Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎বাংলা • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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

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

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.

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

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

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ebacas

All six of the works listed there (the three have been deleted, some used at Wikisourced) should have been kept as they are all published before 1925 (more than 95 years ago); i.e. per; copryight has long expired. 16:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The three are from the UK, not the USA, so the rule you cite does not apply. In order for them to be restored, you would have to show that the author died before 1950. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

... or upload them directly to English Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Surnames of the United Kingdom" traces to "Henry Harrison"; who also published "The Place-Names of the Liverpool District; Or, the History and Meaning of the Local and River Names of South-West Lancashire and of Wirral" (1898); and the google preview of Surnames of the UK lists him as a member of the "Council of the Philological Society, London". A google books search for "henry harrison council of the philological society" reveals a partial obituary in The Publishers' Circular and Booksellers' Record, Volume 114 (1921) which states:

"Obituary Mr. Henry Harrison The death is reported at Bournemouth, from pneumonia, of Mr. Henry Harrison, who, after thirty ... Mr. Harrison, who was comparatively young, was a member of the Council of the Philological Society, and author of ..."

So that is one which is cleared. For British Family Names (first published 1894; [1]); the google preview lists the author as having published other documents; including an article on ""The Cistercian Abbey of Maulbronn" (1892) and other articles which date to a bit earlier. The earliest article by him I can find, (1890); where he is titled a "M.D." (Doctor of Medicine; I don't know what the requirements were in Victorian Britain but I'd assume a few years at a University would have been the minimum), probably indicates that at the very least he would have been something like 80-90 in 1950, which makes his death before a distinct possibility...
I could not find anything for the Dict. of Names &c.; the only suggestion we have is w:Edward Bevan (bishop) who died 1934; but this can't be verified.
Also, as far as I understand, for all of these, per the Berne Convention; (to which the UK and the US are signatories); the shorter term applies; and since this is hosted in the USA (as far as I know), that term is 95 yrs from publication; which as I said initially is long since gone. 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The Rule of the shorter term applies only in the other direction -- where the source country's copyright has expired but, except for the Rule, the second country's copyright would not have. Thus a US work that is 95 years after publication will be PD in the EU even if the author died less than 70 years previously. You cannot say that a UK sourced work has a 95 year copyright because that is the rule in the USA. Note also that while the EU does use the rule, the US does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Well then in any case I have proven that one of these is actually PD in the UK... 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Hits from Google Books also include the phrase (from a 1921 work): Recently, at Bournemouth, from pneumonia, Mr. Henry Harrison, the author of the well-known dictionary of the "Surnames of the United Kingdom." It was first published in instalments in 1907, but the completed work was not ready until 1918... So that is definitively the author in question, and is {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1921}} . Symbol support vote.svg Support that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can accept that Henry Harrison, the author of the third entry, died before 1950 -- it's not an uncommon name and the connection is a little tenuous, but I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support it.

I agree that the second one's author was 80-90 in 1950, but not old enough to assume that he was dead by then, and there is no information on the other one, so I continue to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the first two. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Could the Barber one be {{PD-old-assumed}} ? Sound like they were published before 1900... Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this book in a bibliography section identifies "Henry Barber, MD" as the author of Forness folk, the'r sayin's an' dewin's; or, Sketches of life and character in Lonsdale north of the sands[2] which was originally under a pseudonym of "Roger Piketah". That was published in 1870, so that pushes back his possible age 20 more years. Symbol support vote.svg Support on that one too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't find much on Edward Latham. Almost certainly not the same person as Edward Latham Bevan. I do find a reference of him as a "learned English philologist" in an 1893 publication, but most of the stuff he authored was published from roughly 1900 to 1916 as far as I can see. It's possible that the book was simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the U.S., as there was a NY publisher Dutton also named, but otherwise the country of origin is the UK and we'd have to show that 70pma has passed. While the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, it's expired there due to being published before 1925, so it could be uploaded at en-wiki or en-wikisource directly. But the UK copyright is still unclear. Using freebmd, there were only a couple of deaths 1950 or later under that name who could realistically have been that person. Hard to imagine he lived 35+ years after he stopped publishing when that was seemingly his profession, but it's possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dragons be here.jpg

Please restore this file. This file is my creative work. I used PowerPoint to author, arrange, and assemble creative elements. The completed work includes clip art that I selected from the PowerPoint collection of images that are released under Creative Commons licence. This particular clip art was obtained (by PowerPoint) from the site at: Note the footnote on this site says: "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License". I conclude this footnote allows me to include this clip art in my original image and to release the completed image to Wikimedia Commons. Please restore this image. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: could you please clarify how this image falls under the scope of our project? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this inquiry. This image falls within the Commmons: Project scope under the provision for media that is realistically useful for an educational purpose. Specifically, this image was created and included as part of the Wikiversity course on Problem Finding. You will notice the deletion entry in that course history log. This should address the opposition "until" request below.--Lbeaumont (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As it stands it is a copyright violation. The dragon has a CC-BY-SA license, but the file here does not credit the creator of the dragon. I agree that it is in scope, but it can be restored only if the proper credit is added immediately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pretty much no wikis other than Wikimedia projects are rigorous about enforcing copyright. How do we know that is properly licensed? Either 1) the image is official art of AdventureQuest Worlds, and hence copyrighted; 2) the image is fan art based on official art of AQW, and hence COM:DW; or 3) the image is original fan art, and thus covered by the site license and allowed. -- King of ♥ 22:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Would we be saying this if the image was first uploaded to Commons? Anyway, not familiar with AQW, so remaining Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. Brianjd (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Commons requires a source, or else the image will be deleted along with any derivatives of it. AQW wiki just says "Thanks to Hina", but it's not clear if she made this or simply found it on the Internet, or even who this "Hina" person is because I don't see a link to a userpage. -- King of ♥ 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
        • In many cases the source is just {{Own}}. How is that any different? Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
          • The problem is that AQW wiki does not have great information about the status of the image. My guess is that more likely than not, it is a derivative of the copyrighted game, and per COM:PRP we should err on the side of caution. -- King of ♥ 22:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there some attribution I can provide or some procedure I can follow that will clear these issues? If so, please let me know what I can do. Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Announcement for wearing a mask.jpg

The announcement are providing information by the government. The announcement can be found at bus stop and on the buses. It doesn't against any copyright. The photo on the announcement can be found on the government website for education purpose. ( Pauloleong2002 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masur: for comment as deleting admin. -- (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm -- I'm not so sure. First, note that the image cited above is similar to but not the same as the deleted image here. The image here has the name of an SA (corporation) at the bottom. According to Transport in Macau, there are several private bus companies there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Good spotting there. en:Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos de Macau is in fact a privately-owned company and not a government agency. @Nat: I have therefore changed my suggestion to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Without any disrespect, I would like to point out that: The logo of the related picture is for identifying who post the notice on the bus stop. And the company( who can provide service because the is a public contract signed between and the Macao SAR government( She need to obey the instruction of the government, including the instruction of wearing masks.

The second thing is, will the said notice protect by laws of Macau? It seems to be not. Per Republicação do regime do direito de autor e direitos conexos, aprovado pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 43/99/M, de 16 de Agosto Artigo 5.º (Exclusão de protecção) 1. Não constituem objecto de protecção, sem prejuízo do disposto no número seguinte:

a) As notícias do dia e os relatos de acontecimentos diversos com carácter de simples informação, de qualquer modo divulgados;

b) Os requerimentos, alegações, queixas e outros textos apresentados por escrito ou oralmente perante autoridades ou serviços públicos;

c) Os textos apresentados e os discursos proferidos perante assembleias ou outros órgãos colegiais, políticos e administrativos, ou em debates públicos sobre assuntos de interesse comum;

d) Os discursos políticos.

2. Cabe em exclusivo ao autor dos textos referidos nas alíneas b), c) e d) do número anterior o direito de os publicar, ou autorizar a sua publicação, sob a forma de colectânea ou separata.

3. A utilização por terceiro de obra referida no n.º 1, quando lícita, deve limitar-se ao exigido pelos fins a atingir com a sua divulgação.

4. Não é permitida a comunicação pública dos textos a que se refere a alínea b) do n.º 1 quando esses textos forem por natureza confidenciais ou dela possa resultar prejuízo para a honra ou reputação do autor ou de terceiro.

5. A proibição do número anterior é afastada quando haja consentimento do autor ou da pessoa cuja honra ou reputação possa ser prejudicada, ou decisão judicial em contrário proferida em face de prova da existência de interesse legítimo superior ao subjacente à proibição.

The said notice is providing general information, in other words, it is telling facts. It is not related with creation, which is what copyright protect. The third thing is, the action of make known to public is a reasonable use. It doesn't make sense that an announcement cannot being an object for propagation, as it is what the use of announcement.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • In my opinion it is a derivative work passing the originality treshold. I disagree that it merely provides a non copyrightable information - it has the picture (I bet it's a stock one even) and the logo, composition etc. And as far as I could tell, there is no PD extemption for it, as it was issued by the private company. Masur (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the information, there is an official source (

And for the picture , it comes from government also. There are some examples :
Thank you very much.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What's more, the said announcement is similar to some kind of instruction or reminding. Here is for your kind information ( (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. As the photo is from a government announcement, the text is purely informational, the logo may be considered COM:DM, I see nothing copyrightable here. Ankry (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Joaquim Mir

Copyright in Spain for content by authors dead before 7 December 1987 lasts 80 years after the death, per this, not 80+1. Joaquim Mir died in 27 April 1940. Strakhov (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Restoring all of the works above that have dates.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Restoring the undated works. All of these works were under copyright on the URAA date. All of those above with dates are pre-1925, so URAA exempt. However the WP:ES article lists two works with 1926 dates, so we know that some of his works are still under URAA copyright and therefore cannot assume that the undated works above are out of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
See also ca:Joaquim Mir i Trinxet#Obres destacades: the latest dated work in that list is from "c. 1935". Another problem with paintings is that a painting may remain unpublished for a long time after it was made, so some of the paintings could in theory first have been published after his death. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Stefan, that's true in many places, but I don't think it is a problem in Spain. The post-1987 copyright lasts for 70 years pma or 70 years after creation. The pre-1987 copyright law calls for 80 years pma when the author is known. Publication does not seem to be an issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with publication is about United States law. All works by this painter were copyrighted in Spain on the URAA date, so only those which were published more than 95 years ago are in the public domain in the US. You were the one who first brought up United States law. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Right you are, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Laurence Gavron.jpg

This file was deleted based on the assertion that it is an out-of-scope personal photo. There was no discussion.

From Special:Diff/421349014, by Wouterhagens:

As there is an article on fr:Laurence Gavron and a Commons category I like to see whether that photo is still out of scope.

I assume the category this user refers to is here: Category:Laurence Gavron. Brianjd (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A relevant comment was added at the Village pump. Brianjd (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that on the scope question that it should be restored. However, as User:Storkk said at the VP, there is a question of copyright. I think we need an OTRS clarification. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the uploader's talk page on the off-chance that they turned on email notifications or indeed log in occasionally. Storkk (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim: OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kate Middleton wedding dress.png

This photograph was taken by me during a travel I did to London on summer 2011. I visited the Buckingham Palace, were I took the picture. Some years later, when I decided to colaborate in wikipedia and wikimedia, I decided to publish my photo. I deleted the background because there were people in there and the picture did not look good and i did not wanted to publish the face of anybody. The photo is MINE and free copyright, so there is no reason to deleted it. I demand the restoration of this photograph. Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For all of the reasons named at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Middleton wedding dress.png, I am not inclined to restore this. If it is your own work, why is it so small and without EXIF? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the administrators will have something to say about the last sentence too:
    I demand the restoration of this photograph.
They usually don’t take kindly to threats. In fact, they are prepared to block users who make them. Brianjd (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Demanding something, while it is quite a disrespectful tone, is not a threat. A threat would be something like "I demand the restoration of this photograph, or else <insert consequence here>." As to the photograph, I could not find any other online photo of the dress that matches the particular drape and lighting present in this Commons image. This includes a reverse search with TinEye. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I noted the "demand". I discounted it because edit counts show that the user is a Spanish speaker -- so there might be a language difficulty. I don't read Spanish, but the French "demand" is "ask" in English, so perhaps they did not intend to use such a strong word. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, a false friend. It’s even listed as an example there. I should have remembered. Brianjd (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello (Jameslwoodward). When the image was modified the EXIF data got loss. It happens to all the images I modified. As you said, there's no online image that matches this one because this photo is mine. About my last sentence Brianjd, you are the one who says it's a threat, not me, so don't make false accusations, because making a demand it's not a threat, you should know that. Instead, I think you are the one who make threats by threating me with consecuences when I only wrote a request.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enciclopedia1993: I think this was quite disrespectful too. I can understand that you will make mistakes when writing in a second language, but you need to understand that other people will make mistakes too when reading your message. Brianjd (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Regarding user's copyvio track record IMO his/her autopatrol rights given just two months ago must be suspended, not talking of a possible block after this request is closed.--Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per discussion. The doubts cen be resolved if the original photo is provided. Ankry (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Просто автор

Уважаемые администраторы!К нам в OTRS снова обратился автор снимков File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Хартум, Судан).jpg и File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Остров Пентекост, Вануату).jpg. Файлы были удалены по причине COM:SCOPE. Он пояснил, что данные снимки планирует использовать в статьях русскоязычной Википедии: здесь Самостоятельный туризм и здесь Вануату#Туризм, Ticket#2020052610003901. Прошу ещё раз оценить целесообразность использования данного файла в статьях, и если Вы считаете возможным это, восстановить фотографию. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mr. Pinchuk has succeded once in having one of his vanity pictures being kept here (I suppose because of the traditionnal clothes he was wearing). I'm not sure neither if it's OTRS volunteers's job to relay this sort of wishes and IMO they should advice him to open a social media account per COM:NOTHOST. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Волонтёры службы OTRS, в первую очередь, занимаются подтверждением разрешений на свободные лицензии произведений. Они не всегда могут предугадать, необходим тот или иной файл для Википедии или нет. Если файлы используются в Википедии, значит они имеют право находиться на Викискладе, если файл не используется в проектах, их всегда можно удалить. На сколько это тщеславие автора или нет, мы это не можем оценить, пока файл используется в Википедии. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Да, и файлы можно переименовать, удалив из описания ФИО автора, заменив на более конкретное содержание. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: I have to agree with Dogad75 here. The OTRS permission queue makes no judgement on whether the image is in scope or out of scope, as our role is just to verify authorship, the work's copyright status, and then accepting or declining the permission based on our investigation. ::: Furthermore, Dogad75 has only relayed a message, and has clearly left it to UDR to decide if the files should be undeleted. Ìch heiss Nat. 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Просто автор. Please note he uses another account (Виктор Пинчук (talk · contribs)). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: OTRS should be reserved for verifying messages that can’t be made public. They should pass on their findings, and the community should handle everything else, including questions of scope. Brianjd (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is, if the image is already on Commons, then completely ignore scope and just process the ticket. If the image is not yet on Commons (i.e. photosubmission), then I might reject the image if it's obviously not in scope (e.g. spam/logo of a company with no significant coverage in reliable sources) but I will upload it for them if I'm not sure if it's in scope or not. -- King of ♥ 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No evidence that the images are in COM:SCOPE provided. Ankry (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is come from ESA sentinel 1 images, in which {{Attribution-Copernicus}} is applicable 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question While the template makes it clear that the data from Copernicus is freely licensed, it is not obvious to me that this Twitter page, with text material added is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: It's the one in the lower right -- England, Wales, part of Ireland and a text box. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat, the terms of use you cite above speak of "data" being free, which, of course, it is automatically -- data itself cannot have a copyright. I don't see anything on the Twitter page which says that the map and the text appearing there are free. What am I missing? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Naharkatiya College.jpg

I am an student of Naharkatiya college and have permission to make wikipedia article/wikimedia uploads of Naharkatiya college ..but maybe I have made mistake while adding license in wikimedia ..

Soo I request to to undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changgogoi (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The images appear on Facebook. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer(s) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim. @Changgogoi: Additionally, the logo is most likely protected by copyright held by the institution. Being a student of that institution does not grant you the right or the authorisation to license or re-license the logo of said institution. An authorised officer or official of the institution will need to send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence for the logo to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Alternatively, the logo may be locally uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content under certain strict conditions. If you choose the latter, please read English Wikipedia's policy on non-free content very carefully. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

File:ObZen (2019 vinyl cover).jpg

Uploaded by me on May 25, 2020

Request this be undeleted and tagged as non-free content by merit of previous publication (WP:NFCC#4)

Original link to image:

Image links to site of band's record label Nuclear Blast, through which this album was released

--BMB012887 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Commons:Fair use. Please read Commons:First steps before contributing more files. Thuresson (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is Commons. Wikipedia's Fair Use rule does not apply here. If it actually applies, you must upload the image there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Commons does not allow Fair use and media files uploaded under such will be deleted on sight and without warning. If you want to upload something under fair-use, please do so locally on a Wikimedia project that allows non-free content (please see meta:Non-free content for a list of projects that allow and don't allow such content). Thank you for your understanding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

الملف: اسامة الجبوري. jpg

Raghad Fakhir (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)اطلب استرجاع الملف وذلك لانني قدمت طلب حذفه بالاخطأ ارجو المعذرة واسترجاع الملف وشكرا

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File:اسامة الجبوري.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation. The two other files that you've uploaded appear to be the same book cover/jacket as the once from the source of the deleted. Regardless of who is the copyright holder, as they were published elsewhere prior to their upload to Commons, permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence is needed from the copyright holder (i.e. the actual creator of the book cover, or if created under a contract that transferred the copyright to the publisher, then the publisher) using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 14:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:J&M Mashhad I Einladung R. Helmes.tif

This is the picture of the autor Justine Harun-Mahdavi as well as her husband Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Massoud Harun-Mahdavi, the main figure of the book "Nicht ohne meine Mann" or "Not without my husband". So it is relevant, it is no advertisement and there are no other conflicts. This picture belongs to the autor and has been uploaded by me. I am her son. This picture can be used commenly for every person. Please contact me if you need further information. I´m not going to read all the rules and other things in wikipedia just to be able to upload a picture like this. Thanks in advance, --Sasan Harun-Mahdavi (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Dr. Sasan Harun-Mahdavi

 Not done: Procedural close -- the files have not been deleted. Your rather high handed refusal to read our rules has created extra work for the volunteers here which could easily have been avoided. First, you failed to link Justine Harun-Mahdavi's name to her WP:EN article. Doing that would have eliminated the reason these were tagged for speedy deletion. The second mistake is that you claimed that you were the actual photographer. It is clear from your comments above that that is not correct. Therefore please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sasan Harun-Mahdavi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg

Foi pêgo no site oficial da prefeitura da cidade de Montes Claros e o mesmo foi referenciado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Rodrigues Santa Rosa (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Afterparty logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore these two files. Both were properly tagged as I've seen countless other logos on Commons. ThePersecuted (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @ThePersecuted: These logos are above threshold of originality and, therefore, protected by copyright. For the images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, the copyright holder will need to send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • These images were obtained via the Xbox Media Assets library that states

"Content in this Xbox Press Media Assets Library is licensed by Microsoft solely for use by members of the press and media, for editorial and informational purposes only. No content may be used in advertisement, promotion, or commercial use of any kind without Microsoft's prior written consent. Use of the Xbox Press Media Assets Library is otherwise subject to the Terms of Use."

Would this not allow these logos to be displayed/hosted on Commons & therefore also Wikipedia? ThePersecuted (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Commons content is required to be free for any use. No content may be used in advertisement, promotion, or commercial use is unacceptable limitation. Also permission to create derivative works is needed. Ankry (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ThePersecuted: It may be possible to upload these logos to the English Wikipedia. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. It may also be possible to upload these logos to other language Wikipedias. Note that they may have different policies. Brianjd (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

File:LGB Support Group Bolton England 1993.jpg

As Copyright owner of the images photographed and also the photographed mounted images, being legal owner of all works portrayed, including derivatives I have legal right to release those images in any way i shall feel fit and had done so. I had not seen any notice of a deletion request until after it had been acted upon but would have challenged it if I had. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration for now. @Pennine rambler: As the image has been previously published elsewhere, the copyright holder should send permission and a specific release under an acceptable licence using OTRS. I would recommend to send the original unmodified, unedited photos (containing its full EXIF metadata) with the permission statement. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 00:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous response given that the photographs are my own, including the ones inside the frame and the photo of the photos.--Pennine rambler (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please also show where my photographs have been published in public elsewhere? For that to occur the photograph and image would have required my consent unless it was via creative commons license terms as stated on its upload on wikipedia commons --Pennine rambler (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record you were informed of the deletion request on your talk page when the DR was created.
That said if licensing is the issue then the answer is simple. You can confirm licensing via COM:OTRS and we can then host the image here. I would Symbol support vote.svg Support restoration on that basis happily. --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pennine rambler, please note that we get imposters making false claims here all the time. The fact that User:Pennine rambler asserts that he is the photographer proves nothing. Because the image appeared previously on Facebook, policy requires that the actual photographer(s) of the four images send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Request undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnshumanSV05 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was Own work -- that is, that you were the actual artist. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Actually, this is the work of brickmack at which has "© 2019 - 2020 brickmack". This can be restored only if brickmack either (a) relicenses it on deviantart or (b) sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)