# Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:REFUND)

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

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

## 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.

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

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

## Archives

 Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

# Current requests

## Locator maps of Latvian parishes

In deletion request original uploader (re)confirmed that they are the author of the following maps. Also evidence was provided that public source data of these maps is open data. Author has released their maps to public domain, they are a prolific mapmaker and administrator on Latvian Wikipedia. In response to my recent enquiry they say that they a professional cartographer. Years ago they have documented their mapmaking process here. So there seems to be more than enough reason to assume good faith that these maps are not copyright violations.

Nominator in their laconic remarks in turn did not provide any evidence that there are some other non-free maps that these maps might be derived from. Closing admin in their post-closure response doesn't seem to know either why should we doubt about the freedom of these maps. Hopefully this is a misunderstanding and these maps can be restored. Or, if not else, then hopefully now we can shed at least some light on why were these maps deleted, and why shouldn't we delete pretty much all other maps on Commons in similar manner (as we are never 100% sure that everything is alright copyright-wise).

--Pikne 07:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

## File:Yoga Training In Rishikesh Akshi Yogashala (258662567).jpeg

The nomination was based in "metadata contains Facebook, as source" but clearly is the same author for both files, and it's possible by the law have different versions of the same file, under different licenses. Moreover, the author could always choose to latter publish a file in a more permissive license. So, the justification is not valid.

Gbawden it's not the first time that you do not check the votes and wrongly delete a file of mine. jeff g will always include "delete" in files that I upload, because he loves me and want hard my attention, so you need to pay more attention. ---- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Is there an OTRS ticket containing Wikimedia and Facebook users identity confirmation by a highly trusted independent user? We should be able to verify identity even when Facebook account disappears. Ankry (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ankry,
We have the CC-by version stored at archive.org (258662567), so we have a more powerful manner to prove than even OTRS. Check [1] and [2]. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If it was first published online elsewhere before it was posted at 500px, then the 500px link is actually not a proof. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's the same user, it's a clear case.
If they decided to publish under a cc-by after, it's their decision, and we have proof that they did that.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I would err on the side of caution and get OTRS permission, especially as it appears to be have been published elsewhere before 500px Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

## File:Kepler-47 System Artist-Impression 20190416.jpg

Reason: I see no reason for the deletion of this file. Most probably just a mistake. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Christian Ferrer? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is quite old for me (some months) and I don't remember precisely this file, however the source that was provided [3] is copyrighted. As it is stated in this webpage the content comes partly from NASA and the National Science Foundation, however it is not said what part comes from the NASA, and what (or if) changes have been made. It is not clear to me why a PD tag should be applied to this image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems that Tim Pyle who is credited at the source page was employed by Caltech, not NASA. And as Caltech is not a government agency, their works are not free by default. Ankry (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yann, OK. Next time, I will talk to the deleting admin first.
Christian, the file was deleted today. The image can also be found at the Nasa website.
Ankry, Commons hosts 6 other images by Tim Pyle, Category:Artworks of exoplanets by Tim Pyle. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
And their status should be investigated on the per image basis. They may be free, depending on copyright information at the source. What I suggest, they are likely not copyright-free and their status may depend on Caltech's permission. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm really sorry but there is something wrong here, I did not intended to delete this file, this is likely why I don't remember it and why I got confused with the dates. But the worse is that I don't understand how I deleted it. Let me explain : I just checked my logged actions at the precise time of deletion of this image 11:07, 6 July 2019, I was doing a mass deletion of files uploaded by this user (and this user have been noticed about that deletion, however they are not the uploader), and just after (with no other additional actions actions between) I blocked this user. This image have been deleted using VFC for the files uploaded by Nicholas Michael Halim. But I don't understand how it have been included because this user did not upload it or even edit it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Christian, this was most probably happened due to a VFC bug. The missing puzzle is File:Kepler-47 system.jpg uploaded by User:Nicholas Michael Halim and processed (deleted and redirected) by me as a duplicate. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks you. If there is no copyright issues, I'm of course not opposed to an undeletion, but I'm not a specialist of NASA works therefore I'm quite neutral. Note that if the file is not undeleted, so the other files in Category:Artworks of exoplanets by Tim Pyle should be nominated for deletion. And at the opposite if the others are not nominated for deletion so this one should be undeleted. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reason: The documents from Russian Empire, published in newspapers in 1906, free to access, no authoring. These documents are very useful for those researching their family roots from the mentioned cities. These documents for the mentioned cities were never published online before, I'd like to make them accessible for wide range of users who cannot visit local (Russian) libraries. Alx90865 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot see the files, but their names suggest that these are lists of voters. Simple lists do not have copyright, as they are data and are not creative. So it does not even matter if they are from the time of Russia Empire or are compiled just yesterday. Thus I   Support the undeletion at this time. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• @EugeneZelenko: ? Ankry (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind undeletion of these files as long as uploaded or somebody else is willing to fix license information. Actually I explained on my user talk page to uploader what need to be done, but somehow it was not implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I have added the "PD-Russian Empire" copyright tags several days ago, prior to deletion. So I do not understand what else should I do to these files to have them undeleted. Could you explain? --Alx90865 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I checked couple of files and licensing remained same as in time of nomination for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I cannot check the licensing because these files are deleted. So I see 2 options: 1) Do add "PD-Russian-Empire" copyright tag to the files after they have been undeleted 2) upload the same files as new ones, providing "PD-Russian-Empire" tag. What should I do? --Alx90865 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I restored all files. License tags must be fixed. If you don't know how to do this, just edit these files and newly uploaded one and see difference in wiki-markup. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Alx90865: Take a look at File:Быхов список городских избирателей 1906.pdf I have edited it to make licence reasonable. We can argue whether PD-RusEmpire also applies, but I would disagree, since this is something that is actually not eligible for copyright in the first place. So please take a look and go through other ones as well. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Gone Postal: Please take a look at File:Список_лиц,_имеющих_право_на_участие_в_выборах_в_Государственную_Думу_1906.pdf I have edited it in a slightly different way, providing source and author as Mogilevskie Gubernskie Vedomosti (newspaper where the lists were published), not "self-photographed". Also, there are tons of similar files containing old newspapers scans on wikicommons from other contributors, e.g. File:Irkutskie_gubernskie_vedomosti.jpg with licensing and authoring varying from file to file. Should I use newspaper as author, or 'my own work'? In my opinion, the author was the newspaper, not me (not to talk that actually these lists were created by special government electoral commitees prior to publishing them). Thanks for your contribution to this issue. --Alx90865 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Alx90856: The way I interpret the "source" is where the specific file comes from. While author is the original copyrighted work and all the additional authors that have added something that has in any way transformed it. As such you filling in the author field goes further than what I did, and that is much better. As for the source portion, I disagree with repeating the author, but not enough to actually edit the file or demand that somebody does it differently. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• "Not eligible for copyright" can be a complex rule, and IMO should be avoided whenever a clearer, more definite rule applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• The issue is that we do not follow that approach in other things, for example, when somebody puts a public domain image available under a free licence, we normally remove a free licence. Personally, I believe that we should have "fall back" templates. For example, "This image is PD-ineligible, if this happens to be wrong, it is PD-old, if this happens to be wrong it is also available under CC-BY". However, this isn't a place to discuss such a change. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Applying {{PD-RusEmpire}} to something that is not copyrightable (and never was) is providing false information IMO. Reasoning provided there applies to works, not to anything. But {{PD-text}} may be better here than {{PD-ineligible}}. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with that. "Not eligible for copyright" is a better rationale than "PD in the Russian Empire". Regards, Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with using {{PD-text}}, it is more specific. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• I've added {{PD-text}} as category (giving no license) and source as the newspaper title. Can you check please is it all OK to make this request finally closed? There are still some warnings for 'deriative work' which is definitely not this case, so I'm afraid of new deletions.. being a novice in wikicommons it is not so straightforward to cope with its policies--Alx90865 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

## File:José Armando Estevez.jpg

Solicito información referente a la eliminación, ya que son de mi autoria tanto el especificado como los siguientes Rafael Rivas.jpg y Juan Manuel La Guardia.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar66644 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:John Schneider2.jpg

Reason: File:SandraMaasByPhilKonstantin2.jpg (edit: uploaded by another user, but credited to User:Philkon) and File:CindyDyerByPhilKonstantin.jpg have OTRS permission, so there is no doubt that User:Philkon = http://www.americanindian.net. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Natuur12 who added OTRS to one of the files. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support undeletion. The ticket proofs beyond a significant doubt that the uploader is telling the truth. Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Question Do you suggest that this OTRS ticket should be added to both files as a permission confirmation? Ankry (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I can't read OTRS tickets, I don't know if that makes sense. But the OTRS permission proves that User:Philkon = http://www.americanindian.net, so there is no copyright issue here. Maybe add the OTRS ticket to his user page? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, Natuur12: My question is who and how will provide the identity confirmation information to the image description in a reliable and verifiable way? If no such information is present, the images will be nominated for deletion by a random user again soon. Noting, that no identity confirmation information is present on the userpage. I am also unsure if this discussion does not exceed OTRS privacy limits if we discuss OTRS ticket content here. Noting also that Natuur12 as admin and an OTRS member is free to undelete the image themselves if intending to add {{OTRS permission}}. Ankry (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Philkon had to deal with that a few times indeed. He has contributed hundreds of photos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Can't we use {{Verified account}} and add it to the user page? Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Info nothing has been added to User:Philkon till now. We still need an OTRS agent willing to handle this after undeletion. Ankry (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Natuur12:? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Done: It's done. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

## Jcb's deletion between 20:16 and 20:18, 4 January 2019 (115 files)

In this period, User:Jcb deleted 116 files. File:Bershanskaya, Gelman, and Smirnova.png has been restored. The other 115:

Criteria for undeletion:

1. Probably PD files such as Ensign of the Kazakhstan Air Force.png ({{PD-KZ-exempt}}). Could be PD by exemption, PD by age, etc.
2. Files that have been licence-reviewed.
3. Files that have a URL as source, can be found on the source URL, belong to the source URL operator, and the source URL has a free licence. (Similar to File:Bershanskaya, Gelman, and Smirnova.png)

Reasons for undeletion:

1. special:permalink/333890137#Deleted_photos_with_Creative_Commons_Attribution_4.0_license: according to User:Fighter Pilot, these files came from the website of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation ( http://mil.ru/ ).
2. mil.ru does have a site-wide copyright notice © Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
3. Commons consensus wrt mil.ru: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-03#File:Bershanskaya,_Gelman,_and_Smirnova.png.
4. Jcb deleted the files without tagging them for SD or DR.

@Jcb: it would be very kind of you if you could undo your damage, please?--Roy17 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Support At the very least for evaluation. Uploader seems to have only been noticed about 3 files. I wonder how the others were tagged. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"As far as I can see, the files that I deleted had a source link to a different website. Also there was not license template." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
•   Oppose - ordinary copyright violations, all presented as own work with a CC license, most too old to be own work of the uploader but too recent to be PD, or e.g. File:Shatalovo (air base).png, which is a Google Maps screenshot, also presented as own work with a CC license. Jcb (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"all presented as own work with a CC license" - as the file pages are redlinks, people would tend to take your word for it. Once again, it has to be me who exposes these falsehoods. A role I don't particularly enjoy, because you never apologize or take responsibility for what you say.   - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
•   Oppose Checking files at random:
File:Щучин аэродром.png - Yandex maps screenshot - even has watermark (!!!)
File:The area of responsibility of 19 the army air defense.png - Yandex map falsely claimed as own
File:Положение войск на 29 10 1941.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice for All Award (23253948146).jpg - Flickr washing - credit per Flickr and metadata is "© Tony Powell". Tony Powell does not appear to be an employee of the LBJ Foundation and there is no evidence the latter has permission to release the image to the public domain. COM:OTRS would be needed.
File:Летчики 721 иап 1943 год.jpg - historical photo with bogus CC-by-SA 4.0 license, sourced to communa.ru, not mil.ru, which does not appear to reference CC licenses.
File:The prosecution Nevel groups 08 01.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 3 августа 1944 года.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:Braunsberg offensive operation 29 03 1945.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:153 giap 02.jpg - historical photo with no license and sourced to soviet-aces-1936-53.ru, not mil.ru
No evidence deletion was abusive, or that there are enough errors to warrant undeletion for evaluation. To the contrary, the purports above are not factual and the premise is ignorant of COM:EVID. If there is evidence a particular file was deleted in err, it can be presented. Эlcobbola talk 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
•   Oppose per Elcobbola. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
•   Comment @Roy17, Elcobbola, De728631: I added some sources where I could. (where I couldn't it says "dunno") минобороны.рф is also mil.ru. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, File:Pashchevskii.png has a license review from Explicit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Almost all historic military photos from the Soviet era are owned by the Russian government, just check any archive like RGKAFD, TASS, RIAN, etc. The website soviet-aces-1936-53.ru is not a copyright owner of any photos, it merely republishes photos that can be found elsewhere on the internet, like goskatalog.ru, but never give attribution (same goes for a lot of Russian websites like polkmoskva.ru, etc; in fact, I have been trying to convince warheroes.ru to add required attributions to photos). The contemorary and yandex maps should stay deleted, but the historic Soviet military photos like 153 giap 02.jpg and the photos by the Russian government that were created by the Soviet and Russian administrations like the ones from [4] should be undeleted, and Jcb's admin privleges should be revoked.(  Support)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"Almost all" is not an acceptable argument; you need to prove that for each photo separately. The goal of providing a source is to verify the copyright status, so providing a source that does not provide appropriate information and/or licensing is pointless. Also, providing false information may be a reason for deletion (eg. you claim that File:153 giap 02.jpg was made or first published in 2018; and if it was first published in 2018 it may copyrighted in US till 2113 (95 years since first publication, unless creation date is known) regardless of its copyright status in Russia. So without information about its author or (initial) publication date we cannot consider it free.
Also, making UDR with mixed rationale is pointless, as it cannot be properly handled. I suggest closing this request as not done and creating separate requests for photos that are clearly free in both: Russia and US and providing appropriate individual information that prove that. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The rationales are consistent. A sysop User:Jcb mass-deleted files out of process when many files have valid and live external sources. The uploader did make a request to challenge the deletion: special:diff/333829923, but s/he like most other users would not know the specific procedures on Commons well. This batch request was filed as serious doubts on validity of this particular batch deletion by Jcb have emerged. I explicitly listed the criteria for deletion for you to check. You are the only ones with access to the deleted files and descriptions. Now Alexis Jazz has put forward evidence (which should have come from sysops). In addition to mil.ru, kremlin.ru for example is a well-established source of free contents under CC-BY-4.0. It was absurd when only you could access the evidence you turned to non-sysops for it. Now that much evidence has been given, but it is up to you to decide if you insist on manipulating the process and bullying a clueless user like User:Fighter Pilot by closing the request.--Roy17 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Several admins actually looked at the files and all of them disagree with you sofar. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: @Jcb: All photos produced by Soviet military photographers that have not reached the public domain are property of the Russian government, and it is legal for the Russian government to release their photos under free licences. Other websites (like soviet aces) are supposed to provide attribution to the russian government per the fair-use clause of russian copyright law, but the Russian government rarely demands the legally required attributions, and hence it is very, very common for russian websites to re-use government property photos without attribution. Files on commons don't have to be PD in both the US and source country IF the copyright holder released them under a permitted creative commons licence, which we saw with the historic photos. Photos taken by Russian government photographers (like the ones from russian military airshows) and all the Soviet-era photos from mil.ru (ie, all the ones that have to be either Russian government property or public domain) should be undeleted. In the case of File:153 giap 01.jpg, while it was first published in 2018, it is safe for undeletion because it is Russian government property and under a permitted creative commons licence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2, Majora: Here goes Jcb again. I went above and beyond to add sources and have shown Jcb wasn't telling the truth. They were not "all presented as own work with a CC license", and in the face of undisputable evidence, Jcb simply turns to "Several admins actually looked at the files and all of them disagree with you sofar." This is why I'm pinging you. Jcb doesn't value the opinion of non-admins. He's also forgetting to mention that when Elcobbola and De728631 replied I hadn't added the sources yet. Meanwhile, Ankry requires Roy17 "to prove that[the image has a free license] for each photo separately", something Roy17 can't actually do because all the files are redlinks. That's what we need admins for. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this evaluation. If I understand PlanespotterA320 correctly, even the images from non-government sites may be freely licensed, but probably need another source. Pinging @A.Savin as well who understands Russian. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Тихонова.jpg

Здравствуте, файл Тихонова.jpg был удален. Хотя я являюсь автором этого изображения. Без него не могу создать страницу. Подскажите, можно ли отменить удаление. Спасибо.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina.dmi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Здравствуйте, @Katerina.dmi:. Загружали-ли вы этот файл раньше как File:НГТихонова.jpg или это был другой пользователь? Это действительно тот файл, который лежит на vk.com? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Да. Загружала, это была я и это мой файл, который разрешено использовать в Интернете. Спасибо
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina.dmi (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Дело в том, что раз этот файл уже был доступен через другой сайт, скорее всего будет необходимо пройти процес OTRS. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ADMINS, can you please check if the uploaded file had metadata on it. If it had, then it is likely the original, and that would mean that VK.com file is actually a copy, as that social network strips all the metadata at the time of upload. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: I think it is irrelevant. File:НГТихонова.jpg was deleted as being similar to the one on vk.com and File:Тихонова.jpg as reupload. In the case of already published, especially professional, works we need a permission either via initial publication site or from identifiable photographer to ensure that DMCA takedown is not possible. So we need the source of free license to be identifiable or the work to be fresh new, never published. Ankry (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

## File:Rudolf Dietrich Freiherr von Roth.jpg

I present the request to restore file files, concerning the pd-100 license.--NNEPEL12 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Question Their deletion was unrelated to copyright. So why do you want to undelete them? Ankry (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
they are paintings executed centuries ago, and therefore the following copyright has expired for years concerning the artist, whether he has a name or is unknown--NNEPEL12 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:WilliamHiltonSargent.jpg

this image is from my family files, of my grandfather. It is not copyrighted to my knowledge and I can confirm it is his image

Bill Sargent (grandson) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.78.97 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion about the photo copyright status is not enough here. The photo may be PD, but we need an evidence for that. Assuming, that this is a photo from US, its copyright status depends on whether and when it was initially published and whether the publication was with or without copyright notice. If this is a private, unpublished photo, it may be still copyrighted 70 years after the photographer's death or, if the photographer is unknown, 120 years since it was made. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done unclear copyright status: more information is needed to prove that it is PD (if it is). Ankry (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Pharaoh gamo bio pic.png

I have the rights to the picture that i posted on Wiki and have proof that this is my artwork. --Pharaoh Gamo (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Jermaine Xavier Miller AKA Pharaoh Gamo

For already published images, we need an evidence that it was initially published under a free license or a free license permission following COM:OTRS from the actual copyright holder. {{Own}} declaration cannot be used in such cases. Ankry (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Enscape Logo.png

Hello,

The file specified in the heading has been deleted. However, I have received permission from the company to use this image file on Wikipedia. Below I have inserted the email I received from Enscape. I am also happy to forward it to the appropriate department to ensure that it is correct.

If this is not enough, I would be very happy to receive clarification on how to submit this application.

Thank you very much,

Florian Klein

--F7o F7o (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Florian,

Hiermit erteile ich dir die Freigabe um das Enscape Logo auf der Enscape Wikipedia-Seite hochzuladen.

Liebe Grüße

Lena Hoffmann

Lena Hoffmann

Junior Marketing Manager

Enscape™ - Real-Time Rendering & Virtual Reality Enscape GmbH

@F7o F7o: Enscape will have to contact OTRS and give permission to anyone for re-using the logo. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Alexis is right. Also, the permission would have to include any kind of re-use, and not just for use in Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Porträt Steeven Bretz Landesparteitag CDU Brandenburg Mai 2019.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

bei dem Porträt handelt es sich um ein Bild von Herrn Steeven Bretz, Generalsekretär der CDU Brandenburg, welches im Auftrag der CDU Brandenburg gemacht wurde. Die Fotografin, Frau Yana Aust, hat der CDU Brandenburg die Rechte ausdrücklich übertragen. Zum Nachweis habe ich den Mailverkehr mit Frau Aust beigefügt, der dies bestätigt. Ich hoffe, das Bild kann nun freigeschaltet und endlich verwendet werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Philipp Sünboldt Mitarbeiter im Büro von Herrn Steeven Bretz MdL Philipp.sue (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2019 14:15 An: Büro Bretz Steeven Betreff: Re: Bildrechte Portrait Steeven Bretz Landesparteitag der CDU Brandenburg

Sehr geehrter Herr Sünboldt,

Hiermit bestätige ich, dass eine deutschlandweite Verwendung für nicht kommerzielle Zwecke erworben wurde. Ich freue mich sehr, dass das Foto Verwendung findet.

Vielen Dank und mit besten Grüßen, Yasmina Aust

Am 18.06.2019 um 13:41 schrieb Büro Bretz Steeven <buero.steeven.bretz@mdl.brandenburg.de>:

Sehr geehrte Frau Aust,

beigefügtes Foto von Herrn Bretz haben Sie beim Landesparteitag der CDU Brandenburg am 04. Mai aufgenommen. Dieses wollten wir nun gerne für die Wikpediaseite von Herrn Bretz nutzen. Wie Sie sehen, habe ich auch extra einen Hinweis auf den Urheber in das Bild eingefügt. Wikipedia verlangt nun aber eine schriftliche Bestätigung des Fotografen, dass wir die Rechte an dem Bild besitzen. Nach meiner Kenntnis hat die CDU Brandenburg sämtliche Rechte von Ihnen erworben. Könnten Sie mir eine Art schriftlicher Bestätigung dessen zukommen lassen? Vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung bereits im Voraus. Ihnen einen schönen Tag wünschend verbleibe ich

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Philipp Sünboldt Wiss. Mitarbeiter

Bürgerbüro Steeven Bretz MdL Gregor-Mendel-Str. 3 14469 Potsdam

Oppose per above: non-commerrcial or teritory-limitted permissions are not acceptable in Wikimedia Commons, read COM:L for licensing requirements. Note also, that in this case we would also need an evidence that the permissipn from Yana Aust granted to CDU Brandenburg allows them to relicense the photo. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done per above: we need a free license. Ankry (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Sir-Eric-Norman-Spencer-Crankshaw.jpg

The National Portrait Gallery in London allows usage of their photos under the Creative Commons license.

I have seen numerous other photos from their collection on WikiCommons. I am not sure why this particular photo is now an issue. Did I mark something incorrectly when I uploaded it?

Diane Snider

Oppose NC and/or ND licensed do not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Other NPG portraits available here are likely in Public Domain due to expired copyright. So no license is needed tor them. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Info Walter Stoneman died in 1958. Thuresson (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done per above: copyrighted and no free license. Ankry (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

## File:Krishna Govinda Gupta.png

This image was deleted with the reason: Author died in 1958, so not dead since 70+ years. I don't understand the requirement of 70 pma. The photograph was taken by Walter Stoneman in 1916 (1). So, British Copyright Act 1911 will apply. As per Section 21 (2) of that Act, copyright of photographs subsisted for 50 years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived. Therefore, it is PD-UK. And being pre-1924, it is PD-US. Hrishikes (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom UK copyright length is always based on author's death date if author is known. Regardless on creation date. I assume, the copyright length was extended by later law. Ankry (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: -- I think you should take a few minutes to study the relevant law. Copyright of photograph was not death-year-based at that time. I have already given the link for the law. The later act, British Copyright Act 1956 (3) did not change the provision for photographs (see # 3(4)(b) of the Act). Therefore, for this image, UK copyright expired in 1966. Photographs came under 70 pma rule as per # 4(1)(a) (4) and # 12(2) (5) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, [as amended in 1995 (6),] but this came after the expiry of the copyright of the image under discussion. Hrishikes (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I am not a lawyer, so I may misread the 1956 Act text, but I disagree with you. My understanding of # 3(4) is that the copyright is 50pma, but not shorter than 50 post publication for photographs. IMO, this section applies effectively to posthumously published photos only (they are copyrighted longer that 50 pma then). But this discussion should be in COM:VPC. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: -- There is no case of posthumous here. Posthumous is applicable in the case of engraving, i.e., # 3(4)(a). In the proviso for photograph, no such thing is mentioned. This proviso effectively takes away photographs from the pma 50 rule for artistic works and gives the rule of 50 years since publication. Hrishikes (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hrishikes might be right about this. UK NGO Design and Artists Copyright Society says something similar. It seems to me as long as the photographer is not a citizen of any other EEA country and the photographs had not been published in EEA countries, (beware of Ireland which protects works for life+70,) UK photographs made before 1957 would be PD. Maybe the community can discuss this on COM:VP/C and amend COM:CRT/United Kingdom.--Roy17 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Moreover, Stoneman took the photograph for the firm, James Russell & Sons (see at 1), so it seems to be a case of corporate copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
COM:VPC is the right place to discuss this. If there is no mention about this rule in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom nor appropriate copyright template exists, we can do nothing here at the moment. Ankry (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
COM:VPC may be right place for discussing the individual copyright, but as I have stated above, this is a case of corporate copyright. The attribution at NPG indicates so. In that case, the pma rule cannot apply. Hrishikes (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: AFAIK, in UK corporate copyright also lasts 70pma (or 70 post publication, if the work is anonymous). But this also may be resolved in VPC as not mentioned in Copyright rules by territory. Unlike US, a corporation is not considered to be the initial author, but an entity to which the copyright is transferred just after a work creation. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand the rules, these images needed to be deleted. When I'm wrong, please give me a hint. But it seems, that there's actually not really seen as wrong. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment -- Being discussed at Village Pump: special:permalink/358763785#UK Copyright Act 1911 Section 21 Provisions as to photographs -- Hrishikes (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:The Rebels Ceilidh Song Book, Second Edition.pdf

The above file has been deleted when I tried to upload it.

I know that there is no longer any copyright on the rebel ceilidh songbooks and thus seek to upload them on to here. I have had this assurance from the archive that provided them to me, and also everyone involved in their writing is now dead and the organisation itself has been defunct since 1967.

However it continues to get deleted when I try to upload the files, and I can't see a valid explanation as to why. Thanks in advance

--SNP History (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This seems to be a UK publication. UK copyright expire 70 years after author's death or 70 years after publication for anonymous works. This period did not elapse yet; eg. Thurso Berwick died in 1981 so his copyright will expire in 2052. And we also need to wait for US copyright expiration (95 years since first publication). Ankry (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Simbolo Lega (2018).png

Salve, È del tutto evidente che il nuovo simbolo della Lega sia coperto da copyright. Ciononostante, in maniera perfettamente analoga a quanto è avvenuto con i simboli di altri partiti presenti e passati (PD, M5S, il vecchio simbolo della Lega stessa etc.), credo avesse diritto a restare su Wikicommons. Forse che sarebbe bastato semplicemente indicare la corretta tipologia di copyright posseduta dall'immagine? --Gustavo La Pizza (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose We need evidence of free license coming directly from the copyright holder via COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Enda Markey 2019.jpg

I am the subject of this photograph and authorise its use.

--EndaMarkeyPresents (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@EndaMarkeyPresents: While permission from the subject is important, the deletion reason was not due to missing subject's permission. It was a copyright related problem: as the photographer declared no free license for this photo on his homepage, we need clear evidence that he changed his mind and accepted this photo to be freely licensed. On wiki declaration made by a non-identifiable Wikimedia user is not such evidence. A free license is the necessary requirement to host the photo in Commons. The photographer should follow COM:OTRS or provide the license for this photo on his homepage if the wish so. Ankry (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done per above: no permission. Ankry (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Фрагмент картины Касаткина Г.К. "Графиня".jpg, File:Raisa.jpg, File:Mujer NUDE 3.jpg, File:Mujer 1.jpg

Buenas tardes. Estoy tratando de poner los imagines, pero algunos ya no estan y los otros tienen cartel:

  "This media file is missing evidence of permission. It may have an author and a source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This also applies if you are the author yourself. Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified (17 July 2019)".


File:Фрагмент картины Касаткина Г.К. "Графиня".jpg Esto es el cuadro del pintor ruso Kasatkin Georgy.

File:Raisa.jpg Esto es su hija, tambien una pintura.

File:Mujer NUDE 3.jpg Esto es el cuadro de la serie "Mujeres".

File:Mujer 1.jpg Este tambien.

Tengo el permiso del autor de estos imagines: https://www.facebook.com/kasatkin.gk (kasatkin.gk@gmail.com) Como puedo asegurarme, que los imagines no van a borrar?

Gracias. Gunter1955 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gunter1955: Are you the author and copyright holder of the works you uploaded as you declared? Providing false information is against Wikimedia Commons rules and claiming to hold copyright while you actually do not is copyright violation. According to public records, copyright to the first photo belongs to Lucas Pitcher, and copyright to the photos of paintings belongs to the painted. Your claim that you are both is unreliable. The above-mentioned text contains instruction where the copyright holder (the painter or his heirs) should send a free license permission, that is required for all photos by living and recently (less than 70 years ago) died painters.
In future, do not claim {{Own}} authorship on images that are 'not made by you using your own camera or that present content that is copyrighted by somebody else. Ankry (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I am also noting that as this page has been deleted, paintings of this painter might be out of Wikimedia Commons scope. Ankry (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

All photos are painting. I am an agent of the author, i have ALL the rights to the publication. Please, contact the author, i gave his mail address. These are not photos. These are screenshots. This is digital painting.Gunter1955 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The first problem here is that Commons is not the place for promotion. We present only paintings of well known artists or of historical value. Google say nothing about the painter.
And after this is resolved, we can start resolving copyright related issues.
Oppose undeletion as out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: as per above. Sockpupetter blocked. --Yann (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## Chris Nonis

--Gunarathnasj (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose nothing changed since deletion. No evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: no reason for undeletion has been provided. --De728631 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Bearbeitet geschnitten Portraet-5476.jpg

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung meines Bildes, da ich dieses Bild mich abbildet und ich es gekauft habe. Kann man denn nicht zum Fotografen gehen, ein Foto von sich machen lassen und dieses dann ins Internet hochladen? Ja, das Urheberrecht liegt weiterhin beim Fotografen, Daniel Hohlfeld. Da ich es aber gekauft habe, also dafür bezahlt habe, darf ich damit machen was ich will.--Andreas Köhler 1999 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Da liegst du falsch. --Magnus (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Freie Lizenzen für das Hochladen auf Commons kann nur der Urheber, also der Fotograf vergeben. Das Nutzungsrecht, das man beim Kauf des Bildes vom Fotografen erwirbt, hat damit nichts zu tun. --De728631 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

## File:Johnathan Brownlee Photo by John Strange, Selig Polyscope.jpg

I understand that Dev Shapiro, owner of Selig Polyscope and of the rights to this photo, has completed the permissions process via the Interactive Release Generator. Is it possible for me to search Wikimedia Commons files to see where this image might "reside" and to see if its use has been cleared (as it seems to have been deleted from the page)? I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the ropes, so I appreciate any guidance. MBAWilbins (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@MBAWilbins:Please have a look at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Thuresson (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:PL Istrati - Kyra Kyralina.djvu

Reason: I requested to delete File:Hyra hy.djvu Also proper file has been deleted, which was in redirect link in request file. It's not admin culp, but mine, because i don't withdrawed my request, but only requested a redirect to duplicate. I don't know now why i don't just requested a rename merely i uploaded new file. It's embarrassing (my edits about this file) for me... But i would like to know, it is possible to restore the file? It is in use in polish Wikisource. I see there are some errors on index page. :-( Matlin (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Done mistake in deletion. Ankry (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Sir_James_Black_Baillie.jpg Died: June 9, 1940, Weybridge, United Kingdom

Sir Baillie was born October 24, 1872, West Mill, Tennessee and he died June 9, 1940, Weybridge, United Kingdom. Sir James Black Baillie, OBE (24 October 1872 – 9 June 1940) was a British moral philosopher and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds. He wrote the first significant translation of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Mind." He is said to be the model for the character Sir John Evans in the novel The Weight of the Evidence (1944) by Michael Innes.[1]

The deleter Marcus_Cyron (talk · contribs) incorrectly suggested that

Author died in 1958, so not dead since 70+ years

This is incorrect since the person whose photo was deleted died in 1940 and the math is incorrect since the current year is 2019 and ${\displaystyle 2019-1940=79\mathrm {years} }$ . To be precise, from Sunday, June 9, 1940 to, but not including Friday, July 19, 2019 is 79 years, 1 month, 10 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date. Equivalently, it is 28,894 days excluding the end date; or 949 month, 10 days excluding the end date; it is 2,496,441,600 seconds = 41,607,360 minutes = 693,456 hours = 4127 weeks and 5 days. In fact, this user Marcus_Cyron (talk · contribs) appears to be mindlessly deleting content with the verbatim reason provided above on at least 25 other files in Wikimedia Commons. Please see the screenshot below:

Screenshot of Marcus_Cyron (talk · contribs) Deletion log showing the exact same deletion reason for 25 deleted files

Mavaddat (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The copyright is based on the photographer's date of death, not on the person depicted. This can be undeleted in 2029. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: per Yann. The subject depicted in a photograph is not usually the copyright holder, but the original photographer is. --De728631 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

## User talk:S465499642

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

## File:Enscape Logo.png

Reason: for verification of OTRS Ticket:2019071910002674 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Done: @Tiven2240: please proceed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

## File:Portrait from zero cover.jpg

این تصویر ، کاور یک کتاب رایگان به نام پرتره از صفر میباشد علاوه بر خود کتاب ، تمام تصاویر ، متون و حتی کاور کاب قابل انتشار است در صفحه معرفی کتاب در سایت منتشر کننده ، این نکته قید شده است http://rezasadeghi.net/portrait-from-zero/ Rezasaad.art (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rezasaad.art: رایگان بودن با آزاد بودن فرق دارد. لطفاً COM:L/fa را بخوانید. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Free means free license. Please read gratis versus libre: "Think free as in free speech, not free beer." I am surprised you made this mistake because Persian uses different words for these different concepts! 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

## File:Maymay.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2019010410003112 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Done: @Jeff G.: Please have a look. --De728631 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks, but the 2016 and 2018 uploads are still copyvios so please hide them.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)