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

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

Yet another UDEL request of files from the Government of Chile

For further information and discussion, see this thread at the Village Pump

I need to start this Undeletion request again. The latest Undeletion request for the files from Prensa Presidencia (formerly Foto Presidencia) has been resolved that there is no consensus to restore these files, due that website has a non-derivative disclaimer. But, that website belongs directly to the Government of Chile (even, it have the logo of the Government of Chile), and have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 license since 2011. Then, please restore the files listed at Commons:Deletion_requests/

In addition, please temporary restore the following files (and possibly other ones from the Government of Chile) in order to check if them effectively has been published by the Government of Chile after december 2010:

I already have physically gone (more than once) to the SEGEGOB and the SEGPRES for information about this and even I talk with an attorney of the SEGPRES, but no satisfactory answer from they I got (except that he confirmed that Prensa Presidencia is a website of the Government). But going further, and seen the evident evidence, these files should be restored (and please, don't questionate the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 anymore). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done: Undeleted two files, since the source site now has a CC-BY-3.0 link on their site (bottom right), even if the deep links to the articles can't be found anymore. Third file has no source. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1

I Mondivi1 took photos and created those art work. The administrator who deleted my files lacked professional care and due diligence and deleted my file . I wrote to the administrator never received a reply. In fact only comments on the discussion was her comments which she could not justify. I travel thousand of miles to take picture and create art work. This act of deletion without just cause is unfair and unjust

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandovi1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 November 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.


  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg is the same image as File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg. The latter image is much better. It has the bell in context, rather than with the background crudely whited out. Therefore I see no reason to restore the deleted file.
  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg is an image of a sculpture wtih a background map. In order for this to be restored, both the sculpture and the map must be proven to be PD.
  • The last two are PDF files. We do not keep PDFs of images.

As for "I wrote to the administrator never received a reply", I see no communication on the talk pages of Ellin or Jcb, the only two editors involved in the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that the bell with context is better I think there's no issue in having a second version without. Maybe Mandovi1 can you tell us why you prefer the collages over the just the plain images and how you see them being used (on Wikimedia project)? Do you have any information on who created the statue and when and the same for the map? Basvb (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The statue seems to be created around 1614: see w:Statue of Our Lady of Miracles, Jaffna patao. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My request

I didn't see there was this request and wrote down the following, lets put it here as a sidestep and discuss under the main topic:

I hereby request the undeletion of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg and potentially that of the other files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1.

The bell is clearly cropped from File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg, for which everything seems to point to a regular own work upload. As such I do not understand why this was deleted and request it to be undeleted.

Except for File:File Size 2.pdf as it seems redundant as duplicate I want to request undeletion of the other files as well. The components of those can be found in File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna 003.jpg and File:The Moon of July 13 2014 Toronto Canada.jpg. Thus all components of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna . Easter Morning 1622.pdf are also own work.

File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg the map is obviously not own work, but very likely PD, maybe the user can help us in asserting the proper source information there.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bas

Thanks so much for being kind to review in detail my concern and recommending my artwork be listed again in the Wiki Commons.

In regard to your comments on " File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg " I have enclosed the following information and images.On Oct 4, 2016, I overlapped (merged) the photograph image of statue on the icon image of Jaffna Town to create the File: Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg. I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives). I have emailed the all three images to prove the above work is my creative work .Please refer to Ticket#2016112510018536. to see those these images. Hope this help to prove the above file is my creative work. Thanking you again for your kind help in recommending to install my other delete file as well. Mandovi1

First, as noted above, you must sign your posts.
Second, also as noted above, we do not keep PDFs of images.
Third, "I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives)." That means that in order for the image to be restored, the copyright owner of the icon image must provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
Fourth, you claim that the map is your own work -- I doubt that very much. You must prove that it is PD or freely licensed.
Fifth, the combination of the map and the sculpture is, as you say, "creative work". We do not generally keep that sort of creative combination unless it is very clear that there is an educational advantage in doing so.
Finally, your OTRS e-mail (addressed to Jimmy Wales) complains at length about the fact that "I spend time responding my comments into her comment box and provided more detail regarding my work into each of my art work. I never received any response from her." As I said above, as far as I can see, you made no actual attempt to communicate with Ellin Beltz on her talk page.
While I do not oppose restoring the second version of the bell image since Basvb thinks it would be good to do so, the other jpg has three problems named above and policy prohibits restoring the two PDFs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Jameslwoodward, Basvb and Mandovi1: Please note that the two files which were uploaded after the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1 19 November request,
At the time the deletion nomination was placed, those two images were unavailable for comparison - all that was available were the cut-outs and composites. I think it would be best to keep the full bell and the full statue, but please add the name of "THE CHURCH". The descriptions and titles are what are searched, so please include all information you have about the bell and the statue in the description field. Also, please add a good category for both of these images to improve their educational value. Adding the actual geo-location to the images via would add even more value and make it more likely that your images would be used by others - which is after all the point. Commons is not Facebook, we're not here to have it "our way", but to contribute to a global learning endeavor. If a copy of the map with no additional imagery attached were to be uploaded, with a statement as to how old it is and where it came from and why it is PD - at that point, all the base imagery would be uploaded and all problems solved. Off topic but mentioned above, I did receive an email from Mr. Mandovi forwarded through the automatic system, but it was addressed to Jimmy Wales and was a series of complaints which had no COM:AGF - as above. I was not the addressee and did not reply to it. I never received any messages from Mr. Mandovi on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • On OTRS I got information regarding the map: It is a 1726 map, thus clearly PD. Basvb (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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


The decision in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hoke1.jpg was unfortunately faulty. In the DR discussion our premier expert for Austrian copyright law, User:Pajz, explained why the image in question is covered by the specific Austrian Freedom of Panorama. He did so in German only, because the discussion had moved that way. I would aks any German reading colleague to check the discussion and restore the image. TIA --h-stt !? 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose The works in question are two floor to ceiling murals. While I know that some surface decoration is part of "architecture", this looks to me like work added well after the construction of the building and therefore not part of the architecture. Also, the opinion from Pajz is not a firm opinion that he is sure that a court would hold that the image is covered by FOP, but simply that a court would probably hold that. Our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", not "probably". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why the usage of the word probably is a reason to keep a file deleted. One simply cannot know for sure what a court would actually do but we can calculate the odds. The good once know not to make strong statements like "a court would hold that" in cases like this. The arguments brought up by Pajz are very convincing. Though I have one question/doubt left. Is a gymnasium a public place in Austria? Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt". "Probably" is well below that, so the statement does not pass COM:PRP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and our premier expert of that matter expressed his learned opinion that the image in question is covered by the exception. That's all we need. --h-stt !? 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The purpose of this particular photo was IMO more to show a part of a fresco rather than to show the architectural work itself. Therefore to fall under FoP exception, and as we are talking about frescos (other works in our policies) it can not be situated inside a building. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : I've read the law and the various statements in the original DR to try to get a handle on this situation. Relevant Austrian law is § 54 (1) 5 Urheberrechtsgesetz. As described by Pajz in the original DR, there are two cases to distinguish: "Works of architecture" and other works located permanently in a public location. For the latter group of works, FoP can not be claimed per old explanations of the law (via Flominator), since a school - while public - is not used for public traffic. If this is an architectural work, which it is plausibly claimed to be by Pajz, the rules are more relaxed and in Pajz's opinion this work could be kept as such. But Pajz also admits that the decisions of Austria's Supreme Court (OGH), which he references, could very well not be up-to-date anymore, especially in light of conflicting EU directives. Due to the quite muddled situation, the Precautionary Principle applies. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

3rd opinion for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banks in the Philippines

The need for originality in architecture is well established (COM:TOO#Architecture). Most of the photos deleted in this batch show no special elements that are copyrightable. I would like another admin review the result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banks in the Philippines, especially since the Philippines copies US law in many respects. --P 1 9 9   14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you provide explicitly notes that some of those decisions were controversial, so I would not call it "well established", and I think that it may be highly country dependent. The US (AFAIR) has a very low TOO for architecture, so if the law of the Philippines is similar in that respect, I think Jim's decision was correct. Storkk (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@P199: do you have any response to the quotation from Philippine law given by Jim in the DR: 172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. ? Storkk (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Any work showing any originality I agreed with deletion, but as already stated, most photos are clearly below TOO (IMO). As for the Philippine law, the quote law is actually article 172.2. 172.1 makes it clear that works must be original intellectual creations ([1]). --P 1 9 9   15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I was considering deleting those files myself, since my reading of the quoted laws is the same as Jim's. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Your reading of the laws may not be complete: works must be original intellectual creations. Respectfully, --P 1 9 9   15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this is getting into very gray areas, but given that the very next paragraph states that they are protected regardless of their quality, I would read the "intellectual creation" as pretty much anything that required an architect's input. So probably not something pre-fab, but otherwise yes. My opinions on this are not strong. Storkk (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Storkk for reopening this discussion. But unless other users agree with me, there is not much else I can discuss. I still feel that these plain buildings are way below TOO and lack any originality. How can one copyright a building that looks like every other building??? The only other thing I can add is that since Philippine law is essentially silent about FOP, this should make us more lenient as compared to countries that explicitly forbid it, especially in such grey areas. --P 1 9 9   17:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree with P199 here. In the absence of FOP, we have to consider some threshold of originality, and even more here, as the law specify that. Such file as File:Card Bank Bula3.JPG should not have been deleted, as nothing from the building can be seen. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : Multiple admins consider the deletion to be correct, although the laws are not very clear on this matter. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Reopening on request by Storkk. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Robert Sepúlveda Jr..jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Claim of permission received (Ticket:2016110710001328). Some claims have been made this is a derivative work, but as I am unable to confirm this, please don't take this as everything is ok - use your judgement! --Mdann52talk to me! 22:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)   Oppose See the UnDR below, "Files uploaded by Factsonlybaby", for my comments on the reliability of this uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : Per below: Doubful claims of own work. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Factsonlybaby

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Claim of permission received (Ticket:2016110710001328). Some claims have been made this is a derivative work, but as I am unable to confirm this, please don't take this as everything is ok - use your judgement! Please also see en:User_talk:Factsonlybaby#Conflict_of_interest_with_Robert_Sep.C3.BAlveda_Jr.2FFinding_Prince_Charming for background --Mdann52talk to me! 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose The claim in the OTRS message that the subject took all of these images with his iPhone on a tripod is flat out unbelievable. Some examples, out of many:

While some of these images may be "own work" as claimed, the subject has forfeited all claim to our Assuming Good Faith. I see no basis for restoring any of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The different sizes and quality also make me doubt that claim. Also, some of those images are pretty small, way below iPhone image size. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : Doubful claims of own work. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mexican football soccer logos

I found the following files:

tagged for Speedy, but, as football soccer clubs from Mexico (as "recognized organizations" from Mexico), I tagged them with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. However, them has been deleted as Fair use, where clearly does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status in the United States? Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this matter? These logos are from Mexico, and as the football soccer clubs are considered as "recognized organizations", these logos are ineligible for copyright in Mexico. It was already discussed in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask about the copyright status in Mexico, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Above is the answer: The Copyright Law of the United States has nothing to do with the logos of "recognized organizations" from Mexico. As them are in the PD in Mexico according to the Mexican Copyright Law, then, them are also in the PD in the U.S (Threshold of originality in the U.S. apply only to logos of organizations from the U.S.). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you remind me of the discussion where it was decided that football clubs were "recognized" organizations. I seem to remember thinking that it meant something like "governmental", but if the community thought it meant football clubs, I'd like to be reminded of the rationale. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : The wording in the law is "emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente". I think this list hints at organizations that are more than "just" a sports club, unless someone with actualy knowledge of Mexican law comes forward. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, considering that there is already DRs of mexican sports clubs resolved as Kept. There is concensus already, and admins shouldn'ty take different actions for the same subject; if you really believe that the sports clubs aren't considered as "recognized organizations", it should be discussed at the Village Pump, because it will affect not just three files, but several other where their future has been already decided. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Paico UC.png

This logo was designed by me for a university political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhguiñez (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So why is the author "varios autores"? Thuresson (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : No explanation for the question by Thuresson. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Colombian Troops 1906 Cucuta .jpg

The deletion of this 110 years old photograph with no known photographer was given the rationale "Again, the eighty years begins with anonymous publication. Neither has been proven here". However nobody has claimed an anonymous publication, only that the photographer is unknown. In the Colombian copyright act the definition (in Article 8) "“anonymous work“ means a work in which the author’s name is not mentioned, either according to his wishes or because it is unknown" is used, so the calculation for works from unknown authors is governed by all sections which define how the law works for anonymous authors; it is unnecessary to prove that a work has been published anonymously.

Commons policies, nor the law of Colombia, require that a reuser of this photograph has to be able to produce official records of when this old photograph was published, or produce official records that the photographer is unknown (which is a logical impossibility). Under LOCC Article 10, the requirement is on the author to mark the work, its reproductions and public disseminations so that their claim of copyright is known. In this case there are no versions with any such claims.

COM:PRP requires that we assess whether significant doubt exists for the free copyright status of the work. In this case no evidence has been produced that the author may be known, and no evidence has been produced that the photograph was not published shortly after it was taken, in 1906. The DR closure makes a presumption that we must delete all uploaded public domain works where we cannot provide full proof of publication and full proof that unknown means unknown. These are weak hypothetical arguments which undermine Commons' ability to host the vast majority of our public domain works. At the end of the day there is no more legal rigour forced on us than exists on institutions such as the Library of Congress or the British Library, the law merely requires us to make reasonable effort to determine copyright and that has been done in spades for this 110 year old photograph.

Refer to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#File:Kardinal_Alojzije_Stepinac.jpg for a very similar case of a weak DR closure by the same administrator.

Undelete please. (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am the deleting Admin. I agree that it is silly to protect the copyright of an image taken over 100 years ago when the author is unknown and its publication status is unclear. I would favor a change to Commons policy that allowed us to keep 100 year old images that probably were published more than the required time ago. This would not include images that came from family albums or other sources where that probability did not exist. However, until we have such a change in policy, I do not think we can arbitrarily decide to keep images from countries that date PD-anon from publication unless we have actual evidence of publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Info Commons:Village_pump#Clarification_of_the_Precautionary_Principle_for_100+_years_old_photographs -- (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Coca Xie, founder and CEO of China Entertainment.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [2] MCMLXXXIX 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done: @1989: done. A quick follow up regarding how they became the copyright holder wouldn't harm. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. The OTRS message is from the subject. As Natuur12 says, we need to know how the subject got the right to freely license the image -- that's usually done by her providing a copy of the license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Janid La Magia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [3] MCMLXXXIX 14:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done: @1989: done. This one needs a follow up question regarding how this person becames the copyright holder. Prof albumcover. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. Again, the e-mail is from the subject, who claims that she is creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright. That's very unlikely to be correct. She is certainly not the creator and almost certainly not the sole owner of the copyright. Photographers almost never sell copyrights -- in many countries it is not even possible. We need to have evidence that she has the right to freely license the copyright. That is usually done by requesting a copy of the license from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Janid Penicilina.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [4] MCMLXXXIX 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done: Same as La Magia but this time it is a professional photograph. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. As with File:Janid La Magia.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Sheila Bair.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [5] MCMLXXXIX 14:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Could you please deal with the tickets for which you have already asked undeletion first? Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      •   Done MCMLXXXIX 16:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • And you screwed up all four of them even though I gave you advice on how to proceed. Perhaps you should start with the easier once and ask for another agent to coach you? Natuur12 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Please tell me how I screwed up. Just because I didn't take your advice doesn't mean I did it wrong. Describe "start with something easier". I didn't even know I had a coach. Also, this would of been a lot easier if you were the one to answer the tickets. I find it ridiculous that these tickets haven't been answered yet. MCMLXXXIX 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Your replies regarding File:Janid and File:Janid La Magia.jpg don't address the actual issue. Regarding File:ROAR issue 3 rule of finance.jpg, you didn't ask for information regarding the cover photograph/painting (my guess would be that this painting is a derivative work of a picture) and Coca Xie, founder and CEO of China Entertainment.jpg, permission comes from the subject. We require additional info when that is the case.
  • You don't have a coach I merely advised you to search for one to help you with your first steps. The first OTRS-steps are hard, that's why I tried to give you some guidance. But if you refuse to listen to the advice of experienced agents you will have a hard time doing your work since one can't know everything. We need to work together and rely on each other’s knowledge. With something easier I refer to tickets send in by the actual photographer using a valid email-address. And yes, it would be easier if experienced agents deal with the tricky tickets and several agents are working hard to reduce the backlog as you can see here. And regarding myself, I dealt with quite a lot tickets lately but I do have other duties to attend to just like everyone else so I can't do everything. Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would further explain myself, but I don't want to reveal personal information. All I ask was for a restoration, not an argument. I did what you asked to proceed, and you still got something to say. If you don't want to restore the files I asked for, fine. I'm done here, but unless you're willing to cooperate, don't ping me. MCMLXXXIX 17:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @1989: I agree with Natuur12. And this is not the behavior which i expect from an OTRS agent. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at being the good guy here -- OTRS is a very tough learning curve. For one thing, the actual software is almost completely without help and is not at all obvious to use. I've been an OTRS volunteer for many years and there are still things I struggle to do. Then there are the subtleties of the job. Whose word do you take? Under what circumstances do you ask for more evidence? And so forth. Many OTRS cases are completely straightforward -- the simplest are those where a professional photographer sends an email from his own domain with a free license. They get harder from there, because OTRS is always about the cases that are not completely straightforward.

Also, while I completely agree that 1989 did not handle these correctly, saying to an OTRS newbie (less than a week) that he "screwed up" is not very helpful. Better, perhaps to take them one at a time, in line, as I have done above.

With that said, User:1989, you need to develop a thicker skin. Our colleague Ellin says that we all need rhino hide to be very active on Commons -- people often feel strongly about things and use language that is a little out of line. Natuur12 and Steinsplitter are right to criticize your reaction. You can always ask for help. Almost any active editor and certainly (I hope) any active Admin would be happy to give advice. I couldn't have moved as fast as I have here without help from various mentors, most particularly User:Herbythyme, who is no longer as active here as he once was.

Finally, let me say "thank you" for taking on a part of the OTRS backlog. It is generally a thankless job, behind the scenes. As I said, I've been on the OTRS list for many years, but I have never gone to OTRS simply to work on the backlog -- I'm always there as an Admin, trying to deal with permissions on a particular image. So, please don't let this shaky start discourage you -- it's a vital job and we need all the help there we can get. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Philip Manley Boyce.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [6] MCMLXXXIX 15:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @1989: Could you please deal with the tickets for which you have already asked undeletion first? Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done MCMLXXXIX 16:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Here we have a user who has claimed "own work" on his only upload, which was subsequently deleted because the image appears in the same small size at without, of course, a free license.
The OTRS ticket (which is OTRS ticket 2016092110000397, not the ticket linked above), is from a g-mail address, which means that it is worthless for these purposes since we have nothing to tie the address to. The easiest way to deal with this kind of problem is to have the uploader, Wusyd, upload the image with the same file name at full camera resolution. As it happens, Wusyd did exactly that after it was tagged for deletion because of the Amazon version. The deleted file is 1017x1356px versus the 250x300px of the Amazon version. I think that's enough to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Job 1586.jpg

Reason "copyvio" given in the deletion request is obviously wrong, since this file was uploaded by the artist himself via a verified account. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploader's user page on Wikicommons does not have the relevant template. Uploader's user page on German Wikipedia has been deleted since 2008. Thuresson (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The uploader was User:Bodo Sperling, wasn't he? Note the template at the bottom of his German Wikipedia user page; verified as ticket:2013041210010514 --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Photo was uploaded by User:Bodo sperling who is identical with de:Benutzer:Bodo sperling who has not been verified. Thuresson (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: See de:Benutzer:Bodo Sperling. The account you showed was using a small letter s but "Bodo Sperling" is a unified and verified Wikimedia account. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bodo Sperling has not had any contributions deleted since 2009. Thuresson (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The uploader has a verified account at the German Wikipedia that is linked to The image description cites the 4th International André Evard audience awards for Sperling which is confirmed here. This is enough evidence that the uploader is in fact Bodo Sperling who also created the original artwork. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As the user seems to have two accounts (one with lower case s and one with upper case S), used one of them to upload and used the other for verification, I guess there should be possibilities to help the user to fix this. It is obvious that both users are used by the same person, as the verified user with uppercase S claims here to personally have uploaded the file on commons, even though the upload was done with the lowercase s account. I'm quite sure the user is not even aware that he has two distinct accounts. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To bring this forward: if Bodo Sperling uploads the file again with his verified account, will it be ok or is there anything else missing? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bulgarian Changing of the guard 1983.webm

The Bulgarian Changing of the Guard video was taken from my YouTube channel.Therefore it is my own workItalic text and there was no reason to take it down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa372798 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aa372798: Just because you host something on your YouTube channel does not mean it is your own work. This looks like TV news or a TV documentary. In this case it is the work of that TV channel or the production company. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose I agree that it looks like it was poorly lifted from television. However, even if the original video was made by the uploader, the closing scene is a derivative work of the poster shown and would have to be removed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : per myself and Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Banner blog - fix.jpg

Can someone explain why this was deleted? Is it the same as su:Gambar:Poster_sabanda_2.jpg (marked GFDL), as the message by CommonsHelper "duplicate-archive : Banner_blog_-_fix.jpg" suggests? 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As the poster above is a derivative work of at least the depicted laptop and feather, we would need source information for those images. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:A Stab in the Dark (Michigan Poster).jpg

This is a free image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenFBanham (talk • contribs) 05:52, 02 December 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 With very few exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have copyrights until they expire, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. Since this is apparently a recent creation, its copyright may not expire until the 22nd century. In order to restore the poster to Commons, the creator must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Files to undelete concerning entry "Dieter Sieger"

I hereby affirm that I represent Dieter Sieger, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the above mentioned pictures and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Dagmar Kronenberger-Hueffer Appointed representative of Dieter Sieger for this wikipedia entry December 2, 2016

Dagmarkh (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

First, please note that since you are apparently working for Dieter Sieger, you are probably in violation of WMF policy on Conflict of Interest. I do not know the link to the WP:DE page for that, but you may read it in English at WP:COI.

Second, while many of these are good photographs which we would like to have on Commons (with the exception noted above), they have totally inadequate descriptions and categories. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without good categories, no one will ever find them. Therefore, when they are restored you must ensure that they are properly described and categorized.

Finally, there is the matter of copyright. There are several issues.

  1. In four cases, the author of the work shown is Dieter Sieger. Note that you are not the author of his paintings -- he is. He will need to provide a free license himself, sent directly to OTRS from an e-mail address traceable to him.
  2. In several cases, the object pictured may have a copyright in some countries. I leave that question to my colleagues who are more familiar with German law.
  3. In 13 cases, the photographer is a third party. In all of those cases either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS or (b) Dieter Sieger must provide a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows Sieger to freely license it.

If you want to act for Dieter Sieger, you may do so provided that you first supply OTRS with an appropriate power of attorney from Sieger. I know that all of this will be a lot of paperwork. Please remember that since copyright can last 150 years or more, long after we all are dead, that copyright licenses must be carefully documented. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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



ich bin Mitarbeiter der RIEKER Holding AG und wollte mit oben genannter Datei unseren Logo-Eintrag aktualisieren. Leider wurde meine hochgeladene Datei (aktuelles Rieker Logo) gelöscht. Können Sie mir bitte in meinem Anliegen weiterhelfen? Das hochgeladene Logo ist das offizielle Rieker Logo. Das Urheberrecht hat die RIEKER Holding AG, welche ich hier vertrete.

Beste Grüße,

Sebastian Eckert --Rieker 1 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rieker 1: Hallo Sebastian, bitte schaue einmal in COM:OTRS. Dort werden die Schritte beschrieben, mit der ihr euer Logo wieder herstellen lassen könnt. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Soumitra Portrait.jpg to undelete

All of these picture were taken by me. I have the RAW files

--ClassicMan69 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the EXIF information, the photographer was Robert Barker / Cornell Marketing Group, and the copyright holder is likely to be Cornell University Photography. If you are or represent the copyright holder, please follow the instructions at OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ph pres marcos.jpg

It is probably the file, which in war.wikipedia is marked with war:Template:PD-PilipinasGob "Ini nga buhat aada ha larangan han publiko o public domain ha Pilipinas ngan posible ha iba nga mga yakan-balaod o jurisdiction sumala han Republic Act No. 8293 tungod kay ini usa nga buhat han gobyerno Pilipinhon. Ha ilarom han RA 8293, ngatanan nga mga buhat han gobyerno Pilipinhon diri puyde ig-copyright."

In Commons there is Template:PD-PhilippinesGov.

Why was the file deleted? 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thuresson: Can you have a look? To me it looks deletion rationale was wrong, at least from today's point of view. I know it's been a year or two ... Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The template has redirected to a non-commercial use only template and a copyvio template in the past. This is a painting and the uploader did not clarify the name of the government employee who painted it. Thuresson (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose It's a 2005 upload and 2006 deletion. The entire file data is:

Official portrait of Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos.
Category:Presidents of the Philippines

While it seems to be an official portrait, there is no evidence that it was painted by an employee of the government. I have no idea what the practice is in the Philippines, but in the USA official presidential portraits are done by non-employee professionals who often retain the copyright -- see the introduction to Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House. I don't think we can restore it without clarifying its copyright status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Neil David Robinson.png

This picture is mine and is a photograph of my son! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrobinson1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 02 December 2016 (UTC)

Previously published elsewhere in 2015, "(C) 2016". Thuresson (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : @Neilrobinson1: an OTRS authorization should be sent. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Water Taxi from Sapphire Falls.jpg

This was deleted because I also posted it on a forum. However, it is still my own picture, which I took. I believe this should be reposted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveB181 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 02 December 2016 (UTC)

  Done: Already undeleted by Hedwig in Washington. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Abu Ghraib 29.JPG (yet again) and File:Abu Ghraib 64.jpg (for the first time)

Both of these images are from the infamous batch of leaked photographs of abuse at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq that were taken by active-duty US military personnel. One of them was already undeleted once, as the {{AbuGhraibPic}} template used on both images provides the source. I suspect most here are familiar with the images, but if that's not the case, these photographs were leaked to CBS News as well as The New Yorker via Seymour Hersh, one of America's most famous investigative reporters, and the source claimed that they were taken by American soldiers in Iraq. This was subsequently confirmed by Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, who submitted his resignation over the images (his resignation was rejected by the president). George W. Bush, the president of the United States, also commented on the photos, saying that he was disturbed by the fact that they were taken by U.S. troops and he thought that they represented an aberration from American values. There was concern at the time that Bush would lose his re-election bid in part of the fallout from the photos, which constituted one of the, if not the biggest political scandals during his eight-year tenure in office. General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and thereby the highest-ranking military officer in the United States) testified before the United States Congress that the photographs had been taken by the night shift of military police at Abu Ghraib. Major General Antonio M. Taguba wrote the famous "Taguba Report", a 53-page document based on over 50 witnesses, several of whom offered complete confession. The report concludes that the photographs were taken as a form of abuse of detainees. Military Judge Advocates General brought charges against eleven active-duty soldiers, alleging that they were responsible for the abuse in the photos as well as the taking of the actual photographs. The charges were buttressed by testimony given under oath that the photographs were produced by military personnel. Military courts accepted the testimony and convicted 100% of those under courts martial. Colonel Janis Karpinski, who commanded Abu Ghraib as well as the troops that guarded it, was relieved of her duty and demoted in a move that was widely seen as a form of punishment for the abuse that occurred there, although she was not tried.

In short, it frankly takes a wild conspiracy theory to think that the photos weren't taken by U.S. military personnel: many of the people mentioned above had their careers in jeopardy from the photos and would not have lied about them, claiming the U.S. military was responsible when it actually wasn't. The {{AbuGhraibPic}} template is both correct and provides the source of the photos: the U.S. Department of Defense, which does not copyright its images. The photos should therefore be restored. --Descendall (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was argued that the salient point was whether they were taking the photos as part of their official duties or not, not whether they were actually US Federal employees at the time. Storkk (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't. It was argued that it is inappropriate to "blindly accept that [the two photos in question] must [have been taken] by a US soldier or DOD employee". There is no doubt that the photographers were officially assigned to guard the prisoners in the photographs and were on duty at the time. The template itself explicitly states that the photographers swore under oath that they took the photos as part of their official duties. If that's not the case, then shouldn't all the pictures from this set be deleted? --Descendall (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - no indication that these pictures were taken as a part of the official duties of the photographers. It's not that any picture taken by somebody who happens to be an employee of the federal government is therefore a government work. Jcb (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The photographs were taken by members of the Military Police who were under orders to guard the prisoners who were being photographed, and who were on duty at the time that the photos were taken. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff even used this while testifying under oath as a reason why the the behavior in the photos can't be ascribed to Americans in general: he said that the photos were all taken during the night shift at the prison, which is indicative of the abuse having only been committed by a small group of soldiers who were on duty at the time, rather than all of the MPs who worked at the prison. The template we use states that the photographers testified under oath that they took the photos as part of their official duties. They actually even testified that they were under orders from military intelligence personnel to commit the abuse. Frankly, I think this situation is nowhere even close to, for example, a guy who happens to work at the Department of Labor taking a personal photograph but reserving the intellectual property rights to it. --Descendall (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Frankly, these pictures made a world wide scandal, and were investigated up to the pixel, so the claim that the photographer(s) were not US military on duty is quite ridiculous. Obviously, they were not doing their duty, but that's another story... Regards, Yann (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Although the ordinary duties of an MP do not include taking photographs and, therefore, ordinary photos taken by MPs would not be PD-US Gov, the testimony is clear that the MPs who took these photos were ordered to do so. That makes it part of their official duties and, therefore, PD-US Gov applies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

PT-Rebelde (telenovela brasileira) intro.ogg

That file was deleted incorrectly. It's just my voice reading the article available on the Portuguese Wikipedia. That file is necessary to mantain acessibility on the article. LuizM (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded in 2011 and deleted in 2015 following nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PT-Rebelde (telenovela brasileira) intro.ogg. If this is reading the article pt:Rebelde (telenovela brasileira), that article has been edited appr 1 000 times since this file was uploaded in 2011. The public would be best served by having a fresh version of the article read instead. Thuresson (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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


Why do i request this undeletion? Because the file its a public logo of an university. Therefore, it's available for public use to describe in WIKI.Nunormcoelho (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose That something is available to the public say nothing about its copyright status. Please read Commons:Licensing before making further contributions. Thuresson (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose Agreed. In order to restore the logo to Commons, an authorized official of the university must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : OTRS authorization needed. Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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


I believe that I have the right to use this image because I got from the family of the article's subject, John Skelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneezewich (talk • contribs) 05:03, 03 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose Possibly a press photo. It is clear that neither Mr Skelly nor Fidel Castro took this photo of themselves. Thuresson (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose Agreed. As a general rule, owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to license its use to others. That right is almost always held by the photographer. While it is possible that someone in the family took the picture and therefore owns the copyright, it is equally possible that it was taken by a third party. We can't keep it unless the actual photographer sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : as per COM:PRP. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Steam - November 2016.jpg

I'm requesting to undelete the picture I've uploaded to Wikipedia.

The Picture was created by myself and any personal detail was deleted from it.

ארד נועם (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, this is a screenshot and, therefore, a derivative work -- it infringes on at least five copyrights belonging to the creators of images and text on the screen. Commons rules require that each of the creators must give a separate free license via OTRS. IN this case that seems very unlikely, but you are welcome to try. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : Obvious copyright violation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Cubs world series win.jpg Un-deletion

Hello, this regards the file that Christian Ferrer deleted because of a Copyright violation. It is in fact my own work that I created on that I released into the Public Domain so that all could use it. If you think that it was inspired by anyone else, your wrong, It is solely MY work that I created. Please get back to me as soon as possible.--JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose Two problems here. First, Kermit the Frog is a copyrighted character and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holder (Jim Henson's heirs?). Second, the creation falls into the category of personal art by a non-notable artist, which is out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)