Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Watch View Edit

Contents

File:Google Chrome Screenshot.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting temporary undeletion for discussion. I believe there may be a case to be made that there is no non-free, original authorship in these images. The Chromium software, available under BSD, LGPL, etc., is the basis for the Chrome software and its layout. The Google Chrome logo has been held to be below the threshold of originality. Whatever proprietary contribution Google may or may not have made to these images is likely to be de minimis. Guanaco (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jcb, Polarlys, Rosenzweig: I'd like your input, as you deleted these images. Guanaco (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • At least you shouldn't rely on the licensing of Chromium for screenshots of Chrome. They have shared code, but there are differences and we don't want to need an expert in every DR who has to tell us whether the particular part is suffenciently simular to that part of Chromium. If somebody wants to rely on the licensing of Chromium for a screenshot, they should install Chromium and make that screenshot. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      The fundamental layouts are the same between the two browsers, and this is verifiable by comparing screenshots of equivalent versions. Proprietary Chrome features include media codec support, Google updates, error reporting, and similar; nothing that affects the base layout of the browser. If I wanted to upload a screenshot of a website, I'd use a free browser (Firefox is my personal preference), but when writing about Chrome itself, the Chrome screenshots are strongly preferred. If there's a question about some particular screenshot showing a non-free part of the browser, unfortunately we may have to go to the extra effort of comparing the browsers. Guanaco (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, we have many other images of Google Chrome, such as File:Google Chrome Finnish.png. I think we should address them all together in a single DR. Guanaco (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the file in July 2011 because it was marked as copyvio. The concern was mainly the Chrome logo. At the time, we didn't actually have the Chrome logo as a file on Commons (those came a little later), the threshold of originality was interpreted differently IIRC. Anyway, if we have the logo on its own now, there's no need to delete a screenshot because of the logo. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I restored the file. I overlooked the decision from earlier this year. Mea culpa. --Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Polarlys: Thanks for restoring it. Could you link the decision from this year for reference? Guanaco (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Google_Chrome_Screenshot.png. --Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Files deleted by Jcb

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "Flickrreview failed, NC restriction at source" is not a valid reason for deletion. These are all genuine NASA files and therefore Public Domain, see here. Ras67 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • No, the NC licences are not valid, it exists a FAR, that NASA works are in public domain. This is a higher instance as an incorrect "licence" on a private image service. --Ras67 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that not everything published by NASA is authored by NASA. If you want to demonstrate that a file is indeed a PD work from NASA, you cannot rely on an unfree Flickr file as a source like you did. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? Since few years, Flickr is the only source of current NASA images. In the metadata of every file this link is embedded. Until now, this guidelines were acceptable for Commons. With your opinion we have to delete all newer NASA images and are cut of from NASA's current image footage. I don't think, that you have right. --Ras67 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe this non-DR out of process mass deletion was sloppy, as the deletions are correctly contested, and had a DR been raised for these it would have been complex and debatable. The second image I looked at, out of two, is published at nasa.gov (archive) and credited "NASA", clearly making it public domain. That's a very poor hit rate for a random sample. For these reasons I would rather the images were undeleted and if a particular contractor photographer's set of images is problematic for NASA credits, those smaller sets can have their own DR, thereby avoiding accidentally blitzing some of our most valuable public domain materials. Doing these investigations post-deletion is really only possible for administrators, thereby locking out the rest of our community from helping with analysis, and the history of our UNDEL process tends to bias towards deletion in a way that does not happen with open DR discussions. It is worth highlighting again that Deletion Requests should always be the default process for any deletion action that is contested; speedy deletions must be obvious and in any reasonable circumstances where contributors are contesting the speedies, the deleting admin's first action should be to presume good faith and undelete so there can be proper review and open discussion. -- (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm with Yann and Fæ on this. Out of process mass deletions like this one by Jcb should not be tolerated. We need these files restored forthwith so that the whole community can research and decide which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees on the dates of photography, and start DRs by photographer as and when appropriate. Any photos just credited to NASA or one of its units should just be kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Please take back the accusation. I did follow proper process. I am aware that you cannot see the history of the deleted files, so that you cannot verify this, but you may ask another admin to have a look if you have any doubts. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I was using 's words "out of process mass deletion" from the !vote directly above mine and I mentioned that user; perhaps I should have attributed (sorry for not doing so earlier). In my defense, I cite the truth of following facts in order: "out of process" there was no community involvement allowed in the decision making process evidenced in the deletion log; "mass" many files were deleted; "deletions like this one by Jcb" you did this mass deletion, and out of process mass deletions like this have happened before. In this case, via its Flickr account NASA is committing copyfraud re the PD photos its employees / unit employees took by even claiming licensing rights in the first place. Did you investigate which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees when they took those photos? What process did you follow that you consider proper?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, worth re-iterating. This was a mass speedy deletion which means that extra care should be taken that the deletions are justified as the administrator is taking full responsibility for skipping having an open mass deletion request where the community has 7 days to check, discuss and propose alternatives to mass deletion. As it took me literally 20 seconds of research using Google image searching (even without access to the actual files, as they have been deleted) to find that one of two searched for files is available as public domain, it is clear that the deletions are by default controversial. Though Jcb will argue that the deletions met COM:CSD criteria 1 or 4, the fact remains that while this may be sufficient for one file, it is not good enough for a mass deletion of multiple files where it must be clear to the community that the deleting admin has not taken enough care to avoid controversy, simply because the Flickrstream is known to contain public domain files. However this is turned around and wikilawyered, public domain is public domain and all administrators have a duty to take all reasonable precautions to avoid deleting public domain educational media from Wikimedia Commons.
      At the top of COM:CSD is the statement "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Jcb has failed to demonstrate that the required care was taken as these are not "obvious cases". If anyone should be apologizing and reversing their decisions, it is Jcb as the deleting administrator, not the few handful of community members prepared to both hold these sysop actions correctly to account and brace themselves for the defensive behaviour we see too often from Jcb when their actions are questioned. If anyone doubts this behaviour, they need to go research Jcb's talk page archives where the pattern is painfully clear. -- (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: In addition, I was not accusing you, I was criticizing your actions (I'm not sure if deletions are considered "edits" per se). Potentially controversial deletions should always be via DR, rather than SD.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These deletions by Jcb are not OK, but he is not the only one guilty here. Speedy requests by B dash are not OK either. :( Yann (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is an UNDEL, not a hunt for the guilty, but procedural responsibility lies fully with the deleting administrator as COM:CSD makes clear. If someone is using the speedy deletion template without sufficient care, that is a separate issue to address. The final decision to speedy delete rather than defaulting to having a deletion request is the acting administrator's alone. -- (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I restored all images obviously by NASA. Those taken in Russia, and of the eclipse can be debated further. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary undeletion for discussion, any not proven specifically to be copyvios. We should all have a chance to look through these and decide based on the evidence. Guanaco (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Joel Kowsky

Photographs with NHQ numbers are original NASA commissions, going through the central request process. I suggest these are all undeleted and if anyone remains concerned that photographs, including those which have been released on nasa.gov, are given credits as NASA/<individual photographer name>, that DRs can be raised by photographer. If necessary to increase confidence, someone may want to write to the relevant photographer to check if their interpretation is that these are non-commercial use or public domain. Those I've checked appear to have active twitter accounts or instagram accounts.

As a starter, I have sent a twitter message to Joel Kowsky this evening:

-- (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Kowsky has got back to me by direct message. Twitter DM notification copied to OTRS at ticket: 2017092010020535 (if needed I could screenshot the whole message, but almost all of it is in the notification).
Kowsky confirmed that the terms at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html apply, so commercial reuse is allowed so long as "it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services". It may be helpful to add the webpage link to the permissions parameter of the information box on each image page.
I find this encouraging, as it is likely to be the case for other NASA photographers credited in the same way.
Kowsky also confirmed that NHQ numbers are NASA asset numbers. Though Kowsky's message did not confirm how to interpret copyright for all NASA asset registered photographs, it seems unlikely that anything other than the standard terms would apply as linked above unless they were explicitly stated with the published image.
-- (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody conclude this undeletion request? Andrej-airliner beginns to reupload "my" uploads with succeeding speedies! That's redicoules. How can "my" effort recreate correctly in that situation? --Ras67 (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Andrej-airliner has been stopped. Could you easily say which files are from Kowsky? We can at least proceed to undeleted these files. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
From Kowsky are the files from 26, 27 and 28 July 2017 (NHQ20170726xxxx), (NHQ20170727xxxx), (NHQ20170728xxxx) respectively Expedition 52 Soyuz Blessing, Expedition 52 Rollout, Expedition 52 Preflight and Expedition 52 Launch. Many others are from NASA senior photographer Bill Ingalls, we have over 1,000 images from him. --Ras67 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have restored these files. I have put some of the Joel Kowsky files on my watchlist, to prevent them from being deleted this way in the future. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Bill Ingalls

I have contacted Ingalls via their website, sending the following request:

-- (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have received an email from Ingalls today. A copy has been lodged at ticket:2017101210013761. This confirms exactly the same release as previously, defaulting to the NASA guidelines, and so suitable to be hosted on Commons with attribution. On this basis any past photographs with the NASA/Ingalls credit can be safely undeleted. (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Aubrey Gemignani

Based on Gemignani's website, http://aubreygemignani.com/bio/, they are a "full time" photographer for NASA and the NASA photograph archivist. Without Sysop tools, I cannot easily discover which deleted files were credited to Gemignani, instead this relies on a rather stupid waste of valuable volunteer time and energy. Again I propose that all NHQ files are undeleted and only redeleted via a correctly raised deletion request. As an example NHQ201708210116 was deleted and should be restored, if necessary with a DR to set out the facts. Thanks -- (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Selenium

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My name is Marcin Szczygielski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcin_Szczygielski) and I've upload all photos of Filipinki band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinki). I'm a writer and graphic designer. My mother is Iwona Racz-Szczygielski (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwona_Racz-Szczygielska) – one of the Filipinki singers. All band photos wich I've upload was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials (brochures, cards, concert programs and posters) WITHOUT copyright notes – {{PD-Polish}} Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band and I have their permission for publishing those photos in any media.

I wrote and published the book about a Filipinki band (http://latarnik.com.pl/filipinki-to-my-szczygielski) and I used all those photos in my book. Before that I carefully clear all rights and I made sure that there is no copyright violation. The book was published by Instytut Wydawniczy Latarnik (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instytut_Wydawniczy_Latarnik) – publishing house run by me and my partner Tomasz Raczek (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Raczek)

Bands Bez Atu (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bez_Atu), Coma 5 (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_5) and Warsaw Stompers (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warszawscy_Stompersi) cooperated with Filipinki as their musicians.

Photo File:Warszawscy Stompersi 1964.jpg was published on promotional card without copyright note in 1964.

Photo File:Coma 5 1964.jpg was published in concert programm in summer of 1964 without copyright note.

Photo File:Bez Atu 1969.jpg was published on promotional card in 1969 without copyright note.

File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg is a cover of Filipinki's longplay which was released by last year by my publishing house (http://latarnik.com.pl/pl/p/Filipinki-Bez-Atu-Nie-wierz-chlopcom-plyta-winylowa-fioletowa%2C-kolekcjonerska-numerowana-edycja-limitowana/380). I'm the author of layout. Photo used on cover was published in 1970 in Filipinki's concert tour promotional brochure without copyright note.

Im kindly asking for undeleted all those files. (Selenium (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph as in "Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band" does not give them any right to give permission for their use here or elsewhere. The copyright and right to freely license use almost always rests with the photographer or his heirs. In order to have the photos restored, you must either (a) prove that they are PD by proving that they were published without notice in Poland before 1994 or (b) have the actual photographers send free licenses using OTRS.

There are 27 files listed above. You have listed three of them as being published before 1994 without notice. Assuming that our colleagues are willing to accept your assertion that the three were published without notice, that still leaves 24 that have no claim to have been published before 1994. You also list a fourth file, which, as you say, appears on a web site. That site does not have a free license and therefore the use here requires that the actual owner of the copyright send a free license using OTRS or that the owner of the site adds a free license to it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for information. I already sent a free license using OTRS for File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg (ticket#2017092410011163), because I'm the author of this cover design, longplay was realesed by my publishing house and photo used in design was published in 1970 without copyright note in concert programm brochure of Filipikni band. All files mentioned above was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials without copyright notes – I got oryginals from archives of the band so I'm able to made good quality scans but I understand what is a difference between copyright holder and owner of photo. I have ower 1000 Filipinki's photos but I upload to wiki commons only files which I'm 100% sure that not violate copyright rights. I'll check my archives to find specified posters, articles, brochures, cards e.t.c where those photos was published and I'll describe each file and I'll send those information using OTRS. Is it ok? Should I than ask again for undeletion? Thank you for your help (Selenium (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
@Selenium: I suspect that request log in OTRS is slow and really long
As graphic designer, you can claim some images at your website under free license: Commons:OTRS#When_contacting_OTRS_is_unnecessary
But make sure that all copyright owners (your parent organization? if any? possible contractors?) agree yadada legal stuff. d1g 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Elan Buller WR2011.jpg

Greetings,

I am interested in learning why this file was deleted. I am interested in getting it restored to Wikimedia commons.

All best, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaranski (talk • contribs)

It was deleted on September 9, 2017, with this comment: "Copyright violation; see COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on OTRS". Thuresson (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
El Funcionario nominated it for speedy deletion with reason "non-free media". Why it is non-free, that's not explained, but it has very small size and probably (s)he thought, that the file is not own work as claimed. So small photo is quite useless; if you have a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels, then you can re-upload it, bigger photo has bigger educational value and also then it's easier to believe own work. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Richter 2017.jpg

Hello, my name is Horacio Martinez Bellon (a.k.a Zenitram Richter), I´m the singer of the electro-rock band Richter from Argentina, and I have recently upload an updated picture of the band (Richter 2017.jpg) that was deleted because of a possible copyright violation. That picture is an original picture property of myself and currently included in my band´s official website www.richternet.net , you can reach it at http://www.richternet.net/Foto-Richteria1.jpg . I probably used a popular word for the file name, and I supposed that it was the reason for which it was deleted, but that picture is entirely ours, we, ourselves, are depicted in it. That´s why i´m asking for its undeletion. I´ve just uploaded again the same picture with a more specific file name (Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg), in order not to confuse it with another files called "Richter", and linked my wikipedia pages to it, but i´m afraid that, if I don´t explain this situation to you, it will also be deleted. I uploaded all my images to wikicommons agreeing on a creative commons licence for free use, as you can see in the "permission" tags. Thank you very much.

(Zenitram richter (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC))

@Zenitram richter: Who is the actual photographer? The second file is named File:Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the picture is actually a selfie, the set was prepared for me and the picture was shot using a timer. The new file is named "Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg", but it is exactly the same picture, the same file with other name, and I´ve included the permission tag that lacked in the file (Richter 2017.jpg). Thank you very much again! --Zenitram richter (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The web site has an explicit copyright notice:

"Copyright © Todos los derechos reservados | RICHTER Electro-Rock - Site Oficial"

Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, you could change the web site copyright notice to include a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. We do this because we have no way of knowing who User:Zenitram richter actually is and we have many fans and vandals who think it is OK to lift an image off the web and post it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello James, I understant it, but I´m the owner of that website www.richternet.net, and I was the one who wrote that sentence there! And as the owner of it, i´ve recently sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org agreeing to publish the picture in Wikicommons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Like 4.0 International. I don´t know what else to do, I attached here the Whois Results with my data as owner of the website www.richternet.net where this picture is already published at the link http://www.richternet.net/Foto-Richteria1.jpg:

Do another WHOIS lookup Domain Name: richternet.net Registry Domain ID: 53278521_DOM AIN_NET-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.register.com Registrar URL: http://www.register.com Updated Date: 2001-01-23T05:00:00Z Creation Date: 2001-01-23T13:47:21Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-01-23T13:47:21Z Registrar: Register.com, Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 9 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8773812449 Reseller: Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Horacio M artinez Bellon Registrant Organization: Horacio M artinez Bellon Registrant Street: Don Bosco 3711 Registrant City: Buenos Aires Registrant State/Province: Buenos Aires Registrant Postal Code: C1206ABG Registrant Country: AR Registrant Phone: +54.1149826050 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext.: Registrant Email: zenitram_richter@yahoo.com.ar Registry Admin ID: Admin Name: Horacio M artinez Bellon Admin Organization: Horacio M artinez Bellon Admin Street: Don Bosco 3825 7 48 Admin City: Buenos Aires Admin State/Province: CF Admin Postal Code: 1206 Admin Country: AR Admin Phone: +54.111541420144

Please, if you want to verify it, I would thank you, I don´t know what else to do, I´m the owner of that picture and I am, myself, pictured in it! I already sent this mail from zenitram_richter@yahoo.com.ar, my usual mailbox, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I, Horacio Martinez Bellon, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richter 2017.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Horacio Martinez Bellon (Zenitram Richter) www.richternet.net 2017-10-07

[generated using relgen]

Thanks again!!!

Horacio Martinez Bellon (Zenitram Richter) www.richternet.net --Zenitram richter (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The OTRS email you sent will probably sort this out (in time) but it would be quicker for you to post the desired license on the site that you control, instead of the contradictory claim that you reserve all rights. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As I said above, the problem with any statement made here is that we do not know who User:Zenitram richter actually is -- he could be a fan, a vandal, or, as claimed, H.M. Bellon. So all of the statements above prove nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The editorial cartoons of Dr Seuss. One was deleted, its file name was: File:10425cs.jpg

These cartoons were owned by PM Magazine, which was owned by Marshall Field (I think) and I and other users have not found evidence that the copyright was renewed.

See discussion here at the Village Pump: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/09#I_want_to_add_some_of_Dr._Seuss.27_Japanese_Internment_cartoons

I apologize if I'm not quite doing this right. H0n0r (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support At Commons:Deletion requests/Image:10425cs.jpg, Carl states fairly strongly that the copyrights to PM were not renewed and therefore this image and others like it are PD. While non-renewal is difficult to prove with absolute certainty, I think this has been proven beyond our standard of "significant doubt". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Carl and Jim.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Monikha.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: To serve as source and attribution for File:Monica (actress).jpg. These files may need a seperate DR to discuss possible copyright status though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to me this should go the other way. The larger image has been deleted, so the crop should also be deleted. There is no reason that somehow having a crop proves that the larger image is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be the reasoning if the original files had been deleted for reasons of illegality or if they were irremediably out of scope, but that's not the case. If we look at what happened, we find that, in 2012, the uploader uploaded some 62 files. Judging by the files that are still on Commons, they were photos of actors and actresses known in their countries, who were photographed holding a magazine. At some point, at least 12 of those 62 files had cropped version made and uploaded separately. The cropped versions were probably made to remove the "holding the magazine" part and center on the person's face. In 2014, a deletion request was made about 58 of the 62 uncropped files. The rationale for the deletion request about the uncropped files invoked various variations around the notion of scope, such as a possible advertising aspect or personal photos. The criticism about advertising may be justified, because of the "holding the magazine" aspect, but the criticism about "personal photos" does not seem justified, if we consider the fact that many or most of the cropped versions, which were not deleted and are still on Commons, are in use in the articles about those people in the Wikipedias. From the 62 uncropped files that had been uploaded, 58 were deleted and 4 were not deleted (the nominator of the deletion request may have missed those 4 because they had been renamed). The 12 cropped versions were not nominated for deletion, they are still on Commons, their "holding a magazine" aspect has been cropped out, many or most are used in Wikipedia articles, and even those that are not currently in use probably have a reasonable potential for being inside the scope of Commons, if the pictured people are known in their countries. (Come to think of it, the 46 uncropped files that were deleted before cropped versions of them were made might also deserve to have cropped versions made and kept.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore Per Asclepias, unless there is some copyright issue with the larger images. Platonides (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Service Rationale was: Images seem promotion/advertisement to "Thangam Book". Possible COM:ADVERT COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:NOTHOST
Temporarily restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that my comment was more a reply to say that there was no need to delete the cropped version. I don't really have an opinion about the original under discussion. It seems rather innocuous. And, when possible, it's better to preserve the transparency of the chain of sources. It would not be a big problem to keep it. But it would not be a big problem to delete it, if the magazine seems too much in evidence. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Supranational European Bodies-en-edit.svg

In 2015, File:Supranational European Bodies-en-edit.svg (rectangular version originally uploaded by Grandoise in 2013) was deleted as an exact duplicate of File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg (round version originally uploaded by NikNaks in 2010, with rectangular version uploaded by Aris Katsaris in 2015). However, it appears that Aris Katsaris's version might be a derivative of Grandoise's (now-deleted) version. The file should probably be undeleted in order to allow proper attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is in the public domain ({{PD-US-Medical imaging}}), so copyright isn't a problem. There was an IRC discussion where the doctor who took the MRI wanted it removed. He said he wants to use the image for a board exam question and not have the answer available online.

As of yesterday, the image was in use on multiple wikis. We also have no other images of its kind. Category:Scimitar syndrome only contains two versions of the same X-ray. This file is a much more illustrative MRI. Guanaco (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, BU Rob13, Bawolff, Doc James, Radswiki: Pinging everyone I know to be involved in discussion about this file. Guanaco (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think {{PD-US-Medical imaging}} applies because the author mentioned doing substantial work in Photoshop to clean up the image. That is creative; it is not merely a machine process. ~ Rob13Talk 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
They have said that they will get another image of the condition in question for us to use. I would request some time to figure that out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I made the call, but I concede it is a close call. In fact, I went back and forth myself before deciding to make the deletion. I'm led to believe that it isn't clear-cut that it's in the public domain. In my opinion, if, as promised, we get another image that is suitably licensed, that is the best solution. I hope that happens soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the IRC discussion about wanting to use it in a board exam is information that I did not have at the time I made the deletion. While the information I saw wasn't perfectly clear-cut, I got the impression that the uploader, in GF, believed it was public domain, but later realized that might be wrong (perhaps because patient's permission was needed). Deleting because the uploader unilaterally decided they prefer it no longer be available is obviously fundamentally different than deleting because the original claim of copyright status was incorrect. I still stand by my observation that if we can get a replacement image, that's the best solution all around.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Gobierno de Romanones (2).jpg

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gobierno de Romanones (2).jpg. According to this the deleted file was a pic of members of a Romanones cabinet (taken in 1918-1919) by photographer José Vidal (d. 1935, complying to 80 pma in Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • {{s}} per nom.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Spanish copyright expired on 1/1/2016, which is 20 years too late for the URAA. The US copyright will expire on 1/1/2031, 95 years after creation, see Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights#Examples. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: 95 years after creation (if such a rule existed) would mean 2014, which has passed. A possibility is 95 years after publication if published after 1922. But I find it difficult to believe that a picture of members of the government taken in 1919 by a press photographer would not have been published before 1923. May I ask what the source was? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as PD-old-80 and PD-1923 for the U.S. side. Not sure where 2031 comes from -- the linked example is for a work published in 1935, which would expire in 2031, but a work published in 1919 at the latest would have been too old to have been restored by the URAA in the first place, and would remain public domain in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Carl, there is no proof that this was published anywhere until its appearance here. The image looks like a formal matted and framed group portrait that has, perhaps, been hanging on someone's wall. I see no evidence of halftone at all, even at very high magnification. Therefore, I think the URAA applies. You are correct that the my 2031 date is wrong -- URAA copyright would run for 120 years after creation -- until 1/1/2040. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is a specific reason to assume otherwise -- such as the photo came from the photographer's archives after his death, or something like that -- we generally assume publication around the time it was created. Most photos were not taken to be private. For U.S. purposes, even a portrait at a photography shop should usually be considered published (if you think the photographer retains the copyright). The copies given out to be hung on a wall would usually be considered general publication -- highly unlikely the photographer put any restrictions on further publication. Limited publication was copies given out to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no right of further distribution -- all three had to be satisfied. Commissioned portraits like that would qualify on the first one, but usually not the second two. Furthermore, the photographer received payment for the photos, which would virtually always qualify them for publication. And a government cabinet portrait would have been highly unlikely to be unpublished, as well. Assuming unpublished status to me is a highly theoretical doubt which does not qualify for COM:PRP, unless there is specific documentation that it may not have been published until long after it was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I tagged these files with {{npd}}, and they got deleted. The uploader has requested [1] at my talk page in Persian to undelete these files temporarily, so that he can transfer them to Persian and English Wikipedia. Alternatively, you can send the files to him via email. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Percy Morley Horder

This request relates to the PDF table of the Complete Works of Percy Richard Morley Horder (MY GRANDFATHER !!). I have pictures of him here in my home which I uploaded. I think all of which have been removed. I also have A3 copies of a very large record book of my Grandmother who kept a record of every building my Grandfather built or made alterations, additions to. I am one of 6 children of the daughter of Morley Horder, who was Joanna Horder (see her on Theatricalia website). I painstakingly typed all the Complete works of my Grandfather into a table, saved to PDF and wanted it to be on his Wikipedia but someone who knows nothing about me or my Grandfather's work has decided to remove it.

I am happy to get Professor Clyde Binfield (who was going to write a book on my Grandfather and had all the copies of the record book) and Celia Hughes of the National Trust who is currently involved with an exhibition of Upton House, Nr. Banbury, Oxford, a stately home that my Grandfather remodelled in 1927. These two will vouch for the veracity of my work.

I just think it is ridiculous. Obviously I will own photos and possessions that belonged to my Grandfather if I am the maternal granddaughter, so copyright is mine.

Louise Mclean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise Horder Mc. (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 October 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 [The following is copied from my talk page:]

Louise, PDFs of tabular material are out of scope for Commons. If needed for the article Percy Richard Morley Horder, the material in the table should be set in a Wikitable. That would make it editable and sortable and in this case would allow the addition of photographs of the various works mentioned. Wikitables can be a bit daunting -- I find the easiest thing is to copy a similar one into a sandbox and experiment.
I also note that the document has no citations to outside sources. Before the material could be posted to WP:EN, you would have to find and provide "reliable published sources" for the information presented there. See No original research and Verifiability for a full statement of the policy. Similar policies exist on other WPs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect to the photographs, owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it here. You claim that you are the photographer of them, but that is obviously incorrect. Two of these appear to be formal studio portraits and the third is that or might be a painting. In almost every case, the copyright to photographs remains with the photographer (or his heirs). The exception is if the photographer executed a explicit written transfer of the copyright. Since you don't apparently know the names of the photographers, you probably don't have such a document. Therefore the images cannot remain here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, although the poor quality may preclude these versions actually being used on WP:EN. It would better if the photos were taken out of their frames and scanned, rather than being photographed from a distance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Solar_Eclipse_of_November_3,_2013,_Observed_from_Space.gif

The claimed source was published on 2017-08-18, more than a year after initial upload here on 2015-11-16. CC @B dash, Jcb: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I still don't think this is own work, unless the uploader owns a spacecraft. Jcb (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to the file description, the image is from moments-from-space.com. Its web site says, "All contents of the Moments from Space website are protected by copyright." The earth image is from the European Agency for the Use of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) whose images are not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Andmetics BROW Wax Strips Men.png

I have permission from the owner to use this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.169.98 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 16 October 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 Com:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and Com:What Commons is not#Commons is not a place to advertise --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also, these are advertising images and the copyright is held by a company. The uploader claimed "own work" but that is obviously wrong. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Selda Terek Bilecen.jpg

Is Selda Terek Bilecen out of project scope? Is this a joke? Since when writers who are so notable are out of scope? Is it because she does not have a page in TR:VP or only has one in TR:VP? Is notability decided by taking place at WPs or by the prestige of those WP versions where they appear? I thought all WPs were considered unreliable sources, per WP policies and principles, BTW. If we return to reliable sources, such as national newspapers and specialized internet sites, have a look at here please: Interview with Selda Terek Bilecen at Hürriyet, one of the two most-selling (and prestigious) newspapers of Turkey. Interview with Selda Terek Bilecen at Sözcü, one of the two most-selling (and prestigious) newspapers of Turkey. Book review at Sözcü, one of the two most-selling (and prestigious) newspapers of Turkey. "She hit me on the face with her book Mahrem Gölgeler", by Hakan Urgancı, at Yeni Asır newspaper, a more than a hundred year old prestigious newspaper in Turkey. Another interview at a specialized book site such as "Kitap Gurmesi" (The Book Gourmet). Selda Terek Bilecen in a news story, at another national newspaper of Turkey. I can add more if asked for. Firstly, I cannot understand how and why she was deleted in 1 (one) day?! Was there something more than I can know? Even unused personal files are generally discussed a week or so or the DR stays open for a week -at times even a month, am I wrong? If you also had a Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selda Terek Bilecen Kitapları.jpg, which was also closed in a day, you knew that we were (supposed to) discuss(ing) a "writer". You can delete a file on book covers for copyright concerns, but the writer? Out of scope? If there were a copyright violation there should be mention of it in the DR presentation (made by an admin of TR:VP) or the closing admin should say that. No, they say "deleted per nomination". I don't know what else to say. Let me only remind a case: The same person tried to delete the pic of a notable journalist who now has bio articles in two WPs. (Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asli safak.jpg.) I have nothing else to add, for the moment. Anticipated thanks for the decision. --E4024 (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

And one knows that how? By uploading what could be a better staged selfie, no infobox, no categories. You know that we delete 1,000-1,500 files/day. Shit happens. No need to cry foul. No indication who actually took the picture and/or holds the IP rights. Could be a selfie, could not be a selfie. IMHO OTRS required. Peace and a decaf tea for you, E4024 C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe editors at WP:TR decided to delete the article about her there for lack of notability. If she is not in scope for her own national WP, then she is certainly not in scope for Commons. I also note that the image is claimed to be "own work", but does not appear to be a selfie. If another person actually took the photo, then that person holds the copyright. Finally, the image is derivative work of the painting which is prominent behind Selda Terek Bilecen and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the painter via OTRS. I suggest that in order to have this imaged restored, you must first get the article on her restored at WP:TR, then have the actual photographer and the artist who painted the painting both send free licenses using OTRS. Then and only then the image can be restored.
I also suggest that you lower the emotion level. As Hedwig says, we get around 10,000 new images every day and must delete 1,500+ of them. Because we work fast, we do make mistakes. In fact, it is amazing that fewer than one deletion in 500 is reversed because it was an error. While this was an entirely appropriate deletion, if it had been a mistake, it would have been reversed without all the emotion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Sir Peter Ramsbotham.jpg

The file was deleted on the basis that the photograph was taken by the subject’s father when it was actually taken and offered up by the heir of the heir of the subject, Hon Edward Herwald Ramsbotham. Further he wrote to Wikipedia (I think) confirming this. 2.26.225.222 09:06, 16 October 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 several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Adriana Pincherle, ritratto di Angelica Martinelli.JPG

Non c'è violazione del diritto d'autore, sono l'erede dell'autore. --Alealeale7 (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The painting is, therefore, not actually the work of the uploader as claimed. Policy requires that the person who actually holds the copyright to the painting must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Хайруллин Айрат Ринатович.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've made this photo and loading it by the permission of the person in the pic. What I need to do to convince you? Almet (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears at http://zt116.ru/2017/05/pozdravlenie-glavy-almetevskogo-rajona-s-dnem-vesny-i-truda/ with "Региональная газета "Знамя Труда" © 2017". In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:1942 Map of Japanese Empire.jpg

Please, consider a temporary undelete for discussion purposes. Other maps were created by using this file as one of the sources. I want to try to verify the source, if possible. ThanksA ri gi bod (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

From the undelete WP page:

"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. "

File:The.Illustrated.London.News.Aug.01.1914.Issue.3928.Vol.CXLV.Page.17.Image.13.png

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The.Illustrated.London.News.Aug.01.1914.Issue.3928.Vol.CXLV.Page.17.Image.13.png and the link in the deleted description page to the full copy of the original publication showing evidence that the image is credited to the agency Topical, with no specific photographer named. The license tag used by the uploader was wrong, but it could be replaced by the proper PD tags, as suggested in the DR discussion. The closing statement of the DR is unrelated to the discussion and is demanding proof of the death year of the unknown/anonymous photographer, which is not logical. N.B.: This file is a reproduction of poor quality and it would not be a big loss if deleted, but that was not the reason in this DR. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support "Topical" would be the "Topical Press Agency", which in turn means the photo was published anonymously and {{PD-UK-unknown}} should apply (as well as {{PD-1923}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

238 files from Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red

I request that all the files that were deleted from as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red be speedily reinstated to as to minimise collateral damage caused by potentially inappropriate and certainly premature deletions. A total of 238 files were deleted some of which were used in any one of over 200 Wikimedia projects.

I and a number of other editors (User:Victuallers, User:Nick Moyes and User:Mike Peel) have posted requests on the home page of User:Jameslwoodward (the closing administrator) requesting that he reverse his actions on grounds that he had misjudged the discussion to be "stale" when in fact feedback was awaited from a non-Wikimedia party. The closing administrator appears to have not only ignored our requests but has added his own input to the discussion. After reading the case Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc, I believe that his opinions need a much closed examination. I believe furthermore that this case has a large bearing on the copyright status of the files concerned.

As result of his action a large number of articles (certainly into double figures, maybe even into three figures) in various Wikimedia projects now have red links. Editors of those articles might well have started to "repair" those red links. If it transpires that the administrator in question was wrong in deleting those files and that they are reinstated, who takes responsibility for reversing the unnecessary "repairs"? Is there even a list of which articles were originally linked to any of these files? In order to minimise such potential collateral damage I request that all the files be speedily reinstated and that they remain reinstated at least until the discussion has been properly closed.


Files to be speedily reinstated

  • File:2014, "In Flander's Fields" - Remembering the Start of World War I and its result for one nation. - panoramio.jpg
  • File:4J8B4411.JPG
  • File:4J8B4414.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - volunteers.jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - wet poppies at night.jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (1).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (10).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (11).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (12).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (13).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (14).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (2).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (3).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (4).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (5).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (6).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (7).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (8).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (9).jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red 146.jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red 147.jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red 158.jpg
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red 9 Aug 2014.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1734.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1735.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1736.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1737.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1738.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1739.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1740.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1741.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1742.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1743.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1744.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1745.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1746.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1747.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1748.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1749.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1750.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1751.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1756.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1757.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1758.JPG
  • File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1761.JPG
  • File:Ceramic Poppies displayed at the Tower of London.JPG
  • File:Coppedshadow.png
  • File:Field of Poppies.jpg
  • File:London MMB »261 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London MMB »262 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London MMB »263 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London MMB »264 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London MMB »265 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London MMB »266 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London MMB »267 Tower of London.jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16285870614).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16288477363).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16288494413).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16303768104).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16303959544).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16306171953).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16720703808).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16720892240).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16721110600).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16722033179).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16722230139).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16738506748).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16738837720).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16739906019).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16739926639).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16900263336).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16907017322).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16907464321).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16907557751).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16908225885).jpg
  • File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16908435265).jpg
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (10).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (11).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (12).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (13).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (14).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (15).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (16).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (17).JPG
  • File:London Tower August 2014 (9).JPG
  • File:LondonTower PoppyField.jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0170 (15550176462).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0173 (15363320747).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0174 (15550171252).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0180 (15525622856).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0182 (14928570914).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0183 (15363687440).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0184 (14929150443).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0185 (15549325825).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0187 (14928567254).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0189 (15546642501).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0192 (15549321495).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0193 (15362699799).jpg
  • File:MercerMJ IMG 0206 (15525607966).jpg
  • File:Moat poppies 8114155.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 05.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 07.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 10.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 11.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 13.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 14.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 15.JPG
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London 16.JPG
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14920679020).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14920702169).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14920895819).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14933938910).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934084727).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934190698).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934232438).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934353177).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934423187).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934455948).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934492598).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934535927).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (14934584760).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15084947316).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15085008416).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15097550126).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15097719626).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15104495361).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15107286762).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15107394122).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15107865925).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15108091085).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15117487171).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15118201091).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15120785462).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15120860125).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 23-8-2014 (15120967045).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15159491124).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15159988983).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15160075454).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15160234334).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15160400593).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15593649609).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15593686089).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15593915869).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594245197).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594457428).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594493188).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594537777).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594563440).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594651558).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15594728518).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15595072298).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15595122377).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15595183257).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15595184400).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15755854056).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15755887596).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15755917616).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15756260786).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15756419756).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15756710636).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15777927331).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15778357891).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15778568911).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15779768305).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15781223852).jpg
  • File:Poppies At The Tower Of London 9-11-2014 (15782096572).jpg
  • File:Poppies at the Tower of London.jpg
  • File:Poppies at Tower of London (19277373528).png
  • File:Poppies at Tower of London (19469288501).png
  • File:Poppy detail Tower of London.jpg
  • File:Poppy flowers at the London Tower (16298465401).jpg
  • File:Poppy sign 8114161.JPG
  • File:Sea of poppies.jpg
  • File:Shard poppies 8114158.JPG
  • File:Shard tower poppies 8114138.JPG
  • File:St Katharine's ^ Wapping, London, UK - panoramio (32).jpg
  • File:The Tower of London - Front View.jpg
  • File:Tower and poppies 8114141.JPG
  • File:Tower and poppies 8114143.JPG
  • File:Tower of London – budowla obronna i pałacowa monarchów Anglii - panoramio (15).jpg
  • File:Tower of London - panoramio (22).jpg
  • File:Tower of London (2014) - 12.JPG
  • File:Tower of London (2014) - 14.JPG
  • File:Tower of London (2014) - 15.JPG
  • File:Tower of London (2014) - 16.JPG
  • File:Tower of London Poppies (15480851558).jpg
  • File:Tower of London Poppies (15481440140).jpg
  • File:Tower of London Poppies (15643276636).jpg
  • File:Tower of London poppies 02.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 03.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 04.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 05.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 06.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 07.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 08.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 09.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 10.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 11.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 12.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 13.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 14.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 15.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 16.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 17.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 18.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 19.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 20.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 21.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 22.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 23.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 24.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 25.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 26.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 27.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 28.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 29.JPG
  • File:Tower of London poppies 30.JPG
  • File:Tower of London Poppies MOD 45158094.jpg
  • File:Tower of London Poppy.jpg
  • File:Tower Of London War Memorial.jpg
  • File:Tower of London with ceramic poppies.png
  • File:Tower of London with Poppies.jpg
  • File:Tower of London WW1 centenary commemoration.jpg
  • File:Tower of London20143008.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 1.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 10.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 10b.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 11.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 2.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 3.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 7b.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 8.JPG
  • File:Tower Poppies 7 November 9.JPG
  • File:Tower poppies 8114154.JPG
  • File:Weeping Window, Derby Silk Mill 1.jpg
  • File:Weeping Window, Derby Silk Mill 2.jpg
  • File:Weeping Window, Derby Silk Mill 3.jpg
  • File:Тауэр, Лондон. Великобритания.jpg

Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support reinstatement of these files until the discussion is properly concluded (which requires the pending off-wiki input from the artists involved). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have been in active negotiations with the artists' representative from 14-18NOW and have provided detailed evidence and updates of ongoing positive communication with them on both the deletion discussion page and on the closing admin's Talk Page. Reversion of this untimely delete will enable those disccussions to continue and to gain a positive outcome for all. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - our established practice is that we first want a permission to be properly documented in OTRS and that we undeleted the files after that. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Japanese Empire.png

File:Japanese Empire.png (image originally uploaded on 22 September 2005 and modified on 6 October 2005) was deleted in 2007 with the deletion comment "dupe Japanese Empire2.png" (see logs). Also note in the the upload log that there was information about the origins of the file (hopefully that information was also present on the description page, because in the upload log the end of the comment is cut). "File:Japanese Empire2.png" was uploaded on 22 December 2005 as a modified version of "File:Japanese Empire.png", by a user who is not the same as the author(s) of "File:Japanese Empire.png". "File:Japanese Empire2.png" did link to its source "File:Japanese Empire.png", allowing readers to know the author(s) of the source images. However, the 2007 deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png" made all the information vanish from the view of casual readers (if not entirely from users who dig into the logs, as we are doing now, but that should not normally be required from users in order to find the essential information about a file). The information should at least have been copied to "File:Japanese Empire2.png" before deleting "File:Japanese Empire.png". From the license of "File:Japanese Empire2.png", I guess that "File:Japanese Empire.png" may have been under the GFDL, which requires attribution. If so, the deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png", thus removing information about authorship, had the consequence of turning "File:Japanese Empire2.png" into a copyright violation. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Atlantic Overview - Aug. 26 2008 (2800303577).gif

Screenshot from NHC, under PD license {{PD-USGov-NWS}}, suitable for Commons. --B dash (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Uragano Irma ISS.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Reason: Image likely from NASA, Under {{PD-USGov-NASA}} license, Commons are acceptable. 158.182.230.60 02:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Goni Aug 22 2015 Precipitation Daily Accumulated.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, suitable for commons. B dash (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Hull Montage.jpg

I would like to know what it takes to have this image not be deleted all the time now. Should I reference and mention the original photo takers? As I said, tons of other towns and have cities have similar images with TAKEN photos compiled into a montage, and that's just what this is. What is being broken here? I made this image and licensed it. What must be done to have this not be deleted. --ShizlGzngar (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)ShizlGzngar 18th October 2017

  • Any montage like this must provide (possibly via internal link) source and license information for each image, and they must all be compatible with the license you issue. Yes, the montage is a "work" but it is a derivative work and the copyrights of all the underlying images are relevant. Normally, the simplest way to show that all the licensing is OK is to have each of the images be already on Commons with the appropriate license. See File:NYC Montage 2014 4 - Jleon.jpg for a good example. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:C6H3Cl2NH2.png

I have filed Commons:Deletion requests/File:C6H3Cl2NH2.png, asserting that the file was redundant. This is in keeping with COM:EDUSE, which states that each image should be "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". User:Jcornelius closed the DR as keep/"no valid reason for deletion" and declined to respond to my request on his talkpage that he clarify his reasoning vs that commons policy. So here we are...could anyone please explain how this image has an educational use beyond the several formats of images for this compound already present in Category:Dichloroaniline? DMacks (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)