Open main menu

Commons:Запросы на восстановление

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 23% 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:
Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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

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

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.

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

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.

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

File:Participation Party.jpg

In some countries witch include Japan and South Korea, escheat copyright works became public domain. --Sharouser (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is an exclusion in the local copyright law that is not implemented into our copyright templates, it should be discussed in COM:VPC before posting here. If it is already implemented, please point out appropriate template (or exact paragraph in the copyright law if you need help to find it; or court cases). The {{PD-textlogo}} rationale was rejected in the Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Pipenavis. Ankry (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Template:PD-South Korea contains escheat cases. (There are exceptional cases. Property rights are to belong to the state according to provisions of the Civil Law and other laws upon the death of a copyright owner without heir or, in the case of a legal person or organization, upon its dissolution. )
Participation Party was merged into the Unified Progressive Party. After the dissolution of Unified Progressive Party by the Constitutional Court of Korea, All of property of UPP was transfered to South Korean government.
  • Political Parties Act of Korea, Article 48
    • The residual assets of a political party dissolved by a ruling for dissolution by the Constitutional Court, shall revert to the National Treasury.
  • In that case, copyrigts are become public domain by South Korean copyright law Article 49(Expiry of Author's Property Rights)
  • South Korean copyright law Article 49(Expiry of Author's Property Rights)
  • Author's property rights shall expire in any of the following cases:
  • 1.Where, after the author's death without heir, author's property rights are to belong to the state according to provisions of the Civil Law and other laws
  • and
  • 2. Where, after the dissolution of a legal person or an organization who is the owner of author's property rights, author's property rights are to belong to the state according to the provisions of the Civil Law and others laws. 
There is an exclusion in the local copyright law that is implemented into our copyright templates. {{PD-South Korea}} --Sharouser (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


And also:

Authorized mail has been sent long ago. However, the mail has not been confirmed. - I am Davidzdh. 07:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  Question @Davidzdh: do you have ticket numbers? Did you tag the files {{subst:OP}} as instructed at OTRS and COM:CONSENT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Some people have not told me ticket numbers so that I only have these up to now:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022

- I am Davidzdh. 01:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So can these files be recovered now?- I am Davidzdh. 08:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If I need to do something to recover these files, please let me know and I will try my best. Thank you. - I am Davidzdh. 10:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Davidzdh: I   Support temporary restoration of File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg, as Ticket:2017071410005022 is old enough. The rest are still too young.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: restored as requested. Ankry (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Is "too young" means there are some conditions I need to meet? If yes, what are the conditions? Thank you. - I am Davidzdh. 12:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Other than waiting about 139 days from submission until they reach the head of the queue, no.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. I wait for it. Thank you very much.- I am Davidzdh. 12:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Wealden ostracod environments.jpg

I discovered that the file was deleted because somebody decided that it "These files look professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license." It looks professional because it is professional - I am a professional - and I am the copyright holder. I chose to make it freely available via Wikimedia Commons because I was asked to provide it (and several other figures) for a web page in support of a podcast that I recorded. As I indicated clearly in the text I supplied with it: This is an original diagram; a modified, black-and-white version of it was published as Text-fig. 12.3 in: Horne, D.J. 2011. Ostracods. In Batten, D.J. (ed.), English Wealden Fossils, 125–137. The Palaeontological Association, London, Field Guides to fossils 14, ix + 769 pp. It differs from the published version (to which the Palaeontological Association holds the copyright) in several aspects of layout and detail as well as the use of colour.

If I can get this image reinstated on Wikimedia Commons I will then go through the same procedure with others that were provided in support of the podcast but have since been deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjhorne (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Info Nominated here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Davidjhorne. Thuresson (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Jetstar Airbus A320 VH-XJE.jpg

Please undelete this file because its my work. This is seriously my work (100 serious). This file only been posted on wikimedia, also 100% serious.

HutheMeow (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please delete this file because its really my work and as it said "own work" in the image infobox. If the file will be restored, I agree to abide the rules and refrain from bad actions and violations. HutheMeow (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC) [1]

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@HutheMeow: What will you do if it's not restored? Pinging @Srittau, Jdx, Jcb, Guanaco.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I see how this could be interpreted as a threat of disruption, but I'll assume that isn't the intended meaning. Regarding the images, I'll   Support undeleting the ones taken with the same camera unless there is evidence that some were taken from the web. There has been doubt about HutheMeow's contributions, but I'm willing to give them a chance. Of course, if these explicit claims of "own work" here are proven to be false, we can't trust anything they upload ever. An indefinite block would then be warranted. Guanaco (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Can you look into the camera metadata and evidence of having been taken from the web without restoring?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I can undelete them temporarily or I can download them to my computer and examine them. I'm doing some file transfers and a fresh Linux install now, so I'll make a proper list in the next day or so. I've seen a Canon camera and an Olympus. Guanaco (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  Comment - this user still cannot be trusted, see here. Yesterday they still claimed that all their uploads "belonged" to them, whatever that may mean. Jcb (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No uploads that had "own work" were false, except for the ones that were unlicensed, but the rest of them were mine for real, so please trust me and that they belonged to me. Just please let me have another chance. HutheMeow (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Template:Undelete

Full list of files

Here's the full list of files. Looking at them now. Guanaco (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No identifiable camera

Apple iPhone 7

Apple iPhone 6

Samsung WB250F/WB251F/WB252F

Canon EOS 30D

Canon EOS 1300D

Olympus VG165,D765

Most are low resolution, often indicating a copyright violation.


Apple iPhone 5c

Sorting out

There are a lot of images here, and sorting these while they're deleted is tedious. Huthemeow did upload a few blatant copyvios, but they are clearly distinguishable from the others in this set. I did check several via Google Images and couldn't find any matches.   Support undeleting them all with the noted exceptions. Most of the unsorted files seem to be from the Olympus camera, and if there is specific cause for concern about some images, they can be renominated for deletion. Guanaco (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: if you (temporarily) undelete the lot I think I can sort them way quicker than you can. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: I will undelete the Olympus files for now. They seem safe at least and can be excluded from the discussion already. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This will be much easier to sort out now. Guanaco (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
All the files are grouped by camera now. Jcb (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Images from Flickr author 62558987@N07

Some Flickr users are labeled bad users for a small number of their images uploaded. This means that not all images that they have uploaded to Flickr are problamatic. I had inquired with the editor that had labeled this author a bad user (@Ronhjones) about the rationale behind their labeling them a bad author before I uploaded these images.SecretName101 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@SecretName101: File:Renato Mariotto 2483.jpg is a redirect to deleted File:Renato Mariotti 2483.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Fixed that earlier today after seeing your comment.SecretName101 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Images of copyrighted documents were uploaded from this Flickr account. I cannot say that all the Flickr images are bad, just that they each need a careful examination, and not let the Flickr bot just pass them sight unseen. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I decided that I should ping @Srittau (who deleted these images) to inform them. It appears they misunderstood that the "bad user" label was not an explicit indication that these particular images were themselves problematic.
It seems to me that their rationale for deleting these images centered upon a misunderstanding about the nature/exact implications of the "bad user" label. It would be helpful for them to provide imput into whether or not that is the case.SecretName101 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I would push that these images should be undeleted (at least temporarily). Can easily be re-deleted if there is found reason to question the validity of 62558987@N07's claimed authorship of the images.
The photos in question were found on two flickr photo albums: this one and this one
It seems that these images were genuinely authored by Kurman Communications (the owner of the flickr account 62558987@N07). These appear to have been taken in order to promote Aaron Goldstein's campaign for the Democratic nomination in Illinois' 2018 Attorney General election. Goldstein's campaign committee did, in fact, employ the public-relations services of Kurman Communications, as can be evidenced by campaign expenditures such as this. His campaign reported three payments to Kurman Communications for PR and consulting services.SecretName101 (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Various ithkuil illustrations

Hi. I'm contesting the deletion of these files, on the ground that I had specified the licensing informations in the following way:

“According to the permissions attached by John Quijada to this files: « You may copy or excerpt any portion of the contents of this website for private, individual, or personal use which is non-commercial in nature and not for purposes of profit. Otherwise, you may copy or excerpt brief portions of the contents of this website in published, web-accessible, or commercially distributed articles, papers or webpages for purposes of review, commentary or analysis, provided you give full attribution to the author and this website. »”

This can be seen at the bottom of the website I took these images from.

Copyright has never been my strength, but I believe I did not do anything wrong? If I did, do tell me what, and I will gladly reupload the files in accordance to the rules. Assuming I did in fact violate a copyright, I think my contestation of the first file of the list still applies, based on the fact that it is a simple geometrical figure.

Thank you and sorry for the bother. --Orikrin1998    22:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is the non-commercial restriction Orikrin1998. That is against one of the main rules of our licensing policy. It must be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose. Including commercial reuse. As a side note, please change your signature per COM:Signatures#Images in signature. The images have to be removed. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks for explaining this to me. May I reiterate my request regarding the first file? --Orikrin1998 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm...I never actually looked past the "non-commercial" before. But now that I do these might actually be ok. Magog the Ogre, these are apparently language glyphs. Would that not put them under {{PD-script}}? I'm not familiar with how copyright law deals with "constructed languages" (although all language is inherently constructed at some point). So if these are just "letters" of a language they may be ok, Orikrin1998. --Majora (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah they are, you can find them here. I actually never had a doubt it would be acceptable until the files were deleted haha. But don't worry, licensing has always been an undecipherable mystery to me.
For your information, constructed languages are better called artificial, on the ground that they are created by one person, or a small group of people, over a small period of time, as opposed to natural languages. And conlangs, as far as I know, are tagged with fair use policies.
Thanks for the update! --Orikrin1998 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Oklahoma City National Memorial images

Ten years ago, most of the images at Category:Oklahoma City National Memorial were deleted as being derivative works of the (supposedly) copyrighted Oklahoma City Memorial. In the ten years since, that category has seen a number of uploads of photos of the "chair" memorial, example: File:Another shot of the empty chairs. - panoramio.jpg. So either the new images need to be deleted or the old ones need to be restored. My thought is that anything containing no more artistic elements than just the chairs is PD-ineligible and should be restored. Something like the nighttime display, e.g. File:OKC National Memorial chair reflection.jpg is a more arguable case. But IMO, any simple depictions of the chairs were wrongly decided ten years ago - the chairs are simple shapes and should themselves be considered PD-ineligible. --B (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

SVGs by User:ಪ್ರದೀಪ್ ಬೆಳಗಲ್

So called “dark patches” are most likely a trivial SVG 1.2 compatibility problem – see File:DNA chemical structure.svg #filehistory. The story happened when mass deletionist tendencies dominated on Commons, hence no wonder that nobody attempted to do a repair job. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category: Category:Buildings in Dambach (Fürth)

Reguest for undelete categorys, erased by A.Savin. (only with my images) Only using "Buildings in Fürth" are non well specified. The city part of Dambach have two different parts. One west side of Rhein-Main-Donau Canal, one east side from RMD-Canal (for normal peoble this looks like different parts). With using only overall category (Fürth), it is not possible to show island position (ordered by Monument-ID or̞-and street address with house number) it will only deliver ballpark figures. To generate picture galleries in Wikipedia is either not possible when cats are destroyed and nobody proof the nexus from Wiki Commons to Wikipedia. (with still existing content, the cat was never empty) I have personal issues with Alexander Savin and propose since longer time, that he should keep distance from my work and let other admins upgrade improvements...--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC) (talk)

@Hans-Jürgen Neubert: Kindly link your user page or user talk page in your signature to effectively enable pinging and mentioning.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Kúmókụn - Ajimoko I.jpg

This is a photograph from my private family collection. It dates from the early 1800s and would therefore be out of copyright. Please re-instate on the Wikimedia page for Fredrick Adédeji Kúmókụn Haastrup - Ajimoko I. PS It would have been helpful if I had been asked about the copyright status first before deleting.'Desola Haastrup 13 August 2018'DesoHaa (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is more likely from the late 1800s (19th century), given that Fredrick Kúmókụn Adédeji Haastrup was still alive in 1896. Copyright in many parts of the world is determined by the lifetime of the author, so we would need to know where this was taken and if the photographer can be determined. With the background of Mr Haastrup this may well be a Danish photograph, so if no author can be found, it would be in the public domain in Europe. However, all uploads at Commons must also be free in the United States, so we would need to know if this was ever published before 1923. Lastly, the burden on providing evidence for the copyright status is on you as the uploader, but you marked this as your own work while you are not the copyright holder. Owning a copy of an image does not make you own the copyright. It rests with the heirs of the photographer until a legally defined period after which the work becomes public domain. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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



The picture is one of the identities of Chinese militia. According to the "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China", it is a picture of an administrative nature and therefore belongs to the public domain.Jyxyl9 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

    • @Jeff G.:中国民兵的官方标志,不可能是一家商业网站的版权作品,该网页也未有声明该图片是其版权作品,当时提交快速删除的理由是错误的,提交者随意地找到一个网站当作侵权的证据,并没有经过存废讨论。本图片此前适用的是公有领域政府作品,而不是版权授权。需要强调的是,该标志是中华人民共和国政府的公有领域作品。
    • @Jeff G.:The official logo of the Chinese militia could not be a copyrighted work on a commercial website. The website did not declare that the picture was its copyrighted work. The reason for submitting the speedy deletion was wrong. The submitter optionally found a website as evidence of infringement, and did not go through the AFD. This image was previously suitable for government works in the public domain, not copyright licenses. It should be emphasized that the logo is a public domain work of the Government of the People’s Republic of China. Jyxyl9 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Article 5 of the Chinese copyright law does not say anything about "picture of an administrative nature", at least not in the English translation. Can you clarify why you believe this is public domain? Thuresson (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  Comment This is not a picture, but an emblem. This should not have been speedy deleted, so I am restoring and sending it through a proper DR. Yann (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done: as per above: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of People’s Militia.svg. --Yann (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lee Seungbok.JPG

何年も前に削除され気がつきませんでしたが、「著作権の侵害」を理由としつつ具体的な理由が明示されていません。どのような審議を経てどの点が著作権の侵害とされたのか判然とせず、改めて審議をお願いします。仮に銅像写真を掲載することが著作権侵害とされるのであれば、あらゆる銅像写真あまねく波及する問題と考えます。なお私はこの写真のオリジナルを失っており、これを回収したいので、結果として削除するにしても一時的に復帰させて回収の機会を頂きたいと思います。--Kussy (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I was noticed that it was deleted many years ago, concrete reasons are not explicitly stated as a reason for "copyright infringement" as a reason. Please do not consider what kind of deliberation and which point was regarded as infringement of copyright, please again deliberate. If posting a bronze statue picture is considered copyright infringement, we think that every bronze statue photograph spreads all over. In addition, since I have lost the original of this photo, I want to retrieve this, so I would like to take the opportunity of recovery by temporarily returning it even if I delete it as a result.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: At the minimum, we need to know the name of the sculptor, and the date it was erected. --Yann (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Cary Kaplan2.jpg A photo of Brampton Beast President Cary Kaplan

I would like to request undeletion as the file in question has been found on the subject employer's website. I have sourced the author and the organization that Mr. Kaplan works for. I am making this edit on behalf of Cosmos Sports and Entertainment (Mr. Kaplan owns this business) and the Brampton Beast (Mr. Kaplan is the president)

I believe that the previous photo is not a good representation of Mr. Kaplan and the file I have replaced it with is more representative of him.

Thank you,--Stylinstiles11 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stylinstiles11: please provide an evidence that the photo copyright owner (the photographer or the photographer's employer) decided to publish the photo under the cc-by-sa-4.0 license, as you declared. This can be a link to the site containing the license evidence or an email following COM:OTRS instructions. Otherwise   Oppose. Ankry (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Suffian Hakim.jpg

I received a request from my publishers to upload an image of myself (file name: Suffian Hakim.jpg) to Wikipedia Commons. This photograph was taken and uploaded for free use, and is readily available on my website under the URL

I am the owner of the website ( as well as the image.

Please let me know if there's further documentation that I need to produce for clearance of this image.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SuffianHakim (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose @SuffianHakim: Neither nor bears any license at all, let alone one free enough for us. You could quickly add an appropriate license from COM:L like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} to (or to to cover all your photos) and tell us the URL where you did that. You could also have the photographer email permission via OTRS with a copy to you and wait months.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. No answer. --Yann (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Debian-M68K auf einem Atari Falcon.jpg

hallo - wie wäre es mit dem kontakt zum urheber des fotos, beispielsweise über seine mailadresse in der beschreibung..? falss das nicht möglich sein sollte, wüsste ich gerne, warum es nicht geht. danke. --StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Das hättest du bereits vor dem Upload machen sollen. Dann mach es jetzt: Commons:Email templates. --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Terry Duffy.jpg

The creator of this file, Charlie Simokaitis has granted CME permission to use this work to update the page

See his note below:

I hereby affirm that I, Charlie Simokaitis, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Charlie Simokaitis 2018-08-23

Charlie Simokaitis Groundfire Pictures

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solyak (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Please have Mr Simokaitis send this permission by email via COM:OTRS. Should this have happened already, please be aware that the backlog for permission emails like this is currently at 127 days, so please be patient for this file to be processed by our volunteer email team. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ірина Іллівна Трегубова на зйомках.jpg

I made this picture from my family album- why it was removed?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Вишневский Дмитрий Владимирович (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It was removed because you declared it as "own work" while you are probably not the original photographer. Owning a copy of a photograph does not automatically make you own the rights to republish and licence it. To undelete the file we need a permission from the photographer, because if this was taken in 2007 it would still be copyrighted in most parts of the world. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Not own work, no proper license. However it is probably much older than 2007. Please submit again with the date of first publication, as the minimum. --Yann (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Wiki Speisezimmer Mahagoni Louis XVI 1980 Anton Spilker.jpg

Einverständniserklärung an ohne Ticket# am 01.09.2018 von Anton Spilker GmbH & Co., Steinheim Anton Spilker GmbH & Co. i.L., Amtsgericht Paderborn HRA 2819

Eine Bestätigung von "Permissions - German Wikipedia" am 01.09.2018 mit [Ticket#2018090110002393] Ich beantrage eine Wiederherstellung! Urspilk (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Die Warteschlange für die Bearbeitung solcher Emails liegt derzeit bei ca. 3 Monaten, weil alle diese Fälle von freiwilligen Helfern abgearbeitet werden. Sobald die Erklärung für gültig befunden wurde, wird das Bild aber wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Wiki Schlafzimmer Innenausbau Rokoko Schleiflack 1983 Trueggelmann.jpg

Einverständniserklärung an ohne Ticket# am 04.09.2018 von Trüggelmann International Interiors Collection, Bielefeld Möbelwerk A. Trüggelmann GmbH ] Co. KG, HRA 11166 Bielefeld

Eine Bestätigung von "Permissions - German Wikipedia" am 04.09.2018 mit [Ticket#2018090110007669] Ich beantrage eine Wiederherstellung! Urspilk (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Die Warteschlange für die Bearbeitung solcher Emails liegt derzeit bei ca. 3 Monaten, weil alle diese Fälle von freiwilligen Helfern abgearbeitet werden. Sobald die Erklärung für gültig befunden wurde, wird das Bild aber wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Recorte Periodico, El DIARIO, sobre la declaración de hijo adoptivo de la ciudad de Girardot al doctor Edmundo Navarro Acosta.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Son recortes de periódicos antiguos, se esta haciendo referencia en todo caso a la fuente de donde se tomaron. Estos diarios o revistas ya no existen y no circulan en Colombia. Gabrielsalanava (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

They are cuttings from old newspapers, they are referring in any case to the source from which they were taken. These newspapers or magazines no longer exist and do not circulate in Colombia.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gabrielsalanava: ¿Qué edad tienen los artículos? ¿Tienen bylines? How old are the articles? Do they have bylines?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Todos los recortes de prensa o revista que he subido son de los año 1954 a 1974 de una revista que se llamó el CAMELLON y de un periódico llamado EL DIARIO. ambos del municipio de Girardot Cololmbia. Estos ya no existen, ya no circulan, son recortes históricos y los conserva mi familia desde la época en que fueron publicados. No tengo intensión de dañar a nadie, no quiero afectar a nadie. No considero que este afectando derechos de autor en cuanto la información que allí aparece son reportajes que fueron publicados en estos medio de hace mas de 50 años. igualmente en cada imagen coloqué la fuente de donde fueron recortados. por lo que no estoy vulnerando a nadie. agradezco su colaboración y compresión. Gabrielsalanava (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
All the press clippings or magazine that I have uploaded are from 1954 to 1974 from a magazine called CAMELLON and from a newspaper called EL DIARIO. both of the municipality of Girardot Cololmbia. These no longer exist, they no longer circulate, they are historical cuts and my family keeps them from the time they were published. I have no intention of harming anyone, I do not want to affect anyone. I do not consider that this affecting copyright as soon as the information that appears there are reports that were published in these media more than 50 years ago. also in each image I placed the source from which they were cut. so I'm not harming anyone. I appreciate your collaboration and understanding.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Please undelete this file. I own it. --Phonical (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You are telling us that you "own" all 6 images (3 of them photographies) in this montage? --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That aside, owning a copy of an image does not automatically make you the copyright holder. Copyright usually rest with the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


This file with a peramission with photo holder

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal parmar (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Since this was published on Facebook without a free licence, we need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Copyright is usually not held by the subject depicted but by the photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

US Air Force Academy Flickr photos

This undeletion request is in regards to the following files that had recent speedy deletions:

They were all deleted by Túrelio for the following common reason: "Non-free Flickr license disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works."

It is technically correct that the source Flickr pages for these photos had the "all rights reserved" logo. However, the photos were posted to the official Air Force Academy Flickr channel: As indicated by the official USAFA Facebook page, the "AF_Academy" Flickr page is the USAFA's official Flickr page. There is no solid evidence these photos are copyrighted works of others. Therefore, these photos are public domain original works of the US federal government.

Also, some of the original source photos have names that are in VIRIN format that "uniquely identifies every piece of Visual Information created by DoD photographers." For instance, the original source of the "Scott Wachenheim and Troy Calhoun in 2017" photo is titled 160902-F-KB029-2017", the "F" in the second field standing for "Air Force" according to the linked VIRIN key. Same goes for these baseball game photos in these sets [2] [3] [4].

Because the original source photos have VIRIN numbers indicating they were creating by US Department of Defense photographers, these are public domain photos that were falsely deleted in an ironic case of reverse "license laundering" in contrast to the more usual cases of copyrighted works uploaded to Flickr as "free licensed". Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Frederick William Stellhorn.jpg

I corrected the tags, notified to person who raised the initial objection and then it went 'poof' without any feedback.

JimMcG89 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Henry Eyster Jacobs.jpg

I tagged it as per requested and then it went 'poof' with no explanation. The image is from a book over 100 years old. A reason for it's deletion would be appreciated.

--JimMcG89 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Christoph Ernst Luthardt.jpg

I tagged it as per requested and then it went 'poof' with no explanation. The image is from a book over 100 years old which I personally own.

--JimMcG89 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Support Remove the Creative Commons license and use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Thuresson (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:JD LOGO.png

Public available logo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony abracadabra (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)