Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-02

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

File:Kapok flag.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is designed by anonymous original designer,and has been published free and fair as the symbol in public domain of cantonese community for years that for the public purpose,which the anonymous original designer must be desire for and hasn't claimed for ownership.

It should belong to public domain under Permission PD-ineligible ,as one of the high valuable images of the cantonese public movement project,and consider of the situation recently across the connected state that possibily the welfares of designer and other innocent people could be in dangerous if private statement being made that could ID by the authorities.

Please give the chance to save the image back under public fair use permission statement such as PD-ineligible,and pay attention to other Files that could be delete in the similar situation as there are really huge obliteration against all kinds of dissidents moving on in connected wiki area .Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter,with my great honest. Longway22 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a recent design and it is far too complex to qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}, so it clearly has a copyright. Anonymous designs do not become PD for at least seventy years after creation. Fair use is not possible on Commons, so the image could not be restored without a free license from the original designer.

I also note that the WP article on the subject has been deleted as not in scope , see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Provisional_Government_of_the_Republic_of_Cantonia. That means that the flag is not in in scope on Commons. Therefore there is no basis or reason to restore this image..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I disapprove of your points,my AD. The judgement should seriously consider the emergency public disaster as the predictable obliteration against all kinds of dissidents moving on by the relevant authorities. It is clearly that the flag haven't represented for any strong-actionable political status in international playground that couldn't recognized by other GO or NGO. The image also has educationally value distinctin to the stock of such documents hold here already, meaning that it's more than the symbol of the cantonese community,showing the true meaning of minorities civilization in public domain，which is clearly covered under the common rule.It could be honour to storage this no-profit image here for the cantonese community，for more people to learn the unique social movement and culture from East Asia in the historic moment.——Longway22 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Even if all of that were relevant, which it is not, there is still the problem that this is a recent design without a license from the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

File:AntjeBarbarastorm.gif

This file was listed as not being within the current terms of use, though is within the terms of use before 2020 (see https://web.archive.org/web/20170711021651/https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/AboutUs/LegalInformation/Aboutthiswebsite/index.html). I'd just like a better reasoning I guess why this and the other files from this source are now likely going to be removed, and actually I'd sooner you just remove them all in one go rather than piecemeal.Lacunae (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The archived terms of use cited above include:

"EUMETSAT grants all users the right to use, download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website on the condition that each information, image, document and material taken from the website carries the EUMETSAT copyright credit "copyright {year} EUMETSAT" (where {year} is the current year)."

While that does allow users to download and use material from the site, it does not allow anyone to copy from such downloads. Thus, within those terms, Commons could download and display material from the site, but anyone downloading from us would be in violation. That is, of course, outside of our requirements.

I also note that there is no statement that the stated terms are perpetual or irrevocable. That gives rise to the question of whether EUMETSAT can retroactively change the terms of use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear answer.Lacunae (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Nesting Protoceratops.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nesting Protoceratops.jpg

"I may have misunderstood the wording, the fossils were found in 1922, not published until 1924" Sounds like it might be in the public domain in the US now. Pinging @FunkMonk as a courtesy. Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Support Now PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. GMGtalk 22:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


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

File:COUILLOUD Barnabé 2019-20 - Bopb.jpg

Bonjour, je suis l'auteur de cette photo, je suis non professionnel de la photographie et autorise son exploitation sur wikicommons. Pouvez-vous svp annulers la suppression ? D'avance merci. COUILLOUD contributeur wikipédia.

--COUILLOUD (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image has appeared elsewhere without a free license and on the file description page you claimed that you were not the photographer. Therefore, in order for the image(s) to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must directly send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of a written license from the actual photographer(s) allowing you to freely license their image(s). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

File:L4D Witch Sock Monkey (3486898309).jpg, File:L4D Hunter Sock Monkey (3330381884).jpg

Both of these sock monkeys are very simplistic and does not met the threshold of originality. --Trade (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And you did not oppose deletion for over two months... @EugeneZelenko and Gbawden: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Honestly? I just found the whole deal too frustrating to deal with. There didn't seem to be any consistency as to whether or not Photos of the Mystery Machine were okay and it pretty much made the whole thing feel like an arbitrary gamble. --Trade (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
See Commons:Toys. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, there's a number of times where the rules about toys and such, both externally and our internal interpretations of the law, leave me confused and frustrated as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose These are clearly far above the ToO anywhere in the world. It is certainly true that there are many copyright violations present on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of our 50,000,000+ images are problematic. Many of the images in Category:Mystery Machine are of a van, which itself is not a problem -- only the special decoration of the van could be a problem. When you see problems such as those, please put a DR on them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:TOYS; no consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Orlando Colon WWC Universal Champion.jpg

I am a collaborator of the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and as such am authorized by them to use any photograph or video used by them, specially if using them here is meant to have any page related to them up to date.

For both of these images, the easiest thing to do is to create a page on https://www.wwcpr.net/ and make the photos and videos you want to upload available there, clearly putting them under a free license. You could also go through COM:OTRS. One thing that won't work is to post here and claim you have the right to use the photos, which we have absolutely no way of ascertaining.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, i will do so. If there's any other World Wrestling Council (WWC) image that needs the same workaround please let me know so that they can be placed on the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocWWC (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Any image that is not a personal property of the uploader or that was already published elsewhere requires this procedure. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Логотип КСМ.jpg

File:Логотип КСМ.jpg Для использования в статье. Я являюсь автором данного логотипа. 29/01/2020. A.Kalmyk (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @A.Kalmyk: Is this the file that you have uploaded? I am asking, because I cannot see a deleted file. If this is it, then you will need to have a representative of KSM submit an email via COM:OTRS process, confirming that they are willing to release this work under a free licence. I see that the article that you have created has been deleted on Russian Wikipedia, but on Commons it doesn't really matter, we accept all free images that are useful for an educational purpose even when they are not encyclopaedic. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done should be resolved in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Tal Navarro Portrait.jpg

Reason: I have full permission fro Tal Navarro herself to publish this photo initially posted on her Instagram account. 85.64.248.53 12:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission from the subject is irrelevant unless she has a written license from the photographer allowing her to freely license the image. In order for the image to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must directly send a free license using OTRS or (b) someone else must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of a written license from the actual photographer allowing that person to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done. This is not Nal Tavarro's selfie. Thuresson (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:LeslynLewis-HEADSHOT1-lg.jpg

Re: Ticket#2020012710008161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameser78 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The copyright holder has given permission for use of this image. I have attached the approval confirmation email from Wikipedia from the copyright holder below:

We have confirmed Jan Balca's authorship of the photo and accepted the permission.

We hope you can help us with the next step of making the work available for use: we would like you to upload the photo yourself to Wikimedia Commons directly by using our Upload Wizard available at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard>. You will need to have a Commons user account to do so, and if you don't have one already, you can create one for free here: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin/signup>.

Once uploaded, please let us know the URL address of file on Wikimedia Commons so that we can made the necessary modifications.

Thank you for your interest in contributing to our archive of freely licensed images, and please let me know if you have any questions that you think I can help answer.

Sincerely, Nathaniel Tang

-- Wikimedia Foundation - https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Press room: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room -- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/

Ameser78 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Authorship was confirmed via OTRS. However, I would like to note that I was never notified the media file in question was a deleted file, as this was sent via photosubmission rather than permissions-commons. @Ameser78: I do not appreciate that such information was not disclosed by the sender and/or other parties connected to the sender with knowledge that this was a deleted file. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: Do you request undeletion per the abovementioned ticket? Ankry (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: No objections to undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 11:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI Ankry (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Srittau

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{GWOIA}} applies. (User:Srittau is the user responsible for deletion.) Roy17 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

https://theme.npm.edu.tw/opendata/Article.aspx?sNo=02000019
  • A screenshot for anyone who's unwilling to read the webpage.
(For the record, the DR nominator's action was disruptive as he continued pushing false facts in several DRs after evidence was presented.)--Roy17 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I actually made a mistake. https://data.gov.tw/license#chinese is not GWOIA but Open Government Data Licence {{OGDL}}.--Roy17 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Mayank Badhan.png

This is not a low or medium quality selfie of Mayank Badhan.

Mayank Badhan is a "contributor" as a journalist and a technology YouTuber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Growthxmedia (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criterion means "contributor" as in contributing to Commons. Mayank Badhan might be notable enough for Commons (although their Twitter follower count is only 200 more than mine). There's still the matter of license if the photograph is not a selfie. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose This looks like spam, violating COM:ADVERT. Note that the subject's web site has:
"© 2020 Mayank Badhan. Powered by Growth X Media",
so the web site creator appears to be the uploader. There is no WP:EN article and all of the first page Google hits are self-generated.
I also note that the file description says that the image is from www.mayankbadhan.com, but it does not seem to actually appear there. That is contradicted by the fact that the uploader claims that it is {{Own}} work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:0005 20180326 175247 PDS Z4A3893.jpg

I tried to use this file, 0005_20180326 175247 PDS_Z4A3893 (a picture of Belgium minister Koen Geens), on the Wikipedia page of Koen Geens. It was immediately deleted for being property of professional photographer Peter de Schryver. I already had permission to use his picture, and asked him to send an email to permissions-nl@wikimedia.org, which he did. I can't retry to use it because the file is up till now deleted. Derudder Dries (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Hello, I hope that permission is not "Wikipedia only" or "Educational use only", but actually a release under the free licence. In this case once COM:OTRS volunteers will process it, the photo will get undeleted. In the future you can use {{subst:OP}} on the description of the page, it should prevent speedy deletions. Although admins have it in their power to temporarily undelete images that have already been deleted, but when volunteers have not yet gotten to, I have not seen them doing so in as long as I remember. It is an interesting situation, if you say right away that you will follow COM:OTRS then file is probably going to await review, but if you only mention it after it was deleted... it will stay deleted until review. Not fair, but just the way it is. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Actually it is perfectly reasonable. I would guess that for at least half of the files where the uploader or someone else has told us that the photographer will send a license using OTRS, that never happens. When OTRS has a long queue -- several months recently -- that means the file is restored with no license and the risk that we will lose track of it and it will stay up forever without a license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


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

‪File:PHerrity-edit2.jpg

‪4nn1l2‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File:PHerrity-edit2.jpg‬". 9m The reason: this is a private photography showing honour to our professor, who needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia due to his achievements. Romana Sustar, 30th of January, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanaSustar (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose From nottingham.ac.uk: "Material contained in our website may not otherwise be copied, reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part without our prior written permission. In particular, it must not be reproduced or exploited for commercial gain. All other rights are reserved and you must ask our permission before making any other use of material contained in our website." Thuresson (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, there is the question of whether he meets our rules for notability. There is no WP:EN article and as a general rule, a university ex-department head will not qualify unless he has won significant honors outside of the university. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Brett A Becker.jpg

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brett_A_Becker.jpg

As per above, deletion request under no OTRS: 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

I had the copyright owner file a license with OTRS as stated: Copyright Owner has sent free license email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --Honda00 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC).

Receipt of above acknowledged to copyright owner.

Deleted 13:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC).

Original, attributed to owner available on a university website: https://www.cs.ucd.ie/blog/sigcseire-launched-ucd-cs/

Honda00 (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at the Deletion Request, the subject has had his WP article declined for lack of notability. That means that there is no reason to restore the image here.

I also note that the file description claims both that Catherine Moody is the author and, with the use of the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} template, that User:Honda00 is the author. At the web page cited above it says both "Author:Abeba Birhane" and "(Photo attached: Prof Amber Settle, Dr. Brett Becker and Dr. Keith Quille. Credit: Catherine Mooney CC BY-SA 4.0)​". So, we have three different authors claimed. Honda00, please be careful not to make incorrect claims of authorship. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I'm new and obviously don't know how this all works. On the page I reference, Abeba Birhane wrote the text (she is the author of the article), and the photo is credited to Catherine Mooney as she is the copyright holder of the photo. At this point though, I'm giving up. I don't want to run afoul of any rules, and although Catherine has given me permission to use the file (and released it as per the CC license) I don't know how to change the self|cc-by-sa-4.0 template. Clearly I'm in over my head. Honda00 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Honda00, thank you for the explanation. The issue here is not copyright -- that's solved by the CC-BY-SA credit line I quoted above. The issue is notability -- it is not at all clear that Prof Becker is notable as required by our policy on the scope of Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sarah Hauser At Pe'ahi.jpg

- this photo file is offered by the copyright holder, Fish Bowl Diaries, to wikipedia and for full use across the internet. there is no copyright violation with the use of this file.

--Simeonglasson (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission must be submitted through COM:OTRS. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarah Hauser At Pe'ahi.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Marcillio Browne at Pe'ahi.jpg

undelete please - this image is granted to wikipedia for unlimited use by the copyright owner and is therefore in full compliance with the copyright rules for wikipedia

--Simeonglasson (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose From the Facebook page of Fishbowl Diaries. A permission only granted to "Wikipedia" is not enough. Thuresson (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


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

ARB27012020.jpg

The fileARB27012020.jpg was uploaded by me on a wiki page Aishwarya Raj Bhakuni, however the same was removed with the copyright violation and I am now required to obtain permission from GAUTAM SONVANI.I have no clue who is GAUTAM SONVANI. And how do I obtain the permission from the person? --Dumbo shaan (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dumbo shaan: Contact the photograher: Shashik Arcs Photography. Thuresson (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedural close, not an undeletion request. Thuresson (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Non-empty photo-date categories

Thanks in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

All ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi.png

I have purchased a license for this image for non-commercial use. I do not understand the issue.

--Wiki-heIper (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow work that is licensed under a non-commercial license (e.g. CC-BY-NC is not allowed). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Commons:Licensing. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File: Голубош Володимир Валентинович.jpg

A photo found on the site provided by our staff to publish the article. That is a photo taken by us and the site only uses it. this is an article about our head and we want to put information about him on the wikipedia site. What to do to keep my photo from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by It mykhailo (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@It mykhailo: All photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must be under a free license granted by their copyright holders (presumably photographers).
©2020, Firtka.if.ua. Використання матеріалів сайту лише за умови посилання (для інтернет-видань - гіперпосилання) на "Firtka.if.ua". grants only reuse of the photo in its current form; we require also the right to create derivative works without permission. Ankry (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: not a free image. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Полк. Димитър Грънчаров.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020012810007339.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020012810007339|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 05:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done undeleted. But I doubt that the permission can be from the copyright holder. Please nominate for deletion if you find that they are not nor they contain information proving PD status of the photos / painting. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: Any decision? Ankry (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Waiting for response by sender. Will advise later today. -- Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: No response. Go ahead with deletion. If sender responds with satisfactory rationale, I'll re-request undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

redeleted and closing. Nothing to do, now. Ankry (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:03-Raoul Paoli-Cinéma - Terreur - 1924.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chennevieres

Normally I don't like having images as .pdf files, but I'll make an exception with this. It's from a 1924 French film, w:Terror (1924 film). Director died in 1930 and the screenwriter died in 1944 so it's been public domain in France since 2015. It just became free of the URAA this year so it's now public domain in the US too. Abzeronow (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done temporary undeleted. @Abzeronow: FYI. Ankry (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

please fix this error...there is no violation and copy rights about uploaded pictures and information about jind sawara

hello please re consider about my information....all pictures i uploaded with Jind sawara permission and i took all pictures of Jind sawara and his awards....all information is true...jind sawara is very famous punjabi song writer and he has written 15000 songs.....i have all rights and copyrights with jind sawara's permission....so please fix this error and clear all copyright and any violation on all my uploaded information and pictures....i kindly requesting you.... you can search online about Category:Universities and colleges in Malaysia--Kalam punjab di (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Regadless of possible copyright issues, I neither found a Wikipedia article about this subject, nor I can imagine educational use of there photos. Out of COM:SCOPE. If a Wikipedia article about this person is accepted, I can change my opinion.  Oppose now. Ankry (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 Support If copyright is ok. As I understand it this is some sort of Bollywood personality, and we do not need an article on Wikipedia to be in scope. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support I think we can restore File:Jind Sawara.jpg. Google images shows half a dozen photos of him and Amazon-US is selling one of his albums. The image is claimed to be {{Own}} and it does not show up among the Google images. The other images and awards may be copyright problems..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for File:Jind Sawara.jpg and a DR started. Ankry (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Ковалева-2.jpg

Требую восстановить данный файл так как он представлен в свободной форме — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanyanovoselov110290 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose No licensing info provided. An evidence of free license compliant with COM:L is needed. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Tom Artical SASA CAG .png

The picture is within my domain and secondly it backs up the point of the section people are deleting it as they think its copyrighted when I have asked all sources of where it is from to use the image — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.246.48.15 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded this, you claimed that this was your {{Own}} work. You now write that that is not correct. Making incorrect claims of own work is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

Unless you are both the photographer and the author of the text on this document, you do not have the right to freely license it. In order to restore it on Commons, the actual photographer and author must freely license it using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Driver 3 (PS2).jpg

Hi, i took this picture, it is my work, why would anyone delete it?! Please undelete ist asap, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marten.editor (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The photograph may be your work, but you do not own and do not have the rights to freely license the copyrighted game cover. See COM:DW for a further explanation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Todor Vakov A 01.jpg

And:

Hello, the Bulgarian artist Todor Iliev Vakov has died. He is my father and I am his full and direct heir and all rights are transferred to me. What more permissions do you expect to hear from me? Why are you deleting my 12 uploads? With respect Sellinor (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sellinor: First, the images are not deleted, so cannot be undeleted and your undeletion request is pointless; you can respond in the deletion request, if you disagree with it. Second, being heir of the author is not the same as being the author (as you claimed at upload). Third I doubt that you are author or heir of the author of this photo: a permission from the photographer, or from their heirs is needed, or an evidence that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Ankry (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done images not deleted and user attempted probably to withdraw request deleting its content. Ankry (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

deletion of a picture

Hello

someone resquet de deletion of a picture i uploaded on wikimedia. This picture was taken by myself.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skadelik (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Hello, Skadelik. Thank you for attempting to contribute to Commons. Please keep in mind that only media that can be released under a free licence and that are actually released as such are allowed here. I assume that you are talking about File:Screen during the Lebron James' 61 pts carrer high.jpg here. Lookig at the name of the file and at the note that administrator has left while removing your file it appears that it was a photograph of a screen. As such it is a derivative work of a copyrighted work. If you take a photo of nature or of a utility object, then the copyright is yours; but if you take a photo of somebody else's copyrighted work, then you own only the additional copyrights (if any), and you actually cannot distribute that photo without the permission of the owner of the underlying copyright. Please read Commons:Screenshots, and if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright many people there will be more than happy to help out out. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, it is a photo of two of the screens in the middle of a basketball arena. The images on the screens are copyrighted, so they cannot be kept on Commons unless, somehow, you can find the copyright holder and get him to send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Barham Salih rencontre Ali Khamenei, Tehran 2018.jpg

ils on tout free licence DRIS92 (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

{{S}} Clear CC-BY-SA-4.0 license declaration on the source page: "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License". @Hanooz: why did you claim that the image is not free? Ankry (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under CC-by 4.0. These are received (=دریافتی) from leader.ir. @Ankry: } please zoom in and look at the bottom left corner of this one.Hanooz 12:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Hanooz. They are indeed from an external source, I revoke my support. Ankry (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Works by Arturo Borda

These files were deleted because the author, Arturo Borda, died in 1953, so they are set to be undeleted in 2024, but the author, and thus the works, come from Bolivia, where the copyright length is 50 years pma, not 70 like the deletion reason suggests. Therefore, their copyrights expired in 2004 in Bolivia. File:El Yatiri (1918).jpg was already restored on those grounds.

Given that these works come from 1948 and 1944 respectively, though, I could be wrong, unless there's a {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not-renewed}} tag on the latest deleted version.

-BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

They are in copyright in the US, whereas El Yatiri, being presumably published more than 95 years ago, isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not PD in USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Slot Band.jpg

Данный файл является моей личной собственностью. Также, он уже был размещен в открытом доступе на https://music.yandex.ru/artist/160514 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadyaUp (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Public availability is unrelated to freely licensing. We require free license from the actual copyright holder. If you own copyright to this album cover, please follow COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:The 2012 logo of GigaScience Journal.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019081410001155.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2019081410001155|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 23:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Reading United AC Primary Logo.png

Reading United AC recently updated their logo. It is not trademarked or copyrighted. I am the Director of Communications and Marketing, and looking to ensure that the new logos are updated everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liney3506 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose All created works are copyrighted from the moment of creation. Policy requires that an authorized official of the corporation send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Miya per OTRS. Ankry (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Reading United AC Primary Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020410000174.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020410000174|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done@Nat: The file is now restored as {{OTRS received}}.--miya (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bao Dai nho.jpg

I saw that this file was deleted as "no source", but many files from this period are too old to be copyrighted. I know that recently there is a user tagging a lot of Vietnamese images as "no source" (even if they have a source and a legitimate copyright © license), so I am requesting this image to be undeleted and re-nominated for deletion. Unfortunately the Community Tech-bot doesn't inform Wikipedia's about "no source" tagging. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support DR processing. Ankry (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Donald Trung: you can continue discussion in the DR. Ankry (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Baodai.jpg

I saw that this file was deleted as "no source", but many files from this period are too old to be copyrighted. I know that recently there is a user tagging a lot of Vietnamese images as "no source" (even if they have a source and a legitimate copyright © license), so I am requesting this image to be undeleted and re-nominated for deletion. Unfortunately the Community Tech-bot doesn't inform Wikipedia's about "no source" tagging. (Same issue as the above image of the same Emperor, but as this image may be more recent, it may be copyrighted and ineligible for "{{PD-Vietnam}}"). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support DR processing. Ankry (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Donald Trung: you can continue discussion in the DR. Ankry (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Arato Andras szeretem a tejet.gif

This is a short clip of an old TV game show I have added captions to. I was using it on my Hungarian profile page. The reason for deletion was “vandalism”, and I certainly didn't intend to non-consensually vandalise my own profile page. --Smileyhead1500 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the TV clip is 70 years old. Any evidence it is PD? Ankry (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The first color television broadcast in Hungary was in 1971, so it is, at most, 49 years old and still under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done Proper information about source and copyright status is necessary as well as a detailed explanation why this clip is in scope. Thuresson (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Ok Face Sketch.svg

Inappropriately deleted, file is below Japanese TOO. Commons hosts many files from Japan that are significantly more complex. Assuming the shapes comprising this image are found to be too complex, I'll be happy to smooth the edges of the polygons. -FASTILY 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:1989#File:Ok Face Sketch.svg. 1989 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I obviously disagree with the deletion. Perhaps you'd actually care to either a) justify the deletion with policy or b) consider that I have proposed an alternative solution? -FASTILY 23:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, if the restriction that the image cannot be used to illustrate w:One-Punch Man article seems unacceptable to me and I cannot consider it free. Ankry (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Um, using a file a Wikipedia article does not magically make a file free or non-free. If that is legitimately your understanding of copyright, then you really shouldn't be an administrator. Could someone other than you or 1989 comment please. Thanks, FASTILY 22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any precedent for illustrations of faces falling below TOO. TOO is normally dealing with shapes and text, i.e., it doesn't matter how creative someone thinks their orange square is, all orange squares are sufficiently identical by definition that there is no original creativity involved. The things that comprise this image aren't actually shapes of the geometric variety. By that I mean, I cannot really explain to you in text how to recreate this, while I can fairly easily explain to you in text how to make a simple arrangement of text and orange squares.
I don't really understand where the INUSE argument here is coming from and I don't see it's relevance. GMGtalk 22:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted to allow community discussion at COM:DR; see file for link to specific DR. ~riley (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:AshleyMansour.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020310011861.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020310011861|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Maximilian Brunner.jpg

I own the picture, I took it myself because it’s a selfie. I’m using it for my own wikipedia page. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunnerforever (talk • contribs) 05:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Used for fr: utilisateur:Brunnerforever/Brouillon. Personal photo by non-contributor. Thuresson (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Ageha01.jpg

It is stated as source in File:Ageha-cho.svg and I don't like it when the source of something is deleted. I had the same problem with Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Albrechtice vlajka.png whose deletion was revoked. I hope for the same result here. The reason for deletion was "superseeded, orphaned". Now, if there is a better bitmap file then of course it must still be deleted but if the file that superseded the file is the svg I don't think the deletion should remain.Jonteemil (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support As a general rule we do not delete raster files when a subsequent vector file is created, especially when the raster file is a source for the vector file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Revista Chilena de Historia Natural.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Revista Chilena de Historia Natural.jpg

Was already PD in Chile, now free of URAA too. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done PD already. Ankry (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Vasco Mendonça.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019112910005055.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2019112910005055|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. (ping Arthur Crbz who deleted the media.) AntonierCH (d) 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntonierCH: FYI. Ankry (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Charis3965

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020012210003013.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020012210003013|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. (Sorry for the large request) Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 17:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Deleted pictures made by User:Jozefonline

Hi!

I request undeletion of the following pictures, because they are own work (drawings and pictures), as he states in nl:w:Overleg_gebruiker:Jozefonline#Kunstenaars_uit_Hengelo (in Dutch), made in and from (subjects in) public space: FOP applies in the Netherlands.

I have met him in person and have no reason to doubt his onwiki statement. Ciell (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: I'll buy that, enough that the files can go to DR if there are still concerns by the nominating user. ~riley (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Lee Pelton headshot, photosbyKim.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020410008998.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020410008998|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: The file is now restored as {{OTRS received}}; Ticket:2020020410008998.--miya (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Lapressecontestataire20182019auMuseedeGap.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020510003044.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020510003044|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:شتيجنبرجر ألداو 231.jpg

All photos about Egypt hotels are allowed according to Template:FoP-Egypt ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Support The image is of a poster -- hotels do not seem to be involved. According to the geolocation data included, the image was taken in Egypt, where there is an FoP exception for any artistic work, but not text. I don;t think there is enough text visible to be a problem here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

See {{FoP-Egypt}} -- where it says reproduction is allowed if "they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture". Note that there is no restriction to exterior public places and no requirement for permanence. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
My doubt arises from lack of explicit mention about public interiors in COM:EGYPT unlike eg. COM:Netherlands. I do not oppose undeletion, as you may be right, but I will not act here. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. The Egyptian copyright law seems quite permissive in this context (art. 171). Maybe there are Court decisions that ruled against it, but we are not aware of them. Ruthven (msg) 14:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Nate Leipzig President of SAM.jpg

This photo was taken in 1939. The photograph is 82 years old.

It is in the public domain.

--OscarFritz (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) OscarFritz

  • Public domain is based on the year published, not the year taken. It look like it was scanned from a magazine, find the magazine and the year it was published, then we can see see if they renewed their copyright. Also, don't claim you are the copyright holder when you upload. 06:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • By default, works published in the US go out of copyright in the US 95 years after publication. There are exceptions whereby many works like this left copyright early, but 82 years just doesn't cut it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @OscarFritz: If this is an anonymous photo, initially published on the page provided as source, it will be PD in 2071. If you point out its author or earlier publication, then we can reconsider this. Ankry (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence od PD status. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Representative_Cal_Bahr.jpg

Also:

Representative_Cal_Bahr.jpg should not be deleted. I own the photo, and have previously posted it to Facebook, which is marking it for speedy deletion.

--Rgasterl (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 2/4/2020 Rachel G

 Oppose Please note that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the photographer or the photographer's heir. In order for the image(s) to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must directly send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of a written license from the actual photographer(s) allowing you to freely license their image(s). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by V-spectrum

Please undelete all files deleted upon this request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by V-spectrum. The photographer has sent proper OTRS agreement: ticket:2020013010005087. Polimerek (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Polimerek: Możesz je oznaczać. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Bryanskaya Gorozhanka by Bella Gorodetskaya.jpeg

Per COM:L. Unless there is some sort of other policy that allowed the deletion. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support per above. FAL seems to be a free licese Ankry (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre and Jcb: pinging involved users. Ankry (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Kaldari. Ankry (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Categories which are no longer empty

The following categories were deleted because they were temporarily empty, and now are no longer empty:

Thanks in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thank you!. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Thomas Grenon.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020610005835.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020610005835|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Polish Mil Victory Parade 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polish Mil Victory Parade 1945.jpg

1945 photograph, likely taken by the Soviet government. Could be {{PD-Russia-1996}} Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Abzeronow: I assume you are talking about the fourth point "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication." Do we have any evidence that the name of the author has not become known (rather than you do not know it)? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I said it could be that. The previous deletion request linked in the DR above asserted that was a Soviet government work, and I don't see any responses disputing that. I might be able to determine if there was a known author if it's temporarily undeleted as I am finding photographs from 1945 Soviet victory parades by Yevgeny Khaldei and Fyodr (Fyodor?) Kislov. Unfortunately, I cannot see the file and thus cannot deterimine if it matches any of the Getty or Alamy usual suspects. Abzeronow (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polish Mil Victory Parade 1945.jpg. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Abzeronow: FYI. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ਜੂਠ ਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਨਾਟਕ - ਬਲਰਾਮ.pdf

The file has been deleted because the copyright holder did not reply to the mail sent by permissions@wikimedia.org. But, I talk to the author of this file and he said he was unaware of this process. So, now he can reply to the mail. Please help me to solve this problem and undelete this file so we can add the OTRS number to this file. - Satpal (CIS-A2K) (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The file is an image, with watermarks. First, the image is of a sculpture, so we could not keep the image without a free license from both the photographer and the sculptor. However, even with those permissions we will not restore this file -- we do not keep PDFs of images for any reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Jameslwoodward: , photographer of the book cover, author of this file and the publisher of this file agrees to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Then what is the reason for not to accept this file? Please clarify. (The file is a Punjabi language book) - Satpal (CIS-A2K) (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: This is a book, not a single image. The format is appropriate.
@Satpal (CIS-A2K): The ticket can still be responded, or further information provided with the ticket number in the email subject. If you will not get a response in a week or two, you can ask for help at the OTRS noticeboard.
If you do not know the ticket number, the only way is to resend all required permissions.
We can undelete the file on OTRS volunteer request. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. I withdraw my comment about the inappropriate format, but my comment about the sculptor is still valid.
In fact, it is much worse than I thought. The book contains many photographs, which appear to be from many photographers -- they are not current photos. Some of which are of other works of art. There are at least two newspaper scans.
Publishers are typically not very careful about getting copyright licenses for such images. Such licenses, if they even exist, almost certainly allow use in the book and do not in any way allow the publisher to freely license the works depicted.
So, in order to restore this book, we need the publisher to prove that he has licenses to freely license all of the photographs, newspapers, and works of art shown in the book. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
And, further to the scope question, Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats says:
"Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason."
Note here both "notable" and "public domain works". This is certainly not public domain and no evidence has been given to prove that it is notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ДАПО фонд 1011, опис 2. Православні церкви Полтавської губернії. М. Полтава.pdf

Archive inventories are in public domain in Ukraine. Source: d:Q4146779, proper license: {{PD-Scan|PD-Ukraine}} (Template:PD-Ukraine) --Madvin (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Info deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:ДАПО фонд 1011, опис 2. Православні церкви Полтавської губернії. М. Полтава.pdf
Definitely not cc-licensed as the uploader claimed, but likely PD-text. The document seems to me purely informational, so not copyrightable. And this is definitely not a "book" as deletion nominator claimed. I  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Madvin and Alexkrakovsky: Please fix incorrect info about source and author to avoid redeletion. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelete the photos in Draft:Farrokh_Shayesteh

Please restore the files and photos that you delete. The material and photos uploaded have the written permission submitted by Farrokh Shayesteh to this editor: Piruz Alemi and wikimedia Commons. These are photos of paintings and within the scope of the work we are editing.

These photos have been published in the book that i also edited covering Farrokh Shayesteh, Named Modern Miniatures that is also cited in our wikipedia article. You are confusing personal photos, with historical photos, and paintings with photos. These are photos of paintings that you are deleting and we are discussing the work and paintings of Farrokh Shayesteh under the title and subject of: Modern Miniature. I uderstand that you like to delete personal photos of folks who upload these photos. That is not the case here, if you have a sense of history and work in Persian Minaitures.

Further more if you review, the article presented in 2018 at IAARHIES in New York, we were able and have published all these works. See Pages 1-26 of the the following Link: https://iaarhies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/US.-Proceedings-updated.pdf Click on the link and see the photos. These are the same photos we had the rights to publish and you keep deleting over and over.

If you wish to delete our photos, you should provide a clear reasoning and send it top us BEFORE you delete the page. and its photos. These photos are withing the scope of the work of arts. We have had prior discussion about the scope of these photos.

Respectfully, Piruz Alemi.

os. We are volenteers like you who work on the open source Wikipedia. We are non-commercial and are advacing an encyclopedic article we have worked for 6 months on. Please make a reference to the history of these deletions. This is the FIRST time we received a link, so we can have a full discussion of why you keep deleting these photos. We have provided the free license and purpose ofthese photos to wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alemipiruz (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alemipiruz: Which exactly photos do you mean? I am not aware about any photo I deleted that may be relevant here. Maybe, you should direct your request to the appropriate volunteer? Ankry (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
If this is about photos listed on your talk page, please follow instructions provided there. Each image requires correct information about its author and authors of the presented content. Ankry (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I think he is referring to the files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Farrokh Shayesteh although looking at en:Draft:Farrokh Shayesteh some have been re-uploaded. Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alemipiruz: Well, as the images were published in US in 2018, they are copyrighted there 70 years since the artist / photographer(s) death or (if the photographer(s) name(s) is unknown), 95 years since 2018 (till 1.1.2114) or 120 since the photos were taken. Unless, you can prove their PD status prior to publication. For the arts, we clearly need a COM:OTRS permission from the artist. For the photos, we also need appropriate permission from the photographer(s) or their heirs, or an evidence that they are PD in Iran together with a free license permission from the US publisher, as they claim copyright to the journal content. Evidence of a journal publication is not the same as evidence of PD status nor evidence of having the right to grant a free license. Ankry (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: COM:OTRS permission or an evidence of PD status is needed. And an evidence that the images are in COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Наталка Діденко з котом Апельмоном.jpg

And

The file was taken from http://www.sbr.in.ua/?p=2049

On the bottom of the page is the following text in Ukrainian:

Фотографії опубліковані на умовах Creative Commons із зазначенням авторства, версія 4.0, міжнародна

It means: «Photos are published according to Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license»

Please restore the file. It illustrates the articles w:uk:Діденко Наталія Василівна, w:uk:Апельмон

✓ Done per above. @Gone Postal: you can LR now. Ankry (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Request to undelete my text

The article is totally my own work (no copyright), can you please undelete the text and put it back as a draft so I can work on it again and again add information and rewrite passages. Thank you. Regards Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@PatmanSA1: Which media file is this in reference to? If this is about an article on Wikipedia, this is not the correct forum for such requests. For English Wikipedia, please see : en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose You have only one deleted contribution here, File:Empire Knowledge Trophy 1956 Lord Bledisloe, Sir Patrick Duff, Jill Gough, Royston Morgan.jpg, for which you incorrectly claimed that you were the photographer. A 1956 image is still under copyright in most countries, so cannot be restored here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done unclear request: there is no article in Wikimedia Commons and unknown copyright status for the only deleted image uploaded by this user. No clarification in 24h. Ankry (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Laputa - castle in the sky.jpg

I'd like to request the undeletion for the file Laputa - castle in the sky.jpg. Since the image is the release poster from 1986 extracted from Studio Ghibli website, iot's public. It's already used by the english version of the article, but not as part of Wikipedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavoIvon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Please read Commons:First steps and Commons:FAQ before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: non-free image. Ankry (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Alice McLerran.jpg

I took this picture; it's of my mother, Alice McLerran. It is used on larrymclerran.com, the personal web site of my stepfather, Larry McLerran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rare4 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose @Rare4: Please send a permission statement to COM:OTRS or indicate on the website that the picture is released under a free license. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Arthur: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Angeliki Papoulia at Locarno Film Festival 2016

Please undelete this image. This photo was taken by Sabine Cattaneo at the Locarno Film Festival who has given Angeliki Papoulia permission to use it on her Wikipedia page. As Angeliki's representative, Angeliki sent this image to me and requested me to upload it.

--KC22212 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@KC22212: I'm unable to find this file. Could you please provide the complete file name and/or the name of the uploader on Wikimedia Commons? Thanks! --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Arthur Crbz: Hi Arthur! It was uploaded by KC2221 and the file should be something like Angeliki Papoulia at Locarno Film Festival 2016, by Sabine Cattaneo. --KC22212 (talk)
@KC22212: Found it: File:Angeliki Papoulia at Locarno Film Festival.jpg
Sabine Cattaneo needs to send a permission statement so we can undelete this file. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Arthur: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Courtney_Cox_Caparison_Guitars_NAMM2019.jpg

This is my photo, I donated it freely to Wikimedia without copyright restrictions.

Laurie Monk 06-02-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriemonk (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the image was deleted because a very similar image appears at https://www.themusiczoo.com/blogs/news/caparison-shows-new-models-at-namm-2019 with an explicit copyright notice.

Second, you did not donate "it freely to Wikimedia without copyright restrictions" -- you uploaded it with a CC-BY-SA license.

Third, it has a watermark copyright notice. While Commons allows such notices, we very much prefer not to have them, particularly since they prevent cropping the image if such cropping removes the notice.

Finally, we have no way here of knowing whether you are actually the photographer, or simply a person who has created an account here with the photographer's name in order to upload this image.

Therefore policy requires that Laurie Monk must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Koky Bonilla concierto2019.jpg

Esta foto la fotmé con mi celular al asistir a un concierto del artista. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacosta 3 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural closure. The image has not yet been deleted, so please provide your arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dacosta 3. --De728631 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Memorial Stadium 1924.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jmajor2013

I cannot see this file, but based on other deleted files of the uploader, this was an image of the old Indiana State University Memorial Stadium w:Memorial Stadium (Terre Haute). Since it is an American work, I think this warrants some discussion Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done PD-US. Ankry (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:C'axent aanbevelingen informateurs Coens Bouchez.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020610005522.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020610005522|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: Please proceed with your check. --De728631 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Alexis Normand photo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020710000383.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020710000383|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 13:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelete Photo of Lahna Turner

The photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lahna_Turner_at_Flappers.jpg was removed due to supposed copyright violation. This photo is in the public domain as it has been used be her publicist in the past and, according to her team, is an approved photo to use.

the page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahna_Turner

--DaJerm (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Loizza Ilag Aquino at RBC Top 25 Canadian Immigrant Awards.jpg

The original photo is from the University of Toronto Scarborough (https://utsc.utoronto.ca/news-events/news/student-earns-top-immigrant-award-work-student-mental-health).

Permission was granted for the publication of the image on Wikimedia Commons for the purposes of it being utilized on the English Wikipedia page for the subject of the photo, Loizza Aquino.

The website that was linked in the copyright violation message cannot possibly own the rights to it. The photo in question was taken at an awards event in Canada. Therefore, the website in question who's copyright was allegedly violated, cannot have taken the photo themselves nor own the rights to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontopedia (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately there is no indication of a free licence at the University of Toronto Scarborough website either, and a permission for the use at Wikipedia only is not sufficient. All uploads at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose. Therefore we require a permission by email from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Alternatively, a free licence could be granted at the UTSC website where this image was published. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Leslie Ward01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Leslie Ward01.jpg

1889 painting by Jean de Paleologue (1860 - 1942). Became public domain in country of origin in 2013. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Image:Isaac-tradet.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Isaac-tradet.jpg ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Info This is 400x520 px. A much larger version is at File:Grünewald, Sjungande trädet.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I do not see that coming from the DR alone, if it is really the exact copy, then we do not need to undelete, I guess. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It is the same image -- withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Ntust logo 001.png

已開放共享，無版權問題 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 小离谱 (talk • contribs)

A logo from 1974, without any license(-template), sourced to https://www.secretariat.ntust.edu.tw/files/14-1020-74346,r6-1.php?Lang=zh-tw, which states "All pictures and text in this document are protected by law". --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Complex logo. The company needs to send a permission statement. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Arthur. COM:OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Patrick Colbeck.jpg

(description moved from thumb) Illinois Policy Institute Forum discussing passage of Right to Work in Michigan

Who is laying claim to this photo which was taken on my behalf at the Illinois Policy Institute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJ107 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 February 2020‎ (UTC)

 Not done as per Ymblanter: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Three more non-empty categories

Category:2010s photographs of Gambia, Category:2000s photographs of Gambia, Category:Historical photographs of Saudi Arabia. Thanks in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Gone_Postal -- unless the category is controversial or incorrectly formed -- for example, one that is not in English where our rules require English -- there is no reason to come here for restoration. Any user can create a new category or restore an old one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Łukasz Zawada - 2019 - Warszawa - fot. Krzysiek Krzysztofiak.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020013010005649 .

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020013010005649|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 13:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. @Nat: FYI. --Ahmadtalk 15:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Johann Mickl.jpg

I believe that we generally use 120 year rule (50+70), not 140 (70+70) regardless the statements on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johann Mickl.jpg. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I think 120 years is too short a time to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. If the work was created when the author was 20, he could easily live another 60 years and might well (beyond a significant doubt) live another 70 years, so 140 is a better number.

However, I recognize that others here are OK with 120 years. However, this image was made in 1915/6, which was, if I can still subtract correctly, only 105 years ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim & Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sarah von Neuburg bei der Moderation des Porsche Sommerfestes 2019 in Leipzig.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020810003897.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020810003897|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 17:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, while were at it, are there anymore deleted files uploaded by Makeupandmore1980 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) other than these three (and not counting the duplicate)? Please and thank you! --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 14:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done However, they may be DW of copyrighted works and a permission from the photo author may be not sufficient. Just unsure due to File:Berlin - Bambi-Statue - 2013.jpg (but, maybe FoP applies there?). @Nat: FYI (undeleted also File:Sarah von Neuburg auf dem roten Teppich beim Bambi Award 2017.jpg). Ankry (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:At the coal face (5997593633).jpg

Please undelete File:At the coal face (5997593633).jpg, as it was clearly marked as {{PD-author|b3tarev3}}. Just follow the link to flickr, please, if you want to dourble check whether it's genuine. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Although people who use the PDM often actually intend to freely license the image, we cannot assume that that is the case. The PDM is not a license and is completely revocable, which puts it outside of our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not freely licensed at source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Race queens in Macau Grand Prix.jpg

The said file doesn't against any issue of copy right, because it is taken from my own Facebook account "user name : Paulo Leong". (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156192904228742&set=pb.633673741.-2207520000..&type=3&theater)Pauloleong2002 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Then we need an evidence that the declared license is granted on Facebook by the photo author or COM:OTRS permission. Unfortunately, the above link is not publicly available. Ankry (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
A COM:OTRS permission has been sent [Ticket#: 2020020910001575]. Thank you very much!--Pauloleong2002 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, we need wait till it is verified by an OTRS volunteer. Ankry (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Race queens in Macau Grand Prix.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020910001575 .

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020910001575|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:LAI06334.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020910001655.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020910001655|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Domingaufkleber auf Schlüsselanhänger als Werbeartikel.jpg

Werbemittel.at ist ein Shop der ebets GmbH. Ich bin Eigentümer der ebets GmbH und habe alle Rechte an den Bildern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHK2603 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHK2603 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 February 2020‎ (UTC)

 Not done: THe file has not been deleted yet. Please make any comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Domingaufkleber auf Schlüsselanhänger als Werbeartikel.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Early dinosaurs feeding on fish.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021010000724.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021010000724|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 03:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Yael_Eisenstat_Headshot.png

There is no copyright violation because the picture was not taken from wired.com - in fact, Wired has taken this picture from Yael Eisenstat's website (https://www.yaeleisenstat.com), and she has given me permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverfriedmann (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 February 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • Unfortunately there is no way to verify anything via Wiki. Could you please follow the process outlined at COM:OTRS. Make sure that you obtain not just a permission to use the file, but a free licence which allows useage, modification, distribution, and publication of modified versions for any purpose including commercial. You can read about the approved licences at COM:L. Once you follow the process you will need to wait while the volunteers will process it and the file will be undeleted. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 22:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I also note that the cited web site has an explicit copyright notice and that Oliverfriedmann claimed in the file description that he was the actual photographer. The message above implies that that is not the case. Please understand that incorrectly claiming someone else's work as your own is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done, needs a permission from photograher Katie Burwick. Thuresson (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Teatro novosibirsk 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teatro novosibirsk 1945.jpg

1945 Russian photograph. DR didn't give many details but this could in the public domain now in Russia if anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Info Wayback link for source: https://web.archive.org/web/20041020041812/http://www.a3d.ru/archi/postr/opteatr.php Abzeronow (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose per {{PD-Russia}}: no evidence of pre-1950 publication. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mtsvane_glekhuri.jpg

Why the File:Mtsvane_glekhuri.jpg was deleted? It is my own work.--Yozh (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Please read Commons:Packaging. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Why in this case many other pictures with wine labels are not deleted? File:Leyda_valley_Pinot.jpg for example?--Yozh (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
We have more than 50 million images on Commons. My experience tells me that at least 1% of those -- half a million images -- are copyright violations. If you see other similar images that appear to be violations, please nominate them for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mtsvane glekhuri edited.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Teresa_Esposito,_Ph,_medico_dietologo.jpg

The file is provided by the subject of the wikipedia page --DapoDemi (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose First there is the question of scope -- is this person sufficiently notable to warrant an image on Commons. That's a "maybe" for me. I don;t see any WP page in English or Italian, but a Google search on "Teresa Esposito italy" yields a lot of hits of a notable Italian researcher who may be this person. Second is the copyright question. I agree with Ankry that this does not look like a selfie, so we need a free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment it:Teresa Esposito has been deleted. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mtsvane glekhuri edited.jpg

Why the File:Mtsvane glekhuri edited.jpg must be delete? I edited it, hid the pictures (artwork) and left only the font (wine name). --Yozh (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support per above. I see nothing copyrightable on the label. @Herbythyme and Túrelio: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose While I agree that everything copyrightable has been obscured, I see no reason why this image with the label largely obscured serves any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This image with the label largely obscured indicates the grape variety from which wine is made. @Jameslwoodward: this image now is not copyright, on what basis did you delete the file?--Yozh (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yozh: Jameslwoodward has nothing to do with this image deletion. It was deleted by Túrelio per Herbythyme's request. Ankry (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Well, if there are COM:SCOPE related doubts, I think that starting a DR will be justified. Ankry (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: , this image serves an educational purpose in our wiki section. I will upload it again.--Yozh (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yozh: Reuploading deleted images is against rules. You may be blocked if you do this. The right procedure is to discuss deletion / undeletion issues here. Ankry (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: , discuss uninstall / restore was closed too fast. Removal was nominated as Copyright violation. But this image is not copyright. Therefore, the removal was illegal. I will upload it again.--Yozh (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yozh: First, the discussion here has not been closed, yet. Second, you have been warned concerning reupload. Just wait for a decission. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yozh: While I an understand the frustration, it is generally a bad idea to reupload despite deletion. Blocking your account on first such occurance would definitely be an overreaction on administrator's part, but several such occurances would definitely justify a block. Having said that  I support restoration. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Gone Postal While blocking a user for uploading a second time would ordinarily be overreaction, doing so after the user had been warned would not be. It would not be a long block.
Ankry I should think we could settle the issue here, but if you want to restore it and start a DR, it's all right with me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted and this DR started. @Yozh, Jameslwoodward, and Gone Postal: you can continue the discussion there. Ankry (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Neonfly poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo belong Neonfly band and their leader Frederick Thunder and posted in their official site http://www.neonfly.net and other their pages in free access. All these pics were made different photograhers for Neonfly band, all sources are given to them and they depict only members of the band in them, their covers of the albums and logo. What is the problem? What do I need to do? I'm not downloading them for my entertainment, I create a biography this band! Yulia Markhutova (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographers must directly send free licenses using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of written licenses from the actual photographers allowing you to freely license their images. The same applies to the designer of the poster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:VGercans.png

Hi,

Please undelete file Gercans.png , becaude I am the owner of my personal photo and I uploaded picture un Wikipedia. Visvaldis Gercans, Latvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visisg (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The image was found without a free license at https://www.kartes.lv/lv/komanda/. Please note that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the photographer or the photographer's heir. In order for the image(s) to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must directly send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of a written license from the actual photographer(s) allowing you to freely license their image(s).. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Alexander Ben Zvi.jpg

Hello, I am an employee of the Israeli Embassy in Warsaw, I took the picture of our Ambassador and I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, so it could be used on this platform. Is there something else I have to do about it? --Szegrirut (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at https://embassies.gov.il/warsaw/Pages/default.aspx. Therefore, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.

Please note also that "so it could be used on this platform" is too restrictive. Images on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Photo of Mohamed Jouan Al Dhaheri and Saeed Ali Al Dhaheri.jpg

File:Photo of Mohamed Jouan Al Dhaheri and Saeed Ali Al Dhaheri.jpg

I am not sure if the deleted picture of myself and my colleague is subject to promoting myself, I was simply editing my page and accidentally published it not knowing it was SandBox as I am new here, you have not only deleted the picture but rather deleted the whole page.

--Mohamed Jouan Al Dhaheri (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Mohamed Jouan Al Dhaheri

 Not done: closed by gmg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by user Crjfluoxkp

I would like to ask for an undeletion of the following files:

They are a collection of maps that offer guidance to those who read and play the old "Fighting Fantasy" gamebooks. Copies of the images aren't available anywhere else and the occasional mention in related forums and boards link to the uploader's gallery page. If possible, maybe a temporary undeletion for archival purposes?

--Eliopse (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Question @Eliopse: Why don't you ask for undeletion on enwiki where they were initially uploaded? Ankry (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The history tab of the user's page says the file "has been deleted from Commons" so I assumed this was the right place to ask. When clicking on the files, they also redirect to commons.wikimedia.org instead of en.wikipedia.org. And since the page was just a repository of the images with no text content, I thought it didn't make much sense to ask there. Eliopse (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, all this images were transferred to Commons from English Wikipedia, which has more admins who can potentially handle your request. I do not oppose undeletion, I am just too lazy to handle a request with so many files without a very important reason. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand. I don't have a stronger reason other than being just a collection of images for a niche pastime. In the meantime should I do the request on EN Wiki as well or wait for an "official" decision here? Eliopse (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus after two weeks here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Teknotiq-Logo-1920x1080-PNG.png

The logo is the logo of Teknotiq.com and we want to inform people of teknotiq.com thats it... We have the rights of this logo... And i am the owner of teknotiq.com , if you check "teknosa" page their logo is there, so we want to put ours aswell... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknotiq (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

While copyright is a valid issue here, the deletion reason was not copyright related. Why the logo falls under Wikimedia Commons scope? I see no Wikipedia article, nor other Wikimedia page where it can be used. @Teknotiq: after answering this question, we can discuss about copyright. Ankry (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Teknotiq (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC) We had the page but it's been removed cause of our Username is the company name and the username with company name is not allowed i guess we did not know that and we can change it but dont know how? Our page was removed as the account is banned for the username i guess... We need help to solve the problem... We want to have a legit of everything, we want to use our own logo... And want to explain the company...

This site has 1 112 295 as its Alexa rank. This does seem a little low for me. Personally I believe that we should err on the side of inclusion, as we are not an encyclopaedia, but an educational file repository. So when it comes to the matter of scope I would vote as  Weak support. However, we need to have COM:OTRS in this case, since there is no way to determine whether the user is actually an administrator of that site. So @Teknotiq: , could you please use the official e-mail (I see that your site uses at least one @teknotiq.com email) to contact OTRS volunteers. Thanks in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Note, that the "teknosa" logo referred above is a fair use image uploaded to trwiki, not to Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: Concerning educational use and notability: we generally do not host unused logos to avoid allegations of being promotional. Notable logos should be uploaded when they are really needed somewhere in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that talking about something can be promotional, but I believe that companies making their logos available under a free licence is a good thing, even if they do so for promotional reasons. If small companies start doing that hoping to promote themselves, that can start putting pressure on larger companies to do the same. Thus overall the result will be more content that is useable under a free licence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs evidence of notability, but, more important, needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Icons-article-Pantonhara-text.png

The file was deleted by @QueerEcofeminist: with this reason

  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source.

The file is a screen-shot of 1/4 page from a 9-page scientific article wikidata:Q84291564. I used the image to illustrate the article, in contrast to the icon that it describes wikidata:Q84296272. I believe that such copying falls under fair use permissions? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose "Fair Use" cannot apply to a repository such as Commons because we are not the end user, so we do not accept that argument. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Info This is a religous painting by Dimitar Krstev (1819-1872/73). Thuresson (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, the image is PD, while the text is not. If the painting image is extracted or the text is made unreadable (eg. blurred), then the image may be OK. Otherwise. it is not. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Vladimir, if you crop the image to the colored painting and upload it again with the same file name, it will be OK. Please be sure to name the author as Dimitar Krstev (1819-1872/73) and put the license {{Pd-old}} on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
this is an image of an article describing the icon (painting), and its author is modern. Cropping the text would void the purpose of this image (I want to use it as an illustration). I could blur the text but don't even know how to undelete the page... so I won't bother Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well. I  Support undeletion for bluring the copyrighted text. @Jameslwoodward: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand

"Cropping the text would void the purpose of this image"
How is unreadable, blurred, text an essential part of the use of the image?

I've never liked blurring parts of images. In a case like this, where the point of blurring the text would be to make it unreadable, I think it is much better to simply crop it away. That makes the image much more usable for other purposes. It also makes it possible to make the image larger in any use, rather than having to allow space for unreadable text. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No response or consensus after six days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Omar_Faruk_Shihab.jpg

File:Omar_Faruk_Shihab.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified IP address (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)IP address redacted. Raymond 08:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shihabskytar. No undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given for undeletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Thomas Scholen (2018).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021010002179.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021010002179|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
{d}} by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:GintarasSavukynasLT.jpg

Hello,

This image has been received from Gintaras Savukynas personal image collection therefore no copyrights have been violated. Thank you for understanding and hopefully the image will be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcikas (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Falcikas: What about the photographer's copyright? And why must I credit you if I want to sell coffee cups with this photo? Thuresson (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Please do not claim that you were the photographer when you were not. That is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. Second, this can be restored only if the actual photographer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose These are press photos. OP do not respond to relevant questions. Thuresson (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:SVA Seal Transparent Background.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021010006862.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021010006862|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Nintendogspluscatsgolden.png.jpg

I am requesting to undelete this file. This is because the deleting admin deleted the page for no source since January 31, 2020. However, I did put a source of where the file came from the next day after it was nominated for deletion. I changed the file source from “own work” to “The game card is owned by me and Nintendo”. Arthurfan828 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There are only two ways this could be restored here. First, in the unlikely event that you are the actual photographer of the image of the pets on the game card, or second, if Nintendo sends a free license using OTRS. Please read COM:DW..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: clear copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Paulwest29

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021010003267.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021010003267|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Блинчики.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Я новичок на википедии. Не судите излишне строго... Изображение скачано с сайта freepik.com Автор: Валерия_Аксакова Hi! IamAndrey (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose As you say, Valeria_Aksakova was the actual photographer. Therefore:

You must not claim that you were the photographer, as you did in the file description and
You may not license the image to others. That right belongs to the photographer.

Note also, that despite the name of the site, Freepik explicitly forbids posting images on Commons:

"The content in the Freepik Content or any derivative work is not used or included (in whole or in part) in a database, archive or in any other media/stock product, collection, set of clips, or library, for distribution or resale or used in any other way that could prevent or limit future visits or downloads from the Website;"

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: clear copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bfs thomas oberender c christoph neumann 2018.jpg

In 2018, the photographer Christoph Neumann was commissioned by the cultural institution Berliner Festspiele to produce portrait photos of the management team for the annual magazine. Mr. Neumann provides the photos to the Berliner festival for free use. The same portrait is also used on the side of the Berliner Festspiele. See: https://www.berlinerfestspiele.de/de/berliner-festspiele/programm/bfs-kuenstler/bfs_kuenstler_detail_81302.html Thank you!--Berliner Festspiele (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment As the deleting admin, this was deleted as its claimed as Own Work but the Exif clearly states the name of the photographer. Needs OTRS IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose "provides the photos to the Berliner festival for free use" says only that the Berliner festival can use the images. It does not say that the festival can freely license them to others.

In order for the image to be restored here, either (a) Christoph Neumann must directly send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of a written license from Christoph Neumann allowing you to freely license his images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:JEEP island dolphin.jpg

This photo is exactly in shutterstock, but that's my contribution. This is my photo thought, I can't use it on wikipedia? If can, please recover it.--Motoki Kurabayashi (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Photos which you deleted at 8:44 to 8:45, Feb 11th are exactly taken by me. Some of them are used in my personal blog, but all of them is not deletion copyright. I'd like to recover it.--User:Motoki Kurabayashi (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose as the deleting admin. This new user uploaded a large number of images. The one mentioned above I found on shutterstock and others. Other photos uploaded by them were also found on the web and deleted. No way are their uploads own work Gbawden (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The image appears at https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/swim-dolphin-chuuk-micronesia-1562860423. The username there is kurakurakurarin. Our image is large and has full EXIF, so I think it is likely that the shutterstock uploader is Motoki Kurabayashi. If I am correct, that needs to be confirmed by Motoki Kurabayashi sending a message using OTRS. If I am correct, then it is likely that we should restore more of their images..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have sent OTRS as below. I hereby affirm that I, Motoki Kurabayashi, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JEEP_island_dolphin.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Motoki Kurabayashi 2020-02-12 --Motoki Kurabayashi (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please leave this UnDR open -- we have ticket:2020021210001658 and if it confirms the statement above, we will want to consider more undeletions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021210001658.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021210001658|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ìch heiss Nat: Please see [1] and [2]. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ìch heiss Nat, does the OTRS ticket confirm that commons User:Motoki Kurabayashi is Shutterstock User:kurakurakurarin? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not confirmed anything yet. Will advise once I do (or concretely don't). --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 23:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
✓ Confirmed Kurakurakurarin = Motoki Kurabayashi. Regards, --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Grateful thank you very much for handling my request even you busy with thousand of post and updates. I'd like to restore my images which were deleted. Should I wait in meanwhile? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2020_February_10_03:00#Motoki_Kurabayashi_(132_edits) --Motoki Kurabayashi (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motoki Kurabayashi (talk • contribs) 05:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Jim san, I'm really sorry. My concern is not completed yet. I'd like to restore my images which were deleted. What should I do？ Could you restore them？ Or I have to upload them again？--Motoki Kurabayashi (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: ✓ Done ~riley (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jim. Ankry (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:IVAP (IVAO software).png

This picture has been taken by myself, to illustrate an article and is not submitted to any copyright except mine. I do not understand why it has been deleted ...--Emanuelzozor (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I nominated for Speedy - the issue is that the photo is a screenshot - see COM:SS Gbawden (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. It is a screenshot of a copyrighted game and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the game publisher. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Clear copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:尤志豪.JPG

this photo is come from my facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/Tomato930/photos/a.641883925881537/1817548441648407/?type=3&theater

--Yau9304 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three problems here. The first is that I see no reason why we should keep this image -- you are not a contributor and do not appear to fall within our scope. Commons is not Facebook. We do not keep images of people who are not themselves notable. The only exception is for a limited number of images for contributor user pages.

The second problem, is, as you say, that the image appears in Facebook. If we were to keep the image -- see the first problem -- the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.

The third problem is that the image has no file description. A source, author, file description, license, and valid category or categories are required for all images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Hello, I just noticed the deletion of the photo of Ben Kayiranga in traditional clothing. I don't understand why this artist's photo was deleted. It cannot be found on other social networks because it was I who took it during a traditional Rwandan wedding. What should I do to certify that I am the author of this photo? Best regards, --Benugouma (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I don't have access to the file anymore and I don't remember the case. Perhaps you should ask the deleting Administrator. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping for @Ymblanter: . Maybe I'm missing something, but the only mention of Szczepanski appears to be in the deletion rationale itself. GMGtalk 22:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Lech Szczepanski is mentioned as an author in the EXIF. Benugouma also posted on my talk page, I suggested them to use Commons:OTRS.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:0 Caldas da Rainha Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro IMG 1453.jpg

In due time I provided all the necessary information in the image page. There was absolutely no valid reason for it to be deleted. This is a photo I took of a painting that has long been in the public domain. Please verify.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose While the work became PD in Portugal in 1999, that is too late to pass the URAA. If the work was painted and shown in public before 1925, then it is PD. If not, then it still has a US copyright which will expire at the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation. There is no evidence in the file description of when this was painted and if it was ever published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair point. I wonder if a native pt speaker might be able to dig up some more information. GMGtalk 16:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jean Louis Schlesser 2020.jpg

Bonjour cette photo a été prise par un de nos photographes durant la course Africa eco race, son nom est Alessio Corradini : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157852115632270&set=a.10157852111432270&type=3&theater

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas toutes ces suppression dès que l'on touche à Jean Louis Schlesser ou Africa Eco race... Que se passe t il et pourquoi cela ? 1/ Cette photo est dans le domaine public : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157852115632270&set=a.10157852111432270&type=3&theater et sur google photos de notre page : https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMIGvgZGOjbY45ubKnAJsAfwneW8xSmD3uXmAFq

2/ photo prise par notre photographe officiel Alesio Corradini . Que faire de plus ? Merci pour vos conseils Bien cordialement — Preceding unsigned comment added by MélodyMey1984 (talk • contribs)

@MélodyMey1984: As you are not the photo author, we need an evidence of free license from the actual copyright holder in order to host the photo in Wikimedia Commons. Only licenses for unpublished photos made personally by the uploaders themself can be licensed on-wiki during upload. For any other photo we need an evidence of the declared free license either (a) from the initial publication site of this photo, or (b) from the actual copyright holder via email, following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelete two files posted by their author

I helped User:Henry M. Stoever create a Wikimedia account and post two PDFs of documents he wrote:

They have been deleted for reasons I do not understand. User:Arthur Crbz told me to "post the undeletion request on this page".

These are legal documents entered as evidence in a trial in the Municipal Court of Kansas City, Missouri in the US by their author, defense attorney User:Henry M. Stoever.

This was trial for trespassing on the Kansas City National Security Campus, which makes roughly 85 percent of the nonnuclear parts for US nuclear weapons. It has international significance, if only because two of the 17 defendants were Europeans.

This Municipal Court is not a court of record, which means that the most complete record of that trial is the not-quite-complete transcript that I posted as Wikiversity:Fifteen anti-nuke protestors tried for 2019 trespass on the Kansas City Plant, with the help of others, of course.

Two questions:

  1. What needs to happen to get these documents undeleted?
  2. And what should I do differently to avoid this kind of problem in the future?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Hmm. I'm also not sure why they were deleted. They both have CC-BY-SA licenses and were uploaded by the author, so the "no permission" comment on the deletions does not make sense.

With that said, I am not all sure that they are in scope. I cannot recall a case where we have hosted a legal brief. There have been hundreds or thousands of civil protest trials along the lines of this one and we do not have any documents from any of them. The only similar document I can find on Commons is File:The plea of Clarence Darrow, August 22nd, 23rd & 25th, MCMXXIII, in defense of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, Jr., on trial for murder.djvu. Leopold and Loeb, of course, was a trial of national importance, taught in schools, made into a film, and well know to the American public. This case does not come close. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope#Allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats says it's allowable here if "The file would be within the scope of another project of the Wikimedia Foundation if it were to be uploaded in the same format to that project," which these are: They are foundational documents for Wikiversity:Fifteen anti-nuke protestors tried for 2019 trespass on the Kansas City Plant.
I've created other things crudely like that article on Wikiversity, with the support of, e.g., User:Marshallsumter, who has been very active there, though is apparently not a bureaucrat, sysop or custodian.
Examples:
I have NOT used a pdf in any of those other articles, but I certainly used photographs and videos hosed on Wikimedia Commons. Since these are legal documents, it seems like they should be treated the same as other images that are on Wikimedia Commons and used in that Wikiversity article. The testimony offered during that trial is available as editable text, because there is no official transcript. This invites others who witnessed the trial to correct any misrepresentation of what was said. It also invites others to add footnotes and links to relevant material.
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 Support ... if I'm allowed to vote on reinstating documents I uploaded originally. For my rationale, please see the lines above. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that this was a mistake to delete these files. It is great that they are released under a free licence, and they are potentially useful for an educational purpose. Arguments about how much media coverage they have gained are irrelevant. We have many media which have gathered zero media coverage, and that is never an appropriate reason to delete something. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This does have international significance and it would certainly serve as expanding human knowledge since there is no official transcript of the trial. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question While there is clear consensus that the files are in scope, the 2nd one contains a request for an OTRS permission (and no evidence that the permission was sent). Why this request should be ignored? Ankry (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support *Any* court case document should easily fall within educational use; court cases (at all levels) are meant to set some precedents which affects everyone else in that area. The usual problem is that anything other than the actual decisions are under copyright, and not licensed, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here. I don't see a scope issue at all. The text would be best transcribed at Wikisource but the underlying PDF is fine to host here. If the PDF itself is not available on the web, not sure I would require OTRS either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Clindberg: So do you suggest that File:City v. 17 Defendants, Atty Statement sent to KCPD & Security officer, May 8, 2019.pdf is a non-copyrighted "actual decision"? The doubts concern licensing, not scope. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I can't see it -- I was under the impression that the author of the documents (the attorney) had granted a license. In general, just the decisions are PD-EdictGov. If a federal court, anything written by the judge would be PD-USGov. Everything else would be public record but copyrighted, with I'm sure a pretty wide fair-use allowance when using in relation to the case, but still copyrighted. We would need a free license for something which came from one of the attorneys, I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Clindberg: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Ankry (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
          • The deletion tags don't make much sense -- the first one was tagged "no source", asking the uploader to put "own work" or something on it, when it was already clearly marked that way. The second one briefly had the same tag but was reverted, but someone else put a "no permission" tag on it, when a license was clearly given. The only reason for that tag was if we found the same document elsewhere on the Internet, which was not stated, and even then it probably shouldn't be speedy. These look to be filings by the attorney, one of which is a trial brief (giving the defendants arguments, so highly opinionated and manifesto-ish given this was a political protest) and one was an email sent to various members of law enforcement prior to the protest action and entered as evidence. So, they would be copyright the attorney and need a license -- the usual reason we can't upload documents like these -- but it looks like they were licensed just fine. The only part that makes me uncomfortable is that a bunch of names / email addresses are not redacted in the second document, and not sure that we really should have such personal information here. The second one would also definitely be out of scope if not attached as evidence to a court case. The first one seems perfectly fine to me, with the second being shakier on scope grounds though (given it is referenced by the first one) probably OK if the names / addresses are redacted. Less sure without the redaction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Partially ✓ Done per Carl: one document restored, one redeleted. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:November 28 1945 Ibrox Park Rangers F.C. -FC Dynamo Moscow.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:November 28 1945 Ibrox Park Rangers F.C. -FC Dynamo Moscow.png

Russian and from 1945. Searching the all public logs gives source as "Archive of russian journal - Ogonyok" If anonymous, it would be public domain now. Abzeronow (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support Ankry (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Likely published in 1945. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Amaury thièrot

Bonjour, je demande la restaurations des images dans la catégorie : Category:Amaury Thiérot . En effet il y avait une discussion en cours avec Vigneron, qui parle bien ma langue maternelle et elle est close en anglais :

Deleted: per nomination - According to https://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=en&p=amaury&n=thierot he died in 1940, so these are PD in France, but not under the URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


(Jameslwoodward), j'avais fournis l'image où apparaît le cartel avec la date de décès de Thièrot (1939) et il se base sur un site geneanet, quelle remarque fait-il sur le cartel du musée ? C'est d'autant plus important que le site et le musée ne sont d'accord sur l'année. Je lit "une simple affirmation que l'URAA s'applique à un fichier ne peut -être suffisante à elle seule pour justifier la suppression" ce qui fut appliqué ici si je crois en la lecture de la page de discussion de la suppression. Cordialement Gérald Garitan (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

1939 or 1940 -- in either case the date when this came out of French copyright - 2009 or 2010 -- is well past the 1996 URAA date. You are correct that we do not do mass deletions of URAA questionable images, but when it is clear that the URAA applies, as is the case here, we must not keep the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gérald Garitan: According to US copyright law, for works of authors who died in 1939 or 1940 and which were initially published in France, we can host here images of paintings which were published (or at least created) before 1.1.1925. If you can point out a painting that was exhibited (or at least painted) before this date, please do it. Newer works need to wait. Ankry (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Partial  Support, some images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Amaury Thiérot were from before 1925. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. One of the paintings has a 1918 date on it, so I have restored it. The others are undated, but I am willing to assume that since they are all battlefield scenes, that they were probably painted at about the same time -- near the end of the war. I'll take any excuse to get around the unfair URAA. What do others think? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ankry, what do you think -- if you are OK with it, I will restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:  Support undeletion of pre-1925 paintings, and maybe undated ones. Dated post-1925 should remain deleted, IMO. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: 13 files restored -- all pre 1925. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Steve-Profile Africa 2018.jpg

Hello! This picture was emailed to me direct from Diana Wright - assistant to Steve Alexander - and I uploaded the picture on her behalf. The picture was taken digitally in 2018 in a non-professional setting and the rights are owned by Steve himself, who wants the image uploaded to his wikipedia page. Please let me know what I can do to get this settled and the picture put back up. Thanks Delfino319 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If the camera was set up by Steve, then they would own the copyright, otherwise they would be owned by the photographer whether or not this was professionally done. That's the way copyright works. If you have received the permission, and that permission is from the copyright holder (and not just the subject), then it can be sent to volunteers via COM:OTRS process. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The comment above is not correct. It is irrelevant who set up the camera. Copyright is owned by the person who actually pressed the button, because it is the choice of the exact moment that constitutes the important part of the creativity required for copyright. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Forwarded licenses are not accepted because they are too easy to forge. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Deshielonvcda.jpg

Also:

I work at the Navacerrada City Hall, I create, edit and update the public contents of the municipality.--Luciana Giunta (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Since all of these have appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that each of the actual photographers must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Ольга Леонидовна Озерецковская.jpg

Hello, this photograph was taken by the husband of Ольга Леонидовна Озерецковская. If you need email confirming that no copyrights are claimed on this photograph, please let me know. Thank you, Dmitri Klimov--Dklimov (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The file named above has never appeared on Commons. You have only two deleted files:

What file do you want restored?

Please note that all works are copyrighted from the moment of creation. In order for the file to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Vilnius Great Synagogue 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vilnius Great Synagogue 1945.jpg

If an anonymous photograph, it would be public domain in either Russia or Lithuania now, and would have been public domain on January 1, 1996 (Lithuania was 50 pma in 1996 and presumably had publication + 50 for anonymous works). Abzeronow (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence that this photo was published in 1945. For anonymous images copyright term starts (in most cases) since initial publication of the image, not since the image creation. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:DESHIELONVCDA.jpg

And

Trabajo en el Ayuntamiento de Navacerrada, creo, edito y actualizo los contenidos públicos del municipio.

I work at the Navacerrada City Council, I create, edit and update the public contents of the municipality.--Luciana Giunta (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Luciana Giunta: As the images were published without evidence of free license, we need a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder (or their oficial replezenative, if the copyright holder is institutional) emailed to us following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Wojciech Bojanowski.jpg

I am the owner of the copyright for this photo, it is not downloaded from the internet. I can prove it if neceserry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noaibanda (talk • contribs) 10:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Noaibanda: Please use COM:OTRS to submit evidence. Thuresson (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Rani Bheemuck.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021210007661.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021210007661|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: Note that there are three different images under this name. Ankry (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Каховського водосховища.jpg

Same rationale as per File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Кременчуцького водосховища.jpg (undeletion request). Ping @Kruusamägi, Alexmar983, Antanana, Ата, and Kharkivian: in case it's useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 On hold for a decission in this DR Ankry (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 Info File in that DR was kept @Ankry: Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Кременчуцького водосховища.jpg. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Gheorghe Petraşcu paintings

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings of Gheorghe Petraşcu

"Gheorghe Petraşcu died in 1949". Now public domain in Romania. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, same painting. The deleted version is considerably darker and the size is 423x551. Thuresson (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Striked it as deleted version can stay deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I could only really find Pinterest links for the last two, I could overwrite the first file so the name points to the right painting, but other than that, I guess I'm gonna withdraw this request since they appear to be small artworks and don't seem to be correctly named. Abzeronow (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In each case, either there is no date or the date is after 1925, so I see no basis on which to restore them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a date 19x6 on File:Gheorghe Petrascu - Natura statica.JPG in the upper-left corner, but I cannot read it. Maybe somebody else can? Other images deleted. Ankry (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, 1936. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

So closing as  Not done. Feel free to add the files to appropriate Undelete in ... categories. Ankry (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Jonathan Austen.jpg

This was not in any means a personal photo. It is the image used by the Austenasian government to describe Jonathan Austen and makes apperences on the microwiki [3] and on the website [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BestOnLifeform (talk • contribs)

 Comment en:Draft:Jonathan Austen has been declined today. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: This is the 3rd case I know of that someone tries to establish micronation trash here on Commons. Let the trolls His Majesty play their games somewhere else. --Achim (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
There are many things that happen in the world that I disagree with. Calling somebody a troll becaue of that, even when you <s> it right away it is a personal attack. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Everyone can call the flat he lives in a micronation and calling himself a [ ] King [ ]Emperor (choose as you like) of that. As long as this is not mentioned by reliable sources and Google &c. just show a few hits (from micronationswiki and from social media sites) that belongs to the section "Hoaxes & jokes" and is outside of our project scope. --Achim (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit: For not to be misunderstood, I'm not against micronation topics in general. The "Republic of Whangamomona" case is a really remarkable example. But on the other hand there is no need of providing a stage to those who just do not like their government or are just joking. In addition, some weeks ago I read that the micronationswiki has financial problems, so I'd not be surprised if some users tried to move to wm projects. --Achim (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
No, you do not have to provide them with a stage, you can quit. However, there are many people who do not like their government. It is a real thing that exists in this world. How are you planning to demonstrate micronations without having these images? Saying "I do not like something, therefore I pretend that it doesn't exist" does not make something out of scope. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 22:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.48.200.195 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per consensus -- out of scope and apparent copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Радик Гәрәев - Һағындым (1988).jpg

This is the picture that should not be deleted. Previously, I used the similar one that was taken from records.su in order to use it as the album cover in the Bashkir article connected with a Bashkir album. Today I took the picture of the vinyl for the same purpose. This is the reason it should stay in Wikimedia Commons. Here is the original photo of today's picture: File:The vinyl on the table.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimowl (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Both of these images show copyrighted album covers which cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from an authorized representative of the producer of the album. See COM:DW. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Richard J Stern.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019122010007451.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2019122010007451|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:明天運動會可能下雨嗎1.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These are radar images from CWB. According to {{Attribution CWB}} and Open Information Announcement, they should be kept. 116.48.200.195 03:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We need an evidence that the images indeed originate from www.cwb.gov.tw (source links). At the moment, they are declared as own works by the uploader, without any source. Ankry (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this? --A1Cafel (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree that they appear to be from the CWB and, therefore, are OK from a copyright point of view. I do not think they are useful. There are no categories, the only fiile description reads
用於明天運動會可能下雨嗎 = Can it rain tomorrow? [Google]
and the file names are similarly not useful. We keep weather maps and radar of notable weather events, but there is nothing notable here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Deletion reason in the log fixed. If you disagree, please reapply here providing COM:SCOPE evidence. Ankry (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:2019 Silver Dragon Rectangular Coins - Obverse and Reverse.jpg

I'm not quite sure why this image was flagged up as a copyright violation and deleted - I took this image myself, and even have the coins to hand to prove that I didn't just take a random photograph from the internet. This seems a bit heavy handed of a decision, given that I've been uploading a significant number of original content regarding coins in the exact same style as the deleted image. To confirm the image is mine, I can direct you to File:Various Types of Investment Silver, 30 July 2019.jpg, which has one of the two coins quite prominently placed in the corner of the image.
I'd appreciate it if this image was undeleted and the copyright violation removed from my account, as I feel that this was a rushed decision.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose @BrayLockBoy: Your photo is a DW of the coin design. Do you own copyright to the coin design? Per COM:AUSTRALIA#Currency the coin is not PD. Ignoring copyright law because others do this is not an acceptable strategy. Ankry (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment:I would like to specify that I was not aware of the specifics - no malice was intended, and while I know that this does not justify the error, it seems that this deletion was rushed through without prior notice or time to correct the image to suit fair use rationale.BrayLockBoy (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose BrayLockBoy, Copyright is complex and differs from country to country, so mistakes are entirely understandable. Policy calls for obvious copyright violations being deleted immediately upon being seen by an Admin. I don't understand "time to correct the image to suit fair use rationale" -- as a repository, Commons cannot keep images based on Fair Use. Presumably you have a copy of the image which you might upload to one or more WPs where fair use is permitted. If you need a temporary restoration for that, please ask. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Fair enough, this clarifies the questions I have. Thanks for the assistance - this is one of the first times I've gone through this over here, so I wasn't familiar with how the site handles this sort of thing--BrayLockBoy (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Maps from NARA

There were a number of maps from NARA that were bot-uploaded with a deprecated license tag (PD-USGov-NARA) and were deleted as the licenses were not fixed within a couple weeks. They are generally not PD-USGov but I believe they were mostly either PD-old-100 or PD-US-expired. Could these be undeleted so the licenses can be fixed? I did a couple at the time but thought that others were going to fix them, but I did not check back in time.

Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Who uploaded these, was it all one person? --Fæ (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to mention that, User:Dominic, who does the mass uploads from NARA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Hanskrebs1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hanskrebs1945.jpg

1945 Russian photograph, source is Russian archives. Seems worth discussing if it has entered public domain or not. Abzeronow (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vladimir Kolokoltsev. Official portrait 02.jpg

Also:

It is necessary to restore the file, since it was posted under a free license, as indicated on the website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia:

Об использовании информации сайта

Все материалы сайта Министерства внутренних дел Российской Федерации могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации.

Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет. Единственным условием перепечатки и ретрансляции является ссылка на первоисточник.

Никакого предварительного согласия на перепечатку со стороны Министерства внутренних дел Российской Федерации не требуется.

— https://мвд.рф/#copyright

--AlexTref871 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlexTref871: This permission allows to use non-modified works. But permission to create derivative works is also required for all images hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Such permission must be explicitely granted. Ankry (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: In this case, you can return these images without specifying derivative works in the license. I don’t understand the reason for such a sharp removal if the site has permission to use materials. --AlexTref871 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@AlexTref871: Licenses that do not allow derivative works are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 Question I don't read Russian, but there is nothing in the Google translation of the text above that prohibits derivative works. It is true that it does not explicitly allow them, but the permission is quite broad. "The only condition for reprinting and relaying is a link to the source." I think it would be hard to argue that DW and commercial use are not allowed. Or do I (or Google) misunderstand something? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: "воспроизведены" means copied (reproduced) and IMO the permission explicitly allows only reproduction or copying. Derivative works are neither prohibited nor allowed in the text. But as of my understanding of copyright law, you can exploit a copyrighted work only in the way that is permitted in the license. You cannot extend the explicit permission in any way. But maybe, Russian copyright law does not work in this way, and we should ask somebody more familiar with it? Ankry (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see any copyright statement at https://мвд.рф/#copyright but perhaps I'm missing someting. I've put the file on deletion on the basis of Официальный сайт Министерства внутренних дел Российской Федерации © 2020, МВД России. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: You need to click the " Об использовании информации сайта" link at the bottom to see it. Ankry (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: @Jameslwoodward: Yesterday I sent a message to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in order to clarify the license rights to the files. --AlexTref871 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olga Lyubimova Portrait.jpg and ru:special:permalink/105161951#mkrf.ru. It's a old and deprecated klemlin.ru-like license that is not free. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Free license through OTRS is needed in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Shayesteh Sadr Kamal II.jpg

Also:

Restore the files you deleted./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alemipiruz (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader has been told 2 times in this section (October 5 and February 3) to go through OTRS. Besides uses another account (Farrokh Shayesteh (talk · contribs)) to reupload deleted content. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Patrick, a quick look tells me that the two users are on different continents. While it is possible that they are the same person, it is not likely.
 Oppose A quick Google search suggests that this artist may meet our standards for notability. User:Alemipiruz, as we have said before, you must use OTRS to show that either (a) you are the artist Farrokh Shayesteh or (b) that Farrokh Shayesteh has given a free license for his art work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Noting also that some photos of Farrokh Shayesteh are not selfies and so we need a free license permission from the actual photographer(s) or their heirs. Ankry (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Rábold gusztáv kicsi.jpg

Saját tulajdonban lévő fénykép nagyapámról — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rábold Gusztáv (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per De728631. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Manveer Heir Headshot 2019.png

The user that uploaded this photo, KingCurryThunder, is in real life Manveer Heir, the person pictured, (the user name is his standard social media account name) and he had been working with me on my en.wiki talk page to get the photo up [5]. The site claimed to be the copyvio is from Brass Lion Entertainment, which is the company Heir had recently co-founded and runs, so he has fully control of release of this picture. --Masem (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by NahidSultan per OTRS. Ankry (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:喔走48小時LOGO.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 此LOGO是我本人設計，也是傳愛家族傳播文化事業股份有限公司的共用的節目LOGO圖像版權，煩請恢復此圖片，謝謝。 Ethappy35 (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose @Ethappy35: In order to undelete the logo you need to provide a written free license permission as described on your talk page. Ankry (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Gehl 3.jpg

This is my personal photograph. I own the copyrights.--70.49.148.179 15:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but it appears herewith an explicit copyright notice

All Content ©2016 The Feminist Wire All Rights Reserved

so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Aloe sp. Ribaue - flowers (7733607548).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aloe_sp._Ribaue_-_flowers_(7733607548).jpg&oldid=80247334 shows a license review, this can be undeleted. (if it doesn't it can't) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevant section of the file shows:

{{cc-by-sa-2.0|[https://www.flickr.com/people/47108884@N07 Ton Rulkens]}} {{FlickreviewR|status=failed|author=tonrulkens|sourceurl=https://flickr.com/photos/47108884@N07/7733607548|reviewdate=2018-11-02 22:38:39|reviewlicense=All Rights Reserved|reviewer=FlickreviewR 2}} file was uploaded in 2012, by experienced user, so it seems more likely that the upload has been relicensed at source, not deleting at this time-

So, I don't think we can restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: that can't be what the first revision says. The first revision should contain a license review from "File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Right you are -- My comment above was based on the latest edit. The Flickreview which showed the original CC-BY-SA-2.0 license was removed in the second of the twelve edits by M.Casanova. It may have been deliberate, but more likely a careless use of VFC. So, this looks OK to restore.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored by Ankry. I added back the original Flickreview. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Master Key Simulations' Class 460s near Stewarts Lane.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The previous shot for the "Train Simulator" wiki page was also for the same unfree game. Many 'unfree' games have screenshots on Wikipedia, such as Grand Theft Auto V. The screenshot can be used by everyone and so I do not believe is a violation of copyright. The EULA for the game does not prevent screenshots from being displayed. Lewis C (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No Fair Use in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:WWE Intercontinental Championship.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is on the WWE website, marking free for consultation and use, cite WWE, in the references used are all rights of use and reservation, I request restoration for use. 2804:7F2:278A:3B6D:94BE:BD7:42D:4E39 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Fair Use not allowed in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Pelikaan onderhoud.jpg

Hi,

I received a deletion request (copyvio) for File:Pelikaan onderhoud.jpg, stating that the OTRS is not valid for this file. However, the image is produced by a person employed by the Ministry of Defense. The image was released for external publication by the Ministry of Defense. Therefor this falls under the OTRS licens (https://english.defensie.nl/copyright) and the image can be kept on Commons.

Poppo154 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted so incorrect forum. This page begins with "On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file to be restored." Thuresson (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Andreas Trumpp.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020021710008115 regarding File:Andreas Trumpp.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:VladimirSusczinskiColored.jpg and File:Nikolay Bykov colorized.jpg

A public domain files was hand-colored by me with great accuracy such as proper order colors and deleted without any warning KrakauKrakau (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@KrakauKrakau: As you are not the exclusive author, but a co-author together with the underlying photos author(s), you need to provide information about them together with an evidence that the photos are PD or under a compatible free license. Ankry (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I can’t since photos are deleted KrakauKrakau (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I see no reason why the photo deletion prevents you to provide the requested information here. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
My co-author, Vladimir Suschinsky died 75 years ago. According laws of Russian federation, his rights became PD after 74 years of his death. Also he had no legal hiers KrakauKrakau (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
File:VladimirSusczinskiColored.jpg does not seem to be a selfie. Ankry (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course not. There was a photoset which shot by 3 colleagues: Vladimir Suschinsky, Nikolay Bykov and Kenan Kutub-Zade. 1. This photo of Suschinsky and Bykov was taken by Kutub-zade. 2. This photo of Bykov and Kutub-zade was taken by Suschinsky. 3. Photo of Suschinsky was from documentary “Frontline cameraman”, which was filmed by Bykov. Bykov also died in 1945 KrakauKrakau (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose First, we do not keep artwork by artists who are not notable. That includes hand coloring. Second, in order to restore these, we would need proof the the actual photographer has given a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

“Actual photographer”, Vladimir Susczinsky, was killed 75 years ago, 22.02.1945, please use spiritual board to acheve his agreement KrakauKrakau (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose There was no indication that the original photographs that were colorized were truely public domain - while the photographers had been dead for over 70 years, there was no indication of early enough publication for them to have been public domain in their source country (where the copyright countdown begins upon publication if publication is posthumous)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Mimimi841

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020810003897.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020810003897|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 14:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: However, some of them seem to be duplicates. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Boskovic cover final.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021610003934.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021610003934|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Reevaluate ur terms

My entry on wikipedia was not intended to sell bargain trade nor solicits on anyone's behalf. Not to give a biography but to give true actual facts that can be proven based on the individuals life — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2606:A000:1015:CAB1:6579:B278:FBF5:5DFA (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not Wikimedia Coomons undeletion request.

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

File:PBCOM Milestones.jpg

Hi, I am working with the company and managing Wikipedia page. This is our latest logo and we are the copyright owner of this image. This account will serves as the official account to edit our Company's contents in Wikipedia. If you are not convinced, You can contact us via our website www.pbcom.com.ph--PBCOM09041939 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi PBCOM09041939,
apart from the fact that I doubt this "timeline" image will be accepted on Wikipedia, it consists of 12 separate images, which likely have different creators/rightsholder. If the legal department of the company is convinced they have enough rights obtained for this image[6], they should send an official email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, in which they need to confirm 1) that they have the legal copyright for this image and 2) that they want to release it under the choosen free license. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The use of this image has been linked to a rewriting of the English Wikipedia article--a rewriting which violates en:WP:NOTADVERTISING. The user has been warned on multiple occasions. Regarding what concerns Commons, the work (which can been seen here) is a composition of 10 separate images (two of them being the same image), which, as Túrelio stated, most likely has different creators/copyright holders. Furthermore, a couple of them appear to be stock images with unknown sources and, therefore, unknown copyright status. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. While it is possible that you actually have written licenses from the creators of each of the images for use in your own advertising and PR, it is very unlikely that you have licenses that allow you to freely license the images as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:DJ High Res Photo copy.jpg Undeletion Request

File:DJ High Res Photo copy.jpg I own the file, but you can also find the exact same photo here: https://carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/people/daniel-jones and here: http://www.startribune.com/investigator-of-cia-torture-honored-as-hero-among-us/566896722/--Jjdtw (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose This photo does not seem to be a selfie as you claim. Ankry (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not a selfie, no author info nor free license permission provided. Ankry (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Karlov vladimir alekseevich.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020021210000453 .

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020021210000453|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: For your information. --Ahmadtalk 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sumach & Sun Glow Georgian Bay Arthur Lismer 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sumach & Sun Glow Georgian Bay Arthur Lismer 1945.jpg

1945 painting by a Canadian artist that died in 1969. Just became public domain in Canada this year. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

...and it will be PD in US in 2041 due to URAA. Or is there an evidence that it has been published only recently? Ankry (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unlikely to be unpublished till 2003. Ankry (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ayuso.jpg

Hola. La imagen elegida para ilustrar la fotografía principal de Isabel Díaz Ayuso es de libre distribución. Todas las imágenes de la página http://www.comunidad.madrid no tienen restricciones de uso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespapk125 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vespapk125: Can you, please, point out where do you see the information that this image can be used by anybody for any purpose, including commercial reuse and derivative work creation? I see no such information on the abovementioned page. Ankry (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose At https://www.comunidad.madrid/servicios/informacion-atencion-ciudadano/aviso-legal-privacidad, it clearly prohibits modifications of any sort. That is an ND license, which we do not allow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Parad pobedy 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parad pobedy 1945.jpg

1945 Russian photograph. Using google translate on the source seems to point to a newspaper. (info below points to being part of a film strip) If anonymous, it would be public domain since it was seemingly published in 1945. Feel free to add any additional information that would help determine its copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Info Using google translate on the author led me to w:Central Studio for Documentary Film or in Russian Центральная студия документальных фильмов, ЦСДФ. ru:Центральная студия документальных фильмов Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - we need to know what newspaper it was published in. If there was an attribution in said newspaper (however small it may have been), then it would still be copyrighted.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320: Logs have the source as "Хроника 1945". I used google translate and it translated it as "Chronicle". Newspaper was an assumption that I made, one that given the author seems faulty. Abzeronow (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 Support — obviously that film was screened and published before 1950 KrakauKrakau (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:John Harris (left) and Mikhail Semichastny 13 November 1945 Stamford Bridge Chelsea F.C - FC Dynamo Moscow.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Harris (left) and Mikhail Semichastny 13 November 1945 Stamford Bridge Chelsea F.C - FC Dynamo Moscow.png

1945 Russian photograph. Source is "Archive of russian journal - Ogonyok". If anonymous, it would be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:1928 Generation.jpg

Image in the Venezuelan public domain, {{PD-Venezuela}}, given that 60 years have passed after its publication. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Which publication? The source provided by the uploader ([7]) is not a 1928 publication. Ankry (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: It should be the image with the subtitle "Generación del 28". Venezuela Tuya is a site that plagiarizes content from the Fundación Polar Dictionary and is not the author of the image. The image is dated back to circa 1928. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Date of the photo creation is irrelevant. An evidence of 1928 publication is needed to use this template. So where it was published at that time? Ankry (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence that {{PD-Venezuela}} can be applied. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:The Wire magazine logo.svg

It seems might be lower threshold of originality (unlike the BBC logo) in the UK. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support Unlike most of other logos deleted in this DR due to a self-nomination, this one seems indeed below ToO. Ankry (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done PD-textlogo. Ankry (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


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

photo taken by me

this photo of red necked falcon is taken by me and i reported this to news paper .then they published in mathrubhumi news paper and photo credit ɡiven to me in particular paper news. kindly wath the news paper story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shino jacob koottanad (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The best approach would be to follow COM:OTRS in this case. If that is not possible, can somebody please look at the upload date here and the timing of the web appearances elsewhere. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If there is no doubts concerning this watermarked photo, then I tend to  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aside from the copyright question, which could be solved by OTRS, I am not inclined to restore this image. We have a variety of images of this bird. This one is not in sharp focus and has an obtrusive watermark. While we do not prohibit watermarks, we strongly discourage them and I see no reason to restore an image that has one. (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done scope-related doubts not responded. Ankry (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-PEMEX-vertical-alta.jpg

This file is not a copyright violation (see this). --Gindomarlo (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Although I agree that this is not a copyright violation, I see no point in restoring it -- we have an svg which can be used wherever this is needed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim: jpg is not good format for logos. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request

Files uploaded by an account whose identity has already been confirmed through OTRS. This is the account: User:PresidenciaMX 2012-2018.

While I tend to  Support the second image, I doubt that Presidency of Mexico own copyright to the FIFA cup, so  Oppose the first one. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The second image is Ok, but the first infringes on the copyright for the World Cup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

One  Not done as a clear copyvio, the other ✓ Done and speedy converted to this DR discussion. You can comment further there. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Cadetes del Instituto Militar General Tomas Herrera.jpg

El usuario KrauVR solicita que la imagen [File:Cadetes del Instituto Militar General Tomas Herrera.jpg] no sea borrada debido a que la imagen es publica y el usuario KrauVR tampoco tiene el conocimiento sobre como obtener información totalmente exacta del autor original de la imagen (salvo del link: https://sites.google.com/site/imgth5tapromocion/Home/datos), posiblemente el autor/autores sea/sean parte de las personas egresadas del Instituto Militar General Tomás Herrera. El usuario KrauVR cree que el archivo debería conservarse como libre de toda presión. --KrauVR (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Media file has not yet been deleted (it has a no permission tag). But even if it had been deleted, UDR sumbitter has stated they cannot prove original authorship, therefore, the copyright status of the image is unknown. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@KrauVR: per COM:PCP we cannot host here images with unclear copyright status. While uploading the image you claimed that it is copyrighted and that the copyright holder granted CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. We need an evidence for this, especially as any license has to be granted in written form by the actual copyright holder or their legal representative; otherwise void. The information that the image was taken a week ago is clearly false. And as you provide false information in one field, other information provided by you is not reliable and has to be proven. If the image is not copyrighted, you need to provide an evidence for this based on local and US copyright law (generally basing on the image initial publication date). If you cannot identify copyright status of a photo, you should not upload it to Commons. Ankry (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PCP: unclear copyright status. Ankry (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Yael_Eisenstat_Headshot.png

I have received this email from the photographer:

Great! Consider this note my consent to use photos I took of Yael as totally fine to use on Wikipedia.

Have a nice day and let me know if you need anything else.

Warmly,

Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverfriedmann (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Oliverfriedmann: Unfortunately, we cannot use content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos". Because content on Wikimedia projects is designed for reuse, the media needs to be released under a free license in order for it to be included in Wikimedia projects. A license is a legal statement that specifies the conditions under which the copyright holder permits other people to reuse, redistribute, or make derivative works of their work. We need a clear statement that tells us that they own the copyright to the image and tells us what license they would like to release the work under. For a list of all licenses permitted on Wikimedia Commons please see Commons:Copyright_tags. Please ask the copyright holder to use the email template given at Commons:Consent so that we can confirm that the parties involved clearly understand the terms of the copyright release. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. See COM:L and COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Brian Viglione.jpg

The copyright has been updated to Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

--Alexmarie (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Info It appears that Flickr page does state that the image is licenced under CC-BY-SA-2.0. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 02:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Flickrwashing. Joined 2020, no followers, following no-one - this is clearly Flickrwashing and the photo is credited to Jeff Wasilko. Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose photos by various photographers on this Flickr account: no evidence that license is granted by the actual copyright holder. COM:OTRS permission is necessary. Ankry (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:KikarBrennerHaifa.jpg

The file was deleted by JuTa after "No permission" tag by user: ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2. While I agree that mistakes can happen, I don't see any reason why the file gets "no permission" tag. ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 can you explain. The uploader contact to OTRS team wondering (Ticket:2020022010006763). -- Geagea (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping @JuTa: Thuresson (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored the file now. --JuTa 06:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Pi.1415926535

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Pi.1415926535 deleted files not using a real criteria. I guess undeletion is the easiest way to actually judge any of these. This is the list of files that Pi deleted between 7 januari and now with the OOS deletion comment.

List of files

I looked up a few like https://www.flickr.com/photo.gne?id=32486022715 but that's quite some trouble to view all of them that way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be a fairly subjective SCOPE issue, I wonder if anyone would object to undeletion for community review. GMGtalk 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment All but a handful of these were uploaded by sockpuppets of Winterysteppe, who was blocked specifically for using multiple accounts to mass-upload images and is now globally locked. Most (the Sacramento District photostream, which is about 90% of these images) were uploaded after their block. I don't objection to undeletion if someone is willing to commit to adding proper categories and descriptions to them. But if no one is willing to do that, then we end up exactly where we were before I deleted them: with a bunch of images of highly questionable educational or historical value, sitting in overly-broad categories totally unused. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Let X be the probability of these files being correctly categorised after undeletion. Let Y be the probability of any file being correctly categorised before undeletion. I am willing to bet 1000 dollars that in most situations X > Y. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I somehow assumed all of these would be relatively recent uploads. Because you wouldn't be that irresponsible. But clicking a few ones reveals an upload date in September 2018! And to respond to your final conclusion: for the sake of argument, assume you're right.. what's the problem exactly? @Gone Postal: I'm willing to bet all the money in the world. Pi.1415926535's solution for poorly categorized files is deletion, which does absolutely nothing but ensure they will never be categorized. If we just leave them, and over the span of a decade a mere 1% gets categorized, that's still a net profit for our collection compared to blanket deletion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Uncategorized files with poor filenames and descriptions (especially if out of scope) are not neutral. By clogging up search results and broad categories, they make it more difficult to find actually valuable files - a concept which most mass-uploaders on Commons seem to conveniently ignore. While I believe deletion is the best choice for these files, having them undeleted and categorized would be far better than the net negative of having them undeleted and uncategorized. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Even if these files were valuable, which they are apparently not, it is a serious mistake to encourage nuisance socks by allowing them to upload files after they are permanently blocked. Please don't restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • If you restore you may encourage somebody contributing to the project, when they are banned. If you do not restore, you are most definitely encouraging deletion of enducationally useful media without community conensus. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not under the impression that ever actually works. And "which they are apparently not"? You say this based on what? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to the possibility of a community proposal for adopting a type of en:WP:G5 deletion criteria. This type of thing seems to come up at least once a month. But I'm not sure it helps our situation to deal with out-of-process deletions via an out-of-process deletion rationale, at least until such a policy is adopted by the community.
I'm also not sure it's even handed to predicate this partially on whether the media can be properly described and sorted, without allowing the community to review the media to see if it can be easily described and sorted, and I still think these should be temporarily undeleted for the sake of this discussion. GMGtalk 11:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment So I remember that a while ago I have participated in the discussion to restore files, where the issue was raized that the information fields were not sufficient. So I have tought to find it and look through a couple of them, seeing if I can move them down the category tree or perhaps identify whatever they represent. But to my shock they are still not undeleted. Why??? If the only problem is that they are not described nor categorised, is there any reason to believe that the problem will go away if they will remain deleted? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I also wanted to look at some, but there's nothing to look at. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion -- we do not encourage abusers by keeping their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sai Ying Pun Station Exit B Photo College 201503.jpg

That is a photo of the entire area, and since it's a collage of hundreds of photos, each individual photo is really de minimis to me. Besides, I will try to resize the photo to 800x600 or 1024x768. So it can fullfill de minimis requirement and not clear.--Wpcpey (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The collage as a whole -- the arrangement of the individual photos -- has a copyright, so we cannot keep it without a free license from the person who did the arrangement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wpcpey: Do you mean that the photo will not loose its value when blurring the photos on the wall? If so, please do it and reupload. Ankry (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ankry: Is it enough blur? But I think this arrangement will get criticism from the public. [see https://i.imgur.com/DbaOusJ.jpg]--Wpcpey (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that after enough blurring (when the details of the copyrighted images on the wall are indistinguishable), the photo will be useless. So out of scope. But other opinions are welcome. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think it is enough blurring, I will upload later.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
My opinion in this matter is irrelevant for this UDR. Ankry (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:DW; undeletion clearly not needed to create other versions, regardless whether they are OK for Commons or not. Ankry (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Alojamiento web en la nube.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is originally from miposicionamientoweb.es, and was created before that the post on domainshostings.com which is a copy of the original. The deleted by copyright infringement claim is a fraud. Please, restore the image. Srrinon (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alojamiento web en la nube.png I see no evidence for CC-BY-SA 4.0 license on miposicionamientoweb.es. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Srrinon, please do not use words like "fraud" to describe actions by Admins here. "Fraud" requires criminal malice, which is extremely rare on Commons. In this case, the action was nowhere near fraud -- in fact, it was entirely correct. As noted above, the image appears on two sites, both of which have explicit notices prohibiting copying. In order for the image to be restored, policy requires that the actual creator of the image must provide a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion -- no evidence of a free license at source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


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

red necked falcon photo by me

this red necked falcon photo taken by me from koottanad and it published in mathrubhumi news paper they ɡiven photo credit to me and my name published in news paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shino jacob koottanad (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Recently denied UnDR, there is no new information here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Antony Souza

I would like the DR to run in accordance with policy.

It is claimed that an IRC discussion led to the DR being closed within minutes of creation. IRC discussions are fine, but they are not supposed to override the deletion process. In the seconds I had to view the files, at least two appeared to be of realistic value. So far, no reason that complies with deletion policy has been given to close the DR before the 7 days are up. Similarly the CSD F10 argument does not apply if the photographs are of realistic value, in this case illustrating genderqueer sensuality.

The DR closure has forced this thread at UNDEL, but this is out of process, it pointlessly bureaucratic in this case, and should not be necessary.

@~riley: as the administrator using speedy deletion out of process, and @Praxidicae: would you please confirm why you used IRC to have a private discussion rather than raising an on-wiki request? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose they were low quality selfies and out of scope. It's already been explained why they were speedily deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, some are in scope. Out of process deletions are out of process, there is no explanation that justifies using sysop tools unnecessarily out of process. The DR would enable that discussion and an open review for the community, compared to a secret discussion on IRC.
I am asking that administrators follow the community agreed process, not delete genderqueer related content and close a community deletion request out of process based on a private chat. --Fæ (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Tool abuse is a pretty hefty accusation, so is the accusation that Riley or myself participated in some sort of shady backdoor deal. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record diff shows the DR closed 5 minutes after creation. It was closed with the edit comment "as above", nothing else.
No mention of CSD, no mention of chats on IRC.
I am asking that administrators follow the community agreed process, nothing else. Policies are agreed by the community for good reason. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Fæ: Where does it say that it is against policy to speedy close a request that qualifies for speedy deletion? A reason was provided that it met CSD policy, you have decided that you do not agree and that is your right but the files were deleted hence why I have directed you here. How have you identified these as genderqueer content? The user gave no description or categories that implied it was genderqueer? It is dangerous territory to label or assume. IRC is a legimiate form of communication and it was in a public chat. ~riley (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    1. Why was the DR closed 5 minutes after creation without mention of speedy deletion or that the DR was created in error, or that the DR was being closed on the basis of an "un-logged" IRC conversation?
    2. Why does the deletion log for these files make no mention of speedy deletion but only refer to the DR, which was closed out of process?
    There is nothing in these uploads that requires speedy deletion. They are not copyvios, they are not nudity. In particular the photograph showing a masculine figure wearing feminine make-up has obvious illustrative value on a cultural topic that we lack good illustration for.
    The question to ask here is where in the policy does it say that anyone with sysop access can delete files and close down open DR discussion within 5 minutes of the DR opening, with the only rationale for that sysop action is the DR nomination, rather that explaining what exceptional circumstances have made that use of sysop tools necessary.
    The DR should be opened and run for 7 days as is normal, rather than creating arbitrary bureaucratic obstacles to doing this the right way. Speedy deletions only circumvent open community discussion in a DR when there is a critical need to do so. Replacing a community discussion with an off-wiki undocumented chat on IRC is in no way justified in this case.
    With regard to your comment about the user not adding queer categories, that is not a rationale for speedy deletion. As for your view that the photographs were not genderqueer, we apparently disagree, the fact you closed down the DR before the nature of the content of the photographs could be talked through shows why DRs should be left open for proper full community discussion, rather than off-wiki undocumented agreements between those with sysop access. --Fæ (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about with undocumented agreements between those with sysop access?! Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In particular the photograph showing a masculine figure wearing feminine make-up has obvious illustrative value on a cultural topic that we lack good illustration for. There was no such photo. Perhaps you're thinking of another deleted image. Praxidicae (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the discussion that prompted a speedy deletion instead of a deletion request, such a link would be evidence of being documented. By what has been put on the record so far, that agreement was undocumented as it was not mentioned either in the deletion log, or in the DR when it was first closed. Up until this moment, there has been no indication that the discussion, that would have been a maximum of around 2 minutes in real-time and presumably a lot less, involved anyone but a global sysop and a Commons sysop even if it was in an open channel. Neither has any confirmation been made of where that discussion was held on IRC, presumably in a channel which is not logged.
With regard to what I saw of these images, I did not make local back-up copies, I do not have them in front of me. The files need to be undeleted if we are all to explore their realistic reuse in an open community discussion about genderqueer illustrative photographs. --Fæ (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my "what are you talking about" question. What does between those with sysop access mean specifically? Praxidicae (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are fishing for. The DR closure was out of process, we don't accept speedy deletions as normal once a community discussion has been opened.
Let's have the DR correctly please, in accordance with policy, where you can put your own views about whether the files are in scope, and everyone else will be allowed to give their opinions based on the evidence. --Fæ (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay well, let me clarify since I thought that someone with 7 million edits to Commons would be capable of determining user rights: I'm not an admin and I'm under no obligation to answer your every demand and I don't appreciate being accused of collusion because I was trying to get rid of grainy, low quality vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support There should be a full DR since the applicability of F10 has been challenged. Let other users have a chance to comment on whether the files are in scope. clpo13(talk) 19:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • While I think that the images will not survive as they are rather self-promotional than illustrative, I  Support reopenning the DR as speedy has been contested. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a note as the deleting admin, I have no opposition to an admin undeleting these files and opening a new DR. My initial close was removed, without any preservation that a close was made - this is not how we handle edit conflicts. I directed Fae to COM:UD because that is where we take contested speedy deletions and the files were already deleted at this point per CSD. It seems most appropriate to undelete and start a new DR (rather than erasing previous history); I am leaving this decision to a neutral admin. ~riley (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    To clarify, the deletion log states "per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Antony Souza". Were these in accordance with CSD, the deletion log would give a CSD rationale or specific criteria. --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Why are you wikilawyering? It is common to speedy close using "per Commons:Deletion requests/FILE" and then proceed to explain on the DR. The DR tool did not save my note, or I was not typing into the box (misclick) and instead did the tool's default closure statement. I guess that doesn't matter anyways, because you erased my closure without preserving it. ~riley (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    diff was a nice courtesy, I am sure you can agree. --Fæ (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Completely aside from the question of whether they are in scope (I think not, but agree that on that issue a full DR could be useful) there is the question of copyright. They are all small and the one I looked at has no EXIF. The uploader's name is the same as the subject and he claims to be the photographer. They do not appear to be selfies, so someone else probably owns the copyright. I see no reason to restore them unless and until the copyright status is resolved using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I suggest to open the DR for discussion just about their scope and open it to people who are not only admins. While IMO, thay are OOS, I see no problem to discuss this inside a wider community. There is likely no copyright issue here. Ankry (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually several of the images are on an ig account, at least half of the deleted files. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing the EXIF data for the selfie with make-up. If they are copied over from Instagram, this may or may not shed light on copyright. It can work either way. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me reassure you that there is no such image that was uploaded that included makeup. Praxidicae (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
That's the opposite of reassurance, because the photograph I opened on my monitor had the same model wearing eye liner and lipstick. Perhaps you are misremembering.
Unfortunately if the files are versions that were first uploaded by the subject to Instagram, then the EXIF data will be automatically stripped by Instagram; it's absence just shows that's what happened. --Fæ (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Your monitor must be broken because I am looking at every single photo that was uploaded and not a single one contains a model wearing any sort of obvious makeup. There are only grainy, shitty filters. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
"Your monitor must be broken", is not a good rationale in the light of my experience, it does not give your views expressed here more weight.
What a pity the DR was closed early, otherwise we could get a community consensus and we could all examine the evidence, rather than have to trust your personal tastes, or what has been said on IRC in an not-specified open channel, being assured that this was not a private chat with one other person, not the obvious #wikimedia-commons, and apparently nobody else on #wikimedia-commons happened to see for some not-given reason.
The reasons to support the correct implementation of deletion process keep mounting up, following the correct process simply ensures transparency and accountability in a way that everyone can understand and would not think of questioning. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking at photographs on Instagram, it could be that over-saturation gave the model orange lips and emphasised eyeshadow, but being unable to examine the uploads makes it guesswork. --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Both of the subject's hands are visible and in one case he is in the shower. While it is barely possible that they were done with a self timer and camera on tripod, it seems to me beyond a significant doubt that these are selfies, as claimed. I see no point in spending time discussing whether they are in scope until we resolve the copyright question. The one I looked at had minimal EXIF from a scanner. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that Instagram strips the EXIF data, would that account for the EXIF on these files? Addressed below.
By the way, I have a Samsung that is over 3 years old, but even that came with open palm detection built in. This allows a user to prop up their mobile, and compose a selfie without touching the mobile, just waiving their palm when they are ready, and the camera takes a shot 5 seconds later. Having both hands in shot is less important than being in a selfie style.
I do not know what Instagram account may have some of the photos, but I can see the same model on Twitter using the same name. None of the Twitter media photos seem to be the same as the few uploads I had time to view.
Now having found them on Instagram, that account does have matching photographs. All look like selfies to me, with the phone either propped up on the ground, or at table or chair level for inside shots. The angles are positively unlikely to be this way if some other person were holding a camera or mobile, as nobody would choose to take a photograph with the camera lying on the ground, or with it at your hip level. A bit of analysis on 2 of the Instagram files, shows that the IPTC contains special instructions starting FBMD and the next 14 digits matching on both examples. This may mean little in the absence of a control sample, though it could be that these were published on Facebook before being republished on Instagram.
The evidence of what is and is not on Instagram (based on their no nudity policy) makes it unfeasable that someone other than the model scraped the photographs from somewhere else and uploaded them here. Digging through the logged database metadata, even a sample downloaded from Instagram that was one of the deleted files does not appear to have any obviously matching remaining EXIF data, meaning that the file was not downloaded from Instagram, then uploaded here. There is no FBMD number in the currently visible shower photo, nor is that photo from Instagram. Given the evidence we can analyse, in the absence of the uploader being asked to verify their identity, it seems highly unlikely that these photographs can be written off as being easily harvested from a social media page. --Fæ (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct deletion. And tha last image need to be deleted immediately. The Image shows a minor (very likely) in a very private sitiation. This image is not art, this image is not usable for a educational purpose. So it hae to be deleted. And the other images are just selfpromotion. Fæ, I respact your work here, but I think this is the cause you not become a SysOp. Such images are impossible to have them here. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a MassProcess error, sometimes it doesn't delete catch all files. Deleted per above. ~riley (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Think I just stepped on your toes here and made an error. After Marcus Cyron pointed out on the DR page that I may have forgot to delete this file, I went ahead and deleted it after checking the history (I realize now that deletions don't show there). It was not until after deletion that I saw the deletion history that shows you undeleted it to review EXIF. My apologies. I assume you are done though, and will leave it in it's current state per minor concerns above. ~riley (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: , no the model is not a minor (based on their online profile, they are 22 years old). If they were under 18, I would not be making public comments about the photographs, though only one of them shows anything more than being topless. Shots I see on Instagram include being on the beach and in the park, none would be classed as intrusive considering they are selfies they enjoy sharing on multiple profiles. If we keep the photographs it would be pretty easy to reach out with a DM to confirm they own the uploading account.
Rather than messing around, as the account is very obviously hosting photographs of the same person, I have sent a direct message on Twitter asking if they own the account here. Mi español es malo, so mostly en inglés. --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
that is so completely inappropriate to contact someone who did not disclose their personal ig off wiki, I don’t even know where to begin. Is this behavior really allowed on commons? Praxidicae (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Really? You think that contacting the known photographer to check that the release of their photographs on this project was with their permission and not by someone pretending to be them, breaks a Wikimedia Commons policy? We do it all the time and we, and you, should encourage it to happen more often.
As an OTRS member, why don't you check the OTRS-wiki for advice, and then give us some feedback on how OTRS volunteers are supposed to verify ownership. (Forgot to mention, I have been around so long that I wrote some of the guidelines on the OTRS-wiki). --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This should not have to be explained to you. You've posted their age, information about them that has never been disclosed on any Wikimedia project and contacted them off wiki on an account that was never disclosed on any project. Also see criteria #1 here, at this global policy
As far as OTRS goes, this is so far out of the scope of what OTRS agents are supposed to do, I'm not sure that you've even read the policies you supposedly wrote. We should not be seeking out random editors, off-wiki for their permissions. This is clearly not a person who is well known, they are not a career photographer that would have a reasonable expectation of such contact. Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This is wikilawyering for the sake of it. Don't misuse policies this way, it's not helpful for anyone.
The account User:Antony Souza is uploading photographs of themselves under their real name, the same photographs available that anyone can see on their multiple profiles online under their real name using the same photographs. Consequently per the oversight policy, they have "made their identity public" and cannot have any expectation that the community here will not refer to them using their real name as it is their identical account name.
Contacting named photographers to confirm that accounts on Wikimedia Commons uploading their photographs using their same real name are doing so with their permission, is perfectly normal and should be encouraged to validate copyright. To pretend otherwise is blatantly a misuse of policy and disruptive to this project.
If you are genuinely confused, and misunderstand our policies this badly, I am concerned that you are trusted with OTRS access.
Let me state this again, it's really important. Validating copyright is absolutely critical to the reliablity and continuance of this project. What you are explicitly doing here is attempting to scare me and others off correctly confirming the release of these files by contacting the publicly named photographer and model. These scare tactics to prove a point are disruptive and damage this project.
--Fæ (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
What part of Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not is unclear? Your competence in overall editing is a great concern at this point if you think behavior like this is normal or acceptable. In fact, the information you posted qualifies under the global policy for oversight. The information was not disclosed anywhere on any project. In fact, since I know what the username is, though I won't disclose it, your assertions that it is identical to their on-wiki identity is a blatant and outright lie.
Additionally, if you're concerned about my competence at OTRS, feel free to lodge a complaint in the correct place. I welcome your thorough analysis of my actions at OTRS. Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
You are acting foolishly by calling me a liar. You are again failing to read or understand "made their identity public" in the Meta page policy you are quoting from.
The Instagram account I have open in my browser explicitly uses the precise same full real name as the Wikimedia Commons account as the title for their account.
The Twitter account I have open in my browser explicitly uses the precise same full real name on their profile. It is this Twitter account I messaged the photographer on, politely requesting them to confirm if they own the Wikimedia Commons account.
Both accounts have either the same photographs as uploaded to Commons or photographs that are in the same set.
Using scare tactics to frighten Wikimedia Commons contributors off writing to named photographers to confirm the correct release of their photographs is wilfully disruptive for this project. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Fae, while it is quite normal and useful to discuss image authors here, the rules change if that author is also an editor. You have violated Common's policy about harassment, specifically the guidance about off-wiki harassment which states "Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment." Personally, I think you are only trying to help and I am sure you mean well here, but you should be mindful of the rules, particularly since you very recently tried to have me blocked with a false claim of "outing" you. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. Contacting a photographer about the release of their photographs, photographs that they have previously published at other sites under their real name and with public contact information, which are later released on commons under their precise same real name is not harassment.
You were are blocked by Oversight on the English Wikipedia for maliciously outing another editor, you are quite literally the worst person to lecture others on the topic.
Please do go ahead and create a complaint at COM:ANU, it would raise valid questions about your griefing. --Fæ (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I think you mean well here so I am not asking for any kind of sanction but I agree with Praxidicae that you have violated Commons:Harassment. I quoted the relevant part. It is very clear. Yes, I am indef blocked on Wikipedia. According to your block log, you were banned on Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee. Let me know when you're ready to have a civil discussion without your normal drama mongering. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose: It's clear that the deleting administrator and other administrators here have reviewed the images in question and do not see any problems with the deletion that took place. The nominator also has made strong statements regarding the content of the deleted images that support the deletion. Frankly, as there seems to be legitimate copyright concerns here, we simply cannot legally restore the content. As such, any discussion of whether or not the images are in scope must be set aside until the copyright question is resolved, which is the onus of the original uploader to initiate and confirm. Additionally, regarding the deletion being "out of process", administrators are given trust and latitude by the community to speedy delete and preempt any discussion if the issues with the subject material meet the criteria for speedy deletion even without an associated request on a noticeboard or a template. Please review Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion which states "... administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussions and immediately delete files or pages ..." (emphasis added). While not required, it would have been advisable for the deleting administrator to include the CSD reason in the deletion log, however he has explained several times here and at the DR discussion that they were deleted under F10. We, as users that cannot see the content in question, should trust our administrators unless there is clear evidence of tool misuse, and I see no evidence whatsoever of any tool misuse here. Waggie (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's how it happened:
  1. The DR was opened.
  2. Seconds later a discussion on IRC (in a channel that was not #wikimedi-commons) occurred between the DR nominator and the admin that was to delete the files.
  3. The DR was closed around 2 or 3 minutes after being opened.
  4. The files were all deleted, with the deletion log making reference to the now closed DR and the rationale given in the DR.
  5. I gave my opinion in the DR, getting an edit conflict, despite editing the page only minutes after creation. DRs are supposed to be open for 7 days, unless there are good reasons why not, like copyvios.
  6. I raised a courtesy request on the closing admin's user talk page asking for them to revisit the deletion, making it clear that an edit conflict had occurred.
  7. The deleting admin told me to take it up on UNDEL, despite the deletion being out of process and neither the DR guidelines nor the CSD guidelines being followed.
Nobody has said that they "not see any problems with the deletion that took place".
The retrospective discussion about CSD F10 Useless non-media files has been challenged as a rationale, several times, as the files have potential illustrative use. This is a discussion that should have been had in the deletion discussion not on IRC or at UNDEL.
Administrators do not have special rights to close down community discussion, and should not use IRC as a way to by-pass valid community discussion.
Administrators must be trusted to apply policies for deletion correctly full in line with the existing guidelines and per their community role defined by COM:Administrators, that underpins every RfC. Everytime there is a post-hoc rationalization as to why policies and procedures are not followed by anyone with sysop tools, this erodes the trust for the role of Administrator.
--Fæ (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 Support on the lines of procedure. DR was closed too quickly, and the community should decide if these are in fact in scope or not in scope. Abzeronow (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the DR had remained open for seven days, they would have been deleted for copyvio -- it is unlikely that these are actually selfies as claimed. They are small and have no camera EXIF. If that deletion had been brought here for restoration, any of us would have looked at them and required a free license from the actual photographer vis OTRS.

So, I don't understand why we are even bothering to discuss scope unless and until the uploader answers the copyright question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Per my reasoning above, I am going to close this tomorrow as not done unless someone raises a new reason why I shouldn't. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:GAKO fond R 4758 op 2 delo 3.pdf

Archive inventories are in public domain in Ukraine. Proper license: {{PD-Scan|PD-Ukraine}} (Template:PD-Ukraine) proper author: {{unknown|author}} proper source: State Archive of Kyiv. Year - 1944. Please restore the file with fixed values. --Maxbgn (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing about archive inventories at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a handwritten document. It is, therefore, very unlikely to have been published until recently. I both don't read the language and can't read much of the document (it is not a good copy), but large parts of it are clearly complete paragraphs all of which would have a copyright. It is also 104 MB, which is larger than our permitted file size of 100 MB. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
While I think there is no copyright related issue here as the inventory is purely informational and I do not think the size is relevant either, I doubt the file is in COM:SCOPE. I see no educational use of this particular set of notes, nor I see a way that it can be used in Wikimedia (eg. it is useless as a source for Wikipedia due to being unpublished). Ankry (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Some text logos (The Wire)

Here are some text logos from The Wire.

It seems might be also lower threshold of originality in the UK. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support for the first one, and  Neutral about the others: I cannot judge whether they are more complex than the Edge logo case. An opinion of somebody more familiar with UK ToO is welcome. Noting, that due to self-nomination by the uploader they all should remain deleted if not intended to be used. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ni3Xposite: Any reason we should undelete despite uploader's will? Ankry (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no reason to undelete provided. Ankry (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Lebanon FA logo.svg

The file was deleted on the basis that it is a "non-trivial logo". The logo in question consists of two monochromatic circles, text, a vectorial image of a football/soccer ball, and a vectorial image of the Lebanese cedar (which is already present in commons). In my opinion, the logo can be uploaded onto Commons as it does not contain a sufficient amount of original and creative authorship. --Nehme1499 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't have good information on the threshold of originality in Lebanon. This would probably be OK in the USA, but would definitely be under copyright in the UK. The Commons precautionary principle therefore requires us to not keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Therefore uploading the file locally on en.wiki with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} shouldn't be a problem, right? --Nehme1499 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This question should be asked in enwiki, not here. Ankry (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I think not, because it still might be under copyright in Lebanon. It might qualify for fair use, however. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Uttam Neupane Receving Nfdc National award from Prime Minister Sushil Koirala at Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.jpg

File:Uttam Neupane Receving Nfdc National award from Prime Minister Sushil Koirala at Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petter noca (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done COM:DW and no undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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

China Railway High Speed logos

Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ChinaRailwayHighspeed.svg. A logo set by former Ministry of Railway through and in an official document (and also a mandatory standard of Ministry of Railway)[1], which falls in the domain of Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China. No "TOO" problem involved. --5LZ (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Steven Sun and 5LZ: UDR is not the right place to discuse how copyright law should be interpreted. You should refer here to general established Commons rules or to consensus achieved in proper places, like COM:VPC for such case. I suggest closing this discussion and reopening when such a consensus is achieved. Morever, I do not think that English translation of a legal act has any legal value in China, so we should not refer to it. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support "textual documents", isn't this a confusing concept? Thus {{PD-ineligible}} applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Liuxinyu970226: Legal language is specific, and many words in it have different meaning than the same words in common use. Also many legal systems restrict copyright related freedom of documents to their texts. I must note, that this is not just voting, and opinions of users who do not work in copyright related works on Commons, who are mostly LRs and admins is irrelevant for me here (and among user discussing here only Wcam is LR), unless they refer to legal opinions, consensuses, etc. And also we have COM:PCP as a rule. If no clear interpretation or a link to a consensus about interpretation appears in 30 days since the request was started, I intend to close this request as stale. However, I will not oppose if another admin, especially Chinese-speaking, is willing to take a decision here. Ankry (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ 运装管验[2007]46号, 关于公布《动车组运用所标识标准》的通知 (On Announcement of the EMU Maintenance Station Visual Identification Standard, 23 Jan 2007), Ref No. TJ/CL361-2007

 Not done no rationale provided to doubt in earlier consensus that Chinese document copyright excetion applies to text only. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:1945.09.13 article Le Courrier du Soir.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Seeking advice on the copyright status of these 1945 Belgian newspaper articles. Would they be public domain now in Belgium because they were lawfully made available to the public and there isn't a known author? Or do these functionally have a known author and we have to use 120 year rule? Pinging @Josve05a the original nominator as a courtesy. Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. This seems to indicate the French legal concept of collective work has no equivalent in Belgian law. — Racconish 💬 07:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC) ... but in Belgian copyright law, anonymous work is credited to the publisher [8]. 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think all texts/images here can be considered anonymous/pseudonymous publications as neither of them is signed with full name. However, they seem to be copyrighted in US due to URAA (95 years since anonymous publication). Ankry (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done copyrighted in US. Ankry (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Media.io Beat Saber - Headset Instructions.webm

Hi,

Can this be undeleted please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveyflavin (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Probably File:Beat Saber - Headset Instructions.webm. The stated source is "taken from various videos and pieced back together" -- since those videos were certainly copyrighted, this cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the creators of all the various parts. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:DW: no evidence of free license(s). Ankry (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:ArdhNarishwar.JPG

I have been asked by the artist to upload this image on her behalf.

--Janmejay (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And why did you claim that you are the artist and how can we verify, basing on public records, that the artist did grant the free license? Ankry (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the question of copyright, the image has an obtrusive watermark leading to an advertising page. I suggest:

  1. You do not again claim that you are the artist when you were not.
  2. You read our policy on advertising, and
  3. You read COM:L, the need for a free license from the actual artist via OTRS.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  •  Not done Per above, if the artist wishes to freely license content that is not promotional in nature, they may do so by following the instructions at COM:CONSENT. We cannot accept unverifiable permissions via third party. GMGtalk 15:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Сергій Мартинюк.jpg and File:Сергій і Марія Мартинюки.jpg

I have found that the real author of the files is Kirill Latushev.

On Feb. 10, 2020 he sent a permission letter to permissions-uk@wikimedia.org

Please restore the files. --Perohanych (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per sasha. Ankry (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Ben Kayiranga en Imikenyero (vêtement traditionnel rwandais).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020022110006271.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020022110006271|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI Ankry (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Carel Stolker Portret 2019 HR-0212.jpg

I'm withdrawing my undeletion request. Webred Unileiden (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. @Webred Unileiden: And for future: please, do not remove comments which are not made by you. Ankry (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:10-class pupil and member of Young Communists League.jpg

The author was write in his talkpage, that he take this photo himself, in 1951. Author aged more 86 years (1933 birth), and it’s already difficult for him to cope with the rules of the wiki. --Kaganer (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Terrible quality and Commons has plenty of photos of unnamed Komsomol members. This contributor has also uploaded 1935 photo of Goebbels as own work. Currently indefinitely blocked. Thuresson (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
If author cannot follow on-wiki rules for some reason, they can still grant a free license following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The author can use COM:OTRS to grant the license as reqiured and provide information why the image is in scope. Ankry (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Phyllis_Chesler.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020022410006578 regarding File:Phyllis_Chesler.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes! You're right... My mistake. I've requested it. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: : Now we've got the right permission template. Please proceed. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done GMGtalk 18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Henry L Brandon FG-10 Corsair Alameda 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Brandonwikipage

I request temporary undeletion in order to assess whether these photos are {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Henry L. Brandon was a Naval Aviator. Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose They are claimed to be the work of the uploader. While it is not actually impossible that the photographer of a 1945 photo is still active, it is extremely unlikely. There is no indication of the actual source, but they have the borders of a typical consumer snapshot, so I think it is very unlikely that they are the work of an official photographer, particularly since they are of a particular individual. Much more likely -- beyond a significant doubt -- that they are snapshots taken with Brandon's camera by a friend. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept your assessment of this photograph. Request withdrawn. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CD San Camilo.png

this image no has copyright infraction --Alex Gonzalez 98 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose You must say why you believe that there is no copyright problem. The named source page has "Copyright © 2020", so there is no obvious reason why we can keep it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done "Copyright © 2020" at [9]. Thuresson (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File: ClubDeportivoQuevedo.png

please Restore this image cause i get permision for autors and owners.

--Alex Gonzalez 98 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In both cases an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please ask an authorized official of the football club to follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:UCLS Dean Fisher-056.jpg

Neglected to provide proper documentation of copyright, which I hope I've rectified with an email today. --UConnLawSchool (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @UConnLawSchool: --GMGtalk 15:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Restoring deleted OTRS:Pending / Achterberg images

Hi!

I requested undeletion of a lot of files, because of a misunderstanding by Arthur Crbz. He restored most(?) images, but not everything yet and has not been online since Feb 16th. Can another admin please help out by restoring the Achterberg images, so I can *finally* close this case?

See for previous discussion please Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_78#Misuse_of_admin_tools_-_Arthur_Crbz's_deletions

Ciell (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ciell: Do we have a list compiled anywhere of the Achterberg Collection images in question? GMGtalk 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
No, there was never need to create one. They were all uploaded by User:Hansmuller though and should be in the deletion logs. Ciell (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo All of the images in the collection start with "File:ASC Leiden - van Achterberg Collection", does that help? Ciell (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. @Ciell: It looks like some of these were in fact restored, but by that time the original OTRS pending date actually did qualify them for deletion, and @Regasterios: redeleted them, which is reasonable given no additional context. Do we actually have an OTRS ticket verifying these? GMGtalk 15:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, ticket:2019101010004977. I wanted to add it through a template, because the upload process is still not done completely. Ciell (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
And yes, I know they have now been deleted again. I was waiting for Arthur Cruz to restore them, so I could all tag them in one go. Ciell (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that works for me, as long as this has been vetted by a Dutch agent. GMGtalk 17:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm the OTRS-agent handling the ticket: that's why I don't want to be the admin that does the undeletion as well. Maybe Natuur12 can confirm this? Ciell (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Leaving this here. I got more than half way through but there's still more. I may have to finish up tomorrow though. GMGtalk 20:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: it's perfectly okay if admins do their own OTRS-undeletions when the ticket is valid :). I undeleted the rest of the files. I also confirm that the ticket is valid. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: All undeleted. --GMGtalk 00:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:InsutecFC.png

i got permision by titular — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Gonzalez 98 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Alex Gonzalez 98. If the copyright owner of the image is willing to release it under a compatible free license, they can do so by following the instructions at COM:CONSENT. But I'm afraid we cannot accept permission through a third party, based on personal communication. GMGtalk 16:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:BasEickhoutportret.jpg

This file in accordance to the guidelines. I don't know why it was deleted.--Leuwie (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leuwie
It was deleted because it was marked as a possible copyright violation. You mention [10] as your source. Who owns the copyrights to the image? Ciell (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Mo response. @Leuwie: feel free to reopen if you provide more information. Ankry (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:President Trump Travels to Florida (49482631968).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: White House Photos are in PD. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mike Pence in February 2020 219.79.96.65 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment The exif states for personal use only "This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House." Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 Support Assuming that the source Flickr account, which says it is "the official photostream from the White House", is that in fact, then the permission quoted above speaks only to personality rights and not to copyright. All work of the official White House photographer is PD. Personality rights would make many commercial uses impossible, but you could certainly make and sell T shirts with this image on them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: This clearly falls in the scope of PD-USGov. It was taken by a federal employee during the course of their duties. Any restrictions given are a textbook example of w:Copyfraud and can be safely ignored. --Majora (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Profile photo File:20190731 115643htd.jpg

Special:CentralAuth/Arunattrey23 has positive contributions at hi.wp, so a profile photo is justified per non-contributors of CSD F10.

@QueerEcofeminist: as SD requester, @Fitindia: as deleting admin. --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Fæ. I don't read Hindi, so I can;t tell if his 27 contributions there are meaningful or just building a user page. Can you? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

They are generally not great, quite a proportion are their user page profile, and early edits seem to include format problems, however there are positive contributions like writing about Giffen good (economics), which are good faith content contributions. This is not a vandal and this is a (newbie) contributor for which our policy allows for a profile selfie. I have no view on copyright or whether the image page text is all appropriate, but those are fixable things without CSD F10. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support OK -- he claims the image is a selfie, which it could be. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. @Arunattrey23: I suggest renaming this image to have more descriptive name. Ankry (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Portrait of H.M. King Humbert I of Italy.jpg

I present the request for this file relating to the portrait of the king of Italy Umberto I of Savoy, made in the late 19th century--37.182.21.222 18:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose. File Created by LTA and Commons doesn't have a shortage of images of King Umberto I. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done we do not support LTA. Ankry (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:La mémoire du President Mozambicain Samora Machel .jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020022610008554 .

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020022610008554|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Sofia lehlou

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020410008471.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020410008471|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: . --GMGtalk 20:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


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

Ticket#2020022410001841

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020022410001841 regarding File:Crown_Sydney_topped_out.jpg and File:Crown_Sydney_topped_out_2.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Aitor Irigoyen Odriozola idazlea.jpeg

Kaixo,

Aurreko irudia Aitorrekin hitz egin ostean, ez genekien gaztezulok pribatizatu zuenik beraz, ondorengo irudia jarri nahiko genuke:

File:Aitor Irigoyen Odriozola idazlea.jpeg

arazorik legoke?

ez dugu aurkitzen aitorri buruz idatziriko bibliografia gure zirriborroan... zer gertatu da? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetzi2 (talk • contribs)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Görsel ve tasarım için herhangi bir hak talebi ihlali söz konusu değildir. Tasarım ve görselin hakları bana aittir.

 Not done nothing to do File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:WM_PROFILE.jpg

'Fantagio.global' is the agency account of artist Weki Meki and owns the copyright on the photo. Uploading that picture is not a violation. If you need any documents, please let me know and I'll send them to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantagio.global (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fantagio.global: Wikimedia accounts are personal and anonymous. To host images already published elsewhere, we need either an evidence of free license at the initial publication site or a free license permission via email following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Carl Josef Statnik .jpg

== Der 14-jährige Comedian Carl Josef ==

File:Carl Josef Statnik .jpg

Diese Datei entstammt aus einem von mir durchgeführten Fotoshooting.

Andere Websites und Veranstalter nutzen dieses Bild nur auf Ihren Websites. Es gehört jedoch uns.

Bitte freischalten.

Vielen Dank & Liebe Grüße

--Endboss88 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose "© 2013 - 2020 Hannover Concerts GmbH & Co. KG Betriebsgesellschaft " at [11] and "© 2018 S-Promotion Event GmbH" at [12]. Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to verify that you are the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Harville Hendrix 6.jpg

File:Harville Headshot Approved 6

Please undelete the aforementioned image. I act on behalf of this public figure, who has full ownership to this image.

--Mone752 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Nat. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:RhymesOfWhimsy2ndEdCover.jpg

File was uploaded by user 'hatoncross' who represents the publisher of the book, i.e., Haton Cross Press, with the permission of the author, who holds the copyright of the image. A letter from the author can be provided on request. Amazon is only a distributor of the book. Appearance of a similar image of the book cover on Amazon's website does not mean the copyright belongs to them! ````

Please have the copyright holder send permission using the procedures at COM:OTRS. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per NAT: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Alicia_Llarena.jpg

La autora de la fotografía soy yo misma, Alicia LLarena González, es un selfie de mi propiedad, la cedí para su uso en la web www.hispanoamericanodeescritores.com donde consta claramente que el copyright es mío. No he dado ni firmado ninguna cláusula de exclusividad para su uso en ninguna web ni en ningún lugar. Por lo tanto, puedo usar la fotografía sin problema ninguno en la entrada de wikipedia “Alicia Llarena González”, que soy yo misma, la que hace también esta aclaración.

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rita Chris Garuba.jpg

This request for undeletion is being made because the content of the file was personally handed to be included in the publication by the owner of the picture herself whose biography is being published.

Those other locations were the pictures were found copied the original content from the owner.

I therefore appeal that the file be restored and included in the biography.

Thanks Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olajide.usman (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 February 2020‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file was deleted because it appears elsewhere on the web without a free license. I see that in the file description you claimed that you were the actual photographer. You now say that that is not correct. While our usual policy is to Assume Good Faith, it is hard to do that when we know that the uploader has made incorrect statements.

Also please note that the right to freely license an image (which Commons requires) is almost never held by the subject; it is almost always held by the photographer. That is true even when the photographer has granted a written license for the subject to use the image in publicity.

In order for the image(s) to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must directly send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of a written license from the actual photographer(s) allowing you to freely license their image(s). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Black is beltza.jpg

The uploaded image, the movie poster, is original. Created by director Fermin Muguruza. Who has commissioned me to update and create more pages in more languages of the movie 'Black is Beltza'. We need the image to illustrate the article.

The article in basque: Black_is_Beltza_(filma) Is a work in progress. We need the image to continue. Thank you.Nagore Vega (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please note that most Wikis do not allow paid editors to write or edit articles and that all such edits may be deleted on sight. I do not read Basque, so I do not know if that applies to your edits. I see that in the file description you claimed that you were the actual creator of the poster. You now say that that is not correct. While our usual policy is to Assume Good Faith, it is hard to do that when we know that the uploader has made incorrect statements.

In such cases, policy requires that the actual creator of the work must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Janine Leroux-Guillaume dans son atelier de Montréal en 1975.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020020810000238.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020020810000238|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mary Morgan-Richards and Steve Trewick 2019 with their book NZ Wildlife and weta.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019090310001147.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2019090310001147|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 03:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-02&oldid=529927868"