Commons:Undeletion requests


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

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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

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

Adding a request

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

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

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


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg


Files were deleted because of "no FoP for Israeli paintings". (Ref. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg). But one deleted photo of the same subject (probably) was successfully undeleted: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#Request for undeletion File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG, applying the argument that the church is a public place and these paintings in the Israeli legal literature are integral part of it, as religious paintings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kameraad Pjotr, O: Can you comment what do you think of this inconsistency if you are still around? Ankry (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  Weak support to have consistency in Wikimedia Commons admins' decisions. However, I still have doubts whether this painting is covered by ToO or not. Ankry (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears the undeleted file File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG is used in a userspace FoP essay, User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nilfanion: As the then neutral admin dealing with the FOP in Israel discussion/dispute at the time, could we, perhaps, get your input on this UDEL request? Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Metro Manila Bus Transit Map.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: How come this file is a copyright violation?? This photo is a public domain created by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) which is a government agency in the Philippines and posted by the Philippine News Agency which is also a Philippine government agency. [1] Myrabert01 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: can you, please, comment on this? LTFRB seems to be indeed a government agency and the image is clearly marked at source page that it originates from LTFRB. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
OK - undeleted for now. BUT the source on the image is here actually. On that page there is a clear copyright statement. Personally - as it stands - it is still a clear copyright violation. --Herby talk thyme 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see also an ongoing discussion on Philippine government works at Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov#Not copyrighted but no approval for commercial purposes not OK JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

File:HERSHEY'S Chocolate Bar Greatest Milk Chocolate.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This Hershey bar was photographed and uploaded by me. I am not sure why it is considered copyright, unless it is because it is of a product? Please, let me know. In the past, when I have uploaded official photos of product by the manufacturer, I have been told it can be recreated, so I bought a product and took my own pictures, so I am slightly confused. Kfarren23 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

File:The Atomium (2008).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Was speedily deleted by Geni on May 3, 2008 because: "Copyright violation: building protected by copyright no FOP." Requesting for its restoration (if the file still exists or not corrupted, and if it was Mskadu's own work) as Belgium has FOP since June 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any more specific reason to undelete this file when Commons has 852 photos of The Atomium, including at least 319 photos of the exterior? Thuresson (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thuresson: I don't think the redundancy or excessive images should be the reason for not giving this file (if it is an "own work" one) a chance for restoration. Since we have tolerated hundreds of thousands of uploads by Judgefloro and Ramon FVelasquez, two of the most prolific Pinoy contributors here, we should not base the decision based on superfluous number of files. The greater the number of files, the better. I admit, I once made DR's to certain images by Judgefloro by reason of COM:SPAM and COM:EDUSE, but I have already withdrawn those deletion nominations, as I think this is counter-productive in building Commons as a free repository for millions of safe media files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: all were deleted because Albania had no FOP back then. If ever any of these files show the exterior or outsides of the architecture and/or artwork (deleted files are invisible to non-admins like me), these should be restored per {{FoP-Albania}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Files were deleted because no FoP in Albania during those days. Now {{FoP-Albania}}, if ever these images show the architectures' exteriors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Juan Mora Fernandez Statue in San Jose, Costa Rica.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Mora Fernandez Statue in San Jose, Costa Rica.jpg. However, the statue has been PD since its sculptor Charles Raoul Verlet died in 1923 (ref. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Mora Fernandez statue in San Jose.JPG). Requesting for its undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request by Utah Phlllips on scruff

Related to:

This is nearly identical to similar penis pics out there. It is simply educational. And, do a search on penis or ejaculation. Much more "porn-like" than mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utah Phlllips on scruff (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Your penis or your upload? Are you sure you're at the right place? What do you want to be undeleted? --E4024 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - per COM:PENIS. These are unused, terrible quality (especially File:Ejaculation_7"_male_orgrasm.png) with no genuine educational utility. Indeed, both fail to "provide additional useful information" or to be "sufficiently different from existing files." Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: as the deleting admin, and in the light that you have made 3 deletions this month which seem to be all from the same uploader, could you explain why you did not follow the normal deletion process and create a DR for the community and the uploader to benefit from? If there was a copyright issue, or some other issue beyond scope with the user's uploads, it would be useful for that to be clearer than the current deletion log comment or this section at UNDEL when only sysops can see the evidence. Thanks -- (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Bandera de Guerra de los Estados Unidos Peru-Bolivianos.png

Esta bandera no es un FanArt, esta realizada según la descripción del texto de tratados preliminares que establecieron los gobiernos de Perú y Bolivia en 1880 --Htz67 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

File: Estado del Amazonas.png

Cual es el motivo de borrar este archivo? este mapa esta basado en mapas de Perú y Bolivia antiguos, y en la descripción de tratados preliminares de Perú y Bolivia en 1880 que se encuentran en este libro Este mapa es necesario para poder ilustrar de que trataba el tratado, al igual que otros mapas que me borraron que consistía en dibujos de mapas de otros estados del Proyecto de los Estados Unidos de Perú y Bolivia, el cual no se llego a concretar por la cuestión de la guerra pero que ya había sido aprobada en el congreso de ambas repúblicas --Htz67 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

File:State flag of Bolivar Republic (1825-1826).png

Cual es el motivo de borrar la bandera? me la borraron por copyng, sin embargo es un dibujo propio y solo corregí el diseño pues la que se encontraba en wikipedia era errónea, como se puede apreciar en esta imagen sacada de una fotografía de un museo en Bolivia por un medio periodístico boliviano, la primera bandera de bolivia de 1825 tiene diseño vertical tambien me borraron la bandera de uso civil File:Civil flag of Bolivar Republic (1825-1826).png Asimismo en el DECRETO SUPREMO del 17 de Agosto de 1825 hace mención de la Bandera Mayor (uso estatal) y la Bandera Menor (Uso Civil) --Htz67 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion of Logos

OTRS agent (verify): request: Regarding

JuTa has deleted these files as "no permission" and "no license". A Wikipedia in Spanish user has claimed (and another users have supported) the undeletion since

  • "All the files were {{PD-textlogo}}, and fall under the TOO.
  • All these files survived a Deletion request as "Kept".

Please verify this information and undelet, if necessary. Thanks a lot. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Undeleted for discussion. Some images are CC-licensed, which is incorrect if they are PD-textlogo, most are declared to be {{Own}}, which would warrant them Out of scope status if correct (we do not host personally created logos). Also fixed ping to deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the mentioned DR was about scope, not about copyright, so irrelevant here. Ankry (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Some were in use when deletion, and they belongs to the National Television of Chile, so it's not "Own work" and they're perfectly in scope. Wrong license or wrong attribution are easy to solve; files don't need to be deleted if logos are PD-texlogo, and usefull. Thanks for undelete to re-evaluate the case. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to check images within the subcats Category:Media without a source and Category:Media missing permission and fix such cases before they get eligable for deletion. --JuTa 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try. If other people (including yourself) can be involved in that before to delete the files, could be more effective. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Now, this, is something I don't understand. I've fixed the source and now added the right license. So, is there any other problem?? --Ganímedes (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've corrected another license and I've reverted again. Can I proceed with the files or not? --Ganímedes (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: FYI the files (temp) restored here still not fixed and are still wearing some problem tags. They will get up to speedy deletion again in a few days. --JuTa 09:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: You need to add a valid source (not {{Own}}) and author as well. --JuTa 09:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@JuTa: when I' ve tried to fix them someone undo it (including yourself). Can I proceed Yes or Not? --Ganímedes (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ganímedes: Yes --JuTa 15:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ganímedes: I now removed the problem tags for those which are fixed OK. But there are still several which needs still a valid source and author. I marked the with - still not OK - above. --JuTa 21:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
JuJuTa: One more finished. I didn't find yesterday sources for the rest. Later I'll try to find them. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:The siyar-ul-Mutakherin, a history of the Mahomedan power in India during the last century (IA siyarulmutakheri00ghulrich).pdf

The file was speedy deleted on the day of upload. The deleting administrator @Billinghurst: has refused to undelete the file on request. Refer to User_talk:Billinghurst#PDF vs DjVu. The case made there for undeletion was:

  • Consensus: Should PDF be preferred over DjVu alternates? is a small consensus supporting that PDFs should be a preferred format and where PDFs and DjVu exist, the PDF should not be deleted, nor is there any consensus to delete the DjVu version.
  • The upload is part of the COM:IA books project with over 850,000 uploads so far, and so the principle of harmonization applies.
  • The speedy deletion is out of process. In this scenario a Deletion Request may be appropriate, but none of the criteria defined by COM:CSD applies to this administrator action.
  • The deleting admin has been unable to provide any consensus agreed policy or guideline to support their assertion that We typically delete PDF files that are solely uploaded as image holders.

In addition it should be noted that the two scans are different.

  1. The DjVu version uploaded in 2015 has every page marked "Univ Calif - Digitized by Microsoft (R)" on the footer of every page. The PDF does not and therefore is potentially of greater value for reusers who wish to print single pages, or read the book.
  2. The compression artefacts of the two documents are significantly different. Neither is equivalent to the original JP2000 scans they are created from.
  3. DjVu is a format now abandoned by the Internet Archive. Though the DjVu claims to have been downloaded from IA, the source page does not contain a link to that format, nor does it mention it as an option. To find it, one would have to search through a list of additional formats. (Further analysis shows the DjVu was created by IA on 15-Feb-2008 and the PDF on 08-Jan-2011.)

As explained on the deletion admin's talk page, the undeletion is important as a test case. It is a case study for setting a precedence for how Wikimedia Commons document uploads from the Internet Archive should be handled and maintained in future years. Keeping both versions harms nobody, neither does deleting it save anyone time or even disk space. As raised in the Consensus discussion linked above, the majority of users and reusers prefer PDF because it is easy to read and use on multiple platforms while the DjVu format is no longer supported on many platforms or browsers. Thanks -- (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Refused? More declined based on the evidence presented to me that I should undelete and then immediately take it to a DR.

I invited you to give me a better premise, one based on scope and usage. You said you have no intention of using the work. The work itself would not be used for images, and could primarily be used for extraction to a reproduced work at a Wikisource, though it duplicates an existing copy of the same edition.

Some responses:

  1. A gentle conversation in VP is not the basis for claiming a consensus for a policy. That is the most trivial conversation with little input, and where it has not been put to groups that use these types of files. I see no notice to the WSes, nothing! Please don't misrepresent what is a consensus of this community.
  2. The djvu file is uploaded, and is linked back to IA, nothing is broken. Which principle of harmonisation? Are you telling me that you are going to move all the WS works from DjVU to PDF. Which harmonisation?!?

    The harmonisation I see at Wikidata relates to linking to the IA item, not any form of subsidiary scan. That would seem to me to be the best form of harmonisation.

  3. This is the same edition of a multipage work, and a work that is in a reproduction framework. The WS communities have had multiple problematic cases of competing transcriptions due to pdf vs djvu, and they lead to complicated and time-consuming cleanups. [Note: djvu files allow for better transcriptions in WS which is why they are preferred.]
  4. Interesting, but so what? It is still the same edition of the work derived from the same scans.
  5. Are you disputing the source and nature of the file? Same base url, same edition, same primary scans. Will be linked to primary url from whichever WD item.

This was completed due to a request for duplicate, and it is a duplicate. With regard to filetype, there are admin bots that remove different filetypes of the same image, so the filetype aspect has to be taken with flexibility based on usage. We don't and should not be using these produced files for the images that we need, we should be going back to the JP2000 files where we want these images. We also delete as duplicate the same edition of a work where it has different page totals, applying the premise of one version of the published edition.

Noting, that typically where a PDF file exists for an edition of a work from Commons, we have stopped the upload of DjVu files based on the principle of one copy of the edition of work at Commons; and even though these PDF files produce more problematic transcription efforts. If we are going to reverse the base principle of one copy of an edition, then I can see that the WS communities will be looking to reverse that decision-making.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read what has been written. The undeletion request here is founded on policy and consensus.
Nobody is proposing that WikiSource change anything.
Nobody has ever suggested that if people from WikiSource want to upload DjVu that they can't.
Nobody has ever suggested that files in use on WikiSource should be deleted or are threatened just because the PDF version of a document is available for reuse.
"it is a duplicate" is untrue, which anyone can check by examining the two files. One has watermarks and the other does not, one can be easily reused across all platforms and the other is in an abandoned format with limited usefulness. These are important key differences.
With regard to filetype, there are admin bots that remove different filetypes of the same image, is irrelevant, this does not happen for document formats.
This deletion was out of process, it is not covered by COM:CSD. If you wish to delete this file create a deletion request.
Your action was as a sysop on Commons. Your actions on Commons are governed by consensus and policy on Commons, not WikiSource. If you are passionate about this issue on WikiSource, then create a consensus about it. So far you have been unable to produce any policy or guideline or consensus on Commons to support your action.
Please stick to policy and consensus.
As a side note, you have used <blockquote> to emphasise your response in this thread. This appears unnecessary and confusing, your words are not a quote from somewhere else, they are not more authoritative just because they are formatted this way.
Thanks -- (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Both: PDF and DjVu formats have advantages and disadvantages. However, unless some advantages of one of the formats are really needed in Wikimedia, I am against hosting such duplicates. The presented arguments do not convince me that we really need the PDF version in Wikimedia. The PDF can be (and is) hosted elsewhere and Wikimedia Commons needn't to be a IA backup. So   Weak oppose undeletion, but as I generally oppose massive uploads without care whether the content is needed or not and whether it is properly categorized to make it useful for reusers, I am leaving a decision to an uninvolved admin. Ankry (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not summarizing clearly.
There are two very obvious reasons to keep the PDF as well as the DjVu. (1) Many users cannot read a DjVu file on their device that they access this project with, but everyone can read the PDF on any device. (2) The DjVu has unpleasant very visible watermarks on every page, while the PDF does not.
To make (2) clearer to everyone, I have added {{Watermark}} to that version. -- (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If they need to see the file content: both formats are presented by MediaWiki. If they want to download it: why should they do it from Commons and not from IA? Ankry (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the version without watermarks has been deleted. We don't need to run a proposal for whether the community prefers to have access to files without watermarks, as {{Watermark}} is already agreed.
As for the rationale that we don't need files on Commons that are on IA, that's not a policy or a consensus, it's something you've just made up. If IA folds, and with the current legal cases against IA by publishers that's a very real possibility right now, then Wikimedia Commons would be a very poor strategic position if we pin our long term future on it remaining online forever. -- (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, bumping into this conversation, I was wondering if this file might be of any help. Lotje (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one in the no longer supported DjVu format with watermarks on every page. The file that has been deleted is in PDF, which can be read on any modern platform, and has no watermarks. -- (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  Support I see no reason why duplicating in another file extension isn't supported on this wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


Solicito la restauración de este archivo, es un dibujo realizado por mi persona, además que es un escudo histórico de Bolivia, como se puede observar en esta imagenFile:Bolivia, from Flags of All Nations, Series 1 (N9) for Allen & Ginter Cigarettes Brands MET DP831931.jpg, dejó también de la ley que habla de dicho escudo, mencionado como Gran Sello de la República --Htz67 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Htz67: What was the exact source that you used while making this image? The presented litography cannot be it as the seal there is too low quality. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry, Ankry: the description of the design is found in the Law of July 26, 1826;; You can also notice the design on some coins of the time,; or also in some stamps used in documentation , but in the image of the flag you can see the colors File:Bolivia, from Flags of All Nations, Series 1 (N9) for Allen & Ginter Cigarettes Brands MET DP831931.jpg
Now that the shield is surrounded by branches, it is found in the Law of July 25, 1826:

--Htz67 (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Flag Bolivia 1826

File:State flag of Bolivia (1826).png File:Civil flag of Bolivia (1826).png The design of this flag is drawn by me, it is based on the Law of July 25, 1826, which says: "The national flag will be the same one designated by the general assembly, in the decree of August 17; the five gold stars, an upper yellow sash, and the arms of the Republic in the center, within two branches of olive and laurel. " And the flag that makes mention of the decree of August 17, was a flag with vertical stripes as indicated in said decree. The drawing of the flag can be found in the book: Historia de Bolivia, chapter V, page 292, by the author Carlos D. Mesa;

record a video on Facebook, where I show the design of the flag found in the Bolivian history book, although there it is only shown without a shield in the Law of July 25, 1826, it mentions "the arms of the Republic in the center, within two branches of olive and laurel." , This is the version of the state flag, the flag without a shield is for civil use, like the rest of Bolivian flags. --Htz67 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The faith of graffiti, original cover, 1974.pdf

I believe that it is impossible that the closing admin actually read the discussion. The file was deleted "per nomination". The nomination was mine, and I have voted keep. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 03:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Gone Postal:   Question Could you provide us a rationale as to why you believe that the file falls under {{PD-text}}? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I can no longer see a file. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gone Postal: File:The faith of graffiti, original cover, 1974.pdf has been undeleted for the duration of this discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, I remember now. The text "The Faith of Graffiti" is what I was talking about in regards to it being PD-text. Now as for "Toots Sissy" text it is no more creative that a signature, for example; it is much less creative than other photos of graffiti (see this) and it is way too short to be copyrighted as text. And this makes a photo of it a 2D representation of a non-copyrightable 2D object, which we consider public domain. Now I must admit, that it is possible that we need to look closer at all the graffiti uploads and create a policy on how to deal with them, but (although I am not a lawyer) I would be very surprised if a writing of a 2 word phrase in a non-caligraphic way constitutes a copyrightable work in any jurisdiction. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Belay 2020.jpg

this image is my own work for movie poster and i want to add it on wikipedia you remove it from server and i cannot reupload it again thnaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohjavad (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 November 2020‎ (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I would like to kindly inform that the file Beata_Migas.jpeg is my own property and I agree for its usage for the sake of the Wikipedia article Because of a system misunderstanding about the picture, the discussion about this website appeared. Therefore, I would like to ask you to not delete such a picture, because I confirm that I am its author. The discussion should be ended, a picture added and that's it. --Qsdewr (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Beata Migas, 27.11.2020 r.

  •   Oppose Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder sent permission and a specific release under an accepted free license using ORTS. Please note: Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the 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, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I am submitting a request to have this photo undeleted from the Wikipedia page: Cazzey Louis Cereghino. It is my own work, and I own the copyright. I went to Wikipedia Commons and filled out proper places to accept that this pic may be used perpuity, and with the permission of the actor(s) in the pic. Yes, the pic also shows up on other websites, including IMDB as the Bot listed, but that is because I, as the actor's personal assistant and publicist, placed it there. I have filled out the Wikipedia Commons Copyright Page, so please un-delete this pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockNimoy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Hi. This undeletion request has been made for the file Cazzey vs Betty White.jpg. As per your requirements, I have went to the Commons page where I have attested that this photo is my own work and owned by me and filled out the required places to verify this. As specified by the remover, it appears on other websites including IMDB, but that is because I placed it there as well, having been a personal assistant and publicist for the actor for many years, and the picture was taken on set at the request of the actor(s) in the pic. Please undelete this photo and place it back on the Wikipedia page as I have released it to be used freely and in perpetuity. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockNimoy (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 November 2020‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose @SpockNimoy: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder sent permission and a specific release under an accepted free license using ORTS. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge visit the National Stadium Belfast, home of the Irish Football Association. (46364812815).jpg

While it does state that the photograph was taken by Press Eye, a PR photography group, it was released by the Northern Ireland Office down to the detail of the camera model, under the commercial license CC 2.0, aka an allowance for commercial use under attribution, which WP requests during upload. I might be a bit new here, but I fail to see why it was deleted? Sorry, thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Welcome dinner for (2652931569).jpg

This DR decided in favour of deleting it, based on the notion that the depicted person is not identified and, once it was identified («Phillip D. Long is Senior Strategist for the Academic Computing Enterprise, and Director, Learning Out-reach, for MIT iCampus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.»MIT), based on the notion that the depicted person is not notable. Since Commons doesn’t have notability requirements, this photo should be undeleted. -- Tuválkin 01:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


The picture is a crop from this one, a picture which was launched in his campaign and offered towards the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantaEdits (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 November 2020‎ (UTC)

  Oppose Wikimedia is not press. Thuresson (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Musician , songwritter and composor Rarikumar RBS.jpg.jpg

sir / Madam, The deleted file of subject Ravikumar RBS is shooted by me with my camera. with all permissions. So that i uploaded. and there is nobody to apeal for it .and i am new here. its confusing that i own a photo but i cant use it? please let me know. Thank you.

Files uploaded by User:Zandweb~commonswiki

These images are in the public domain (PD-Iran). Hanooz 03:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Info Regarding "Princegustafadolfandrezashah.jpg", prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden visited Iran and the Golestan Palace from November 11, 1934 for a few weeks of state visit. Thuresson (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Spidercam at cricket.jpg

Why did you delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterossa (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

  Info Deleted after request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Testosterossa. Thuresson (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Spidercam at Rugby world cup in Japan 2019.jpg

Why do you delete my pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterossa (talk • contribs) 12:34, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

  Info Deleted after request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Testosterossa. Thuresson (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:1D cable cam.jpg

Why do you delete my pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterossa (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

  Info Deleted after request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Testosterossa. Thuresson (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Emma Mejía Venegas.jpg

Hola, porfavor pido que no eliminen la imagen. Y si la van a eliminar haganlo bien. Yo saqué la imagen de y ustedes pusieron otra fuente la cual esta claramente equivocada por es UN MONTAJE. La verdadera fuente es La foto que publique es de una funcionaria pública (alcalde) y estoy elaborando su biografía en wikipedia y necesito una foto. Porfavor no la borren, nadie va a reclamar los derechos de autor (si es que lo tiene) Peruimagenes (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:X-Jib scissor crane with Newton stabilized camera head.jpg

I have taken the pic myself

Will not use (delete) picture, please undelete, so i can use the text

lease undelete, so i can use the text Tillmann Eckardt (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Tillmann Eckardt, schreib lieber auf deutsch, dann verstehen wir, was du meinst. Du möchtest den Text der gelöschten Seite File:Tillmann Eckardt.jpg haben? --Achim (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Content dropped on User talk:Tillmann Eckardt. --Achim (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Senate Hearing March 30 2012 - Honoring Sen. Gannett.jpg

Please consider this an appeal and undeletion request for the following reasons:

(1) the images consist of photos of public figures, from left to right, Vermont State Senator Galbraith, Senator Gannett, Senator Illuzzi, State Representative Edwards, and Senator Doyle taken in a public place during a public hearing.

(2) the photo was taken by a former photographer employed by the Brattleboro Reformer. A representative of the newspaper gave permission:

Bob Audette <> Mon, Aug 31, 10:47 AM to me

You just need to say photo courtesy of the Brattleboro Reformer --

Robert ‘Bob’ Audette

Inline image

Reporter o. 802-254-2311, ext. 215 62 Black Mountain Road
Brattleboro, VT 05301

Inline image

(3) the photographer who at the time worked for the Brattleboro Refotmer was contacted and gave permission:

Zachary Stephens Nov 20, 2020, 12:21 PM (8 days ago) to me

Hey Robert, No worries. Yes, you have my permission for this image to be used. Thanks, Zach -- Zachary P. Stephens Photographer

Zachary Stephens Tue, Nov 24, 3:18 PM (4 days ago) to me, Permissions

As the copyright holder of the image, Wikimedia has my permission to use the image. - Zachary P. Stephens

RAOeser (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Fresko Krönung Mariens in der Seekapelle.jpg

w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich --Anton-kurt (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

File:João Carlos Nunes Abreu em criança.png

Hi there This is a family photo that has no copyrights the person in question Joao Carlos Nunes de Abreu has granted me the rights to publish it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunesdea (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

@Nunesdea: Did you also receive permission from the photographer? Who should be credited when the photo is used? Thuresson (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


This logo was only deemed to be "likely above ToO". That means that the copyright associated with this image has not been questioned/claimed against. Therefore, I believe that this logo should be undeleted, as it does not infringe on any copyright. If it does, I would like to see some evidence regarding that infringement.

--Mdavies1 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


add that that to namma flix page its A app & it has facebook page also i took from fb page.. it comes under public domain know

File:MalaysiaAirlinesLogo Enrich.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Looks like a simple text logo. This can be kept with a {{Pd-textlogo}} license. Sreejith K (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Gamelan Jawa - Saron Barung.jpg File:Gamelan Jawa - Saron Demung.jpg File:Gamelan Jawa - Saron Peking (2).jpg File:Gamelan Jawa - Menempa Gamelan Kempul.jpg File:Sentra Produksi Gamelan Wirun.jpg File:Balinese Dance in Puri Saren, Ubud.jpg File:Kempul Gamelan.jpg File:Gong ageng 04.jpg

These pictures from my own work and some are given by my friend. my friend gave these pictures because he wants me to upload them on Wikipedia on Gamelan topics. u can check his Instagram on "Central_Gamelan". He is Gamelan Maker. Thank You

File:Penty Nur Afiani, Aktris Gentabuana.jpg This website uploaded the photo without giving the license, do you have policy for photos like this? Is this photo includes as public domain license?

Файл:Обложка журнала "Юный техник" №10 за 1983 год.jpg

Я являюсь владельцем данного архивного журнала, поскольку данный издательский дом много лет не работает. --Виктор Зикунов (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)