Open main menu


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.

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by Alx90865

Please restore the following pages:

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)
  • "Never was" seems like a big claim. Such things weren't clearly PD in the US until 1991 (the Supreme Court overruled lower courts in w:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.) and database rights might apply today in the EU. Given the growth of modern copyright law from previous publisher protection, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian Empire had sweat of the brow style copyright laws. Not to mention incidental text or typographical copyrights... easier just to say PD-RusEmpire and be done with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


They're all original built upon NASA's material under public domain. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Per the points I given in this discussion--Cohaf (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, I still don't find your point justifiable. Wikimedia Projects are not democracy or literally a place to vote. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are not democracy, but providing a clear proof that uploaded content is copyright-free of freely licensed is up to uploader. Per COM:PCP if doubts cannot be resolved, we cannot host the images. No direct link to a NASA source provided nor an evidence that content from is free. "版權所有 © 2008-2019 QGIS" is not a free license declaration, but a copyright claim. Educational only use also does not mean free. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM官網)"


Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

I will add the text that "work based on raw black&white data Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." upon the recovery of the deleted photos.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cohaf, Yann: Should you guys have any question in regard to the copyright explanation above, please let me know. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per information provided above. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, the above is still not enough. We don't have the original pictures the derivatives is being produced and unless we have it, we cannot know that it is from this source. The special cases also stated that there can be images on the website not covered, so we can't be sure. It's still dubious licensing. --Cohaf (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. I'm observing this whole discussion on several pages, and here is how it looks to me: People are trying to find any potential way to view these files as a form of copyright violation, they do not find any reason, and after that they say "This must be an unknown unknown". Are you saying that you want to see a list of images that were used? If so this is just reasonable enough. My concern is that the "delete" side is actually not stating what is needed here, only vaguely hinting at it. @It's gonna be awesome: Could you please provide links to images that were used? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes @Gone Postal:. I need to see the actual files. Now they are obtained from a webpage which obviously the webpage is copyrighted. They claimed it is from NASA which in the discussion in Yann talkpage, I note that NASA have a clause that forbids commercial use without explicit permission. The commercial user needs to ask for permission each time they use the files. I supposed it is the same as per derivatives. We just can't host it here. There are a few issues: 1. The clear photo should be given. 2. The NASA clause needs to be resolved (which I offered them to host the files locally at zhwp). 3. Per COM:PCP, I am just taking due precautions. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • If all the data come from NASA, then the files can be accepted, but it is not clear to me if that's really the case. All content produced by NASA is in the public domain. File:Landform of Formosa.png was reuploaded. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @Yann, Cohaf: I produced the final colorful images based on a raw B&W image of ASTER GDEM linked from the educational website hosted by Academica Sinica of Taiwanese Government. Please feel free to let me if you have any question. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the raw B&W image embedded in the educational website's example, as you can see that's the northern part of Taiwan. I followed the steps taught by the website to download the complete raw B&W image of Taiwan as a whole. Afterward, I started off the work from a raw B&W image of Taiwan. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO there are 3 separate issues: 1. the license of the source data; 2. What material was used to produce these maps? 3. Does using the data to produce a new map OK? If the data is just geographical coordinates, I am not sure there can be a copyright on them. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. The license of the source data:
  • Source:
Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"
  1. What material was used to produce these maps?
  • A raw B&W data of ASTER GDEM
  1. Does using the data to produce a new map OK?
  • Yes, otherwise the educational website, directly operated by the highest rank of academic institution in Taiwan supported by Taiwanese Government, wouldn't teach people to produce without prior warning.
  • Per JPL Image Use Policy, it's okay to use the data to produce a new map.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO you confuse several things: 1. ASTER GDEM Version 2 doesn't seem to be a free license, 2. raw data is not "black and white" as you wrote, raw data is numbers. 3. "educational website" doesn't mean that it is covered by a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

Secondly, I started off upon a simple non-visible black and white picture of Taiwan of ASTER GDEM.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize that I learned the abstract knowledge rather than just copied the physical proprietary objects from the educational website.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ASTER GDEM does seem to have a free license -- if it's even copyrightable to begin with. It sounds like the GDEM data is the result of automated processing over the raw data[1], and it's given out freely. There does not seem to be any restrictions on what you can do with it (that was not always the case, but seems to be today). The raw data does seem to be photos taken by a NASA satellite using a Japanese instrument. I have no idea if there is any real aiming of the camera or if it just continually takes pictures. But even presuming there might have been a copyright, it would seem the data is being released freely with no restrictions, as is common with NASA efforts (even joint ones with non-PD-USGov entities). Other than pretty extreme theoretical areas, I don't see a real reason to doubt they are free. PD-USGov-NASA may be the most convenient license. I am not sure if the process used added any expression, so not sure if the license should just be that of the original, or whether the user needs to license their efforts as well. But leaning   Support on this if the only real question is the license of the ASTER data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear insight. I would say this is the point. The legitimacy of the license of the ASTER data is the thing they want to confirm. Respectfully yours. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Put it in a nutshell: I got an ASTER data. Afterward, I processed the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible using the knowledge learned from the educational website. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
版權所有 (All rights reserved);   Oppose unless It's gonna be awesome may make the website source clarify (澄清, or correct 更正) the "original source" is/to be free use. If It's gonna be awesome can really make it, please notice me, and I would appreciate that. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"All rights reserved" says nothing about if it's free or not -- it is the same thing as a copyright notice. The owner reserves the rights, then licenses them with a free license. The copyright notice was for the U.S. and later the Universal Copyright Convention; "All rights reserved" was for the Buenos Aires Convention, so people tended to use both together and continue to do so. It does not contradict any license given for that copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sanmosa: I learned the knowledge from the educational website to process the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the files can be kept. Raw data's licence is ok and this user's calim of own work has not been refuted.--Roy17 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:The battle path 10th guards rifle corps.jpg


What is reason to delete this file? There was no discussion after the file was nominated for deletion. I have made changes to the license, it was taken into account when making the outcome? --Odinn1 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Odinn1: Please clarify if this is a request for administrative action. Thuresson (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: This is a request to restore the file or explain the reasons for its deletion. --Odinn1 (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Odinn1: Deleted per community decission as uploader did not provide an evidence that they file indeed originates from / минобороны.рф domains. If there is such evidence (or another clear reason for the declared license, the decission may be reconsidered). Ankry (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: This document is available on the portal memory of the Nation ( which is owned by the Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation. --Odinn1 (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
And where is the evidence that all content of this portal is also owned by the Ministry and that the did grant the CC license to it? This must be explicitly stated to be valid. The fact that somebody published something on their page does not automatically mean that they have right to license this. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Evidence that all the content of this portal also belongs to the Ministry can be found in the section "about the project" of this portal " Welcome to the portal "Memory of the people", created by the Ministry of defense by the decision of the Russian organizing Committee "Victory" and supported by the order of the President of the Russian Federation And". Under CC license I will look for information. --Odinn1 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"created by the Ministry of defense" does not mean copyright ownership to all the content. Maybe, they only have the right to use this? Or they can use unless somebody complains? Ankry (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Documents posted on this portal belong to the Central archive of the Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation, it follows that all scanned documents posted on the portal belong to the Ministry of defence. --Odinn1 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"The main goal of the project is to provide users with the opportunity to get the most complete information about the participants of the great Patriotic war through new interactive tools and the development of generalized databases «memorial» and «Feat of the people in the great Patriotic war of 1941-1945»". --Odinn1 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the answer to the administration portal "terms of use documents from the website in publications relating to the history of the great Patriotic war, is simple – you must link to the website. Not a mandatory link for each photo, it is only necessary that it was clear that the photos from the site. For example "All pictures are not particularly marked, are taken from the website of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation»". --Odinn1 (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. Is this declaration public? This must be verifiable even in 20-50 years. So if not public and archived (or be verified by an uninvolved license reviewer), it should go through OTRS.
  2. I see no declaration that the site owner owns copyright; and without such a declaration (or another evidence) the above words are rather just their wish than a legal contract.
Summarizing: this does not convince me, but another admin opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg

This file may correspond to [2] (1928). If so, the author is: "Lafayette (Life time: not applicable)" as in File:1911 Redmond Barry.jpg (1911) or File:Katherine Mayo 1928.jpg (1928). --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  Info Same photo. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Then, I propose to undelete it under {{PD-UK-anon}}. Thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: The template says: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Is there any such information to be added to the image description? Thuresson (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Source in [3] indicate : "Artist: Lafayette (Lafayette Ltd) (founded 1880), Photographers. Artist associated with 6906 portraits." Based on this source, in the image description, we can indicate: "Sir John George Woodroffe, by Lafayette, half-plate nitrate negative, 25 October 1928, Given by Pinewood Studios via Victoria and Albert Museum, 1989." or as in File:Sir Abe Bailey, 1st Bt (Lafayette, 2).jpg. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:U.K.-Japanese minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are come from FCO, an official department of U.K. Government, and they are licensed as {{OGL3}}. See A1Cafel (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated": but the images originate from twitter, not from @A1Cafel: Why OGL3 should apply to them? Ankry (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: UK Government has a national archive on all official Twitter accounts from every department. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: is not Any evidence that OGL3 applies to service content also? Ankry (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The home page does have the OGL terms. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support then, if source link is changed to point to the archive. Ankry (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Anybody volunteers? Ankry (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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


I beleive that this file should not have been deleted, as it (to quote Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading_non-free_logos):-

"...only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain."

..and is thus covered by the PD-textlogo tag:- {{PD-textlogo}}

The file is small, and is only to be used on a single article: Energy Vault

The file is used on various sites, including Business Wire (see and perhaps unsurprisingly the company's own site:

Therefore, I don't think that it should have been deleted, and I respectfully request that it is reinstated.

Please note that I don't represent the company involved in any capacity: I am just a - fairly experienced - Wikipedian trying to share knowledge :-)

Simonjon (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonjon: Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia and unlike some Wikipedias, our copyright rules do not allow Fair Use logos to be hosted here. If the logo is a logo of US based company, it likely could be {{PD-textlogo}}. But I doubt this for Swiss law. We probably need some Swiss court cases to take a decision. Can you point out one for a similar logo?
Sites that use this logo under Fair Use are poor argument to consider it free for any purpose. Ankry (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't have any Swiss case law, though I note that the similar logo of the older Swiss firm Climeworks has been on Wikimedia Commons since 2017 as File:Climeworks AG Logo.jpg Simonjon (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. I   Support undeletion and discussing this case in a DR. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I think that the logo might be above TOO. Per [4], it states that "Literary and artistic creations of the mind that possess an individual character" is eligible for copyright protection. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: I have no opinion about Swiss ToO here, and that is why I prefer wider discussion in a DR in such cases (but it may be here as well, why not?). File:Climeworks AG Logo.jpg was incorrectly licensed, however. I nominated it into a DR. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Simonjon: This website states that there are exception for use for protected works, such as reporting of current events. The usage by Business wire might be due to it being a current event that the company won a prize. Just my inference of the website itself and I might not be right. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose I tend to agree with 大诺史. This logo is an "individual" work which makes it eligible for copyright. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Not done per 大诺史 & De728631. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Singer-Songwriter Coline Creuzot.jpg

We've had repeated difficulties with trying to upload an image for the artist's Wiki page - I am in direct contact with the artist and she owns and holds all copyrights to the images we have tried to use.

In this instance, I suggested that she upload the image she wanted to use directly to Flickr since the image isn't online otherwise and she can upload it directly under one of the licenses that is supposed to be automatically acceptable for use on Wiki pages. She did that, and it was still deleted. I'm not sure why this occurred since we did everything in accordance with the rules, she holds and owns all copyrights to the image, and uploaded it herself under one of the accepted licenses. There is absolutely no copyright violation occurring.

--Litpurpleincense (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Litpurpleincense: The image should be uploaded by the photographer (if not published). Otherwise, we need written permission send to us directly by the photographer (or another copyright holder with a written contract), see COM:OTRS for details. This image is definitely not a selfie and I see no evidence that the Flickr page belongs to a professional photographer. Note also, that authorship is not transferrable, so claiming that the author is somebody else than the photographer is illegal (well, in some countries for corporate works the employer may be the author; but I do not think this is the case). For images from external sites where a free license is granted, we have to carefully verify whether the license was granted legally by the photographer or, in some cases, by the photographer's employer. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I understand what you're saying completely, but the image - like the others I have tried to use on the artist's behalf - was commissioned by the subject herself. She owns the copyrights to the image, she hired the photographer, who turned the images (and the rights therein) over to her upon completion of the photo session. It's for her professional Wiki page and the image literally belongs to her, she employed the photographer, and the photographer doesn't retain the rights to the image at all. One of the other images we had attempted to use had been utilized previously in a press article and was taken down because of that even though they didn't own the rights to the image, so we attempted to use Flickr in order to have documentation that online, that is where the image was originating from, since another image we'd attempted to use was also taken down even though she held all legal rights to that image as well. What are my options for remedying this situation? The current image in question has never been used anywhere on the internet before, and all rights to the image do belong to the subject.

--Litpurpleincense (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We need to verify this. And everything that cannot be verified basing on public records, should go through OTRS. We may need confirmation of copyright transfer by the photographer or some contract details. This cannot be provided on-wiki. We had many complains from photographers, when subjects attempted to license their photos freely while not having rights to do so. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I understand. Thank you for your explanation. I've reached out to Coline and will have her verify via OTRS.

--Litpurpleincense (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

State Archives

I would like to present the restoration of this file as well as the Archivio di Stato di Mantova. they are scanned images, they are not taken from books, from maps containing the following images

the files (of PD license) listed, come from different eras. but always kept in the Archivio di Stato di Mantova--Carlös de Schlüchers (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Info Relates to User:A3cb1. Thuresson (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir.jpg

== [[File:Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir.jpg|thumb|Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir]] ==

Dear recipient. I kindly ask you to "undelete" the following file, [[File:Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir.jpg|thumb|Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir]] This is a photo I took of my mum, Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir, and she asked me to upload for a Wiki-site she is creating about herself. I did edit the photo in Adobe Lightroom, and I do have the original if you would want that as a proof. Kind regards, Thorolfur R Thorolfsson

--Thorolfurr (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thorolfurr: If the photo was published earlier in a non-free site, you need to contact COM:OTRS and prove your authorship there. does not seem to be freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Aubin Diximus Mère et enfant.jpg

Ce fichier n'a jamais été dans la presse; Il a été seulement communiqué à Catawiki--Ppad41 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We cannot handle OTRS cases here. If the permission is accepted, the file will be restored by an OTRS agent. If it is not, they should explain you why. If you did not get a response from OTRS, ask at COM:ON. Ticket number is 2018123010003983. Ankry (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

== Aubin Diximus Sphère suggérée.JPG == [Ticket#2019022110003696] Ce fichier n'a jamais été dans la presse; Il a été seulement communiqué à Catawiki --Ppad41 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Which file exactly do you mean? Ankry (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Aubin Diximus Sphère cercle.jpg == [Ticket#2019022110003598] Re: File: Aubin Diximus Sphère cercle.jpg Ce fichier n'a jamais été dans la presse; Il a été seulement communiqué à Catawiki.Ppad--Ppad41 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File : Aubin Diximus avec torse plâtre.jpg

C'est moi, épouse du sculpteur Pierre Aubin, qui l'ai photographié dans son atelier en 1965. Depuis, cette photo n'a jamais été publiée. Elle est dans nos archives familiales.Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Complémentarité.jpg ==[Ticket#2019022010008657] Pierre Aubin a pris lui-même cette photo à Madrid ; pour ce fichier il a envoyé une autorisation le le 20/02/2019 à Wikimedia Commons.Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Composition pour école maternelle.jpg == [Ticket#2019022010008728] Re: File : Composition pour école maternelle.jpg Pierre-Pascal Aubin a pris cette photo en 1971 ; elle n'a jamais été publiée.Pour ce fichier il a envoyé une autorisation le 20/02/2019 à Wikimedia Commons. Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Aubin Diximus Clocharde.jpg == (ticket:2019092010006271) Cette photo a été prise par Pierre-Pascal Aubin et n'a jamais été publiée.Pour ce fichier il a envoyé une autorisation le 20/02/2019 à Wikimedia Commons. Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:John C. Ackerman.jpg

Requesting the undeletion of the most recent file John C. Ackerman.jpg. This file was given to me by the photographer who took the photo. The photo is also used on this website: This is the same person that the Wikipedia page is being built for. Any further questions, please let me know. --Ashleymunge (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Ashley Munge 9/20/19

How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright to this photo? Thuresson (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Ashleymunge: Did the photographer tell you that now you are him? Lying about authorship is not a good start for contributing Wikimedia Commons. The photographer is the only person who can grant free license, tell them to do so. Via COM:OTRS if not in public. The only thing you can do while uploading a photo made by somebody else is pointing out a public location, where the license can be found and verified. Ankry (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Anita Sowińska.jpg

I made an article about Anita Sowińska with her. Every single word in article and every photo which I used was approved by her. Her assistant send me her photos so I think ther're okay and the should be undeleted.

Thanks in advance,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinoveritas123 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Invinoveritas123: How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Aukena Island.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I made this image file, but I think I forgot to check 'This is my work' check box when I uploaded it. So I would like to restore it. Mkim1963 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mkim1963: You have added the {{Own}} declaration, but another user doubts that you are original author of the photo and the person who drawed initially the glyphs, so asked you for proving that while contacting COM:OTRS (see the message on your talkpage). Did you that?

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

Photographs from listed at User:Harmonia Amanda/Clean up


The website has granted a blanket autorisation to publish their images under the Cc-by-sa-3.0 licence, which is archived in OTRS ticket 2008012510003504. User:Harmonia Amanda has been uploading massive quantities of these images at Category:Photographs from She put the OTRS ticket on the category, but forgot to do so on each individual image.

A few days ago, around 500 of these images were deleted, the admin having failed to notice the OTRS template on the category. Would it be possible to restore these images? Harmonia has listed the affected material at User:Harmonia Amanda/Clean up.

Thank you in advance and good continuation! Rama (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: can you comment on this? Do you oppose undeletion basing on the above? (of course, we likely need an OTRS member to add the ticket to all files...) Ankry (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a template for this permission, but unfortunately uploader only yesterday became aware (and I did not know about the template either) that they should use {{}} instead of {OTRS pending}. Files can be undeleted, {OTRS pending} can be removed and {} can be added instead. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done per Jcb. Ankry (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Airkeeper

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-Nepal}}: point #3 applies. It is a photographic work or work of applied art and 25 years have passed since the year the work was created. Please restore the files. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of these photos in the US? De728631 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I am unclear, Is it required/necessary to check the copyright status of the photos in the US? These are photographic work of notable Nepalese people, and 25 years have already passed since the year the work was created so per {{PD-Nepal}} they are in public domain in the country of origin. Also, It seems, they are in public domain in the US per {{PD-1996}}. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)



Undeletion of File:Advertisement for "The Strange Adventures of Prince Courageous".jpg and File:Tom Santschi and Bessie Love in an advertisement for The Honor of Rameriz.jpg

Please undelete:

These files had incorrect license tags applied, and were deleted before they could be updated. Please help with restoring them so that their license tags can be updated.

WikkanWitch (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Support Indeeed, the license template should be {{PD-US-expired}}. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Better would be {{PD-US-no notice ad}}, I would add both since they both apply, and if someone deletes one, the other is still there and prevents auto-deletion. RAN (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


To Jdx: The file of this MOTD was deleted, but deleting its Motd page isn't how this is usually done. We replace the link with File:ImageNA.svg like here Template:Motd/2016-09-04. Deleting the Templates makes the history invisible, and therefore impossible to track down what happend. We do not delete the "Deletion Request" page of a file ether. Could someone please restore the MOTD-page and possible file description pages like Template:Motd/2019-07-09 (en), Template:Motd/2019-07-09 (cs), Template:Motd/2019-07-09 (mk). Thank you. Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

yes it should be kept even if file is gone.--Roy17 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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


OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019081910002538 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done: Done per request, closed ticket on OTRS as well. --Ciell (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC) (Sorry, didn't realise you might want to close the OTRS ticket and so on yourself! I apologize for my misunderstanding! Ciell (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC))

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

File:Plaza Cuartel museum marker for Pedro Paje.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019052210009647 regarding File:Plaza Cuartel museum marker for Pedro Paje.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done: Per request. --Ciell (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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


OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019090910004133 regarding File:ROZINAPATKAI.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done: There have been 2 images under that name: image and uploader were the same, so I replces the biggest file. --Ciell (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:The Speaker Explains - Keeping Order in the House of Commons.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: even though they were deleted by User:Taivo and previous UDR was closed twice by User:Ankry (Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-09#File:The_Speaker_Explains_-_Keeping_Order_in_the_House_of_Commons.webm), they should be undeleted because:

  1. {{OPL}} is explained in .
  2. These two videos are {{OPL}}. (If common sense, Google and Youtube are not enough, please see special:permalink/367529550#The_Speaker_Explains and w:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2019_September_14#The_Speaker_Explains for reference.)--Roy17 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)