Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

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.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

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

Paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years

These files are all photographs of paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years. They were deleted because in one person's opinion, they were probably published somewhere.

The possibilities are:

  • Never published, therefore public domain
  • First published after 12/31/2004. 70 years pma, therefore public domain (They all died 1948 or earlier)
  • First published before 3/2/1989, no notice or registration, therefore public domain
  • First published from March 2, 1989 through 2002, still under copyright

It is reasonable to ignore the very small possibility that the last case applies. The facts are exactly the same as for the file, File: Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg, which was undeleted by James Woodward, and I am quoting some of his reasoning. In fact, the original deletion requests are word-for-word identical. Wmpearl (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo, Prosfilaes, Jameslwoodward: some users that were related to the deletion / undeletion of the images mentioned here.
Personally, I must say, that I generally agree with Taivo's DR closing sentence that we need some evidence that the images were not published in the specified period, i.e. taking some effort to find such publications. No evidence that such effort has been taken or even intended, especially as it is impossible to make such investigations en masse. I would support such a request only if the sentence almost no painting of these artists was published between 1989 and 2002 can be considered true. But this needs at least some query in libraries and/or among auction catalogues. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen absolutely no evidence that they had no notice or registration. No one has checked the Copyright Registrations and Renewals for registrations or renewals for any of these works. I've seen no evidence that it wasn't published in some book with notice, registration and renewals if necessary, which is much harder to search for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the size of the images makes it difficult to be certain in some cases, I have looked at all of them and I see no notice on any of them. Without notice, registration is irrelevant except if the copyright owner made an effort to add notice to the work.
Therefore, only the last case might apply and, as I said in the related DR, that seems unlikely -- that a work of a long dead painter would be first published during that relatively short period. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The famous photo of a naked girl having been napalmed in Vietnam also doesn't have a copyright notice on it. There is no requirement that copyright notices be watermarked into the photo or painting. Particularly if it was published in a book, books virtually always place copyright notices on the back of the title page or an extension elsewhere, both distant from the actual visual work. Even if they were placed below the photo of the painting, it still wouldn't be in the body of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, while your example is entirely correct, I don't think it is on point. Publication of photographs, including the one you mention, is almost always in print media, where the notice is either below the image or elsewhere in the media -- in the case of periodicals, on the masthead page. For paintings, if there is notice, it is almost always on the work, as it is, for example, in the works, of Everett Kinstler which we have not kept on Commons. Most painters do not bother with notice because copies are not easy to make and convincing copies take an expert. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Publication of paintings is often in print media, as well. I don't think it fundamentally different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes here. And I suggest closing as {{Not done}}. It seems that nobody is willing to take any affort to check whether these images were indeed not included in copyrighted publications. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Although I no longer have access to these files, they art paintings that were in the news, especially on These paintings were in the news either because they came to auction or because they were acquired by a museum. In either case, they generally came out of private collections, where they were unlikely to have been published. I use the library of a medium sizes art museum to confirm history of previous publication, as best I can. Wmpearl (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Three months ago, you wrote on Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Malinche (Young Girl of Yalala, Oaxaca) by Alfredo Ramos Martínez.jpg and the other DRs. At no point did you mention trying to confirm previous publication. I'm a little frustrated and unconvinced that you bring this up now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Каховського водосховища.jpg

Same rationale as per File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Кременчуцького водосховища.jpg (undeletion request). Ping @Kruusamägi, Alexmar983, Antanana, Ата, Kharkivian: in case it's useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold for a decission in this DR Ankry (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of Nantou County.svg

This is an official flag for a county in Taiwan, so the original should be in public domain. See our local discussion on Chinese Wikipedia. --Classy Melissa (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This image is designed and published by Taiwanese local official documents. It belongs to public domain according to Taiwanese Copyright Law. I already added a valid and proper license for this image in this early November. So, why did you admins still delete it? Please kindly undelete it. Thank you. --Akira123 talk 08:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Akira123: The claimed source is an article on Chinese Wikipedia, not any official document. Also, Open Data Government License is not public domain. Thuresson (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: You totally misunderstood. I made the source indicate to an article on Chinese Wikipedia because I wanna let those who don't understand Chinese be able to easily realize that the author of the image is one of Taiwanese local governments, since they can read at least English version of the article "Nantou County Government" via the spam-language link. Of course I can just write "Nantou County Government" and remove the link to the Chinese Wikipedia article, but it will be harder for non-Chinese people to understand what "Nantou County Government" is. Also, Open Data Government License is not the only license I used for these image. I used the ROC-exempt license for it and this license approves it public domain. --Akira123 talk 16:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
There is an important distinction beteen an author and a source. Which is the official ducument created by a public official that is the source? Thuresson (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson:The source of the image is B-4-01 on which is a part of the official website of Nantou County Government. This image is open to all user to download. In most cases, Taiwanese official documents don't show who the author is. So, we can only take the Government as the author.--Akira123 talk 10:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With the help of Google translate, I looked through the source web site. I found no copyright information at all except "Copyright© 中華民國國家發展委員會 版權所有" on the linked national site. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_T-Z#Taiwan tells us that only government created "documents" are free of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Flags are not documents. is supposed to be {{GWOIA}} but downloading the PDF fails.--Roy17 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: As what you saw, there is no copyright information at all on the official website of Nantou County Government. I have to say that "document" doesn't only mean "text" when it comes to "official document" in Chinese meaning. Based on explanation of Taiwanese authorities concerned, all the appendixes to the document belong to public domain too.--Akira123 talk 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Under {{GWOIA}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Under {{GWOIA}}. --Jitcji (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info from recenty reuploaded (and deleted) version:
This document can be downloaded. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward, Thuresson: Your opinion? Ankry (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No opinion, I can not read Chinese. Thuresson (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I opposed above, and I see nothing to suggest that that is wrong. However, I don't read Chinese. I may miss a subtlety where the law translates a word as "document", yet we are told that a flag is covered by that word. Therefore I won't object if the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward, Thuresson, Ankry: FYI, this is the {{GWOIA}} statement in English from this government website: --Wcam (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per {{GWOIA}} and the document above. —— Eric Liu留言百科用戶頁 09:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Except for paragraph IV, that looks fine -- it is very like a CC-BY. However, paragraph IV is not good:
IV After using the information and material provided by this authorization, one should not maliciously alter its related information. If edited and the reworked information does not match the original, the user is liable for civil and criminal legal responsibilities.
That is not a free license -- under a free license you could alter the flag -- put a big black X across it in protest, or whatever else you wanted. Therefore I remove part of my comment above and still oppose restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Paragraph IV looks like COM:NCR to me and is extremely similar to the Swastika example in the article demonstrating what is still considered as free content despite significant legal restrictions. --Wcam (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The German restriction on the use of the swastika is entirely independent of the copyright status of the work containing it. Similarly, restrictions on photography in museums are non-copyright restrictions, but (assuming the work is out of copyright) the museum has a cause of action only against the photographer and not against users of his work. However, this is a restriction on the use of the image that relies entirely on the fact that the grantor holds the copyright and permits its use only if it is never used in certain ways that would otherwise be entirely legal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I see it quite differently. The wording of Paragraph IV is more like "FYI if you use our work in a certain way you may face other legal consequences besides copyright issues" rather than "We as the copyright holder restrict the use of our work in a certain way", as what is permitted copyright-wise is already clearly defined in the previous paragraphs. --Wcam (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No. The only way that the copyright holder could prevent the use of the image in a way prohibited by paragraph IV is by asserting its copyright. Someone who published an image of the flag defaced in some way could do so perfectly legally and without any consequences other than being in violation of the license. That makes this a restriction that is based on copyright. It amounts to an ND restriction.
For example, someone who had a bad experience there could take the image and write "I hate Nantou" across the flag and post it on their web page. That would be entirely legal in every respect except that it would violate paragraph IV and therefore would be a copyvio. In order for images to be kept on Commons, they must be free for such uses..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Consider the wording of the Chinese text of the license (which I believe takes precedence over the English translation): "...使用者須自負民事、刑事上之法律責任", which translates to "...users must bear their own civil and criminal legal liabilities". Such language clearly implies that it is not this license that restricts malicious uses but other laws. All it says is that if you use the content in a malicious way, it is not a violation of the license per se, but the license does not exonerate you from other legal liabilities.

Nevertheless, whether {{GWOIA}} is a free license and whether we should abolish it needs a broader discussion. Here is an example of a related discussion in the past: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#Taiwan_Central_Weather_Bureau. --Wcam (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wcam, Jameslwoodward: If GWOIA isn't really a proper license, then I would love to RFD it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Link to the DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GWOIA. --Wcam (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wcam: I think that we should also post this DR link on a proper place of zhwiki, isn't that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Steve Paxton filming himself.jpg

I am the author of this file. I did share it with, but did not abandon copyright to them!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NosPapillons (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 December 2019‎ (UTC)
  1. Are you author of both: the photo and the video presented that the photo is a derivative work of?
  2. For already published works our policy requires that free license is sent via email (see COM:OTRS) or granted via the initial publication site. We cannot accept on-wiki licensing for them.
Ankry (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Sceau communal pesche.gif


si je comprends bien la raison de la suppression de l'image, c'est parce qu'il s'agirait d'un cachet postal français? Or Pesche se trouve bien en Belgique et n'est plus soumis au droit français depuis 1815. Qui plus est, il s'agit d'un sceau communal en usage avant la seconde guerre mondiale sur le même modèle que dans la majorité des communes sans armes officielles jusqu'à la fusion des communes en 1976, il a donc plus de 70 ans à son actif. D'autres justifications sont-elles nécessaires? Bonne journée,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobubu (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 November 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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 I agree that the reasons for the DR are incorrect. First, as you say, it is not French. Second, it is not a "stamp" in the sense used at COM:FRANCE#Stamps which speaks of postage stamps not rubber stamps (cancellation stamps). User:大诺史, please take note.

However, with that said, it is not clear that it is PD. In order to show that, you must show that it has been in use since before 1949. It might fit under {{PD-Belgium-exempt}}, but I'd like to see other opinions about that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have the "arrêté royal" that create the model of the belgian municipal seals [royal du 6 février 1837]. It is older than 70 years. Bobubu (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Queen with Mike Royden.jpg

This photograph was taken by member of my family with my camera under my request for my personal use. I own the photograph and the copyright.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Royden1 (talk • contribs)

@Patrick Rogel: Could you provide the correct links please, including the related DR? Noting that diff refers to a community consensus, but I have no idea how to locate it, given that no deleted files are in the contribution history of the account requesting undel. -- (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please ask deletion nominator @Hekerui:: he/she will confirm you if Qe2_MR.jpg is a recreation of the file he/she puttted on deletion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Although I am in the photo, it was taken by a family member on my camera on my request for my personal use. I own the photograph and the copyright. Please reinstate, thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Royden1 (talk • contribs)
Raised the speedy to DR. This gives 7 days for discussion and for the case to be explained unless a prior DR can be linked. Based on the evidence supplied here, the only prior deletions are speedy deletions, so literally, no prior consensus exists. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qe2 MR.jpg. -- (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hekerui: Could you explain the copyvio notice on the uploader's talk page? It links to File:Queen with Mike Royden.jpg, which has never been deleted, based on the deletion log because that file did not exist. Yet the uploader seems to believe it was deleted and has uploaded (apparently) the same file again under a different name. The evidence and order of events are confusing, and it should not be. Thanks -- (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, there is no such photo -- the page name brings up a file with the jpg extension but no image. Second, on the facts you have given, the copyright belongs not to you, but to the person who actually took the photograph. In order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license using OTRS together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer giving you the right to license the image. You must also show that the image is in Commons Scope -- we do not generally keep images of non-notable persons even if there is a notable person in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:: The image is in the deletion history (here); the uploader had recreated the page with a statement (but no image) after the image was deleted by Túrelio. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Aha -- thank you. We still need a license. Royden appears to be marginally notable -- there's a mention of him at Royal School for the Blind, Liverpool, but nothing else on WP:EN. Amazon has several or his books. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I have been criticised in the DR for my action in creating the DR, could someone give an explanation of why earlier today there was no entry in the deletion log for the file linked above, yet it appears to exist now? BTW, in terms of credibility of the release on Commons, the uploader has published the same image on their website. Should the uploader, as a veriably 'real' historian, release the image with a suitable license on their website, there would normally be no question that the release would be accepted.

Is there any policy advice on why " administrators have broad consensus" can be interpreted to exist, when this refers to one administrator's opinion that is being referenced by another admin as a "consensus"?

BTW, this may be irrelevant, but the previously deleted image and the second image uploaded are not the same image.

Thanks -- (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: as deleting admin, as the deletion log now shows. -- (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the stock phrase that refers to "community consensus" is badly worded. It might better say "image deleted in accordance with Commons policy" -- that is, an image that should not be uploaded again without an UnDR.
Also, the uploads and blank file page are messy, so the comments in the DR are probably a little off target. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with the guideline, so long as it is followed in a way that others can understand. There was no entry visible in the deletion log at the time I created the DR, and (apparently) the uploader has never had the chance to respond to the copyvio before deletion (there were 5 hours between notification and file deletion). This speedy deletion has no established "consensus" and reasonable accomodation to at least discuss a credible challenge by the uploader would be a courtesy when their account is connected to their professional life. Certainly considering how confusing the process is for new uploaders, there can be no surprise that they have attempted to reupload an image they are convinced they have correctly released.
@Royden1: you can email to the confidential email system to have the photograph validated as your copyright, refer to COM:OTRS. However this may take a couple of months to get processed. Alternatively you can release the photograph explicitly on your own website, the release page does not have to even be navigable from the landing page, so long as the release is clearly by the photographer. Doing your own release should mean that the photograph can be undeleted and marked as validated by any administrator. Thanks -- (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if comment is needed anymore, but: yes wording was not perfect but I think the possible actions to take have been well explained and there is ample justification imo for the rigor of the process for new uploaders. There is plenty of time for undeletion once proper proof is provided. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: is highly similar to figure 2 on down to the legend being in the same order. The deleted image is, I'm guessing, an older version as the last item on the legend ("Advanced Flexable Reusable Surface Insulation (AFRSA)") isn't included. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would prefer uploading this, sourced version than restoring an unsourced one where we have no evidence that it was ever published. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I did, but the quality of the deleted image is quite a bit better if I remember correctly. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand your last comment Alexis Jazz. What action is required here? Are you restoring by reuploading or are we undeleting? ~riley (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: I uploaded File:NASA Technical Memorandum 104773 Space Shuttle Orbiter Thermal Protection System Design and Flight Experience.pdf and File:Thermal protection system orbiter 103 and subsequent orbiters.png but it's not exactly the same image. (though similar enough to make it unplausible for the deleted file to not be PD-USGov-NASA) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: What action is required here? ~riley (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: requested undeletion of the files would be nice, though I admit it is no longer super critical as we now do have a replacement in the form of File:Thermal protection system orbiter 103 and subsequent orbiters.png. Though the contrast on the deleted image was better and the deleted image shows what is probably an earlier version of the TPS. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump.jpg

This photo was deleted because, in the Turkish-language edition of Voice of America, the photo was attributed to Reuters. However, it appears that this was a misattribution by VoA, as I cannot find the photo on Reuters' website at all. Reuters did write an article about Donald Trump's tweet which made this photo infamous, but their article did not include a copy of the photo or any indication that they were responsible for it. I think it's likely that the VoA writer was confused by this Washington Post article, which uses this photo as the thumbnail image for a Reuters-attributed video (even though the photo does not appear in the video).

Meanwhile, NBC News described the image as "a White House photo", and The New York Times said it "was taken by an official White House photographer". Based on these reliable sources' descriptions, I believe this photo should be restored with a {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} license tag. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg?--Roy17 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Ah, it sure is; nice catch. Perhaps that photo should be moved to remove the parenthetical. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
For some reason the link above is 5000x3333 and 4.57Mb large, but the flickr original is 3000x2000. I tried to reupload the flickr original, but it's blocked.
As such, please undelete File:President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership (48914066862).jpg. My guess is the 4.57Mb is enlarged unnecessarily.--Roy17 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17, Wdwd: correct, File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg is upscaled, colors are more dull and has more compression artifacts. File:Pelosi stands up to Trump (public domain).jpg is something else entirely. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the subject image per the discussion above, so we have two images. Question, which to keep?

File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump.jpg
File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg

The EXIF on the first says

Author:Shealah Craighead
Copyright holder:(c) Planet Pix via ZUMA Wire

That doesn't make since, because Shealah Craighead is the Official White House Photographer, so her images taken while on duty are PD. The EXIF for the latter comes from a scanner. Both are now 5,000 x 3,000. The former also has the smaller version present. The latter is in use in two places.

I am inclined to move the former the former to the latter's name, leaving a redirect, and reinstate the smaller version. Thoughts from others? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: we need File:President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership (48914066862).jpg, that should be the original. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope -- I've restored it, but as you will see, it's just a redirect to the first of the two images above..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thx Jim! This flickr one by SONY ILCE-9 should be the correct one. imo the other 5000 ones should be redirected to this one.--Roy17 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: as I see, you have restored the original file. This is the one to keep. Thanks! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jameslwoodward. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

File:USM Bel Abbès logo.png

File was deleted with rationale per nomination (I do not believe that User:DZwarrior1 is the author and copyright holder, and that the logo has been released under the stated license.) while in the deleted version user did not claim authorship nor anybody in the DR argued why the declared finally {{PD-textlogo}} may be invalid. @Jameslwoodward: pinging the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the uploader was the original creator of the logo -- I think he simply copied one from a shirt. The logo may be under the threshold of originality, and therefore PD, but I don't think we have a good understanding of the ToO in Algeria, so we should assume that it is, in fact, copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
There was no claim that the uploader was the author of the logo in the final deleted version. It was:
|source= and [ @USM Bel Abbès]
|author= SSPA USM Bel Abbès
== {{int:license-header}} ==

User clearly refrained from earlier declaration, so unsure while such claim is referred above. Ankry (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Highest Administrative Committe of Northeast (of China).png

The image qualifies as non-copyrightable {{PD-shape}}, so the declared deletion rationale (DW) was invalid. The file was used. Ankry (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: indeed it's unclear that said TOO is sometimes complicated (see the case of the Australian Aboriginal Flag for a non-free PD-shape), I'm in favour of opening a proper Deletion request and include File:Flag of Fengtian clique.svg which is the same flag. @Ninane, 舞月書生, 慎言慎行老法师, JuTa: any opposition to a restoration for DR? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: This seems OK to me. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, the file was deleted as having no source: The given source brings up an Error 404 : Page not found! Changing the license to PD-shape does not realy solve that problem. --JuTa 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Why do you suggest that a source was necessary in this case? Just few years ago per our policy the source was required only if it was necessary to determine copyright status of the image. So not in this case. The page provided as the source did exist: you can check this in internet archive. The flag does not seem also to be a hoax (see eg. here or here). We cannot expect that the provided source will exist forever (such requirement would contradict with our policy that permissions should be irrevokable - it would be too easy to revoke any permission just deleting the source). I suspect that the DR requester nominated this image per some COM:POINT (but at the moment I have no clear evidence for this). Ankry (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If the source is available on internet archive, the source can be fixed. No complains anymore then to restore the image and fix source and license. --JuTa 07:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Marek Solarczyk.svg

Lamentablemente la persona anónima que solicitó la eliminación no sabe de heráldica, en realidad mi versión respeta el diseño heráldico original, simplemente es otra versión estética diferente, aclaro que no es falso ni infringe derechos que autor, el diseño heráldico de un escudo de armas puede ser interpretado como el artista quiera, siempre y cuando se respete el diseño heráldico todas las versiones estéticas de un escudo de armas son consideradas validas. Ademas, no se puede usar la versión oficial ya que esa tiene derechos de autor. Admito que me llegaron los mensajes de aviso de borrado pero he estado muy ocupado, por lo general siempre que me quieren eliminar un escudo, había alguien que intervenía y salvaba el archivo, pero esta vez nadie intervino. Solicito que el archivo sea restablecido.

online translation: the anonymous person who requested the removal does not know about heraldry, my version respects the original heraldic design, it is simply another different aesthetic version, I clarify that it is not false or infringes rights that author, the heraldic design of a coat of arms can be interpreted as the artist wants, as long as the heraldic design is respected all the aesthetic versions of a coat of arms are considered valid. In addition, the official version cannot be used because of its copyright. I admit that the erasure warning messages arrived but I have been very busy, usually whenever I want to remove a shield, there was someone who intervened and saved the file, but this time nobody intervened. I request that the file be restored.

--SajoR (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has a problem that we often find. If it is close enough to the original to be educationally useful, then it is a copyright infringement. If it is not close enough to be a copyright infringement, then it is a false representation of the CoA and is therefore out of scope. Either way, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is this coat of arms actually copyrightable? It is composed by the drawings of a fish, a hat, a cross, and several other simple elements. Besides, all sort of coats of arms are just interpretations of a simple text description, such as on a silver shield, a black bear rampant with tongue and claws in red. ·×ald·es 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question More importantly: what do you mean by "a false representation of a Coat of Arms"? A CoA description can be represented in any way, and as long as the representation fits the description, it's a valid representation. In Commons:Coats of arms it's clearly described: "In heraldry, there is no one “correct” way to create a representation of a coat of arms, unlike with logos and emblems where the representation must be the official one. This is because in heraldry, any drawing based on its corresponding definition is correct so long as the artist makes the coat of arms in line with the textual description and that the representation is readily recognizable as such by a herald". --Racso (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

First, yes, most coats of arms, including this one, have a copyright.Each of the elements can be drawn in many different ways.
Second, you are quite correct that any representation of a CoA that matches the description in the blazon is "correct" in one sense. However, the point above is that if your drawing is sufficiently different from the representation actually used by the Bishop so that yours does not infringe on the copyright of the other, then it is too far away from the one actually used to be useful for Commons purposes..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the undeletion request: if SajoR used any fish from a free source, such as any from Category:Fish in heraldry, yes, the copyright is from whatever particular owner it is. And, so long as the image uploaded is not exactly the same as the original one, the file is not a copyright violation nor out of project scope since it's just an interpretation of a text, and should be kept therefore. That being said, I'd say we should've not deleted that file in first place. ·×ald·es 09:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
No, sorry, Xald, that's not how copyright law works. Just as there is a threshold of originality for any work to become copyrighted, there is a threshold of originality for any changes before a work becomes free of the original copyright. As I have said now twice, the problem here is that if the work is close enough to the representation that the bishop actually uses, then it is a copyvio. If it is sufficiently different to avoid copyvio, it is not useful here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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


Аласов Имамаддин Фарман оглы (азерб. Ələsov Imaməddin  Fərman oğlu) 30 августа 1968 года рождения. село Сейфали, Шамхорский район, Азербайджанской ССРР —  российский научный сотрудник, Партийный и общественный деятель[1][2], экономист, юрист и историк, Соучредитель Международной общественной организации по правам мигрантов, член азербайджанской эмиграции в России. Его высказывание "человек является высшей ценностью в Бытье" ! стало лозунгом в России в ХХI веке. Кандидат в региональные депутаты от Партии Единой России от 06.06.2018 года, и кандидат на должность Уполномоченного по правам человека по Ярославской области от 26 февраля 2018 года. 

1991 – 1998 гг. Московский государственный открытый университет Российской Федерации Международный экономический факультет Присвоена степень специалиста по направлению «экономика» Диплом с отличием

2008 – 2012 гг.	Международный институт экономики и права Российской Федерации

Юридический факультет Присвоена степень специалиста по направлению «юриспруденция» Диплом с отличием 2012 – 2016 гг.


Ярославский государственный университет (ЯрГУ) им. П.Г. Демидова Аспирантура – История, Факультет Социально политических наук Текст Диссертация предоставлен в Научный совет. Автор 16 научных статей.

с 01.02.2018г. до 01.10. 2019 года курс повышения педагогической квалификации - Институт развития кадрового потенциала, ФГБОУ ВО ЯГПУ им. К.Д. Ушинского. Учитель Истории. Опыт работы: март 2006 г. – декабрь 2009 Декабрь 2009 г. – июнь 2016 г. июль 2016 г. – декабрь 2016 г. Директор ООО «Седьмое небо», г. Ярославль Управление по работе с личным составом:  проведение семинарских занятий о правилах БЖД и экологии;  методологическая работа (разработка внутрибанковских документов, руководств, правил, процедур);  работа с поставщиками и производителями предприятий;  ведение отчетов и итоговых мероприятий о деятельности организаций;  Кадровые обеспечение сотрудников фирмы. Директор ООО фирма «Седьмое небо», г. Ярославль Управление по работе с личным составом:  Оказание юридической деятельности;  методологические услуги (Консультация, составление исковых заявлений, составление жалоб и претензий граждан, арбитражный процесс);  работа с гражданами (анализ и контроль качества);  ведение судебных дел в рамках КАС, ГПК, ГК;  Ведение семейных и наследственных дел. Ярославская межрегиональная коллегия адвокатов г. Ярославля Адвокат. 01.01. 2017 г. по нас. время. Директор ООО фирма «Седьмое небо», г. Ярославль - С 2011 года по 2016 года по совместительству работал преподавателем исторических дисциплин в Ярославском государственном университете (ЯрГУ) им. П.Г. Демидова. - С 2012 года по 2016 года работал преподавателем юридических дисциплин в Колледже Ярославский государственный университет (ЯрГУ) им. П.Г. Демидова. Дополнительная информация: Иностранные языки – английский (базовый) немецкий (свободно устно, письменно) Персональный компьютер – опытный пользователь (МS Оffice, база данных Bloomberg, правовые программы «Гарант», «Консультант +») Личные качества: - В Феврале 2018 года был экс- кандидатом на должность Уполномоченного по правам человека по Ярославский области. - 03 июня 2018 года участвовал в Предварительных Выборах Депутатом в Думу Ярославской области от Партии Единая Россия. - Сертификат - Финалиста регионального этапа Кадрового проекта «Политический Лидер России» от 2019 года. - Участвовал во всероссийском историческом Диктанте Победы от 07.05.2019 года. - 26 мая 2019 года участвовал в Предварительных Выборах кандидат в Депутаты, в Муниципальных округах Ярославского района Ярославской области от Партии Единая Россия. Аласов И.Ф.

@Аласов Имамаддин Фарман оглы: I am unsure what do you request for:
You may also need to provide information why this image is in COM:SCOPE )eg. is there a Wikipedia article where it can be used?) Ankry (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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


The file in question is a file that we as a fraternity. We are the sole copyright holders and since we are the ones creating this wikipedia page there is no reason for why this would infringe our copyrights.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jringelmann (talk • contribs)
@Jringelmann: Maybe, but:
  1. please sign your messages with four tildes
  2. Wikimedia accounts are personal and anonymous, so who are "we"?
  3. personally created logos (like this one was declared) or unused logos are out of COM:SCOPE
  4. for copyrighted logos owned or used by organizations, written free license permission from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS is needed.
Ankry (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS assuming it meets COM:SCOPE. ~riley (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Aarti Gupta- Miss Teen India International 2014 headshot by Nandita Berry.jpg

This is the official headshot of Aarti Gupta, Miss Teen India International 2014. Aarti Gupta owns all copyright of this photograph from the photographer and has full permission to use form photographer. Thank you for reviewing this request. If denied, will kindly provide a photo from Google. Thank you!

{{Own}} {{Cc-zero}}

Missindiafan (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • First, while uploading you claimed that YOU are the photographer and copyright holder; this contradicts with the statement above
  • Second, if an image was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, we need a permission from the actual copyright holder to be send via email as described on COM:OTRS or declared on the initial publication page.
  • Third, if the copyright holder is not the author (photographer) then we need also an evidence of copyright transfer.
Ankry (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:May watching Cricket World Cup, England v. India.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is under OGL. There is a page for Twitter on UK's national archive, and national archive page has a statement: All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-10#File:U.K.-Japanese minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the OGL declaration here concerns the web service, not the social media mentioned there. But another opinion is welcome. @Ruthven: pinging the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Same as Ankry: Theresa May's Twitter is not an official UK government website. The national archives is a mirroring site, at least for Twitter, as specified at the bottom of I don't see how this overrules Twitter's copyright policy. --Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. In fact, by putting an OGL on a works with a Twitter copyright, the National Archive is probably committing copyvios. The Twitter copyright notice appears explicitly on the page containing this iamge. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think, for now. If the image ends up on the site, we could probably restore then. Twitter owns no copyright in uploaded images (they just force a wide-ranging license for themselves), so not sure any of their policies are relevant to the copyright status. However, I don't think a work is under the OGL until it is explicitly labeled as such, and it would seem that twitter archiving (and thus OGL licensing) only happens once a year. If it shows up in the government archives site with an OGL license, it could be restored then. But if not (and this was only the personal account, and not Crown Copyright) then it would require a different license. Either way, I don't see how it's freely licensed right now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Carl summarizes this well - not done at this time, request again if it shows up in the government archives with an OGL license. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Pelosi with Teigen and her husband Legend.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo taken by an employee of U.S. Federal Government (Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel#Files uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 2 A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a Chrissy Teigen selfie. Thuresson (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
o I was the deleting Admin. It is very hard to see how Pelosi took the photo, as her arms are down. It could have been either of the others, but neither is a Federal employee. It also could have been someone else, but in order to restore the image either (a)it will have to be proven that the photographer was a federal employee or (b) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Conversation has not changed since the original deletion request. ~riley (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Chandi Rani Songs - O Taraka O Jabili - NTR, Bhanumathi.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: excerpt from Chandiraani Telugu (around 1 hour and 47 minutes in) which appears to be (Chandirani from 1953, more than 60 years old) {{PD-India}}. Pinging @Eatcha, Yann. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Túrelio could you provide the video ID ? I remember there was a music detection note on the page. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio No more required. It's as I said there's a music identification tag. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Music typically has several copyrights -- the music, the lyrics, the arrangement, and the recording. It is possible that all of these are PD in India due to its 50 year rule, but it must be proven that all of the copyrights have expired. Also, even if the work is PD in India, that would have happened in 2003 which is too late for the URAA rule in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Fahriye Evcen 2015.jpg

Thıs photo - Fahriye Evcen 2015.jpg has been used in permission from Mrs Fahriye Evcen Ozcivit and taken from her Instagram profile photos. Therefore it should not be deteted!

Oz Aker 9/12/2019

--Oz aker (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oz aker, you must make comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fahriye Evcen 2015.jpg. The Instagram account does not have a free license and the EXIF shows another person as the photographer. In order to keep the image on Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Angela Davis crop.png

The web site where the image was found credits Wikimedia Commons as the source of the image. This image is a crop of File:Angela Davis pic.jpg. Can someone please explain why this cropped image was flagged? ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The cited page does credit Commons, although it does not correctly give the credit required by CC-BY. Gbawden am I missing something here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

What made me suspicious was that the file was uploaded on 10 Dec but the image was found online in March. I found the original uncropped image here File:Angela Davis pic.jpg

✓ Done I have undeleted the file Gbawden (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Gbawden. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Tombe de Noël Lacroix.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verification concerning OTRS 2019112410002763 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 13:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Kvardek du:. — Racconish💬 13:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Julia Piera.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019120210010187 regarding File:Julia Piera.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)