Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎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

Files uploaded by Fabriciofffs

These files were created and uploaded by Fabriciofffs (talk · contribs), who submitted them for an unspecified contest. When he repented, way past the 7 days grace, he started to falsify the licensing metadata of his own files, which eventually led to the deletion of some. Please restore all of his files with their original licensing terms.

Some shall also be marked with {{Published|small=yes|legal=no|url=|accessdate=3 May 2018}}

Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've found some more: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fernando de Noronha 1.jpg, …2.jpg, …3.jpg, …5.jpg, …6.jpg, …9.jpg, …10.jpg, and …11.jpg. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support . I agree with @Usien6:. Apparently the user did not read properly the rules of contest, not won the prize and now wants to delete the photos. But, our licenses are very clear: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.". EVinente (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usien6: Most, maybe all, of them contain copyright information that according to our rules should be explained via OTRS permission; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files_ uploaded by Fabriciofffs. Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose unless we get such a permission, which is unlikely. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: "BELO HORIZONTE" is actually a Brazilian city. The sixth largest one, in fact. There was, more than obviously, a technical mishandling of metadata. All of his uploads were created by a single person: himself. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I said the same about BELO HORIZONTE here, but Yann ignored me. @Usien6: please, link to Commons resources wherever possible. Wikipedia has too much publicity nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, there was some uncertainty, that's why I created a DR, and Jcb seems to agree, as he deleted the files. There were not many comments in the DR. More opinions would be useful. Now if there is a (near) consensus that this was a technical mishandling of metadata, as Usien6 suggests above, I am fine with restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I see you have administrator rights and should therefore be able to inspect deleted files. Would you mind checking if any of the aforementioned photos were taken by either a Canon/Canon PowerShot SX50 HS or a SONY/DSC-H55 ?? Thank you so much, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usien6: I checked 2 of them. There is no mention of a camera in EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you for your support !! I could not understand your last two sentences, though, as English is not my mother tongue … Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Mbazri

Please temporarily undelete all so I can take a look at them. I'm familiar with some of the complexities of Tasnim. At least File:Hadi Hajatmand & Ali Soleimani at the Eighth Ammar Film Festival.jpg appears to have been wrongly deleted. It's and any derivative work that may be seen on that image would obviously be DM, so now I want to look at everything that was nominated. - Alexis Jazz 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please ping me if this request is honored as I don't check this page on a regular basis. - Alexis Jazz 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would Symbol support vote.svg  Support a general undeletion of all these files. I checked a handfull random files from this DR and all of them had passed licence reviews that link to the original Tasnim pages with attribution including the allegedly "personal" images in the first section. This sweeping mass deletion was inappropriate imho. De728631 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - except for the first three files, it has not been questioned whether these pictures come from Tasmin. The point is, these pictures are depicting something that's copyrighted. E.g. there is no FoP in Iran and Tasnim is unlikely to be the architect of some depicted buildings. Please see COM:DW. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support to undelete several of them –if not all–, because a second check is needed. For instance the background in File:Reza Borji at the Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival.jpg and File:Amrollah Ahmadjoo at the Closing Ceremony of Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival 01.jpg is blurry and can be considered de minimis as the focus is on the singer. The undeletion would allow a more collegial verification, and we can then delete again the ones that cannot be kept, like File:Camp Speicher massacre Location after Fall of ISIS 10.jpg --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable to me. As to derivatives, these images should in fact be checked for de-minimis, simple logos, etc., so an undeletion with a more thorough inspection of individual images is a good idea. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I only asked for temporary undeletion, I just hadn't seen the DR back when it was open. (and knew considerably less about DM, FoP and other things at the time) I'm fine with it if a new DR is created to discuss the files, but right now I can't even see them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is really needed. Now a file that was extracted from one of the files in this DR got speedied: I just hit undo and I'm not even going to bother to start a DR: that file is fine and a DR is a waste of everybody's time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I'v e undeleted that file, blurring the logo in the background. Imho it was unecessary because the logo was alredy blurred, as it wasn't the focus of the photo. When I'll have more time, I'll dig a little more in the deleted versions, even if I would prefer to have a different sysop to review those files. --Ruthven (msg) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. If they could could just all be undeleted (and all re-nominated or the DR reopened) I can go on a blurring tour myself. (and mark files I think can be speedily deleted again) I'm not sure what is blocking that from happening. Tasnim images are quite frequently used to crop faces from, so any logos or artwork in the background tend to be irrelevant anyway. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Tahrir Square - February 10, 2011.png (deleted revisions)

What are our stance on a person releasing a low-res file under a free license on Commons, but high-res on Flickr? We have gone forth and back on that issue over a long-time on noticeboards and specific images in the past, and yet we don't have a written policy about it yet.

Creative Commons has stated the following on this issue:

“[I]f the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy.”

I believe we need a set precedence and written a policy about "low-res versions of files being free while claiming the high-res is a different work". But until then, we should side with Creative Commons, it is them that wrote the licenses in question. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should allow it -- the situation could differ by country. Creative Commons is just restating copyright law, in that in some countries it may not be legally possible to separate, copyright-wise, a low-res versus high-res photo. That aspect is not part of their license. In countries where that is possible, the license would only cover the low-res version and any use of the high-res version would be a copyright violation. I do think we should allow and respect that situation here, even if the U.S. is one of those countries where it may not be possible. (The difficulty comes in the nature of the copyrighted expression for a photograph -- quite often the subject itself is not copyrightable, so the copyright rests on the angle, framing, and other aspects which would exist in full in even the low-resolution photo, and that would be the expression the photographer would be licensing. But it's just as possible that a judge could find some aspect which exists more in only the high-res, and uphold the licensing based on that.)
The problem comes from the national definition of "work". For example, under Swedish copyright law, a photo is usually not a "work" so there are maybe situations where application of a Creative Commons licence can be unpredictable. I don't know how Egyptian law defines a "work". However, other than just looking at the national definition of a "work", I think that we also need to look at what the licensor has stated. In this case, the uploader licensed content by using Commons templates which use a mixture of "file" and "work":
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
If you talk about licensing a "file" rather than a "work", then maybe this has the effect that you unintentionally don't license the file under the real CC licence but under a modified licence which licenses "files" instead of "works". It gets more confusing when the templates mix the words "file" and "work". Technically, the legally binding wording is the one used when the user uploaded the file, but I have not checked if the wording in the templates has changed since the file was uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure the issue the definition of a "work" in that sense -- you are using the license for whatever rights you do have, be they a "work" per a country's law or a "simple photo" or whatever. As long as you have copyrights (or effectively the same thing) over a portion of material, which you can define, you can license that material, which is the "work" from the license's perspective. To my mind, the issue that Creative Commons is pointing out is that all the material that a photographer has rights over may be just as much present in the low-resolution version of a photo as a larger version -- thus that by licensing the lower-resolution file, there is no additional expression in the higher-resolution version they can protect with a more restrictive license. If it's an image of a painting, there likely would be more expression present in the higher-resolution photo than the low-res, and that expression would not be licensed, so a painter could use this approach most likely. But for a snapshot, that may well not be the case (though that has not been tested in a court of law). It is possible that by licensing a low-resolution photo, they have licensed the entirety of their own expression, so they can no longer prevent usage of a higher-resolution version. The question comes down to if a country's copyright law can identify protectable expression in a higher-resolution version that is not present in a lower-resolution version. If there is such expression, then that expression is not licensed by just the low-res version, and the practice is legally valid as the author can claim infringement of that additional expression. But if the law cannot find such expression, then all of the expression is licensed, and the author cannot prevent usage of the high-res version in accordance with the license.
While that is a distinct possibility, we have no court case guidance over something like that, and even if true in one country in may not be in another, so I would allow the practice -- if someone wants to use a higher-resolution version and risk the consequences, that is up to them, but I think we should not provide the higher-resolution versions here when that has not been explicitly licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Since this whole problem with higher resolution versions is untested and based on legal theory, I think that we should provide a warning template if we ever host a higher resolution version so that reusers are made aware of the problem. That said, per COM:PRP I'm not sure if we should host higher resolution versions in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with you there. I don't think we should even host them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Policy as recorded in COM:L is clear: Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version. This has been policy since 2014.

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

despite I was talking about this issue on this page and the file is clearly from the official dispatch youtube account (also it has a confirmed facebook account (with check symbol) ), the file is deleted, so I appeal it here. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I see CC-BY mentioned in the HTML source code of the page. The "show more" link doesn't work in Firefox (no additional information is displayed), but I don't see why that would matter given that the info is present in the source code. I note that the licence since has changed on the Youtube page. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
As background information see, User_talk:Puramyun31#File:“홍대거리가_마비”_..._유앤비,_성공적인_버스킹_-UNB_(디패짤).webm and File talk:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm, I deleted this file as I was not personally able to verify the previous copyright status, if others can, then I concede on the issue of the copyright of the actual video. I undeleted the file to review it and was happy to delete it again for other reasons. The video is of a music and song performance (see ) the sound has been removed (my bad for not originally noticing this), so it is less of a clearcut case of a violation of a performer's right then it would be otherwise. However it is now to all extents and purposes a mimed dance (note we have very few files of mime artists actually performing).--KTo288 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a mime art. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't originally, but the video is now of people dancing to music no one else can hear.--KTo288 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not intended as mime purpose (such as storytelling by actors), so with no sounds, and the moves substantially loss its meaning. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Dance is a performance.--15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
performer's copyright? — regards, Revi 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer reading actual legal stuff online makes my head hurt, but see en:Related_rights#Performers
  • If the uploaded copy is without sound, then there is no violation of any music copyright. Was the performance created by these people, or are they copying someone else's performance? There is also the question of the changed copyright tag: maybe the uploader realised that he wasn't allowed to license the performance or the music or some other part of it (because someone else holds the copyright to it) and therefore corrected the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Stefan2: In changing the license, Dispatch now makes the claim that everything in the video, from song to dance, is its own work and is not infringing on any other rights—this is specified when uploading a video onto YouTube—which is definitely not the case. Ultimately, it does not make a difference whether the Standard YouTube License or the Creative Commons License is utilized, at least in regards to the recorded content specifically, so asserting that Dispatch "corrected the copyright tag" is not an accurate claim; the claim is "this is entirely my work", and the claim will be wrong regardless of the license it chooses. xplicit 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    Please disregard my previous comment - it is difficult for me to decipher Korean text, so I misunderstood. The file talk page links to this, so I assume that this was the film uploaded. The video was created by Dispatch, a news website. The people perform a song called Kamgak by Korean music group UNB. Dispatch can license the contributions by Kim Su-in, the journalist credited for recording and editing the video at 3 minutes and 40 seconds into the video.
It is fine to extract screenshots from a film as the screenshot does not contain any parts of the song, and performances aren't protected in the form of single photographs. For example, File:180303 UNB 03.png has been extracted from a different Dispatch video which also contains unlicensed music, but since it's just a screenshot, the file should be fine. The problem with this file is that it is a video. Performances are protected as sound and video recordings, and I'd imagine that you infringe the performer right even if you only use the video track but not the sound track. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"en:Related_rights#Performers", According to this South Korean copyright law page (Article 64)(in english), it is defined in a separate manner to "copyright", so it seems to be Non-copyright restriction as Commons defines (Article 65: 이 장 각 조의 규정은 저작권에 영향을 미치는 것으로 해석되어서는 아니 된다. The provisions of each Article in this Chapter shall not be construed as affecting copyright. ), though it is mentioned in "coryright law" (South Korean copyright law also define "database rights (Article 91-98)" which is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons). The rights relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons ("author's economic right") only refers to something that is defined Article 16-22. (Author’s Moral Right (article 11-15) is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons) According to the COM:NCR page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." Puramyun31 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons has copyright tags for sound recordings (see Category:License tags for audio files) which are also neighbouring rights and therefore no different from performers' rights. If you are arguing that we should not honour neighbouring rights, then all copyright tags for sound recordings also need to be deleted, and some copyright tags for photographs need to go. The section about database rights on COM:NCR is obviously an error; the database right work in the same way as normal copyright in that you can't distribute a database without permission from the rights holder. The most common databases on Commons are probably maps - the database right prevents you from distributing other maps derived from the same map data. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sound recordings are irrevent for this discussion, since the flie did not include any sounds. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sound recordings are relevant in the discussion about neighbouring rights. If we are supposed to ignore all neighbouring rights, as you suggested, then we are supposed to ignore all protection of sound recordings and thus delete all. Obviously, we do not ignore copyright of sound recordings (since we have lots of copyright tags for those), so therefore we don't ignore copyright of performances either. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a precedent set for cases like this? From the looks of this discussion, the main argument for speedy deletion lays its foundation in COM:PCP, but that itself is not a speedy deletion criterion. In regards to the lack of miming videos, is that a result of previous deletion discussions, or is there simply a lack of contributed videos? Regardless, miming and dancing are quite difference scenarios here, so I'm not sure a sweeping generalization can be applied to these two separate art forms. At the very least, a full deletion discussion should take place to help determine what should be done for these type of media, as Puramyun31 has uploaded several videos like this. xplicit 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


Permission for free license has been granted by photographer , view page and email Free license for use on wikipedia provided by original photographer rex maina , email from the photographer confirms this (Cyclops25 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC))

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 95 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will 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. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. @Cyclops25: Did you tag the file {{subst:OP}} as instructed at OTRS and COM:CONSENT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cyclops25: Which of the many photos on was this, and which username there was used to upload it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
en:File:Upperhill.jpg / – Photographer: Rex Maina, poster: zacmwanzia — JJMC89(T·C) 01:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thank you, I have updated the ticket. The actual source is "All rights reserved". The post on skyscrapercity uses image address   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Bandeira da Guarda Pontevedra.svg

it is requested to cancel the deletion of this file, it is 100% legal, svg format is an official flag of the Concello da Guarda published in,6784 version of that design --Nemigo galiza 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) 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. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 95 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. @Nemigo: Who created this design, the original, and   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
not true, there was a previous design jpg that was deleted because it was downloaded from a website (Deputación de Pontevedra) the current design is svg created by me from scratch. It is a design based on a public description of the administration: Bandeira en campo de gules, cruz llana blanca, co escudo ó centro. Expediente de aprobación en trámite na Comisión de Heráldica. Non adaptada tampouco ó Decreto 258/1992, do 10 de setembro, e ó Decreto 369/1998 --Nemigo galiza 12:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support The upload at Commons is different from the one shown at the webpage, and in heraldry it is legit to draw one's own rendition from the public domain blazon of a coat of arms. In this case even the bannerpole is drawn differently, so although the designs are similar there is no copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:My father and me.jpg - wrong file deleted?

[Moving discussion here, as Jameslwoodward is on a break. Two files have been using the same (too generic) file name. It seems one was mistakenly deleted (the other was moved and is discussed), but the admin thinks it was a copyvio, although the evidence was deemed sufficient in a DR. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)]

I am confused about the history of File:My father and me.jpg. I wonder if it was deleted by accident. For me as non-admin it seems the file discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandoji.Dawood khan was moved to a new name 22 December 2017 at 19:59 (and now requested for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Memories of my life - being my personal, professional, and social recollections as woman and artist (1907)) while the one you deleted seems to be the one discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sandlapper1709, where it was decided to be kept.

I have not been following my watchlist lately, so did not get any notice at the time of deletion. It is very frustrating to try to reconstruct what has happened without access to the history of deleted file. It is also very frustrating to notice a file I probably found worth keeping having been deleted as "personal files", with little possibility to see what file this is about.

I think those who argued for not deleting a file should be notified when it is nominated for deletion a second time, or about to be deleted without a new nomination.

(Please ping me, as I do not follow my Commons watchlist regularly for the time being.)

--LPfi (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The file is both an unused personal file and a probable copyvio, as the uploader is the subject of the image and there is no evidence of a license from the photographer. The file description says that the author was the uploader's father, but since the father is also in the image, that is unlikely. Even if the father is the author (self-timer?), we still require a license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The uploader states (in a diff linked from the short DR) "All three photos are in my possession, were photographed by my late father, and any identifiable people in one photo are [...] me as an infant and my late father, taken with a timer beside the family garage." Why does it "seem unlikely" that the author was the father as stated? We usually believe uploaders, why would we need an OTRS in this case? For the "personal file" thing, that needs a DR, and the file already survived one. These are historical photos, which are not easily replaced. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The question to answer here is why are they relevant historical photos. Are they educational useful? Ruthven (msg) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
That is hard to discuss while the photo is deleted. It survived a DR and was later deleted without notice. If it is to be deleted as not in scope we need a new DR (with a pointer to the category with better similar photos).
As to the relevance, I think we need samples of "personal photos" as historic documents on that genre, and on everyday situations and milieus of the time. We do not need any and all personal photos people are uploading, but I suppose we do not have an abundance of personal photos from the 1950s, so we should be careful to check that any such photo we delete is such that we have better ones (in quality and documentation) of the specific type. This applies partly also for modern photos, but for those replacements will usually appear, and with modern ones flooding the site can be a real problem.
--LPfi (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
To aid the discussion about the usefulness of this particular image I have temporarily undeleted the file pending the outcome of this undeletion request. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Please re-evaluate. Look on the web page that was provided as a source. The photographer CLEARLY states he releases any rights to the images he has taken.

URL of the image itself:

URL of photographer stating he has released rights: —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically the person did not state that one gives permission to modify and/or sell the image, only to use it. I would guess that if somebody were to politely ask, this individual may chose a free licence or release the image into the public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Neenyo in The Fader.jpg


Thanks in advance for your support, sorry for uploading the photo the first time in a way that violate copyright. Already i received this photo from Sean Seaton him self, He confirmed too that he sent an email to that i can use his photo here in Wikipedia and received auto reply mail with ticket Num 2018061410009475

Noona Noona (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayunami2000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I created this image with Minecraft Pocket Edition on my iPod 5S. I went to options, turned off the UI, and took multiple screenshots. I settled on this one which you see here. (Actually, I am not sure what this image is, so the above description may be inaccurate. I would have to at least see what the image even was to give you an accurate reason)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayunami2000 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:大黑松小倆口元首館 Salico Foods King Garden - panoramio (2).jpg

Deleted Per "No FoP in Taiwan". COM:FOP modified, we acknowledge that FoP exists in Taiwan.--WQL (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Decline: Not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was just trying to request for undeletion for some Taiwan FoP cases Orz. --WQL (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Restore my photos

I was told that I needed to the license on my Flickr account to Creative Commons Attribution in order to use my photos which I uploaded. I have done that and was instructed to then request undeletion into to restore my photos.

--Redmen007 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Redmen007: What is the name of your Flickr account, and which photos in particular would you like to have undeleted? Please provide weblinks to the images at Flickr and the filenames at Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Naprzelaj mkowalski.jpg

Zeskanowany material z prasy w 1979 r. Jest to jedyne źródło historyczne w sposób prawdziwy podające fakty z początków zespolu Kryzys. Proszę uprzejmie o odkasowanie. Stefan Mikulski 510021397 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:F41:18CF:E846:80E7:7DAA:72FF:C6B1 (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

File:NASA - poster 2 -

File:File:NASA - poster 2 - (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

NASA image kept; deleter Daphne Lantier blocked as sockpuppet. Reason for deletion was Mass deletion of copyrighted or other inappropriate content - Using VisualFileChange.--Auric (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment This is a bad quality picture of a wall poster. Can't we have better than that? Yann (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Spanberger Head Shot.jpg

I have permission from the copyright holder (Spanberger's campaign) to release this photograph into the public domain. Happy to supplement with proof, if someone tells me what would be necessary.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Too Many Food Service Professionals (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Too Many Food Service Professionals: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission to COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Undelete photo File:TheIndependent.jpg

I am the former publisher and owner of the San Francisco Independent. I own the copyrights to this newspaper. I am releasing the photo for use. TeddyFang (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)TeddyFang

Hi TeddyFang,
Please send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Prominently displays a photo by professional Dubai based photographer Pia Torelli. Thuresson (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Joseph Bolz (Blue).jpg, File:Joseph Bolz & Fabian Siegesmund.jpg, File:Joseph Bolz im Zug.jpg, File:Joseph Bolz am Set.jpg

Hello. I uploaded this files. I work together with the creator of these pictures. Due to time problems, the creator could not verify the images in time for the first upload. The second time the creator sent an email to "" one day after my upload.

  • File:Joseph Bolz (Blue).jpg
  • File:Joseph Bolz & Fabian Siegesmund.jpg
  • File:Joseph Bolz im Zug.jpg
  • File:Joseph Bolz am Set.jpg

Could you please reinstate the files?--TYSK- (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 95 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will 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. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:L&T class boat.JPG

Requesting undeletion as the image can be used under {{GODL-India}}. Original source: Indian Coast GuardGazoth (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Aly Ryan PR Photo 2018.jpg


The photo File:Aly Ryan PR Photo 2018.jpg was mistakenly flagged for copyright violation do to a twitter post by the artist. If you notice in the tweet the photographer, Outherevisuals, is credited in the post. The post was a joke because the photographer is a friend of the artist and did the photo shoot for free. The photographers Instagram you will see other photos of the artist.

Here is a link to the photo release that is signed by the photographer and the artist.

Please let me know how we can move forward with the photo

Thank you,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweston007 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Іванишин Володимир Васильович 2.jpg

Hello. Why deleted my file File:Іванишин Володимир Васильович 2.jpg? I added license and this is my own file. What do I need to do yet?

Best regards, PogrebnyakSergiy. --PogrebnyakSergiy (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Was the file published elsewhere? --Ruthven (msg) 13:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I unfortunately have no access to deleted files. Perhaps have you already perform a Google search ? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@PogrebnyakSergiy: The image you uploaded was quite small and had no camera metadata. If you were the photographer, do you have a version with full metadata? If not, please confirm your authorship by following the instructions on OTRS. Note that the copyright holder of a photograph is almost always the photographer, and that owning a copy of a photo does not permit you to license it to us, even if you have "publicity rights" or similar. Storkk (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
As a side note, I've to add that Google Images didn't show any similar result. --Ruthven (msg) 15:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Gihub text logo.png

File:Gihub text logo.png Needs to be undeleted


  • 1. this image was not taken from the website.
  • 2. the image was downloaded from Zeplin file manager with permission from Global Infrastructure hub's Mark Moseley the COO of the company.
  • 3. This is the same image that is used on their website as the website logo. the logo is also used on communications and as part of a media files download that can be requested from the company.
  • 4. Although it is not clear how to provide express permission to this request. a copy of an email from Mark Moseley can be provided as proof that this image has been approved for use on Wikipedia.
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support {{PD-textlogo}} Yann (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I have to disagree, Yann. GI Hub is based in Australia where the threshold of originality for graphics is very low. This would likely be copyrighted, so we need an OTRS permission. @Marcodounis: I'm afraid a permission for use at Wikipedia alone is not sufficient. All media at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose, so we need a free licence by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for more information. Alternatively, you could upload the logo locally at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


The website and the wikipedia page Борис Комитов (певец) are owned by the me. All the images from the website are free for web use. Also the contact page points to the same Wikipedia page.

Best Regards,

Boris Komitov

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikincce (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I'm sorry, but you don't own bg:Борис Комитов (певец) even if you started the page. All edits to Wikipedia articles are made under a free licence that allows anyone to edit the article. So the copyright to the current article is held by all previous editors and not just by you. As to the photograph, owning a copy of a picture does not make you the copyright holder. The copyright photographs usually rests with the photographer, so unless you took this picture yourself, please have the original photographer forward a permission by email via COM:OTRS. Moreover, the website has a disclaimer "All Rights Reserved" which contradicts your statement that all those images are free for web use. However, even if this was true, it would not be sufficient for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons. We require all uploads to be free for any use anywhere, even offline and for commercial exploits. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed but let him change that "All Rights Reserved" at to "CC-BY-SA". Faster for OTRS and simpler for everybody. If this is impersonation and this user cannot change the source site, then OTRS avoids wasting its time. -- Tuválkin 15:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically he could change the website but still not own the copyright to the photos. That was my point. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:ВК АСК.png

Hello. You have removed the file File: VK ASK.png from the article about a professional volleyball club from Russia. Here is the official site of the club On the official website, you can see the logo. Please restore the file. Regards.

--Gollumer (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

True. The logo is available on and is offered for download[1]. Why did you claim it as "own work"? Anyway, there is no trace of a free license; instead the website says "ВК Ассоциация Спортивных Клубов © 2018". --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)