Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 4% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.


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

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

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


Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

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

Adding a request

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

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

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


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Locator maps of Latvian parishes

In deletion request original uploader (re)confirmed that they are the author of the following maps. Also evidence was provided that public source data of these maps is open data. Author has released their maps to public domain, they are a prolific mapmaker and administrator on Latvian Wikipedia. In response to my recent enquiry they say that they a professional cartographer. Years ago they have documented their mapmaking process here. So there seems to be more than enough reason to assume good faith that these maps are not copyright violations.

Nominator in their laconic remarks in turn did not provide any evidence that there are some other non-free maps that these maps might be derived from. Closing admin in their post-closure response doesn't seem to know either why should we doubt about the freedom of these maps. Hopefully this is a misunderstanding and these maps can be restored. Or, if not else, then hopefully now we can shed at least some light on why were these maps deleted, and why shouldn't we delete pretty much all other maps on Commons in similar manner (as we are never 100% sure that everything is alright copyright-wise).

--Pikne 07:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've now also imported the original vector image (by the same author) that locator maps of individual parishes are based on. In file description I referred to open data by government agency (as above), similar to maps like this that make reference to public/open source data. I also made reference to this base map in file descriptions of serveral maps from the same series that have been transferred to Commons over the years (e.g. here). Hopefully that'd be enough to make things clear and to avoid further misunderstandings. Can we now restore or reimport File:Prauliena Parish (LocMap).png and the rest mentioned in DR no. 2? Pikne 06:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I support re-importing or restoration, whichever is better for archival purposes. Because if all the maps look like File:Turku pagasts LocMap.png, they are not too complex as User:Jcb claimed in the DR. No valid reason for deletion in the first place.--Roy17 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, complex or not, the author has released these maps to public domain. The main reason why I believe these files should be restored is that there is no evidence whatsoever of some other actual cartographic work that these maps could be derived from, and also, source data, though probably subject to non-copyright rights, is open data. Pikne 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Yoga Training In Rishikesh Akshi Yogashala (258662567).jpeg

The nomination was based in "metadata contains Facebook, as source" but clearly is the same author for both files, and it's possible by the law have different versions of the same file, under different licenses. Moreover, the author could always choose to latter publish a file in a more permissive license. So, the justification is not valid.

Gbawden it's not the first time that you do not check the votes and wrongly delete a file of mine. jeff g will always include "delete" in files that I upload, because he loves me and want hard my attention, so you need to pay more attention. ---- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Is there an OTRS ticket containing Wikimedia and Facebook users identity confirmation by a highly trusted independent user? We should be able to verify identity even when Facebook account disappears. Ankry (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
We have the CC-by version stored at (258662567), so we have a more powerful manner to prove than even OTRS. Check [1] and [2]. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If it was first published online elsewhere before it was posted at 500px, then the 500px link is actually not a proof. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's the same user, it's a clear case.
If they decided to publish under a cc-by after, it's their decision, and we have proof that they did that.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I would err on the side of caution and get OTRS permission, especially as it appears to be have been published elsewhere before 500px Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Alx90865

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

File:José Armando Estevez.jpg

Solicito información referente a la eliminación, ya que son de mi autoria tanto el especificado como los siguientes Rafael Rivas.jpg y Juan Manuel La Guardia.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar66644 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Jcb's deletion between 20:16 and 20:18, 4 January 2019 (115 files)

In this period, User:Jcb deleted 116 files. File:Bershanskaya, Gelman, and Smirnova.png has been restored. The other 115:

  1. File:Ensign of the Kazakhstan Air Force.png {{Own}},, {{PD-KZ-exempt}}, svg at File:Flag of Kazakhstan Air Force.svg
  2. File:Плановые полеты летчиков авиабазы Домна ВВО (Забайкальский край) МО РФ 02.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  3. File:Плановые полеты летчиков авиабазы Домна ВВО (Забайкальский край) МО РФ 01.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  4. File:Pervy`e krasvoenlety`.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  5. File:Elizovo aerodrom.png мультимедиа.минобороны.рф
  6. File:Leonov Alksandr Petrovich general.jpg
  7. File:Горяинов и Савицкий в Мезее 16-й ВА.jpg
  8. File:Gruppirovka protivnika pered nachalom Krymskoi nastupatelnoi operatcii.png
  9. File:Построение обороны противника в Крыму.png
  10. File:Krime konferencia 2014.png
  11. File:Михаил Кондратьевич Круш.jpg
  12. File:Фролов Николай Алексеевич.jpg
  13. File:Kobylash si.jpg
  14. File:Су 24М SU 24M.jpg
  15. File:Vasilevskiy A M.png
  16. File:Знак военного летчика Пруссия.png {{Own}}
  17. File:Zeichen Militärpilot (Bayern).png {{Own}}
  18. File:МиГ 29 СМТ.png (in author field)
  19. File:Su-30sm GB1C8101-550.png (in author field)
  20. File:Normandia11.png (in author field)
  21. File:Normandia7.png (in author field)
  22. File:Normandia1.png (in author field)
  23. File:Map of the East Prussian offensive.png
  24. File:Plennie kenigsberg 550.png
  25. File:Granitsa prussii 550.png
  26. File:Подразделение.jpg
  27. File:The defeat of the Samland group and the capture of Pillau.png {{Own}}
  28. File:The position of the troops in the counterattack.png dunno
  29. File:The counter-attack by troops of the Western front in the area of Sukhinichi, Kozelsk Beginning.png {{Own}}
  30. File:Вице-адмирал Воложинский.png
  31. File:Татаренко Александр Юрьевич.png
  32. File:Севостьянов Виктор Михайлович.png
  33. File:Кузьменко АВ.png
  34. File:Iv-oksv00-18.png
  35. File:Hasan6.png
  36. File:Карта бд в Воронежско-Харьковской стратегической наступательной операции.png {{Own}}
  37. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on 05.02.1943.png {{Own}}
  38. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on11.01.1943.png {{Own}}
  39. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on 20.03.1943.png {{Own}}
  40. File:Krasnodar operation. The position of the troops on 24.05.1943.png {{Own}}
  41. File:Pskov offensive 09 03 1944.png {{Own}}
  42. File:Pskov offensive 15 04 1944.png {{Own}}
  43. File:Braunsberg offensive operation 29 03 1945.png {{Own}}
  44. File:Braunsberg offensive operation 19 03 1945.png {{Own}}
  45. File:Adnan Pasha.jpeg dunno
  46. File:Braunsberg offensive operation 13 03 1945.png {{Own}}
  47. File:Polikarpov I-16 Monino.JPG {{Own}}
  48. File:Farman IV in Monino.JPG dunno
  49. File:Горяинов А С.png
  50. File:General Tarasenko.png
  51. File:Major-General of aviation Belevich.jpg
  52. File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 28 июля 1944 года.png {{Own}}
  53. File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 3 августа 1944 года.png {{Own}}
  54. File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 28 августа 1944 года.png {{Own}}
  55. File:Противотанковые ежи на границе Восточной Пруссии. Август 1944 г.png
  56. File:General Egkov VI.png
  57. File:Aleksandrov ss.png
  58. File:Dozapravka v vozduhe.png
  59. File:Romanov VM Hero of Russia.png
  60. File:Andrey Dyachenko.png
  61. File:77° brigata SAP "Fratelli Manfredi", distaccamento Leo-Pier-Luigi.jpg dunno
  62. File:Vadim Byikulov.png
  63. File:Rusfalcons solo-su-35-550.jpg
  64. File:The prosecution Nevel groups 08 01.png {{Own}}
  65. File:The prosecution Nevel groups 30 12.png {{Own}}
  66. File:The prosecution Nevel groups 02 01.png {{Own}}
  67. File:Nedosekin pv.png
  68. File:Otroshenko.png
  69. File:KorochkinVF.png
  70. File:Shaposhnikov170.png
  71. File:Kornukov memory-550.png
  72. File:Летчики 721 иап 1943 год.jpg
  73. File:The pilots and the commander of the 721 IAP.jpg
  74. File:Krukov.jpg
  75. File:Remont La-5.jpg
  76. File:Raevski-170.png
  77. File:Templin-gross doelln2000.png
  78. File:Синицын Виктор Павлович.png
  79. File:General Sadofev.png
  80. File:Base the Arctic Shamrock v.png
  81. File:2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice for All Award (23253948146).jpg dunno
  82. File:Base the Arctic Shamrock.png
  83. File:UdarTu22.png
  84. File:MIG29-550.jpg
  85. File:Recon uav 3(1)(1)(1).jpg
  86. File:Etalon 10SV.png
  87. File:Sign of the Yankees Museum.png {{Own}}
  88. File:Положение войск на 10 10 1941.png {{Own}}
  89. File:Положение войск на 30 09 1941.png {{Own}}
  90. File:Положение войск на 29 10 1941.png {{Own}}
  91. File:Pashchevskii.png
  92. File:Zhiharev general.png
  93. File:MiG-27 Mongolian Arat.png
  94. File:Знамя эскадрильи Монгольский арат.png
  95. File:Sukhoi T-50.jpg dunno
  96. File:Bust of A. K. Serov.png
  97. File:Abramov-Vladimir-Nikitovich.png
  98. File:The area of responsibility of 19 the army air defense.png {{Own}}
  99. File:866Polk000.png
  100. File:Gorod-nish-serbiya-pamyatnik-sovetskim-voinam.jpg
  101. File:Shatalovo (air base).png {{Own}}
  102. File:The Monino Airfield.png {{Own}}
  103. File:Pantsir-S1 Northern Clover.jpg dunno
  104. File:Pantsir-S1 2.jpg dunno
  105. File:Концерт на острове Котельный.jpg dunno
  106. File:Polar star (military base).jpg dunno
  107. File:База Полярная звезда часовня.jpg dunno
  108. File:Щучин аэродром.png dunno
  109. File:Chudbin2.jpg dunno
  110. File:Chudbin1.jpg dunno
  111. File:Chudbin0.jpg dunno
  112. File:Матиенко Пётр Андреевич.jpg dunno
  113. File:Chudbin3.jpg dunno
  114. File:153 giap 02.jpg dunno
  115. File:153 giap 01.jpg dunno

Criteria for undeletion:

  1. Probably PD files such as Ensign of the Kazakhstan Air Force.png ({{PD-KZ-exempt}}). Could be PD by exemption, PD by age, etc.
  2. Files that have been licence-reviewed.
  3. Files that have a URL as source, can be found on the source URL, belong to the source URL operator, and the source URL has a free licence. (Similar to File:Bershanskaya, Gelman, and Smirnova.png)

Reasons for undeletion:

  1. special:permalink/333890137#Deleted_photos_with_Creative_Commons_Attribution_4.0_license: according to User:Fighter Pilot, these files came from the website of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation ( ).
  2. does have a site-wide copyright notice © Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
  3. Commons consensus wrt Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-03#File:Bershanskaya,_Gelman,_and_Smirnova.png.
  4. Jcb deleted the files without tagging them for SD or DR.

@Jcb: it would be very kind of you if you could undo your damage, please?--Roy17 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Support At the very least for evaluation. Uploader seems to have only been noticed about 3 files. I wonder how the others were tagged. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"As far as I can see, the files that I deleted had a source link to a different website. Also there was not license template." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ordinary copyright violations, all presented as own work with a CC license, most too old to be own work of the uploader but too recent to be PD, or e.g. File:Shatalovo (air base).png, which is a Google Maps screenshot, also presented as own work with a CC license. Jcb (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"all presented as own work with a CC license" - as the file pages are redlinks, people would tend to take your word for it. Once again, it has to be me who exposes these falsehoods. A role I don't particularly enjoy, because you never apologize or take responsibility for what you say.   - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Checking files at random:
File:Щучин аэродром.png - Yandex maps screenshot - even has watermark (!!!)
File:The area of responsibility of 19 the army air defense.png - Yandex map falsely claimed as own
File:Положение войск на 29 10 1941.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice for All Award (23253948146).jpg - Flickr washing - credit per Flickr and metadata is "© Tony Powell". Tony Powell does not appear to be an employee of the LBJ Foundation and there is no evidence the latter has permission to release the image to the public domain. COM:OTRS would be needed.
File:Летчики 721 иап 1943 год.jpg - historical photo with bogus CC-by-SA 4.0 license, sourced to, not, which does not appear to reference CC licenses.
File:The prosecution Nevel groups 08 01.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:Каунасская операция 1944 год Положение войск на 3 августа 1944 года.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:Braunsberg offensive operation 29 03 1945.png - Contemporary map with no source
File:153 giap 02.jpg - historical photo with no license and sourced to, not
No evidence deletion was abusive, or that there are enough errors to warrant undeletion for evaluation. To the contrary, the purports above are not factual and the premise is ignorant of COM:EVID. If there is evidence a particular file was deleted in err, it can be presented. Эlcobbola talk 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Elcobbola. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Roy17, Elcobbola, De728631: I added some sources where I could. (where I couldn't it says "dunno") минобороны.рф is also - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, File:Pashchevskii.png has a license review from Explicit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Almost all historic military photos from the Soviet era are owned by the Russian government, just check any archive like RGKAFD, TASS, RIAN, etc. The website is not a copyright owner of any photos, it merely republishes photos that can be found elsewhere on the internet, like, but never give attribution (same goes for a lot of Russian websites like, etc; in fact, I have been trying to convince to add required attributions to photos). The contemorary and yandex maps should stay deleted, but the historic Soviet military photos like 153 giap 02.jpg and the photos by the Russian government that were created by the Soviet and Russian administrations like the ones from [3] should be undeleted, and Jcb's admin privleges should be revoked.(  Support)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"Almost all" is not an acceptable argument; you need to prove that for each photo separately. The goal of providing a source is to verify the copyright status, so providing a source that does not provide appropriate information and/or licensing is pointless. Also, providing false information may be a reason for deletion (eg. you claim that File:153 giap 02.jpg was made or first published in 2018; and if it was first published in 2018 it may copyrighted in US till 2113 (95 years since first publication, unless creation date is known) regardless of its copyright status in Russia. So without information about its author or (initial) publication date we cannot consider it free.
Also, making UDR with mixed rationale is pointless, as it cannot be properly handled. I suggest closing this request as not done and creating separate requests for photos that are clearly free in both: Russia and US and providing appropriate individual information that prove that. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The rationales are consistent. A sysop User:Jcb mass-deleted files out of process when many files have valid and live external sources. The uploader did make a request to challenge the deletion: special:diff/333829923, but s/he like most other users would not know the specific procedures on Commons well. This batch request was filed as serious doubts on validity of this particular batch deletion by Jcb have emerged. I explicitly listed the criteria for deletion for you to check. You are the only ones with access to the deleted files and descriptions. Now Alexis Jazz has put forward evidence (which should have come from sysops). In addition to, for example is a well-established source of free contents under CC-BY-4.0. It was absurd when only you could access the evidence you turned to non-sysops for it. Now that much evidence has been given, but it is up to you to decide if you insist on manipulating the process and bullying a clueless user like User:Fighter Pilot by closing the request.--Roy17 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Several admins actually looked at the files and all of them disagree with you sofar. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: @Jcb: All photos produced by Soviet military photographers that have not reached the public domain are property of the Russian government, and it is legal for the Russian government to release their photos under free licences. Other websites (like soviet aces) are supposed to provide attribution to the russian government per the fair-use clause of russian copyright law, but the Russian government rarely demands the legally required attributions, and hence it is very, very common for russian websites to re-use government property photos without attribution. Files on commons don't have to be PD in both the US and source country IF the copyright holder released them under a permitted creative commons licence, which we saw with the historic photos. Photos taken by Russian government photographers (like the ones from russian military airshows) and all the Soviet-era photos from (ie, all the ones that have to be either Russian government property or public domain) should be undeleted. In the case of File:153 giap 01.jpg, while it was first published in 2018, it is safe for undeletion because it is Russian government property and under a permitted creative commons licence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2, Majora: Here goes Jcb again. I went above and beyond to add sources and have shown Jcb wasn't telling the truth. They were not "all presented as own work with a CC license", and in the face of undisputable evidence, Jcb simply turns to "Several admins actually looked at the files and all of them disagree with you sofar." This is why I'm pinging you. Jcb doesn't value the opinion of non-admins. He's also forgetting to mention that when Elcobbola and De728631 replied I hadn't added the sources yet. Meanwhile, Ankry requires Roy17 "to prove that[the image has a free license] for each photo separately", something Roy17 can't actually do because all the files are redlinks. That's what we need admins for. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this evaluation. If I understand PlanespotterA320 correctly, even the images from non-government sites may be freely licensed, but probably need another source. Pinging @A.Savin as well who understands Russian. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I undeleted the images mentioned above. I will work on the rest later. Files from external sources should get a license review. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I undeleted all the files which have a valid source. Do you think that the maps are own works (could be, but not sure)? @PlanespotterA320, Roy17: What would be the license for old images from sources other than and Yann (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A few images are not OK, but that's not a reason for such a bad admin job. Jcb doesn't seem to be able to change his way of working, but that has to be addressed elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Elcobbola: Your randomn sample is very well chosen... Yann (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • COM:AGF is yet another of our many policies of which you are unfamiliar, Yann. Эlcobbola talk 11:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Elcobbola: Well, I too was thinking of saying your random number generator is broken. Out of 115 files, 46 are from, or have a LR. Every time you randomly select a file, there's a 45% chance it'll be one of those. The odds of never hitting any of those 46 when selecting 9 files at random are about 0.44%. So, um, your random number generator seems to be broken. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, your understanding of statistics is broken. If I role a die three times and get 1-1-1, that does not mean my die is "broken" (unfairly weighted). You appear not to know what random actually means. Verily, even in this case, Planespotter believes my sampling found clear erroneous deletions by Jcb. Эlcobbola talk 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If I flip a coin 9 times, there's a 0.2% chance I get 9 times heads with fair coin flips. Or 99.8% chance you shouldn't bet against me. Don't try to teach me statistics unless you understand them better than I do, which you clearly don't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And rolling 1-1-1 has a 0.46% of occurring. That must mean it's impossible, right? That is what you're implying: an unlikely outcome can only been explained by deceit or a broken process. Statistics are more than owning a calculator; even then, it's quaint that you think (1/2)^9 is the actual maths. Эlcobbola talk 13:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I should have done the math on the dice rolls, I'll give you that. It's too bloody warm. But it changes nothing. I never said you had bad intentions. But your "random" isn't really random. You would likely follow some pattern. And you did. You evaluated files 108, 98, 90, 81, 72, 64, 53, 43 and 114. So you started at 108 and went down 8-11 each step. Not really "random", but fair enough. Except for the last step, obviously: instead of picking something from 32 to 35, you went with 114. Perhaps to save on scrolling, but in that case: not random. And of course: if you had picked 32-35, you'd have found a picture. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Then one wonders what the purpose of your comment was intended to be, especially when it began with "Well, I too..." following Yann's shameless piffle. As you see, to your credit--and Yann would have seen if he'd made any thought or effort--I started from the bottom of the list (114 in my comment was merely out of order), and clicked as I scrolled up--approximately every ten (why, it's almost as if my mouse has a 10-line scroll...)--and stopped when I felt I had enough--nine, as it turned out. This is convenience sampling and, commensurate to that informality, I used "random" colloquially--the methodology and sampling chosen without definite reason or statistical rigor. There was never a purport that this was anything but an informal check, which is perfectly reasonable in this context (UDR). And, if the non-application of stringent statistical theory and methodology here is the criticism, it is 1) not a reasonable expectation and 2) an irrelevant tangent. Эlcobbola talk 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I wonder what the hostility was from your side; if you used "random" colloquially, don't wave statistics around when someone says you weren't very random. You escalated needlessly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for those kind-hearted and cooperative sysops.
At this point in time, 59 undeleted files (out of 115 requested, i.e. more than half) have matching live sources which are under acceptable licences. Among these 59, 1 is restricted by FoP and so DR-ed; I would not confirm 4 because I do not speak Russian and cannot deal with the intricate details. Another 1 is PD by law; 1 is PD-ineligible which can be easily traced to the original website. Plus the 1 restored before, that's 62/116 errors from Jcb the serial deletionist.
@Yann: if the photos are old enough for consideration like {{PD-RusEmpire}}, or if they are for example state emblems exempted by their original countries' laws, those could be deleted. Otherwise I have no opinion. It'd be up to Russian users and fans to argue for their cases. I was concerned about the well-sourced ones which you have restored. Thank you very much!--Roy17 (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No, nothing is from before 1918, so PD-RusEmpire is not OK. Old images are from World War II time. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, User:Jcb's ill-informed unilateral deletion (because he did not trust a template created by a long-term abuser but he did not raise this problem on a discussion page first), special:diff/358252194 and special:diff/358477678 were uncooperative, brought damage to the project (causing massive delinking for example) and wasted the time and effort of the uploader, other editors who helped maintain the files and participants of this UDR.--Roy17 (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:S465499642

I see this page version in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_74#A_request_to_see_deleted_edits_of_files,and find this page have rollback version on it,I request to undelete it.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The page history of User talk:S465499642 doesn't show any use of rollback?! De728631 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see the edit history in this page.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean that the page was edited by MCC214 after its first undeletion? If so, you should already have seen those edits. And the Commons:Rollback tool was definitely not used. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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


This is a city insignia of a township in Peru. I photographed it myself off of a publication by the city, and it's visibly displayed throughout the town that was founded more than 300 years ago. It's assumed to be old, a Coat of Arms of a township - should be in the public domain, no?

Thank you! Gentle (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gentle: In order to prove the image PD status in Peru, we need an evidence that it was available to public prior to 1976. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Please note also that, while the description of a coat of arms is usually in the public domain, any new painting or other rendition of the same insingnia by another artist sparks a new copyright. So we need evidence that this particular drawing was first published before 1976. De728631 (talk)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:IBBL LOGO.png

Hello, This photo is the logo of Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited. As per permission, I do not think there is any way or need to get permission from them as they have used it in their website, and it is free to use. I do not think the way JuTa deleted the photo is correct by only mentioning No Permission. How did they determine if this photo has permission or not?

I claim an undelete of this photo asap as it can be used in public.

--Fpmobd (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fpmobd: When did it happen that the bank licensed this logo under a Creative Commons license? How was this announced? Thuresson (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose Fpmobd, as the uploader it was on you to provide reliable evidence for a free permission, so JuTa was right to challenge the free status of thie file. The bank using it on their website is NOT a free permission for anyone else to re-use this logo – most content on the internet is copyrighted an non-free by default. Instead, such a permission would have to be stated explicitely on the website. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Charles Reid American Painter 1977

This is a photo taken by me, in 1977. My father was an oil and watercolor painter, an author of 12 books and a teacher.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CCRButterfly (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose This appears to be about File:Fullsizeoutput 1890.jpg and File:Fullsizeoutput 1433.jpg. If you are the heir of Charles Reid, please send this statement by email since we have no means to verify your identity through your Wikimedia account. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Once this email has been processed by our volunteer team, the files will be restored. But it may take several weeks due to a huge backlog. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thomas Padovani.jpg

This photo is from a private photo collection to where we own all the usage rights. Please kindly undo the deletion of the image. --HCEK (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Owning a physical copy of a photograph does not automatically make you the copyright holder. This image has been published before without a free licence, so we require a permission by email from the original photographer, or a copy of the explicit transfer of copyright. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


This photo is remxied from the original photo which has been uploaded by the copyright holder ( Please kindly undo the deletion of the image. I have sent an OTRS email with the original email thread whereby permission was granted by the copyright holder on the 21 July 2019 (UTC).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyyhhyyh (talk • contribs)
  Oppose This in not a remixed photo. This is another one. We need to wait until the OTRS permission is processed. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How is this not a remixed photo. A remixed photo is is a piece of media which has been altered or contorted from its original state by adding, removing, and changing pieces of the item.' I clearly changed the original photo by editing it, which is allowed under the conditions it was uploaded upon Hyyhhyyh (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to this, the owner of the work is not George Danezis, it is Markus Kuhn, see the original photo it was remixed from Hyyhhyyh (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Hanan Aynor with Senegal's President Leopol Sedar Senghor in Dakar Senegal 1964.jpg

Hanan Aynor is my father and this image belongs to me - Amos Aynor.

Can this file please be Undeleted?

--Amosaynor1 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amosaynor1: If you are the photographer or you have a copyright transfer contract with the photographer, please send a free license permission following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


Die Begründung für die Löschung ist ein Verdacht auf eine Urheberrechtsverletzung mit Verweis auf eine Seite, auf der das Bild eingebunden ist. ( Ich bin tatsächlich Urheber des Fotos und habe alle notwendigen Rechte, um das Bild unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Die oben genannte Seite nutzt das Bild mit meinem Einverständnis ohne Anspruch auf Exklusivität. Ich hatte diese Begründung auch in der Diskussion um die Löschung bereits angeführt! Yannik Markworth (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Well, at least we can agree that you are not credited in the magazine article. Most readers will have assumed that this is Hannah Thalhammer's own photo. The subject also published the photo on Instagram here without crediting you. Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to verify that you are the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Tiziano Gaia (2018).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Good morning, I am the author of this picture, I own all the rights and I confirm my intention to upload it and share it in wikimedia commons. The picture on LinkedIn is the same picture for which I have given permission to upload to the LinkedIn user. Thanks, Overbridge (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Overbridge: For images already published elsewhere with no evidence of free license, we need a writtern free license permission. Please follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


Please DO NOT delete photos without a valid reason or you will end up in the court of law. RyszardJurkowski.jpg --Pysiatko (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I blocked Pysiatko for one month for legal threat. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose File:Ryszard Jurkowski.jpg was one of several files deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pysiatko. Thuresson (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

2019, The Way that I gotta go on.pdf

Hi there, my name is Arnaud Mariette and I just wanted to publish my own biography, full discographie and filmographie at the age of 30. So as an artist I just want the world what I have been through when I was a kid that I survived from a car crash at the age of 5 thanks to the Love of God and that's what push me up to the music to help desperate people around the world to never give up in life cuz everything is possible as long we got faith and believe in ourself cause I am an example of the Miacle of the Lord and a survivor.I'm not expecting any royalties, credits or whatsoever I just wanna share my own story like all the artists around the world with their own biography but I'm not familiar with copyrights policies so I don't really know which one is the best way for me and my story to be seen by the people. Please I'm begging you it really means a lot to me to be public and if you ready the introduction and very first pages of my stuff you will understand what I mean. But please don't deny me. Thank you so much in advance and have a nice day.

Take care,

Best regards

Arnaud Mariette (DIN_Asty & Dj LUN_Atic from Paris, France)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb00:718:4300:80de:b04:27f8:2d04 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 July 2019‎ (UTC)
  Info No file with this name in the deletion log. Thuresson (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Italian military emasculated Second Italo-Ethiopian War.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Was kept as {{PD-Italy}} so {{PD-1996}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. While there are chances that a research may find information allowing the conclusion that it is indeed PD-Italy, it seems that no evidence was provided in the deletion discussions, because of the absence of the publication history or information about the original source. In the first deletion request, it was kept on an obviously irrelevant rationale. The essential missing information is when and where the first publication took place. This is necessary to justify a PD-Italy rationale. Hence the second deletion request, I guess, which underscored the absence of evidence and resulted in deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Asclepias: "According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights yadda yadda yadda are protected for a period of 20 years from creation" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I know PD-Italy. (I remember the epic discussions from ten years ago about the template and about the nuances of its wording.) But you missed my point. The problem is not about the 20 years from creation, if and when it comes to computing the copyright duration. It is that the basic condition that a photo must meet to use PD-Italy on Commons is that there must be evidence that its country of origin is Italy. (The first sentence of the template PD-Italy states "The country of origin of this photograph is Italy".) In general (save rare exceptions), the country of origin of a photo is the country where it was published for the first time. The flickr album that includes this photo does not mention the source. It looks like it could be a series of photos taken by an Italian soldier, not necessarily an official army photographer. Were the photos in an official archive? Were they kept by the photographer and published much later? Were they in a recent book? The odds may be rather good that the photos were first published in Italy, but they could have been first published elsewhere. Evidence is necessary. Someone familiar with the topic will probably know or could find the source of the publication. In my first comment, I mentioned that essential information is when and where the first publication took place. The reason for the "where it was first published" is explained above. The reason for the "when it was first published" is that it must have been published before 1 March 1989 to be in the public domain in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  Support I don't see any reason to believe that a 1936 picture was not published long enough to be in the public domain in Italy and in the USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You are saying that all photographs that exist and were taken many decades ago were all published? That's obviously not the case. If it was, we wouldn't have a template such as PD-US-unpublished. Unpublished photos do exist. Photos kept by photographers and their families can be published a long time after their creation. There are many reasons why photographs can be published long after their creation. To take only one example about the topic here, 1937 Cozzani photos remained unpublished in 2017, as specified there (video) and there (text). This report also mentions that it was frequent for many soldiers to take photos on a personal basis. There are other cases of similarly unpublished photos. Some surface from time to time. In the case of the photo discussed here, "File:Italian military emasculated Second Italo-Ethiopian War.jpg", the only information from the deletion request is the flickr album published in the 2010s in the United States under "all rights reserved". That is not enough. Looking at the album, I doubt that the Mussolini regime would have seen with approbation the publication of some of those photos at that time. It's not impossible that they remained unpublished and surfaced only much later. We don't know unless we have information. We can't just slap any status tag on any file just because we'd like to keep it. To place a country-specific PD tag, we need evidence that the file meets the requirement of that tag. E.g., to place PD-Canada tag on a file, we need evidence that it was first published in Canada. Etc. To place a PD-Italy tag on a file, we need evidence that it was first published in Italy. Which obviously means evidence that it was published, and that publication was first in Italy. That is always the requirement. That is nothing new. If there was a pre-1989 publication, it is not too much to ask from the uploader to do a research and to provide at least a clue to a source, an author, something. Now, there's nothing. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it may not have been published in 1936. But if it was published before 1976, it is sufficient to be in the public domain in Italy and in the US. This is not a family album picture. It is photojournalism, even if it was taken by a soldier. So it is not reasonable to think it was never published in the 40 years period sufficient for us to host it. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit torn on this, if it's a reasonable assumption that they were published in Italy. They could certainly have been published as propaganda. We do have to make assumptions of country of origin all the time -- we don't always have initial publication info. Italy seems the most likely; even if unpublished for a time it is virtually certain they were taken by Italian photographers. PD-Italy is based on date of creation and not publication, meaning it would definitely be PD in Italy from 1956 or 1957. Publication would only be a question for the U.S. status, and as long as they were published before 1989 (without notice) they would be PD in the US as well. If they were Italian army (i.e. government) photos, publication may be a more nebulous question. Is there any indication that the Flickr source was the initial publication? Or did they just take them from another publicly-available source? The Alamy image looks like a different scan, meaning there are multiple copies of the image out there, meaning they were most likely published at some point before that. There is a theoretical doubt, sure, but I'm not sure it rises to the reasonable doubt required by COM:PRP. I don't have a problem assuming Italy is the country of origin. Lean   Support for me. If more information on provenance comes to light, we can always reconsider then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  Support. From flickr there is a large batch of similar style. It could be assumed some photographer took them. Would that be a non-Italian and s/he brought the negatives to another country and developed them there? Quite unlikely. So the country of origin is quite safely Italy and so PD-1996 for US.--Roy17 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Autoportrait - Philippe Minguet.JPG

The following permission has been sent to on july 17th at 17:46 western europe time

please undelete this file. thx, Contrib1960

--Contrib1960 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I hereby affirm that I represent Philippe Minguet, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media as shown here: and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even 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 the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as 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 the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Lucie Gielen-Minguet Widow of Philippe Minguet July 17th, 2019.

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

Files uploaded by SilverBullitt

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Files were waiting for permission, Ticket #2019030610006201 now handled and permission ok. Files were uploaded by User:SilverBullitt anad deleted by admin User:Ellin Beltz on 16 July 2019 (firs 20:23). I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I was too slow to respond. - form OTRS-team Htm (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done: @Htm: Please proceed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mona Ghanem Al Marri.jpg

OTRS permission received in Ticket:2018121110002788. Please ping me when restoring if not an ORTS agent so I can add the permission. GMGtalk 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done: @GreenMeansGo: Please proceed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


This is my own original photo taken by me. Please undelete it thank you 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Blurry nondescript photo. Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hari147. Thuresson (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


This photo was also taken by me as well. I request to undelete this photo as these photos I have serve as identification and learning Hari147 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

File:NO-11-12-1973-Fr23 (9076439300).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Civil Rights protesters and Woolworth's Sit-In, Durham, NC, 10 February 1960. From the N&O Negative Collection, State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. Photos taken by The News & (24495308926).jpg, {{PD-US-not renewed}}. ? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"PD-US-not renewed" is not applicable to a 1973 work. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done Mixed up numbers. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verifying OTRS Ticket:2019071810007395 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done: @Tiven2240: Please proceed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Kirchenfenster Altdorf.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: [Ticket#: 2019050210005107] Atina B. (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose undeletion requests should come from OTRS agents. Please be patient. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Mayor Dan Rivera.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the rights to this photo, this photo was taken by Kate Reilly in 2014 with a Cannon EOS Digital Rebel XT, and was later cropped. I have the rights to this photo, it has been used by many platforms with my permission but is my photo. DR01843 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Please forward a copy of your written transfer of rights by email. The address and further instructions can be found at COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Mahan Bahramkhan Wikipedia.jpg

Hello. I’m sure that this picture is a free content. It was shared on artist’s official instagram page. And also first picture of him on google panel when you search it on google. I asked this artist too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyartt (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 July 2019‎ (UTC)
@Kamyartt: Good job! Please ask the photographer to verify the license by following the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)