Commons talk:Undeletion requests/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



When will this be taken in use? / Fred Chess 08:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(Never? Heh.) If you really feel like dealing with this pain, go ahead and implement it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
A quick and easy way of adding images (i.e. not having to find the template first) would be appreciated =) /Lokal_Profil 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Also any admin adding Template:Undeletion requests to there watchlist would be appreciated. /Lokal_Profil 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


An image was deleted presumably due to copy rights violations. However, as an author of website (the source) and the actual photographer of this particular image, I have given permission for all images within our photo gallery section to Wikipedia, specifically to the user Hipi Zhdripi ( as long as the source is stated.

The object depicted in the image is a public building and there are no violation pertaining the content. The image is an original and unmodified from my Canon photo camera.

If you need further information, please contact us at

The image log in question was found at:



Request undeletion for multiple self-taken photographs

OK, I'm officially stupid, as I'm unable to figure out the instructions to add an undeletion request on the main page. All I get to is a template of some sort where my edits seem to go into a black hole after I click save. I hope someone will see this here and move to the appropriate space.

I don't come here often, but I had uploaded several self-taken photographs that had been on EN to commons. I marked them as dual-licensed, but I guess that tag had expired. A note was left on my user talk page here [1] informing me of the impending deletion, but like I say, I rarely come here. My User page says as much, and I suppose I should have added a note to my talk page as well -- but in any case, I had no idea that the images were to be deleted until long after the fact. Initially, I figured I would just re-upload the images to EN -- but I can't seem to locate the originals anymore. If these could be undeleted, I'd appreciate it. Oh, and please drop a note on my talk page at EN, en:User talk:Bkonrad. Thanks. 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (this is User:Bkonrad, as I explain on my talk page, I'm unable to log in anymore for unknown reasons that I don't especially care about pursuing further).

Done. —Angr 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (AKA User:Bkonrad, until I can figure out how to log in here).

Image:Biondi.Leshan.big.jpg Please undelete

This photo belongs to me, I have taken it in july 2006 in Leshan, Sichuan, China and I thought I had uploaded it with the correct copyright permission. Can't understand why it has been deleted. Can you please undelete it? Many thanks from the italian writer Mario Biondi --Baburkhan 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No copyright problems. The same image was present as Image:Biondi.Leshan.grande.jpg, so all uses of Image:Biondi.Leshan.big.jpg were replaced by the grande version. Platonides 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Editing?

Where or how can I add undeletion requests or comments on existing requests? Henning Blatt 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a page Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests witch is included in Commons:Undeletion_requests as a Template.
As i understand u just put ur request there. There should be no need to edit the instruction on Commons:Undeletion_requests.
I just don't get why there is no link from Commons:Undeletion_requests to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. I guess undeletion requests are intended to be as hard as possible. --Q1712 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I am confused too. Currently this page sais 'request here...' but is protected from editing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alban Berg by Arnold Schoenberg

Image:Alban Berg by Arnold Schoenberg 1910.jpg licence old 1910 (Meladina 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Schoenberg died in 1951, so PD-old does not apply ("life of the author plus 70 years") until 2022, as noted by the deleter. --Davepape 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Could someone direct me to the discussions that lead to the deletion of various images of Le Corbusier images - some where quite old and I thought the licenses were ok - mostly people's snapshots with GFDL's. There's a bunch of pages concerning the most influencial 20th century architect's buildings on the English wiki that have lost their images, and I've just had a request from a guy on the Hebrew wiki complaining about the same thing. I'm fine with deletion for copyvio, but from memory, those images just didn't look like they were. Villa savoye avant.jpg was a case in point. Cheers --Mcginnly 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Different method?

en.wp has a different method for undeleting files: w:Template:ImageUndeleteRequest. Basically they get the user to recreate the image page with a template, which puts it into a category for administrators to check. If we switched, we could still keep this page for multiple requests. This page also has the advantage of being able to pay attention to older requests first, and more easily see patterns amongst contributors. Thoughts? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that will work. Cats like Category:Requests for unblock and Category:Commons protected edit requests are rarely looked upon by admins. Even this page gets less attention than is requires. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not the English Wikipedia; it's merely a sister project to it, and nothing else. O2 () 22:48, 15 October 2007 (GMT)
It's about stealing their best ideas, not trying to be more like them just for the sake of it. :) But evidently this one's not worth stealing just yet anyway. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the following class of undeletions acceptable?

In the case of images that have been deleted solely due to their lack of licensing, when the license comes through on m:OTRS, are they allowed to be summarily undeleted and restored with the proper tags, or must they go through the undeletion request process? Thank you. -- Avi 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it still needs to be verified that the licence is acceptable and valid for each respective image, my opinion is that it should still go through COM:UNDEL. Other opinions, dissenting or concurring, are of course encouraged. LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LX, the m:OTRS volunteers on the permissions list are already making the determination if the license is acceptable or not. If it is not acceptable, and trust me, many of them are not, we inform the sender of such. My question is assuming that the license is acceptable. Thanks -- Avi 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just undelete them. Unless of course the image was deleted because somebody has previously disagreed with the OTRS permission. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. With good guidelines we can delegate power to individuals. Samulili 07:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We've had those too Face-smile.svg. One interesting case was that commons had a file uploaded under a free license, and then copyright holder contacted us with a complaint. I had to run and get an admin to delete it, and soon thereafter, the true copyright holder licensed it to commons under free-use.

But back to the topic at hand, I also think that if the only issue is licensing, that it should not need the consensus-based process, and it may be considered to be assumed that consensus is to allow suitably-licensed images. -- Avi 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi, you are absolutely right. I think we always delete copyvios in absence of evidence that the file is available under a free license. Therefore if evidence arises that it is available under a free license naturally it should be undeleted. :) I would undelete cases like this based on an informal request and I imagine many other admins would too. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My two cents: if the permission comes through, we should absolutely be able to undelete them, as long as they were not deleted via a discussion. They were deleted solely for not being able to prove a copyright, and now the copyright is as proven as it will get. Patstuart 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

So I had a link that worked until recently that looked like this:

It is no longer working, and I can not find the image page anymore either. This is related to a current event so I'm concerned about vandalism. I also can't find the image in the deletion log (searching for Image:Lakotanation.jpg). Can someone please help me figure out what happened to the image? Thanks! Schwael 18:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

template namespace

Why is this in template namespace? It should be a Commons subpage. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I've moved it to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests...--Nilfanion 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


The template {{Udelh}} can now be used on closed debates, replacing {{Delh}} .

Fred Chess 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


I just want to inform everyone that there is an archivation page at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive (it doesn't get used much). / Fred Chess 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a bot job. Who volunteers to make one? -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Works now. Closed discussions are archived after 24 hours. Admins: Please close discussions that are over with {{udelh}}/{{delh}} and {{udelf}}/{{delf}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please include the headings in the archival templates. Anything not included will not get archived. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in case I have been sloppy I will think more about it.
By the way, does the bot also archive even if "delh" is used instead of "udelh"? I sometimes forget about udelh and maybe others do the same. / Fred J 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that works as well. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why so many people here from Wikipedia?

Does anyone know why there are so many requests here that are really about deleted Wikipedia articles? / Fred J 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same... is this page very clearly linked somewhere on a corresponding page on Wikipedia? Patrícia msg 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Owing to the large amount of sandboxing by IPs over the last few days, and the fact that IPs can't upload files, I've semi-protected this page indefinitely. Any administrator may remove the protection and discuss if this action is disagreed. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (GMT)

I disagree. It is possible that users from another wiki notice that an image is deleted and come here anonymously to request undeletion, even though they did not upload the image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Bryan. Equally on principle any form of protection really should be a last resort I think --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected. Let's see how it goes. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Close undeletion requests please!

Admins, may I please remind you to close undeletion requests once you have dealt with them? Thanks, -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change Commons:Undeletion requests to Commons:Deletion review

See Commons:Village_pump#Proposal_to_change_Commons:Undeletion_requests_to_Commons:Deletion_review. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is archiving working?

DRBot has not moved any closed requests to the archives since June 13. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing threads

I've noticed that there are a few threads that have been up for a very long time. The page is getting quite long... Should threads that haven't been edited for X amount of days be archived...? "this page is 138 kilobytes long. Some older browsers may have trouble editing pages longer than 32 kilobytes." Killiondude (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to avoid having the same conversation over and over

It seems to me that we should be accumulating a list of images that are useful, are likely to be seen as "sexual", and whose status can only be worked out once we have consensus on larger issues. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Fran Rogers

User:Fran Rogers have deleted more than 150 images, many of them high-quality bondage pictures with an educational value for the subject bondage. Is it reasonable that we should have to devote days to go through the pictures and nominate them here? He acted in total without regard to the guidelines and consensus. The only reasonable thing to do is to undelete all the images he deleted. There is no reason to trust his discretion here.--Ankara (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur, we can't possibly have 150 undeletion requests when we can't even view the images anymore. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Since May 6" section heading

Is the "Since May 6" section heading still necessary> The rush of undeletion requests related to the out-of-process speedy deletion of sexual content in early May seems to have subsided. Black Falcon (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)



People are obviously failing to read the instructions, so let's put them in a more prominent place. Please insert the following on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/Editnotice (and feel free to add other languages):

{{Multilingual description
|en=When adding a request:
# Make sure you are '''[[Special:UserLogin|logged in]]''' if you have an account at Commons
# Use a descriptive '''subject/headline,''' such as <code><nowiki>[[:File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg]]</nowiki></code>
# '''Identify''' the file(s) in question if you didn't already do it in the subject/headline
# State the '''reasons''' for the request
# '''[[:en:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Sign]]''' and date your request using four tilde characters (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>)
|sv=När du skriver en begäran:
# Försäkra dig om att du är '''[[Special:UserLogin|inloggad]]''' om du har ett konto på Commons
# Ange ett beskrivande '''ämne/rubrik,''' såsom <code><nowiki>[[:File:Namnet på filen.jpg]]</nowiki></code>
# '''Identifiera''' filen eller filerna om du inte redan gjort det i ämnet/rubriken
# '''Motivera''' begäran
# '''[[:sv:Wikipedia:Signera diskussionsinlägg|Signera]]''' och datera begäran genom att använda fyra tildetecken (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>)

LX (talk, contribs) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You don’t need an admin to create a page. You can do it yourself. --Mormegil (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Editnotice#Other namespaces led me to believe that only administrators could create editnotices outside one's own user and user talk spaces. Are the settings on Commons different? I tried creating the page, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I then read the documentation a bit more, and it tells me the right place for the editnotice should be Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. However, Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/ suggests that it might be Template:Editnotices/Pages/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (with an extra s). Neither of these seem to have worked, though. LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You can see the namespaces, where it is enabled here. --Leyo 10:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Aah, I think I see. We don't have some of the template magic that English Wikipedia has. So the right place is MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Undeletion requests-Current requests? LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No action here for over a month, so here we go again:


Please add the text above to MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Undeletion requests-Current requests and delete my failed attempts at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/Editnotice, Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests and Template:Editnotices/Pages/Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. LX (talk, contribs) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done (But I don’t like the MLD too much, if you use another language, all versions are expanded by default, I think.) --Mormegil (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Finally, it works. Thanks to Leyo for nudging me in the right direction as well. I'm also a little ambivalent about the MLD, but I don't think there is a better alternative at the moment (that is, until bugzilla:11267 gets resolved). Hopefully we can get enough translation added that it gets it right for most people. So far this year, most non-English requests have been in Spanish, so that translation should be a priority. LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot issue?

Seems to be a problem with archiving the discussions? Bad enough when stuff doesn't get closed but when it gets closed and doesn't get archived...:) --Herby talk thyme 17:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think someone turned off DRBot in early December because it was doing weird stuff to the regular deletion requests... closing multiple times and things. Hopefully someone can fix it, or maybe turn on just the Undeletion request part... Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be good/great actually! --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Bryan fixed it, yay. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File by AssassinsCreed

Why these images have been deleted?

  1. File:Goran Ivanišević 1989.jpg
  2. File:Goran Ivanišević 2006.jpg
  3. File:Guillermo Coria US Open 2003.jpg

There aren't copyright violations as you can see here:

--AssassinsCreed (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The files are available under a license limited for non-commercial use only (the -NC tag in the CC descriptor, shown as the Cc-nc.svg icon). Such license is not acceptable on Commons. See Commons:Licensing for detailed explanation. --Mormegil (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sub pages

While I realize undeletion discussions do not get very long, I think there would be benefit if subpage structure similar to COM:DEL is used to handle undeletion requests. Issues discussed before would be available in newer discussions. Also while individually these discussions are fairly short, collectively they make the page difficult to follow or lead to hasty archiving. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — But you'll have to tell DRBot to respect the new structure. And its operator is not here since a while. -- RE rillke questions? 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportKrinkletalk 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the problem description, but manually creating a subpage and listing it properly is going to be too complicated for the large number of users posting here who don't even manage to sign their entries or name the files they want undeleted. LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
We could support them with a script -- like creating deletion requests. Script can verify that a file has been deleted and sign the posting. -- RE rillke questions? 18:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If that's done, I'm all for it, but I think that needs to be up and running, translated and tested before we make the change. LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A first proposal is available. A dialog should pop-up. Of course, the reason should be parsed like it is done for the deletion requests. The dialog could be started by any element on the page; I suggest making a button. -- RE rillke questions? 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Parsing the reason is now also done. What else needs to be implemented before we can run it/ add a button to the front page? Load UndeletionRequester -- RE rillke questions? 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
How to enable i18n? Using a hidden template that anyone can translate that will be transcluded or converting into a gadget and waiting until we get really-easy-translation for gadgets? -- RE rillke questions? 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the idea, but it's a lot of work. The archive pages don't even have the table of contents visible so it is often hard to find archived discussions now. A script helper to add a new file for deletion would be great -- it could be set up now to simply add a new section with the filename as the section header, then the code could be switched once a new scheme is set up and tested. DRBot needs to be changed quite a bit; that has probably been the biggest impediment. But hopefully it would be similar to the regular deletion requests, which the bot already handles. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Instruction length

The instructions in English (other languages are quite a bit shorter) are getting quite long (and I've just added two short paragraphs about temporary undeletion). I wonder if we can't split or collapse some of this content.

  1. For instance, do the instructions to administrators need to be there? Couldn't that be a separate page - or perhaps made adminonly using CSS?
  2. And the first sections make me think of en:Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?; maybe a similar essay would be a useful thing, and a big notice here to go read it could replace those sections.
  3. Finally, I wonder if we really need to transclude {{undeletion requests/fair use project list}}. It's not necessarily up-to-date anyway, so maybe linking to Meta would be enough... or else linking to it should do, without transcluding it. Or as another option: collapsing it.

Rd232 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. Already done by Rillke in March. I don't see it (except in the ToC).
  2. I disagree with removing the section; it's not that long, and it's important. I wouldn't mind a link to a longer explanation, though.
  3. I agree with, and I think the whole temporary undeletion section is too long overall. It's not the most common scenario. LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tool feedback

First feedback here, please -- RE rillke questions? 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

When creating the edit summary for the new section, could you make it a clickable link? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done - Some users may have an old version of the script in their cache. -- Rillke(q?) 11:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

JFYI, the script does not automatically post requests from Upload Wizard (UpWiz). If UpWiz finds that a file was previously deleted it throws an unknown warning (bugzilla:38426) and because there were too many questions about that on Commons:Help desk, I added an observer (jQuery does not call it listener) for Ajax-Events. If it finds such a warning, it adds a button to UpWiz allowing to post an undeletion requests with the files the error occurred on. Perhaps there should be some introductory comments about undeletion requests.

I feel that there many invalid/unsuccessful requests. Should the tool attempt to give advice why each file was deleted/ how to challenge that/ how to proceed or is there something it could do? Let me know, please. Regards -- Rillke(q?) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It could possibly mention that photos already published on the internet usually need to follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, i.e. having the copyright owner send a direct email, rather than posting a request on this page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ciara BMA 2004

Why was this deleted? File:Ciara BMA 2004.jpg I found it on MSN's website and don't think it is a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPQzy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2012‎ (UTC)

It is a copyright violation BECAUSE you found it on MSN. Yann (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Virtually everything you find online (or in a newspaper, etc.) is copyrighted. We welcome photos here, but only if the author has released them into the public domain or under a free license - see Commons:Licensing for more. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Undelete in YYYY categories

These seem like they will be very useful as time passes. Is there any good way to sort a deletion that can be undeleted at an unknown time? I'm thinking, for example, of cases where there is a copyright term such as 50 or 70 years pma but the creator is still alive. So we could say "no sooner than 2083" (in the case of 70 years pma), but of course it might last beyond that. At the very least, sorting such files into a category like "Undeletion date unknown" would group deletion discussions where the deleted files are otherwise within scope and might someday be useable. Or it might be made more useful by limiting it to cases where the creator is known and is still alive as of the deletion discussion/last review. That way future reviewers would already have the name of the creator from the deletion discussion (meaning that any user -- not just admins -- could investigate) and would merely need to check from time to time to see if the creator has died, and if so they could put it into the appropriate year-specific undeletion category. This might take the form of "Category:Undeletion date unknown, creator alive as of YYYY" or something like that. cmadler (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It would have to be a system that was easily modifiable, though, since copyright laws have a tendency to be extended, so even when we "know" that copyright will expire in a certain year, we don't really know that. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'll be well impressed if Commons still exists when work by people currently alive goes out of copyright...! But Cmadler's category suggestion seems simple enough. An alternative would be to give eg Category:Undelete in 2083 a subcategory, Category:Undelete date unknown, no earlier than 2083, so come 2083 at the latest (could be done earlier of course) that category can be reviewed for exact undelete dates. This way would accommodate different pma lengths slightly better (but as I said, given how far in the future that is, I'm not sure it matters). Rd232 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


2012-08-16 Upload Wizard duplicate-archive-error.png

Should this message include a link to this page (Commons:Undeletion requests)? The message is displayed on files that are attempted to upload with UploadWizard but were deleted before. -- Rillke(q?) 22:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It might seem like an intuitive suggestion, but In 99% of cases (or more), such files should not be undeleted, and I don't think this page needs even more unfounded requests. It would be more helpful to present the deletion log (I'm guessing "another file" links to it, but that's probably not obvious enough for many users). LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"another file" opens a dialog which contains a link to the deleted page. On this page, there is the usual excerpt from the log and "there is no such file on this wiki but you can upload one", which should, I think, never be done, but instead an undeletion request could be started. -- 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Undelete my file, I can't technically re-upload it

Follow-up on Commons:Help desk#Failed Upload Wizard

Hey. One of my uploads (this one) has just been deleted by I-don't-know-which circumstances or decision (couldn't find the discussion page to support the deletion. A mistaken bot generation maybe?) and my attempt to reupload it to restore the gallery results in the Upload Wizard saying "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted", and won't allow me proceed. Any hint what error or logic effectuates this. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For the file you mentioned, you need permission from the creators of the images on the T-Shirts. The cartoon and the photo are likely covered by copyright. One could argue that each of them is de minis but if you like to discuss this in detail, please start an undeletion request. This is the talk page for contents of Commons:Undeletion requests. -- Rillke(q?) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Where then should I post that request? Orrlingtalk 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh~, got it. thanx. Orrlingtalk 19:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Where to Appeal?

Here the discussion was ended without allowing to answer me. Where can I appeal against and to reopen the discussion? -- Portolanero (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My request to the Toronto Public Library

At Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Fire Hall, Etobicoke, Royal York Road, s.e. cor. Tenby St. -a.jpg it was suggested someone should contact the Toronto Public Library, requesting more information be sent to OTRS. I used their "contact us" to leave this message. Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a wikimedia commons contributor. It is a sibling project to the wikipedia. I have uploaded some images that were donated to your collection by James Victor Salmon.
Mr Salmon donated many images to your collection, and they are all marked "public domain".
Another more senior contributor deleted two of those images, asserting that they thought the images were not freely licensed, pointing to your terms and conditions page.
We only use images that are under a license that allows our readers to freely re-use them for any purpose -- including commercial works. That more senior contributor's interpretation of your terms and conditions page was that it still tried to impose conditions on your readers, in particularly prohibiting commercial use.
When I tried, and failed, to convince them that they had misinterpreted your terms and conditions page I requested a review of their decision. Other contributors are weighing in now. Most seem to agree that pictures Salmon took would be in the public domain in Canada, simply due to their age, as he died in 1958, and, in 1958, copyright expired 50 years after the date of the author.
However, some of those contributors raised the issue that while the images were considered public domain in Canada, they might not be public domain in the USA, where the servers are located.
They requested that I try and check with staff at the TPL -- did the images Mr Salmon donated become public domain because it has been more than 50 years since he died? Or did Mr Salmon explicitly place the images in the public domain when he made the donation?
If it is the former, we can't use the images. If it is the latter we can use them.
So, if Mr Salmon explicitly placed the images in the public domain when he made the donation, could you send an email, saying so, from the tpl domain, to ? is not my email address it is the address of a team of senior contributors here who are charged with the responsibility to handle and track correspondence with outsiders using a "one ticket system" that preserves the outsiders confidentiality. I am going to put tracking the confirmation in their hands.

File:Celje center 2006.JPG

I am author of file and inscription of File:Celje center 2006.JPG. Please, let you undelete it.--Stebunik (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Where did my request go?

I made an undeletion request a couple of days ago (it's in the log). But I can't now see it in current requests. Where has it gone? Johnmperry (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been archived. In the Archives section of Commons:Undeletion requests, there's a search box. If you search for Daanbantayan Map.jpg there, you'll find the archived entry. LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The source was also only provided vaguely. It must be a link pointing to the source page which a trusted person at Commons can confirm. You can provide it here, and I will do the necessary steps, including restoring the map if I am convinced that it is really a work of the government. -- Rillke(q?) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Borrado de imágenes

Please continue at →Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Borrado de imágenes -- Rillke(q?) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing tags

I'm using mobile view and {{udelh}} peeks above the collapsed section headers (as they should, because the template is in fact above the section heading). Also when editing section(s) above a closed section, {{udelh}} is visible at the bottom of the edit box, which risks getting inadvertently deleted at the very worst, but always increases the spacing between the template and section heading. Would it be feasible to put {{udelh}} under the section heading in the future? Would User:DRBot be able to recognise the new pattern in archiving closed discussions? --O (висчвын) 07:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Cango Caves, Oudtshoorn, Western Cape 10.JPG Deletion?

Hi I got notification re 5 of my photos that is considered for deletion I have no idea why as I took it myself

5 of my photos have been put up for deletion like this This is really no right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottelme (talk • contribs)

The file above was deleted a year ago at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cango Caves, Oudtshoorn, Western Cape 10.JPG. I can't see the photo but it was deleted as being out of scope, which usually happens because they are personal snapshots (i.e. photos of yourself, or friends, that kind of thing). This is the talk page for undeletion requests though, not an actual undeletion request -- add your request to the project page here if you think those photos are indeed in scope. Your only active issue is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murray's Bay Harbour, Robben Island, which is still ongoing. Although you took the photos yourselves, sometimes photos can be "derivative works" of another work of art depicted in the photo, and subject to the permission of the copyright owner of that work. See Commons:Freedom of panorama for discussion of that topic. However, since they have not been deleted yet, this is not the forum -- you can add remarks to the deletion discussion. As it happens, I think most of the photos on that deletion request are OK, but there are a couple which are problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Restore requests following Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA

I am proposing that restore requests following on from Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA should remain open for at least 24 hours to allow for the discussion envisaged by the close of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. The last one was open for just 12 mins which does not give time for a review or to check if indeed the files needed the URAA to be copyright in the US. For the avoidance of doubt this wait period would not preclude temporary restores to help with the discussion. LGA talkedits 10:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. LGA talkedits 10:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Requests archived before being closed


Two requests were archived before being closed. I put them back in the list. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


The page can now be translated using the translate extension. Unfortunately the translate-extension dos not show sectioneditlinks for language subpages (/es /de, ...) - i hope this is not a problem. I have filed bug:68578. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


I guess must be undelate the file Trujillo_upao cause is one file that's taken for any purpose use.Thanks. eagle_c5 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing time?

We have two recent cases:

where there is at least mention of discomfort with very fast closes of UnDRs. I think the subject deserves more discussion.

As I said in the first of those above, if we require that DRs must stay open for seven days, it seems to me that UnDRs should also have a minimum open period. I propose 48 hours as a minimum. We might make an exception for the very most obvious of cases where the DR was uncontroversial and it is clear that the request comes from someone who simply doesn't understand the rules. I suggested 24 hours in the discussion of the first case, but on reflection that seems too short. We not only have people all around the world, but also some who cannot be on Commons every day, so it seems to me that two full days should be a minimum. I should add that I mean 48 hours -- we tend to shave the seven day rule for DRs, often closing a DR opened late on January 1 early on January 8 -- only six days and an hour after it was opened.

I'm not quite sure what the actual procedure for changing this policy is, but certainly a discussion by the denizens of COM:UnDR here is a good start. The following all appear more than once in the recent UnDR archive: User:Yann, User:Fastily, User:Steinsplitter, User:MichaelMaggs, User:INeverCry, User:Alan, User:DLindsley, User:Elcobbola, User:Green Giant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I support a minimum time before closing undeletion requests. I suggest 24 hours if no comment, or 24 hours after the last comment. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Pong! IMO in OTRS cases immediately. In other cases, I agree with Yann. Cheers, --Alan (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would support a mix of the above: immediately for OTRS cases, 48 hours if no comment and 24 hours after the last comment. Green Giant (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was just about to start this very discussion, and am glad that Jim has done it for me. Another case yesterday was this one. This was opened at 20:30 yesterday, commented at 21:54, closed at 23:49, and archived at 02:15 this morning. Both the very fast close and the quick archiving are problematic, as the requester was a Emma.norville, a new user who was only welcomed onto Commons on 13th January. As a new user it is unlikely she will have either seen the response or know where her question has gone (though I since explained on her talk page). Probably what many new users see is that their question on this page is 'just deleted' by someone, with no explanation.

To fix this, we ought to be leaving the requests on the page for longer, whether or not the answer is 'Please use OTRS'. Where that is the answer, it is still not useful to close the discussion down too soon, as often a good faith new user will have further questions that are best dealt with straight away. This is a useful forum for education, apart from anything else. In the last three weeks there have been at least 4 or 5 requests where I could have provided comments that might have helped the user send a sensible OTRS email, but was not able to do so as the request was closed so quickly. Also, the closing message  Not done can be a very negative one to give new users when quite often what the closing admin means is 'OK, we are happy to restore the file based on the information you have provided, but you will need to email OTRS'.

The way the page works need a rethink, and we ought to be asking whether there is any need formally to close sections at all. At present, closing is simply used as a way to trigger archiving, and to clear up the page. But there are other ways to clear the page. Closing summarily prevents further discussion and I see no reason why that should happen.

I propose that we should stop closing UDRs entirely and instead do the following:

  • File restored: When the file has been restored, the admin should add a new Template:Undeletion done template to the bottom of the section. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, it can carry on below the template.
  • Not done: When the request cannot be accepted for whatever reason (eg no FoP for a building photo), any admin or knowledgeable editor may add a new Template:Undeletion not done template to the bottom of the section. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, it can again carry on.
  • Possible, but needs OTRS: When the request sounds a reasonable one that might be acceptable with a suitable OTRS release, any admin or knowledgeable editor may add a new Template:Undeletion needs OTRS template to the bottom of the section. Again, discussion can continue. The Template:Undeletion needs OTRS template should be used only where it seems likely that an OTRS email would actually be useful; it should not be used to encourage obvious copyright infringers to try their luck by sending pointless emails to the OTRS team.

This would be an easy approach to introduce, and would need only a few new simple templates and a tweak of ArchiveBot by Fastily, which I hope he'd be prepared to do. If more standard templates turn out to be needed in the future they could easily be added, but it would be best to keep things simple for the moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In general I support a longer duration than we have now. Items which get turned around quickly don't leave many chances for people to see them. There are however some very obvious cases (where the undeletion reason was something like "it's available with CC-BY-NC"), and some other cases where people re-post undeletion requests with the same rationale as before. Those may not deserve to get as much time, if the first request was discussed enough and no new information is added. For archival, it may be enough to simply wait two days after the done/not done tags are added (either way) before archiving, or better at least 48 hours after the last posted comment, if there are further comments. Currently, if a discussion is closed, then it could be archived within minutes with basically nobody being able to see the result, or respond to it. The solution by MichaelMaggs above also sounds really good, although it would probably require more tweaking to the bots. But that approach would in general allow for quick "closes" (tags of Done or Not Done) if very obvious, but also allow for continued discussion if there is further information. I'm a little unsure of the 7 days of no activity being an auto-close though; that would basically result in "not done" but without any admin giving the reasoning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the 7 day rule would effectively archive with no action in those cases where no admin is prepared to say 'yes', 'no' or 'maybe, with OTRS'. That's unlikely to happen very often, in the same way that very few requests are left open for long periods at the moment. Any admin who takes the view that a stale discussion has been sitting on the page for long enough could force a 48 hour archive with Template:Undeletion not done. There would admittedly be no stated rationale not to restore with the 7 day rule, but most admins don't give much if any rationale when closing anyway. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I propose that if a consensus is not apparent, then keeping in mind that the file under discussion is deleted and so poses no risk to anyone, there is no harm in keeping a discussion open until everyone interested has had their say, done whatever research they need to do, and also had a chance to flag it up to anyone else with a likely interest. So a rule of thumb that if closure is not obvious (such as the image has just been undeleted or blatant indisputable copyvio) that the thread should not be closed for 24 hours after the last comment has been made would seem entirely reasonable. I have no idea why an administrator would want to appear hasty in closing undel discussions, it actually seems a little bizarre and potentially inflammatory to my mind. -- (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A clarification. There are two very different types of UnDRs involving OTRS -- the first is, "We can keep this image if [an appropriate person] supplies a free license via OTRS." Even those should, I think, stay open for at least 24 hours. We have all seen cases where one of our less experienced colleagues has made a statement like that when the real issue was lack of scope or other problems that can't be solved with OTRS. The other are cases where a non-Admin OTRS person asks for undeletion. I think those can be done at once if and only if the Admin doing the undeletion has OTRS powers and can glance at the ticket. Over the years I have seen quite a few OTRS undeletion requests that ultimately were not done, including one I commented on a few hours ago. Two sets of eyes are good for both deletion and undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO the system proposed by Michael seems cumbersome and needlessly confusing. If closing time is such a big concern, we ought to implement a dated, 7 day un-deletion system, similar to DR (also, en.wp is already doing this). As for OTRS, we could simply create a new board where OTRS volunteers can request admin restoration and/or discuss ticket validity. -FASTILY 21:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't see that at all. The enW version is actually more complex than what we do, and ours need not be the same anyway due to the greater need we have to discuss copyright concerns. Three easy-to use templates can hardly be considered 'cumbersome', and although it would need some small changes to ArchiveBot the end process would be pretty efficient and streamlined. The purpose is to encourage admins and editors to appreciate the educational potential of this page, rather than thinking "I want to get this useless request off the page as quickly as I can". My proposal would result in a very quick 'template and go' process for an admin who feels a request could be dealt with quickly, but without that decision immediately almost removing the request from the page and stopping all discussion, as happens now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
With respect, I must disagree, but I won't try to convince you that my suggestion is any better, as that will be for the community to decide. As for ArchiveBot, given the existing implementation of ArchiveBot's UDR archiving functions, this will be no easy change. Nonetheless, I am prepared to do it accordingly depending on the changes (if any) the community should decide to make to the UDR process. Kind Regards, FASTILY 04:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's too cumbersome -- admins can make the same decisions they make now, and can make them very quickly if they want (when it's fairly obvious). They would just use different tags than they have been using. The archiving bot would then just wait 48 hours after the last edit to a section which has one of the "closing" tags before archiving. A lighter-weight change would be to keep everything the way we are doing it now, but just add the 48-hour wait after the last edit, in case someone has more information or a counterargument after it had been closed, to allow for re-opening and further discussion. Even that might be enough, realistically. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Fastily has retired and his Archiving bot seems stopped. My bot is taking over archiving of COM:UDEL. The bot is archiving closed requests older than 8 hours. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see him go -- hopefully it is just temporary. However, the 8 hour delay is an improvement. I think it should be extended to at least 24 hours though; people may not check back until the next day. It's good to see the result, and perhaps re-open if there has been a mistake. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
i don't think so, when you take your ball and go home, it's a burnt bridge. i guess we'll have to have tools from adults. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, thank you for taking over archiving. I agree with Carl, leaving it another 24 hours won't hurt. Green Giant (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A 24-h delay is fine. Also thanks for looking after this. Yann (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Authorship of photographs

If you take a video picture, Sos author of the photograph?K3v1n2015 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is probably better asked on Commons:Village Pump/Copyright, but if you are referring to taking a frame out of a video, the author is the author of the video itself. The author is the person who created the content -- so if you make a crop of an image, you're not really an author; the author of the crop is the same as the author of the original image. If you take a photograph of a TV playing a video, you might have added enough content to be an additional author; in that case you would be the author of your photograph, but the photograph is a derivative work of the original video, and distributing your photo would require both your permission (for the photograph) and the permission of the copyright owner of the original video. Therefore in derivative work situations, Commons needs both parties to license their content. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg

This image was deleted, why the user don't need open a undeletion request?. Additionally, user attributed himself a work that not was done by him in this seccond upload. More info about the problem. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer: Since you mentioned me, I feel I need to answer. I still think that a undeletion request would have been better, but now that the file is uploaded again, it is not needed any more. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, I thought that Undeletion Request was a mandatory thing. --The Photographer (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the source and the author be fixed to what was on the previous upload, which was presumably correct? As it stands, the "own work" claim seems to be bogus and could be the basis for another nomination. Having a better upload history would be better, but we need the evidence for the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Source was the reason for delete this file, we don't know what is the real source. --The Photographer (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
If it came from xrmap, credit them and put the public domain license on it. There is far more work in that vectorization than an automated trace. If it came from an earlier PD source as claimed, we don't need to find anything further. If someone brings up a source image which is still under copyright, worry about it then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Review/appeal of keep closures

The Commons has peculiar asymmetry; we have COM:UD to appeal deletions, but no analogous process to appeal keep closures. The lack of such a mechanism seems bizarre, and fundamentally unfair. The only real guidance regarding the appeal of keep decisions is at Commons:Deletion_policy#Appeal, which says:

“To appeal debates of image (sic) not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion. If you believe the deletion was done in error, appealing deleted images can be done at Commons:Undeletion requests.”

The use of “might” implies mere suggestion, not necessity, and “first” implies the the existence of a second step, which is never mentioned and does not appear to exist. Currently, one wishing to appeal a keep closure is too much at the mercy of the closing admin, and must venture to an undefined forum (does one go to COM:VPC? to COM:AN?) not specifically oriented for the request.

Accordingly, rather than construct a whole new process, would it make sense simply to rename "Undeletion requests" to something akin "Closure appeals" and allow the process to handle both cases? This seems to me an appropriate and necessary symmetry, more transparent, a removal of burdens from closing admins (i.e., defering to the community instead of potential prolonged talk page discussions), likely to produce better decisions (more eyes/more opinions) and is possibly even an implied intent of the Commons:Deletion_policy#Appeal's quote ("might first want to discuss" is followed, a second, by direction to COM:UD). Эlcobbola talk 17:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As most people likely watch Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (the talk page of which redirects here), this talk page is perhaps not widely watched; accrordingly pinging users who appear to have been most active at COM:UD recently, per archives (apologies if I've missed any; it was not intentional): @Srittau:, @Natuur12:, @Jameslwoodward:, @Hedwig in Washington:, @LX:, @Thuresson:, @Christian Ferrer:, @Yann:, @Ruthven:, @Ankry:, @Jcb:, @De728631:, @Clindberg:, @Storkk: Эlcobbola talk 18:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyone can reopen a DR, usually after asking the closing admin. This works quite well, IMO, so I don't see the need to create a new procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • +1 with Эlcobbola, I am in favor of this change of status/title/policy. Undeletions request should be Appeal requests, and indeed the policy should be amanded in this direction: to deal equally with problems of closures (kept or deleted), in only one place, and with the same protocol duly explained in the policy. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - we need to have one way or another to get a second opinion on both keep-closures and delete-closures. And we have to use these ways with care, only if you are really convinced that a wrong decision has been taken. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Yann: DR can be reopened in such cases. Ankry (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure we need to add DRs to this page. If you don't like the keep, you come up with a better reason and request deletion again. We then have a record of the second DR (successful or not) on the file talk page and the file history. That worked in the past surprisingly good. If we handle DR appeals here on UDR (or whatever the pagename) we will lose the record. IF the quick close script can be adapted to write a note on the file talk page if deletion is denied, I am pro this approach. If not, no thanks. I rather have a record I can find without searching in two or three places for discussions that may have taken place. IF we allow DR-appeals on the UDR page, we need an additional EASY(!) record keeping system. TBH I don't think that many repeat-DRs will be successful, but that's beside the point. Putting some instructions / policy in place on how to deal with repeated DRs actually is overdue. Question: CAN we adapt the script we use now to close the UDRs to handle DR appeals? IF not: forgot it here, we need to create a new page. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That's would be fine, keeping the actuel system, that the re-opened DRs, while also listed with the other DRs as it is currently done, could be also rescenced and listed somewhere. Because if they are re-open, maybe it's in the interest to the community that experimented eyes can looks at those DRs. A kind of "list of open DRs which have been reopened", which would automatically be updated. Of course I do not know how to do this kind of thing otherwise it would already be done.
But even if we keep the actual system, I like Эlcobbola idea to be more precise in our policy on how to deal while a closure disagreement whether a disagreement between severals administrators or a case simple user/administrator. And I also concur with the idea for to have a conduct line guide for administrators who deal with re-opened DR, specially when they are the closing administrators (=involved), a kind of precise guide that say what they can do and what they can't do. Maybe a closing administrator should not have the right to close again the same DR, whatever the situation, that's all. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should change something. E.g. Yann was lying when he wrote: "Anyone can reopen a DR, usually after asking the closing admin. This works quite well, IMO, so I don't see the need to create a new procedure. Regards, Yann". He as shown several times in the past and today again, that he does not respect this in cases where he is the closing admin. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: You were right after all. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Calling someone a liar, because they close a DR with a good reason (symbol is around 100 years old, it says so in the article you yourself quoted in the reasoning of the DR) is way out of line. Wrong ad hominem attacks, such as this and the one in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Khanda.svg are really not helping to prove your point. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't agree on adding even more bureaucracy to our system. Of course, a second advice can be asked, and it is on such a mechanism that we have to focus, not on adding more procedural stuff. Such "second advice" now is usually asked in the talk pages of a trusted used, but making it visible on the DR page would be a good idea. Of course, using the revert mechanism to do so is not acceptable. --Ruthven (msg) 09:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Ruthven,Hedwig, Yann, the problem with the current system is that the appeals get buried in the several hundred new DRs. I like the fact that E's proposal will put appeals in front of a different group of Admins. The keep side of the discussion has the uploader as a natural proponent, albeit one who is not always still active on Commons. The delete side has no such advocate. It seems appropriate that the issue should be raised to a new level evenly rather than having one side go back to the DR while the other side gets a new venue for discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like the mentioning of an incident as an inspiration to this proposal as it will affect the collegiality. But I appreciate the OP for finding the loophole in the Deletion policy (The use of “might” implies mere suggestion, not necessity, and “first” implies the the existence of a second step, which is never mentioned and does not appear to exist). But to update that policy, we need to open a discussion there; not here. I too not happy with the current "undocumented" way of re-opening DRs. I had previous experience that I too get silenced by admins speedy closed a second DR. I'm not mentioning which DR it is as it is a very controversial one and finally deleted. Anyway I'm open to welcome new experiments. If mixing the undeletion and "appeal to review the keep decision" in a same page, we may consider a new page for it. And for losing the discussion link in file page, we may consider linking the archives to the file pages for both "undeletions" and "deletions after appeal". Jee 12:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Jee and Jim put words on my thoughts that I did not necessarily well explained above. Furthermore, in reply to Hedwig, it is certainly technically possible, as currently for a renominated "kept DR" to keep track of the new discussion whatever the new result of this discussion (confirmation of kept or deleted), I mean in the talk page for the kept rationale, and in the deletion log for the delete rationale with a link to the relevant subpage. As it is currently done. The only major change is to gather at one place the open DRs which have been reopened, in purpose that "a different group of Admins" or "a new pair of eyes" can easily take a look on these DRs. It will be perfect, if when nominating a file for deletion, an automation could detect on a file talk page if there is a track of a previous nomination, and then if yes list this new nomination at a particular location, instead at with the other regular DRs. @Steinsplitter: thoughts about what is technically possible? Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Waiting for Steiny to add a few cents. :-) I think the easiest way would be to create a separate venue for keep appeals. Then the archiving, the file talk template adding, and the quick close features shouldn't be too complicated. I hope. Thinking about the whole issue a little more, it does make sense to have a central place to discuss potential problematic keep decisions. Just sad that we have to hit each other over the head in order to improve our workflow. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
A good idea, when it is indeed a good idea, stay a good idea no matter from where it comes, the sad thing would be to ignore it because of where it comes from, or because of what gave birth to this idea. If Elcobbola have a good idea every time they are angry, right or wrongly, we should perhaps make them angry more often. LOL. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Christian, the "undeletion requests" is using a page archiving system instead of subpage system used in DR which is less effective. Further, the contents archived much later after the file is undeleted. So mentioning a link to the archived page is difficult unless the admin come back again, later. I know a DIFF link is possible; but it is less attractive. Jee 03:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Only now I noticed this which will definitely improve the system. Jee 05:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as long as the user must ask the closing admin to reconsider before appealing through this process. It would be better if the user will ask the closing admin first before slapping them with an appeal request, like what we do when we have a problem with a user, which is discussing first with the user on their talk page, then if it doesn't work, then slapping a AN/U request. If I would be an admin and a user filed an appeal request before asking me for explanation, I would be disappointed since I would feel that the user has no trust on me. This would also waste others' time if the appeal request will obviously not succeed. Better to waste only two persons' time rather than tens' or hundreds'. -- Poké95 05:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Verschoben ohne Abstimmung

Moin zusammen, könnte mir jemand erklären warum diese Abschnitt von Bernd Bilder ins Archiv geschoben wurde. Ich finde das gerade sehr unglücklich. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Es wurde automatisch archiviert, weil es geschlossen war (mit den Vorlagen {{udelh}} und {{udelf}}). Alle Abschnitte werden automatisch archiviert acht Stunden nach dem Schließen, sonst könnte man auf dieser Seite nichts finden. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection not recommended

Since the semi-protection of this page has expired, A3cb1 has returned to posting here. I expect this will be a persistent issue lasting months or years. It's important that we keep it accessible to new users who may not be confirmed, because we direct new users here when their uploads are deleted. These new users are already frustrated, and I fear protection could drive them from the project. It also might encourage improper re-uploading.

Instead, let's just revert sock requests to restore A3cb1 content. It doesn't take much effort to recognize them. Guanaco (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)