Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)

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

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:

  • 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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ebacas

All six of the works listed there (the three have been deleted, some used at Wikisourced) should have been kept as they are all published before 1925 (more than 95 years ago); i.e. per cornell.edu; copryight has long expired. 107.190.33.254 16:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose The three are from the UK, not the USA, so the rule you cite does not apply. In order for them to be restored, you would have to show that the author died before 1950. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

... or upload them directly to English Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Surnames of the United Kingdom" traces to "Henry Harrison"; who also published "The Place-Names of the Liverpool District; Or, the History and Meaning of the Local and River Names of South-West Lancashire and of Wirral" (1898); and the google preview of Surnames of the UK lists him as a member of the "Council of the Philological Society, London". A google books search for "henry harrison council of the philological society" reveals a partial obituary in The Publishers' Circular and Booksellers' Record, Volume 114 (1921) which states:

"Obituary Mr. Henry Harrison The death is reported at Bournemouth, from pneumonia, of Mr. Henry Harrison, who, after thirty ... Mr. Harrison, who was comparatively young, was a member of the Council of the Philological Society, and author of ..."

So that is one which is cleared. For British Family Names (first published 1894; [1]); the google preview lists the author as having published other documents; including an article on ""The Cistercian Abbey of Maulbronn" (1892) and other articles which date to a bit earlier. The earliest article by him I can find, (1890); where he is titled a "M.D." (Doctor of Medicine; I don't know what the requirements were in Victorian Britain but I'd assume a few years at a University would have been the minimum), probably indicates that at the very least he would have been something like 80-90 in 1950, which makes his death before a distinct possibility...
I could not find anything for the Dict. of Names &c.; the only suggestion we have is w:Edward Bevan (bishop) who died 1934; but this can't be verified.
Also, as far as I understand, for all of these, per the Berne Convention; (to which the UK and the US are signatories); the shorter term applies; and since this is hosted in the USA (as far as I know), that term is 95 yrs from publication; which as I said initially is long since gone. 107.190.33.254 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The Rule of the shorter term applies only in the other direction -- where the source country's copyright has expired but, except for the Rule, the second country's copyright would not have. Thus a US work that is 95 years after publication will be PD in the EU even if the author died less than 70 years previously. You cannot say that a UK sourced work has a 95 year copyright because that is the rule in the USA. Note also that while the EU does use the rule, the US does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Well then in any case I have proven that one of these is actually PD in the UK... 107.190.33.254 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Hits from Google Books also include the phrase (from a 1921 work): Recently, at Bournemouth, from pneumonia, Mr. Henry Harrison, the author of the well-known dictionary of the "Surnames of the United Kingdom." It was first published in instalments in 1907, but the completed work was not ready until 1918... So that is definitively the author in question, and is {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1921}} .   Support that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can accept that Henry Harrison, the author of the third entry, died before 1950 -- it's not an uncommon name and the connection is a little tenuous, but I'll   Support it.

I agree that the second one's author was 80-90 in 1950, but not old enough to assume that he was dead by then, and there is no information on the other one, so I continue to   Oppose the first two. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Could the Barber one be {{PD-old-assumed}} ? Sound like they were published before 1900... Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this book in a bibliography section identifies "Henry Barber, MD" as the author of Forness folk, the'r sayin's an' dewin's; or, Sketches of life and character in Lonsdale north of the sands[2] which was originally under a pseudonym of "Roger Piketah". That was published in 1870, so that pushes back his possible age 20 more years.   Support on that one too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't find much on Edward Latham. Almost certainly not the same person as Edward Latham Bevan. I do find a reference of him as a "learned English philologist" in an 1893 publication, but most of the stuff he authored was published from roughly 1900 to 1916 as far as I can see. It's possible that the book was simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the U.S., as there was a NY publisher Dutton also named, but otherwise the country of origin is the UK and we'd have to show that 70pma has passed. While the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, it's expired there due to being published before 1925, so it could be uploaded at en-wiki or en-wikisource directly. But the UK copyright is still unclear. Using freebmd, there were only a couple of deaths 1950 or later under that name who could realistically have been that person. Hard to imagine he lived 35+ years after he stopped publishing when that was seemingly his profession, but it's possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Aurat Ka Pyar.jpg

I want to be able to upload on en Wiki as a non-free file. Since de-watermarking the source image is time-consuming, I'd rather use the same image. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The source does not come up from the link you give, so I cannot see the watermark. However, removing a watermark that contains copyright information is against the law, so perhaps you should use the original. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Removing a watermark that contains copyright information is against the law? That’s an extraordinary claim. Which law? Copyright law? In that case, using the original image was probably against the law too. But you would have to check which jurisdiction’s laws apply here and the exact terms that apply to that image.
  •   Strong oppose In any case, non-free files are not permitted on Commons. Whether it is allowed on the English Wikipedia, or any other project, needs to be discussed there. Brianjd (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Brianjd, removing a watermark that contains copyright information is a violation of the DMCA and therefore relevant to any image kept on WMF servers, whether on Commons or WP:EN. The subject has been discussed at length on Commons since even removing a copyright watermark from an image that is CC-BY licensed and therefore allows derivatives, is problematic. see Commons:Watermarks#Legal issues with the removal of watermarks.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have not seen this issue discussed before; thanks for the clarification. To quote a comment I saw recently: Copyright is stupid. Brianjd (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Brianjd: That's not how enwiki works, though. Community permission is not required to upload a non-free file. Instead, the file is uploaded first, then someone can nominate it for deletion if they disagree. As Kailash29792 is not a Commons admin, they simply want temporary access to the file on Commons to save the work of removing the watermark. -- King of ♥ 15:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding enwiki, that is correct but not really relevant. I was just trying to make the point that it shouldn’t be discussed here. Notice that I said “or any other project”.
    Regarding the nomination, I misunderstood it. If the user merely wants to temporarily undelete to move to another project, then the watermark also shouldn’t be discussed here.   Support temporary undeletion. Brianjd (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, please temporarily undelete it so I can upload on en Wiki. Once I download it from here, you can delete it again. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Unless we can see the image with the watermark to make sure that removing it is not a violation of the DMCA, I don't think we should do this -- the DMCA has tough penalties and they could extend to anyone who helps break the law. That could include whoever restores the image here..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Osianama are not the owners of the image; besides, it's pre-1935 so it should satisfy Indian public domain criteria. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Kailash29792: If this is true, you should provide evidence of this (which I assume has not yet been provided, given that the file has been reviewed by an admin and yet we are still here) and try to get it permanently undeleted. Brianjd (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Also note that files need to be freely licenced/PD in both country of origin and US. Brianjd (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, the date of the film (1933, not 1935) is irrelevant for the purposes of the Indian copyright. The poster has several clips from the film, so it is the film's copyright that will set the copyright term for the poster. The director, Abdur Rashid Kardar died in 1989, so the film and the poster will be under copyright in India until at least 1/1/2050. Its USA copyright will expire in 2028. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dragons be here.jpg

Please restore this file. This file is my creative work. I used PowerPoint to author, arrange, and assemble creative elements. The completed work includes clip art that I selected from the PowerPoint collection of images that are released under Creative Commons licence. This particular clip art was obtained (by PowerPoint) from the site at: http://aqwwiki.wikidot.com/asian-dragon Note the footnote on this site says: "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License". I conclude this footnote allows me to include this clip art in my original image and to release the completed image to Wikimedia Commons. Please restore this image. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: could you please clarify how this image falls under the scope of our project? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this inquiry. This image falls within the Commmons: Project scope under the provision for media that is realistically useful for an educational purpose. Specifically, this image was created and included as part of the Wikiversity course on Problem Finding. You will notice the deletion entry in that course history log. This should address the opposition "until" request below.--Lbeaumont (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose As it stands it is a copyright violation. The dragon has a CC-BY-SA license, but the file here does not credit the creator of the dragon. I agree that it is in scope, but it can be restored only if the proper credit is added immediately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment Pretty much no wikis other than Wikimedia projects are rigorous about enforcing copyright. How do we know that http://aqwwiki.wikidot.com/asian-dragon is properly licensed? Either 1) the image is official art of AdventureQuest Worlds, and hence copyrighted; 2) the image is fan art based on official art of AQW, and hence COM:DW; or 3) the image is original fan art, and thus covered by the site license and allowed. -- King of ♥ 22:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Would we be saying this if the image was first uploaded to Commons? Anyway, not familiar with AQW, so remaining   Neutral for now. Brianjd (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Commons requires a source, or else the image will be deleted along with any derivatives of it. AQW wiki just says "Thanks to Hina", but it's not clear if she made this or simply found it on the Internet, or even who this "Hina" person is because I don't see a link to a userpage. -- King of ♥ 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
        • In many cases the source is just {{Own}}. How is that any different? Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
          • The problem is that AQW wiki does not have great information about the status of the image. My guess is that more likely than not, it is a derivative of the copyrighted game, and per COM:PRP we should err on the side of caution. -- King of ♥ 22:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there some attribution I can provide or some procedure I can follow that will clear these issues? If so, please let me know what I can do. Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Announcement for wearing a mask.jpg

The announcement are providing information by the government. The announcement can be found at bus stop and on the buses. It doesn't against any copyright. The photo on the announcement can be found on the government website for education purpose. (https://www.ssm.gov.mo/docs//17049//17049_cf84842a2dd1455085d8a159c9515dea_000.jpg) Pauloleong2002 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masur: for comment as deleting admin. -- (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm -- I'm not so sure. First, note that the image cited above is similar to but not the same as the deleted image here. The image here has the name of an SA (corporation) at the bottom. According to Transport in Macau, there are several private bus companies there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Good spotting there. en:Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos de Macau is in fact a privately-owned company and not a government agency. @Nat: I have therefore changed my suggestion to   Oppose. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Without any disrespect, I would like to point out that: The logo of the related picture is for identifying who post the notice on the bus stop. And the company(http://www.tcm.com.mo/web/default.aspx) who can provide service because the is a public contract signed between and the Macao SAR government(https://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2018/16/ordem63.asp). She need to obey the instruction of the government, including the instruction of wearing masks.

The second thing is, will the said notice protect by laws of Macau? It seems to be not. Per Republicação do regime do direito de autor e direitos conexos, aprovado pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 43/99/M, de 16 de Agosto Artigo 5.º (Exclusão de protecção) 1. Não constituem objecto de protecção, sem prejuízo do disposto no número seguinte:

a) As notícias do dia e os relatos de acontecimentos diversos com carácter de simples informação, de qualquer modo divulgados;

b) Os requerimentos, alegações, queixas e outros textos apresentados por escrito ou oralmente perante autoridades ou serviços públicos;

c) Os textos apresentados e os discursos proferidos perante assembleias ou outros órgãos colegiais, políticos e administrativos, ou em debates públicos sobre assuntos de interesse comum;

d) Os discursos políticos.

2. Cabe em exclusivo ao autor dos textos referidos nas alíneas b), c) e d) do número anterior o direito de os publicar, ou autorizar a sua publicação, sob a forma de colectânea ou separata.

3. A utilização por terceiro de obra referida no n.º 1, quando lícita, deve limitar-se ao exigido pelos fins a atingir com a sua divulgação.

4. Não é permitida a comunicação pública dos textos a que se refere a alínea b) do n.º 1 quando esses textos forem por natureza confidenciais ou dela possa resultar prejuízo para a honra ou reputação do autor ou de terceiro.

5. A proibição do número anterior é afastada quando haja consentimento do autor ou da pessoa cuja honra ou reputação possa ser prejudicada, ou decisão judicial em contrário proferida em face de prova da existência de interesse legítimo superior ao subjacente à proibição.

The said notice is providing general information, in other words, it is telling facts. It is not related with creation, which is what copyright protect. The third thing is, the action of make known to public is a reasonable use. It doesn't make sense that an announcement cannot being an object for propagation, as it is what the use of announcement.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • In my opinion it is a derivative work passing the originality treshold. I disagree that it merely provides a non copyrightable information - it has the picture (I bet it's a stock one even) and the logo, composition etc. And as far as I could tell, there is no PD extemption for it, as it was issued by the private company. Masur (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the information, there is an official source (https://www.gov.mo/pt/noticias/221172/).

And for the picture , it comes from government also. There are some examples : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Information_for_wearing_masks_in_Macao.jpg
https://www.ssm.gov.mo/apps1/PreventCOVID-19/en.aspx#clg17049
Thank you very much.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What's more, the said announcement is similar to some kind of instruction or reminding. Here is for your kind information (https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_2d441c85c96c4b7ba7686a69979522dd).Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support undeletion. As the photo is from a government announcement, the text is purely informational, the logo may be considered COM:DM, I see nothing copyrightable here. Ankry (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Joaquim Mir

Copyright in Spain for content by authors dead before 7 December 1987 lasts 80 years after the death, per this, not 80+1. Joaquim Mir died in 27 April 1940. Strakhov (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Support Restoring all of the works above that have dates.
  Oppose Restoring the undated works. All of these works were under copyright on the URAA date. All of those above with dates are pre-1925, so URAA exempt. However the WP:ES article lists two works with 1926 dates, so we know that some of his works are still under URAA copyright and therefore cannot assume that the undated works above are out of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
See also ca:Joaquim Mir i Trinxet#Obres destacades: the latest dated work in that list is from "c. 1935". Another problem with paintings is that a painting may remain unpublished for a long time after it was made, so some of the paintings could in theory first have been published after his death. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Stefan, that's true in many places, but I don't think it is a problem in Spain. The post-1987 copyright lasts for 70 years pma or 70 years after creation. The pre-1987 copyright law calls for 80 years pma when the author is known. Publication does not seem to be an issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with publication is about United States law. All works by this painter were copyrighted in Spain on the URAA date, so only those which were published more than 95 years ago are in the public domain in the US. You were the one who first brought up United States law. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Right you are, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Laurence Gavron.jpg

This file was deleted based on the assertion that it is an out-of-scope personal photo. There was no discussion.

From Special:Diff/421349014, by Wouterhagens:

As there is an article on fr:Laurence Gavron and a Commons category I like to see whether that photo is still out of scope.

I assume the category this user refers to is here: Category:Laurence Gavron. Brianjd (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A relevant comment was added at the Village pump. Brianjd (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that on the scope question that it should be restored. However, as User:Storkk said at the VP, there is a question of copyright. I think we need an OTRS clarification. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the uploader's talk page on the off-chance that they turned on email notifications or indeed log in occasionally. Storkk (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Perezcoach.jpg

I kindly request to undelete this file. This file was uploaded as personal work and I can confirm that I am the SOLE OWNER of the file. This is Javier Perez coaching the team during a training camp in the Czech Republic. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks in advance. --Football3000 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Although you claimed in the file description that you were the actual photographer, you do not say that above -- only that you own the file. The EXIF -- metadata -- says that the image is a screenshot. Please clarify whether you are the actual photographer or not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done I can't help but notice that it looks like smudge on uploader's computer screen. OP has uploaded the photo to en:File:Perezcoach.jpg instead of replying here. Thuresson (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Kate Middleton wedding dress.png

This photograph was taken by me during a travel I did to London on summer 2011. I visited the Buckingham Palace, were I took the picture. Some years later, when I decided to colaborate in wikipedia and wikimedia, I decided to publish my photo. I deleted the background because there were people in there and the picture did not look good and i did not wanted to publish the face of anybody. The photo is MINE and free copyright, so there is no reason to deleted it. I demand the restoration of this photograph. Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose For all of the reasons named at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Middleton wedding dress.png, I am not inclined to restore this. If it is your own work, why is it so small and without EXIF? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the administrators will have something to say about the last sentence too:
    I demand the restoration of this photograph.
They usually don’t take kindly to threats. In fact, they are prepared to block users who make them. Brianjd (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Demanding something, while it is quite a disrespectful tone, is not a threat. A threat would be something like "I demand the restoration of this photograph, or else <insert consequence here>." As to the photograph, I could not find any other online photo of the dress that matches the particular drape and lighting present in this Commons image. This includes a reverse search with TinEye. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I noted the "demand". I discounted it because edit counts show that the user is a Spanish speaker -- so there might be a language difficulty. I don't read Spanish, but the French "demand" is "ask" in English, so perhaps they did not intend to use such a strong word. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, a false friend. It’s even listed as an example there. I should have remembered. Brianjd (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello (Jameslwoodward). When the image was modified the EXIF data got loss. It happens to all the images I modified. As you said, there's no online image that matches this one because this photo is mine. About my last sentence Brianjd, you are the one who says it's a threat, not me, so don't make false accusations, because making a demand it's not a threat, you should know that. Instead, I think you are the one who make threats by threating me with consecuences when I only wrote a request.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enciclopedia1993: I think this was quite disrespectful too. I can understand that you will make mistakes when writing in a second language, but you need to understand that other people will make mistakes too when reading your message. Brianjd (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Regarding user's copyvio track record IMO his/her autopatrol rights given just two months ago must be suspended, not talking of a possible block after this request is closed.--Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Просто автор

Уважаемые администраторы!К нам в OTRS снова обратился автор снимков File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Хартум, Судан).jpg и File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Остров Пентекост, Вануату).jpg. Файлы были удалены по причине COM:SCOPE. Он пояснил, что данные снимки планирует использовать в статьях русскоязычной Википедии: здесь Самостоятельный туризм и здесь Вануату#Туризм, Ticket#2020052610003901. Прошу ещё раз оценить целесообразность использования данного файла в статьях, и если Вы считаете возможным это, восстановить фотографию. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Mr. Pinchuk has succeded once in having one of his vanity pictures being kept here (I suppose because of the traditionnal clothes he was wearing). I'm not sure neither if it's OTRS volunteers's job to relay this sort of wishes and IMO they should advice him to open a social media account per COM:NOTHOST. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Волонтёры службы OTRS, в первую очередь, занимаются подтверждением разрешений на свободные лицензии произведений. Они не всегда могут предугадать, необходим тот или иной файл для Википедии или нет. Если файлы используются в Википедии, значит они имеют право находиться на Викискладе, если файл не используется в проектах, их всегда можно удалить. На сколько это тщеславие автора или нет, мы это не можем оценить, пока файл используется в Википедии. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Да, и файлы можно переименовать, удалив из описания ФИО автора, заменив на более конкретное содержание. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: I have to agree with Dogad75 here. The OTRS permission queue makes no judgement on whether the image is in scope or out of scope, as our role is just to verify authorship, the work's copyright status, and then accepting or declining the permission based on our investigation. ::: Furthermore, Dogad75 has only relayed a message, and has clearly left it to UDR to decide if the files should be undeleted. Ìch heiss Nat. 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Просто автор. Please note he uses another account (Виктор Пинчук (talk · contribs)). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: OTRS should be reserved for verifying messages that can’t be made public. They should pass on their findings, and the community should handle everything else, including questions of scope. Brianjd (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is, if the image is already on Commons, then completely ignore scope and just process the ticket. If the image is not yet on Commons (i.e. photosubmission), then I might reject the image if it's obviously not in scope (e.g. spam/logo of a company with no significant coverage in reliable sources) but I will upload it for them if I'm not sure if it's in scope or not. -- King of ♥ 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

(1) File:Majid Qodiriy's family 1936.jpg

Also:

--Nurmakon (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC) This photo belongs to our family, and it is a part of Nigora Kadirova's Family History Photo Archive. Original of this document/photo is kept by our family. --Nurmakon (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose @Nurmakon: Ownership or possession of a photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). As mentioned in the deletion discussion, please advise who is the photographer of the images, where and when were they first published, and when were they created. Thank you. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 12:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

- Dear Moderator, All of photos and documents published belong to our family, photographer of images is Ramzi Kadirov, who is my grandfather, and it is a part of Nigora Kadirova's Family History Photo Archive. Original of this document/photo is kept by our family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurmakon (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  Oppose When you uploaded the files, you claimed in each case that you were the actual photographer. That is obviously not correct. Now you claim that your grandfather was the actual photographer. In the case of #2 and #4, that is obviously not correct. #6 comes from a newspaper, so it is unlikely that your grandfather actually took the photo. #8 appears to be like #6. So we have eight images, about which you have made incorrect claims once for four and twice for the other four. How do you expect us to believe anything you say?

With that background, you can try to convince an OTRS volunteer that your grandfather actually was the photographer for #1, #3, #5, and #7. That may or may not be possible. For #2 and #4, you will have to prove that their copyright has expired. #6 and #8, the newspaper photos, probably cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


  Not done: Per discussion. The copyright holder needs to send a permission by email using the COM:OTRS procedure. --De728631 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sauron - Gorthaur.JPG

Hi. Several years ago I made some big mistakes on commons with connection to the Tolkien world. I "borrowed" several images I shouldn't have uploaded because I thought many of the Tolkien articles lacked pictures. My deep apologies for that, :-( I have come to better thoughts now. The only really selfmade picture of mine is File:Sauron - Gorthaur.JPG, but because of a fire in my home several years ago, I lost the computer with the picture and my drawing program. I really need the image now, so I want to know if you can recreate Sauron - Gorthaur.JPG for a day, so I am able to download it for myself. I have no intention of using it on wikipedia, on commons or any other website. I am asking you humbly because I know I have done something wrong in the past, and I have learned my lesson. Hope you'll forgive me. Best, --Gorthaur03 (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Done @Gorthaur03: I have undeleted the image for the time being. Please let me know when you have downloaded the file. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The file was temporarily undeleted and has now been deleted again as Gorthaur03 has retrieved a copy. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Kate Middleton's Wedding Dresses.jpg

This image was uploaded from Flickr and somebody (I don't remember the name, I think it was a robot) verified it was in public domain. Can someone explain why it was deleted please?Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Anand-ICE-Logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020052810003077.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020052810003077|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help.   Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 09:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat:   Done Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Ian Chan.jpg

[[File:Ian Chan.jpg of the file t undelete The image was made by me on the music concert of Ian Chan. I have the full copyright of the image and release the image to commom use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeeverythingcorrect (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Makeeverythingcorrect: The photo has previously shown up on Ian Chan's Facebook page, so we need additional verification that you are the photographer. Can you upload the original unedited photo with full EXIF data? -- King of ♥ 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Komiksova Kytice.jpg

Dear sir or madam,

I am the owner of the rights to the picture. I gave Wikipedia creative commons licences (via regular ticket). I really do not understand why anybody dares to delete my picture without any asking of the owner. please undelete the picture Komiksova Kytice.jpg

Thank you for understandings Yarrrick (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarrrick (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 May 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  Oppose The image was deleted on sight because it is a book cover. Policy requires that in the case of book covers, an authorized representative of the publisher must send a free license using OTRS.

I note that in the file description you claimed that you were the actual creator of the book cover -- the designer/artist. Above you do not say that. If you were not the actual creator, then the file description is incorrect. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CHG-Meridian GF 2020.jpg

An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020052810006654.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020052810006654|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help.   --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Olaf Kosinsky:   Done Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CHG-Meridian HQ 2020.jpg

An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020052810006654.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020052810006654|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help.   --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Olaf Kosinsky:   Done Gbawden (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Clebio Guillon Soria Foto 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020052310004503.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020052310004503|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help.   Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


  Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Amb Osman Siddique.jpg We had been provided with permission from the owner of the photo M. Osman Siddique.

We had been provided with permission from the owner of the photo M. Osman Siddique, to add more information to his Wikipedia page, and to help update and correct any of the information on his page by his request. We can provide any of the necessary information or even testimony from M. Osman Siddique himself, about the permission behind the photo. The image was taken from the gallery of his page https://www.osmansiddique.com/

Thank you for your consideration --Wellbp (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose As the image was previously published elsewhere, policy requires that the actual photographer send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that the copyright holder is the person who took the photo, rather than the person who appears in it, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract (written and signed by the photographer). Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat:, Thank you for your quick response, I'll look into getting the required permissions. Have a great day :) --Wellbp (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Brent R Loken.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020052810009795.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020052810009795|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help.   Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  Done by Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

File:StormDennisfloodMap.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is come from ESA sentinel 1 images, in which {{Attribution-Copernicus}} is applicable 219.78.191.24 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Dewesoft Trbovlje.jpg

It is true that I had uploaded the same picture under the different names regarding the file File:Dewesoft Trbovlje.jpg but every time I uploaded it I had my permissions for upload from the copyright holder. First time I haven't declared it correctly (because I didn't know how), the second time I wrote to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org adding the Agreement of using the image which apparently wasn't sufficient but the same day I received the message I wrote to the copyright holder who also contacted the same addres regarding this subject. BR --Flavijus (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Naharkatiya College.png

I am an student of Naharkatiya college and have permission to make wikipedia article/wikimedia uploads of Naharkatiya college

Soo I request to to undelete it


Changgogoi (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Changgogoi,29/05/2020

File:Naharkatiya College.jpg

I am an student of Naharkatiya college and have permission to make wikipedia article/wikimedia uploads of Naharkatiya college ..but maybe I have made mistake while adding license in wikimedia ..

Soo I request to to undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changgogoi (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion file versions

Can somebody delete:

1) the first two versions my file from May 14. In my file I made a mistake in the first two versions.

2) the last two versions File:Jehovahs Witnesses Warwick.jpg. Author make mistake. The file that he uploaded in by mistake exists separately: File:Jw headquart.jpg

Here was my request, but the file versions were not deleted. — LibreOffice User (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)