Open main menu

Commons:Запросы на восстановление

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 31% 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 • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

На этой странице участники могут оставить запрос на восстановление удалённой страницы или файла (далее «файл»). Участники могут комментировать запросы, оставляя такие замечания, как keep deleted (оставить удалённым) или undelete (восстановить) в сопровождении своих аргументов.

Эта страница — не часть Википедии. На этой странице обсуждаются материалы Викисклада — репозитория свободных медиафайлов, используемых Википедией и другими проектами Викимедиа. Викисклад Не содержит энциклопедических статей. Чтобы запросить восстановление статей или других материалов, удалённых из английской Википедии, см. там страницу с обзором удалений.

Удаление (Правила удаления)


Определение причины удаления файла

Сначала проверьте журнал удаления и узнайте, почему файл был удалён. 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.

Оспаривание удаления

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.

Временное восстановление

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.

Добавление запроса

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.


Закрытые обсуждения восстановления архивируются ежедневно.

Текущие запросы

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Hystrix, Josve05a: Most of these files were deleted as "out of scope" but they seem to be acceptable images, mostly of natural landmarks. They were indeed uploaded with the intent to promote tourism in Nigeria, but there is no conflict with our project scope. Also, the uploader has verified via OTRS their identity as a representative of the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation, which should resolve most copyright concerns. Guanaco (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Restore Providing images and other media about tourism in any country is educational at its core. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see homepage of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation [1], Point 3: “Unless expressly stated otherwise, you may not reproduce, modify, disseminate or otherwise exploit our Content in any way or form without our prior express approval. ... Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation trademarks and Tour Nigeria logos may only be used in conjunction with goods produced by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation or with the express prior approval of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation For the avoidance of doubt, the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation corporate logo may only be used by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation.” and also com:L and com:advert. --Hystrix (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but since the account is verified, dual-licensing applies and should be good. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As for the mention of COM:advert it links to the section that the file must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Simply stating that something is an advertisement is not sufficient reason to delete it. That section is intended to say that advertisements are not automatically useful, not that they are automatically unuseful. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: the e-mail to OTRS contains only the permission for the user account (NTDC). All photos are missing the name of the photographer. Some were previously published on Instagram. If NTDC is the rightholder, a permission must be shared for all photos. (Die E-Mail an OTRS enthält nur die Genehmigung für das User-Konto Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC). Bei allen Fotos fehlt der Name des Fotografen. Einige wurden zuvor auf Instagram veröffentlcht. Wenn NTDC Rechteinhaber ist, muss eine Freigabe für alle Fotos erfolgen.) Hystrix (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hystrix: These should be OK if they were not previously published elsewhere, or if the EXIF data is consistent. The logo should also be OK. That's the point to have a verified account. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The logo is restored. However, the photos are so different that they probably come from different photographers or websites. There is currently no approval. EXIF data are not available on any photo. (Das Logo ist wiederhergestellt. Die Fotos allerdings sind so unterschiedlich, dass sie vermutlich von verschiedenen Fotografen oder Webseiten stammen. Es gibt derzeit keine Genehmigung. EXIF data sind bei keinem Foto vorhanden.) Hystrix (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unless the photographers are named (here or via OTRS).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question @Hystrix: does the OTRS ticket confirming the status of the uploader include a claim of ownership for the photographs ? If so, to whom should they be attributed ? — Racconish💬 17:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Aspahbod

In the deletion request here a person said that "No indication of own work on any of these" images, but the user's page on English wikipedia [2] shows they claimed them as own work and have a consistent artistic style. (A few images survived the deletion request because they were uploaded first to WP, then to commons by other users).

Streamline8988 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Restore per nomination ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aspahbod. Please send the permission and the original, unretouched, high resolution photos with intact EXIF metadata via OTRS for verification.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The files in question are CGI images uploaded in the PNG format. They don't have EXIF. I'm also not the user who created them. Streamline8988 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Aspahbod.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Restore for evaluation. Images like w:File:Mohajer_2.PNG are obviously not photographic. Jeff_G.’s “original, unretouched…” are risible and demonstrate poor knowledge of computer graphics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
See "pictures" at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aspahbod. If these are not pictures, they should be in svg format.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Can’t realize what Jeff speaks of. Isn’t wikt:picture a synonym for “image”? Why did Jeff introduce a new noun into this thread? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Some images, including those stated above, have arrived with information which suggests they are not "own", for one example: " (diff) 03:57, 24 September 2012 . . Aspahbod (talk | contribs | block) (589 bytes) Information |Description =
English: Iranian Raad air defense system
|Source = |Author =M-ATF, from and |Date =2012-9-21 ||Permission =The author gave me permission to upload this here with Creative Comons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. A link here.)" Each item must be considered carefully, those which require OTRS be done, and any which are actually drawings should be in a suitable format. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to restore that image, or any similar photo. Everything I'm requesting to be undeleted is a CGI drawing made by Aspahbod, as evidenced by the png extension. Streamline8988 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
_DSC1171.jpg is evidently a photo. Ellin shouldn’t bundle photographs with images of unclear genesis, at least some distinction had to be explicated on the delreq – it could conserve a lot of time for Commoners. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: didn’t you notice the word “Raad” in Ellin’s post? Why do you expect to find any wrongly deleted media among nineteen JPEGs listed on 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)? License reviewers can make mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Read the deletion request and understood that Ellin misinformed the community about files to be deleted – not every file was claimed by Aspahbod for themselves. Also, deletion by Steinsplitter was rather irresponsible – he didn’t check Ellin’s allegations. An exemplary poor job by two Commons sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Striked out sentence above.   Neutral since description on File:ArashRockets.PNG is unclear whether it was merely inspired by photos or a trace of such photos. Temporary undeletion to evaluate seems reasonable though. Abzeronow (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • looking at a few of those, I agree with Incnis Mrsi now. Abzeronow (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently, I undeleted PNG files temporarily for evaluation. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    Good. Such things as File:Nasr1.PNG cannot be copyrighted in most jurisdictions and are {{PD-trivial}} – can we consider this undeletion permanent? Also, waiting for Ellin’s comments. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    As before "Each item must be considered carefully, those which require OTRS be done, and any which are actually drawings should be in a suitable format." Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    The restored images (from the original request by Streamline8988) are claimed as own work, so OTRS is unnecessary, and they're all in PNG format, which is an acceptable format for drawings or CGI renderings. clpo13(talk) 18:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


those pictures are free copyright pictures, those are from Daegu City, and Daegu City permit use it as the Korea pubilc certificate it call 공공누리. and also i have been got OTRS with 공공누리 when i edit 대구광역시, so i think it is not wrong about my upload (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment 공공누리 does appear to be a valid free licence. I cannot see the pictures, so I can say nothing else. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    •   Restore If all the files are like File:스파밸리.jpg then they are freely licenced. Tineye shows no other uses. However, the licence is 공공누리 and not CC-BY-SA 4.0, so it needs to be templatised and and properly stated. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
      •   Restore I mean is that It is only used in korea, and also i have got OTRS before, I think u can see the file 'File:동대구역.jpg' that i got OTRS with the '공공누리'
        — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpooun (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Received an OTRS ticket, but non-government-controlled email address asserting government agent. Directed them to re-send using Government email address. The license in permission ticket was CC BY SA 4.0 Intl, not {{KOGL}}. — regards, Revi 10:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment You are right, there is a dissymetry of treatment. I renominated File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG for deletion to have a community discussion on the neighbouring rights. Should the file be deleted, we would have to also delete Lettera di Boratto per guasto Alfa di Mussolini. Should it be kept, we should IMO undelete this one. — Racconish💬 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I lean towards supporting undeletion here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The author died in 1970. So I suppose it is under a copyright until 2050. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Willem van Waning (1897-1968).jpg

I took and modified this photo from [3]. It is said in their copyright page, [4], that Verder geldt dat de auteurswet niet van toepassing is op materiaal afkomstig van de overheid, mits het auteursrecht uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Roughly translated in English as "Furthermore, the copyright law does not apply to material originating from the government, provided that the copyright is expressly reserved." (My apology that i don't speak Dutch) Since this photo is a work of the city government of Leek, could this photo is considered copyright-free? Any help from Dutch users here would be really appreciated, Thank you. Afrogindahood (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment I do not see any statement, however, that all the photos there are the work of government. In fact on many of them it lists specific photographer. Since I do not know which specific photo it is, I am unable to comment further. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 16:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg

File:Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg; you have deleted this image I have uploaded as an illustration in my project of contribution "Nathalie Ros" because you have found it on a website (Koufa Foundation) and thought there was a copyright violation. I have taken this picture myself and I offered it to Nathalie Ros in order for her to use it in her CV; I am the autor and not Koufa Foundation that has no copyright on this image.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagrimardière (talk • contribs) 2018-10-31 10:00:00 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I can't see it. It's redeleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Indded. Maybe I managed to glimpse it before its actual deletion, or was it redeleted. Eitherway, here’s the UDEL request, based on COM:AGF, if possible. -- Tuválkin 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Turns out I might have glimpsed it as re-uploaded. Eitherway, it should be undeleted. -- Tuválkin 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question @Lagrimardière: Es que c’est possible de faire apparaitre dans un page ouaibe officielle de la Professeur Ros (et/ou bien ici) une declaration informant que l’auteur de cette photo c’est l’utilisateur Wikimedia Lagrimardière, que a le droit de la licenser comme CC-BY-SA? Ça eteait le plus simple. -- Tuválkin 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Haldjad ooperist Midsummernights Dream Madis Nurms.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It has been tagged with {{npd}} by User:Mitte27 most probably by mistake (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carmen Finale.jpg as another example). It has a valid OTRS ticket (ticket:2009122810016222). If there is any issue with this file, it should be clearly explained in a regular DR. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The same story for the following files:

4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose - I don't think these OTRS tickets should ever have been accepted. The permission comes from the organizer of the event, apparently not from the photographers. Jcb (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I added five other files to the list. Each file should be evaluated separately, preferably in a regular DR. For example, see ticket:2009122810016357 in which the customer has stressed they are both the designer and the photographer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, maybe one or two files can be saved. But most of the files have no valid permission. Also many deleted uploads of this uploader had no OTRS ticket at all. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Generałowie podczas Święta Wojska Polskiego 2007.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was valid. The photo was taken in 2007 and the licensor's license terms for photos from MON were changed in September 2013. There's more photos taken by MON on Commons. File:Gen. Marek Dukaczewski.JPG, and File:Jarosław Kraszewski.JPG were uploaded in January 2018. Both files were kept after starting the deletion request. User:Nemo5576/MON doesn't specify if the license is valid for files uploaded to Commons or MON before September 2013. Photos taken by MON before September 2013 don't mention their authors. ElCet (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            •   Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [5]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support per nom.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Why there pics is "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature"?--shizhao (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's an original (author: a part of PLA, affilated to Chinese Government) and indispensible part of a diplomatic statement, which clearly shows its administrative in nature. --WQL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It depends on the context, I think. My understanding is that if the pictures are merely illustrative - if the document is understandable without the pictures - then it wouldn't be "indispensable" and can be treated separately, copyright-wise. --whym (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg 2

In Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-11#File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg, I asked DIEGO73 to overwrite the file in full size with EXIF metadata intact per COM:HR.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Type/Size/Px/Ppp DIEGO73 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@DIEGO73: By "overwrite", I meant for you to use the link "Upload a new version of this file".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pauli Heikkilä - Tampere - 26.10.2005.jpg

I'm the photographer of this portrait and therefore also the copyright owner. I was requested to upload it myself because previous version which was uploaded by a person to whom I gave my permission to use it here was deleted. I accepted that this portrait is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. What did I do wrong?

--Zabex (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The other user who uploaded the photo was asked to use Commons:OTRS to verify the license. You can do that as well. Thuresson (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I sent official release of rights statement to Finnish OTRS ( --Zabex (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zabex: Unfortunately, that queue is backlogged 294 days.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh my God! I need it much faster ... Is there any way to speed up the process? If I publish this image under a domain owned by me with correct license information, is that enough? The backlog of English OTRS is quite long too, I assume? --Zabex (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
En queue is 170 days. I see the ticket in the fi queue Ticket:2018110510009544. I can tell you now that a gmail e-mail address is going to be a stumbling block - the whole purpose is to validate that the permission is correct, anyone can create any unused gmail address in seconds - your best option might be to put it on your web site (add the logo from so long as that web site can be properly traced to you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. If I'll register a fresh new .fi-domain and put this image under it with correct lisence is that proof enough? Finnish Communications Regulatory Authory verifies me when allocating domain to a private person (via my Finnish personal identification number). The owner of the domain in the whois-database will be me (Petri Sabel). --Zabex (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The 300 day backlog doesn't meant that it takes that long to solve new tickets in the Finnish queue. Maybe there is one problematic ticket that has been abandoned and it makes the backlog seem so long. Unfortunately there is only one Finnish user handling the queue, so it depends on how he has time to check it. -kyykaarme (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Максим Кучеренко.jpg

Прошу срочно восстановить удаленную "по подозрению " в неправильном использовании личную фотографию Максима Кучеренко. Фото принадлежит мне.

Комментарии по английски я не понимаю,даже через гугл переводчик, в связи с чем прошу ответить мне на русском языке, почему я не могу использовать фотографию Максима Кучеренко для оформления личной страницы Максима Кучеренко??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Тётя Юля (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


No estoy de acuerdo que se me haiga borrado esa imagen, puesto que lo tengo desde hace dos años desde el 2016 que yo lo subi esa foto y no tuve problemas porque fue por creación propia, no viole los derechos de autor porque esa imagen nunca fue subida al facebook como lo afirma el usuario que lo nomino para el borrado. Considere mi petición de poder restaurarla mi imagen. Por favor considera mi petición. Bendiciones. Chico sensación (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

File:461472 144118915720601 141251566007336 176409 1205232217 o.jpg

The file was deleted by User:JurgenNL for having no permission. However, it is found on English Wikipedia as en:File:Whangarei airport upgrade.jpg with sufficient author and permission information. Therefore the file can be considered to be undeleted. (But anyways, major cleanup and renaming process is needed.)廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Info Uploaded to Commons on May 17, 2012, deleted on January 16, 2014, uploaded to en: on June 6, 2014. Thuresson (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ThuressonThank you.Then how can I transfer the file to Commons without using Commons Helper? It just returned that the file was uploaded to Commons previously but was deleted here.(ERROR: Warning duplicate-archive : 461472_144118915720601_141251566007336_176409_1205232217_o.jpg)廣九直通車 (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You have asked for the file to be undeleted. If the file is OK an administrator will undelete it. Thuresson (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Сипягин В.В..png

глупое основание для удаления - использование этой фото на регнуме, где указано, что АП принадлежат мне АнатоликДАМ (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Google Translate: "stupid reason to delete - use this photo on regnum, where it is indicated that the AP belong to me". Translation added by Thuresson (talk)
  Oppose Too many dodgy uploads from this user. PNG format and small size. Thuresson (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


I do not understand why this photo has been removed. I am its author and I agree to use it according to Wikicommons principles --WIKIBASIA (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)WIKIBASIA

Do you mean File:NOVI SINGERS IN WHITE PORTRAIT 2 (1977) fot. Barbara Szeremeta.jpg? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Polimerek: Are these files covered by Ticket:2018102910006334?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

{{support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only   Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Accipite7


Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Overturn all this burst of paranoia, restore files and redirects. Look above – Steinsplitter may not be trusted with deletions when the pretext is own/not_own. Similar nominations by Christian Ferrer should be watched, too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, i received a ping. There was doubt about the autorship of the maps, therefore the files has been deleted as per COM:PCP. As per COM:PS (COM:EVID) the user has to provide evidence, the user did not participated in the relevant DR such as confirming that the file has not been taken from a book. Especially the first one lookes like a COM:DW (scan) from a book (a professionaly drawn map). Please note that the user uploaded File:Холмская губ..jpg claiming own work, which has been taken from here. As far i can see the user just asked why the map has been deleted, if it is indeed his own work as claimed i am fine with having it restored and would thank him for those hig ql contribuations. Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Convinced about Холмская_губ..jpg – the server date for is November, 2017, earlier than the Commons upload. Such things should be documented on deletion requests, not here. Yes, this episode damages Accipite7’s standing, I can’t now state that this user possesses a reputation any better than of these two sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Lenz Klára 00.jpg

After deleting this file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lenz Klára 00.jpg) the user uploaded this file to Hungarian Wikipédia: hu:Fájl:Lenz Klára 00.jpg. He claims that this photo was made in Venezuela after her emigrating to there, the end of the 1940s (see the article of en:Klára Lenz for details). She was born in 1924, so I think this statement is true. And if the photo was made in Venezuela, it is in public domain due the {{PD-Venezuela}}. The photographer is unknown. --Regasterios (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose as no proof that this was first published in Venezuela before 1958. Photo looks like it could be a 1950s photograph but need date of publication to evaluate claim. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
And what about if it is an unpublished photo from the family archive? The user is Lenz Klára's grandson. He live in Caracas. What more information would be needed to evaluate? --Regasterios (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If it's unpublished, date of creation becomes important to see when it would be free of U.S. copyright. {{PD-old-assumed}} uses a 120-year rule.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzeronow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC) (UTC)
The uploader claims it was unpublished. But 60 years have passed. --Regasterios (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any info on how Venezuela treats unpublished material. Hopefully someone can clear that bit up. Abzeronow (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Anna Barkova.jpg

File:Anna Barkova.jpg Photo from the investigation file. The photo was taken by an official photographer for the needs of the state and the court. The materials of the investigation file are a state document. {{PD-RU-exempt}}: "other materials of state government agencies and local government agencies ..., including ... other materials of ... judicial character". Like Category:Mug shots of people of Russia, Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union. Original photographs with attributes exhibited by several museums[6]. --Терпрп (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Barkova.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

File:1933-01-22 Henri André Hillewaert potloodtekening.jpg to undelete

Re: [Ticket#2018102910006138] or send an email with copy of awritten permission to OTRS (

Geert, zijn de afbeeldingen al geupload? Kun je deze anders emailen, liefst met de bestandsnamen zoals Ilse deze heeft doorgegeven? Yours sincerely, Edo de Roo

Waren geuploaded, nu gedeleted, ik heb ze ook al eens per reply mail OP JULLIE AKKOORD doorgemailed. KUNT U DIT AUB REGELEN ? -- Wikimedia Commons -

> > > > Bestand:1933-01-22 Henri André Hillewaert potloodtekening.jpg|1933 potloodtekening > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert kerkje van Vlassenbroek olie op doek.jpg|Kerkje van Vlassenbroek (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap olie op doek.jpg|Landschap (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap en boom olie op doek.jpg|Landschap en boom (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij boeket bloemen olie op doek.jpg|Boeket bloemen (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap en velden olie op doek.jpg|Landschap en velden (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij kerkje Vlassenbroek olie op doek.jpg|Kerkje van Vlassenbroek (olie op doek) > > ALL his other painting images > > > > Mvg, > > Geert DEBLIECK

> > 0471 888 884

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geert Deblieck (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ticket:2018102910006138 is in process by an OTRS volunteer. You should be patient, and correspondence should continue via email. Please note that OTRS has a backlog of 198 days, and you have been lucky to receive a response within a week. Nevertheless, it may take some time (maybe months) to process the ticket completely, because OTRS is entirely staffed by volunteers and is shorthanded. Thanks for your understanding. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files


Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  Keep  Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in If you see the url "Portfolio" in, you will see that it links to
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [7]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. and has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha and that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [8] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own and [9] claims that the owner of is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?

      • The site was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [10]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [11]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          •   Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            •   Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.

            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 redirected to
            • So will you continue to say that "the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted"? Tm (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [12]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at - - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs. They can err from time to time, as they are human after all. UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Avistamiento de delfines con Pescaturismo.png etc.

Buenos días

Me pongo en contacto con vosotros porque se han borrado archivos de imagen y de vídeo de artículos que ya estaban publicados y de otros que estaba preparando. Todas las fotos y vídeos son de mi propiedad o tengo autorización para poder utilizarlos. Es posible que al ser novata haya cometido algún error a la hora de documentarlas.

Por todo ello os solicito que reconsideréis vuestra decisión o me indiquéis cuál es el error para que pueda solucionarlo.

Muchas gracias, Merce García --Mercè Garcia Roca (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mercè Garcia Roca. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Kannada and culture department Govt of Karnataka Declaration-Dec-27-2014.pdf

This was a declaration from the Department of Kannada and Culture, Govt of Karnataka (GoK), India, releasing the books published by them under CC-BY-SA. This is the second set of books released by GoK. First set is mentioned in this file - File:Kannada and culture department Govt of Karnataka Declaration.pdf. Hence I request to undelete this file.--Pavanaja (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco

Some had redirects:

And no, undeleting these won't even come close to repairing all the damage. But I guess we need to start somewhere. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose - no reason for undeletion specified - Jcb (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Un-fucking-believable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  Info From this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco.   Neutral until there is a specific reason to undelete these. Abzeronow (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Jcb is untouchable. How dare you suggest that he could possibly make an error. Don't you know that admins are infallible and must not be questioned?
There will be no review of the content here, or the question of licensing (and Jcb gets to make simple untrue statements about this and get away with it, as always). But Jcb is an honourable man and plebians do not get to question him.
Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Jcb Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_71#User:Jcb Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

4nn1l2 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment @4nn1l2: What is the basis for believing that [21] is either a valid license from The Huntington or is a public domain photo? I think that there are three categories of photos in their flickr feed: (a) PD or otherwise free photos they collected from elsewhere -   Support restoration but they should be properly credited and not credit huntingtontheatreco, (b)   Support photos of performances in their theater - from spot checking the flickr feed, these have the same EXIF data so presumably these licenses are legitimate, (c)   Oppose photos of unknown origin or that are obviously publicity stills like [22] or that explicitly credit a third party like [23] - these are highly unlikely to be valid licenses and should stay deleted. --B (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @B: File:Soldiers-stairs (7096386073).jpg [24] is in the public domain. Please see [25]. Library of Congress is superb, but maybe better sources can be found here. I agree with your analysis. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, this particular photo has already been uploaded to Commons: File:Civil-War-US-Army-band.jpeg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @B: most of the photos from The Huntington were categorized by photographer. I sank many, many, many, many, many, many hours into that. The Digital Content Manager from the Huntington Theatre Company also responded in the DR and they adjusted the license for many, many, many photos in their Flickr stream. Per 4nn1l2, File:Soldiers-stairs (7096386073).jpg can be redirected to File:Civil-War-US-Army-band.jpeg. Based on its location in the Flickr stream, I knew it would almost certainly be PD. And as it turns out, it is. It's simply luck the file wasn't redirected before the DR was closed, else File:Civil-War-US-Army-band.jpeg would have been deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Undelete files that meet the strict criteria I carefully produced at the DR. Everything else would need a manual review.--BevinKacon (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@BevinKacon: for administrative purposes, it would be easier to undelete all and redelete the stuff that lacks the right info. Once undeleted I could also put FlickreviewR to work. So maybe undelete for evaluation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Spessartviertel - Dietzenbach.png

Taken from

The Owner of the website changed the copyright.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietzenbach (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what was the previous indication but the current wording is a bit strange, probably ok thought (why not simply indicate a license that would be immediatly understandable?). Notification to @Hedwig in Washington: what do you think? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks a lot like {{Attribution |1= |2= |nolink= |text= }} now. Yeah, sometimes I wonder why people have to reinvent the wheel. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tyunik Ksenia - 1.jpg

The author of photograph has responded on the deletion request explaining that this is a photo of a relative, not a selfie. To the best of my knowledge {{own}} has not been deprecated and is still a valid template. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, who is the photographer and who is the protographed? (both seems to be the lawyer Ksenia Tyunik) @Well-Informed Optimist, JuTa: what do you think? VIGNERON (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I deleted it because the authorship is as minimum unclear. And even if the author is a relative to the uploader, we would need an OTRS-release. --JuTa 16:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was self-promotion from the “official” account. Now the image is out of scope because the depicted person is not notable. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not notable as the reason would be rational enough. I do see her winning 'Best Lawyer of 2017' award and some other awards as well, but I am unsure how selective they are. As for unclear authorship, I never heard of a policy disallowing photographs of relatives or requiring OTRS, can someboy point me to it. My understanding was that OTRS is required when an image is already present on the web somewhere. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Laurent De Backer.jpg

dag beste , Deze foto is door mijn ma getrokken in 1992, ik heb het negatief en het positief in mijn bezit . Heb de originele op mijn wiki commons geplaatst . Was een openbare plaats op podium buiten . Heb hem verkleind omdat het een kleinere pagina is . Op wat baseert u zich dat deze foto niet ok zou zijn dan kan ik er in de toekomst meer info bijgeven .


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This picture was taken by my mother in 1992 ; it's made smaller because it fitted in better (small page) , I uploaded the whole picture on my common account , I thought it was ok because the picture came on the page ? Ivo Van Damme (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivo Van Damme: leeft je moeder nog? Foto's verkleinen is niet nodig, dit doet de wikisoftware automatisch indien nodig. Upload altijd de hoogste kwaliteit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Mijn ma leeft nog .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ivo Van Damme: in dat geval zal je haar moeten vragen om een mailtje naar het OTRS team te sturen. Zij is de fotograaf en auteursrechthouder. Als zij toestemming geeft zal de foto teruggeplaatst worden. Het helpt als ze meteen een grotere (hogere resolutie) versie van de foto bij de mail doet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wel dat zal rond nieuwjaar zijn dan zie ik haar , de foto is oorspronkelijk groter van het ganse podium maar ik vond het mooier op het kleine artikel , deze 2 foto's staan ook op Wiki Commons ter goedkeuring . De resolutie is niet zo hoog want dat was nog niet met een smartphone of professioneel fotoapparaat genomen (wat de amateurherkomst bewijst) en hij is uitvergroot .

Kan u nog even wachten met definitieve verwijdering , ik woon ver van mijn moeder . groeten Ivo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Buenos Aires 2018 Countdown clock (42149138255).jpg

Involved: File:Buenos Aires 2018 Countdown clock (42149138255).jpg

It seems too simple to be an artwork, and it's in a temporal place and possibly used one time, so COM:FOP#Argentina not apply here, furthermore it was a speedy deletion, the DR was because another motivation. Ezarateesteban 22:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've proven my ownership of this file and granted all the rights and permissions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International on 2018-08-31. I've got the ticket number 2018083110002678. My full name can also be found in the metadata of the image. Therefore the deletion is unjustified. I'd be thankful for a revision. ArtphilBN (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

the user JuTa said at the DR :"The youtube video is deleted, the license here not confirmed yet. There is no chance ever to get it confirmed." However, it has archived page and license info html screenshot. so I open undeletion request here. Puramyun31 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I was going to contact JuTa about this closure as well. The initial undeletion request, which was linked in the deletion request, addressed the license concern as it was archived and is visible in the page's source code. This discussion was ultimately about whether performer rights was a valid reason to delete this file, which was never properly addressed in any instance when this file was deleted. xplicit 04:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Marc Weide.png

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild File:Marc Weide.png, dass ich (die PRIMA Künstlermanagement GmbH) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0“ (

Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

(Prima5Kuenstler (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC))


Permissions information was added to new website location of owner to match permissions information stated on Wikimedia.

--Alexander Rea 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderrea (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Tengo un email de permiso para publicar esta foto y cualquier otra foto del autor Manuel Carnicer Fajo, de Maria Gertrudis Escola Deves, viuda del artista y heredera universal

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carjac (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Stephanie march.png

Per prior request image was re uploaded with correct license. Chiwilkson (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Chiwilkson: I'm not familiar with what history there is here, but a flickr account with only seven uploads generally needs to be authenticated somewhere as actually belonging to the photographer. Is it referenced from Naomi McKenzie's website? (This is for the protection of photographers - so that someone can't just make a flickr account and claim to "license" someone else's photos.) --B (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I advised the requester in this case when they originally posted an undeletion request regarding this image. I asked them to ask the flickr user to upload it again with EXIF data and with an acceptable license. The correct version can be found here (not at the link given) and has {{CC0}} as the license. That along with the fact that I can't find any evidence that it was uploaded to external sites prior to the date stated on flickr (only mirror sites from the original upload here) have assured my concerns. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


That picture was done by me more than 10 years ago and some admin said was a copyright violation from a topic forum from 2013. Admin should check the facts before deleting things. --Santista1982 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo #1 was uploaded here on August 6, 2006. I can find the same photo posted here on August 8, 2005. Thuresson (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, all that pics were done by me, I was the one who posted there. Therefore I wish my picture to be uploaded again. --Santista1982 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Mallika Dua.jpg

I am the owner of the file and due to limited experience in uploading I didn't upload the source information. That has been omitted. Please undelete the file!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Technofreeq1 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Previously published elsewhere [26]. Upload history of the user (EXIF‌ of File:Gabriel Barraza 3.jpg) and the file history of this image are also concerning. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Gabriel Rivera-Barraza.jpg

I am the owner of the file and due to limited experience in uploading , I didn't upload the source information. That will be omitted . Please undelete the file!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Technofreeq1 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Tada Periyasamy.jpg


I am owner of this image so please keep this image and undelete. this related to article. Thank

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tada Periyasamy (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image cannot be found at the given source [28] 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

City Museum, Żory.jpg and chapel.jpg

I'm working of behalf of Ryszard Jurkowski of AiR Jurkowscy Architekci. We hold copyrights to all the images we use in creating the Wikipedia page. Ryszard Jurkowski either takes the photos himself or commissions to professional photographers in order to publish in architectual journals or magazines, but the copyrights of photos belong to AiR Jurkowscy Architekci. --Pysiatko (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pysiatko: Any time someone uploads a photo that has been previously published elsewhere, or that is attributed to someone other than the actual person doing the upload, a statement of permission needs to be on file. Please see Commons:Email templates/Consent for a sample statement of permission that can be submitted. If the person sending the email is not the copyright holder, then they need to specify how they became the copyright holder (I assume that the answer is probably that it was contractually specified in the company's contract with the photographer?) (Please note that there is presently a lengthy backlog so it may be some time before requests are answered.) --B (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Close-up of statue of Andromeda.jpg

There is FOP --الواد الجامد (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Comment There was concern about the photograph itself. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Close-up of statue of Andromeda.jpg Where is this sculpture located? Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:P218 18 Whiddy Island.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:P218 18 Whiddy Island.JPG

This seems likely to be PD-US now. "Presumaby and in absence of any evidence showing the oposite I assume that it is a private photograph never published but transfered to the Oregon State University Archives at some time. The photographer died 1947, unpublished works will be pd in 2018" Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Yasuomi Hashimura photographer 1989.jpg

Hello, I would like to request undeletion of the photograph Yasuomi Hashimura photographer 1989.jpg that was deleted on December 13th. This is my photograph and I hold the copyright. I submitted copyright permission through the wiki commons upload log. --Nyartlover (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose This will be undeleted in due time by an OTRS volunteer after checking your ticket. Thuresson (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Shantanu Narayen - the CEO of Adobe Inc.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image was provided directly from Adobe PR team, they are the source of the photo and would like to upload the image in order to update in Shantanu Narayen's Wikipedia page. Thanks! Shhuang123 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Send the permission given by Adobe's PR team (best if the PR team at Adobe send the permission direct to OTRS) to COM:OTRS, do note that this is a back log. Bidgee (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Cover bierzeltbraut.png

The permission to upload this file was given to me by the owner and sent by me to wikipedia. This file is the cover of the new single of Da Bua / Marco Angelini and it is essential for his personal informations. If there are further permissions needed, please let me know, so I can get them and send them again. Please undelete this file, because it is important to the singer and songwriter.(Claudi755 (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC))

Логотип II Российско-Китайские молодежные зимние игры 2018 года.jpg

Добрый день.

Прошу восстановить файл "Логотип II Российско-Китайские молодежные зимние игры 2018 года" в связи с достоверностью файла. Данное изображение используется в свободном пользовании на сайтах : https://www

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FCPSR (talk • contribs) 09:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Otto Lehmann Bleistiftzeichnung auf Ingres-Büttenpapier 1980 jpg.

Guten Tag Es ist mir nach wie vor nicht klar, warum Fotodateien gelöscht worden sind. Nur eine ist akzeptiert. Für folgende möchte ich ein Wiederherstellungsgesuch einreichen: File: Otto Lehmann Bleistiftzeichnung auf Ingres-Büttenpapier 1980.jpg File: Otto Lehmann Acrylmalerei auf Baumwolltuch 1987 Sammlung Kunstmuseum Solothurn Schweiz.jpg File: Otto Lehmann Tuschezeichnung 1999 Sammlung Kunstmuseum Schweiz.jpg File: Otto Lehmann Farbstiftzeichnung auf Papier 2015 W.Borrer-Stiftung Kunstmuseum Solothurn Schweiz.jpg File: Otto Lehmann Acrylmalerei auf Ingres-Bütte Papier2008 Sammlung Kunstmuseum Olten Schweiz.jpg

Ich bin der Urheber dieser Werke inkl. deren Fotografien und habe alle Rechte bei mir. Für folgende Lizenzen gebe ich Ihnen die Rechte:

Zero Public Domain, "keine Rechte vorbehalten" CC0

 Namensnennung (Attribution) 

CC-BY (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎

 Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen (Attribution-ShareAlike) 

CC-BY-SA (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎

Mit freundlichen Grüssen Schwarzer Schnee Schwarzer Schnee (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC) 15.12.2018

File:Seal of Waukegan, Illinois.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{Insignia}} General Goldfish (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose The source is not licensed under an acceptable copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
General Goldfish: What kind of "reason" is that? As clearly stated under Usage, "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information." LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Joseph Carrillo in 2007.jpg

File wrongfully deleted. Here is a link to the file on Flickr Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwcarrillo (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Josephwcarrillo: As explained in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph Carrillo in 2007.jpg, it seems that you are the subject of this photo, rather than the creator of the photo. The copyright holder of a photo is the person who creates it. Only the copyright holder can issue a valid copyright license. Also note that low-quality personal photographs uploaded for self-promotion are not useful for educational purposes and are therefore outside of Commons' project scope. LX (talk, contribs) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Nicolas Carone, Head, circa 1979.jpg

I own this artwork. I took this photo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artfan2223 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose "Copyright" means "the right to make copies". It has not been established that w:Nicolas Carone or his heirs allows you to publish photographs of his works. Thuresson (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Herbert Samuel railway inauguration2.jpg

The file File:Herbert Samuel railway inauguration2.jpg was deleted as a duplicate of File:Opening of Jaffa-Jerusalem Railway, 1920. matpc.14227.jpg, likely by mistake. In fact it wasn't a duplicate—it was a retouched version of the original, IIRC with the same high resolution. Please restore the retouched version. —Ynhockey (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


The image was taken 100's of years ago. I don't think anyone who took it is still alive, I kindly ask for it to be restored.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zair Johnson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Without the name of the painter, who can say? Thuresson (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello ,

when I posted the picture File:Polit.jpg I thought everything was ok because they already asked questions and I had to follow a procedure and the picture came on the page.

That picture is taken on 20 mars 2016 by my mother with my smartphone. Those bobby's we're standing outside the parliament in London to show the police less militaristic, because the building was highly secured by agents heavely armed.

She has to give permission by e-mail someone told me here on Wiki Commons . Can you undelete this picture so I can follow the correct procedure please?

Normaly I see her within 10 days.

greetings Ivo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Saat 5 asr poster.jpg

This is poster. It is free(fair to use) to use and it is uploaded to wikipedia in other language, Persian wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Fair use not allowed on Commons. --Yann (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)



This file is my own work, all the 2d and 3d drawings are mine.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassima Chahboun (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Nora Slawik.jpg

This is my image--I am a campaign manager for Nora Slawik and she explicitly gave me this image, so I want to use it. And I need it undeleted asap before people start looking at her wikipedia page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svogel24 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Blue lives matter logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The logo in question is this image, and consists of three words totaling ten letters of a free font. The font itself, even if it weren't free, is just a normal font with black splotches. As far as I'm aware, typefaces are still not copyrighted in the United States, and as far as I'm aware, a few random black splotches doesn't make this not a typeface. If it was a particularly novel one, then it might qualify for a design patent, but it hasn't because its free. There is no creative contribution in the logo other than changing the font colors, In other words, PD-text-logo. GMGtalk 18:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Anja Liedtke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Anja Liedtke and her husband Thomas Aigner holds the relevant Copyright of the photo. T1aigner (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Gear Reduction Portal

I have contacted the owners of this graphic and they have given me permission to use this by adding it to the creative commons. A SuperATV representative emailed Wikipedia the necessary information for it to be released. The photo should be added to the creative commons.


Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Microsoft Latin America. My client intended to release this photo under a Creative Commons license. However the OTRS permission they provided was not processed within 30 days. My client is happy to re-send documentation of copyright ownership and formal release if helpful. Thanks! MaryGaulke (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


Dear Sir,

Request to undelete this file, permission is granted for use of this photo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcolney (talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Kitchen 2018.jpg

I am requesting an undeletion for File:Kitchen 2018.jpg on Derek Kitchen's Wikipedia page because the site that is sourced for copyright violation ( does not own the photo. It is the politician's public photo used for PR purposes. --Sierramcneil (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Sierra McNeil

File:Auschwitz gate in 1945.jpeg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auschwitz gate in 1945.jpeg

This should not have been deleted. {{Anonymous-EU}} applies as the author is unknown. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Direct Mail Company AG Logo.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung des Logos. Die Rechte liegen bei der Firma selbst. Das Logo darf verwendet werden. --Directs1962 (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So why do you claim to own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)