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 • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎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.

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.

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Watch Edit

Mexican football soccer logos

I found the following files:

tagged for Speedy, but, as football soccer clubs from Mexico (as "recognized organizations" from Mexico), I tagged them with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. However, them has been deleted as Fair use, where clearly does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status in the United States? Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this matter? These logos are from Mexico, and as the football soccer clubs are considered as "recognized organizations", these logos are ineligible for copyright in Mexico. It was already discussed in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask about the copyright status in Mexico, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Above is the answer: The Copyright Law of the United States has nothing to do with the logos of "recognized organizations" from Mexico. As them are in the PD in Mexico according to the Mexican Copyright Law, then, them are also in the PD in the U.S (Threshold of originality in the U.S. apply only to logos of organizations from the U.S.). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you remind me of the discussion where it was decided that football clubs were "recognized" organizations. I seem to remember thinking that it meant something like "governmental", but if the community thought it meant football clubs, I'd like to be reminded of the rationale. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : The wording in the law is "emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente". I think this list hints at organizations that are more than "just" a sports club, unless someone with actualy knowledge of Mexican law comes forward. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, considering that there is already DRs of mexican sports clubs resolved as Kept. There is concensus already, and admins shouldn'ty take different actions for the same subject; if you really believe that the sports clubs aren't considered as "recognized organizations", it should be discussed at the Village Pump, because it will affect not just three files, but several other where their future has been already decided. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g:, can you please show us what other cases you are mentioning? Also, for the Mexican law, what are "recognized organizations"? --Ruthven (msg) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I started this thread at the Village Pump. Should be better to discusse this issue there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: For future reference, it is not okay to reopen an UnDR once a decision has been made. In case you think something has been missed, please raise the issue with the closing person or on other suitable forums like you have done here. In this case, I will let the discussion continue here, but please do not repeat that behaviour in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Performance met naakten.jpg (photographer)

Works by Sicking - I hold all rights:

Exhibition of Sicking last november, I took the photo's

Please undelete the above files that are part of the wikipedia page Joost Sicking. The artist himself left this life 30 years ago and I hold all licenses to his work by heritage. Some of the images may have been cropped to remove backgrounds etc. It is important to show the work of an artist for people to be able to see who he was and what he did. I appreciate your concern for copyrights, but in this case there is no need for it.

Thank you, Caro Sicking (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, I assume you are the widow, daughter, or sister of Joost Sicking. Unless you are actually unrelated to him, your editing on WP:NL is in violation of WMF global policy on Conflict of Interest. There is a summary of the rules at WP:COI. In particular, you should declare your conflict on your talk pages both here and on WP:NL. You should also restrict your editing to correction of factual errors made by others.

Second, I am afraid that your assumptions about copyright are incorrect in most of the cases above. As a general rule, except in the case of 2D artworks, the photographer holds the copyright to images. Therefore, you do not, on the face of, have the right to freely license most of the images above, except, perhaps, the art work of Joost Sicking. I have noted on each file above the person who holds the copyright. In order to have them kept on Commons, each of the copyright holders must send a free license to OTRS.

As for Joost Sicking's own works, if you are his heir, then you have the right to license them. However, because we get many fans and vandals who pick a username in order to give fake permissions, we require that in these circumstances the heir must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.

Note to my colleagues -- the blue links above all have {{No permission since}} or {{Delete}} tags placed by Natuur12 so we might as well discuss the whole package here rather than in several different places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Miss Lindsey Abudei's request

Please undelete. The image said to be deleted for copyright reasons is a picture I took myself and have posted on my social media accounts: www. twitter.com/misslind_sea & www.quebecbrown.tumblr.com

I do not understand why it supposedly violates copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Lindsey Abudei (talk • contribs) 16:45, 04 December 2016 (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.

You have had three images deleted. Which one is this request about?

Note that image that have appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license require your sending a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note also that if any of these are restored, you must add useful categories or they will be deleted again. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without categories an image is lost in the mass.

Finally, I would not restore the first image in any case -- it amounts to personal art, which we do not keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Plasy, Královská kaple, oltářná menza.jpg

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dobroš says "This user has uploaded images taken from Google and Getty Images, as well as uploaded images attributed to different names and taken with different cameras in the EXIF metadata. 3 of which has been deleted as obvious copyvio already." This file confirms that judgement as it is indeed a copyright violation. I agree that it is, as you say, a crop from File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG -- the pattern of the sunlight in front makes that clear. However, it is a copyvio because Dobroš claimed "own work", as he or she apparently did on at least 70 other files that were the work of others. It is actually the work of User:Filip.vyska.

It could be restored here with proper attribution. However, I see no reason why the cropped image of the altar is in any way better than the larger image which puts the altar in context. Anyone who wanted to examine the altar more closely can simply pull up the 4272x2848 version of File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG and view the altar at the same size as in this cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "own work" problem. Dobroš admits, its a crop from that file. I assume the user was new and thus can make some mistakes. I cannot see much help to her here on Commons. Licenses are not so widely known. So I assume this is a minor problem, which can be repair by explanation to the user and changing the source. Regarding other deleted files, we are now in process of OTRS verification - Dobroš admints that just one file, the first one is imagevio.
Regarding the use. You might be right. On the other hand details are always appreciated. But what about the artical en:altar stone. Will you have the same argumentation? Sometimes the details are appreciated and this mensa, is not usual.--Juandev (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the word "mensa". My wife is an Episcopal priest and I am active in the Church and I have never seen it before in this context.
Even at the article Altar stone I would use the larger image -- context is always good and, as I said above, the WP zoom function allows a reader to see the altar at the same size as the cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a gallery. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, full of text and images supports it as illustrations. So the image should describe exactly that part of article. Push readers to scroll is not a mission of Wikipedia. Anyway, I informed the original creator, to come to present her Point Of View (POV).--Juandev (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And I am sorry, maybe my use of the word "mensa" (which I assume comes from latin) was not correct. I am not an English native speaker.--Juandev (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Juandev, absolutely no apology is necessary here -- my "thank you" was entirely sincere -- precisely because many of our colleagues do not have native English, I avoid sarcasm and slang and try to say exactly what I mean in relatively simple English. I like learning new things and "mensa" is a perfectly legitimate English word. It is, indeed, Latin for "table". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Windows logo with wordmark.png

Category:Windows logos with wordmarks contains

Category:Microsoft Windows logos contains

Therefore undelete File:Windows logo with wordmark.png to have a proper deletion discussion. 77.179.201.26 13:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Only File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg is trivial. Two other files should be deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Fak u dolan.svg

See also: User_talk:Jcb#File:Fak_u_dolan.svg

Recently all Dolan Duck cartoons have been marked as a violation of the copyright of "Cheezburger, Inc" and swiftly been deleted. It is realistic that most of them were the violation of someone's copyright. But I created this file myself, and I think it was ok to have it here as a personal image ("The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page..." COM:Scope). Is it somehow too much to ask, that only copyright violations should be deleted as copyright violations? Because that is how Jcb's answer sounds. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not undelete the file, because even if it would not be a copyright violation, it was out of scope anyway. The 'user page image' argument does not work, because the file was apparently not in use as a user page image. Jcb (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Watchduck What about the copyright of Dolan as a character? Some creative person developed this character, and without their permission, art of the character would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Are you Dolan's creator? Can you get permission from this person? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The image was used on User:Watchduck/list. The image contained two badly drawn eyes and a badly drawn beak - not a face with all the features of Dolan. If that were a copyright violation, every stickfigure would be a copyright violation of w:XKCD or whoever considers themselves the owner of stickfigures.
Oh, and the image might even have a realistic educational purpose: I illustrates how even an incompetent baby drawing showing two eyes and some kind of mouth can be interpreted as subject to someone else's copyright. :) Watchduck (quack) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
From COM:SCOPE: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page." Adding it to User:Watchduck/list, along with dozens of other images, does IMO not render it in scope. Storkk (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Storkk that it is out of scope and with Bluerasberry that it is clearly a derivative work. A search on Google turns up hundreds of images of Dolan Duck with exactly the same eyes and beak. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per others, out of scope and a potential copyright violation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Infinite (1996), by Eminem.png

Previous revisions must exist, i.e. other images and history logs. The image was deleted as copyvio; then the uploader re-uploaded the file. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Please clarify your request for undeletion... I'm not sure what you are asking to undelete, and under what rationale, especially since you have also nominated the file for deletion... do you think the versions need swapping? In case it helps, the history here is that Illegitimate Barrister uploaded the current CD cover in 2013, that looks probably too simple for copyright to me (but clearly you disagree). This was overwritten by L Trey on 18 November, with a photograph of a slightly abused CD cover of similar but perhaps slightly more copyrightability, although it seems to be lacking the texture that you argue might be copyrihtable. The file was then tagged as a copyright violation and both versions were deleted by Hedwig in Washington, and subsequently the original version was re-uploaded by the original uploader. Storkk (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not to revert actually. We might need to examine the history logs and previous file versions; that's all. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Above TOO, the bar in the middle is not solid but has a pattern. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : Not sure why there is an UnDR if the file exists and there currently is a DR open. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sanki King portrait.jpg

ticket:2016092310000866 contains permission. Please ping me when undeleted. ~ Rob13Talk 08:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: ✓ Done, also duplicate processed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Hedwig. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg

On December 5th this logo was deleted, on the grounds of not being "simple text". However, such argument seems to be quite weak as we usually consider that how simple or complex the fonts and typefaces are is not relevant (see {{PD-textlogo}} and en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces). That is, regardless of how distinctive the font is, it's a font and therefore ineligible for copyright. On the other hand, I have to notice that, even if it has been required three times (see here, here and here), the same files haven't been deleted. My conclusion is that the alleged copyright violation is far from clear and in fact nobody wants to enforce the deletion request. Therefore, I cannot but require the undeletion of the original file. Best regards --Discasto talk 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe subject is, indeed, complicated, but I think Commons as a whole deals with it correctly. A logo that is pure text can have no copyright in the USA because, no matter how complex the type font is, type faces have no copyright. The UK is exactly opposite -- typography has a special 25 year copyright. So, there is a range of possibilities which varies from country to country.
This, however, is not simple text. It is text set on a distinctive seal. The central text is an unusual font. We do not know where Brazil sits on the range from the USA no copyright for fonts to the UK explicit copyright for typography. Hence this was deleted under COM:PRP and should not be restored unless someone can prove that this would not have a copyright in Brazil. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If I tell you the truth, the solution is as simple as replacing File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg with File:Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg, but, as no one seems to be able to delete it, I can't see any single reason not to restore File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg. BR --Discasto talk 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Marta-Guerras..jpg

es una imagen cedida por la propia actriz para incorporarla a su biografia en wikipedia

Polipomarino (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two problems here. First "para incorporarla a su biografia en wikipedia" is not sufficient permission. We require that all images must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Second, the subject may or may not have the right to freely license the image. That right is usually held by the photographer. In order to restore this to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of her written agreement with the actual photographer which allows the subject to freely license it.

Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored.

Also please note that claiming "own work" on an image for which you were not the photographer is a serious violation of our rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Spice_Container,_a_1965_work_by_Luise_Kaish_in_the_Jewish_Museum_Collection.jpg

Hello Wiki Editors,

I'm writing to ask if you would undelete the file titled "Spice Container, a 1965 work by Luise Kaish in the Jewish Museum Collection."

I have retained permission from Michelle Humphrey, the Rights & Reproductions Coordinator at the Jewish Museum to use this image. Please see my e-mail exchange with her below.

Let me know if you need additional information from me, or if you'd like me to submit this information in a different format.

Many thanks for your time.

Best, Sarah


Forwarded message ----------

From: Humphrey, Michelle <MHumphrey@thejm.org> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Luise Kaish: Spice Container To: Sarah McCollum <sarah@kaishfamilyartproject.com>


Hi Sarah,

Thanks for your email – we have no objection to the use described in your email below, and please feel free to use our caption. Please let me know if you need an image file.

Many thanks for sending back the license, and please let me know if you need further information.

Best, Michelle


Michelle Humphrey Rights & Reproductions Coordinator

E mhumphrey@thejm.org<mailto:mhumphrey@thejm.org> T 212.423.3248

The Jewish Museum 1109 5th Ave at 92nd St New York, NY 10128

________________

Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM To: Humphrey Michelle <mhumphrey@thejm.org<mailto:mhumphrey@thejm.org>> Subject: Luise Kaish: Spice Container

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your phone call a few minutes ago.

I work for the Kaish family and am reaching out on behalf of Morton Kaish and Melissa Kaish, who retain the copyright of Luise Clayborn Kaish's works.

I'm writing with a question regarding an image of one of the works in your collection. Would be possible to use the image of Luise Clayborn Kaish's sculpture "Spice Container" in an image gallery within her Wikipedia article?

Luise Kaish's wikipedia article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luise_Clayborn_Kaish<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoOrho7ef6zBBBYsrKrjK-y-MYM-OrjK-y-MYMqerCQXLELIfcfI6QrIcFCzBwQsTKrl9JGH4U-m1kOvyaL00jsOvyaL00jq6WqehRTD-LMVAQsILfzKLsKqen4-hjd7bzbybfbnhIyyHtV_BgY-F6lK1FJ4S-rLOr2a9EVLtB5UTsSjDdqympYeciaOmZ2mY01MN8Hb0GTaDyEAvFoxmc1k2JBgCrFIt9wEHIG4TtlAumScRER4vJfBPqbUUsMr2HsGuq80aSl2qhEw65FmYQg2lojSkfyrjudD02cdKO0>

The image of her work within the Jewish Museum's collection can be found here: http://thejewishmuseum.org/collection/20674-spice-container

The Accession Number is: JM 93-65

It would be a great addition to Luise's entry to have the image of "Spice Container" accompany the article.

All the best, Sarah McCollum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahcmccollum (talk • contribs) 21:27, 07 December 2016 (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.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are several problems here.
First,
"Would be possible to use the image of Luise Clayborn Kaish's sculpture "Spice Container" in an image gallery within her Wikipedia article?"
is too narrow. Both WP:EN and Commons require that all images be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. Permission for use only on WP:EN is not sufficient.
Second, unfortunately we have some users who try to forge an exchange such as that above in order to keep an image on Commons. Therefore we require that permission e-mails be sent directly by the copyright holder using the procedure at OTRS.
Third, there are two copyrights here -- that for the photograph and that for the art work itself. As noted above, the museum does not hold the copyright to the work, so we need a free license from the copyright holder, also using OTRS.
Finally, as someone who works for the family of an article's subject, you are in serious violation of WMF global policy concerning Conflict of Interest and Paid Editing. A summary of the rules can be found at WP:COI. At the very least, you must declare your conflict on your Commons user page, User:Sarahcmccollum, and your WP:EN User page, User:Sarahcmccollum and stop making any more edits to the articles except for the correction of errors. This applies to both article, Morton Kaish and Luise Clayborn Kaish. If you do not comply with the rules, you may be blocked from editing both here and on WP:EN and any edits you have made may be removed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:CrecerUC.jpg

Reason: Esta imagen fue diseñada por mi. / This image was designed by me.

(Fhguiñez (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC))

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There never has been a file named File:CrecerUC.jpg.
File:CrecerUC.png is apparently a logo of some sort, but there is nothing in the file description that identifies it. If it is a logo, then we need to confirm that it belongs to an organization that is notable. That usually means that it has an article on WP. We also need a free license from the organization to use it -- see OTRS. If it is not the logo of a notable organization, then we cannot keep it on Commons because it is out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists.
File:Logo FEUC 2016.png also appears to be a logo from an unnamed organization. The same thing applies to this as to the one above.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Nau.png

No veo la razón del borrado, especifiqué el autor, la fuente y además pedí el permiso correspondiente para utilizar la imagen en wikipedia. I do not see the reason for the deletion, I specified the author, the source and also requested the corresponding permission to use the image in wikipedia. --Fhguiñez (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "permission to use the image in wikipedia" is not sufficient. Files on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. In order to restore this, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Dcu.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Tengo permiso para usar esta imagen, lo coordiné todo con la Dirección de Bibliotecas de la Universidad. I have permission to use this image, I coordinated everything with the University Libraries Department. Fhguiñez (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to restore this, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rural Transit Mindanao logo.svg

Request temporary undeletion

Please temporarily restore the image of the logo for transfer to English Wikipedia for infobox use for Rural Transit of Mindanao. No vector image of the company's logo is readily available online, and the file in question is a trace of a poor noisy image of the logo.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Please post a note here when you are done with the transfer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The file has been transferred, thanks for processing the request.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Re-deleted. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Jhon Kleiber.jpg

Esta foto es de mi propiedad, poseo todos los derechos sobre ella. Gracias!

This photo is my property, I own all rights over it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanMartinez90 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 08 December 2016 (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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears on the Twitter account of its subject. In order to restore this to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of the written agreement with the actual photographer which allows you to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mke sunrise flag.png

ticket:2016092410007081 contains permission, assuming this file depicts the flag shown at this website. Please ping me upon restoration so I can clean this up. Thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 15:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


✓ Done: @BU Rob13:. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)