Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Undeletion request)
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.

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

Locator maps of Latvian parishes

In deletion request original uploader (re)confirmed that they are the author of the following maps. Also evidence was provided that public source data of these maps is open data. Author has released their maps to public domain, they are a prolific mapmaker and administrator on Latvian Wikipedia. In response to my recent enquiry they say that they a professional cartographer. Years ago they have documented their mapmaking process here. So there seems to be more than enough reason to assume good faith that these maps are not copyright violations.

Nominator in their laconic remarks in turn did not provide any evidence that there are some other non-free maps that these maps might be derived from. Closing admin in their post-closure response doesn't seem to know either why should we doubt about the freedom of these maps. Hopefully this is a misunderstanding and these maps can be restored. Or, if not else, then hopefully now we can shed at least some light on why were these maps deleted, and why shouldn't we delete pretty much all other maps on Commons in similar manner (as we are never 100% sure that everything is alright copyright-wise).

--Pikne 07:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yoga Training In Rishikesh Akshi Yogashala (258662567).jpeg

The nomination was based in "metadata contains Facebook, as source" but clearly is the same author for both files, and it's possible by the law have different versions of the same file, under different licenses. Moreover, the author could always choose to latter publish a file in a more permissive license. So, the justification is not valid.

Gbawden it's not the first time that you do not check the votes and wrongly delete a file of mine. jeff g will always include "delete" in files that I upload, because he loves me and want hard my attention, so you need to pay more attention. ---- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Is there an OTRS ticket containing Wikimedia and Facebook users identity confirmation by a highly trusted independent user? We should be able to verify identity even when Facebook account disappears. Ankry (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
We have the CC-by version stored at (258662567), so we have a more powerful manner to prove than even OTRS. Check [1] and [2]. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If it was first published online elsewhere before it was posted at 500px, then the 500px link is actually not a proof. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's the same user, it's a clear case.
If they decided to publish under a cc-by after, it's their decision, and we have proof that they did that.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I would err on the side of caution and get OTRS permission, especially as it appears to be have been published elsewhere before 500px Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Commons:Assuming worst case copyright and Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point

Deletion request links: Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Assuming worst case copyright and Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point

Initially the pages "Commons:Assuming worst case copyright" and "Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point" were nominated for deletion by T Cells after they were called "out of scope" by Steinsplitter and were finally deleted by Jcb exactly 7 days later on 18 November 2018. These deletions were controversial. The reason used for their nomination "Contrary to the claim of the page creator, the page does not contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Commons contributors.", a claim made by T Cells, could easily be disproven by the simple fact that both these essays were created by Alexis Jazz (difficult to argue Alexis is not a Commons contributor) and provided opinions and advice. Both of these pages deal with copyright issues on Wikimedia Commons which is a central theme of this website and both pages give a detailed insight into both the history and execution of certain copyright practices on Wikimedia Commons.

Is there consensus to undelete them where an admin will first restore the pages "Commons:Assuming worst case copyright" and "Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point", then move them to "User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright" and "User:Alexis Jazz/Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point", either with or without leaving a redirect? This way the editing history of those pages would be preserved. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (well obviously..) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • While I can Symbol support vote.svg Support the first one under some conditions, I definitely Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion of the second one: it is offensive trolling directed to certain commons users and I found its form unacceptable.
Concerning Commons:Assuming worst case copyright: when it was created and deleted the author could be considered not to be an established Commons user; that has changed IMO. In the article its author contests COM:PCP. But except that it contains some useful information. I would support undeletion if the author accepts to add clear warning that "this essay contests COM:PCP which is a Wikimedia Commons rule".
Opinions of other established Commons users are welcome. Ankry (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: IIRC it didn't contest COM:PCP, it was targeted mostly at re-users of Commons content who might have different needs compared to Commons. And I think it had {{Essay}} at the top which says "It is not a Commons policy or guideline", but if you want me to add an additional warning I have no problem with that. I don't believe the second essay was "trolling". I read it again and.. really, it describes the events as they happened. You say it's directed at "certain commons users", I am the writer and I can only think of one it is about, not even actually directed at. And it's not policy, unlike something like w:en:WP:IAR. My opinion, in fact my observation, is that sometimes making noise and disrupting a bit will actually help to bring change. Certainly, you need to know how far you can go. Slowking4 has sadly proven not to know, considering they're blocked now. Incnis also didn't know. But that doesn't mean properly dosed and directed disruption can't wake people up. But as always, use with moderation.
When you say "when it was created and deleted the author could be considered not to be an established Commons user", I wonder where you draw the line. By November 2018 I had 900+ uploads including overwrites, current versions only and excluding batch uploads. All took some form of manual labor. Be it taking a photo, importing media with V2C, cropping an existing image, photoshopping something, etc. And that's not including categorizations and other text contributions. Also, I'd been autopatrolled for 10 months by that time. But I guess your standards for "an established Commons user" are just higher than mine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC
  • Clarification Please:
  1. Is Alexis Jazz generally accepted as a competent good faith contributor?
  2. Concerning the question of whether the material "contests PCP". WMF projects are not monolithic cults. Shouldn't we be entitled to disagree with some of the projects' policies? While voicing an opinion that goes against policy, in a deletion fora, isn't helpful, because we are all supposed to follow the existing policies, shouldn't there be a place for good faith contributors to argue for new policies, or the modification of old policies?
  3. Should the minority view of a single individual, or a handful of individuals, be in a WMF's project's main space, where it looks like a policy, or widely accepted guideline? No. When should a minority view sit in a main space, like [[Commons:...]] or [[Wikipedia:...]]? I frankly do not know. Is it OK if the material seems to clearly warn readers the opinions are not generally accepted? Frankly, I do not know. I've never promoted any of my user essays to mainspace, although some other contributors do link to them. But, since we aren't a monolithic cult, why couldn't these essays have been demoted and moved to userspace? Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I misread the request: my objections concerning the first one were related to remaining it in the Commons: namespace. No objections if moved to userspace. My objections concerning the second one are still valid, however. If Alexis Jazz wishes, I can send the content via email. Opinions from other users, especially other admins, are still welcome, however. Ankry (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Favorable to moving these essays to the user space, provided comments on other contributors are redacted. — Racconish💬 19:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to tell what the supposed problems are while these are deleted. Since this doesn't teal with copyright violations, the essays should be restored so that those in this discussion can evaluate the arguments made. GMGtalk 19:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Assuming worst case copyright has already been restored. The Everipedia essay (UDR below this one) can be read on, but I would strip all the goofy stuff from it so it doesn't really matter. Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point detailed how Slowking4's use of GFDL+CC-BY-NC and recommending it to other users ultimately resulted in Commons no longer accepting photos with only a GFDL license, which to the best of my knowledge was Slowking4's goal all along. @Racconish: I think the essay only comments on Slowking4, but not in a negative way. Slowking4 never complained about it. There's the line "seven administrators (list of names)", not really a comment on any of them, but the reading flow will improve when I remove the list of names, so I'll do that if the essay is restored. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Racconish: is there any blocker for undeleting Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point and moving it to my userspace? Slowking4 doesn't have an issue with it (hell, he responded on the DR) and I'll remove the list of admin usernames. (not really a comment on them and not vital for the essay, removing the list actually improves readability) And undeletion/moving of the Everipedia essay (below) shouldn't be controversial. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    If there is no objection until Thursday, I will undelete it, redact references to other users and move it to the user space. — Racconish💬 08:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per consensus. — Racconish💬 21:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Kepler-47 System Artist-Impression 20190416.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I see no reason for the deletion of this file. Most probably just a mistake. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Christian Ferrer? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is quite old for me (some months) and I don't remember precisely this file, however the source that was provided [3] is copyrighted. As it is stated in this webpage the content comes partly from NASA and the National Science Foundation, however it is not said what part comes from the NASA, and what (or if) changes have been made. It is not clear to me why a PD tag should be applied to this image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems that Tim Pyle who is credited at the source page was employed by Caltech, not NASA. And as Caltech is not a government agency, their works are not free by default. Ankry (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yann, OK. Next time, I will talk to the deleting admin first.
Christian, the file was deleted today. The image can also be found at the Nasa website.
Ankry, Commons hosts 6 other images by Tim Pyle, Category:Artworks of exoplanets by Tim Pyle. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
And their status should be investigated on the per image basis. They may be free, depending on copyright information at the source. What I suggest, they are likely not copyright-free and their status may depend on Caltech's permission. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry but there is something wrong here, I did not intended to delete this file, this is likely why I don't remember it and why I got confused with the dates. But the worse is that I don't understand how I deleted it. Let me explain : I just checked my logged actions at the precise time of deletion of this image 11:07, 6 July 2019, I was doing a mass deletion of files uploaded by this user (and this user have been noticed about that deletion, however they are not the uploader), and just after (with no other additional actions actions between) I blocked this user. This image have been deleted using VFC for the files uploaded by Nicholas Michael Halim. But I don't understand how it have been included because this user did not upload it or even edit it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    Christian, this was most probably happened due to a VFC bug. The missing puzzle is File:Kepler-47 system.jpg uploaded by User:Nicholas Michael Halim and processed (deleted and redirected) by me as a duplicate. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks you. If there is no copyright issues, I'm of course not opposed to an undeletion, but I'm not a specialist of NASA works therefore I'm quite neutral. Note that if the file is not undeleted, so the other files in Category:Artworks of exoplanets by Tim Pyle should be nominated for deletion. And at the opposite if the others are not nominated for deletion so this one should be undeleted. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Alx90865

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The documents from Russian Empire, published in newspapers in 1906, free to access, no authoring. These documents are very useful for those researching their family roots from the mentioned cities. These documents for the mentioned cities were never published online before, I'd like to make them accessible for wide range of users who cannot visit local (Russian) libraries. Alx90865 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I cannot see the files, but their names suggest that these are lists of voters. Simple lists do not have copyright, as they are data and are not creative. So it does not even matter if they are from the time of Russia Empire or are compiled just yesterday. Thus I Symbol support vote.svg Support the undeletion at this time. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @EugeneZelenko: ? Ankry (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't mind undeletion of these files as long as uploaded or somebody else is willing to fix license information. Actually I explained on my user talk page to uploader what need to be done, but somehow it was not implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I have added the "PD-Russian Empire" copyright tags several days ago, prior to deletion. So I do not understand what else should I do to these files to have them undeleted. Could you explain? --Alx90865 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I checked couple of files and licensing remained same as in time of nomination for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I cannot check the licensing because these files are deleted. So I see 2 options: 1) Do add "PD-Russian-Empire" copyright tag to the files after they have been undeleted 2) upload the same files as new ones, providing "PD-Russian-Empire" tag. What should I do? --Alx90865 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I restored all files. License tags must be fixed. If you don't know how to do this, just edit these files and newly uploaded one and see difference in wiki-markup. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alx90865: Take a look at File:Быхов список городских избирателей 1906.pdf I have edited it to make licence reasonable. We can argue whether PD-RusEmpire also applies, but I would disagree, since this is something that is actually not eligible for copyright in the first place. So please take a look and go through other ones as well. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gone Postal: Please take a look at File:Список_лиц,_имеющих_право_на_участие_в_выборах_в_Государственную_Думу_1906.pdf I have edited it in a slightly different way, providing source and author as Mogilevskie Gubernskie Vedomosti (newspaper where the lists were published), not "self-photographed". Also, there are tons of similar files containing old newspapers scans on wikicommons from other contributors, e.g. File:Irkutskie_gubernskie_vedomosti.jpg with licensing and authoring varying from file to file. Should I use newspaper as author, or 'my own work'? In my opinion, the author was the newspaper, not me (not to talk that actually these lists were created by special government electoral commitees prior to publishing them). Thanks for your contribution to this issue. --Alx90865 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alx90856: The way I interpret the "source" is where the specific file comes from. While author is the original copyrighted work and all the additional authors that have added something that has in any way transformed it. As such you filling in the author field goes further than what I did, and that is much better. As for the source portion, I disagree with repeating the author, but not enough to actually edit the file or demand that somebody does it differently. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Not eligible for copyright" can be a complex rule, and IMO should be avoided whenever a clearer, more definite rule applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue is that we do not follow that approach in other things, for example, when somebody puts a public domain image available under a free licence, we normally remove a free licence. Personally, I believe that we should have "fall back" templates. For example, "This image is PD-ineligible, if this happens to be wrong, it is PD-old, if this happens to be wrong it is also available under CC-BY". However, this isn't a place to discuss such a change. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Applying {{PD-RusEmpire}} to something that is not copyrightable (and never was) is providing false information IMO. Reasoning provided there applies to works, not to anything. But {{PD-text}} may be better here than {{PD-ineligible}}. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. "Not eligible for copyright" is a better rationale than "PD in the Russian Empire". Regards, Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with using {{PD-text}}, it is more specific. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I've added {{PD-text}} as category (giving no license) and source as the newspaper title. Can you check please is it all OK to make this request finally closed? There are still some warnings for 'deriative work' which is definitely not this case, so I'm afraid of new deletions.. being a novice in wikicommons it is not so straightforward to cope with its policies--Alx90865 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

File:José Armando Estevez.jpg

Solicito información referente a la eliminación, ya que son de mi autoria tanto el especificado como los siguientes Rafael Rivas.jpg y Juan Manuel La Guardia.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar66644 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

File:John Schneider2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin2.jpg (edit: uploaded by another user, but credited to User:Philkon) and File:CindyDyerByPhilKonstantin.jpg have OTRS permission, so there is no doubt that User:Philkon = - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Natuur12 who added OTRS to one of the files. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. The ticket proofs beyond a significant doubt that the uploader is telling the truth. Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Do you suggest that this OTRS ticket should be added to both files as a permission confirmation? Ankry (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I can't read OTRS tickets, I don't know if that makes sense. But the OTRS permission proves that User:Philkon =, so there is no copyright issue here. Maybe add the OTRS ticket to his user page? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, Natuur12: My question is who and how will provide the identity confirmation information to the image description in a reliable and verifiable way? If no such information is present, the images will be nominated for deletion by a random user again soon. Noting, that no identity confirmation information is present on the userpage. I am also unsure if this discussion does not exceed OTRS privacy limits if we discuss OTRS ticket content here. Noting also that Natuur12 as admin and an OTRS member is free to undelete the image themselves if intending to add {{OTRS permission}}. Ankry (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Philkon had to deal with that a few times indeed. He has contributed hundreds of photos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Can't we use {{Verified account}} and add it to the user page? Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Jcb's deletion between 20:16 and 20:18, 4 January 2019 (115 files)

In this period, User:Jcb deleted 116 files. File:Bershanskaya, Gelman, and Smirnova.png has been restored. The other 115:

  1. File:Ensign of the Kazakhstan Air Force.png {{Own}},, {{PD-KZ-exempt}}, svg at File:Flag of Kazakhstan Air Force.svg
  2. File:Плановые полеты летчиков авиабазы Домна ВВО (Забайкальский край) МО РФ 02.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  3. File:Плановые полеты летчиков авиабазы Домна ВВО (Забайкальский край) МО РФ 01.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  4. File:Pervy`e krasvoenlety`.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  5. File:Elizovo aerodrom.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  6. File:Leonov Alksandr Petrovich general.jpg
  7. File:Горяинов и Савицкий в Мезее 16-й ВА.jpg
  8. File:Gruppirovka protivnika pered nachalom Krymskoi nastupatelnoi operatcii.png
  9. File:Построение обороны противника в Крыму.png
  10. File:Krime konferencia 2014.png
  11. File:Михаил Кондратьевич Круш.jpg
  12. File:Фролов Николай Алексеевич.jpg
  13. File:Kobylash si.jpg
  14. File:Су 24М SU 24M.jpg
  15. File:Vasilevskiy A M.png
  16. File:Знак военного летчика Пруссия.png {{Own}}
  17. File:Zeichen Militärpilot (Bayern).png {{Own}}
  18. File:МиГ 29 СМТ.png (in author field)
  19. File:Su-30sm GB1C8101-550.png (in author field)
  20. File:Normandia11.png (in author field)
  21. File:Normandia7.png (in author field)
  22. File:Normandia1.png (in author field)
  23. File:Map of the East Prussian offensive.png
  24. File:Plennie kenigsberg 550.png
  25. File:Granitsa prussii 550.png
  26. File:Подразделение.jpg
  27. File:The defeat of the Samland group and the capture of Pillau.png {{Own}}
  28. File:The position of the troops in the counterattack.png dunno
  29. File:The counter-attack by troops of the Western front in the area of Sukhinichi, Kozelsk Beginning.png {{Own}}
  30. File:Вице-адмирал Воложинский.png
  31. File:Татаренко Александр Юрьевич.png
  32. File:Севостьянов Виктор Михайлович.png
  33. File:Кузьменко АВ.png
  34. File:Iv-oksv00-18.png
  35. File:Hasan6.png
  36. File:Карта бд в Воронежско-Харьковской стратегической наступательной операции.png {{Own}}
  37. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on 05.02.1943.png {{Own}}
  38. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on11.01.1943.png {{Own}}
  39. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on 20.03.1943.png {{Own}}
  40. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on 24.05.1943.png {{Own}}
  41. File:Pskov offensive 09 03 1944.png {{Own}}
  42. File:Pskov offensive 15 04 1944.png {{Own}}
  43. File:Braunsberg offensive operation 29 03 1945.png {{Own}}
  44. File:Braunsberg offensive operation 19 03 1945.png {{Own}}
  45. File:Adnan Pasha.jpeg dunno
  46. File:Braunsberg offensive operation 13 03 1945.png {{Own}}
  47. File:Polikarpov I-16 Monino.JPG {{Own}}
  48. File:Farman IV in Monino.JPG dunno
  49. File:Горяинов А С.png
  50. File:General Tarasenko.png
  51. File:Major-General of aviation Belevich.jpg
  52. File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 28 июля 1944 года.png {{Own}}
  53. File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 3 августа 1944 года.png {{Own}}
  54. File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 28 августа 1944 года.png {{Own}}
  55. File:Противотанковые ежи на границе Восточной Пруссии. Август 1944 г.png
  56. File:General Egkov VI.png
  57. File:Aleksandrov ss.png
  58. File:Dozapravka v vozduhe.png
  59. File:Romanov VM Hero of Russia.png
  60. File:Andrey Dyachenko.png
  61. File:77° brigata SAP "Fratelli Manfredi", distaccamento Leo-Pier-Luigi.jpg dunno
  62. File:Vadim Byikulov.png
  63. File:Rusfalcons solo-su-35-550.jpg
  64. File:The prosecution Nevel groups 08 01.png {{Own}}
  65. File:The prosecution Nevel groups 30 12.png {{Own}}
  66. File:The prosecution Nevel groups 02 01.png {{Own}}
  67. File:Nedosekin pv.png
  68. File:Otroshenko.png
  69. File:KorochkinVF.png
  70. File:Shaposhnikov170.png
  71. File:Kornukov memory-550.png
  72. File:Летчики 721 иап 1943 год.jpg
  73. File:The pilots and the commander of the 721 IAP.jpg
  74. File:Krukov.jpg
  75. File:Remont La-5.jpg
  76. File:Raevski-170.png
  77. File:Templin-gross doelln2000.png
  78. File:Синицын Виктор Павлович.png
  79. File:General Sadofev.png
  80. File:Base the Arctic Shamrock v.png
  81. File:2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice for All Award (23253948146).jpg dunno
  82. File:Base the Arctic Shamrock.png
  83. File:UdarTu22.png
  84. File:MIG29-550.jpg
  85. File:Recon uav 3(1)(1)(1).jpg
  86. File:Etalon 10SV.png
  87. File:Sign of the Yankees Museum.png {{Own}}
  88. File:Положение войск на 10 10 1941.png {{Own}}
  89. File:Положение войск на 30 09 1941.png {{Own}}
  90. File:Положение войск на 29 10 1941.png {{Own}}
  91. File:Pashchevskii.png
  92. File:Zhiharev general.png
  93. File:MiG-27 Mongolian Arat.png
  94. File:Знамя эскадрильи Монгольский арат.png
  95. File:Sukhoi T-50.jpg dunno
  96. File:Bust of A. K. Serov.png
  97. File:Abramov-Vladimir-Nikitovich.png
  98. File:The area of responsibility of 19 the army air defense.png {{Own}}
  99. File:866Polk000.png
  100. File:Gorod-nish-serbiya-pamyatnik-sovetskim-voinam.jpg
  101. File:Shatalovo (air base).png {{Own}}
  102. File:The Monino Airfield.png {{Own}}
  103. File:Pantsir-S1 Northern Clover.jpg dunno
  104. File:Pantsir-S1 2.jpg dunno
  105. File:Концерт на острове Котельный.jpg dunno
  106. File:Polar star (military base).jpg dunno
  107. File:База Полярная звезда часовня.jpg dunno
  108. File:Щучин аэродром.png dunno
  109. File:Chudbin2.jpg dunno
  110. File:Chudbin1.jpg dunno
  111. File:Chudbin0.jpg dunno
  112. File:Матиенко Пётр Андреевич.jpg dunno
  113. File:Chudbin3.jpg dunno
  114. File:153 giap 02.jpg dunno
  115. File:153 giap 01.jpg dunno

Criteria for undeletion:

  1. Probably PD files such as Ensign of the Kazakhstan Air Force.png ({{PD-KZ-exempt}}). Could be PD by exemption, PD by age, etc.
  2. Files that have been licence-reviewed.
  3. Files that have a URL as source, can be found on the source URL, belong to the source URL operator, and the source URL has a free licence. (Similar to File:Bershanskaya, Gelman, and Smirnova.png)

Reasons for undeletion:

  1. special:permalink/333890137#Deleted_photos_with_Creative_Commons_Attribution_4.0_license: according to User:Fighter Pilot, these files came from the website of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation ( ).
  2. does have a site-wide copyright notice © Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
  3. Commons consensus wrt Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-03#File:Bershanskaya,_Gelman,_and_Smirnova.png.
  4. Jcb deleted the files without tagging them for SD or DR.

@Jcb: it would be very kind of you if you could undo your damage, please?--Roy17 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support At the very least for evaluation. Uploader seems to have only been noticed about 3 files. I wonder how the others were tagged. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"As far as I can see, the files that I deleted had a source link to a different website. Also there was not license template." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ordinary copyright violations, all presented as own work with a CC license, most too old to be own work of the uploader but too recent to be PD, or e.g. File:Shatalovo (air base).png, which is a Google Maps screenshot, also presented as own work with a CC license. Jcb (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"all presented as own work with a CC license" - as the file pages are redlinks, people would tend to take your word for it. Once again, it has to be me who exposes these falsehoods. A role I don't particularly enjoy, because you never apologize or take responsibility for what you say. Face-sad.svg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Checking files at random:
File:Щучин аэродром.png - Yandex maps screenshot - even has watermark (!!!)
File:The area of responsibility of 19 the army air defense.png - Yandex map falsely claimed as own
File:Положение войск на 29 10 1941.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice for All Award (23253948146).jpg - Flickr washing - credit per Flickr and metadata is "© Tony Powell". Tony Powell does not appear to be an employee of the LBJ Foundation and there is no evidence the latter has permission to release the image to the public domain. COM:OTRS would be needed.
File:Летчики 721 иап 1943 год.jpg - historical photo with bogus CC-by-SA 4.0 license, sourced to, not, which does not appear to reference CC licenses.
File:The prosecution Nevel groups 08 01.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 3 августа 1944 года.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:Braunsberg offensive operation 29 03 1945.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:153 giap 02.jpg - historical photo with no license and sourced to, not
No evidence deletion was abusive, or that there are enough errors to warrant undeletion for evaluation. To the contrary, the purports above are not factual and the premise is ignorant of COM:EVID. If there is evidence a particular file was deleted in err, it can be presented. Эlcobbola talk 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Elcobbola. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Roy17, Elcobbola, De728631: I added some sources where I could. (where I couldn't it says "dunno") минобороны.рф is also - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, File:Pashchevskii.png has a license review from Explicit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Almost all historic military photos from the Soviet era are owned by the Russian government, just check any archive like RGKAFD, TASS, RIAN, etc. The website is not a copyright owner of any photos, it merely republishes photos that can be found elsewhere on the internet, like, but never give attribution (same goes for a lot of Russian websites like, etc; in fact, I have been trying to convince to add required attributions to photos). The contemorary and yandex maps should stay deleted, but the historic Soviet military photos like 153 giap 02.jpg and the photos by the Russian government that were created by the Soviet and Russian administrations like the ones from [4] should be undeleted, and Jcb's admin privleges should be revoked.(Symbol support vote.svg Support)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"Almost all" is not an acceptable argument; you need to prove that for each photo separately. The goal of providing a source is to verify the copyright status, so providing a source that does not provide appropriate information and/or licensing is pointless. Also, providing false information may be a reason for deletion (eg. you claim that File:153 giap 02.jpg was made or first published in 2018; and if it was first published in 2018 it may copyrighted in US till 2113 (95 years since first publication, unless creation date is known) regardless of its copyright status in Russia. So without information about its author or (initial) publication date we cannot consider it free.
Also, making UDR with mixed rationale is pointless, as it cannot be properly handled. I suggest closing this request as not done and creating separate requests for photos that are clearly free in both: Russia and US and providing appropriate individual information that prove that. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The rationales are consistent. A sysop User:Jcb mass-deleted files out of process when many files have valid and live external sources. The uploader did make a request to challenge the deletion: special:diff/333829923, but s/he like most other users would not know the specific procedures on Commons well. This batch request was filed as serious doubts on validity of this particular batch deletion by Jcb have emerged. I explicitly listed the criteria for deletion for you to check. You are the only ones with access to the deleted files and descriptions. Now Alexis Jazz has put forward evidence (which should have come from sysops). In addition to, for example is a well-established source of free contents under CC-BY-4.0. It was absurd when only you could access the evidence you turned to non-sysops for it. Now that much evidence has been given, but it is up to you to decide if you insist on manipulating the process and bullying a clueless user like User:Fighter Pilot by closing the request.--Roy17 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Several admins actually looked at the files and all of them disagree with you sofar. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: @Jcb: All photos produced by Soviet military photographers that have not reached the public domain are property of the Russian government, and it is legal for the Russian government to release their photos under free licences. Other websites (like soviet aces) are supposed to provide attribution to the russian government per the fair-use clause of russian copyright law, but the Russian government rarely demands the legally required attributions, and hence it is very, very common for russian websites to re-use government property photos without attribution. Files on commons don't have to be PD in both the US and source country IF the copyright holder released them under a permitted creative commons licence, which we saw with the historic photos. Photos taken by Russian government photographers (like the ones from russian military airshows) and all the Soviet-era photos from (ie, all the ones that have to be either Russian government property or public domain) should be undeleted. In the case of File:153 giap 01.jpg, while it was first published in 2018, it is safe for undeletion because it is Russian government property and under a permitted creative commons licence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2, Majora: Here goes Jcb again. I went above and beyond to add sources and have shown Jcb wasn't telling the truth. They were not "all presented as own work with a CC license", and in the face of undisputable evidence, Jcb simply turns to "Several admins actually looked at the files and all of them disagree with you sofar." This is why I'm pinging you. Jcb doesn't value the opinion of non-admins. He's also forgetting to mention that when Elcobbola and De728631 replied I hadn't added the sources yet. Meanwhile, Ankry requires Roy17 "to prove that[the image has a free license] for each photo separately", something Roy17 can't actually do because all the files are redlinks. That's what we need admins for. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this evaluation. If I understand PlanespotterA320 correctly, even the images from non-government sites may be freely licensed, but probably need another source. Pinging @A.Savin as well who understands Russian. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


Здравствуте, файл Тихонова.jpg был удален. Хотя я являюсь автором этого изображения. Без него не могу создать страницу. Подскажите, можно ли отменить удаление. Спасибо.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina.dmi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Здравствуйте, @Katerina.dmi:. Загружали-ли вы этот файл раньше как File:НГТихонова.jpg или это был другой пользователь? Это действительно тот файл, который лежит на ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Да. Загружала, это была я и это мой файл, который разрешено использовать в Интернете. Спасибо

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina.dmi (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Дело в том, что раз этот файл уже был доступен через другой сайт, скорее всего будет необходимо пройти процес OTRS. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ADMINS, can you please check if the uploaded file had metadata on it. If it had, then it is likely the original, and that would mean that file is actually a copy, as that social network strips all the metadata at the time of upload. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: I think it is irrelevant. File:НГТихонова.jpg was deleted as being similar to the one on and File:Тихонова.jpg as reupload. In the case of already published, especially professional, works we need a permission either via initial publication site or from identifiable photographer to ensure that DMCA takedown is not possible. So we need the source of free license to be identifiable or the work to be fresh new, never published. Ankry (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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



I am writing to request an undeletion of the file listed above. This file is owned by my company, Eurasia Group, and is an image of our president, Ian Bremmer. Richard Jopson, whose name is listed in the file, is the photographer, but we own the photo.

Please let me know what we can do to get this situation rectified as quickly as possible.

Thank you, --Ngedana (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ngedana: No deleted file with this or similar name. Unsure what do you mean. Ankry (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ngedana: Please clarify if this is about File:Wikiheadshot.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Hello, and thank you for your response. Yes, that is the photo to which we were referring. Do we need to send an email to granting permission to use this? Or is there another step we should be taking?

Thank you again, --Ngedana (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Antonio guterres.jpg


I am writing to request an undeletion of the photo listed above. It is an image my company, Eurasia Group, owns, and it shows our president, Ian Bremmer, with United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. IT should not have been deleted; please let us know what we can do to get it re-uploaded so it won't be deleted again. We would like to accomplish this as quickly as possible.

Thank you, --Ngedana (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ngedana: As for any corporate copyright ownership, we need a free license evidence either via company website or following COM:OTRS instructions. We may also need an evidence of copyright transfer if the photographer is not the company employee. Only unpublished works being personal ownership of the uploader can be licensed on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I sent an email to, so hopefully we can get this taken care of quickly. --Ngedana (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The permissions-commons email service has a huge backlog because it is staffed entirely by volunteers. Once the email has been processed and accepted, the image will be undeleted automatically, but this may take several weeks. --De728631 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Rudolf Dietrich Freiherr von Roth.jpg

I present the request to restore file files, concerning the pd-100 license.--NNEPEL12 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Their deletion was unrelated to copyright. So why do you want to undelete them? Ankry (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
they are paintings executed centuries ago, and therefore the following copyright has expired for years concerning the artist, whether he has a name or is unknown--NNEPEL12 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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


To whom it may concern,

I have added the section 'Inquiry learning to read in the Netherlands, for reading mature children only' on webpage Included where three pictures. Two of them have been accepted but the third not yet.

Eatcha had my addition and the control over the three pictures under his responsibility. As the third picture - picture 1 - he has asked my whether the picture was mine or not. About 10 days ago I have answered him: is my website and Stichting Histos ('Foundation Histos') promotes my work and I work for it - actually I am the founder.

Picture 1, for example, is on and there you can see that I am the author of both books.

I have got no reaction from Eatcha and I understand that on Wikipedia he has a break now until March 20th 2020.

Will you, please, further my case by answering my reaction from about 10 days ago?

Kind regards,

Ewald Vervaet
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewald Vervaet 1949 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The easiest way forward would be a free licence for this image and the other images at your website. This would allow us to verify your claim and restore the image here at Commons. Alternatively you may send an email as outlined in COM:OTRS, but it will take several weeks until this gets processed by our volunteer email team. So you might want to place a simple statement about the "Creative Commons by attribution share-alike 4.0" licence at this page too. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dan Duckhorn.png

The photographer has given permission to use the photo.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liza Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Do not reupload deleted images! This may result in your account getting blocked. Since this image has been published before without a free licence, we need a permission coming directly from the photographer. An instruction how to send an email of consent can be found at COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done From, "© COPYRIGHT 2019 DUCKHORN WINE COMPANY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.". Please use OTRS to clarify what exactly the photographer permits. Thuresson (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Rafe Resendes

Hi I uploaded a picture of Rafael Resendes yesterday at his request. He is my boss and wants his picture updated. The picture will be uploaded to our website soon; will that allow for it to be uploaded here? --Joshuakennelly (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We need evidence of a free licence granted by the copyright holder. So if your website publishes this image with a reference to the copyright holder and a free licence that allows reuse for anyone and any purpose, we can restore the image over here. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Duckhorn Estate New

The photographer has written in and told you that we are allowed to use this pic.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liza Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 129 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Dan Duckhorn

The photographer has written in and told you that we are allowed to use this pic.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liza Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 129 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Presumably about File:Dan Duckhorn.png, double entry. Thuresson (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Breeze Millard.jpg

This image should carry a Commons licence, as should any other imagery relating to the Whyalla Recording Scholarship including its logo. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:44B8:258:C00:3D99:34C2:E1F3:D63F (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 129 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. The logo also should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:SWC-Signet der Universität Bern.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Insignia of the University of Bern in occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Moonlanding is an essential part of the Wikipedia Article "Solar Wind Composition". The University of Bern does renounce to the usual copyright rules concerning this matter. Commander Sterchi (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

And we cannot host images without clear free license permission from the actual copyright holder unless copyright expired. So I see no way to host the image until it is more that 70 years since the University used it first time in public (and that has to be documented). Maybe, you can use the image directly in some Wikipedias that accept Fair Use. Ankry (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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


It's a photo that I have taken, because I am the band manager. So why i can't use it?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingbolo (talk • contribs) 08:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You can if you provide a proof that it is freely licensed, originating from the photo initial publication site (faster way) or via email, following COM:OTRS instructions (slower way). We cannot accept on wiki license declaration for photos already published elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Fabio Zaffagnini.jpg

The image was used in the page for the participation of Mr Fabio Zaffagnini in that conference, but Sudwave is not the owner of that image, that was provided directly by Mr Fabio Zaffagnini and his entourage. --Francopane (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said that. But, as the photo was already published, we need a free license evidence: if not from the initial publication site, then following COM:OTRS instructions. Ask the photographer to follow the instructions. Ankry (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Files by Anshul Tyagi

File:Anshul tyagi news.jpg, File:Anshul7.jpg, File:Anshul4.jpg, File:Anshul6.jpg, File:Anshul5.jpg, File:Anshul2.jpg, File:Anshul1.jpg, File:Anshul3.jpg, File:Anshul exclusive.jpg, File:Anshul IMG 7563.jpg, File:Model anshul.jpg, File:Puma dream.jpg Dear Sir/Madam, this all photographs is my own work and this is only with me and i just only uploaded on my wikipedia. Request to undelete all these files (name attached). Anshul Tyagi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul Tyagi News (talk • contribs) 10:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per COM:NOTHOST. Anshul Tyagi is not a notable person. Ankry (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done out of scope. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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


Dear Sir, You are requested to undelete the file "Sharmaji.jpg".As this is original file and it does not violate your norms. This is Photograph of Indian Author of Revolutionaries books.I am creating his biography page,For which this photograph is required. Your cooperation is highly solicited. Thanks. From Sonali Sharma
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt Satya Narain Sharma (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. Why is it in COM:SCOPE? Is there a Wikipedia article that the photo can be used in?
  2. Who is the photographer?
Ankry (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response to the key question. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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


I have permission from the artist to use these photos
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaleaalbright (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need written permissions from both: the artist and the photographer (or an evidence of copyright transfer) coming to us directly from them, following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cordone Tanz.jpg

I have permission from the artist to use this photo.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaleaalbright (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
From which artist? Permission "to use" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements, see COM:L. We need free license from the photographer. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I contacted the artist, Roberto Cordone, to ask for permission to upload this photo. He is the author of the photograph and approved the upload. Would it be sufficient to prove this permission from Cordone (i.e. by email, providing his telephone number)?
--Annaleaalbright (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We do not accept forwarded permissions. A permission needs to come directly from the copyright holder by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Please note also that we require a permission for anyone to use this image for any purpose including commercial reuse. A permission for use at Wikipedia only would be insufficient. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
And the permission must clearly state a free license; permissions "to use" are useless. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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


I have permission from the artist to use this photo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaleaalbright (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

--Annaleaalbright (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We do not accept forwarded permissions. A permission needs to come directly from the copyright holder by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Please note also that we require a permission for anyone to use this image for any purpose including commercial reuse. A permission for use at Wikipedia only would be insufficient. De728631 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Huomucn

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Huomucn:

Please undelete.--Roy17 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The copyright term in China is life of the author plus 50 years, and both works were published before 1924. So these are good to go. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @Roy17: Please fix the license. --Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Free State Premier Ntombela.jpg

I believe this file should be undeleted because I have full permission from the Government of South Africa's Government Communication Information System (GCIS) to publish the image under a free license on this platform. I have e-mailed the GCIS employee a few times trying to negotiate a proper agreement. I have attempted to work through OTRS but OTRS proved to be ineffective. If you want every single e-mail the GCIS employee and I exchanged, I will happily comply and send it to you. Every single one from the first to the most recent. Lefcentreright (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I will rather keep on working with the OTRS board to effectively handle my request. Lefcentreright (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Chinese frigate Dongguan aground on Half Moon Shoal.jpg

Delete claimed image was taken by AFP. Source website, Washington Times, states image was taken by the Philippine Government . The AFP photographer claim was added after the initial upload, by someone else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Washington Post attributes the photo to the Philippine Government, and this link was also the source for the Commmons upload: [13]. The edit history of the file page shows that the AFP authorship was added after the initial upload by another user, who left the PD tag standing though. De728631 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Marine Brenier.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I look at this file history, I hope this time we have the right permission and that the user took time to read what we actually needed.

A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018121210004122.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2018121210004122|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Face-smile.svg AntonierCH (d) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntonierCH: Thuresson (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry Thuresson; now that it is restored, I see that the first version of the file is not covered by the permission. Can you delete that version please? --AntonierCH (d) 22:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


this image is from my family files, of my grandfather. It is not copyrighted to my knowledge and I can confirm it is his image

Bill Sargent (grandson) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion about the photo copyright status is not enough here. The photo may be PD, but we need an evidence for that. Assuming, that this is a photo from US, its copyright status depends on whether and when it was initially published and whether the publication was with or without copyright notice. If this is a private, unpublished photo, it may be still copyrighted 70 years after the photographer's death or, if the photographer is unknown, 120 years since it was made. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Pharaoh gamo bio pic.png

I have the rights to the picture that i posted on Wiki and have proof that this is my artwork. --Pharaoh Gamo (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Jermaine Xavier Miller AKA Pharaoh Gamo

For already published images, we need an evidence that it was initially published under a free license or a free license permission following COM:OTRS from the actual copyright holder. {{Own}} declaration cannot be used in such cases. Ankry (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Inside The Mossad TV Miniseries Theatrical Poster.jpg et al

As an OTRS volunteer, I have received Ticket:2019071710004729 regarding the three files mentioned. May any administrators assisting with undeleting these files? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @廣九直通車: Please proceed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Enscape Logo.png


The file specified in the heading has been deleted. However, I have received permission from the company to use this image file on Wikipedia. Below I have inserted the email I received from Enscape. I am also happy to forward it to the appropriate department to ensure that it is correct.

If this is not enough, I would be very happy to receive clarification on how to submit this application.

Thank you very much,

Florian Klein

--F7o F7o (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Florian,

Hiermit erteile ich dir die Freigabe um das Enscape Logo auf der Enscape Wikipedia-Seite hochzuladen.

Liebe Grüße

Lena Hoffmann

Lena Hoffmann

Junior Marketing Manager

Enscape™ - Real-Time Rendering & Virtual Reality Enscape GmbH

@F7o F7o: Enscape will have to contact OTRS and give permission to anyone for re-using the logo. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Alexis is right. Also, the permission would have to include any kind of re-use, and not just for use in Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Porträt Steeven Bretz Landesparteitag CDU Brandenburg Mai 2019.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

bei dem Porträt handelt es sich um ein Bild von Herrn Steeven Bretz, Generalsekretär der CDU Brandenburg, welches im Auftrag der CDU Brandenburg gemacht wurde. Die Fotografin, Frau Yana Aust, hat der CDU Brandenburg die Rechte ausdrücklich übertragen. Zum Nachweis habe ich den Mailverkehr mit Frau Aust beigefügt, der dies bestätigt. Ich hoffe, das Bild kann nun freigeschaltet und endlich verwendet werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Philipp Sünboldt Mitarbeiter im Büro von Herrn Steeven Bretz MdL Philipp.sue (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2019 14:15 An: Büro Bretz Steeven Betreff: Re: Bildrechte Portrait Steeven Bretz Landesparteitag der CDU Brandenburg

Sehr geehrter Herr Sünboldt,

Hiermit bestätige ich, dass eine deutschlandweite Verwendung für nicht kommerzielle Zwecke erworben wurde. Ich freue mich sehr, dass das Foto Verwendung findet.

Vielen Dank und mit besten Grüßen, Yasmina Aust

Am 18.06.2019 um 13:41 schrieb Büro Bretz Steeven <>:

Sehr geehrte Frau Aust,

beigefügtes Foto von Herrn Bretz haben Sie beim Landesparteitag der CDU Brandenburg am 04. Mai aufgenommen. Dieses wollten wir nun gerne für die Wikpediaseite von Herrn Bretz nutzen. Wie Sie sehen, habe ich auch extra einen Hinweis auf den Urheber in das Bild eingefügt. Wikipedia verlangt nun aber eine schriftliche Bestätigung des Fotografen, dass wir die Rechte an dem Bild besitzen. Nach meiner Kenntnis hat die CDU Brandenburg sämtliche Rechte von Ihnen erworben. Könnten Sie mir eine Art schriftlicher Bestätigung dessen zukommen lassen? Vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung bereits im Voraus. Ihnen einen schönen Tag wünschend verbleibe ich

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Philipp Sünboldt Wiss. Mitarbeiter

Bürgerbüro Steeven Bretz MdL Gregor-Mendel-Str. 3 14469 Potsdam

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above: non-commerrcial or teritory-limitted permissions are not acceptable in Wikimedia Commons, read COM:L for licensing requirements. Note also, that in this case we would also need an evidence that the permissipn from Yana Aust granted to CDU Brandenburg allows them to relicense the photo. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


The National Portrait Gallery in London allows usage of their photos under the Creative Commons license.

I have seen numerous other photos from their collection on WikiCommons. I am not sure why this particular photo is now an issue. Did I mark something incorrectly when I uploaded it?

Diane Snider

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose NC and/or ND licensed do not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Other NPG portraits available here are likely in Public Domain due to expired copyright. So no license is needed tor them. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Walter Stoneman died in 1958. Thuresson (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Krishna Govinda Gupta.png

This image was deleted with the reason: Author died in 1958, so not dead since 70+ years. I don't understand the requirement of 70 pma. The photograph was taken by Walter Stoneman in 1916 (1). So, British Copyright Act 1911 will apply. As per Section 21 (2) of that Act, copyright of photographs subsisted for 50 years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived. Therefore, it is PD-UK. And being pre-1924, it is PD-US. Hrishikes (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom UK copyright length is always based on author's death date if author is known. Regardless on creation date. I assume, the copyright length was extended by later law. Ankry (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: -- I think you should take a few minutes to study the relevant law. Copyright of photograph was not death-year-based at that time. I have already given the link for the law. The later act, British Copyright Act 1956 (3) did not change the provision for photographs (see # 3(4)(b) of the Act). Therefore, for this image, UK copyright expired in 1966. Photographs came under 70 pma rule as per # 4(1)(a) (4) and # 12(2) (5) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, [as amended in 1995 (6),] but this came after the expiry of the copyright of the image under discussion. Hrishikes (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I an not a lawyer, so I may misread the 1956 Act text, but my I disagree with you. My understanding of # 3(4) is that the copyright is 50pma, but not shorter than 50 post publication for photographs. IMO, this section applies effectively to posthumously published photos only (they are copyrighted longer that 50 pma then). But this discussion should be in COM:VPC. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hrishikes might be right about this. UK NGO Design and Artists Copyright Society says something similar. It seems to me as long as the photographer is not a citizen of any other EEA country and the photographs had not been published in EEA countries, (beware of Ireland which protects works for life+70,) UK photographs made before 1957 would be PD. Maybe the community can discuss this on COM:VP/C and amend COM:CRT/United Kingdom.--Roy17 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Moreover, Stoneman took the photograph for the firm, James Russell & Sons (see at 1), so it seems to be a case of corporate copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
COM:VPC is the right place to discuss this. If there is no mention about this rule in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom nor appropriate copyright template exists, we can do nothing here at the moment. Ankry (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand the rules, these images needed to be deleted. When I'm wrong, please give me a hint. But it seems, that there's actually not really seen as wrong. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:The Rebels Ceilidh Song Book, Second Edition.pdf

The above file has been deleted when I tried to upload it.

I know that there is no longer any copyright on the rebel ceilidh songbooks and thus seek to upload them on to here. I have had this assurance from the archive that provided them to me, and also everyone involved in their writing is now dead and the organisation itself has been defunct since 1967.

However it continues to get deleted when I try to upload the files, and I can't see a valid explanation as to why. Thanks in advance

--SNP History (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This seems to be a UK publication. UK copyright expire 70 years after author's death or 70 years after publication for anonymous works. This period did not elapse yet; eg. Thurso Berwick died in 1981 so his copyright will expire in 2052. And we also need to wait for US copyright expiration (95 years since first publication). Ankry (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Simbolo Lega (2018).png

Salve, È del tutto evidente che il nuovo simbolo della Lega sia coperto da copyright. Ciononostante, in maniera perfettamente analoga a quanto è avvenuto con i simboli di altri partiti presenti e passati (PD, M5S, il vecchio simbolo della Lega stessa etc.), credo avesse diritto a restare su Wikicommons. Forse che sarebbe bastato semplicemente indicare la corretta tipologia di copyright posseduta dall'immagine? --Gustavo La Pizza (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)