Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image: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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Dzisna, Barysaŭ kamień. Дзісна, Барысаў камень (1882).jpg, File:Barysavy kamiani. Барысавы камяні (1890).jpg

The reason for deletion of these files is not true. Both of them aren't scaled-down duplicates of File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.05.png and File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.06.png respectively. Actually they had the same resolution. And initially they even had better resolution and were uploaded from other sources (not from "Сапунов А. П. Двинские или Борисовы камни. — Витебск: Тип. Витебского Губернского Правления, 1890 — таб. 06. — 31 с."). Moreover, because of using .jpg format instead of redundant .png they have the same quality and resolution with much less file size. I believe we should use the server space rationally. So if there is a need to delete some images it should be redundant File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.05.png and File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.06.png. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition in my opinion such practice (uploading redundant file from the same source [1], [2] and then adding incorrect speedy deletion request [3]) have to be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Putting the two versions side by side, it is hard to choose between them. However, as a matter of policy, Commons prefers PNG over JPG for all images other than those originally created as JPG:
"If you have a choice of file formats in which to save a graphic, scan, or other such thing, save it as PNG..." (Commons:File_types#JPEG).
Therefore, the PNGs should be kept and the deletion of the JPGs was appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
No, but that same guideline does mention that JPG thumbnails are often better (and I think more performant to make), so having copies of both is not the worst idea. That is why we have {{JPEG version of PNG}} and related templates. Deletion does not save any disk space. So... particularly when the contributor wants it undeleted, I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. It doesn't hurt anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
For me this case looks like the following: "However, if the original file is in JPEG, it generally makes no sense to convert it to PNG: converting a lossy compression into a “lossless” format doesn't buy you anything since the “loss” already occurred in the original, and doing so will only increase the file size (any edits, however, should probably be saved as PNG as well as JPEG". The proof of my opinion is that there is no difference in quality between images. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kazimier Lachnovič. From a technical point of view, saving a lossy image (jpg) into a lossless container does not make the resulting image lossless. -FASTILY 00:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If the PNGs are not original lossless scans, but rather just JPGs converted to PNG, then yes the wrong duplicate was deleted in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure which file was meant, but high probably the file was the icon like this w:de:File:Blender.svg (and the first version of w:File:Blender.svg) then it's free, as you can see on under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG. The Tango styled icon is created by "Jakub Steiner" (Tango artist), the license is there clear given as CC-by-sa/3.0/ (file metadata) and the old files (on DE and EN) had GPL/2.0/!? I mean the commercial restriction is only because it is a logo:

4. The logo is used unaltered, without fancy enhancements, in original colors, original typography, and always complete (logo + text blender).
So probably the desktop icon is here not concrete meant?
5. In case you use the logo on products you sell commercially, you always have to contact us with a picture of how it will be used, and ask for explicit permission.
So commercial use is possible, there are logos on Commons which are more restricted. Probably as {{Trademarked}}?
User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. That page also is pretty explicit about the copyright: The Blender logo is a copyrighted property of NaN Holding B.V, and has been licensed in 2002 to the Blender Foundation. The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites and publications. So it would seem they are claiming copyright as some of the basis of those restrictions, not just trademark. It also seems like the copyright is owned by another entity so the copyright license might have to come from that other entity. The "freedesktop" SVG does have a by-sa-3.0 license in it though, but I wonder if that was just any additional expression added. I can see where the uncertainty comes from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. So there is a small uncertainty left. Could it be useful to contact the Blender Foundation (and also ask about the license contradiction in the icon files)? If yes, could someone do this with good English!? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Stichting Blender Foundation
Entrepotdok 57A 1018 AD
the Netherlands
Email: foundation (at) blender (dot) org
Chairman: Ton Roosendaal

License by Blender Desktop icon

Hello Blender Foundation,

I've a little question about the logo and the desktop icon: 
The icon there (under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG.) does have a by-sa-3.0 license in it though!?
So is it allowed to upload it under Wikimedia Commons with CC BY-SA 3.0: or not?

Is this a possible text to send? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The main issue is that the Blender Foundation does not own the rights to the logo -- they are merely a licensee and cannot grant licenses. It is a different foundation which actually owns the rights. The freedesktop icon looks like it was done by a third party, who were in the habit of freely licensing their works, and may not have considered the derivative work aspect when they made the file. In that case their license is just for any extra expression added. To me, that is the most likely situation. Asking would not hurt though, as it would at least bring the issue to their attention. Maybe ask "One of the icons there (under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG.) has a by-sa-3.0 license inside of it, which seems to be at odds with the copyright claim on the page. Is that file truly under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license ( or is it still restricted as a derivative work?" Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have sent the email. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I got an (fast) answer (@Clindberg:):

The Creative Commons allows to license out files that have logos - which have trademark/copyright protection outside of the realm of the CC areas.

Also Mozilla offers a svg of their logo as CC-BY:

I don't see this as a conflict? I might be mistaken though, but then you better seek advise at the CC website or a board there.

My take: the CC-BY for our logo means that you can use it freely, but while respecting the trademark.


What that means for us? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  18:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It does happen that logos have a free copyright license but are fully restricted by trademark. We can host those. If that is the case here, then fine. But you can't say it has "trademark/copyright protection outside of the realm of the CC areas". You can say that for trademark, but not copyright. There is no copyright protection outside the realm of CC areas. So unfortunately, that is a little ambiguous, though it does sound as though he really may have just meant "trademark", which would be OK. However, the other text on the page explicitly mentions copyright protection (as well as trademark) to prohibit commercial uses. If they just meant trademark there as well, it is also OK. But if they really did mean copyright, then it's an issue. The copyright owner sounds like it is NaN Holding B.V., so they would be the best ones to ask. Since that situation dates from 2002, before CC licenses really were widespread and before the concept of having a free copyright license on a logo while retaining the trademark existed either, it's certainly possible that a free copyright license is the desired situation today but it has just not been made explicit. I just don't know who added that license to the SVG -- if that was a third party, then it may not be all that relevant. I probably won't argue much either way however this gets decided -- they admittedly are distributing it on the site with that license, which is something of an indication that it is OK, though it's also possible that is an inadvertent mistake. But, it's also possible that the mistake means it is licensed that way even if they did not want it -- if someone puts an image on Flickr and marks it CC-By accidentally and it stays that way for years, they probably may not have much recourse if someone uses it under that license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Daft Punk.jpg

This file was deleted because the website was described as the owner of it. It's been uploaded to that website but the real owner of it is Sony Music Entertainment, which has uploaded it with a proper Creative Commons license. The image, and the license, can be found here.DaftClub (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your link is to mynewsdesk, and, as was noted in the deletion comment, mynewsdesk has no right to license the image. The link offers no evidence of under what license, if any, that Sony has released the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is clear info that image is under CC-BY-3.0 license ("Licens" in Swedish; see the link shown there) on the page pointed above. @Jameslwoodward: do you doubt that "Sony Music Entertainment Sweden" was authorised to license the image? Could you, please, be more precise concerning your doubts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand. I assume that mynewsdesk found the image somewhere on the Web and put it on its site with the CC license. If that is the case, then my objection is correct. If, on the other hand, mynewsdesk operates like Flickr, then a third party placed the image and the license on the mynewsdesk site. If that third party was in fact, Sony, then the license is OK. However, that remains to be proven -- as we well know from our Flickr experience, it is common for people to post images under false names and with false license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, I think you should look more in to what mynewsdesk actually is before making these assumptions. Mynewsdesk is a website where companies, like Sony Entertainment, can post press releases and so on, as well as photos from their own possession. The companies themselves choose the license of the photo. For example, you can see on this photo, posted by Universal Music, which is published with no sort of CC-license, but with an "All rights reserved" marking, that every company chooses how to license their photos. DaftClub (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Before you make broad criticisms such as the one above, please remember that Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day. About 1,500 of those are deleted for various reasons. 15 Admins do 90% of that work. There are billions of web sites and I have never seen mynewsdesk before. I certainly do not have time to study the operation of a site that I may never see again. I did say above that I might have misunderstood the operations of mynewsdesk and you enlightened me. However, you still have not offered any evidence that person or entity that posted the subject image is actually Sony -- all we know is that it claims to be Sony.
I note that you have uploaded a variety of images from mynewsdesk -- the same problem applies to all of them. I also note that none of those that I looked at have been license reviewed. That is an essential part of the process of uploading third party images from sites such as Flickr and, apparently, mynewsdesk. I strongly suggest that you add the template {{LicenseReview}} to all of your existing and future uploads from such sites. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a general problem with images from Mynewsdesk: many seem to have been uploaded by company employees who do not know that the images will be listed as 'licensed' and who do not have the right to license the images in the first place. Numerous images have been deleted from Commons for this reason, sometimes because of conflicting information in the EXIF. A problem with Mynewsdesk's default configuration, I believe. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Eurogrand Logo.jpg


I'm working on the company, and I'm allow to use the file, upload it to Wikipedia.

Also is a free image in the sense that anyone can use it for affiliate porpoises without asking our permission.

Please don't hesitate to contact me, --Sebastiansta (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Sebastiansta

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "I'm allow to use the file, upload it to Wikipedia" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require a license that allows use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. Similarly, "anyone can use it for affiliate porpoises" limits the possible uses and is not allowed. It is also clear that it is not "own work" of User:Sebastiansta as claimed in the file description.
However, the logo is {{PD-text logo}}, so it should be restored. The source, author, and license must be corrected..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that this really is a textlogo. The casino has his head quarter located in Gibraltar which is one of the British Overseas Territories. And as wel all know com:TOO is quite low in the UK. We have deleted far simpler logo's from the UK per DR. Plus fonts can be copyrighted in the UK as well. Natuur12 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't feel strongly about it, but the font here is a very plain bold sans-serif font without any special features. Both of the examples given at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom are significantly more complex -- the one with extra bars on the "E" and the other with four colored triangles. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the text or the font can get a copyright, but what about the background? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's a standard font, then the logo itself shouldn't get any protection. The ones the UK ruled copyrightable were where the logo designer made some custom alterations to the letters. And while fonts can be copyrighted there, I'm not sure the *use* of the fonts in say a logo are deemed a derivative work. Only if you are creating a competing font, mostly. I can't see the image so I'm not sure either way, but if text in a standard font, the only chance at copyrightability would be the background (if any). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
How about restoring it so the file can have a proper DR? Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No need to restore it -- it is the yellow and black logo in the upper left corner of .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Direct link to the logo. ;oP Yann (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Erbitte Wiederherstellung der Datei: (File:Verbrennungsluft.jpg)

URL: bzw.

Ganz unten auf der erstganannten Seite stehen die Lizenzangaben: Das Bild "Verbrennungsluft" haben wir unter creative commons – Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) gestellt. Für die Nutzung verlangen wir kein Geld, bitten aber um einen Link auf unserer Seite ( --Kaimu17 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


According to the Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 58:

“Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:

1.Reproduction of a building by construction of another building. 2.Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture. 3.Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.

4.Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.”

Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan is a Building or a work of sculpture, not artistic works, so Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan can be exploited by any means except building or sculpturing another Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan.

So, the photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan should not be deleted, they can be used in wikipedia or made into postcard. These actions doesn't violate sculptor's copyright by the Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 58.

These photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan also shouldn't be deleted :
*File:Changhua 080302 3.jpg
*File:Changhua Pagu Mount Budda Sculpture.jpg
*File:Eight Trigram Mountain Buddha (Baguashan Great Buddha), Changhua City (Taiwan).jpg
*File:Great Buddha Changhua 2 amk.jpg
*File:Great Buddha Changhua amk.jpg
*File:Great Buddha of Bagua Shan.jpg
*File:Great Buddha of Baguashan.JPG

--祥龍 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See also :

--祥龍 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What I said may be correct, but this is not the place to argue it. We never base Deletions or Undeletions on changes in our understanding of the rules -- the changes must be debated and made, then we can undelete if necessary.
Your reading of the English is incorrect. "Sculpture" is a subset of "artistic works". Point (4) applies to all artistic works, including sculpture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan in fact is a building with six floors , people can invite inside and see the sculptures about the story of Buddha from 2nd floor. The Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Republic of China also says it is a historic building(歷史建築). Due to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Taiwan_.28Republic_of_China.29 says ✓OK for buildings , the building named Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan is ok too. So, I consider these photos shouldn't be deleted.--祥龍 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is similar to the Tower of the Sun situation in Japan, where it was decided that the pictures should be deleted. The ROC FOP provisions essentially seem to be identical to the Japanese ones. Taiwan was a Japanese colony for a long time, so maybe the ROC decided to keep various old Japanese laws for simplicity and only made minor modifications where necessary.
See Article 5 for the things protected by copyright. Artworks (美術著作) and buildings (建築著作) are listed on different lines. I interpret it to mean that 'buildings' within the meaning of Article 5 are fine whereas 'artworks' within the meaning of Article 5 aren't fine. This statue seems to be both an artwork and a building. Since Article 58 (FOP) specifically says that artwork aren't fine (instead of saying that buildings are fine), I interpret this to mean that things which are both an artwork and a building aren't fine.
For this reason, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, according to the Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 5:
“For the purposes of this act, "works" shall include the following:

1.Oral and literary works. 2.Musical works. 3.Dramatic and choreographic works. 4.Artistic works. 5.Photographic works. 6.Pictorial and graphical works. 7.Audiovisual works. 8.Sound recordings. 9.Architectural works. 10.Computer programs.

The examples and content of each category of works set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be prescribed by the competent authorit”
In current version, the buildings (architectural works) is different from artistic works. And by the legal interpretation about similar issue from Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, R.O.C, the photo of ( outside walls of ) Taipei 101 can be made into postcards for selling freely due to Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 58 point 1, and it's not concerned with Article 58 point 4. So Stefan4, your statement is not correct now, but maybe correct before the version of 1992.--祥龍 (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems to say that buildings, or specifically Taipei 101, may be photographed freely, or at least the outer walls. The page also notes that the name 'Taipei 101' is {{trademarked}}, which is not something that we care about on Commons. The problem is that certain buildings fall into multiple categories in Article 5 of the copyright law. Compare with a comic book which may fall into both the category '語文著作' and the category '美術著作'. In this case, the statue would seem to fall into both the category '美術著作' and the category '建築著作'. The page you linked to does not consider this situation and it doesn't seem to be possible to make any conclusions about it from that page. Article 58 suggests that as soon as something falls into the category '美術著作', then it is not OK, even if the work also falls in other categories such as '建築著作'. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:NBCSN 2013 Trans.png

Deleted pursuant to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NBC logos. However, the nominator's rationale makes me wonder whether deletion were the right choice: he says "in addition to the copyright issues [for which the nomination was filed], this was a COM:OVERWRITE violation by Corkythehornetfan. Please retain the original version." Please check the deleted revisions: is there an original version that's distinct from what was deleted at DR, and that presents no obvious reason for deletion on unrelated grounds? If so, please restore it per the DR nominator's request. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: original file was PD Logan Talk Contributions 06:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and this should not have been in a hour since it is not a clear to the cut case. Natuur12 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with Logan that the image is PD -- we have many NBC logos and the issue has been debated before -- I agree with Natuur12 that this should have stayed open much longer -- we have an informal agreement among the regulars at UnDR that all UnDRs will stay open 24 hours. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sasol III chimney.jpg

I do not understand why it was deleted as on flickr, it had the apropriate licence (attribution share like). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovikap (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was deleted as a case of Flickr washing (Commons:FLICKRW) taken from What this basically means is that the Flickr uploader isn't the true author/copyright holder of the image. INeverCry 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit misleading, the deleted image is not the one from that page, but the Flickr user's photostream has only a few completely unrelated images, including one that is a mislicensed crop from that page. The deleted image (and others) appears to have the EXIF information deliberately removed, though, and it looks like none of them are that uploader's work. Revent (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Several soapbox car race photos

These images belong in Category:Oak City Rally:

They were deleted per this request. --Palnatoke (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Public event, only 2 images in this cat before. Yann (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Underlit rooftop statue in Lucerne (4872714278).jpg

Deleted as a copyright violation, plainly it was not.

There is an associated DR, which closed with "poor quality" and for being out of scope. However this appears to be the only photograph we had of this building in Lucerne. -- (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Ellin Beltz#Commons:Deletion requests/File:20100131-DSC 2331 (4872714278).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Logo UMFORMtechnik.jpg

I need your help. The file is the logo of the company I'm working at. I just created a article in wikipedia for the magazine and wanted to add the logo.

What is the right copyright? Here are the logos in green and red — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.huber meiba (talk • contribs)

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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


It´s the second time a picture has been deleted, even thought I have been given permission to use them. It seems that Wikipedia and Wikicommons have lost neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjelves (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 June 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You may have been given permission, but we are not mind readers -- you must include that in the image description. This image has no license or permission of any kind.
It appears without a free license at; therefore, in order to restore it here the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim above. Yann (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Soy diseñardor y el escudo es creado por mi. Deja de borrarmelo por favor.

Soy diseñardor y el escudo es creado por mi. Deja de borrarmelo por favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanchezhernan (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.

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

File:Woodlands Tournament Golf Course.jpg

Hello! This photo is licensed as CC Attribution 3.0 Unported. Would it be possible to have the file undeleted? Thanks!

Treyperry (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored the file and done a license review. INeverCry 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The picture named Ven. Prajnananda Mahathera should not be deleted

is a photo of my lord preceptor. He gave me full consent to use that picture in craeting a wikipedia profile for him. So it should be restored. I am sincerely requesting to restored the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upatisso Bhikkhu (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are four problems here.
First, in the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer (that the image was your own work). It is clear from your comment above that is not correct, so we need to know the actual photographer.
Second, you say that the subject of the image gave it to you. He is not the photographer either. It is, therefore, unlikely that he has the right to freely license the image. That right almost certainly belongs to the photographer.
Third, you say "He gave me full consent to use that picture in craeting a wikipedia profile for him...". Permission for use on WP is not sufficient. Both Commons and Wikipedia require a free license to use the image anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works.
Fourth, the article on the subject has been deleted from WP:EN. Unless you can show that he is notable, Commons will not host the image.
In order to have the image restored, you must first establish that the person is notable by having the article reinstated at WP:EN. Then, have the actual copyright holder, almost certainly the photographer, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Žodziški. Жодзішкі (1917).jpg

This is a German postcard, which was created and published in 1917. Moreover, the author of photo is unknown. So according to PD-old-auto-1923 and PD-old-70 it's definitely in a public domain. According to PD-scan the owner of hard copy doesn't have any claims on digital copy of this public domain work. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support there's no reason this should have been deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Adem Jashari.JPG

Please, do not delete this file, we need it for the articles


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have upload this image to use on this page. I am managing openthemagazine site. So kindly undelete this image. Rajneesh79 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It was deleted as a duplicate of File:ICS Uniform.svg. However, I specifically made a series of files based on some US Navy specs that I found, not necessarily the ICS ones (there are some minor differences in many of the flags) and now this one in particular is missing from the categories it used to belong to. It looks like someone copied my version over on top of File:ICS Uniform.svg then marked mine as a duplicate. There really is no reason at all to do that with SVGs; just use the one which you prefer. They previously were different SVGs and we might as well keep both. So... I would prefer mine be undeleted, keeping its original description and categories, and if it is the same as the last File:ICS Uniform.svg revision then that should be reverted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received in ticket:2015041910006889 Mbch331 (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)