Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]


Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:Alishan Taiwan Xiang-Lin-Elementary-School-03.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: COM:FOP Taiwan accepts 2-dimensional works A1Cafel (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose for files like File:COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Notice of a Cram School in Hsinchu.jpg and File:COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Information Board at Campus Bus Stop in National Tsing Hua University.jpg. By the file names these depict COVID-19 information boards which IMO may not fulfill the requirement at COM:FOP Taiwan ("Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means..."). Are COVID-19 information boards/announcements for long-term basis? I doubt they would. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Also File:Doraemon 2007 poster on CTS Kuang-fu Building.jpg seems to be an indoor photo. Few others may need to be verified by Chinese-speaking users as they may refer to some temporary events. Also content of bilboards unlikely can be considered permanent. I suggest temporary undeletion of the images for discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Support for temporary undeletions. Since I'm from the Philippines, I hope Wikipedians from Taiwan (and perhaps from PRC) to conduct thorough individual reviews on each of the files indicated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Pinging users like @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: for discussion.--A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @A1Cafel: All images are deleted, then I can't see what the problem is in this situation. If you need to discuss further, please restore these images as they are vital to the discussion. By the way, I have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with Reke many times, but the result was 'no consensus'.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
            • If you ping me about the FOP-Taiwan part, I hope you'll consider my situation seriously. Because I was told by reke that I'm an annoying person and accused me of doing a destroy user pictures using DR (see: special:diff/514139241). In fact, he previously said that you (Kai) have Asperger's syndrome, and he also stressed that any disputes between me and someone else could be a problem for the disease. My plight in talk or communication with is similar to that of most users at Commons. It's very difficult to avoid disputes with users, and everyone should understand. I think...don't let them (including me) go away from Commons by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger.” I know it is hard not to become frustrated and the frustration just made it worse, but can't bear the stigma of choosing such a notoriously mental illness or psychiatric disorde. I impacted by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger,”so please don't ping me about COM:FOP Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion per Kai3952, unless I can see what they were, I'm not sure if they are photographed indoorly or outdoorly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion. Per above. SCP-2000 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For the "勞基法..." one, @Reke: is that TIPO article requires permanently placed, or temporary ones are also applied? The second one may fall under COM:CHARACTER so indeed shouldn't apply --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: as a nominator, do you agree me to "non-admin closure"-like remove the temporary undeletion tag here? That isn't even a 2D work, it's a 3D work. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: as it seems COM:FOP Taiwan now permits photos of exterior fixed 3D works, I support undeletion, but removal of temporary undeletion tags should wait for consensus here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I deleted most of images that doubts were raised about. The only remaining is File:勞工是我心中最軟的一塊 20191214.jpg where User:Liuxinyu970226 opposes basing on TOO, while we are discussing permanence. I do not understand how TOO is relevant here. I assume, all others can be considered kept already. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Note also that natural destruction of medium is generally not considered an argument against permanence. Not permanent = intended to be removed or replaced after some period of time. Not because of natural destrution of medium (eg. paper) due to weather conditions. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ankry: For "勞工是..." one, that has an animation/a cartoon-like artwork, so the question should be answered by the author @Solomon203:: Is this artwork really "your own work"? See also COM:CHARACTER. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: is the illustrated advertisement at File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg still exists (or has it already been replaced by another ad)? If replaced (just like most billboard ads), I'm sorry - this should remain delsted until it falls public domain. Most billboard ads are temporal in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    JWilz12345, I told you guys before that I'm not going to speak about the FOP-Taiwan part because Reke claims that he is more familiar with the policy than I am. You can look at his edits to see how 'claim' he is.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    "勞工是..." is an outdoor political sticker on Section 3, Xinsheng South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City. --Solomon203 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    So we can assume it is intended to be shown during an election campain or another temporary action, not permanently. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry reply so late. In my opinion:
  1. File:多個單位善心捐助高市圖通閱、故事書車_05.jpg is a bookmobile and it may not meet "long-term basis" since it has visited to school sometimes per this article
  2. File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg is a advertising board, which was placed temporary in common sense, thus we can presume it is not meet "long-term basis" FOP requirement.
  3. There is no evidence can demonstrate File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is in public domain at present and that should be deleted per COM:EVID.
Thank you. SCP-2000 02:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @SCP-2000: Nothing is late while the case is open. However, I think that we need some clarification of your comments.
    (Ad. 1) Why visited to school sometimes is relevant? Do you mean that the car decoration is dedicated per visit (or per few visits) or that Taiwanese FOP does not apply to art placed on vehicles per general? While I doubt the first, I have no opinion about the latter.
    (Ad. 2) Being an advertisement does not contradict being permanent (cf. signboards); that is why I asked for help here: is there any element in the content of the advertisement qualifying it as temporary? The board does not seem to be a displayboard for rent. Note, that removal of an art due to its weather-related destruction or even vandalism, does not contradict permanence. BTW, the copyright notice may mean that COM:CHARACTER applies here.
    (Ad. 3) Why we need an evidence that the art is still present? Do you mean that FoP did not apply at the time when the photo was taken, or something else? Note that permanence is not based on measured time that something was displayed, but on the intention. Even if the wall was destroyed in an accident few minutes after creation, it still can be considered permanent. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then I think that these are very likely permanently "set": File:Mackaystatue.jpg, File:Public art at the junction of Provincial Highway 20 and Provincial Highway 21.jpg and File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg, while others may not, so we can only permanently restore these 3 files. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ankry, SCP-2000: the description of File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is "臺灣嘉義市崇文國小圍牆裝飾,磁磚上上繪有林玉山的畫作:高山晨暉." When using literal Google machine translation: "The wall decoration of Chongwen Elementary School in Chiayi City, Taiwan, with Lin Yushan’s paintings on the tiles: Gao Shan Chenhui." The artist seems to be w:Lin Yushan (d. 2004), who seems to mostly work for w:En plein air paintings (perhaps the art in the image is... semi-permanent/semi-temporary???) For me, Purple question mark.svg Unsure. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Pictogram voting comment.svg respond So it's not in public domain, but still FOP applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Image files associated with Principia Discordia[edit]

In Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Allrightsreversed, the following files were deleted:

List of files

See w:Principia Discordia for an overview of what this text is.

The deletion was based on the fact that Template:Allrightsreversed is an invalid license template, and AIUI all these files were tagged with that license tag. However, on investigating a related issue elsewhere (s:Principia Discordia), it became apparent that the Principia Discordia was first published in the US in 1963 without a copyright notice. In other words, these files are actually {{PD-US-no-notice}} (which the uploaders, had they not been so busy playing games with the nonsense "Kopyleft" stuff, could have figured out 14 years ago).

In other words, I would like to see these files undeleted (they are still(!) in use on English Wikisource, which was how I found them). My research indicates that the authors of the Principia Discordia had a somewhat vague grasp of copyright and may have included third-party copyright material in their text under some sort of fair use theory, but these are by all accounts shorter passages (quotes aiui) that can be dealt with surgically when identified (if not covered under COM:DM). --Xover (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For reference, a scan of the work is also available at the Internet Archive as principiadiscordia. I can't definitively identify this as the actual first edition: it was "published" by literally xeroxing a typewritten manuscript, in an "edition" of 5 copies, so we can't really trust anything printed on it (unlike something by reputable publisher). But it is in all likelihood uploaded to IA by its author, Greg Hill (aka "Malaclypse the Younger", aka. "Mal-2"), and identified there as the 1963 first edition. As you can see on page 91, it contains a faux "Ⓚ All Rites Reversed" (which does not meet the requirements) instead of an actual copyright notice, and clearly does so deliberately. Xover (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:The Equalizer.png[edit]

I don't think it's a complex logo. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Pinging the deleting admin.
As the logo does not seem to be more complex than the Cyberpunk 2077 logo which is considered by the US Copyright Office as simple, I suggest opening a DR for wider discussion. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Background in letters are not trivial. You could upload same logo with solid filling. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the letters are altered in similar way that in the abovementioned PD logo. Ankry (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

All deleted uploads of LuCKY[edit]

Extended content

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2021022410007146 and Ticket:2021050710004551 allege permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info maybe about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LuCKY, but unsure. Ankry (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is, @Ankry:. LuCKY 💬 ✒️ 📂 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is up to an OTRS member to verify this. Imprecise requests cannot be handled. Ankry (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This request already has been started by an OTRS member (@Jeff G.:). LuCKY 💬 ✒️ 📂 17:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Not all of LuCKY's deleted uploads were included in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LuCKY. I want precisely all of the user's deleted uploads to be undeleted, as I have permission on hand for all of them. They are all of the redlinks at - do you need a complete list here? Also, I am an OTRS agent / member and I asked for a ping, as linked in my OP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I prefer this section to be handled by someone else. And I suppose a list of files may be helpful as I do not know a tool that can undelete All deleted uploads of [a] user. Ankry (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Since I see you weren't pinged: Ankry's advice above to make an actual list of the relevant files is a good idea. It'll be easier for an admin to undelete files based on a wikitext list than a dynamic log. You can wrap it in {{hat}}/{{hab}} to make it look tidy. :) Xover (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry, Xover, JuTa: Ok, I made a list of the 205 files with {{cot}}/{{cob}}. It wasn't easy.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, is there anything new within the tickets compared to early May when I deleted the image the last time? --JuTa 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: ⬆︎ [Supplying Missing Pings™ is a service of Xover Inc.] Xover (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@JuTa: Certainly, or I wouldn't have asked. Any combination Commons Admin and VRT/OTRS Member is welcome to check my work. @Xover: Thanks for the pings.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I now restored a few examples out of the list: File:Burcu Özberk.jpg, File:İrem Derici.jpg, File:Ahsen Eroğlu.jpg, File:Murat Özaydınlı.jpg and File:StephenAppiah.jpg. I hope thats enough to check the validy of the release according the (new) tickets. Give me a ping when you have a result. I will then either redelete them or undelete the rest. --JuTa 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@JuTa:, *File:Burcu Özberk.jpg is not related with this topic, it is a different file and it should be deleted. LuCKY 💬 ✒️ 📂 06:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@LuCKY: Sorry about that. FYI, that attempted ping did not work. Per mw:Extension:Echo#Usage, you must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@JuTa: Thanks, that's enough for all examples except File:Burcu Özberk.jpg. I can send you (or post somewhere) any of the originals with LuCKY's permission, or LuCKY can do that directly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G., the list above is not the list to restore? then please correct it. --JuTa 16:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@JuTa: The list above is the list to restore, less what you already restored 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G., i started to undelete the files, but I now need a break. I will continue later. --JuTa 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Finally i restored all files except 3 which are either deleted by author request or real cpvios. @Jeff G. please now complete the OTRS task. --JuTa 19:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Hörbiger Aufgebotsverweigerung.jpg[edit]

Siehe hier, das fällt unter Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Austria#Official_works, daher wiederherstellen und mit einem korrekten Lizenzbaustein versehen, welcher das auch immer ist, da findet sich ja sowieso niemand zurecht in den bürokratischen Fallstricken zur Bildvermeidung. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: Da gab es eine ganze Menge Dokumente, die offensichtlich ebenso gemeinfrei sind, die der gleiche Hochlader hochgeladen hat als eigenes Werk (was das Foto ja auch zweifelsfrei war, nur das abgebildete Dokument nicht). Wegen des dezentralen LD-Chaos hier ist ads aber nicht einfach, die alle zu finden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Reicht das so, wie ich das gerade gemacht habe? Kirchenurkunden waren damals gleichzusetzen mit anderen behördlichen Urkunden, ich denke also, das passt so. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Der Text hat keine urheberrechtliche Schöpfungshöhe, und für die Bilder dürfte sowohl "Amtliches Werk" als auch "Anonymes Werk" (mehr als 70 Jahre alt) zutreffen. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Declassified Complete UFO footage - USS Omaha - San Diego - July 15, 2019 - Temp upload.webm[edit]

This file was deleted as "license laundering" without further explanation by User:Billinghurst and without warning. The video is part of a series of leaks of so called Pentagon UFO videos. These are videos which have been confirmed by the Pentagon as authentic (as in, filmed by government personnel) and are part of the US government investigations under the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force and formerly the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Similar videos are "FLIR", "GOFAST" and "GIMBAL", which are all on Commons already, as is a screencap of another video (USS Russel). Regarding this particular video, the spokesperson of the Pentagon has confirmed it was filmed by the US Navy aboard the USS Omaha in statements to NBC News and others [1] [2] [3] "The Pentagon has confirmed that the video is real in a statement to various outlets, including NBC News and The Debrief. “I can confirm that the video was taken by Navy personnel,” spokesperson Susan Gough said. She added that the footage is under review by the UAP Task Force, the Pentagon’s recently launched team dedicated to investigating such incidents."

As part of a government official work, it's under the public domain. This video was leaked by a private individual named Jeremy Corbell, who watermarked the video. No other version of the video exists publicly yet, and Corbell doesn't claim to own the copyright. The video is used to illustrate the Pentagon UFO videos article on Wikipedia. As the name of the article implies, the videos themselves are an essential part of the article. --Loganmac (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a COM:DW of a US Navy video. Can you provide an evidence that the DW creator made it as their US Navy-related duty? Ankry (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the video itself is part of an official briefing. The screencaps of the briefing show the material they used is the cellphone (or handheld) recording I uploaded (minus the watermark), filmed inside the Combat Information Center of the ship in question, as such it was filmed by US Navy personnel during official duty and handled to an official investigative agency (the UAPTF), with the material being part of "ongoing investigations" by the U.S. government. [4] [5]. Regardless, take in mind the cited policy states "All subsequent works based on another, previous work but lacking substantial new creative content are merely considered copies of that work and are entitled to no new copyright protection as a result and should not be referred to as "derivative works"". I wouldn't consider a cellphone video of a screen to be substantial creative work to guarantee new copyright, else you could consider a cellphone recording of a cinema screen/movie copyrighted. --Loganmac (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
And similarly, simply adding a watermark to a video does not create any new copyright. It's hard to tell without seeing the video, but based on the description I'd give good odds any watermark was automatically added by whatever video editing software the leaker used. Unless the specific content of the watermark qualifies as a creative work on its own (which I find highly unlikely), the only relevant copyright here is the original one which is covered by {{PD-USGov}} Xover (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: User:Hph's own work. RZuo (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

{{O}} As this is a low resolution image, an evidence of authorship is needed (eg. the original full resolution photo or a photo with complete camera settings info in EXIF). Ankry (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
this photo came from sometime before 2005. its resolution and lack of EXIF were typical of old photos from that time.--RZuo (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion. 343×223px is not a standard resolution of a digital photo from that time. While it may be {{Grandfathered}} we need at least some explanation why it is so low resolution and whether so low resolution image is (still) useful. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
it could well be a photo from a film camera. the photographer was born in 1946. consumer-grade digital cameras would not be available until his 50s. without credible claims of copyvio it shouldnt be deleted.
it's been used on a large number of wikis for more than a decade.--RZuo (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @RZuo: HPH was active on deWP as late as February this year. They also link a personal website from their user page where contact information is found. You may want to contact them by email to let them know about this discussion and ask about the source of this image. They may also be able to provide OTRS confirmation and even a higher-resolution scan.
    The image was clearly not born-digital: you can see a black border due to incomplete cropping in several places. To me it looks most like the black cardboard(ish) pages of photo albums popular among "prosumer" (advanced hobbyist / casual professional) photographers up to about the mid-nineties (depending on where you were in the world). The right edge could also possibly be construed to look like the curling of a magazine page toward its spine, suggesting the image was scanned from a magazine, but at this resolution it is impossible to tell anything for certain. --Xover (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0046.png and File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0048.png[edit]

Scan of a book in the PD in the USA. Languageseeker (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When We Were Very Young is listed as first being published in in 1924 by a London-based publisher. The 1924 year makes it PD in US. But it's a UK country-of-origin, so Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom is also in play. As User:Tagishsimon tagged, that law is "life+70", so the illustrator's rights would not expire until 2046. Took be a bit to decipher that before I ultimately deleted the file. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyway to transfer these files to en Wikisource that accepts material in the PD-US? Languageseeker (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Let us know when you've copied them so we can re-delete them here. I think the automatic clock is 2 days but obviously that can be flexible as necessary. Are there any others from this source that need similar transfer+deletion? DMacks (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@PawełMM, Xover, Inductiveload: A huge thank you. I was really sad to see those images go. It’s probably going to be all the images from this book. Is there anyway to get a little more time so that PawełMM can finish working on them prior to being transferred to enWS? Also, does anyone with more rights or technical skills know of a better way of transferring 122 images to enWS? Languageseeker (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: As I mentioned elsewhere, there are bot scripts to do that task but they are currently broken, so right now it'll have to be done manually. Xover (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@User:Xover what script is used to go from Commons to other wikis? Inductiveload (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ It's currently blocked on T267535. Xover (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@DMacks: Inductiveload transferred the files to Wikisource. All file with the name "Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7" can now be deleted and marked for undeletion it 2046. Thank you for helping us out. Languageseeker (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


Моя снимка е от моя фотоапарат, както съм го посочил. Илиев2010 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Ankry (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

File:БРЦК - Стаа Загора.png[edit]

Моя снимка е от моя фотоапарат, както съм го посочил. Илиев2010 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

{{O}} per above. It is a COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Медальонът на паметника е печата на Българския революционен централен комитет от 1870-те г. Минали са 100 години. Винаги ли първо триете и след това се запознавате с фактите!?? Илиев2010 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Unsure then. Maybe it is relevant when the monument was established. Ankry (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Pictogram voting info.svg Info per, it was constructed in 1976. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, so it cannot be considered PD due to age. However, it may still be disputable whether it is original copyrightable creative art or a copy of the original seal, a work of craftmanship. If someone wants to open a DR discussion to discuss this, I would Symbol support vote.svg Support. However, we may need an image of the original seal in order to take a decision that is not based on COM:PCP. At least the lion shape may be considered creative. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg[edit]

Hi, File:Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg by Taivo who believed the file was a copyvio and of low res. They've since realised it wasn't a copyvio but have still refused to undelete it (They've been on since my reply),
Whilst the image is low res that in itself isn't a reason to delete as we have tons of low res images here and the image was taken in 2008 and was categorised accordingly - The image was still of use and was in SCOPE, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


Image adopted data from Copernicus Sentinel data 2020, {{Attribution-Copernicus|2020}} can be used as permission —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide an evidence of cc-by-sa-4.0 license at the source site (link to the page where the license has been granted) or ensure that the image copyright holder has followed COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Original link is --A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

File:大黑松小倆口元首館 Salico Foods King Garden - panoramio (2).jpg[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is COM:FOP Taiwan for 2D works —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ for any of the aforementioned images to be restored, the artwork must satisfy two conditions at COM:FOP Taiwan - these must be in "outdoor places open to the public" and their presence or display is "on a long-term basis" (in short permanence). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as has provided no detailed per-image explanation. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: if File:Mackay statue Tamsui.jpg is uploader's own photo, then I'm leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg Support for its restoration if it shows the sculpture at File:Mackaystatue.jpg. However, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restorations of files from File:名人塑像區.jpg to File:Wang02.jpg as these were restored recently but were deleted again because: copyvio (grabbed from JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

File:2021 Kazakh election flyers.jpg[edit]

This file clearly wasn't violating any rules and in the end on 11 May 2021, it was decided to be kept yet it still got removed. --ShadZ01 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @EugeneZelenko: Did you find the photo a DW of something else than the election posters being considered de minimis is the the recent DR or is there another reason to override a community decision with speedy process? Ankry (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Obviously posters are main subject off this photo, so de minimis claims are bogus. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: But overriding a DR decision through speedy deletion is out of process, even if we disagree with it. I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion and reopenning the DR unless User:P199 has also changed their mind. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's very reasonable to ask question why deletion request was closed that way, especially taking in account absence of freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The posters are DM in my opinion, low-res, no details visible. But it could be borderline. --P 1 9 9   17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


Прошу отменить удаление этого скриншота, поскольку он относится к программе, распространяемой по СВОБОДНОЙ ЛИЦЕНЗИИ - это указано в верхней строке скриншота Stdi.jpg. Та же ссылка на свободную лицензию указана на сайте скачивания этого ПО ("бесплатная версия для самообучения и работы по свободной лицензии" с уточнением: "данная лицензия позволяет пользователю свободно распространять данную версию и все полученные с ее помощью изображения"). Поэтому я могу свободно использовать любые скриншоты этого ПО везде безо всякого разрешения!

Please cancel the deletion of Stdi.jpg screenshot, since it refers to a program distributed under a FREE LICENSE - this is indicated in the top line of the screenshot Stdi.jpg (in Russian). The same link to the free license is listed on the download site of this software (in Russian: "free version for self-study and work under a free license" with the clarification: "this license allows the user to freely distribute this version and all images obtained with it"). Therefore, I can freely use any screenshots of this software everywhere without any permission! AKU-47 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot was deleted corredctly, do not undelete it. Please note history of this file at nominators talk page. Permission to download and "freely distribute this version and all images obtained with it" does not allow to "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." as says free license cc-by-sa. This software is not truly free. --Drakosh (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
After discussion in ruwiki, author changed license on dowload page. Source code is still not available. --Drakosh (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Pubic and anal hair.jpg[edit]

A clear example of hair growths in the human private part: pubic hair, anal hair, and thigh hair. The photo was taken in the view of textbook illustrations for the external appearance of the pubic and perineal areas. These hair growths are easily confused with only textual descriptions even though they are functionally and physiologically distinct. The picture had also been used as an example in Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbrburjurz (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Bootkinero[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Said files by @Bootkinero: were deleted because of either no proper licensing tag or no permission. However, these files, if coming from Philippine government agencies, regular employees, and/or instrumentalities, then these may fall under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} license tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Talk! Yes those photos are made public by the Philippine government. Bootkinero (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Interior of Taipei 101[edit]

According to TIPO, photographing merely interior decor is OK. The office also mention 拍攝"室內"裝潢的行為是將實施結果的實體物為拍攝,並不涉及著作權之侵害 (translate: The act of shooting "interior decoration is to take the actual object as a result of the implementation and does not involve copyright infringement) , so it is OK for Interior architecture photography/video --Wpcpey (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no indication, these images should not delete. Meanwhile, those photos cannot see any 2D or 3D artwork clearly.--Wpcpey (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg.
This image directly debunks the idea the cited West-German source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" which states that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms. Therefore overturning the original rationale that lead to the image's deletion.

I am currently doing research into this topic and can't find this file, I am quite sure that this is a fantasy, but I am not sure if this file is a contemporary misattribution or not. Anyhow if u deleted I would add "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" to it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Please specify what exactly do you request and why? Do you request for modifying the deleted description, reopening the DR or something else? Ankry (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, just general undeletion, I plan on altering the description and tagging it as "disputed", but the reason given for deletion was one that isn't really an acceptable reason anymore. But I am planning on requesting on renaming it to "Alleged" or "fantasy". But I can't make a judgement without seeing the file. I suspect that it's the insignia of the Republican Guard, but again, I can't judge if I can't see the file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to override a DR decision we need a rationale that I do not see here. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, please always ping on this page, as I don't seem to get notifications for it in my e-mails. Regarding undeletion, the rationale for deletion was that the file was a fantasy, however, I suspect that it was merely misattributed, I am mostly requesting undeletion to see the file so I can work with it.
Furthermore, the claims by the original nominator merely States that heraldric source works claim that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms, later discoveries could have been made and the file could as well have been the coat of arms of a body of the Cochinchinese Colonial Council, if I can't see the file I can't research it. Does the file look anything like this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
So I am Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral whether the COA is in scope or not. However I may GA candidate.svg Weak support reopening the DR to take a decision there. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just curious, but what are the reservations for its undeletion? -- Always ping me on this page Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, regarding the original deletion, the cited source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" is usually a reliable source for national coats of arms, but it's not infallible, the nominator at the time found a lot of coats of arms through this work and similar works, but they got the coat of arms of the Second (2nd) Republic of Vietnam wrong, recently a Vietnamese person made a YouTube presentation based on Vietnamese coats of arms on Wikipedia and the entire comment section was filled with users pointing out that the escutcheon of South Vietnam was missing 2 (two) dragons. Also that book didn't showcase the coat of arms of the French protectorate of Annam (something that was also uploaded by this very Sockmaster and later deleted upon request as being "likely a hoax" by the same person that started the DR), but a 1941 official government Vichy (German-Italian-Japanese collaboratist regime) French work showed these coats of arms to indeed be legitimate. I am not saying that the original image was legitimate, I am just saying that because I can't view it that I have no way if verifying it and misattributed coats of arms on Wikimedia Commons usually get tagged with "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" rather than outright deleted. Both the Sockmaster and the DR nominator have had a track record with mistakes in this field, both both the sockmaster and DR nominator are excellent intelligent people that know how to research these topics well. I just want the ability to conduct my own research into this file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg I am an idiot, I just Ecosia searched (Ecosiad) in French rather than just in Vietnamese and I actually managed to find a contemporary French source showing a coat of arms of French Cochinchina among the first results. The internet is a very different place since the original Deletion Request was filed, but the whole reason the file was deleted was because the source consulted by the DR nominator stated that French Cochinchina never had any coat of arms. Now, the coat of arms I found in this image looks quite similar to the one the globally locked Sockmaster uploaded a few weeks ago with a more recent sockpuppet. I think that both the original DR nominator and globally locked Sockmaster in this care are very intelligent people with a strong dedication to research these things, and I am sure that either of them knows more about Vietnamese coats of arms than anyone here, but neither of them are infallible and the usually reliable West-German book on national coats of arms isn't infallible either. This image directly disproves the deletion rationale. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Darpan Inani.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The other photo due to which it was removed was a french newspaper who after talking to me copied the image from here itself. Vitthal.inani (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support 2018 publication should not be copyvio evidence for a 2016-uploaded photo. But pinging @Pppery, Túrelio: the copyvio nominator and deleting admin if they disagree. Ankry (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Done, @Vitthal.inani: Thuresson (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:10 Merton Street, Oxford, April 2007.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Public Domain Mark 1.0 is accepted on Commons now, per {{PDMark-owner}} A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The original photo has been deleted by the Flickr user. Ankry (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Thürmer Gyula (2).jpg[edit]

This photo was taken by me. Source means only where to find more information on the subject. --Elekes Andor (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Done, ping @Elekes Andor: Thuresson (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File was deleted thru Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino (FOP-related). However, as it was unveiled during the time of old copyright regime (Act of 1924, which only gave 30 years copyright protection and required registration), it can be said that it now falls as {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. See the latest input of Clindberg at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City).

Note that for the first file (File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg), the version to be restored is from 2012 and not the more recent file that is an outright/blatant copyright violation. Additionally, the third file (File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg) is more complicated as the first version shows the Caloocan monument (which is PD as per the current consensus here), while the latest version shows a clearly unfree monument like the file here, per the upload log. So I suggest a renaming of this file after undeletion and move to another title so that the road is clear for the unfree monument if FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: file was deleted due to no FOP in Russia back then (Commons:Deletion requests/File:PaysageMoscovite.JPG). However there is FOP for architecture since 2014. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per {{FoP-Russia}}. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG (FOP related). However, Russia has full FOP for architecture since 2014. {{FoP-Russia}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that the German wiki copy de:Datei:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG exists which means that if this file is restored then that local copy must be deleted as a duplicate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kudrinskaia001.JPG. But {{FoP-Russia}} (buildings only) since 2014. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per {{FoP-Russia}}. Ankry (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Devil's Lake SP Lynx Mound P7180248.jpg[edit]

--What I know-- With the image already deleted, it took awhile to locate another copy. After extensive checking. The following is what I can provide at this time.

  1. In the text below the image is a statement 'as it looked in 1919'. The presumes that the photograph must have been taken in 1919. It's not a sketch, which could be at some later date.
  2. Based on the 1919 date, I checked several on-line sources and have have identified a report by H.E. Cole and H.A. Smythe in The Wisconsin Archeologist; V.18 no 4, November 1919, Archeological Society of Wisconsin 1919 containing the words Devils Lake and Lynx. As I did not purchase access, I did not find the articles title, nor the specifics contained in the article.
  3. From that reference, further reviews of The Wisconsin Archeologist sources found a second article by H.E. Cole; The markings of the Lynx mound of Devils Lake; Wisconsin Archeologist, XX, July' An Indian Effigy Mound in the Devils Lake State Park, 1924.
  4. Further reading of The Wisconsin Archeologist from years before and after 1924, a few were available on-line lead to the information that Henry Cole was a director of the Wisconsin Archeological Society during these the late teens and early 20's of that century. He was also the President of the Baraboo Historical Society and owner of a newspaper in Baraboo, Wisconsin.

Therefore, I have concluded that the 1919 date in the museum text of the exhibit is a reference to an image made that year and used in one or both of the articles discovered in the Wisconsin Archeologist, making the the image now public domain. Chris Light (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info copyright in US depends generally on publication, not creation date. So the question here is: when and where the image was published (newspaper, magazine, museum display) and whether it was before 1926 in order to determine its PD status. See COM:Hirtle chart for details. Ankry (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: if the image was unpublished before 2003, you may need to verify whether the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Ankry (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Senator Mark Wyland.jpg[edit]

I want to reupload the picture. I saw that someone did and it got deleted because at the time they didn't use PD-CAGov tag. I'm not sure if it's the same picture or not from the Archive Website. If it is, I'm requesting for it to be undeleted. Dillon251992 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support As no photo author information is provided on the abovementioned page, we can consider that "Copyright © 2013 State of California" applies to it, IMO. And the photo seems to be public record as described in {{PD-CAGov}}. However, another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Request undeletion of images uploaded by iNaturalist contributor[edit]


I request that the following images (see below) uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons by tle003 be 'undeleted', because the iNaturalist contributor that they are attributed to has changed the permissions to CC BY-SA 4.0. This license is compatible with the requirements of Wikimedia Commons.

The images are:

1); 2); 3); 4); 5); and 6),

as shown here: 1); 2); 3); 4); 5); and 6),

Thanks - Tle003 (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Appears to have been done.. files mentioned are not deleted. Doesn't look like there is anything to do here Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Photos listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kelly Madison[edit]

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2007071810003376 alleges permission from the subject's business partner (despite what nominator FredWalsh wrote in the DR). I uploaded File:Kelly Madison 3 crop1.png and File:Nude Kelly Madison 8.jpg, but FredWalsh neglected to notify me, Anisur Uzzal, and Mbdortmund of the DR. Please ping me. Pinging @Explicit as deleting Admin. I stand by what I wrote in this edit 13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC), preserved here: '"through the subject's website" does not necessarily mean it was the subject saying the photographer gave permission. No photographer is named in the correspondence.' I can speculate that the photographer was the subject's business partner, but I am not sure. Pinging @Adambro, who added the permission to the file description pages. Are we now expected to apply our current standards to 15-year-old tickets?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hartley Headshot.jpg[edit]

I am writing to request a restoration of the previously uploaded image file Hartley Headshot.jpg.

While it is true that I do not own the file, I have access to it via my full-time position as the director of communications for the College of Science at Texas A&M University. The uncredited photograph, which is among our general file photos within the College of Science, is in common use by both the college and the Texas A&M Department of Statistics, which Dr. H.O. Hartley founded and was an active faculty member of from 1963 to 1979.

I am unsure as to the best way to credit it from among the several options listed in your reference pages, but one obvious option is by including one of the many links to feature stories in which it appears within the College of Science news archive, including this most recent example from October 2020:

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration of my request.

--TAMUSciComm (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Apexer street art File:Apexer,_Psycho_City_San_Francisco_Oct_2020.jpg[edit]

I will try to get the artist to sign the appropriate license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJTatsu (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please undelete this one too.,_18th_and_Guerrero_San_Francisco_Oct_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJTatsu (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@SJTatsu: please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. The artist must send a correspondence of permissiom through this method. The file cannot be restored through your undeletion request alone. Just wait for an OTRS volunteer or admin to request undeletion here after the they received correspondence with appropriate permission from the artist. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apexer, Psycho City San Francisco Oct 2020.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Piazza ognissanti, Ercole che lotta con il leone, romano romanelli 1.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: FOP-related deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ripa-san Saba - Scanderberg a piazza Albania 020102.JPG). However, its sculptor died in 1969, and as a work of a deceased author, it is now accepted here as per updated COM:FOP Italy (Italian FOP-reliant objects by deceased authors are now permissible on Commons, per a Parliamentary pronouncement from 2008, but works by living authors are still subject to restrictions not compatible with Commons' licensing policy). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Milano, dettaglio di un portale 1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duomo di Milano, dettaglio di un portale 1.jpg. However, its creators/authors are deceased (Franco Lombardi died in 1943, and Luciano Minguzzi in 2004), which means this image now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by deceased authors, via a 2008 Italian parliamentary pronouncement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Duomo Out S7.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duomo Out S7.jpg. However, its creators/authors are deceased (Franco Lombardi died in 1943, and Luciano Minguzzi in 2004), which means this image now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by deceased authors, via a 2008 Italian parliamentary pronouncement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

More images of Lombardi/Minguzzi FOP-reliant work[edit]

These were deleted due to no FOP in Italy reason. However, its creators/authors are deceased (Franco Lombardi died in 1943, and Luciano Minguzzi in 2004), which means this image now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by deceased authors, via a 2008 Italian parliamentary pronouncement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Anjos Cantores.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anjos Cantores.jpg. However, now OK for Commons according to updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by a deceased author). The artist has been dead since 1973. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Arezzo courthouse1.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arezzo courthouse1.JPG. But now, acceptable here via updated COM:FOP Italy (first exception to no FOP: work of a deceased author). As Howhontanozaz indicated on DR, the architect died in 2017. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Breda Tower.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breda Tower.jpg. But now, acceptable here via updated COM:FOP Italy (first exception to no FOP: work of a deceased author). As Raoli indicated on DR, the architect died in 1961. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: the file to be restored is the one deleted by INeverCry on February 14, 2013, and not a more recent file that was deleted as an obvious copyvio. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Unicredit Tower images[edit]

Restoration of uncropped version

Said files, deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unicredit Tower (Milan), can now be acceptable here via updated COM:FOP Italy (first exception to no FOP: work of a deceased author). Architect w:César Pelli died in 2019. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL More files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Porta Nuova (Milan)

Also the ff.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Parque Vila Germânica Blumenau SC (40175077724).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons now accepted PDM per {{PDMark-owner}}. @SCP-2000: who has voted in the DR A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Does FoP apply here? Is this a permanent instalation? (source image) Ankry (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well I see another problem: MTur Destinos does not seem to be the photographer (and so the photo is not their own work), so the {{PDMark-owner}} does not apply. Ankry (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • If MTur Destinos owns the copyright, it is fine. The tag is about the copyright owner (usually the photographer, but not always). That can be a harder question, though the statement on the account seems fairly specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Clindberg: The template states: when a copyright holder applies the PDM to their own work (my highlighting). If somebody owns copyright, is does nit automatically mean that the work is their own work (I assume the template says about authorship here). Maybe the template needs to be modified? I did not follow the discussion whick led to this template creation, so I am not sure if this is justified by the consensus. Personally, I would also be very careful with declarations by companies, due to multiple cases when company staff think that their company owns copyright, while it actually does not... Ankry (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
          • In that context, "own work" means "works they own". As in, owning the copyright, be that by authorship or transfer. If someone declares their own work PD, that's when it falls under that tag, as they are waiving the copyrights they had owned. If the photos were works for hire for example, they would own the copyright and it would be fine (outside of derivative work issues, of course). If there are claims of ownership of the individual photographers in EXIF or something, indicating it's possible the organization merely licensed the images and have no right to relicense them, I'd be a bit more leery. I have not looked carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to Flickr tags, this is Parque Vila Germânica, a tourist spot in Blumenau, Brazil. FoP can be apply per {{FoP-Brazil}}. Description said "Crédito obrigatório: Renato Soares/MTur" (English:Mandatory credit: Renato Soares/MTur), so Renato Soares is an employee of MTur Destinos, thus MTur is the copyright holder of this image. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the uploader, @Scuraball:, has already found the underlying image. According to them, it is File:Seagull in capitol hill.jpg. The meme image can now be restored as the source of the ubderlying work (image) has been identified by the uploader of the deleted meme image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Benevento BN, Italy - panoramio - RobyP (17).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benevento BN, Italy - panoramio - RobyP (17).jpg. However, this now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy, under the 1st no FOP exception (a work by a deceased author). As the closing admin indicated, the author died in 1987. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


Please, undelete the picture, below is the correct link to it with license:

--Polinapushkareva (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This seem to be COM:LL. Ask the photographer to use COM:OTRS process. Ankry (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unambiguous COM:LL. History is as follows:
    • 13:00, 16 June 2021 - You uploaded this as File:Polina-Pushkareva.jpg;
    • 15:54, 16 June 2021 - Deleted as NETCOPYVIO;
    • 12:47, 17 June 2021 - You recreate the image as File:Polina-pushkareva.jpg;
    • 15:46, 17 June 2021 - Deleted as NETCOPYVIO;
    • 00:00, 21 June 2021 - A Flickr account is created;
    • 00:00, 21 June 2021 - This image, only flipped on its horizontal axis, is uploaded there (what serendipity!);
    • 20:49, 21 June 2021 - You upload this flipped version (with no reference to the Flickr account) as File:Pushkareva-polina.jpg.
Notwithstanding that you purport to be the subject (Polinapushkareva vs Polina Pushkareva) and copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), do you seriously expect us to find these blatant machinations compelling? Эlcobbola talk

File:Wiki 01 portrait mandjoukov.jpg[edit]

The image ownership will be verified by the original creator Zlatan Dekov immediately. Sulitzer2 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)



This is certainly not xscala's image. Xscala is a distributor of Brüel & Kjær products, and as such hold no copyright over our product — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madchr (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Madchr: For images that were published anywhere by anybody without evidence of free license, the copyright holder needs to use COM:OTRS process to grant a free license permission. Ankry (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Hi. I am a Brüel & Kjær representative (as you can see on my email, which references our domain: This picture is posted on behalf of the Brüel & Kjær organization, and with full immaterial rights for the image in question.

Please undelete this image.

Thanks Mads --Madchr (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OTRS needed, see above. Ankry (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)



Madchr (User talk:Madchr) 01:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I am a Brüel & Kjær representative (as you can see on my email, which references our domain: This picture is posted on behalf of the Brüel & Kjær organization, and with full immaterial rights for the image in question.

Please undelete this image.

Thanks Mads --Madchr (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Not providing free license evidence for already published images is violation of Commons policy and considered violation of copyright. Please follow COM:OTRS process as described above. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:HeadphoneMeasurements ANewStandard PartI 01c1.jpg[edit]

File:HeadphoneMeasurements ANewStandard PartI 01c1.jpg

Is provided by Brüel & Kjær, which i represent (my email references, who is also the owner of the immaterial copyrights for this image. I have full rights o distribute this image on behalf of the organization.

Please undelete this image.

Thank you Mads --Madchr (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

See above. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Hi. I am a Brüel & Kjær representative (as you can see on my email, which references our domain: This picture is posted on behalf of the Brüel & Kjær organization, and with full immaterial rights for the image in question.

Please undelete this image.

Thanks Mads

See above. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:SCP-173 artwork.png[edit]

This file was deleted because it apparently infringed on the copyright of a sculpture. However, I believe that the file was allowed under Commons:Fan art. It was a two-dimensional anime-style chibi drawing of a three-dimensional statue that was not originally in the chibi style. I think that this file is not a copyright violation and should be allowed on Commons in the same manner as, for example, File:Batman Clipart.svg, which is another heavily stylized cartoonish representation of a character. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The deletion reason contradicts the source license, which explicitely allows derivative works. @組曲師, Jameslwoodward: for explanation of their rationale in the DR. Ankry (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:PogChampening Vote Results.png[edit]

The reason says "Screenshot of non-free app/website", but Twitch is a free website. Is there something I'm not understanding? I don't come to the Commons often. I won't argue or anything, just want to learn and understand. AntisocialRyan (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@AntisocialRyan: On Commons, "free" generally refers to the copyright license of the content (free as in speech), not whether you have to pay to see it (free as in beer). Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely-licensed material -- that is, material that anyone can use and modify, for any purpose, including commercially, without any restrictions other than crediting the author and letting others do the same. Almost everything is protected by copyright from creation, and is not licensed under those conditions. This includes the Twitch website. For more information on what you can upload to Commons, see the licensing policy. For a more general introduction, see Commons:First steps. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Ah, I understand now. Thank you for clearing it up! AntisocialRyan (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files by Necrocancer (talk · contribs)[edit]

All of this user's files were nuked last month following this DMCA notice. However, I believe at least some of the files may be legitimate. For example, the file name Sailing Boats Night, 1926.jpg suggests the image was this painting by Yoshida Hiroshi. He passed away in 1950 — which is more than 70 years ago — so this work should be under public domain. Each file should be checked on a case-by-case basis as Ymblanter (talk · contribs) originally suggested. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This painting will only become public domain in the US in 2022.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
It may be PD if unpublished till at least 1978. But we would need an evidence that it was not exposed to public before this date. Ankry (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of PD status in US provided. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:26 May 2021 Lunar Eclipse in Sukoharjo.jpg[edit]

Should be own work. The user's previous name is User:Iqbal 8 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jacqueline Hernandez.jpg[edit]

== [[File:Jacqueline Hernandez.jpg|thumb|Jacqueline Hernandez, Business Executive]] ==

[[File:Jacqueline Hernandez.jpg|thumb|Jacqueline Hernandez, Business Executive]]

This photo was taken by Joseph Moran and he has allowed the photo to be used for this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unirico41 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Unirico41: Please ask the copyright owner to submit any permission through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Unirico41: A permission limited to use for this wikipedia page is incompatible with COM:L. Ankry (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no free license. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Nakamura Ganjiro as Tojuro, 1925.jpg[edit]

The information provided by the uploader (except license template) seems to be correct: see here and here. The copyright template should be {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1960}} (Japan has 50pma). Ankry (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Fitindia: Ankry (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks, but you may be under the misapprehension that I am an Admin here - I'm not (yet), so I technically can't advise on this file, other than to note that even a stopped analog clock is right twice a day.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: pinging you for potential comments as you nominated the image for deletion. The image source is linked above, so no need for admin rights in order to see it. Ankry (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The 1925 date appears to be a creation date. We would need to know a publication date to make a determination of the US status (for example, 1960 + 50 + 1 = 2011, which is well after the 1996 URAA date. Per COM:HIRTLE, if this were published anytime from 1926 to 1960 (author death), the earliest PD date is 2022.) Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Our general practice was an assumption that an art was published just after its creation unless we have evidence of otherwise. Should we revise this practice and require evidence of publication date for every art presented in Wikimedia Cmmons?

File:Governor General's Foot Guards Camp Flag.jpg[edit]

File:Governor General's Foot Guards Camp Flag.jpg

Non-commercial reproduction Unless otherwise specified you may reproduce the materials in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes, and in any format, without charge or further permission, provided you do the following:

exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author (where available) indicate that the reproduction is a copy of the version available at [URL where original document is available] Commercial reproduction Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from the copyright administrator. To obtain permission to reproduce any content owned by the Government of Canada available on this site for commercial purposes, please contact the institution responsible for that content by referring to the institutions list available on the Government of Canada contacts page.

Some of the content on this site may be subject to the copyright of another party. Where information has been produced or copyright is not held by the Government of Canada, the materials are protected under the Copyright Act, and international agreements. Details concerning copyright ownership are indicated on the relevant page(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofonias2000100 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
  • @Sofonias2000100: This contradicts your declaration about CC-BY-SA-4.0 licensing (which allows commercial use) and is incompatible with COM:L. Ankry (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The source you've provided says "© 2021 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S FOOT GUARDS REGIMENTAL MUSEUM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." The terms above you've provided say "you may reproduce the materials in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes" (underline added). In no small part because you've not even offered a rationale here (merely pasted boilerplate), this is not even a good try. Эlcobbola talk 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Holy Spirit Poster web.jpg[edit]

File:Holy Spirit Poster web to undelete.jpg

The movie poster of Holy Spirit is a freely licensed work, as explained in the Definition of Free Cultural Works.

I am the producer of the film and also the author of the article. Therefore, I am able to allow the worldwide free use of the image for any purpose.

As further proof, you can view my IMDb profile

--Karin Lueders (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Karin Lueders: Which exactly free license you mean and where exactly can we find an evidence that the actual copyright holder(s) of the poster has (have) granted the license? See COM:L for details what a free license is. Ankry (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


The photo has been removed with the argument that it might infringe the rights of the artist. This is not the case since I personally have bought the platter from Peter, I still own it and I took the photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sruppi (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
  • @Sruppi: Ownership of the art itself is not the same as ownership of the art copyright (the right to make copies of the art). If you have bought the art copyright together with art itself (depends on your buying contract), we need an evidence of this that can be provided following COM:OTRS process. This cannot be resolved on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Sarah Kpossa.png[edit]

I am the owner of this picture and I am the one that poster the picture on imbd. Please stop deleting my pictures especially as I am the one that posting them and owe them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanceparis (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

שחזור מפות[edit]

שלום Billinghurst מחק מספר מפות שהעלתי בשביל ויקיפדיה העברית המפות היו עם שינוי קל אשמח אם תוכלו לשחזר אותם תודה ויקי4800 (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Al-Hilal new Portuguese manager Leonardo Jardim

I am the owner of this picture and work i used canve to make it Please don't deleting my pictures I owe them إبراهيم الشعيبي (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)