Open main menu

Current requestsEdit


Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.


Files uploaded by Alx90865Edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The documents from Russian Empire, published in newspapers in 1906, free to access, no authoring. These documents are very useful for those researching their family roots from the mentioned cities. These documents for the mentioned cities were never published online before, I'd like to make them accessible for wide range of users who cannot visit local (Russian) libraries. Alx90865 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I cannot see the files, but their names suggest that these are lists of voters. Simple lists do not have copyright, as they are data and are not creative. So it does not even matter if they are from the time of Russia Empire or are compiled just yesterday. Thus I   Support the undeletion at this time. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @EugeneZelenko: ? Ankry (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't mind undeletion of these files as long as uploaded or somebody else is willing to fix license information. Actually I explained on my user talk page to uploader what need to be done, but somehow it was not implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I have added the "PD-Russian Empire" copyright tags several days ago, prior to deletion. So I do not understand what else should I do to these files to have them undeleted. Could you explain? --Alx90865 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I checked couple of files and licensing remained same as in time of nomination for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I cannot check the licensing because these files are deleted. So I see 2 options: 1) Do add "PD-Russian-Empire" copyright tag to the files after they have been undeleted 2) upload the same files as new ones, providing "PD-Russian-Empire" tag. What should I do? --Alx90865 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I restored all files. License tags must be fixed. If you don't know how to do this, just edit these files and newly uploaded one and see difference in wiki-markup. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alx90865: Take a look at File:Быхов список городских избирателей 1906.pdf I have edited it to make licence reasonable. We can argue whether PD-RusEmpire also applies, but I would disagree, since this is something that is actually not eligible for copyright in the first place. So please take a look and go through other ones as well. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gone Postal: Please take a look at File:Список_лиц,_имеющих_право_на_участие_в_выборах_в_Государственную_Думу_1906.pdf I have edited it in a slightly different way, providing source and author as Mogilevskie Gubernskie Vedomosti (newspaper where the lists were published), not "self-photographed". Also, there are tons of similar files containing old newspapers scans on wikicommons from other contributors, e.g. File:Irkutskie_gubernskie_vedomosti.jpg with licensing and authoring varying from file to file. Should I use newspaper as author, or 'my own work'? In my opinion, the author was the newspaper, not me (not to talk that actually these lists were created by special government electoral commitees prior to publishing them). Thanks for your contribution to this issue. --Alx90865 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alx90856: The way I interpret the "source" is where the specific file comes from. While author is the original copyrighted work and all the additional authors that have added something that has in any way transformed it. As such you filling in the author field goes further than what I did, and that is much better. As for the source portion, I disagree with repeating the author, but not enough to actually edit the file or demand that somebody does it differently. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Not eligible for copyright" can be a complex rule, and IMO should be avoided whenever a clearer, more definite rule applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue is that we do not follow that approach in other things, for example, when somebody puts a public domain image available under a free licence, we normally remove a free licence. Personally, I believe that we should have "fall back" templates. For example, "This image is PD-ineligible, if this happens to be wrong, it is PD-old, if this happens to be wrong it is also available under CC-BY". However, this isn't a place to discuss such a change. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Applying {{PD-RusEmpire}} to something that is not copyrightable (and never was) is providing false information IMO. Reasoning provided there applies to works, not to anything. But {{PD-text}} may be better here than {{PD-ineligible}}. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. "Not eligible for copyright" is a better rationale than "PD in the Russian Empire". Regards, Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with using {{PD-text}}, it is more specific. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I've added {{PD-text}} as category (giving no license) and source as the newspaper title. Can you check please is it all OK to make this request finally closed? There are still some warnings for 'deriative work' which is definitely not this case, so I'm afraid of new deletions.. being a novice in wikicommons it is not so straightforward to cope with its policies--Alx90865 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Never was" seems like a big claim. Such things weren't clearly PD in the US until 1991 (the Supreme Court overruled lower courts in w:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.) and database rights might apply today in the EU. Given the growth of modern copyright law from previous publisher protection, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian Empire had sweat of the brow style copyright laws. Not to mention incidental text or typographical copyrights... easier just to say PD-RusEmpire and be done with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HanegiEdit

These files depicts specific Japanese cheerleading teams ja:B-ROSE and ja:AKATSUKI VENUS, a pubilc cheerleading event, not simple personal photos, but still remain deleted status. Also, files on Commons are not necessarily required to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as "neutral point of view" and "no original research" and "notablity". Puramyun31 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For unused images, the requester should prove they have educational value. That is necessary for the files to be in COM:SCOPE. IMO, this may apply to some selected files, but not to the whole set. And considering poor description and categorization I am unsure if anybody but uploader can make the selection / fix this. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: there photos depicts cheerleading at a public sports event (Japanese professional basketball league(B.LEAGUE)), not simple personal photos, can be educational. (Commons does not only accept ancient images (ex. very old photos) but also broadly accept contemporary things such as these sport event photos) Also just "unused" on wikimedia project(s) cannot solely be a reason of deletion since Commons images can also be use outside of Wikimedia projects (That's why Commons files are freely-licensed). I guess "poor description and categorization" as you said maybe caused by lack of non-Japanese users' understanding about the Japanese descriptions of the images. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
p.s. @Thuresson: sorry for my typing mistake Puramyun31 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt images like File:AKATSUKI VENUS2.jpg are useful because of very low quality. However, I do not oppose undeleteion if sombody makes a selection. Opinions of other admins are welcome, however. Ankry (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I'm not sure what Ankry's view about the standards of the quality of photos and did not see the images in this discussion before they are deleted, but please be aware unlike artistic photos, usually taking high-quality photos at a public event is very difficult. I think we should be more lenient with the quality of public-event photos. Puramyun31 (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

File:King Kong (illustration).jpg and File:Anonymous (art).jpgEdit

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Christopher DOMBRES. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted as COM:DW in consistence with abovementioned DR. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The specific DR for "File:Anonymous (art).jpg" is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anonymous (art).jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute... In both cases, it doesn't seem to be direct copies but original artworks inspired by other artworks. I'm not sure DW applies. At least, File:King Kong (illustration).jpg should have deserved a DR, instead of a speedy deletion without discussion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The file contains strict copyright notice: this is enough for speedy. If somebody decides to copy original work including details like copyright notice, this is not just inspiration. Ankry (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Do you mean Christopher DOMBRES himself uploaded his files with strict copyright notices ?! I don't see such a thing here nor here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear copyright notice by "Dino De Laurentis Corporation" here, just below the "Kong" word. IMO, it is enough for us to consider the image non-free. The other one was deleted on community consensus as DW. Do not mix the cases, please. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Pete Holmes performing at Meltdown.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:


  1. There is a Kevin T. Porter in real life. He's a comedian. His instagram: .
  2. This KTP had many photos similar or identical to the deleted ones on instagram: go backward from this.
  3. Instagram strips EXIF so we cant really know what camera it is, but on the flickr account , everything was Sony NEX-5N.
  4. All the deleted ones are Sony NEX-5N.

My conclusion is, the KTP on wikipedia, flickr and instagram is the same person, and the photos are his own. Roy17 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand NewsEdit

  1. Template:The Stand News
  2. File:嶺南大學校友及學生集會要求驅逐何君堯 20190727.png
  3. File:Old man attack people in Yuen Long Plaza bridge 20190727.jpg
  4. File:立場新聞記者被襲擊一刻.gif
  5. File:便衣警員被指全身沒有展示警員編號亦未佩戴委任證 20190707.png
  6. File:Yuen Long Station White Tee people attack citizen in platform 20190721.png
  7. File:Yuen Long Station White Tee people attack citizen 20190721.png
  8. File:Yuen Long Station people's blood after police force entry 20190727.png
  9. File:TP8431 hat 20190727.png
  10. File:TP8431 20190727.png
  11. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view2 20190721.png
  12. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view1 20190721.png
  13. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view 20190721.png
  14. File:Sing Hallelujah to the Lord in Citic Tower Bridge 20190613.png
  15. File:T98431 weapons 20190727.png
  16. File:Queensway tear smoke 20190612.png
  17. File:Protesters waiting at Eastern Magistrates' Courts outside 20190731.png
  18. File:Protesters use water to resolve tear smoke 20190721.png
  19. File:Protesters outside Office of the Chief Executive 20190620.png
  20. File:Protesters in North Point station 20190730.png
  21. File:Protesters in Kwai Yi Road 20190730.png
  22. File:Prof LAU, Chi-pang, JP 20190727.png
  23. File:Press conference for Hong Kong Police Force 20190613.png
  24. File:Police speak after fireworks incident 20190731.png
  25. File:Police Heaquarter wall after the protest 20190622.jpg
  26. File:Police force use the gun in Connaught Road Central 20190721.png
  27. File:Police force use pepper in Long Yip Street 20190727-2.png
  28. File:Police force showing orange flag in Nam Pin Wai Entrance 20190727.png
  29. File:Police force release tear gas to Long Yip Street 20190727.png
  30. File:Police force prepare release tear smoke in Po Yip Street 20190727.png
  31. File:Police force prepare gun in Sun Kwai Fong Garden shops view 20190730.png
  32. File:Police force prepare gun in Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 20190730.png
  33. File:Police force prepare gun in Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 2.jpg
  34. File:Police force near Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 20190730.png
  35. File:Police force in Mong Kok block Shantung Street sidewalk 20190707.png
  36. File:Police force go to Yuen Long Station Exit A 20190727.png
  37. File:Police force clear the people in Castle Peak Road-Yuen Long bridge 20190727.png
  38. File:Police force clear the barrier 20190622.png
  39. File:People stay TSW Police Station outside 20190731.png
  40. File:People stay at bridge arrested by police force 20190721-1.png
  41. File:People argue with police in Yuen Long Station 20190722.png
  42. File:Passenger with police force want to leave in TKL station 20190730.png
  43. File:Passenger shout with MTR staff in TKL Station 20190730.png
  44. File:One male arrested by police 20190721.png
  45. File:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png
  46. File:Kwong Chun Yu in Castle Peak Road-Yuen Long 20190727.png
  47. File:Kwai Chung Police Station vehicle entrance gate 20190730.png
  48. File:Kwai Chung Police Station outside view1 20190730.png
  49. File:Kwai Chung Police Station outside view 20190730.png
  50. File:KMB staff vehicle crashed after fireworks incident 20190731.png
  51. File:Ken Chow Wing-kan in TSW Police Station 20190730.png
  52. File:Cross-Harbour Tunnel Flash Mob.png
  53. File:Connaught Road Central protesters at night 20190721.png
  54. File:190807 HK Space Museum protest.png
  55. File:190806 HK Sham Shui Po police station protest.png
  56. File:190802 HK civil servant rally - Anson Chan.png
  57. File:190801 HK financial sector flash mob rally.png
  58. File:190721 Yuen Long Stand News screenshot.png

According toCommons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#A_customary_licence_for_The_Stand_News, Administrator @De728631: mention The Stand News statement like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}} and other users would agree The Stand News statement would be acceptable for Commons. See more in File talk:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png. The statement is clear and all the files should recover--Wpcpey (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Deletions without valid justification. Yann (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support:Same as Wpcpey. --SH6188 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. DR nom rationale is faulty by itself.--Cohaf (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per above. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I failed to understand why the deletion is unjustified as nobody offered an elaborative counter argument. The official policy COM:L made it very clear that vague statements like the one in question is not acceptable. If the policy is not to be followed, why should we have any policy at all? Other examples of deletion due to vague language of licensing can be found at:
Those who would like these images kept based on the value of their contents should rather persuade Stand News to use a well accepted free license such as CC-BY. --Wcam (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not a valid argument. There is no relation between these licenses and this one. And the fact that some bad licenses were deleted bears no impact on this perfectly valid license. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Citing official policy is a valid argument. Licenses that violate COM:L have been deleted in the past, and this license also violates COM:L and should be deleted too. --Wcam (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - the permission obviously does not meet the requirements of COM:L. A vague "you can use it" has never been acceptable at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not vague, it's terse. They are very clear with their "you can use it". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In most jurisdictions e.g. the creation of derivative work is forbidden unless it's explicitly allowed. No such statement has been presented, so that the current situation effectively has at least a ND restriction, which is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Wcam and Jcb. AshFriday (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose As standard practice, we have deleted (or not restored) files that are licensed "CC-BY-SA" without specifying a license version number. The putative license on these files would seem significantly weaker than a versionless CC statement, and leaves a bunch of very important questions with answers that are at best murky: 1) is this "license" legally binding? 2) is it revocable? 3) what kind of modifications are permissible... does their "hope" to avoid factual distortions carry legal weight? Storkk (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For the point 1-2. The Stand News have already mention the legally binding in their official website and facebook page on 14 June, so it will not revocable and allow people feel free to use without permission.--Wpcpey (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For point 3, The Stand News hope to avoid fake news and fake message to spread. Since recently many Twitter and Facebook users from China only spread the wrong message without fact check. YouTube also have "in a coordinated manner" about the ongoing protests in Hong Kong.--Wpcpey (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    •   Question Say, for example, I take a still of Carrie Lam from one of their videos. I edit it to give her glowing demon eyes, and I put the newly modified photo on T-shirts. Would that fall afoul of this "license"? Storkk (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I think your example "Kuso" is ok. --Wpcpey (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Wpcpey: This vagueness, combined with the "consensus" based solely on De728631's opinion on a 3-word phrase in translation, perfectly illustrates why I think this is obviously not clear enough and too uncertain. I oppose restoration until at least a couple of Jusjih/KTo288/Mys 721tx/Shizhao/Zhuyifei1999‎ support. The whole purpose of our project is to serve as a repository for media that people can feel comfortable they can use for any purpose, and in their shoes, I would not be wholly reassured by your "I think it's OK". Storkk (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
          • That's mean you want Wikipedia to provide misunderstandings and fake information to the readers ? Besides, these administrator are come from China and always like to delete things. It lead to less Hong Kong people participate in Wikipedia.--Wpcpey (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            Whether I am from China or not does not matter. I do not take my political standpoint to this discussion.
            Though, I just tried to read Copyright Ordinance; apparently, if this is a 'waiver of rights', it 'may be expressed to be subject to revocation'. Does that imply that the possibility of revocation must be explicitly expressed in the weaver, or that all waivers automatically get the right to revoke without expressing it, or that expressing the possibility of revocation is simply allowed and nothing is implied? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            (I'm not a lawyer; this is not legal advice) Heh, look at 91(5)93(3). If my understanding is correct, then if these works are 'made for the purpose of reporting current events', then The Stand News has no right to copyright; they have neither 'right to be identified as author or director' nor the 'right to object to derogatory treatment of work'. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            @Storkk, Mys 721tx: Does my understanding of Copyright Ordinance make sense? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for your insight. 91(5) appears to refer only to the moral right to be identified as director/author, and I'm not certain that's relevant specifically for these files -- they could still hold copyright without having that moral right, I think. 93(3) appears at first to be very relevant... my initial reading is that most authors have a "right to object to the derogatory treatment of their work", but that this right does not apply to "works made for the purpose of reporting current events". I'm not certain this exception applies here, though... if a permissive license includes the objection in the license, I'm not sure it's covered by this section (though I'm definitely uncertain). If I license something to you on the basis that you don't do XYZ, would a paragraph such as this disallow that stipulation leaving the rest of the license intact, or would it invalidate the license, or would it be superseded by the license (so the prohibition is valid)? Storkk (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
              Good question. I hate interpreting laws... though, I would think the wording that the author 'hopes' their works are not twisted would align with that they actually have no write to object to it, but can only 'hope'.
              I also searched for this statement, and apparently UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has the same terms, but I don't see many cites of this term... no hints on when and how they are applied --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I see some newspaper in Hong Kong will use other local media resources directly in their article or report. They just give the photo credit (示威者九龍灣站外塗鴉。NOW新聞截圖).--Wpcpey (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not think that we can override here a community consensus to accept the license. If the license does not conform COM:L, this should be discussed in COM:VPC prior to deletion and definitely not here. Ankry (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ankry:This issue have been discussed in on June before, but it seems that some administrator ignore the discussion and with different views.--Wpcpey (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The consensus you speak of appears to me to be a reasonable suggestion by De728631 of "how [a 3 word phrase in translation] sounds" to him and nobody else commenting one way or another. While this is indeed technically consensus, I'm not sure it's a binding enough "community consensus to accept the license" to require undeletion of the files while another discussion is sought. OTOH, my concerns would be mostly obviated if an uninvolved Chinese-speaking license reviewer or admin would confirm that they believe the statement given above is indeed legally binding and irrevocable. Storkk (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Whether it is legally binding & non-revocable or not is not explicit in the text, unlike the CC licenses. However, I am unfamiliar with HK copyright laws regarding the criteria in which a statement becomes legally binding --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Wpcpey. Fran1001hk (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: "唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪" is a limitation on the derivative work, akin to the JSLint's "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." There is no objective standard on what consititutes distoring the fact. This makes the license fundimentally incompatible with CC-BY-SA. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    AGF all usages impossible? (Just ask, not call into question) ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I have an alternative method. Is it possible to transfer the files to zhwiki, then we just assign them as fair use content if they really violate COM:L? ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Same method for usages in other wiki-projects. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

JPL Image Use Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JPL Image Use Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

ASTER GDEM does seem to have a free license -- if it's even copyrightable to begin with. It sounds like the GDEM data is the result of automated processing over the raw data[1], and it's given out freely. There does not seem to be any restrictions on what you can do with it (that was not always the case, but seems to be today). The raw data does seem to be photos taken by a NASA satellite using a Japanese instrument. I have no idea if there is any real aiming of the camera or if it just continually takes pictures. But even presuming there might have been a copyright, it would seem the data is being released freely with no restrictions, as is common with NASA efforts (even joint ones with non-PD-USGov entities). Other than pretty extreme theoretical areas, I don't see a real reason to doubt they are free. PD-USGov-NASA may be the most convenient license. I am not sure if the process used added any expression, so not sure if the license should just be that of the original, or whether the user needs to license their efforts as well. But leaning   Support on this if the only real question is the license of the ASTER data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear insight. I would say this is the point. The legitimacy of the license of the ASTER data is the thing they want to confirm. Respectfully yours. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Put it in a nutshell: I got an ASTER data. Afterward, I processed the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible using the knowledge learned from the educational website. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
版權所有 (All rights reserved);   Oppose unless It's gonna be awesome may make the website source clarify (澄清, or correct 更正) the "original source" is/to be free use. If It's gonna be awesome can really make it, please notice me, and I would appreciate that. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Taivo: they are covered by OPL. Roy17 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Comment The Open Parliament Licence does not cover live and archive video or audio broadcasts. Taivo (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: define live and archive video or audio broadcasts.--Roy17 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel it in my heart, but cannot put it into words. Taivo (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Per the link at the Parliament's website, this is every audio and video recording made by the Parliamentary Recording Unit. They have their own non-commercial licence. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: could you please copy word by word? live and archive video or audio broadcasts are All proceedings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and certain select committee hearings, recordings of Parliamentary proceedings, Audio-visual recordings of the proceedings of the House of Commons and/or the House of Lords and their Committees, Footage of proceedings of Parliament... Not every audio and video recording.--Roy17 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please read what I wrote? It covers exactly the definition you gave above, and I never referred to every recording made in parliament. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: is a video produced by Parliamentary Recording Unit, but it is not Parliamentary proceeding, for example.--Roy17 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"Members of Youth Parliament aged 11-18 take part in an annual debate in the House of Commons chamber, chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons... " [2] So this is an official parliamentary proceeding. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Since when did UK parliament become tricameral with a third house Youth Parliament?
User:De728631's first comment tried to rephrase OPL, but it was wrong and unnecessary. The comments that followed were irrelevant to this UDR. Nonetheless the error apparently led to User:Ankry's wrong ideas and closure below.
The licence is accessible at . Please visit the webpages and read it there. If anyone is unable to, I am more than happy to copy the full text here.--Roy17 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Youth Parliament, you might want to read this official statement by the (adult) parliament's website on the 9th annual UKYP session. "The session will be presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt Hon John Bercow MP, who said: “I am very pleased to be welcoming Members of the Youth Parliament to the House of Commons for the 9th time. This annual event is now a well-established and important moment in the parliamentary calendar. ... MYPs will also be joined by Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP, Leader of the House, and Valerie Vaz MP, Shadow Leader of the House, who will both speak from the despatch box in recognition of the UK Youth Parliament being the only external group allowed to hold debates in the House of Commons Chamber." (my emphasis) If this is not official parliamentary business, then I don't know what it is. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Nd}} per the above discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: excuse me? Could you please identify which statement and evidence support deletion?--Roy17 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Reopening discussion if it is not clear. I agree with De728631 comment that it is official parliamentary proceeding not covered by the Open Parliament Licence. I an noting that nobody contested the opinion for a week and so I   Oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It goes without saying the original deletion rationale was plain wrong. User:Taivo the sysop responsible for it could not even explain the words he quoted. Is anyone willing to go on the record and justify that these three videos are live and archive video or audio broadcasts, and keep these videos deleted?--Roy17 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Source of this was confirmed to be youtube cc as in File:Lindsay Hoyle MP.jpg and File:House of Commons Chamber 1.png before 2018.--Roy17 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of those without the privilege of seeing deleted files, I added the youtube URLs.--Roy17 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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


I uploaded and inserted the logo of the ELF experiment as part of a means to contribute to the article about this experiment, contained in the article about Space Shuttle Columbia mission STS-87.

As the image is already a commonly used and not otherwise protected by limited use copyright in my opinion and as I could not contribute the true author, I understand why this might seem like a violation and subsequent deletion, so earlier today I added the article concerned as a reference as well.

I rather would like to add this image still; not as my own work, understanding the issue here as I only want to contribute to the article and also to Elfquest, whom I loved ever since I discovered the series in 1992 in Belgium.

So I hope you will help me out as I mean no violation nor disrespect. I also added the article regarding publication of the ELF storyon the official Elfquest page.

I point your attention to the following remark from said article as to what may allow as selecting this as 'my' work:

"Dennis Stocker, leader of the NASA Lewis ELF team and avowed Elfquest reader, contacted Warp Graphics publisher Richard Pini in August, 1996, requesting Warp’s assistance in designing a logo for the experiment, perhaps “lending” an Elfquest character to the cause. Because artwork used by NASA is copyright-free, none of the existing characters could be used. The solution? Create a new elf, who would embody the goals of the experiment in particular and the spirit of the space program in general."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikinghammer1979 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Best regards,

--Vikinghammer1979 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. You claimed that you own copyright to the logo which is clearly fake
  2. If the logo is free, we need a clear evidence for that.
  3. Just been used by NASA does not mean free of copyright.
  4. The abovementioned page clearly states: "Elfquest and the Warp Wolf logo are registered trademarks, and all other logos, characters, situations, related indicia, and their distinctive likenesses are trademarks of Warp Graphics, Inc. All ElfQuest art © 2017 Warp Graphics, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide." Which is not a free license declaration.
  Oppose in conclusion. Ankry (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Ankry,

Thank you for replying. Allow me to elaborate on your answers.

  1. I do aknowledge the owning is fake, as mentioned before. I just wanted to contribute to an article in the proper way but I am a little puzzled how to attribute the proper ownership otherwise, so feel free to guide me.
  2. as the image is already being issued for use by NASA, who upholds a copyright-free policy (meaning unless mistaken, all can use it), it means it can be used by all, no?
  3. if this was that much an issue, I wonder how the images used on STS-87 would not be a violation either of said rules and regulations as described, so how can we augment an article with images if they are clearly not the author's property either (I will accept proper validation)

If either is not sufficient, you can always advise me on how I can get the image inserted the proper way as it is not very clear to me how to do it otherwise.

I hope this response will aid in further clearing my request.

--Vikinghammer1979 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vikinghammer1979: "issued for use by NASA" does not make anything free. The copyright exclusion we use for NASA works applies to government employees only. So the key question here is: was it created by a person who was a regular NASA employee at that time? Otherwise, we need an explicit license from the actual copyright holder: maybe from the author, maybe from NASA, maybe from somebody else - I do not know. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: No evidence has been provided that the original image was created by an official NASA employee in the course of duty. This would have been the only obvious reason for the logo being PD. --De728631 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:FC Internazionale Milano 2014.svgEdit

The Inter logo respects the originality threshold as indicated on the following page:

--ZG 90 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Threshold of originality. @Jeff G., Jcb: could you please elaborate what was wrong with {{PD-textlogo}} here? Ankry (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose @Ankry: This file was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DZwarrior1, authored by @Magog the Ogre. No defense of being under TOO was presented there. @DZwarrior1 has a terrible upload record re copyvios and sourcing of association football club logos from unofficial domains and (among others), and so do similar accounts @Dzghost1, ToXiC Dz. Not being an Admin here yet, I don't have access to the deleted file. We do have a precedent for deletion of a complex Italian association football club logo at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Parma AC 2000-01.png, as mentioned at COM:TOO Italy.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The logo is en:File:Inter Milan.svg. It is very similar in composition to the one provided as Italian low TOO example. Unlike File:Logo Parma AC 2000-01.png which contains a non-shape non-text element (an animal). Ankry (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  Weak support per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inter Mailand.svg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Il_libro_della_verità!_(per_tutti).pdf# File:Traduzione_fatta_dall’autore_stesso_in_tedesco_-_das_Buch_der_Wahrheit!_(für_alle).pdf#Edit’autore_stesso_in_tedesco_-_das_Buch_der_Wahrheit!_(für_alle).pdf#à!_(per_tutti).pdf#

Gentili fratelli e sorelle, vi prego di ripristinare le pagine come sopra indicato, che voi avete cancellato in data e ora:

10:50, 15 ago 2019 George Chernilevsky discussione contributi ha cancellato la pagina File:Il libro della verità! (per tutti).pdf

Grazie per la vostra collaborazione per la verità!

Con delega di DIO-PADRE-ABBA e Signore: Andrea Cosimo D'Amicis —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Este comunicador me mando a hacerle su biografía y necesito la imagen para ponerla en la información personal, esta imagen fue sacada de su Instagram personal Cristian200598 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)



This photo should not be deleted since Mr Richard Flohil, the legal copyright owner, has filled all the WIKIMEDIA COMMONS requirements. Proof of email exchanged with <redacted> from WIKIMEDIA COMMONS between Aug. 15 and Aug. 20 regarding copyright permissions. Please refer to <redacted> correspondence before deleting this photo. It was uploaded via my account FlyingG8. I will gladly answer any questions or connect you directly with Mr Flohil, should you require more

Thank you,

--FlyingG8 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close. Image is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thuresson: The image was deleted about an hour after your comment. The originator seems to have posted this preemptively after it was nominated for deletion. GMGtalk 00:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose Previously published without a free license at [3]. Thuresson (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose If an OTRS volunteer accepts the permission that was send by email, they will either undelete the image themselves or ask for undeletion here. OTRS volunteers requests are served with priority. Up till now no OTRS action on Commons concerning this file appears, so we have to assume that the permission you are talking about has not been accepted yet. Due to privacy rules, nobody but OTRS volunteers can access the email correspondence. Ankry (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @FlyingG8: When you sent the verification email, you should have gotten an automatic reply with a ticket number. Can you provide that number please? GMGtalk 21:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Myrotvorets logo-300x300.pngEdit

Materials of the website "Myrotvorets" can be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License: this is explicitly stated at More over, this link was given in a file description, but probably was not overseen by deleting admin. Therefore, I request undeletion of the site logo. This is to use the logo in infoboxes of corresponding Wiki articles. --Ostaltsov (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Can you comment on this? Why did you claim that there is no free license at ? Ankry (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The site only claimed free license for materials produced can be re-used with credit given. This claim doesn't necessarily mean that the logo is free to use as the logo is not a material. Correct me if I'm wrong. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
However, this logo describes the site concept and was produced by the site authors. Therefore, until somebody shows the same logo in use of other entity with a date earlier than that of the site "Myrotvorets" creation, this logo is a part of "Myrotvorets" materials. --Ostaltsov (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) My doubt concerning 大诺史's interpretation is related to some materials in this site, that are fully integrated with the logo, eg. [4]. So can the license really exclude the logo? So I tend to   Support undeletion. However another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  Support OK, so what is the decision? If the site logo is not in use anywhere else and nobody claims copyright, why it cannot be concluded to be a part of the site materials? --Ostaltsov (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The decission is to wait the standard 24 hours for other opinions. Ankry (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史:, now states that "All texts and graphic materials are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License". This definitely includes a site logo.--Ostaltsov (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The site has a copyright notice without any exception. I oppose undeletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Now the site does not have such a notice. Thus please, undelete their logo. --Ostaltsov (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I still see a copyright sign. The site can not say at the same time that the materials are copyrighted and distributed under free license. It is either / or.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: A free license doesn't remove the copyright. I still own the copyright to all of my own photos that I've uploaded on Commons. That's the reason that I and only I could transition a CCBYSA 4.0 license to a CC0 license if I so choose. GMGtalk 18:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but you do not upload the files and simultaneously add the copyright sign to them? For me, the copyright sign and the free license next to each other mean all the content of the site is under copyright, and they either have no isea what free license means, or just intentionally put both in order to be able to sue or to troll.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I know that there are a number of contributors here who have their cameras set to automatically include © GreenMeansGo 2019 in the meta data of their images. That doesn't really pertain to whether their CCBYSA license is legitimate (unless it obviously doesn't match the uploader). Whether we assume good faith is a different story, but if you are uncomfortable, you can always the current version of their page and include that in the source description rather than a live link. GMGtalk 18:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry I just disagree. This is a website I absolutely refuse to assume good faith towards - this is in fact the first ever complaint crowdsoursing database. Apart from this, for me, if I see a copyright sign and a CC-BY-SA license next to each other (as opposed to say copyright sign and a notice that all pictures of elephants are CC-SY-BA), for me this does not mean the material is CC-BY-SA. For me it means the site owner has no clue what copyright means. I can be overruled of course but I am not going to restore the file as soon as unconditional copyright sign remains there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, regardless, the copyright symbol doesn't pertain in any legal way to the validity of the CCBYSA, and if that's the only issue we are dealing with here, then we should   Restore it. The operative bit for our purpose is not the "copyright" bit, but the "all rights reserved bit". The CCBYSA in this case defines the terms under which they have exercised their copyright related rights. GMGtalk 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Only content that is © can be freely licensed: eg. under CC0 or CC-BY-SA. The "All rights reserved" declaration is something that generally contradicts with a free license. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, here are recommended markings with Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. They all include a ©symbol. Now Myrotvorets reproduces one of them. I suppose, this is enough to interpret it's content as licensed under Creative Commons.--Ostaltsov (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Kongo - Live - Hong Kong - Guitarist (48457936946).jpgEdit

Hello. This file was deleted with the reason given that it is on the subject's website. However, this has been uploaded by the owner as CC0 license on flickr so I do not understand how the fact that it also just so happens to be used by the subject on their website. Surely the fact it is uploaded as CC0 on flickr means it can be used anywhere freely? And it is not surprising that the subject would use pictures of themselves on their site.

I don't really understand what the issue is since it is clearly CC0 by the creator / owner on flickr, so the fact that it is used elsewhere should be irrelevant. If I am mistaken please let me know. Thank you.

Ref showing public domain license on flickr:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarmstrong (talk • contribs) 13:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Camarmstrong: We must be very careful for Flickr washing cases. Unfortunately, we have no evidence that the CC0 license is granted by the photographer. Especially that this seem to be a single purpose account with no other photos by this author and as the EXIF information is missing. I suggest the copyright holder contact COM:OTRS and prove that they are the author or have a copyright transfer contract with the photographer. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thank you for responding. I am not sure I can get them to go to all that trouble for something I am choosing to submit. I did correspond with the subject/owner who said it was 100% okay to use freely, but because I thought that may not be enough I had asked them to upload any free to use photo that I can use to flickr with CC0 attribution, which is why they uploaded this photo. I figured this would be the least intrusive and troublesome way based on what I had learned so far about the process (admittedly I am new to this). Would the correspondence COMBINED with the flickr upload CC0 be adequate? I feel like I have troubled them enough and this whole affair seems a little complicated to ask someone to do. Let me know what you think about this? Would the combination of the two suffice? If so, how do I show the correspondence?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarmstrong (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
If you contact via email to the OTRS it is up to OTRS volunteer to decide what is satisfactory and what is not. You should wait for their response. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:BNK48 Campus Member 2.jpgEdit

From [5], FOP applies here as the photographs are installed in a public place, which is at the fourth floor of The Mall Bangkapi. The file does not fit in the deletion criteria. --Ingfa7599 (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ingfa7599: Which country FOP? In most cases FOP does not cover interiors. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This map suggests that Thai FoP does not include public interiors. If this is incorrect, plese discuss the problem in COM:VPC providing appropriate legal opinions / legal cases. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, you can now close the thread. --Ingfa7599 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: per COM:FOP Thailand, only works that are "openly located in a public space" are exempt from copyright. This does not apply to this indoors photo. --De728631 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Кочнев нов 1.jpgEdit

File:Кочнев нов 1.jpg

Hello! I ask undeletion this file and restore it in the article because I took this photo and I am the sole copyright holder of this photo. I allowed to use this image on the magazine’s website for free, but the rights to this photo belong to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AshubaSirov (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose We need an evidence for that. If the initial publication of the photo does not declare a free license, you may provide appropriate information contacting COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Кочнев.Золотая маска.jpgEdit

File:Кочнев.Золотая маска.jpg

Hello! I ask undeletion this file and restore it in the article because I took this photo and I am the sole copyright holder of this photo. I allowed to use this image on the news site for free, but the rights to this photo belong to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AshubaSirov (talk • contribs) 07:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose This photo was published in 2016 here. Thuresson (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose We need an evidence for that. If the initial publication of the photo does not declare a free license, you may provide appropriate information contacting COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Alessio Angel Rengifo Randazzo.jpgEdit


My pleasure

Yes, the undeletion request of the file..., etc

Please set it back as Requested


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maemaa (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maemaa: Why the image should be undeleted? Ankry (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Juho Ahosola.jpgEdit

The rights to this photo belong to Talenom Oyj. I (Juha Jutila) am working in the management of Talenom Oyj ( and it is ok for Talenom Oyj to show this photo in wikipedia.

Juha Jutila JuhaJuti (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)24. August 2019 Talenom Oyj

  Oppose This declaration does not allow me to sell balloons with this photo. Thuresson (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How this can be so difficult? Please tell me haw I can get tha photo there?JuhaJuti (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

We need hard evidence for any images that have been published before without a free licence, and we have no means to verify your identity or affiliation with Talenom through your Wikimedia account. Please send a permission for this file per email from your working email account at Talenom. See COM:OTRS for more information. Once that mail has been processed and approved by our volunteer email team, the file may be undeleted. However, this is a very slow process because they have a huge backlog.
Alternatively you may grant a free licence for anyone to use this image for any purpose (and not just at Wikipedia) at Talenom's website. That way we could quickly verify such an external licence. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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


Deletion request is spam: it's just a link to bing. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:4B00:8671:A400:7CAB:4A65:2615:8422 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, page is not deleted (and unlikely to be so). 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Michael Seidenberg.jpgEdit

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019070910009301 regarding File:Michael Seidenberg.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Done Ezarateesteban 22:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Mmz ilivelife.jpgEdit

User talk:Mmz ilivelife

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmz ilivelife (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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


Lizenz wurde nun erteilt. --Wesm2907 (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, Example.jpg is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Gil Lê.jpgEdit

Castlevania23 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This image is allowed by Gil Lê, FC needs it to create wikipedia for Gil Lê Castlevania23 (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Gil Lê.jpg

This image is allowed by Gil Lê, FC needs it to create wikipedia for Gil Lê Castlevania23 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Gil Lê.jpgEdit

This image is allowed by Gil Lê, FC needs it to create wikipedia for Gil Lê Manuyuhe (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Comment According to the same wording request and this Castlevania23 is probably Manuyuhe so there's an abuse of multiple accounts. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Myrotvorets logo-300x300.pngEdit

More than 24 hours passed since discussion on this undeletion stopped (see above). Alas, no decision so far. I thus would like to activate the undeletion request once again.--Ostaltsov (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)