Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Symbol support vote.svg Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [1]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted in the discussion below regarding File:印军越界现场照片(一).png, {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies only to "textual documents" and not to maps, plans, or photographs. Unless we can get a colleague who reads Chinese to offer a different opinion, I think we are stuck with the precedents cited there. Entirely aside from that, I think that the images that include photographs must be deleted on the grounds that the photos may well be copyrighted and all of the maps must be shown to actually be Chinese government creations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think two articles of the law are most relevant in this case. (You may read the corresponding English translation.) Article 5, 本法不适用于: (1) 法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件,及其官方正式译文. Article 22, 在下列情况下使用作品,可以不经著作权人许可,不向其支付报酬,但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称,并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利: (7) 国家机关为执行公务在合理范围内使用已经发表的作品. What I think it says is, all government documents of administrative, legislative and judicial nature are not subject to copyright. 文件 means documents, which can include images. However, article 22 gives the government exemption to use copyrighted works. So my conclusion is, if an image is attributed to a government, or unattributed but included in a government document, it is free; if a work is attributed to some other organisations, for example File:福州烟台山历史文化风貌区土地利用规划图.jpg by Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design Institute and Fuzhou Academy of Planning and Design, it is an instance of fair use by the government and hence unfree. For the free files, they should be verified by licence review. Also in this regard, 董辰兴 (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a lot of copyvios.--Roy17 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Roy17, I will gladly defer to your native Mandarin skills, but I would like to be sure we are clear. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg, Stefan4 says:

"Case 1 in {{PD-PRC-exempt}} uses the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents', i.e. literary works"

That would not include photographs and maps as they are not textual. On the other hand, above, you say:

"... 文件 means documents, which can include images."

Are you sure that 文件 is not just textual, but includes images and maps? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: wikt:文件[2][3]. What you cited is not even a valid precedent for this UDR, because (if that image is [4]) it should be deleted because it is not part of a document. The analysis in that DR was not correct, but the decision was.--Roy17 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Roy17, but I am not concerned about that as precedent here, but simply the meaning of 文件. Does it clearly mean "documents, including text, photographs, plans, and maps" or is its meaning limited to "textual documents" as Stefan4 says in the cited DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you should not be concerned with a Swede's words "the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents'" in a wrong analysis.--Roy17 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a piece of regulations zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例(Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party and Government Organs) in which all 14 types of official documents are enumerated, but the whole text does not mention any non-textual content such as images, photos, or graphics. Therefore, from a legal perspective (rather than a lexical one), it is safe to assume that "official documents" do not entail images, especially when images are taken out of a collection and presented as only images. --Wcam (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Why there pics is "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature"?--shizhao (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's an original (author: a part of PLA, affilated to Chinese Government) and indispensible part of a diplomatic statement, which clearly shows its administrative in nature. --WQL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It depends on the context, I think. My understanding is that if the pictures are merely illustrative - if the document is understandable without the pictures - then it wouldn't be "indispensable" and can be treated separately, copyright-wise. --whym (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Pictures are obviously captured *in* the official statement, which is a part of a PDF, instead of from a website that segments of "statement" and "non-statement" cannot be clearly devided. Statements are not text-only. --TechyanTalk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question which license template should be applicable if undeleted? Ankry (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@WQL, Techyan, Jeff G.: Any hints? If none appropriate exists, it should be discussed in COM:VPC before coming here. Ankry (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: {{PD-ROC-official}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Definitely not. ROC != People's Republic of China. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Sorry, I meant {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. A diplomatic statement by an organ of the PRC state government appears to qualify as a decision or news thereof. I agree with your proposal below of restore and DR, as there is no mention of "text-only" in that template.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: {{PD-PRC-exempt}} is what they are getting at. However, the argument against using this license template is that it only applies to textual documents but not images, and for numerous times in the past here in Commons, the admins have agreed with such an argument. A few examples here:
--Wcam (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wcam: Indeed, some of the above cases make me doubt. However, I would Symbol support vote.svg Support restoring and starting a DR to test whether the PDF document mentioned above should be considered covered by this template as a whole, or only its textual part. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: If in doubt, maybe COM:PRP should be considered? --Wcam (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it should, maybe not. I refrain from taking final decision here as I do not speak Chinese and the douubt seems to be language / translation related. I just thing that DR is a better place where Chinese speakers can present their opinion in this matter. Ankry (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Also Symbol support vote.svg Support restoring and starting a DR Abzeronow (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the precedents cited by Wcam are persuasive. I see no reason to start a new DR unless someone who reads Chinese joins this discussion in the next day or two and argues that the "textual document" translation is incorrect. Without such an opinion, we must follow precedent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It seems that this image was taken by the army, which is a part of the government. This image is obviously shown as an evidence of India army soilders invading China's territory according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, P.R.C. I would argue that this image was indispensible to the document, obviously. --WQL (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That may be, but unless someone who reads Chinese can show that the "textual document" language is incorrect, we are stuck with the fact that documents that contain images -- and, obviously, the images themselves without the document -- do not qualify for PRC-exempt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Jim here and I would also like to see a clear opinion of Chinese speaking users in this matter. That was the main reason for opening a DR: to get an opinion of wider Chinese-speaking community. Maybe ping a few users? But somebody would need to make a choice... Ankry (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


I first uploaded the file in December 18 with linking the source The wikimedia commons admin said that he deletes the photo because the license was not given at the website I referred and that I should talk to the admin of I just contacted her and she changed the website now and you can see that it is really a cc-by-sa license. So please undelete the file. --JD SD19 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The photo is declared now "© Kristoffer Schwetje Fotografie / cc-by-sa". I cannot identify license version, however. May it be interpreted as 1.0 or newer? No link to the license text either. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what I was asked for. I thought this would be enough to clarify, that it is really a photo which is free to use. I mean it is a photo of some official German youth delegates and we need it for our wikipedia article. What must be done that the photo can be undeleted? --JD SD19 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@JD SD19: See {{Cc-by-sa}}. And AFAIK, CC-BY-SA licenses require providing URI to the license text (which I could not find). So I am waiting for others to comment on this. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

can anyone else help use with this topic? I really need the photo for the article and I did all the changes the admins originally asked me for. --JD SD19 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless and until the license on the website matches the license on the file description page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Files Uploaded by Richard Norton

Please restore the following images:
File:100 0915.JPG
File:100 0916.JPG
File:100 0918.JPG

Reason: Images of a cemetery of the graves of the family of person in Wikipedia and their family members. I will change the name to something more descriptive.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):
915 was deleted in 2010 as "no source": File:Grave of Eddie August Schneider, Fairview Cemetery 100 0915.JPG. Did it contain some sort of artwork or sculpture? If so, could those elements be blurred? (I can blur)
I assume that is the one displayed as File:Eddie August Schneider grave marker.JPG and I want to restore the original with the metadata. Can I get the other three temp restored so I can download them to my backup drive.
916 was deleted as it was considered a duplicate of File:Grave of Emil A. Schneider, Fairview Cemetery 100 0913.JPG.
918 was considered a duplicate of File:Grave of Emil A. Schneider at the Fairview Cemetery 100 0920.JPG.
919 still exists as File:Grave of Emil A. Schneider, Fairview Cemetery 100 0919.JPG. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

915 has no artwork. A pretty simple inscription with name and birth/death dates (the one to the left of this one). Thing is... it had no source (2006-dated upload). I do not know how these things were managed back in the day. Can you confirm you are the photographer of File:100 0915.JPG, @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):? Strakhov (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my camera, image of my family grave plot, they are all in a series with matching file names and matching metadata. RAN (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: [5] [6] [7]. Seems far-fetched to think Richard gave his camera to someone else between 913 and 919. He couldn't update the description for 915 because that had already been deleted in 2015. But let's hear it from Richard. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): ✓OK When you are done, please give a warning. Strakhov (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017.jpg

Ich habe alle Rechte an diesem Foto vom offiziellen Filmfestival und des Fotografen per Mail bekommen und dieses Dokument auch an Wikipedia Persmission geschickt. Es sind alle Rechte somit geklärt und es gibt keinen Grund das Foto zu löschen. Anbei das Permissionformular ausgefüllt.

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild [ Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017 ]

[ ] dass ich der Urheber (Fotograf, Grafiker, Maler, etc.) bin.

[ x] dass ich der Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin, das mir beliebige Veröffentlichungen, Bearbeitungen und Unterlizenzierungen dieses Werkes gestattet. Der Name des Urhebers lautet [Dominik Bindl].

Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen:

[LIZENZ (z.B. „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Deutschland in Version 3.0 (abgekürzt CC-by-sa 3.0/de)“)]

   Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.
   Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.
   Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

[11.2. 2019], [Dominik Bindl]

Volcanus99 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Russian Orthodox Church in Antwerpen (Sint-Jozefkerk).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo: This Flickr account was blacklisted because of The photo of the church that was deleted here appears to have been own work though. They appear to own at least a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and an iPhone 4. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am afraid that as the Flickr user used to provide false copyright information, we cannot apply AGF here and we need a valid OTRS permission in order to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: please see "The majority of the photograph in this Flickr stream are of my own 'production'. I post them here to share with the community but also to use them in my blogs, so this stream works as a storage space (these days they call it 'cloud'). At some point I began to gather here not only my own works, but also the images of other people - photographs, artworks, charts, maps, and whatnots. I try to attribute all these works as accurately as I can, but it's not always possible, unfortunately. Too many things are just 'laying there' on the web, unattributed and untitled."
Yes, this Flickr user made some mistakes, but if you look at the Flickr stream you will find they own at least a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and an iPhone 4. Images without metadata from this Flickr user can't be accepted so easily, I get that. The Flickr user appears to have changed their ways since then btw. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This has EXIF data on Flickr. I believe this is the Flickr user's own photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logo WebSPELL.png

There is no copyright on this image. 17/02/2019 --Kyrela (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. It is simply a stylized "W". Type fonts, no matter how individual or complex, do not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File: Gustavo do Vale Rocha assume o comando da Sejus.jpg

--Hellen Lopes dos Santos (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Não concordo o motivo da exclusão. Encaminho uma solicitação de exclusão.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This file was previously deleted as File:Gustavo Rocha é o novo secretário da Secretaria de Justiça e Cidadania do DF.jpg. It is a serious violation of Commons rules to reload a file that has been deleted without going through the process here. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

This file appears at without any indication of a free license. As a general rule, photographs published by the Brazilian government are not freely licensed. See {{PD-BrazilGov}} for those works that are PD, which does not include recent photographs such as this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Como ministro, Gustavo Rocha participou de Prêmio Direitos Humanos 2018.jpg

Não concordo o motivo da exclusão. Encaminho uma solicitação de exclusão.--Hellen Lopes dos Santos (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hellen Lopes dos Santos: The photo is not marked in Flickr as freely licensed. Only freely licensed photos can be copied from Flickr to Commons. Moreover, the {{own}} template can be used only for unpublished images. For images already published there is COM:OTRS/pt procedure. Please follow it. Ankry (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Please restore this file.

File:Nuevo estadio de beisbol de san luis rio colorado

Reason: (Bot: Eliminando "Nuevo_estadio_de_beisbol_de_san_luis_rio_colorado.jpg". Borrado en Commons por Storkk. (Likely copyright violation, see c:COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on [[:c)

The photo of this stadium located in San Luis Rio Colorado, was taken by me (Ramón Armando León Pérez), i'm the photographer, the license is mine, i work for the communication department of the city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AyuntamientoSLRC (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For already published photos we need either (1) clear free license evidence at the initial publication site, or (2) a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder send following COM:OTRS instructions. And note, that at the moment we do not know whather you are or your employer is authorized to send the permission. This could be resolved in communication with an OTRS agent, however. Ankry (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Чорновол Т.М.jpg

This foto - it's my own work. Please, restore this file

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaoris (talk • contribs) 08:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ivaoris: Unfortunately, as you earlier uploaded few images taken from Internet and claiming them to be your own original work, we cannot rely on your on-wiiki declaration. Please follow COM:OTRS procedure to prove your authorship for this photo. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Sharon Grace with her Sony CV Porta Pack c 1970.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sharon did in fact send the OTRS permission with valid copyright license at the time of upload. She CC'd me when she sent it, and I can supply a screenshot or forward the email with the OTRS permission signed and approved by Sharon Grace the original copyright owner. Olivettilly (talk) 11:11, 18 February 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 159 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. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Leander working down the Cumbrian Coast.jpg

Reason for request: The Flickr link on the image in the description under the name David Moyle is to my own flickr page and isnt stolen, the image is ok to be used on Wikipedia as advertising to show what is done for certain routes like the cumbrian coast line including the section on the cumbrian coast wiki article which discusses excursion trains. I am allowing the image to be used on Wikipedia. User:Moylesy98 (User talk:Moylesy98) 12:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: If you wish to upload to an image from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons you need either (1) to ensure that the license declared at Flickr is the same as you wish to use on Commons (faster way), or (2) follow COM:OTRS procedure to grant appropriate license and prove your authorship (slower way). Ankry (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And this applies also to images mentioned below. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Assuming that User:Moylesy98 is, in fact, Flickr user David Moyle, although you put CC-BY-SA licenses on the files above, your comment above:
"I am allowing the image to be used on Wikipedia."
suggests that you do not understand that files licensed that way are available not just to Wikipedia, but for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use.
Ankry's comment is spot on. We sometimes get people here posing as Flickr users in order to upload files here that are marked ARR on Flickr. Although I assumed it above, we actually have no way of knowing whether User:Moylesy98 is Flickr user David Moyle. Although OTRS will work, it will probably take close to six months before your request comes to the head of the queue and the files are restored. It would be far better to change the license on Flickr. If you do so, drop a note here (in the next 24 hours) or on my talk page or Ankry's and we will restore the files. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored as freely-licensed in Flickr now. Waiting for license review. Ankry (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

FlickreviewR 2 has checked them and found that the Flickr license is CC-BY-2.0 while the license here is CC-BY-SA-4.0. Having a more restrictive license here is OK, the opposite would not be OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


This photograph has been deleted. I request undeletion, because deletion has been done using a false assumption.

I am the grandson of Wilhelm Cauer and this photograph of him taken 1935 is a family heritage. I own all rights on this photograph.

Rudolf Polzer

Rudolfpolzer (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not mean that you own the rights to freely license it. That right belongs to the photographer or his heirs. This appears to be a studio portrait, so it is unlikely that you are an heir of the photographer. Unless you are an heir of the photographer, you must have a written license from the photographer or his heirs to upload it here. Do you have such a license? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Qua Tours.jpg

The picture belong to my personal company and the copyright is my own —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Marigold Gardens, Chicago, 02.jpg

Please restore the following pages:


Circa 1923 United States work. Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Files framed for deletion by Cherkash

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems #User:Cherkash.

For Túrelio’s information as well. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:500px photo (49407980).jpeg

Seems to have been nominated and deleted by mistake. It is true that the file says "all rights reserved", but the same person credited there made it available under a free license at 500px.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)