Commons:Undeletion requests


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎中文

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.

Commons deletion (policy)

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.

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit


User:Jcb has marked the file as possible copyvio because Higher resolution here: and deleted it within one minute – no second pair of eyes was involved. I could only find there. In my opinion this is just scaled up from 800px × 266px (our file) to 940px × 300px, to match the size of the site’s header:

  • The file, 32.5 % larger in amount of pixels, is just 2.67 % bigger in file size compared to the now deleted file.
  • The tree to the left on the bigger file has way more JPG compression artifacts.
  • On a very close look to that tree, there are a few pixel rows missing from the top in the bigger file compared to the deleted one.

With the given arguments I can’t see a copyvio here. -- 32X (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose I agree that they are the same image, and that the one on the web may well be an upscale of the one here. However, there is a more fundamental problem. The listed source is WP:EN and the license is {{PD}}. Given the vehicles barely visible in the lower left corner and the general quality of the color image, I think that it is probably from the last twenty years, but certainly post-war. The uploader did not claim "own work", but simply stated, "This image is in the public domain" without giving a reason. Since we have no valid source and an image that obviously has a copyright, the license tag {{PD}} cannot be valid. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Blason de la ville d'Agnin (Isère).svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a representation of a city armorial entirely drawn using the official description on how the armories look. On FrWiki (and maybe in other projects), armories are drawn using free elements and assemble together to represent what the official description states.

Obviously, this makes the armories looks very much alike the official armories, but this is not a derivative of the art work, since the art work is not used.

Official description can be found here.

See also fr:Projet:Blasons. Scoopfinder(d) 13:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason de la ville d'Agnin (Isère).svg. This goes beyond looking similar, it is identical. Thuresson (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thuresson, I disagree. The rose is very different as is the fish. The circle on the front of the building is open on this one and shaded at I find the claim of a new creation from the blazon credible. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The picture itself is made of "meubles" and other free licensed pictures. I notify Spax89 that could bring more information about it (if he wants). If you start to delete armories/blazons this way, you could directly delete all his creations because they will all look similar to their original... it is armories/blazons! I will also notify the appropriate project that might be able to give more information on this. --Scoopfinder(d) 07:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering all facts I have no opinion if the image should be undeleted or not. Thuresson (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

2 by User:BronHiggs

Following up on the "kept" decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Purchase decision model.jpg.

I believe that File:Hierarchy of effects.jpg and File:Dick and basus loyalty matrix.jpg should be undeleted. The fact that a diagram cites a source does not mean that it is plagiarized from that source: no more so than an article citing a source. In the latter case, the arrangement of the diagram looks to me to be in any case too simple to be eligible for copyright. @BronHiggs: it would be very useful if you would assert overtly, as you did for File:Purchase decision model.jpg, that the diagram is your own work based on material from the cited sources, not a scan from the cited sources. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the closing Admin at the cited DR and suggested that BronHiggs or Jmabel open this UnDR. While I completely agree with JMabel that citing a book as a source does not necessarily mean that the diagram was copied from the book, I think that it raises a more than significant doubt, so that before we restore these we need BronHiggs to state that they are his or her own work. I will be happy to Assume Good Faith and restore these after seeing such a statement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:OVIKpangolin File:Pangolin Hand Over.jpg

A large number of images which I have used to support and inform articles have recently been removed due to alleged copyright issues. In this case OVIKpangolin.jpg was deleted alog with: pangolin hand over.jpg andPangolin 6x6 fire tender.jpg

I am the owner of that image. I was the photographer. I have the original RAW files. The same applies to all the recent images recently deleted. This causes me to lose faith in Wikipedia.. sometimes it seems like nothing other than a witch hunt against genuine Wikipedia contributors. Please re-instate these images to support the various articles - or I shall simply stop contributing my specialist knowledge.

--Landroverfan (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @Landroverfan: Hello, please follow the procedure at OTRS and send the original RAW files there. I don't know why they were deleted as copyvios, but it may be probably because they were previously published on other websites. To protect your copyright and Commons, we do this kind of procedure. We apologize for the inconvenience and we don't want you to leave Wikipedia and Commons. Thank you. Poké95 05:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


I think that perhaps Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Landroverfan was a little hasty. The entire discussion reads "unlikely to be own work". I invite Didym and INeverCry to comment. On the other hand, I think we also need a little more explanation from Landroverfan. Aside from the file above, the image at File:CROSSWAY 6x6 Armoured Logistics.jpg appears cropped at Is OVIK taking your images from Commons without credit? Or do you work for them? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Before starting that DR, I've checked about a third of the user's uploads, and found every single image published before, so even the rest is unlikely to be own work. --Didym (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Didym, I agree that many of the images have been used elsewhere, but I think it is entirely possible that they are in fact own work. Note that in the case of File:CROSSWAY 6x6 Armoured Logistics.jpg, the image here is larger and the one on the Web is cropped from it. Appearing elsewhere on the Web does not always mean that our uploader has lifted them from the Web -- it may mean that the Web instance came from our uploader, with or without permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, but those images were apparently on the web before being uploaded here. --Didym (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Landroverfan: Seems that OTRS procedure is the best way to go. Please read OTRS and follow the instructions given. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:DTM Vlaamse Ardennen.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Jcb's argumentation said it is a screenshot. It is not a screenshot. The guideline says explicitly: "this does not prevent you from uploading works created using non-free software". Nothing from ArcGIS is visible in the export, only the data itself! Wormke-Grutman (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  Question Where did you get the data? Also, as it stands, with only "Digitaal terreinmodel van de Vlaamse Ardennen " ("Digital terrain model of the Flemish Ardennes") as a description and no place information on the map, it does not appear to be very useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple photos

   File:ALopezAmo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Pedro_A_Urbina.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:JoseOrlandis19920311.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Jmmacarulla.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Jose_Manuel_Casas_Torres.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Fco_Ponz.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:FASanchoR.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:FReinoso.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:19770816-GO.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Javier_Hervada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Ismael_Sanchez_Bella.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Pedro_lombardia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Ignacio Olabarri 20020408.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Ignacio_Araujo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:FSuarezD.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:AngelLG.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:José_Javier_López_Jacoiste.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:Jose_Luis_Illanes_Maestre.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:ValentinVdP20000412.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr
   File:UNAV_Arquitectura.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr

Buenos días, las siguientes fotos fueron borradas porque me atribuí indebidamente su autoría. Corresponden al Archivo Fotográfico de la Universidad de Navarra, que las ha colgado en Flickr, con las licencias pertinentes para ser utilizadas en Wikipedia. Rogaría que se procediera a la cancelación de su borrado. Muchas gracias.--Hard (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  Comment for the admin attending this request: previous request, details. Strakhov (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose I think this is all license laundering. The Flickr account gives no reason why it has the rights to freely license all of these images. Since they appear to be people from the mid to late twentieth century, all of the photographs are still under copyright and it seems very unlikely that one photographer took them all. The Flickr user account may or may not actually belong to the University of Navarra, but we do not know that for certain. It is also possible that the University owns paper copies of these photos, but that does not give it the right to freely license them unless they have a formal written license from each of the photographers.
I think that in order to restore these, we will need a license from an authorized official of the University via OTRS. That must come with a full explanation of why the University thinks it has the right to license these images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I restored 2 files yesterday, assuming AGF. I don't oppose your reasoning, it actually makes sense to ask for OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The flickr account belongs to the University of Navarre and the people managing it would be kind of authorized. Yeah ...there's an assumption/leap of good faith taking its claims of owned copyright. But, well, I always believe in people (or institutions) here, at least until they prove themselves liars. Not the case for now. The idea of photographers working for the University, taking photos for the University and giving them their rights seems... plausible. Anyways, if there's license laundering, it would be done by the University of Navarra itself and not by User:Hard, who has worked this with best faith possible. Strakhov (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have seen much more of the bad side of Commons than you. First, how do we know the Flickr page is owned by the University? does not have a link to it. I agree that it is likely that the University owns the page, but "likely" is not our standard of proof.
Second, the assumption that employees working on a Web site are authorized to give away potentially valuable University property is not good. We have seen too many cases of unauthorized licensing -- we have one open now with more than 700 images and the organization demanding the take down of images that its people posted with CC-BY when only CC-BY-NC was authorized.
Third, even if the employees were authorized, I would be surprised if someone who understands Spanish copyright law has actually looked at each of the images on the site and made a determination. Perhaps the photographers of all the modern images were employees with work for hire agreements, but that gets to be harder to accept when the images are older.
So, I think we need a formal statement from someone senior enough in the University to take it seriously that is actually owns the copyright to these images or at least has written agreements giving it the right to freely license them. Not unreasonable, I think. And, by the way, some Flickrwashing cases directly involve our uploader, but most are the work of the Flickr account owner and our uploader is not involved in the washing, although in some cases might have used better judgement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are right about seeing the bad side of Commons often than me. As the flickr account is involved, it's linked here ( (their official page). "Síguenos" (follow us), including their twitter account (@unav), facebook page (unav), linkedin (universidad-de-navarra), youtube (universidaddenavarra) and finally flickr account (unav). So, "license laundering university" or not, the "officiality" of that Flickr account is IMHO out of question. And about that last one I just did wanna support User:Hard's reputation, after many of his uploads been deleted and he acknowledging what he had done wrong, he did his best (I really admire his patience) and I fully believe in his words. And I consider that important since he claimed four or five deleted pics were actually his, despite EXIF information. If you meant the license launderer was the Institution, ok. It could actually be that way. If you meant to be ambiguous, then I'm not ok. Not big deal though. With the OTRS, yeah, it would be cool, for sure, the University stating they very own these pics' copyright by legal contract in an email rather than uploading them to their official flickr account, but I see always OTRS as a last resort, as it's pretty overbooked and resource-consuming, I've been said. Strakhov (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your continuing efforts in following up on this problem. I looked only at the University's main page, so did not see the Flickr link. I withdraw the accusation of License Laundering, which certainly implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't at all think Hard is the bad guy here and while I do think the University is wrong, I don't think it was deliberate.
I still think we need confirmation from someone at the University who understands copyright and i prepared to say that these are OK and why -- as I said above, large institutions frequently make the mistake of thinking that owning a photo gives them the right to license it.
I see your point, Jim, but if we follow your approach, we should delete any flickr stream pictures with no additional OTRS authorization. I do see the mistakes made by Hard but they were made in good faith and can't see how they apply to this case. Looking it from the other way around: if Hard hadn't made several mistakes would you have decided to delete the files coming from a legitimate (see Strakhov's argumentation above) flickr stream? I don't think so. Therefore, I can't understand why we are using argumentation that could be applied to almost any flickr stream only to this case.
And, if we go back to your argument, yes, the usual contractual way of working in Spain is to establish that all the results of your work belongs to your employee and therefore we can assume that pictures are OK for sure. Again, if Commons policy is distrusting any institutional flickr account provided that no aside OTRS has been submitted, we should apply such a new policy to all the cases (and possibly discussing it in a wider board). Until such a policy is established, I can't see any valid reason to delete this files (that is, not to restore them). Best regards --Discasto talk 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You meant employer. :P Strakhov (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"if we follow your approach, we should delete any flickr stream pictures with no additional OTRS authorization" -- No. We Assume Good Faith when a Commons editor with a clean record uploads images that look like they could, in fact, be his or her own work. We draw the line (as I did below) if the uploader claims "own work" on an image from 1920, and look a little harder if the image has no EXIF or is small, or both. When we look at Flickr images, we are one step removed -- except for known bad actors, the Flickr user has no record here, so we are a little more careful, but, fundamentally we AGF there as well. However, these are all images that we would question even if the University brought them directly to Commons itself. They are spread over time, have a lot of different people in them and are all still under copyright. Since we have had poor experience with blanket claims from institutions that should know better, it is only prudent to require OTRS confirmation from the University. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Buenos días, Esta foto File:Josemiguelcejas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) flickr fue borrada porque me atribuí indebidamente su autoría. Corresponde a la Oficina de Información de la Prelatura Opus Dei, que la ha colgado en Flickr, con las licencias pertinentes para ser utilizadas en Wikipedia. Rogaría que se procediera a la cancelación de su borrado. Muchas gracias.--Hard (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hard: Esa licencia no vale para Commons, pues es CC BY NC SA. El NC hace que no sea válida. Strakhov (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Strakhov, disculpa. Efectivamente tienes razón, pero me parece que ahora si que está bien ( Gracias por todo. Un cordial saludo!.--Hard (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  Support Looks OK now to me. Note that the author should be credited: "Juan Perez Leon;Oficina de Información Opus Dei", not "own work" as Hard claimed. It also will need Flickrreview. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  Support per Jim, now CC-BY-SA-2.0. Once restored, I will pass the license review. -- Poké95 00:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Jan Evers.jpg

OTRS erhielt eine Genehmigungs-Mail am 11. Oktober. Da ich mit dem Umgang mit OTRS|Pending nicht vertraut war und auch keine Hilfe erhielt, wurde die Datei gelöscht. Ich bitte, diese wiederherzustellen. Die Mail müsste jetzt bei OTRS verarbeitet sein. Danke + mfg --Wacken! (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: Schaust Du mal in ticket:2016101110015307? LG, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
In dem Ticket gab es eine Rückfrage an den Einsender der Freigabe, die nicht beantwortet wurde. Bisher ist das keine gültige Freigabe. --Krd 05:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Pelayo.jpg, File:Isabel I of Castile.jpg File:The return of Columbus in Spain, 1493.jpg

Author and date of these three pictures were included in their respective descriptions, proving they were in the public domain (two of them were paintings by 19th century Spanish artist Luis de Madrazo). However, this information was completely ignored and the pictures were arbitrarily deleted altogether with the other files uploaded by the same user, without further discussion and without taking the provided information into consideration. -- 05:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  Support This is silly:

"However, this information was completely ignored and the pictures were arbitrarily deleted altogether with the other files uploaded by the same user, without further discussion and without taking the provided information into consideration"

These were all subject, with others, to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CanBea87. Each case is different, but at the time the DR was opened, all of these had either "own work" or Luis de Madrazo (not a name most of us know) as the author, no date, and CC-BY-SA. After the DR was started, User: (Maybe the same person as It's the same ISP.) added some information, but not consistently. You cannot reasonably expect the closing Admin to look at every image in a large DR, so I think that the comment is way out of line. I find it particularly strange that you accuse the community of closing the DR "without further discussion" when it's clear that could have stopped the deletion of these three if he had bothered to make a simple comment at the DR. Discussion doesn't happen by magic -- it happens when editors who have useful information about a file add that information to the DR.

With that understood, as I flagged above, I think these three should be restored and the date and license corrected. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hubert vom Venn neu.jpg

Lauf Aussage der Fotografin hat sie die Freigabe bereits an euch geschickt. Nebenbei finde ich es seltsam das das Foto sofort gelöscht wurde und nicht wie angegeben nach 7 Tagen

Gruß aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose It was immediately deleted because it met the requirements for {{Speedy}} -- namely that it had an author who was not the uploader, no license, and no indication of permission from the author.

If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ich kann erahnen was die Antwort bedeutet, Netz Übersetzer helfen da nicht viel weiter. OTRS ist schwer zu handhaben und fürchterlich umständlich und unlogisch. da muss ne andere Lösung her die besser zu handhaben ist. Gruß aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Caronna, Das Bild wurde sofort gelöscht, weil es keine genauen Angaben zur Lizenz hatte: welche CC Lizenz genau?. Solche Angaben musst Du immer mitliefern. Grundsätzlich sind derartige Dateien zur sofortigen Löschung freigegeben (Kriterien für die Schnelllöschung), darum wurde die Datei später automatisch zur sofortigen Löschung markiert. OTRS ist eigentlich auch nicht unlogisch, aber das Team dort ist chronisch unterbesetzt. Eine kleine handvoll Freiwillige arbeitet den gesamten E-Mail-Verkehr ab, und das dauert eben seine Zeit, so dass nicht sofort nach dem Hochladen einer Datei die entsprechende Genehmigung freigeschaltet wird. Dazu kommt, dass aus Datenschutzgründen die E-Mails nur zwischen dem Rechteinhaber und OTRS hin und her laufen dürfen, also hat ggf. der "Lieferant" auf den Prozess gar keinen Einfluss. Sobald die Freigabenachricht hier abgearbeitet wurde, wird das Bild aber umgehend wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ich hatte der Fotografin eigentlich das Formular geschickt was vorgeschlagen ist. DIe Scheint das halt nicht verstanden zu haben. Das ist wohl immer das Problem mit "Fremden" DIe hat sich auch nicht bei mir gemeldet, so was ich das abklären konnte. In Zukunft werde ich das anders machen, das "Fremde" das Formulöar erst an mich schicken und dann im Firefox die Mail weiterleite an euch.
Ich werde in Zukunft noch andere Bilder bekommen, welche sind aus dem örtlichen Stadtarchiv, die anderen von dem Heimatverein dem Fotos vererbt wurden. Sollte doch auch auf dem üblichen Wege gehen? Gruß aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Das Problem ist, dass wir halt bei Uploads, die nicht vom Dateilieferanten erstellt wurden, immer eine Bestätigung brauchen. Bei dem OTRS-Formular ist aber immer hilfreich, wenn in der E-Mail dann tatsächlich auch der Name der Bilddatei auf Commons genannt wird. Das heisst, dass die Freigabe tatsächlich per E-Mail gesendet werden muss, und soweit ich weiß, akzeptiert OTRS keine weitergeleiteten Mails. Für die zukünftigen Gebrauch solltest Du also die Rechteinhaber wirklich bitten, den folgenden Text zu verwenden, nachdem du das Bild auf Commons hochgeladen hast:

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild DATEINAME AUF COMMONS, dass ich a) dessen Fotograf/in bin oder b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete. Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ ( Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird. DATUM, NAME

Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass bei der eigentlichen Vorlage die geschweiften Klammern für Verwirrung sorgen, aber wenn einmal weiss, wie es geht, kann man es den Fotografen und/oder Bilderben ja erklären. Wichtig ist eben auch, dass Du nach dem Hochladen solcher Bilder von Anfang an sowohl die gewünschte Lizenz, als auch den Baustein {{OTRS pending}} auf die Dateiseite setzt, damit das Bild nicht gleich wieder gelöscht wird. De728631 (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Habe gerade bei Túrelio gesehen, dass weitergeleitete Mails doch möglich sind. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward, INeverCry: FYI, while there wasn't an {{OTRS pending}} tag on the page, it did have a written note in German about permission going to be sent by email. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Our experience has been that a significant number -- maybe half, maybe more -- of such claims never materialize. Therefore we delete the file and restore it when and if an acceptable free license comes in from the actual copyright holder. My note above (which comes from {{Odelay}}) is based on the theory that a user should not be able to jump the long OTRS queue by coming here. If we allowed users to do that it would both be unfair to the bulk of users who don't know UnDR is here and add to the load of those of us who work here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
That's alright, I just wanted to let you know in case you had missed that statement. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


this picture was designed by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Just kidding!.jpg? Even if you combined the final image, we need to know the source and copyright status of the photographs of the face and the sunglasses. Mixing other people's images to a new file is called a derivative work and requires permission from the original photographers. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose This is an unused personal file from a contributor whose only other contribution was a copyvio. I think it is out of scope even if the copyright problem is addressed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Parasiliti di Para.jpg

Bonjour, je demande de bien vouloir annuler la suppression de l'image "Parasiliti di Para.jpg. J'ai pris cette photo moi-même en 2014 et je l'ai publié sur le site dont je suis le propriétaire. Je ne comprends donc pas pourquoi cette image a été supprimée. (Kppcom (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC))

For images that have already been published elsewhere we usually require a permission sent by email. The easiest way in this case. however, would be if you could put a note on your website that this photograph was taken by you and has been released under a Creative Commons-by-sa-4.0 licence. Then we can restore the file over here. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Same thing I said at User talk:INeverCry#File:Parasiliti di Para.jpg... I love when we get to do the same thing twice...   lNeverCry 02:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Photographs by 7 Group

I'd like to request a second/third pair of eyes for the following photographs:

Many were nominated because the original ticket ticket:2012041910003628 was deemed insufficient. I agree. The new ticket ticket:2016080110008624 does clarify things and I'm inclined to accept the coporate ownership of the majority of the copyrights above (with further clarification needed for a couple e.g. File:Andi Siebenhofer at Dashni Morad Show, Kurdistan.jpg and the first one listed)... Most have been stripped of EXIF, but e.g. this one has "Copyright - (c) 2012 Wolf-Dieter Grabner, Andi Siebenhofer & The 7 Group". I would, however, like a second opinion. Some may need to be looked at on scope-grounds, but if so, they should probably be restored and have a new DR. Ping also billinghurst, who discovered the inadequacy of the first ticket. Storkk (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the circumstance that you mention, and I have not retained OTRS access, so my opinion is neutral on the permissions scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry... that was a mistake on my part. You converted some copyvio templates to DRs (1, 2). They were initially nominated under the rationale that subject cannot be copyright holder regardless of OTRS ticket, but that came from Ariadacapo, not you. Apologies. Storkk (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


en:Autocunnilingus was undeleted per en:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 15.

--Lava03 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems a bit irrelevant to the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/All images in Category:Sex drawings by User:Rama... the image was not deleted as out of scope. Reventtalk 13:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose Agreed -- the file was deleted as a derivative work copyvio, not on scope grounds. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Великий Полюхів 1920.jpg

Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurek.was (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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 That is almost impossible. Even if you were age 10 when you took the picture, you would have to be 106 years old now. "Own work" means that you were the actual photographer, not simply someone who scanned an old photograph. In order to restore the image, we need to know when, where, and by whom it was photographed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Por favor restaure estas imagenes

Files uploaded by Freddycanaviri777 (talk · contribs)


These are huge text files -- tables -- around 12,000 by 9,000 pixels, 20 megabytes for example. They are completely illegible at full screen size and don't render at all if you hit the magnify button. If they are in scope at all, which I doubt, such information as may be contained in them must be set in Wikitables so that it can be read on all size screens and so that it loads in a reasonable time. Tables like this are not permitted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose, from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Freddycanaviri777.
Google Translate. "There was a mistake to delete the files are from my property Freddy Canaviri Apaza, i other web sites are my files with myself name Freddy Canaviri Apaza, applying the restoration of these files that is very good contribution for humanity and history dar to know the information contained in these files later dare further explanation in the encyclopedia Wikipedia and need these files, this is my website".
Nominator do not address the arguments raised in the deletion request: Thuresson (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  Not done per Jameslwoodward and Thuresson. Copyright is not the issue here but no valid reason was presented to keep these illegible tables that were found to be out of project scope. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Freddycanaviri777's images, redux


@Jcb, Cambalachero: Can you please explain in Spanish why these files were not restored? De728631 (talk)
@Freddycanaviri777: Por favor, dejar de GRITAR. Utilice su clave de bloqueo de mayúsculas marcada "Caps lock". Sus archivos fueron borrados porque no pertenecen aquí. Por favor lee Commons:Alcance del proyecto en su totalidad. Si lo desea, puede eliminar las noticias escritas en User talk:Freddycanaviri777, como ya lo ha hecho. Storkk (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Las imágenes no fueron borradas por problemas de derechos de autor. Se las borró porque son imágenes con puro texto, y en wikipedia se puede generar texto directamente. Y además, son ilegibles a primera vista y son tan pesadas que son difíciles de cargar bien para verlas a tamaño normal. Cambalachero (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I hereby request that these pictures

all uploaded by me be not deleted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken4desmond (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)(Ken4desmond (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC))ken4desmond

@Ken4desmond: Please provide the exact file name of the image and a reason why it should be restored. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)



Je vois en ce jour que les photos ajoutées la page "Stéphane Richelmi" ont été supprimées. Je viens vers vous afin de demander plus un éclaircissement qu'un réel retour de celles-ci si vous jugez réellement d'une contradiction à vos règles.

Ces photos n'ont pas été prises sur le web mais bien achetées à l'agence photographique qui lui a ainsi donné l'accord de les utiliser sur le web. De plus, nous avons bien spécifié leur copyright sur chaque photo. C

Devons-nous obtenir du média un certificat nous permettant la publication de ces photos, nous sera t'il permit de les ajouter à nouveau ?

merci d'avance,