Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:REFUND)


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

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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

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

Adding a request

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

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

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


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Images of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial

Deletion request is here. Permission is in OTRS. Instead of closing the deletion request, files were deleted. The following discussion is here. Photographer published files under CC SA-BY 4.0. The sculptor agreed (there is no FoP in Estonia so this is why sculptors permission is required). The dispute is on how should that permission from the sculptor look like. Please help to solve that. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose ticket:2020071910004071 is not acceptable in its current form. 1) We do not accept forwarded permission; 2) the license must be explicit (i.e., for a CC variant, a version number is needed); and 3) permission must relate to explicit works. The sculptor, Jaak Soans, will need to contact us directly (not forwarded by other parties) and explicitly identify the license and works to which it is intended to apply. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Elcobbola. My position on the matter was made clear in the linked discussion on my talk page. Regardless of whether one accepts forwarded permissions or not, Ticket:2020071910004071 is insufficient. In any country where there is no freedom of panorama, such as Estonia, the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence and the copyright holder must specify, if a Creative Commons licence, the version of the licence in question -- especially so if there is a share-alike component. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm an OTRS agent. I did contact him directly.
Interpretation that "the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence" is way more strict that our official policies. As such I can not be considered standard or normal.
Specific license is clearly there. Photographer chose the version and sculptor agreed. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Nat and I are also both OTRS agents. Looking at your OTRS work, it appears that you routinely process your own tickets (!!!), which are often (always?) forwarded and often not from the indicated author. This is not "standard or normal" and suggests your status needs review. That the system has a built-in "rejection" template for forwarded emails (otrswiki:Response:en-Forwarded Statement (Direct)) has already been pointed out to you. Эlcobbola talk 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm the only Estonian speaking OTRS agent. Who else should process them? You?
Non-forwarded permissions are preferred, but it doesn't make them illegal, does it? Not to mention, that this sort of a newer development, it is rather vague (to put it softly) and I haven't noticed, that it is shared by that many people. As on legal matter that has close to 0 difference so that reasoning seems ridiculous.
Spreading ideas such as the sculptor should give his sculptures under free licenses etc are so far off from the normal, that I have the same questions regarding some other OTRS agents here. Not understanding how FoP works is kind of a problem.
As for the tickets I process (and I only do the Estonian ones) I know a significant % of people I change e-mails or have actually shared a lot more e-mails/messages with them prior to that correspondence. Including helping to upload the images or explaining why some stuff can't be uploaded in the first place (so almost everything that ends up at OTRS in Estonian is actually suitable, as presorting has already occurred). So with the ones who even got to OTRS I have often communicated via other means of communication. The reason is pretty simple: most people don't have a clue, that there is an OTRS system or how it works, so if they start to look about it, they will soon be in communication with me anyway (there is no-one else in Estonia, remember). And if I already exchange emails with them under my own email account, then it is utter nonsense to talk about how bad the forwarded emails are. In addition I am far better aware of where are the images coming from and if the person is who he says he is. But trusting OTRS agents is that difficult, then just say the system is broken. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: They become useless when the forwarding user becomes inactive for any reason. How can we ask for further information if a dispute appears eg. in 20 years? Ankry (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Some e-mail accounts cease to exist in a few months after correspondence (people switching jobs, institutions merging or splitting, etc; I've seen that surpisingly lot). In 20 years' time, a lot of people there would be unresponsive (or maybe even long gone) anyway. But then again, if there hasn't been a single problem in 20 years, then what is the likelihood of ever having that beyond this timeframe? Virtually none. It seems more of a hypotetical problem than a real one. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Contacting the copyright holder using your own email is fine, but OTRS should have been cc'ed at every step, and the copyright holder should always cc'ed OTRS in their responses. That is the appropriate practice. But the core issue isn't that the permission was forwarded (which is still problematic). The problem is licensing. As I've stated above, and so has another experienced admin, in the case where freedom of panorama does not exist, the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence and the copyright holder must specify, if a Creative Commons licence -- especially one with a share-alike component, the version of the licence in question. This is policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, I think this is not necessary that the sculpture itself is under a free license. This should be OK, if the sculpture author accepts that a particular DW of the sculpture is freely licensed together with the DW creator. This way, effectively, only the parts of the sculpture that are visible on the DW are freely licensed. Of course, making the sculpture freely licensed, is more convenient for us, but not for the sculptor whp may wish to exploit their copyright more selectively. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Kruusamägi contacted me on Facebook and asked me to weigh in. It is certainly not necessary that the sculpture itself be under a free license. The point of requiring free licenses is to allow reuse. If person A creates a work and does not free license, and person B creates a derivative work where both person A and person B agree to a free license for the derivative work, clearly the derivative work is under free license: that is our concern. Similarly, if an architect in France, where there is no FOP for buildings, gives a license for a photo of his or her building, we don't demand that the building itself be free-licensed! - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: Even if I concede to your point, the problem is that Ticket:2020071910004071 is still insufficient. Unlike what was claimed, at no point did the sculptor provide such an agreement to a specific version of a licence in the ticket. On your point about FOP for buildings, I have never seen or heard of such a case on Commons -- if you could provide some clear examples, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The sculptor made a very specific statement: he allows anyone to publish photos about his sculptures as long as photographer uses some version of CC SA-BY license. What is there to argue? Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nat: You seem to be addressing me with regard to something I did not say. I am not on OTRS and I have no idea what particular evidence we have for this particular photo. My point is that we do not need any particular licensing situation for the underlying work from which this image derives. All we need is for whatever parties may have copyright interests in this image, directly or indirectly, to agree upon a license. You asked for examples about my point, I provided them.- Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Addressing another point here: it is perfectly acceptable for someone with a copyright interest in a work to delegate precise licensing decisions to someone they trust. We have numerous OTRS tickets by which an artist or institutions has designated that a particular Commons account can be presumed to be acting on their behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: The examples that you've provided are cases where the copyright holders of the works depicted in the photos provided permissions under a specific version of a free licence per the tickets on their respective file description pages. Furthermore, the files are enumerated in those permissions. The case at hand is not the same.
On the issue with the ticket, all we have is a forwarded thread with insufficient permission and an unprocessed ticket -- which Kruusamägi should not process as he is an involved party.
Pinging @Krd, Ruthven, Sphilbrick for comment on how to proceed, as this is not only about permission itself, but also the process. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Permission is perfectly sufficient and the forwarded part is utterly irrelevant in the current case. You don't seem to be understanding how FoP related licensing works and I don't know how to explain that further. So I welcome getting some comments from uninvolved parties here. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not that we do not trust you Kruusamägi, but we tend to avoid forwarded permissions lately. Then, it's also something to be avoided to accept your own (forwarded) permission. What can be done now is to answer to that ticket ticket:2020071910004071, putting the copyright holder as recipient, asking them to confirm the permission to publish those photos of the monument under CC BY SA 4.0 license. They'll probably thing that we are stupid at Wikimedia, but we'll eventually have a confirmation on OTRS, being able to double check the sender's data.
In the future, this procedure is perfectly legit, but please put OTRS in cc at every step (as Nat suggested), asking the copyright holder to answer to everybody. --Ruthven (msg) 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Not so simple. There are a few problems regarding that.
1) He has had a rather long career and during that he has made many sculptures. Some of them rather notable. Naturally, we have more images than just those few photos of his sculptures here on Commons. And yes, surprise-surprise: CC SA-BY 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 have all been used as licenses for the images about his sculptures in Commons. And it might make sense to expect that people take photos of those monuments in the future as well, and may want to publish them under versions 5.0 or 6.0, that might come into existence one day. So there is clearly a need to have a version independent permission unless we want to start deleting this stuff. And even that specific sculpture is in the middle of Tallinn on one of the busiest public parks and that depicts a person we did put on our money when we still had Estonian kroons. So believe me, there are many photos even about that specific subject and it makes a lot of sense to make people's lives as easy as possible regarding on what they can do with the images. So the question is wider.
2) According to the law everything is perfectly suitable and that is valid permission. Different demands made here are not what is needed by the law and I fail to see how Commons policies change that, as I've seen none that indicate that our polices are that much more strict than the law on this specific question.
3) When someone sends me an e-mail that states he has talked to the person x, and that person x agrees to y, or when he/she forwards me the letter from person x regarding statement y, then we are clearly talking about forwarded e-mails that should be approached with caution. When I'm changing e-mails directly with person x regarding permission y, then this a very different story. So please someone explain to me why that is needed? Like where specifically is the problem? Since when that change was made are where might I read about that? In Estonia we have far more sophisticated methods of both identification and legal agreements that are almost daily used by virtually everyone. I can easily go there as well. Just as for mere letters, that OTRS collects, then no distinction is made. So I'd like to be super clear on what specifically is needed and why as this is something alien in Estonia.
You may also notice, that I already sent 7 e-mails to him and from the first e-mail from me to the final answer by him, it took two and a half months. So it isn't that simple, than just sending an e-mail. He doesn't even seem to check his e-mails more than once a month. And when there are clearly people here, that demand very different kind of permission, then I'm not jumping on joy to start pestering that old man once again at a moment when there isn't even a clear understanding of how that permission should look like. This last thing seems like a thing we should first agree on. Are these people now really understanding why that permission is worded like that and do they understand that this is legally ok thing? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kruusamägi: We have no deadline and there is no rush. If it takes two, three months or longer, so be it. As I've stated in other discussions, if forward-compatibility is an issue, then the sculptor should specify that they authorise photos of their works under CC-BY-SA versions 2.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons. (e.g. "I, [name], the creator and sole copyright holder of [Statue A], hereby authorise all photographs of [Statue A] to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, versions 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons" or the eventual Estonian translation of such a statement). Such a statement would cover the specificity required and allow photos to be released under different versions of the licence. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
He has made many sculptures. That is also why emails contained a list of his creations and he stated that images of all of his creations could be freely shared [under whatever version of CC SA-BY license the photographer may choose]. So this [Statue A] option is problematic.
In here, I'd like to be sure, that the next e-mail sent would solve all the loose ends. That is: I don't want to pester the man with a bunch of e-mails unless I'm sure we have an agreement on what is the preferred solution. Like should it list all the works (works listed on appendage 1) or may it be more ambigious (of my sculptures), that could also cover the future works he may produce [like it is in the current form].
What is the best solution in this specific case is also rather important for the reason, that there are plenty of sculptors and architects alive today in Estonia, who can grant a similar  permission. It is not clear on when the FoP situation in Estonia could change (we have tried to deal with that topic for years, but finally gave up, as all updates to the copyright law have failed and lawmakers have decided to just look and wait whatever will EU request). So it is impossible to predict when that might change (a year, 10 years, never?). Therefore it makes sense to collect those permissions in large numbers. And that is an important precedent. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kruusamägi: The issue (and if I wasn't clear before, I apologise) is that specificity is required -- especially, regarding the version of the licence. The following should address your concerns:
I, [name], the creator and sole copyright holder of the following:
  • [Work A], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work B], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work C], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work D], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work E], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work F], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work G], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work H], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work I], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work J], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work K], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]

hereby authorise any and all photographs of all my [works/sculptures/publicly displayed works/etc.], including, but not limited to, those enumerated, to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, versions 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons

Thoughts? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how that is any way more specific on the license version, but it that allows to move forward with this, then I'll write to him tomorrow. I assume I can at least skip the sculptures, that are in the Nederlands and in Germany. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a counterproposal. The permission could read like this: "I permit the two-dimensional reproduction and the public communication of such copies of all works created by me.". This is modelled on what's permitted under German FOP paragraph (cited here). The permission can be more restrictive if necessary, e.g. concern only works permanently located in places open to public, or concern only exteriors. Instead of "all works created by me" it can list individual works, but I don't see a good reason to require the latter, especially if it'd say "not limited to those enumerated" anyway (as suggested above), and since quantifier "all" is also explicit.
Other kind of permission suggested above ("authorise all photographs of my work under some CC license") is problematic. First of all, an author can license only their own work (their own rights to it). Sculptor can endorse the use of some CC license by photographer, but what's the point of it really? Photographer can license their work under some CC license regardless and if incorporated material is unfree then the license is just applicable to certain extent (see CC FAQ). Instead, what we are (or should be) explicitly interested in is the sculptor's right to reproduce their work. CC license, designed for releasing the entire work, is a poor instrument to license this particular right. Also, as already mentioned to Nat earlier in their user talk, sculptor neither has to license their work under free license, we don't require this for works that are in countries where there is freedom of panorama. Pikne 09:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pikne: No. Firstly, the usage of the passive voice is an issue. Secondly, that statement does not explicitly allow the derivative to be licenced under a free licence. In the absence of freedom of panorama, this is required. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't object grammar changes as long as it doesn't change meaning. Based on what you claim that in the absence of freedom of panorama such statement is required and otherwise it isn't? Sorry, but this makes no sense. Neither does German FOP paragraph (mentioned above) explicitly allow the derivative to be licensed under a free license. My reading of COM:FOP is that isn't an issue, at least as long as derivation (reproduction) by appropriate means is considered. Pikne 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In the absence of FOP, policy requires that the author of a derivative work seek permission from the author of the work depicted to place the derivative work under a free licence. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You refer to text on this drawing, right? It does not say what you claim above ("explicitly allow the derivative to be licensed under a free licence"). The only way to read this without contradicting how freedom of panorama is actually treated on Commons seems to be as follows: you need original author's permission to upload your work to Commons, where in any case you need to put your work under free license. Different interpretation (emphasis on free license) contradicts explanation in CC FAQ (already referred above), per which you actually can incorporate unfree work in your work and still put your work under free license (you just can't upload it to Commons in most cases), and as already described above, it contradicts how Commons treats buildings/sculptures in countries where there is freedom of panorama. This drawing text should probably be corrected so that it was less confusing.
To further clarify, freedom of panorama as a copyright exception limits derivation in any case and by definition. Under freedom of panorama you generally can create two-dimensional derivative works, which is considered enough to make the exception applicable in Commons, but you generally can't create and publish, say, another sculpture based on photographs of original sculpture. Supposedly you can argue that the latter kind of derivation needs to be allowed too in order to consider photographs as "really free", but this is not the current stance of Commons (otherwise large part of images of building/sculptures simply weren't there). COM:FOP#Further derivative works covers some aspects of the specificity of FOP-related derivation, too, and COM:L under "Scope of licensing" also makes a brief mention to "some rights" the architect may hold.
By the way, above I raised questions on what it means if sculptor in their permission simply endorses photographer's copyright statement, without saying anything explicit about their own rights. Why do you overlook this? Pikne 08:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The letter was sent and this is based on what Pikne proposed. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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


Request reason: Rick Cordeiro is a notable actor. It is no way to way these files are out of scope. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose @A1Cafel: The uploader Nhl4hamilton states that they are Rick Cordeiro on their userpage. But none of these images or photos of Rick Cordeiro uploaded by Nhl4hamilton are seemly selfies or self-portraits. Under Canadian federal copyright law, unless the copyright was transferred in writing and signed, the copyright holder is the photographer -- this includes commissioned work. OTRS may be required. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The above is true for post-2012 Canadian photos. For earlier photos (these photos were uploaded in 2011) copyright belongs to the initial owner of the photo medium (film, memory card) unless a contract states otherwise. While this still may need OTRS, the photos were not deleted due to copyright issues, but due to COM:SCOPE issues. As the subject is notable, they are in scope and the deletion was unjustified. I   Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ankry. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Done per discussion: in scope. Feel free, however, to re-nominate for deletion with another rationale. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Joe Kirby Reimagined.png

Undelete that,That is my Work since im Leogames2016 on Scratch LeoKids123 (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - This request isn't responsive to the reason for deletion. That notwithstanding, this is a derivative of the Kirby character. While you may have made certain contributions, they do not remove the original underlining expression (e.g., the vertically elongated eyes; the spherical body; the over-sized conical feet; the narrow oval "cheeks"; etc.) and thus do not remove the original copyright. As an alternative, even if it were entirely your expression, that wound render it mere fan art with no realistic educational purpose. Эlcobbola talk 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:St stefan grundriss.jpg

Deleted because no FOP (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:St stefan grundriss.jpg). But, {{FoP-Turkey}} (if ever this is exterior). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a printed plan of the church. Unclear where it was presented and whether FoP-Turkey applies to it. Pinging @Fragwürdig: the uploader if they are still around and if they wish this image to be undeleted. This deletion was a self-nomination by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose undeletion as deleted per uploader request. Anybody can upload this or similar photo if they are able to provide an evidence that FoP applies here. Ankry (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - {{FoP-Turkey}} applies to "Works of fine arts permanently placed"; as per above, this is a "printed plan" and does not appear permanently placed (and one wonders whether it would be considered "fine art".) Absent evidence that this is permanently affixed, there's no basis to believe this qualifies for FoP treatment. Эlcobbola talk 17:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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


Comme indiqué lors du débat sur la page concernée, la photo prise par G Ferney au début des années 50a été mise en Créative Commons par son ayant droit unique (Christian Floquet). La suppresion de cette image s'apparente ainsi à une révocation de la licence libre à l'encontre de la philosophie et des principes meme de Wikipédia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayeul 75 (talk • contribs)

@Mayeul 75: Link to the free license publication or OTRS ticket number with the permission, please? Ankry (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

All details (including free license publication) were on the deleted file/page. So I cannot help you.--Mayeul 75 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no link to a freely licensed source site there. It is up to the uploader to provide evidence for copyright status. If the uploader is not the author, but the author's heir, they also need to follow COM:OTRS or provide another evidence that they own copyright. I see no such evidence and it is up to the requester to provide it. The uploader was Priad123456789. Moreover, in this case, the uploader claimed that they are the author (photographer) and this contradicts with the information that the author died in 1982. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
We can undelete the photo in 2053 if no evidence of free license is provided before this date. Ankry (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done No evidence of free license; OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Irynarybakova93

== File:3агс.jpg ==

Reason: я є автором цієї світлини і можу надати RAW-файл чи факли, зроблені до і після Irynarybakova93 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

== File:Репорт 19.jpg ==

Я являють автором цієї світлини і можу надати RAW файл.

== File:Колоннаввввввв.jpg ==

Я є автором цієї світлини і можу надати RAW файл

== File:Пппі.jpg ==

Reason: Я є автором цієї світлини і можу надати Raw-файл Irynarybakova93 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

== File:Впост.jpg ==

Reason: File:Впост.jpg Irynarybakova93 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Ankry (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:2017 Chuck Mead photo.jpg

Hello, I am requesting an undeletion of the photo of Chuck Mead entitled Chuck Mead 2017.jpeg

I have attached written permission from the photographer to use. Please let me know if you need any further info.

--Moremarkable (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment from non-admin: @Moremarkanle:. I think there are two problems: 1) this should be attached on the electronic form through email (Commons:OTRS), and 2) that permission is still insufficient. It doesn't indicate free commercial use. Under Commons:Licensing, all media files in Commons must be freely usable as much as possible, including non-personal and commercial reuses and/or publications by anyone off-wiki. But since he permits use on Wikipedia, it should be reuploaded there (locally on English Wikipedia) and use w:Template:Do not move to Commons, under the reason that the copyright holder has allowed use on Wikipedia, but did not provide for permission for commercial reuses (a number 1 condition for files to be kept here on Commons). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This is effectively forwarded permission, which we cannot accept. Joshua Black Wilkins will need to contact us directly using the email indicated here (i.e., one that is verifiable) through the process at COM:OTRS. That permission, further, must identify an explicit license and be applicable to everyone, not merely "anyone related, in business with, associated with and hired by [Chuck Mead]." also has this requirement ("Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia [...] are unsuitable." (w:WP:IUP)), so the bizarre suggestion this be uploaded there instead should be disregarded. Эlcobbola talk 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: for a long time I thought Wikipedia can be a suitable place to host files that are not OK at Commons (including files not licensed for commercial use and all images of Philippine landmarks that are not allowed here because of no FoP in the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Image link fixed. @JWilz12345: English Wikipedia Fair Use exception does not apply to photographs of living people. But I do not think that Commons is the right place to discuss this. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done Needs appropriate OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Some photos from Mozambique colonial-era landmarks

Files were deleted because "no FoP in Mozambique". But Commons:FOP Mozambique has one exception: structural artworks created / published before 1975 (that is, the Portuguese colonial era) cover the old colonial-era copyright rules that allow FoP.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Unless I misread the exception in Commons:FOP Mozambique, the photo itself needs to be made before 1975 for this exception to be applied. "The 2001 copyright law of Mozambique appears to be retroactive." And so, in order to apply this exception, the photo to be published here must originate from the Portuguese colony of Mozambique, and not from Mozambique as an independent state. Any comment? I do not think that any of the above photos is so old. Ankry (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg (2nd UNDEL attempt)

Most likely a photo of a station building in LRT-2, deleted because of no FoP in the Philippines. For the record, this is my 2nd undeletion attempt (the first was unsuccessful). However, through a new input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United Nations station by our fellow Pinoy Wikipedian Higad Rail Fan (who happened to have participated the October 15, 2020 webinar of IPOPHL on copyrights), there is now basis for the undeletion of this image file. Though FoP is still one of the proposals being discussed as of now for the possible amendments of the current copyright law of the Philippines (and a moderator from IPOPHL confirmed that photos of architecture in the Philippines are recognized as derivative works of the architecture), there is also an input from IPOPHL that "in general common design elements cannot be copyrightable." LRT station designs, whose designer was Francisco Mañosa (d. 2019), are based on the traditional bahay-kubo design. I also assume that all LRT-2 stations are also based on this design, and in my personal experience there are similarities in the designs of LRT-1 and LRT-2 stations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added an image collection here for comparison purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

University of Texas at San Antonio

File:Paseo at UTSA.jpg

This photo added was from the official university flickr account. I personally verified this information. The images were deleted with no real proof that it wasn't from a legitimate source.

File:Seb-exterior 2.png

Again: This photo added was from the official university flickr account. I personally verified this information. The images were deleted with no real proof that it wasn't from a legitimate source

File:UTSA Main Campus Entrance.jpg

Again: This photo added was from the official university flickr account. I personally verified this information. The images were deleted with no real proof that it wasn't from a legitimate source.


See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 189866422@N05.

  • @Beepbeep210: How did you verify that the Flickr account in question is officially linked to UTSA? As has been stated in the deletion discussion, this is somewhat doubtful. In such cases we usually need a verification by email from the involved organisation. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Requestor would have us believe that this Flickr account is the official account of The University of Texas at San Antonio despite: a) being created August 2020; b) having only 11 photos; c) having 0 Followers; d) following 0 others; e) blatantly misrepresenting the photos of others to be their own; and, my favourite, misspelling their own name "Uinveristy of Texas at San Antonio" (!!!). This is transparent nonsense. Эlcobbola talk 16:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @De728631: I verified this by sending the university a message via e-mail. Those requesting to delete these photos never bothered to verify for themselves yet still linked the university communications website. Their email is listed near the bottom of their website: Beepbeep210 (talk)
  • @Elcobbola: Also to note, spelling a word wrong is not "proof" that a profile is illegitimate. Humans make mistakes. Beepbeep210 (talk)
    • Per our rules, those requesting to delete these photos were not required to prove that the Flickr profile is actually legitimate. Instead, as the uploader it would have been your task to provide verifiable evidence from the beginning, and in such cases we do not accept personal email contact. To undelete the images, a UTSA representative needs to send a verification email using the process at COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Humans do a great many things. Humans also lie, and lies are often betrayed by mistakes and inconsistencies. That notwithstanding, I've not called anything "proof"; I've given a number of red flags that, in aggregate, are significant doubt. Is there a particular reason you've not addressed any of the other concerns, or the optics of their combination in the context of your duty to provide appropriate evidence? Is there a reason you've not had the person at UTSA with whom you've purportedly spoken contact us directly? Эlcobbola talk 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  Not done Nothing substantially has changed since the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 189866422@N05. Thuresson (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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


I own the rights to this. Please undelete!--Polariscapital (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - This is the cover of Forbes India. Previously published works (e.g., [1][2],[3], etc.) require additional evidence of permission to be summited using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done As per Эlcobbola: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bros article 1990.jpg

Dear Wiki

I am the copyright holder of this work and it was created 17/9/1990 through my publication of magazines if you wish to contact me you can email, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageorge789 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 October 2020‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose - 1) This was an out-of-process recreation by a sock and 2) owning a tangible, physical copy of a magazine ("Upload images from my own personal collection" [4]) does not mean you own the intangible copyright(s) associated therewith. This is a mere scan of a magazine which you have no ability to license freely. The actual author/rightsholder, presumably the publisher, can provide permission using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done per Эlcobbola. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Maralou Gray - Against All Flags.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason for deletion by the administrator I don't believe is valid enough, the sources and photographer credits were provided. Most of these photos were taken prior to 1950, which I believe puts them in the public domain. Please advise. BioWriter818 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - COM:EVID requires "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain." (underline added) For this image: a) you claimed the source to be "Maralou Gray," an 89-year-old actress who is the subject of the image (copyright is generally held by the author, photographer, or, in this case, the studio--not the mere subject); b) you gave the author as "unknown," (i.e., unknown to you personally, not necessarily to the world); c) you gave only the creation date (copyright term is generally based on date of author death or publication, not mere creation); and d) you applied a bogus cc-by-sa-3.0 license, which is not PD. No evidence--let alone appropriate evidence--was provided. The other files nominated with this one suffer the same infirmities. Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done Evidence of PD status is needed, belief is not enough. Note: the copyright status for anonymous photos (is this one's author really unknown?) depend on publication country and publication date; this is irrelevant when the photo was made in most cases. Ankry (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Постер к фильму Мисс Американа.jpg

Это постер к фильму и его можно спокойно использовать в статье на Википедии JustElf13 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - As you say, this is a movie poster. You yourself attributed it to Netflix. We do not accept non-free works and do not allow fair use. (Indeed, you uploaded this with the UploadWizard, the very first page of which is a giant licensing tutorial image which makes this quite clear, including in Russian.) Эlcobbola talk 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a poster of movie! I can use it on Wikipedia and as I want, omg, why moderators don't want to help to new members and just deleting everything??? You just want to get achievements on wikipedia or really help it? It was already used on English Wikipedia! Check Miss Americana, so why I can't use it on Russian Wikipedia? JustElf13 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Dear Эlcobbola, please, just stop do it. You do not want to help Wikipedia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustElf13 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 October 2020‎ (UTC)
COM:AGF, like my comment above and the numerous warnings on your talk page, appears yet another thing you've not read. Эlcobbola talk 16:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This poster is free to use and I readed what you wrote to me. You doesn't give me an answer why it can be uploaded on English wikipedia and can't on Russian. And why? Because You don't care at all! You don't want to help Russian Wikipedia be better! JustElf13 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I can't help with you, please, leave wikipedia forever and give your work to somebody who really cares about it and want to help JustElf13 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia allows fair use of images that are otherwise copyrighted and non-free. However, at Commons all uploads must be free to use as declared by the copyright holder and not with a fair use rationale. So while the English Wikipedia often shows movie posters or album covers in the articles, such images usually cannot be transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done Copyrighted movie poster: no Fair Use on Commons. Ankry (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:A Photograph Of Various Symbols Of Climate Crisis (47967625367).jpg

The copyrighted mural in the image is not the focus. Perhaps COM:DM could be applied (IMO Guidelines #3 or #4)? -- 04:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. However, if somebody wishes to blur the mural and they think the image will be stiil in scope, this might be OK. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Elena Rezanova.jpg

Dear Sirs, this photo was made by me, and I have all the authorship right to use it. All the websites use this photo with agreement from Elena Rezanova side, so you can find a hundred websites which are using it now. To prove that this photo was made by me i can provide you the date and camera type it has been made with, so I'd like to protect this photo for the Elena Rezanova page from further deletion.

Best regards, ~~ Roman Martsinkevich ~~

Anybody can say this. We need an evidence for your statement. Please, follow COM:OTRS instructions. This is needed for any photo that has already been published without a free license granted by the photographer. We cannot rely on on-wiki license declarations for published photos due to legal reasons. Ankry (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Among Us - Mira hq map.jpg The author of this image gave full permission to use his work.

The author of this image gave full permission to use his work.

  Oppose A permission to use is not the same as a permission to grant a license. We need either an evidence that the copyright to this work was transferred to you or a free license permission directly from the author. Both can be provided following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the photo is checked by the person who is on the photo Pedkritis (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the deletion reason. We need an evidence that you are the photographer as you claimed. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Graph 1000 CS.jpg

Works uploaded to Commons are only required to be free with respect to copyright. According to COM:UA, "The same is true when a statue or carving is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in the Mazer case, is incorporated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee's intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies' dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill." And image has no originallity, it's just a photograph that mechanically describe the product. So, it has no copyright as a photograph.

And also:

--Turror (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Turror: The products are indeed utilitarian. However, while the utilitarian product is not copyrighted, its image is. Your image is a COM:DW of copyrighted image. The original image source page claims "Copyright Pentel Co. Ltd. All Rights Reserved" which is not a free license declaration. If you make own photo of the Pentel products, it should be OK. Ankry (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! --Turror (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brod u boci - plakat filma.png

Imamo sva prava na ovu fotografiju, jer smo valsnici nje.

File:Brod u boci - promo -2.png

Imamo sva prava

Images of PD-RusEmpire monuments

  Support undeletion; probably deleting admin mistake. But let's wait for his comment. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  Support as closing admin, see no reason to delete the files months after the DR was closed. Sealle (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File: Billetes-BCU- (## de 126) copia.jpg

Banknote images taken from Banco Central del Uruguay website. Terms of Use, found here, state:

El usuario puede ver, trasladar a su computador, imprimir o reproducir total o parcialmente el material disponible en este Sitio, sin someterlo a modificaciones o alteraciones que impliquen menoscabo de su contenido, para uso personal, académico o de su organización, siempre que lleve a cabo tales operaciones sin fines de lucro y citando la fuente de la cual procede.

This allows to reproduce the material as long as it is not altered, not commercialised, and it is cited appropriately.

--Sebast732 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose That does not allow me to sell coffee cups with photos of these bills. See also COM:CUR#Uruguay Thuresson (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose Wikimedia Commons images must be free for comme=rcial use by anybody. The Bank permission does not allow for this. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:אמיר איל.jpg

--Daniellag007 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Hello, my name is Daniella from Infinity house of investment. this picture is ok fot use in Amir Ayal page. It photographed by Nofar Handelman and we paid her about this. please upload it again to the page. Thank you, Daniella Grumet

  •   Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gigi Hangach Singer.jpg

File:Gigi Hangach Singer.jpg Please do not delete the file. I am new to this. I am not familiar how to do the licensing. I am connected to this person and learned I can not do edits due to the fact I am her music manager and own her record label. Gigi owns the rites to this pic uploaded from her record label web page. Thank you Philip H Taylor (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - After this file was deleted 04:36, 20 October 2020, you reuploaded it out-of-process as File:Gigi Hangach.webp at 11:40, 20 October 2020. In the reupload, you claimed it "a work by Taken by a fan and given to Gigi it is all over the internet." The fan would be expected to own the copyright, not Gigi Hangach. Hangach would own the copyright only if it had been formally transferred by a written conveyance; if such a document exists, it needs to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Please also see COM:PRP#5 and gratis versus libre. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Jimena Fosado 3.jpg and Jimena Fosado 1.jpg

We have signed and emailed the grant as required by Wikipedia using Wiki's template language.

File:Jimena Fosado 3.jpg

File:Jimena Fosado 1.jpg

OneMississippiMusic (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC) John M Torres Jr Attorney at Law 206-501-9703

This seems to be ticket:2020101710009242. @OneMississippiMusic: OTRS is served by volunteers who are overloaded and the permission needs to vbe verified by an OTRS agent. If the permission has been signed by the actual copyright holder (the photographer or a person being able to provide a copyright transfer contract with the photographer), the images should be undeleted soon. Please, be patient. Ankry (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:"Eophasma jurasicum" by Daemon Canchig.png

Hello I would like to undelete this image: File:"Eophasma jurasicum" by Daemon Canchig.png Here the reasons: 1 - I'm the creator of thid image. My artistic name for images is "Daemon Canchig". My name as a contributor in Wikipedia is "Wendigocanibal". 2 - The image is original, based in the information about "Eophasma jurassicum" in fossil databases on Internet. --Wendigocanibal (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Wendigocanibal

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

File:George A Danos, President of the Cyprus Space Exploration Organisation (CSEO).jpg

This file was deleted with explanation: non-free image of living person, fails WP:NFCC#1

I believe that this in not the case. WP:NFCC#1 states that a non-free image can be used if:

1) Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Which is indeed the case. Therefore I understand that the image does not fail that condition, but meets the condition. If somehow I am miss-understanding the above regulation, can I please request for a clarification and temporary undeletion to properly discuss. Thank you.

Stellar77 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Procedural close: This file was uploaded to, and deleted from, This is the Commons and we both cannot restore a file that was not hosted here and cannot accept fair use. These comments will need to be made there--see, for example, w:Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Эlcobbola talk 21:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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


تAachener Dom[[Media:[[Category: Commons]]]]

  Not done: Procedural close. No request made. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Fig Phones or Fig devices.jpg

== Fig Phones or Fig devices.jpg ==

The file is original work uploaded by author KnowKiri,

However this file has been deleted with malicious intent by user Majora.

when the original author checked on 10/21/2020, he found a log entry showing the file has been deleted by User Majora.

This User Majora is shown as Retired and not reachable to check the cause for deletion of some other users art from wiki site.

My request is can the wikimedia commons undelete this file and reinstate into original article.

Here is the deletion log: 03:20, 19 December 2019 Majora talk contribs deleted page File:Fig Phones or Fig devices.jpg (Nonsense (G1)) (thank) (global usage; delinker log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowkiri (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 October 2020‎ (UTC)

  Not done: This is nonsense with no reasonable prospect of restoration. Let's not waste another moment of anyone's time. --Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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


This file is uploaded by user Knowkiri, and maliciously deleted by user Majora.

Kindly undelete this file (File:Fig_Phones_or_Fig_devices.jpg) as this file is original work contains hand drawings and original work has been maliciously deleted by user Majora (mailicious user who has inactivated the account after deleting the file)


  Not done: procedural close. duplicate request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:José Palazzo M. de Oliveira.jpg

This file is my personnel photo that I employ in all sites and web services. The page is my personnel page - any other problems contact me at - to verify the autenticity of the e-mai go to José Palazzo M. de Oliveira (talk)

  Not done: Procedural close: UDR is for requesting restoration of deleted files. This file has not been deleted. Instructions for next steps are on both the file page and your talk page. --Эlcobbola talk 18:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)