Commons:Undeletion requests
Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV
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.
Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:
Finding out why a file was deleted
First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.
If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.
Appealing a deletion
Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.
If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:
- You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
- If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
- If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
- If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.
Temporary undeletion
Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.
- if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
- 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:
- Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
- Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
- 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.
Closing discussions
In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.
Archives
Current requests
From here, as well as File:Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom 2.jpg (from here) and File:Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom 3.jpg (from here). There is currently a discussion on English Wikisource, where these files had been in use, regarding the copyright status of related work. I ask that these files be undeleted temporarily to help with that discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TE(æ)A,ea., would it be sufficient for the discussion on Wikisource to declare the first file's uploading date:
(change visibility) 21:00, 14 February 2023 . . Ukrainenotes (talk | contribs | block) 1,042 × 695 (113,093 bytes) (Uploaded a work by The Presidential Office of Ukraine from https://www.president.gov.ua with UploadWizard)
- We could list the same for the other files, if required. Ellywa (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ellywa: Is there any more information on the page that would confirm that the file is contemporaneous to the upload? That’s the main question for determining when they are from before the license change. And are these just photographs of the event, or do they contain text for transcription? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Information from the file page:
- =={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{en|1=President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy addresses both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom}} |date=2023-02-08 |source=https://www.president.gov.ua |author=The Presidential Office of Ukraine |permission= |other versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{cc-by-4.0}} [[Category:Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2023]] .
- The images do not show text. Ellywa (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Sloppy deletions: Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam was started as "Not used logos of non-notable companies and photos of non-notable people, spam / out of scope" by Xunks. Among the files were File:ArmeniaTV logo.png and files with similar names. Ikan Kekek asked "Is Armenia TV not notable?" Wikipedia says it is "one of the leading TV channels in Armenia". P199 closed the request "Deleted: per nomination. Unused logos are not educational, out of scope".
This is troubling, as IK notes in Commons talk:Deletion requests#"Unused logos are not educational, out of scope" as a deletion reason.
Being in use makes a logo automatically in scope. Not being in used means the assessment must be done on other grounds. How can a company with an article in Wikipedia be regarded not notable by Commons? How can an administrator blankly state that unused logos are non-educational?
Obviously this closure was a mistake. I don't know whether some of the files are out of scope as I cannot read the descriptions or view the images, but if they are, they should be deleted in a new DR with better rationales.
Something is wrong with the procedures when such sloppy nominations can succeed.
–LPfi (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of all the files mentioned in the linked DR, there are only 2 different logos, one of Armenia TV and one of a "Film factory". The others are (sort of) duplicates, and two show people. A more relevant rationale for deletion might have been the fact that the uploader claimed all these files as own work, which is unlikely, at least for the logos. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Logos are obviously almost never going to be own work, but if they are textlogos and therefore DR, they shouldn't be deleted on that account, right? However, I don't remember what TV Armenia's logo looked like and I'm no expert on laws anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azure Logo.jpg is a similar case, but without a Wikipedia article to make it as obvious. I think "no educational value" is not a convincing reply to: "Textlogo, and a web search shows a good deal of media mention of this company. One example: 'Azure Pharmaceuticals, which compiles the Medicine Shortages Index, said manufacturers including companies producing medicines domestically are getting paid up to four times as much for their products abroad than in Ireland.'" Instead, the closing admin should have addressed how the media coverage of the company is somehow so insufficient that the logo couldn't possibly be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- What do you all think about that case? Should I nominate it separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the DR was not handled perfectly.
- File:HarutShatyanAraBaghdasaryan.jpg
- File:Ara Baghdasaryan.jpg
- File:Film Factory logo corner.png
- File:FILM FACTORY LOGO crop.jpg
- File:ArmeniaTV logo.png
- File:ArmeniaTV.png
- File:FILM FACTORY LOGO.jpg
1 is two unidentified men. 2 probably should be restored 3, 4, and 7 are the logo of a completely unidentified organization. Depending on the country of origin, it may or may not have a copyright. The logo may or may not be in scope. 5 and 6 are almost certainly in scope, but probably have copyrights and probably are not the work of the uploader as claimed. 1, 3, 4, and 6 have no useful categories. Category:Director and Category:Producer are far too general. Files without categories are useless. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Is 2 in scope as depicting a random person or as depicting Ara Baghdasaryan? In the latter case 1 is probably depicting Ara Baghdasaryan and Harut Shatyan, not two unidentified men. I assume they are from Film Factory in Yerevan. I don't know the notability of that company (or whatever), but I don't think it is hard to find for somebody who read Armenian. Thus most files might be salvageable description-wise, allowing useful categories to be added. However, if the logos are above the threshold of originality and we don't have permission from any copyright owners, then little can be done. –LPfi (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
It looks like several images had been deleted that I had uploaded from ViralZone. For example:
- Rotavirus genome.jpg
- Rotavirus virion.jpg
Please note that although there may be a copyright note inside the image, the Viral Zone home page
tells on bottom right that all material is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."
There has already been a discussion about this contradiction.:
The matter has been clarified with Philippe Le Mercier <Philippe.Lemercier(at)sib.swiss> early 2021.
An email correspondence by wikimedia commons admin (User:Invasive Spices) with Philippe and has been documented. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2021020910004221 For details see File:Virus size.png#Summary.
For this reason I kindly ask you to restore the images.
Please let me know if there might be any further questions.
Kind regards. --19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Ernsts (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like the person who nominated this for deletion reverted themself within a minute. Not currently nominated for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. I'm afraid the issue appears not yet been solved. Please refer to
- User talk:Ernsts#File:Rotavirus genome.jpg
- User talk:Ernsts#File:Rotavirus virion.jpg
Links to the images are still red:
Kind regards, --Ernsts (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ernsts: Hello, It's ok to ask here for advice about what can be done, but please note that the best place to request undeletion of files and have someone actually act on the matter is the page Commons:Undeletion requests. I suggest that you copy your request over there. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks in advance! Kind regards --Ernsts (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the images are covered by ticket:2021020910004221, an action by VRT permission volunteer is needed. ViralZone pages contain contradicting information, see [1] and [2] and unless this is resolved in public, we cannot go on without a VRT action.
Oppose at this point. Ankry (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We request to undelition, because Companions Opera is the owner of the rights of her logo. We might have made a mistake by not adding the original designer, which we will correct as soon the deletion is undone. The designer is Carlo Grift, from Dakota Design in Amsterdam. As a company we have bought all copyrights from this designer and from all photographers we have added to Commons earlier on. We apologise for any mistake made, but we are new to this.
The logo serves as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.
We hope to have due-fully fulfilled the undelition request and Look forward to hear from you. Regards,
peter kroone Companions Opera / 360Opera 25-03-2023 360Opera (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a matter that should be done through COM:VRT where you can show Grift's copyrights were transferred and that you are indeed the copyright holder. This would also be helpful for future uploads you may want to do. Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: per Abzeronow -- needs VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this is a logo for a high school in Malaysia.
This emblem logo consists of simple ornamental leaves graphic, simple shield shape, few easy lines and a diamond. Also, compared with other school logos in the country, its design is fairly simple.
I believe it should be in the public domain--Ong Kai Jin (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- The text of COM:TOO Malaysia does not help much. "The threshold of originality situation in Malaysia remains (Purple question mark) Unsure." In case the copyright situation is not sure, we usually delete an image per COM:PRP. Best would be to obtain permission for publication of the logo from the school. Please follow the procedure of VRT to show the school gives permission. If successful, the logo can be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Helmut Tribus am Simsee.jpg File:Helmut Tribus.jpg File:Helmut Tribus im Alter von 80 Jahren.jpg
Liebes Team von Commons,
ich möchte um Entlöschung und Wiederherstellung der drei o.g. Fotos unter freier Lizenz bitten. Ich habe alle drei Fotos eigenhändig geschossen. Der jeweils fotografierte Helmut Tribus war eine Person des öffentlichen Lebens.
--Goldhähnchen (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Support for File:Helmut Tribus am Simsee.jpg and File:Helmut Tribus im Alter von 80 Jahren.jpg. The uploader says they took these photos themselves, which seems plausible. Oppose File:Helmut Tribus.jpg which seems to be a photo of a photo, namely a studio portrait. @Goldhähnchen: File:Helmut Tribus.jpg sieht nicht nach deinem eigenen Foto aus, das scheint mir eher ein abfotografierter Abzug eines Studioporträts zu sein. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Liebes Team,
ich möchte hiermit um Entlöschung und Wiedereinstellung des oben bezeichneten Fotos in Wikimedia Commons unter freier Lizenz bitten. Die fotografierte Person, Helmut Tribus, war eine Person des öffentlichen Lebens. Er hat mir das Foto aus seiner Studentenzeit vor seinem Tode geschenkt. Beste Grüße! --Goldhähnchen (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose see Helmut Tribus. This image was taken in the late 1940s. It is highly unlikely that it is own work as claimed in the file description. While it is certainly possible that the subject gave a copy of the image to the uploader as claimed above, the subject does not have the right to freely license it and, in any event, an oral license has no effect. The image cannot have been free in Europe before 2010 and therefore will be under copyright in the USA until around 2050.
Note also that making false claims of authorship as in this file description is a serious violation of Commons rules and may result in being blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kindly undelete, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Folorunsho Adegoke (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose No reason given for undeletion plus we don't keep personal photographs of non-notable people that haven't substantially contributed to Wikimedia projects. Abzeronow (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- سكس سكس بنات 5.45.130.9 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: per Abzeronow. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The photo was taken by the municipality of La Paz on its same Facebook and news page, which is free to use since it is a state agency and the laws in Argentina allow it if you are only an Argentine citizen. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andindal (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Andindal: Which law is that (law, section, paragraph) that allows you to take a Facebook photo, relicense it and claim to be the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- English:
- Argentine Copyright Law, Law No. 11,723
- The article that mentions the works of the State is Article 5. The law is not divided into sections and paragraphs as you request, but here is the complete quote:
- Copyright Law (Law No. 11,723), Article 5:
- "Art. 5. - The works, acts and documents of the State Administration, of the provinces and of the municipalities, are not subject to intellectual property, but when they are published by official disposition, the editors will not have the exclusive right of publication ."
- Spanish, as it appears in writing:
- Ley de Derecho de Autor de Argentina, Ley N° 11.723
- El artículo que menciona las obras del Estado es el Artículo 5. La ley no se divide en secciones y párrafos como lo solicitas, pero aquí tienes la cita completa:
- Ley de Derecho de Autor (Ley N° 11.723), Artículo 5:
- "Art. 5. - Las obras, actos y documentos de la Administración del Estado, de las provincias y de los municipios, no son objeto de propiedad intelectual, pero cuando se las publique por disposición oficial, los editores no tendrán derecho exclusivo de publicación." Andindal (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment I cannot find that article in the 2020 version of this law on the WIPO web site. There is an article 5 there, but it's about something else. --Rosenzweig τ 06:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose The text of the 2020 law is at https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/584401. A global search on "Las obras, actos " yields no results. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The photo was taken by the municipality of La Paz on its same Facebook and news page, which is free to use since it is a state agency and the laws in Argentina allow it if you are only an Argentine citizen you can use the images to your liking
- Support Images from security cameras have no human input and therefore do not have copyrights. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. They may have no copyrights in the US. In Germany and Austria they would be protected for 50 years from publication (or creation if not published within 50 years) as a simple photograph. What does the Argentine law say? --Rosenzweig τ 20:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi requesting undeletion. I believe this was flagged for copyright violation because the same image was uploaded to IMDb. However the image on IMDb was taken from Wikipedia and not the other way around. I own the license and have earlier provided permission for use of this image to Wikipedia
--Earthyan (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Earthyan: When and how have you "provided permission for use of this image to Wikipedia"? --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Jag önskar att ni genast återställa bilden som är min egen fotograferad av mig och jag borde därmed äga alla rättigheter till mitt publicerade material och avbildning av mina ägodelar som i det här fallet är mina egna radioapparater. Hur kommer det sig att någon överhuvudtaget kan begära att dom skall tas bort? Vänligen Rolf Bergendorff Svensk medborgare och ägare till allt material som jag tagit bilder på. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiodoktor (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, following the recent news of Jacqueline Gold's passing, I visited her Wikipedia page and noticed it had a very old image.
I reached out to Ann Summers who had used a much more recent image of her on their website and requested permission to update this on Wikipedia, which was granted. Which included information of who owned the image and who originally took the image.
Following the flag that this may violate copyright rules, I then reached out to a representative at Ann Summers to send confirmation that this image was free to use, which I believe was emailed on Friday.
Is there anything else required to undelete this image?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plestan (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please contact the photographer and ask her or him to verify the Creative Commons license by following the instructions at COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: This image will be restored automatically without further action by the uploader if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Reason for deletion was stated as: "Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1)".
The source site is [3] and the license CC-BY 4.0 is noted below the images on the right. It is just a small icon, but it is there. XxakixX (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The icon is there, yes. What kind of site is this? Are the photos original to them, are they authorized to put them under a free license? It's in Korean, which I don't understand, so I'm a bit hampered trying to answer these questions. --Rosenzweig τ 10:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose It looks like a fan site. An INSPECT on the images leads to an off site source. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tistory is owned by Kakao which used to be called Daum. daumcdn.net is their Content delivery network. XxakixX (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This image is a work derived from another CC-BY-SA image. This image consists of two parts, one part of the cover of a comic book and the other part is a picture the author made me as a gift in the public library of Intxaurrondo. The image on the cover of the comic is free (see File:ELGETA-azal.jpg) the other part is mine. Therefore, I think the full picture can be licensed CC-BY-SA. Thanks. Ksarasola (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
̺Irudi hau CC-BY-SA lizentzia duen beste irudi libre baten lan deribatua da. Irudiak bi zati dauzka, Batetik komiki liburu baten azalaren zati bat eta bestetik egileak egin zidan dedikatoria bat opari gisa Intxaurrondoko liburutegian. Komikiaren azalaren irudia libre da (ikus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ELGETAazal.jpg)), beste zatia nirea da. Beraz, irudi osoak hartzen du CC-BY-SA lizentzia.Ksarasola (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Info File:ELGETAazal.jpg is currently processed by VRT since February 1, 2023. Please contact the artist and ask her or him to submit license information through Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The image of the comic book cover may or may not be free. The image on the right side of the deleted page is a drawing of an unidentified person. Neither is {{Own}} as claimed. Even if we get a license for the comic book cover, we would need a free license from the artist who drew the second image. Also, it is not clear that the combination of the two has any educational purpose. Please note that claiming you are the author of any image when in fact you were not is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Its is My Personal Work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadzaidmansoori8 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.
This is probably about File:MohammadZaidMAnsoori.jpg. Note that capitalization matters in file names.
Oppose We do not keep images of non-contributors who are not notable people. Commons is not Facebook. Also, it appears very unlikely that this is a selfie, so the claim of {{Own}} is probably not correct. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, It seemed to me that the images in the tweets were free. Those tweets are free and won a science outreach competition. It was good to put all of the tweet winners together in a unique image. But if the inside images are not free I understand that of deleting the image. Sorry, I didn't know about it. One final question: If I created another image by putting those interior images in black... I could upload that image on the CC.BY-SA license, right? Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Parkatu, txioen barruan zeuden irudiak libreak izan zirela uste nuen. Txioak libreak dira, eta zientzia-dibulgazioko txapelketa bateko irabazleak izan ziren. Egokia zen txio guztiak elkarrekin jartzea, saridun izan ziren txio guztiak irudi bakar batean ikusi ahal izateko. Barruko irudiak ez badira libre, ulertzen dut irudia ezabatzearena. Parkatu ez nekien horretaz. Azken galdera bat: beste irudi bat sortzen badut barruko irudi horiek beltzez eztalita... Irudi hori jar nezake CC.BY-SA lizentziarekin, ez da? Eskerrik asko. Ksarasola (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I see nothing at the named source that indicates that these are freely licensed. I see no educational use for a collection of images of links to tweets. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is in the public domain in Indonesia, because it is published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia, casu quo Library and Archive Service of East Nusa Tenggara Province in their website Sistem Informasi Kearsipan Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, according to Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights but it is my fault that I forget to make the sufficient description and licensing before so pelase undelete this file and I will make sure to fill the proper description and licensing. Thank you. Jordan Diwi (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Identical to previous declined UDR. --Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This file is in the public domain in Indonesia, because it is published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia, casu quo Library and Archive Service of East Nusa Tenggara Province in their website Sistem Informasi Kearsipan Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, according to Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights but it is my fault that I forget to make the sufficient description and licensing before so pelase undelete this file and I will make sure to fill the proper description and licensing. Thank you. Jordan Diwi (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This file is in the public domain in Indonesia, because it is published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia, casu quo Library and Archive Service of East Nusa Tenggara Province in their website Sistem Informasi Kearsipan Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, according to Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights but it is my fault that I forget to make the sufficient description and licensing before so pelase undelete this file and I will make sure to fill the proper description and licensing. Thank you. Jordan Diwi (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kindly remove this deletion on my image because there is nothing to deletion this page and not given a valid reason
--Parth12234567 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Knpsmusic COM:WEBHOST. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: LTA nonsense. --Эlcobbola talk 17:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is photo of my client which is required for his wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC110776 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - We are not a host for promotion of "your client". Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Please note that recreating a deleted image without permission is a violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. Also note that paid editing on Wikipedia is prohibited and may lead to all of your work being deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Commons is not Facebook. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- The photo is taken by myself, should I just send a letter of attorney, then could undelete it? thanks.--Tombus20032000 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Done per clear evidence in EXIF. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with the deletion of my artwork, as I've created the artwork of my OC Pod, and it is actually used as a placeholder without actually using it publicly, and rather used for Wikipedia's sandbox without publishing.
--TheMariosonic15 (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)TheMariosonic15, 3/28/2023
- Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Internal Pod.png. Commons is not a personal blog. COM:WEBHOST Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Na email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org bylo dnes zasláno povolení autora fotografie k jejímu použití na stránce wikipedie https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADt%C4%9Bzslav_Welsch
Žádám Vás tedy o opětovné zveřejnění fotografie. Pro úplnost kopíruji celé znění výše zmíněného mailu:
Forwarded message ---------
Od: Robert Tichy (Redacted) Date: po 27. 3. 2023 v 21:39 Subject: FW: dotaz - fotografie Vítězslav Welsch To: (Redacted)
Dobrý den, paní Welschová,
z vydavatelství VLM mi přeposlali Váš dotaz ohledně užití fotografie pana Vítězslava Welsche, kterého jsem fotografoval.
Nejprve upřímnou soustrast, je mi to líto. Co se týká užití této fotografie na Wikipedii, s tím problém nemám, když uvedete mé jméno, budu rád.
Děkuji Vám a přeji hezký večer,
Robert Tichý
Fotograf
604205454
www.roberttichy.com
From: Eliška Welschová (Redacted) Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 9:35 PM To: Bendová Veronika (Redacted) Subject: dotaz - fotografie Vítězslav Welsch
Dobrý den,
tento měsíc jste nám zaslali fotografii našeho tatínka Vítězslava Welsche s kterým proběhl rozhovor v Kondici z prosince 2013/ leden 2014 a náhle tento měsíc bohužel zemřel.
Taťka byl spisovatel a fotografie pořízená vaším fotografem je skvělá a my bychom jí rády na wikipedii použily - https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADt%C4%9Bzslav_Welsch
Dali byste nám prosím svolení k užití jeho fotografie na wikipedii ( foto viz. příloha)?
Bohužel bez Vašeho souhlasu nemůžeme fotografii na wiki vložit. Samozřejmě bychom uvedli autora fotografie (prosím napište nám jméno fotografa) a zdroj.
Děkuji za Vaši pomoc
Hezký den
Eliška Welschová
--Agarwaenis (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I brought this logo up in Commons:Undeletion requests#Sloppy deletions: Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam, but it got lost in that thread, and I think it's worth a discussion at least:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azure Logo.jpg is a similar case, but without a Wikipedia article to make it as obvious. I think "no educational value" is not a convincing reply to: "Textlogo, and a web search shows a good deal of media mention of this company. One example: 'Azure Pharmaceuticals, which compiles the Medicine Shortages Index, said manufacturers including companies producing medicines domestically are getting paid up to four times as much for their products abroad than in Ireland.'" Instead, the closing admin should have addressed how the media coverage of the company is somehow so insufficient that the logo couldn't possibly be useful.
Your thoughts?
Best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)