide_-_1919.jpg

Also, this other one in the same situation: Mapa_-_Río_Pánuco_en_Tampico_-_1919.jpg

I realize that I was ignorant and careless and made many mistakes. I am doing my best to learn from those experiences and do this properly; thus, I got in touch with the publishers of the original map.

My message:

  • I wish to adapt a section of the map "Rí­os de Tabasco y Tampico 1919" from "A Handbook of Mexico, Great Britain. Naval Intelligence Division, 1919 " and use such adaptation in Wikipedia. Can I do that without infringing copyright? Please advise.

Their reply:

  • Yes, you can. We request that HathiTrust be attributed as the source of the digital images with the addition of "courtesy of HathiTrust" to the citation, and that links to the digital images be included where possible.

I may need your help in figuring out what edits I need to do.

Thanks, --Wkboonec (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license directly to OTRS. Note also that permission to use a work in Wikipedia is insufficient -- the license must allow use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. Please cancel my request to undelete. Thanks.--Wkboonec (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done due to request cancellation (withdrawal) by Wkboonec.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Germany, Music, Inc is authorized to represent this artist

File:Frasigan 2017.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germany,Music,Inc (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing deleted, nothing to be undeleted, move along, nothing to see here, these are not the droids you are looking for.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Averof WWII.jpg (present on Wikipedia, since 2007)

RE: 18:00, 9 December 2017 Ellin Beltz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Averof WWII.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Averof WWII.jpg) (global usage; delinker log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ellin Beltz and Associates

I am contacting you regarding your recent decision to side with fellow deletion-administrator, Johan Bos, and remove the above picture from the Wikipedia page, "Greek Cruiser Georgios Averof" and 10 other related sites, including the quasi-official Wikipedia page of the "Hellenic Navy".

You are repeating Johan's position that it can only be assumed that this image is a UK Royal Navy photo (1942) which is then subject to the provisions of expired UK statutory Crown Copyright. At what point does an assumption become reality? Especially as the statutory provisions of Crown Copyright and UK Royal Navy wartime mandates indicate that no one but HM's government might legally make a copyright claim to this image.

In 2013, the Hellenic Navy acknowledged the UK public domain status of this photo and colorized it for the sale of paper prints, at-or-from the Georgios Averof museum gift-and-book shop. As you probably know, the Hellenic Navy proudly preserves the Averof as a commissioned vessel in their fleet and a prized museum ship. Their photos carry the imprint -- "Colorized by the Hellenic Navy". While they reserved the right to the duplication of these colorized prints for sale, the Hellenic Navy allows for their media to be used to promote the history and heritage of the ship. A footnote regarding fair use of all images found on official Hellenic Navy websites is given at the bottom of Wikipedia's "Hellenic Navy" page. In any event, they make no copyright claim to the underlying B&W image, which they acknowledge as UK Public Domain per the UK Royal Navy's rights of origin.

The Averof was serving under the command of the UK Royal Navy and subject to all UK Crown Copyright and wartime photographic provisions at the time the picture was taken. There are four known images of the Averof in dazzle paint, apparently taken at the same location on two dates during WW2. Three of these are acknowledged UK Public Domain images that are available from the Hellenic Navy and the Hellenic Maritime Museum. The fourth is in the collection of the Australian War Memorial. It is catalogued as photo 305863 (look it up on their website) and is listed as Public Domain due to expired UK Crown-Copyright.

The AWM is an official UK Commonwealth agency. If they acknowledge that their dazzle-paint image carries the status of expired Crown Copyright, then I strongly feel that Wikipedia should acknowledge the deleted image of the Averof as holding the same. Such official recognitions of UK Crown Copyright Public Domain status by Greek and Commonwealth agencies, regarding this vessel's known dazzle paint photos, should be the determining factor acknowledged in your decision, not Johan Bos' determination not be overruled.

Thank you. Bbaldwin7 Bbaldwin7 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Bbaldwin7 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Bbaldwin7

@Bbaldwin7: @: Did the UK wartime statutes address copyright creation on Royal Navy bases in wartime? If so, how?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G. With regard to authorized photography on all British naval stations during WW2, the right to retain (or lift) Crown Copyright was held by HM Government as first claimant. Might I ask that you read the extensive prior discussion which addressed all variations of this point in response to the original deletion request. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Averof WWII.jpg - closure by Ellin Beltz was correct and they left a clear closure statement - Jcb (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb -- Johan Bos, there is additional information on this page which goes beyond your previous specific objections and my detailed rebuttals. I'd also like to ask why the original deletion-administrator was removed before making a judgement, as he felt the image should be "kept". I'd hope that this is a fair evaluation process, as you have exerted considerable pressure in wishing to see this 1942 WW2 image removed after a decade on Wikipedia. What possible owner or claimant are you seeking to protect? Who will yet come forward, 75 years after the picture was photographed, with any claim which is more valid than expired UK Crown Copyright?

Bbaldwin7 (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific reason to spell out my real name all the time? Also I have no clue what you are telling to say with e.g. "I'd also like to ask why the original deletion-administrator was removed before making a judgement, as he felt the image should be "kept".", this sentence is as incomprehensible as most of your lengthy comments in the DR. Jcb (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Without seeing the image or the source, I cannot have an opinion. -- (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ -- Here are links to the Hellenic Navy's colorized version of the photo (and) the original B&W photo from an official Greek websiteμε-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Hyderabad Bengali Film Festival.png

The file belongs to us and has no way violated the terms & policy of Wikimedia Commons. Please restore the file.

--Rahulbasu16 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Haze in Mosque, Pekanbaru.jpg

Request to undelete:

Reason for undeletion: has these pictures in their website, but it is very likely that they copied them from Wikipedia or from Commons. I don't know and how reliable it is, but I know people who took those photos and gave me permission to upload to Wikipedia, and they have nothing to do with and none of them are called "Paul Fearn" as claimed. The images were deleted very quickly after nomination (just 3 hours), giving me almost no time to respond. It was a couple of years ago and I don't remember all the details, but if you restore the files so that I can read the file history and the description I added when I uploaded them, I'll be able to corraborate my story. RedaolPku (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jcb and B dash who deleted these files (or proposed their deletion). RedaolPku (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned before, you have to provide the link from Facebook and the given permission from the authors. --B dash (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
They're in whatsapp and facebook messages from a couple of years ago. It will be hard to find them, but even if I do they're private conversations, I need to have their permission to share. Also, in File:Haze Pontianak Mosque 2015.jpg you said it's from, but I didn't see you provided any evidence? RedaolPku (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC) --B dash (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
B dash: Another evidence in my favor: your "Paul Fearn" guy who uploaded these pictures liked to copy from commons e.g. see [4] and [5] and [6] and [7], [8] and [9] on totally unrelated subjects, with very different quality and uploaded to Commons by a different user than me. How likely is it that this guy is active in the USA, Israel, and Singapore, Indonesia on vastly different topics, very widely different photo quality and got his pictures stolen by multiple Commons users? RedaolPku (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
In fact if you see Paul Fearn's uploads to [10], browse images at random, and search the file name in Commons, you'll find them all here uploaded by different users. Do you still believe his claims? RedaolPku (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)