Commons:Undeletion requests

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

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Sheikh Hasina and Shinzo Abe 2014.jpg

The picture is copyrighted but the Japanese Prime Minister's Office allows it to be used for under its six Use of Content conditions specified here. --Merchant of Asia (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The page which you cite explicitly says at point #2 that material on the web site may be copyrighted by others and that the terms there do not apply to that material. In order to have this restored, you must show that the Japanese government actually owns the copyright to this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The source page explicitly states that the content is under the copyright of the Japanese government: "Copyright© Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat."--Merchant of Asia (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it says that the page as a whole is copyrighted by the Japanese Government. That does not preclude there being items on the page for which other people hold individual copyrights. Point #2, which I cited above, explicitly recognizes that. For an example closer to home (my home, at least), please see http://www.boston.com/yourtown/milton/gallery/historic_milton/ which has a copyright notice at the bottom "© 2015 NY Times Co", just as the site which you mention does. The copyright to the image, however, is held by me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Point# 2 applies to work for which they provide third party copyright information, like in the case of the website you cited with your work. In my case they haven't and going by their copyright policy, the work is eligible for use in Commons.--Merchant of Asia (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira e marido, foto de noivado.jpg

The photo was already with author/date/country of creation information as requested, but nevertheless someone deleted it.--P.P.Pyres (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot simply slap anything in the file description and expect it to be satisfactory. You claimed that you were the photographer of this 1896 image. I think I can safely say that that is actually impossible, not merely extremely unlikely. In order to have this image restored you must prove one of two things
a) Who the actual photographer was and that he died more than 70 years ago, or
b) That the actual photographer chose to remain anonymous and that the image was published more than 70 years ago. Note that simply not knowing who the photographer was is not sufficient -- you must prove that he intended to remain anonymous. Note also that if Commons was the first publication of the image, then it will be under copyright for 70 years from now.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is from Brazil. We don't need a proof that it was published. So I think a 1896 picture is OK. I don't think we have sufficient doubt that it is still under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
First, this was their engagement photo -- a formal studio portrait, so the photographer was certainly known to the subjects and was, therefore, not anonymous. Second, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, the rule is "70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the first publication", so I don't see how we can ignore the fact that this probably came from a family album and has never been published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jim, this does not make sense. A photographer is always known for someone, but this doesn't change the fact, that his name was certainly never recorded anywhere, and is therefore unknown to all legal sense of the term. It seems quite clear that the copyright expired 70 years after it was taken (or even shorter? what was the law at that time?). Yann (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In English, at least, anonymous means that the author made a deliberate attempt to be unknown. That's certainly possible for many photo-journalists, but much less so, as I argue here, for portrait photographers. The photographer may or may not be unknown, but he can't be anonymous.
You say, "his name was certainly never recorded anywhere" -- how do you know that? For all we know, his name is on the back of the photograph.
I also don't understand why you think that Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil is wrong about the copyright period for anonymous works. It certainly seems very clear that anonymous works stay under copyright for 70 years after first publication. That's not unusual -- the same rule applies in France, Germany, and many other countries. In the USA it's 95 years after first publication or 120 years from creation, so this work certainly would be under copyright here if it were first published here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "a deliberate attempt to be unknown" is an accurate description of anonymous publication, at least for old documents. In most cases, the photographer was not mentioned because he is not supposed to get any reward except an one-time payment (work for hire). For working on old documents on Commons for the last 10 years, I know that for many old pictures, the name of the photographer was not recorded anywhere. I don't think it improves anything to request impossible requirements, completely disconnected to the real life situation. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you're right on the edge of COM:PRP #4. However, even granting you that, how do you get around the fact that as far as we know its first publication was this year and, therefore, under Brazilian law it will be under copyright until 2085? Of course, arguably, since its first publication is on Commons, in the USA, its copyright will run for 120 years from creation, until 1/1/2017. That's closer, but still 20 months from now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The law does say that the economic right is owned by the publisher in the anonymous situation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sukima switch-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg

The user who deleted this image (and who knows how many others of mine??) put the deletion notice on my main page not my talk page so I had no idea this was being deleted. That's crafty and evil. It was deleted for copyright violation? But that's nuts. I took the picture myself with these hands I type now. I'm quite annoyed at this user [1] who followed a deletion request from a brand new user. What the heck. Steamed, Nesnad (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your work was deleted in error. I see that more than 50 of your uploaded files have been deleted.[2] Are they all your own work? Have you uploaded any other images that you took about the same time as this image, around December 2011, with the DMC-FX60 camera that was used to take this image? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My goodness. FIFTY of my files? What is going on here? Yes, I've used a Lumix for years (different models different years though), those are all my own images and why are they being deleted? Is it carelessness or some vendetta against me or something? That's all that has been deleted? But 50? I'm speechless! Can I see a list (your link can't be viewed on my permissions level, and even if you restore them I need to be able to go relink etc)? Even if they are restored the countless pages that used my images need to be relinked and everything, that's quite depressing and demotivating. None the less, I strongly protest those deletions (not even getting notice about those files is such a burn too, what's going on?) and request them to be restored ASAP. Nesnad (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 50 deletions Walter Siegmund mentioned refers to recent deletions, but rather the total number. Given the time you've been here and the number of uploads you have made, that's not a huge amount, and it looks like a lot of it was at your own request, removal of duplicates, cleanup after file moves and other routine maintenance. If you browse through your log 500 entries at a time, you'll see a few red links, and if you click on those, you'll see the reasons for deletion. I also think you were notified of the vast majority (possibly all) of these deletions. To answer Wsiegmund's question about other uploads around the same timeframe taken with a DMC-FX60 more specifically, I see a whole bunch, e.g. File:Kaihin-makuhari-station2011.jpg, File:Asian Kung-Fu Generation-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Rhymester-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chara-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chatmonchy-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Thecro-magnons-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Denkigroove-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg and File:Posumon-hongkong-allcontents.jpg.
It would be interesting to know what the evidence for the supposed copyright violation was. I see that the user who nominated it for deletion has been indefinitely blocked on Japanese Wikipedia for vandalism. Based on automatic translation of ja:Special:Diff/54466755, it sounds like they had opinions about house rules on photography not being followed, but that's a matter between the photographer and the venue and not a reason for deletion from Commons. My prima facie inclination is to Symbol support vote.svg support undeletion. LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for looking into this, LX. The more than 50 deletions are of more than 2000 files uploaded since 2005.[3] They include successful deletion nominations by Nesnad. I understand now that the deleted files list must be used with care to judge the quality of an editor's contributions. I'm sorry I didn't realize you needed special permission to view the deleted files list. I don't know why that is required. Besides the images you list, File:Three Kingdoms Wu - funeral urn.jpg was taken 27 October 2010 in Tokyo with the DMC-FX60 camera. Given the above, including the information about the nominator, I support undeletion. Nesnad, I'm sorry this happened. Please save a permanent link to this discussion so you can reference it if you need to. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
LX, and Wsiegmund, I also thought it meant 50 of my images were recently deleted. Yes, I have asked for some of my own to be deleted in the past. Also didn't know about FOP about certain robot statues and what not in the past and got those deleted. But I clearly remember that funeral urn, and if I remember correctly it shouldn't be deleted either. (And any others from that outing, was the Japanese Wikipedia troll hitting those too?) I can't look through my long list of uploads easily, so if there are others taken with a DMC (there are other DMC models I used, been using Lumix forever) that didn't have a deletion discussion that I was notified about, then they were most likely wrongfully deleted especially if they are tagged copyvio, because I either have public domain or my own images on Commons. It's freaky to think that the Japanese Wikipedia user was that insane to go after my files here on Commons, I'm hoping this sort of thing is an isolated situation and look forward to my files being restored. Once again, is there any way you could list them here or somewhere so I can go back and try to relink any that were deleted and thus unlinked, etc? Thank you both a bunch, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Wait, did I read that wrong? The only file that wasn't self requested or just deleted because of FOP rules etc was this Sukima Switch picture? If so, that means no major task to relink, woohoo! I'll now somewhat look at my past uploads with a paranoid eye though...! Nesnad (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Sukima Switch picture seems to be your only DMC photo not self-requested or deleted because of FOP rules. I don't see any other deletion of DMC photos. I looked at files uploaded in June 2010 and later. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Restored 2. Anything else to do? Yann (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:X'treme GH.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015022010002277). --Mdann52talk to me! 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold. Let's wait for the response. Ankry (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mathukkutty.jpg

i request to undelete the file entitled File:Mathukkutty.jpg since it is refered to the page 'Mathukkutty keecheriyi' as profile picture. Kindly undo the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiden eipen (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 April 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) 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is not a reason to restore the image. It was deleted because it is small and had no EXIF, so the two Admins involved believed that it was taken from somewhere without permission. If it is actually your own work, please upload it again at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Crunk_Witch.jpg

I have received written permission from Brandon Miles and Hannah Colleen, the two individuals who make up the band Crunk Witch, and who's likeness appears in the photo. I have an email directly from them with this permission. I have included a screenshot of the email. Please let me know a good email address to send it to and I will forward the actual email to you.


--Ahughes33 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Hughes

Ahughes33, in most cases the rights holder is the photographer, not the people who appear in the photo. The exception is if the rights have been transfered to the band members.
In either case, the rights holder should contact us directly with the form letter at COM:CONSENT (the e-mail address is on that page). Please ask the rights holder to identify the original name of the file as uploaded here. Anon126 ( ) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:F._Mazzoli,_Auditorium_Gran_Guardia_2011.jpg

Je vous confirme que j'ai la propriété de ce fichier se référant à une image prise par moi (par mon appareil Sony Cybershot que j'utilisais à l'époque) le 30 mai 2011. J'ai plusieurs fois prouvé que j'en étais le légitime propriétaire, mais sans résultats. J'ai aussi remplacé l'image précédente par une pareille mais à plus haute définition, mais rien. J'ai envoyé le code pour demander un OTRS permission, mais toujours rien. Je me sens privé d'un droit réel. Merci de m'avoir écouté, --Ugo Mazzoli (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If you have sent a free license to OTRS, it will be restored after the license is checked. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. As a result, they run a backlog that may be more than a month. Please be patient and wait for your request to come to the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, Jim. Thanks. I wait fiducially. Best regards --Ugo Mazzoli (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:MarcSchuilenburg.jpg

The file has been marked as a possible copyright violation. The text of the file and the picture however are made by myself and are not copied from another source. It's therefor free content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblito1 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 April 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) 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose?? The file was uploaded by User:Roblito1. Its file description claims that it is an image of Marc Schuilenburg and that the photographer was also Marc Schuilenburg. It's not a selfie, so that is probably not correct. The images has a watermark "(c) Foto Mats van Soolingen", and the EXIF calls out "(c) All rights reserved). I think we need a little more explanation, please, as there are at least three conflicting items here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Escola Garcia Fossas (1937).jpg

Prior to deleting the file, can we have a discussion please? As far as I know, there has been no discussion. I want to check what license was used, etc.--Jordiferrer (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see on Google Cache, it came from this PDF (1937 photo of a school) and was marked PD-Old. I presume that is Spain photo, where anonymous works should be protected for 80 years from publication, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vladislav Bajac, Studio Babic.jpg

The author of the photo, Nebojsa Babic,gave me the right to publish it on Wikipedia. --Miawka (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "the right to publish it on Wikipedia" is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for all uses, including commercial use. Since you are not the actual photographer, he or she must send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, which may take a month or more, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Witold Szabłowski Polish journalist.jpg

It is lisensed free. I got author's permission to publish it on Wikipedia.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "permission to publish it on Wikipedia" is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for all uses, including commercial use. Since you are not the actual photographer, he or she must send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, which may take a month or more, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Rugby Austria Logo.gif

Als Sprecherin des Österreichischen Rugby Verbands, der Rechteinhaber über das gelöschte Logo ist, verfüge ich über die Vollmacht, das Logo unter einer CC-Lizenz freizugeben, daher stelle ich den Antrag auf Wiederherstellung der Datei.

Beste Grüße Claudia Varga


Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Österreichischer Rugby Verband ZVR 710881028 c/o Dr. Robert Langer-Hansel Universitätsstraße 6/2, 1090 Wien

Mobil: +43 699 108 60 753 Email: presse@rugby-austria.at http://www.rugby-austria.at/kontakt/verband/

cloedvarga--Cloedvarga (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Policy requires that an authorized representative send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, the image will be restored. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and is seriously understaffed, so it may be several weeks or even more than a month before this image reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Summery mind Album logo Belonging 02.jpg

Ich habe alles, wirklich alles, den Richtlinien nach gemacht und so gehandelt, wie Wikipedia bzw. Wikimedia es von mir verlangt. Ich habe mir extra einen Mentor zugezogen und Fragen gestellt, wenn ich Fragen hatte. Ich finde es unfair! Einerseits benötigt man eine URL, die man dem Urheber zukommen lassen muss, wenn man nicht selbst Urheber des Bilds/Fotos/Datei ist, andererseits bekommt man binnen zehn Minuten eine "Ermahnung", daß die Regeln nicht eingehalten werden würden. Das ist doch ein Paradoxum! Das eine schließt das andere aus: Ich benötige eine Gehemigung des Urhebers, welcher mir die URL, die zu Wikimedia führt, bestätigt, daß das dort gezeigt Bild von ihm stammt und es dort verwenden werden darf. Aber bis zu dieser Genehmigung, darf es gar nicht auf Wikimedia gezeigt werden. Wie soll das zeitlich gehen???

Erklärt es mir, als sei ich ein fünfjähriges Kind!

Ich habe nach allen Regeln und Statuten Wikipedias gehandelt um eben NICHT diese Probleme zu haben. Ich habe da KEINE LUST drauf. Und dennoch kommt mir der Mist in die Quere... Das ärgert mich jetzt wirklich gewaltig und entzieht sich meinem an und für sich vernünftigen Geist.

Gruß --MattesKoeln (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is certainly not good that we cannot give more personal service to uploaders, but the facts are difficult. We get more than 10,000 new images every day. About 1,400 of them must be deleted, as this one was, because they are copyright violations. We have only about 15 Administrators who do 90% of that work and the backlog is growing. None of the 15 have any spare time to be more personal.
This image is an album cover and clearly has a copyright. The cartoon at the top of COM:L explicitly sets forth, "We can't accept works created or inspired by others... This includes material such as ... CD / DVD covers... with two main exceptions .... You can upload someone else's work if the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it."
In accordance with that, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Monomyth.jpeg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission email has been send by photographer 24 April 8.46pm Lavalounge (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image will be restored after the license from the photographer is checked. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. As a result, they run a backlog that may be more than a month. Please be patient and wait for your request to come to the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:LHS-최광모-수지.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021910014329). --Mdann52talk to me! 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Maria-altaar.JPG

This is my own work. I made this picture. Michaelovic (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, please upload the image at full camera resolution instead of this small version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Olv-bord.JPG

This is my own work. Michaelovic (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, please upload the image at full camera resolution instead of this small version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Search engine optimization.ogg

This file was deleted for "copyright reasons" starting from 2015, but it has been in use on en.WP since 2008, as a cursory examination of the article on SEO would provide. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Search engine optimization.ogg, the file is simply a reading of a copyrighted work. The fact that it has been in use on WP:EN for a while does not somehow immunize it from deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo of the festival "Green Grand-Prix".gif

It received permission ticket:2015020910013803 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:BPTokyo Exterior Edit1 cropped.JPG

Please undelete. Ticket#2015042810006639 .Willy Weazley 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) File:Color Web NY Facade.jpg File:Photo- Joshua White 2010-9940 02.jpg File:Phase—Sponge, 1968.png

File:ETPColorSquare.png

The logo in question is released for free use on the web. I am the creator of this image. Epsilont (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two issues here. First, the logo does not appear on the web site of the organization, http://epsilontaupi.org/. We do not keep unofficial logos of organizations.

Second, since it may be the logo of an organization, policy requires that an authorized official of the organization send a free license to OTRS from an address at epsilontaupi.org. The official must confirm in the e-mail that the subject logo is official. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)