Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →


File:Krishan Hooda.jpg deletion

Hi! I noticed you deleted File:Krishan Hooda.jpg. I'm the rightful owner of the said image and i'm in it. Please undo the deletion asap and ask me if you need any Declaration of Consent for Copyrighted Media.

Also my user id acthooda is being used by unlawfully and illegally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailforajit (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Please have the copyright holder follow the directions at OTRS. The copyright holder is almost always the person who took the photograph. Daphne Lantier 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Daphne@ I observed that you deleted the files Whiteplains British School (Secondary School), Whiteplains British School Logo and Whiteplains British School (primary school) which I uploaded. You noted that they violated Wikipedia copyright polcies and guidelines. While my first attempt was unsuccessful because of copyright violation, this last upload attempt, I think, is perfect because I tried to apply appropriate copyright tags for the files. I think the file should be restored. Subsequently, I suspect that my last article Whiteplains British School is not on my sandbox, perhaps deleted as I await its review and acceptance on Wikipedia page. Can you help me?

OTRS permission from a representative of Whiteplains British School is required. Daphne Lantier 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

you deleted a public domain image that was uploaded to Wikipedia.

Hello Daphne,

I am somewhat confused today... as Wikipedia says that you requested that an image that I uploaded to be deleted. The image in question was the coat of arms for the Poswietne Municipality/District in Poland. The image is public domain, and yet the image has been removed from Wikipedia. Could you please help me out... and help me understand why this image had to be deleted? (or are all the American and other national (public domain) flags & emblems also being deleted from Wikipedia as of today?) I am very confused as to why the need was felt... to have a public domain image deleted.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikidan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Your image was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gmina Poświętne Bialystok Poland COA.jpg, filed by Yann. Daphne Lantier 18:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-ND 2.0

Is image under license CC BY-ND 2.0 allowed in commons? --B dash (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No. See Template:Flickr image info for a quick guide to Commons acceptable license. This applies to all images, not just Flickr images of course. You can also review COM:CB and COM:L. Daphne Lantier 03:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks  --B dash (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Please help move the file File:Cindy 2017-06-21 1645Z.png to File:Cindy 2017-06-21 1700Z.png, thank you. --B dash (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 05:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. --B dash (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Good job!

  The Copyright inspector Barnstar
Here is a barnstar for your fast and tireless work at Commons:Undeletion requests. After today's second edit conflict with you in one of the UDEL sections I thought you deserved some recognition.   De728631 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks, but I just do cleanup work over there. I mostly wait till you, Jim, or Storkk puts in an oppose, and then I swoop in and do my closing...   Daphne Lantier 22:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Ake-blomstrom_liten.jpg

Hi, I noticed today that you deleted "Ake-blomstrom_liten.jpg". I tried to upload it again, but this time with the "OTRS pending", and then ask the owner to send an email. But the uploading program informs me that you have deleted the file so I cannot upload it again. What is a good solution to this problem ? 123johanlindeberg (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Send the OTRS email and wait for the permission to be processed. The image will automatically be restored once the OTRS permission is confirmed. Daphne Lantier 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have contacted the owner. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

New page

Wikimedia Commons has a specific topic[edit] català | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | українська | +/− Please don't post messages that are not relevant to Wikimedia Commons. The site does not host articles, only media files such as images, video and audio. Neither should the site be used for chatting, promotion, personal webpages or other such things. For more detail, see Commons:Project scope. Thank you.

Daphne Lantier 22:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Daphne,

I would like to create a fan page of a young pianist Pavel Voráček. Why do you not approve it? Thank you very much, best regards zuzaan


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuzaan1 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Fan pages are out of project scope here on Commons. Daphne Lantier 17:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Something I need to know

Why was my screenshot deleted? I simply found it on the Internet... what's so bad about it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasha Panda (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dasha Panda (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)DashaPanda

You gave me, like, warnings for no reason. Chill off. I am only new and deal with it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasha Panda (talk • contribs) 10:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please review COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:CB. I gave you warnings because you violated Commons copyright policies. I'll block your account if you continue to do so. Being new is no reason for us to let you do whatever you feel like. Copyright law is important and has to be enforced. Daphne Lantier 17:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I free to use, like, this image? I think it's free to use.


Dasha Panda (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)DashaPanda

That logo is borderline, but OK. You can reference Commons:Threshold of originality#United States when you consider uploading a logo. You can find other countries listed at Commons:Threshold of originality. The USA has a high threshold of originality, so you can upload more complex logos. Other countries, like the UK only allow uploading of the most basic text logos. Daphne Lantier 18:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you zap this?

Based on this deletion nomination you just deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanantonio2.jpg the same editor Unioneuropea overwrote this image File:Escultura.jpg with a screenshot of the same deleted image. Maybe you can zap it as I have now reverted to the original image and I don't think we should keep the bad image. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 20:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


As you have just deleted File:Alberto Garzón.jpg, could you (speedily) delete the following derivative works? Regards File:Alberto Garzón (cropped).jpg File:Alberto Garzón (crop).jpg File:Alberto Garzón b (cropped).jpg File:Alberto Garzón (2011).jpg ‎Regards. --Asqueladd (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 22:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted image

I complained to User:Wdwd when he closed this nomination Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamat-Gader, 1976 - Job de Graaf.jpg less than 24 hours after being nominated. So, as the uploader has indicated he is trying to get an OTRS verification, I am surprised to see you closed what I consider would be a Less clear cases should remain open for at least seven days after just two and a half days. It is not for me to tell you the job but most admins seem to be a bit more measured in such cases. But thanks for all the work you do. Ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I closed this because it was failed today at license review ({{Unfree Flickr file|1=Elisfkc|2=ND}}). We don't usually leave the file up if it's ND on Flickr. What's the big difference between waiting for OTRS with the file deleted or still live? Myself or any other admin can restore it easily if and when OTRS is received and processed.

I don't appreciate your insulting passive aggressive comment about telling me my job and other admins being more measured. Keep those unpleasant comments to yourself if you post any further messages on my talk. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 22:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware a deleted file can be restored by you or any other admin but I believe closing quite so quickly tends to frustrate those less experienced uploaders who might appreciate a few days to try and solve their problem especially when OTRS is so backlogged these days. I think you are overreacting to a pretty simple question about a deletion closure. If you consider my comments insulting, passive aggressive or unpleasant I think you are taking my question far too seriously but I aplogise; in fact I acknowledged the hard work you do and I specifically did not tell you your job but asked if this was not a case for a slower close based on my experience here dealing with copyright issues. I could use far less tact but that's not my style. So let me ask you a question, if the file had an {{OTRS pending}} template, would you still have closed the nomination so quickly? Ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If the file had an OTRS pending tag, do you think Elisfkc would've failed the license review? Maybe you should tell him to be a bit more measured? Now, unless you've actually got something to say, aside from phoney self-justification, please stop wasting my time. Daphne Lantier 00:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Diane Lemieux photo

Hi, you have deleted the picture of Diane Lemieux French and English wikipedia page. What is the procedure to get a photo up on the bio... This picture is authorized and official. I can have Diane Lemieux's personnal approval note if needed! It's the first time I work on editing wiki pages... i'm unaware of the procedure... Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandralev (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diane Lemieux Commission de la construction du Québec.jpg. The image in question was uploaded by you, and claimed as "own work" and also by User:Julie Gascon in April. Julie Gascon attributed the photo to Commission de la construction du Québec. To host the image on Commons, we would require OTRS permission from the copyright holder of the image. Diane Lemieux is the subject of the image, so I don't think she would be the copyright holder. That would be either Commission de la construction du Québec or the photographer. Daphne Lantier 22:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


As you have just deleted File:Alberto Garzón.jpg, could you (speedily) delete the following derivative works? Regards File:Alberto Garzón (cropped).jpg File:Alberto Garzón (crop).jpg File:Alberto Garzón b (cropped).jpg File:Alberto Garzón (2011).jpg ‎Regards. --Asqueladd (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 22:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

North Korean images

Hi Daphne, I notice you made mistakes with your closures of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laika ac Yanggakdo Hotel Lobby (6894948461).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laika ac Yanggakdo Hotel (7984286520).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Getting a North Korean suit made in Pyongyang (10295124953).jpg. The deletion rationale was invalid, the content is in scope, and one file was in active use on two different projects when you deleted them. These images should have been kept, so I've re-closed these images as being Kept. There may be some value in discussing our approach to images which could be regarded as North Korea propaganda in future, however. Nick (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:1893 Hermann Blodig.jpg

Hello Daphne, you deleted File:1893 Hermann Blodig.jpg because of a copyright violation. The paintings in Category:Wenzel Ottokar Noltsch are all from the same painter (who passed away in 1908) and source, therefore maybe all these files have to be deleted as well. I thought that these images are public domain, because the painter died more than 70 years ago. In addition, some of the images from Category:Faculty of TU Wien are from the same source, but from other painters (they also passed away more than 70 years ago), like File:1927 Max von Ferstel.jpg, File:1928 Johann Oser.jpg, File:Oskar Primavesi 1936.jpg and File:1909 Eduard Dolezal.jpg. Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, this was a mistake on my part and that of the person who tagged it for deletion. PD-Art applies here, so I've reversed my action and undeleted the file. My apologies for the trouble. Daphne Lantier 16:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Daphne, your first action was definitely right! The photograph of the portrait of Hermann Blodig was taken in 2015 by Thomas Györik, member of the Archives of TU Wien. The portrait, which is in custody of our archives, was photographed for the publication that was the source of the scan. This fact is stated in the photo credits in the book on p.155. I asked our legal department and they are sure that this case is a clear violations of (Austrian) copyright: - The name of the photographers are not mentioned (Thomas Györik, Erich Jiresch - as stated in the photo credits on p. 155) - No one ever asked the photographers and/or the owner of the copyright (TU Wien/Archives of TU Wien)for usage on wikipedia. Please delete the photo of Hermann Blodig and all of the scans of that were taken of "Eine Sammlung von außerordentlicher Geschlossenheit, ISBN 978-3-205-20113-7 (Festschrift 200 Jahre TU Wien, Band 13)". Best regards&thanks in advance Paulus Ebner, Head of the Archives of TU Wien

See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. Daphne Lantier 16:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of image on Dan Wagner

Techtrek (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Daphne, you have deleted the image I uploaded on Dan Wagner. Can you please tell me why you believe I do not own copyright to it?

What's the name of the file? Daphne Lantier 23:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Techtrek (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC File:Dan_Wagner_-_UK_Serial_Tech_Entrepreneur.jpg

This was deleted because it was published at before being uploaded to Commons. We will need OTRS permission from the copyright holder before this can be restored here. Daphne Lantier 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Techtrek (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Daphne, the original location now has the OTRS license notification. Please see Can you please now restore the file?

The license you have displayed there contains an ND restriction. That restricted license is not acceptable for Commons. Until the ND restriction is removed, the file can't be restored. Daphne Lantier 16:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of image on Draft:Michael_Robert_Blakey

The image ( is owned by me and taken by me. Yes, Blakey also uses it on, but that does not change the fact that I am the owner and copyright holder. Tobiastan (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the directions at OTRS. Daphne Lantier 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:United States Air Forces in Europe.svg

I see you removed this image for alleged copyright violation. I find no further explanation, nor can I locate any discussion prior to your removal of the image. I find this removal incredible. The page with the image included the template:

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia produced by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. It is in the public domain but its use is restricted by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 [1] and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507) [2], [3]. Permission to use these images in the USA for most commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.

Deutsch | English | русский | +/−


which expressly explains that the image is in the public domain for non-commercial use and included references -- and (now dead) links to the sections of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations that does this. I cannot see how this image's use on Wikipedia violates copyright. Lineagegeek (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting case for other DoD related files. I see the original link at*/ and that the PNG version exists on Commons. It could be that the file was highlighted as having no source, because the original page no longer exists. If that is the case, we may need to look at how automated flagging of files like this are handled. -- (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The CSD tag was the following: {{copyvio|1=It is not entirely free (see Licensing: ''Permission to use these images in the USA for most commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.'') and hence not suitable for Commons.}}. Daphne Lantier 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any working links that explain this part of Federal law? The links in the template are dead. -- (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging the editor who tagged this, @Cccefalon:, maybe he can provide further info. Daphne Lantier 21:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH. This is essentially a non-copyright restriction that is of no concern for Commons. The template states that "most commercial purposes" require permission but not all commercial purposes. This is sometimes misunderstood but imo there is consensus from previous discussions that the template is in fact a valid PD tag. So without a new general discussion about the template, this file should be restored. At least it should not have been a speedy deletion but you should have converted it to a full DR. De728631 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like an NC license to me. If other admins/editors have come up with a loophole theory for using it, I think that's dishonest. As for a DR, I disagree with you. NC licensed files are eligible for speedy deletion. Daphne Lantier 21:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
My point is that we should first have gotten rid of this long-standing template before speedily deleting any files affected by it. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Consensus may change, but 10 years ago, this was actually discussed and closed as "keep". De728631 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, that makes more sense too me. I have no objection to restoring the image, but I can't do it myself because I just don't feel comfortable restoring an image with what seems to me like a license based on trickery. This decade old decision is suspect at best, and I hope it can be overturned...though the inclusionists fight tooth and nail over things like this. They usually bury what they don't like in elaborate walls of text... Daphne Lantier 02:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think in this case the rationale is rather simple and doesn't have to be buried in a TLDR wall of text: The upload restrictions at Commons are only based on copyright concerns and project scope. As a part of this we don't accept NC licenses, but since this image is PD anyway as a work of the US Fed government, there is no copyright and no required licence at all. So the commercial restriction is not a copyright thing and therefore not a problem for Commons. The same reasoning has been used for ages when it comes to PD banknotes that are subject to {{Counterfeiting}} restrictions. De728631 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much experience in this area, so it's still slow going. I trust your judgement though, so I've gone ahead and restored the file. I appreciate the guidance. Daphne Lantier 15:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, too, for restoring the file. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OTRS for Files uploaded by Leire Cano

Hello Daphne Lantier: I am writing to you to ask for help. I am going to ask the book covers copyright owners for OTRS permission, but I think for doing that the files must be already uploaded to Commons. As files has been deleted (see here), how can I do now? If OTRS emails arrive, will be the deleted files become undeleted automatically? Or they must be undeleted and put in them an {{subst:OP}} template until the OTRS email arrives? I hope you could help me with this misgivings. Thank you in advance. --Xabier Cañas (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Once OTRS permission is received and processed, an OTRS agent will either restore the files themselves or request the restoration. Daphne Lantier 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Xabier Cañas (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


That works for me. Daphne Lantier 18:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Armenius Model 9

Thank you for closing this. I think though you may have missed the other pages of the same type I nominated later in the discussion. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done I'm so used to looking for DelReqHandler buttons! Daphne Lantier 02:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Getúlio Vargas

Hello. You recently deleted File:Getúlio Vargas no Recife, 1940.jpg‎, which I had nominated for speedy. The user re-uploaded the image and is edit warring to remove the template. Just wanted to let you know. Holy Goo (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The inserted image does not have the Getty Images watermark.--Juniorpetjua (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A 1940 image obviously doesn't fit {{PD-old-70}}. Unless you can find a reason this image is actually free, please don't upload it again. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
But a 1940 image is 76 years old!--Juniorpetjua (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The image was taken later than 1940. Also, it's the author's life plus 70 years. Daphne, may I call your attention for a derivative of that work: File:Getúlio_Vargas_no_Recife_em_1940.jpg. Thanks. Holy Goo (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "PD-Brazil-media".--Juniorpetjua (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: File:Getúlio Vargas no Recife, 1940.jpg — "PD-Brazil-media" (The economic rights in audiovisual and photographic works shall be protected for a period of 70 years from the first of January of the year following that of their disclosure) --Juniorpetjua (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There you go. Good job finding the right license. Daphne Lantier 01:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan.svg.png

You've deleted this file as a duplicate, but haven't replaced it with the original, and the file was used in a major article. I guess this was a simple mistake, and there is no need to reply (I've fixed the removal). Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your reviews of some Pixabay sourced images

Hello Daphne, you reviewed some images copied to Commons from Pixabay. Unfortunately you did use the wrong license tag template. Please fix this. I am not a license reviewer, so I couldn’t repair this on my own. What you have to do is: Remove {{cc-zero}} and {{LicenseReview|…}} and insert {{Pixabay}} with the necessary params by using {{subst:PBLR|<ID>}} with <ID> being the file ID which is the last, numerical part of the source URL. As far as I see these files are affected:

As side effect the explicit addition of [[Category:Images from Pixabay]] should be removed.

Though originally not reviewed by you perhaps you could also fix three other affected files? I speak of

All three reviewed by INeverCry.
— Speravir – 01:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Speravir: When me and INC reviewed these, the use of that new template system wasn't standardized yet. I'm satisfied that I faithfully reviewed each image, and I stand by my reviews. I'm too busy right now to do the suggested changes. I've given you temporary Image Reviewer status (for 1 week) so that you can make the changes if you care to. I don't doubt you would be able to make these changes much faster and easier than I could. Daphne Lantier 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you (again  ) for your confidence in me. I will try my best, of course. Probably it would be the best to request this right regularily, but I have to look first where to do this, step by step. As side remark I just noticed that {{Pixabay}} is not mentioned in Commons:License review which I will fix, too. And this leads to another annoying thing: the need for (translation) administrators for all pages translated with Extension:Translate. — Speravir – 02:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The license review stuff is easy, but, as you say, to get anything but short temporary status, a request at Commons:License review/requests would be needed. But the files are already reviewed. My and INC's reviews should be kept and only format changes should be made if possible. The translation admin stuff is pretty easy too. You can let me know when you've done the update, and I can mark the pages for translation myself, or you can request the task at COM:AN. I should be around though. Daphne Lantier 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Ha, I did exactly your “My and INC's reviews should be kept and only format changes should be made if possible” in parallel to your answer  . All files are now fixed (also the 3 Chicago Bride files, INeverCry), you can revoke the license reviewer right. Thank you, too, for the other information. And I will leave a notice, when I have updated the other page. — Speravir – 03:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I made a letter case mistake, so I have to ping INeverCry separately. — Speravir – 03:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Chicago Bride   — Speravir – 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Daphne, meanwhile I added Pixabay stuff to Commons:License review, so you could mark it for translation. But as native English speaker take a look, please, whether this should be corrected: Under item “Thank you” these sentences “You can use the following message template, please, replace Foo.jpg with the real name …” and the text in the source box for a thanks message (i.e. English Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia?). — Speravir – 20:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

On another note: I was told that Commons:Translators' noticeboard is for translation requests, but there is on (follow-up) request of mine open for days (on bottom). Could you be so kind? — Speravir – 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've marked the LR page for translation. The other page looks like Tacsipacsi has marked the newest updates by you and Simon for translation. Daphne Lantier 20:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for both. Then he only has forgotten to add the done tick mark. — Speravir – 20:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi. I would ask you about the reason of deletion of these 2 photos this this which are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License as mentioned in the website, such as other photos that I had uploaded from the same website. Thanks.--Mbazri (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A mistake by the deletion tagger that I missed. I've restored them. Daphne Lantier 17:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)



Why has this file been speedy deleted? The icon is made up of simple geometric shapes and therefore doesn't meant the Threshold of originality. It is therefore in the public domain. Maybe it was because of the licensing mistake? WikIan (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted because it's available under fair use at w:File:DVD Player (Windows 10) icon.png. Commons doesn't except fair use as per COM:FU. Daphne Lantier 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the original listing in en wiki is wrong. Fair Use states that an image must be "a copyright-protected computer icon", but if it fails the threshold of originality, how is it copyrighted? WikIan (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
In any case, this version is an SVG version that I created myself and is NOT the low-res PNG version on WikIan (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Png or Svg, we can't have a fair use file on and at Commons at the same time. Daphne Lantier 21:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you even read my first statement? I satated the it's not fair use, it's in the public domain. Who else can I bring this up with. WikIan (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The people over on don't think it's free, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded it under fair use. Anyways, you can go to COM:UDEL where you can request the file be undeleted. Daphne Lantier 23:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


Wondering if you can fix this[4] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 16:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong delete

Hi Daphne. Thanks for renaming Help:Dialectiki to Help:DebateTree. I also requested that you delete MediaWiki:Dialectiki.js and MediaWiki:Dialectiki.css, but you mistakenly deleted MediaWiki:DebateTree.js and MediaWiki:DebateTree.css. I've restored them already, so no worries, but can I ask again that you delete MediaWiki:Dialectiki.js and MediaWiki:Dialectiki.css? Thanks! --Felipe (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 18:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

COM:LR again

Hi Daphne, I added something to COM:LR, so it needs again to be marked for translation, sorry for that.   — Speravir – 20:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Een ster voor u!

  De Ster voor ijverigheid
Dank je wel voor de verwijdering Agaath (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Agaath: Thank you. I'm happy to help.   Daphne Lantier 22:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Belleruth Naparstek.jpg

Why did you wrongfully delete the Belleruth Naparstek.jpg and what do we need to do to make it so that, after we upload it again, it does not get deleted again?

Naparstek (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You stated on the file's talk: "The photo is owned by Belleruth Naparstek. She permitted the University of Chicago to use the photo under a Creative Commons license". We need OTRS permission from either Karen Ollis or Belleruth Naparstek (whichever one is the copyright holder). Please don't re-upload the image on your own. Doing so may lead to your account being blocked. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 22:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a publicity photo! It exists for the public to use it. This should not have been removed. You have no reason to remove it.

Belleruth Naparstek is 75-years-old. She doesn't know how to upload her own photo. I am doing it for her. Photographer Karen Ollis shot this photo for Belleruth Naparstek's publicity use and does not have the time or interest to go back and forth with random Wikimedia editors. I have permission and copyright to upload this photo. Everyone involved in the shooting and ownership of this photo wants it to be available for public use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naparstek (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

So, based on this OTRS page it sounds like you require Karen Ollis or Belleruth Naparstek to send an email to And then Belleruth and Karen have to wait 40 days for some random volunteer to approve this?

Wouldn't the better policy be to let Belleruth Naparstek use the photo of Belleruth Naparstek and wait until someone complains about a possible copyright violation before taking it down? Because no one is complaining about the use of this photo.

This Kafka-esque nonsense all seems so wildly contrary to the original, communal spirit of Wikipedia. Naparstek (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that the policy can be slow and cumbersome, but it's policy, so I have to uphold it as an administrator. COM:EVID requires OTRS permission when you're uploading a file that you yourself don't own the copyright for. OTRS permission is a must from either Karen Ollis or Belleruth Naparstek, whichever lady owns the copyright for the file. Daphne Lantier 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Daphne. Just wanted to let you know that the following email has been sent to by Karen Ollis, the photographer who took the photo that you flagged for copyright violation. Karen gives her permission to use this photograph on Wikipedia. And, actually, she was quite pleased that Wikipedia is so diligent about protecting her copyright. So, please excuse my crankiness the other day...

On Jul 4, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Karen Ollis <> wrote:

To whom it may concern, I am the creator and copyright holder of photographs of Belleruth Naparstek. I grant Belleruth Naparstek and her assigns permission to use in print or electronically those photographs for professional and commercial usages she sees fit. If you need any further verification, then contact me at the below email or phone number. Credit should read (C) 2017 Karen Ollis Thank you, Karen Ollis, Photographer

 karen ollis, photographer

Begin forwarded message:

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <> Subject: [Ticket#2017070410029141] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission to use ph [...]) Date: July 4, 2017 at 4:32:17 PM EDT To: Karen Ollis <>

Dear Karen Ollis,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2017070410029141].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team Naparstek (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. As soon as an OTRS agent processes the permission, the file can be quickly restored. If you want to ask about progress, you can post at COM:OTRS/N. Daphne Lantier 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

File:The Burrard Bridge and the Westend in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.jpg

Hi. FYI, this file was already deleted one time, then restored after a short discussion. Maybe a DR is more apropriate in such case? --XXN, 10:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This has failed license review 5 times, twice by the bot, and once each by Elisfkc, Dyolf77, and DAJF. DAJF failed it last night, hence my deletion. Maybe a COM:UDEL request would be the best option. Daphne Lantier 19:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kerrojupukka by Heikki Immonen.jpg

Dear Daphne, greetings! You deleted this file as duplicate. I searched the Commons and did not find the other one, so please, you would have the correct link from the original file? Thanks, Conrado (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kerrojupukka, a Station Point of the Struve Geodetic Arc - panoramio.jpg. Daphne Lantier 19:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Taylor image

Hello Daphne

You recently removed an image from a page here

I own the image (I am the nephew of Samuel Taylor). Sorry if I broke a rule - Is it possible the image can be reinstated?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Breed3011 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Breed3011 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. Daphne Lantier 16:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my files regarding the North Rhine-Westphalian ministries

Dear Daphne Lantier,

you removed my uploaded files regarding the North Rhine-Westphalian ministries although all of these logos are in the public domain. Why did you do that and can you please cancel this? I not feel like uploading again. Yours sincerely --Frīheidasliova (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would these be in the public domain? These logos contain a rearing horse at right. The horse makes the logo above COM:TOO. Please don't re-upload them on your own. It would be better to file a request at COM:UDEL to have them restored. You may have to have the logo's copyright holder provide OTRS permission. Daphne Lantier 16:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, the image is my own work. I took the picture few days before the website claimed by Aflorence. Please review the deletion.--Shadegan (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Restored. Daphne Lantier 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Photos are my own work

Hi there I purchased the album Be Ordinary which is a physical album from I took photos of that physical album by using Galaxy Note4 in my bedroom. Photos are my own work.Abouthessi (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How can they be your own work if you took them from an album? Own work means you are the photographer of the image/s. Daphne Lantier 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh..well..What do you think of this page? Do you really think the photographer of the image upload the image to wiki for Sting? Abouthessi (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia, and some Wikipedias in other languages, allow fair use (see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content). Commons does not allow fair use (see COM:FU). Daphne Lantier 18:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Daphne Ok, I will try to find other images that wiki would accept. Thanks for your explanation, you are not like some other wiki volunteers just deleting talk messages without a response but you reply to everyone with detailed explanations. I appreciate it Abouthessi (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Westmoreland Heritage Trail.svg

The map that I drew was flagged for an "unknown source" even though I indicated that it was my own work. I submitted clarification that, indeed it was my own work and it was created with using a base map provided by open street maps, in the same fashion that many other maps on Wikipedia have been created. Why has it now been deleted? I spent many hours drawing it and ensuring that it was correct and accurate. I would like to know what I have to do to have my work restored.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDK33 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This file was deleted mistakenly because the "no source" tag hadn't been removed. I've restored it and removed the tag. Daphne Lantier 18:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure if I was allowed to remove the tag. -MDK33

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDK33 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daphne, I tried to undo the change made by the bot in the Wikipedia page (, but the link to the file no longer works, even though you restored it. I tried to re-upload the same file, but nothing has changed. Sorry for the inconvenience - I'm new to this... I've been working hard to get this page looking right, and I just want it to work again. MDK33 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't get the image to display either. Have you tried uploading it to a new file name? If you do, and it works, let me know. You can copy all the info over to the new page. Otherwise you can wait and see if the problem fixes itself. Daphne Lantier 00:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Abu Dhabi - View from The Ritz-Carlton on the great Sheikh Zayed Mosque - عرض من فندق ريتز كارلتون في مسجد الشيخ زايد الكبير - panoramio.jpg -

Why was this file deleted. It seems to me that the nominator highlighted a very good reason for retention of the file!!--Petebutt (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Appealing a deletion[edit] 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.

The file hasn't been deleted. Daphne Lantier 17:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion comment

Please see and notice the large number of images nominated by one person as "Out of scope!" It appears someone has gone through the "Wiki Loves India" submissions and nominated a huge pile of them for scope concerns. It doesn't make much sense to me, I looked at a few of them. Some of them are just images of guys, others are really nice images of India daily. It seems there's some kind of game at work. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the result of confusion between images that are in scope of Wiki Loves India and images that are generally within Commons project scope. When closing these, we need to be careful to keep images that're in project scope and delete out of scope images, and not to worry about Wiki Loves India. Many of the Wiki Loves India participants are new users who aren't familiar with overall project scope. Daphne Lantier 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep it up

If you want to know why, read here: Thank you :) Christer T Johansson (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daphne, would you be so kind as to look at my recent deletion request? It's made for the same reason as Christer's images. Regards Tooga~commonswiki (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  Done Deleted. Daphne Lantier 20:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Tooga~commonswiki (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Anders Zorn

You deleted File:Anders Zorn, Gustav Vasa-IMG 3356.JPG but Anders Zorn died in 1920 and the sculpture should be in public domain. --ArildV (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The post above this is by the photographer of the image you refer to, and several others like it (Christer T Johansson). He links to an page where some kind of copyright concern is posted by a WMF employee [5]. I can't read it too well with Yandex translation. This may be a case where an sv speaking admin is needed or a post at COM:UDEL/COM:VP/C. Daphne Lantier 17:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Explanation request

Hi Daphne Lantier, you deleted File:Assist grav bepicolombo.png some hours ago. Could you explain me which was the copyright violation, please? I found the notices that Huntster left to LobStoR and Paoloo31 in their talk pages, but I haven't found a declared motivation. Has CNES changed its copyright policies from 2010 to now?

Could you please indicate me the link to the License Tag, related to CNES, which was present in the file description? I couldn't find it. Was it used just in that page?

When you deleted the File, you declared "empty category". Thank you. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Harlock81, my deletion statement was as follows:

"Image uploaded as public domain, but statement by CNES from the era when this was uploaded ( clearly states that "You may reproduce any content on this site for non-commercial purposes, provided you cite the source of the information (Copyrights 2006 - © CNES or other source)", and image is clearly marked as belonging to CNES. Even the current statement at (bottom of page) states "Therefore, and without limitation, the rights to (i) reproduce, represent, adapt and/or translate, (ii) extract, or (iii) create any derivative work from all or part of the CNES Web site and/or its content, are formally and strictly forbidden except in the frame of the private copy exception or for educational purpose.""

So yes, the CNES policies have shifted slightly over time, but they have and still do restrict commercial usage, which makes them ineligible for Commons. Huntster (t @ c) 11:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Huntster, for your quick and accurate reply. Good job to both. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Daphne, Hope all is good in the hood!, Could you delete File talk:Emily Beecham shoot.jpg please, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 00:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you as always :), –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighted FPC

Daphne: Please see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:O Garrafão.jpg. I think this should be yanked from FPC and the file deleted. I thought I'd ask your input as I felt it best not to do it myself unilaterally. PumpkinSky talk 12:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky: It looks like you guys have settled the possible copyvio issue. I've added {{FPX}} because of the watermark. Daphne Lantier 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johannes Vermeer - A Lady Writing a Letter, with Her Maid (c1670) - NGI cr.jpg

Daphne, you deleted the wrong one. You left a very mediocre unsharp and noisy version. And there was no deletion request for the now deleted file. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: Hi Jan. I see what happened here. The deletion script created a second identical DR, and I thought it was a mistake of the nominator. VFC does this quite a bit. I've fixed the issue and restored the proper version of the image. Thanks for noticing this and bringing it to my attention. Daphne Lantier 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Haatim Zakiyuddin

Dear Editor,

Some days ago files of the manuscripts which I own had been marked for deletion. Then I provided details pertaining to author (my brother), place if origin, date and permission. Now it has been removed from the page. I would like your suggestion in restoring it.

Thanking you. --NoorAlavi (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest filing an undeletion request at COM:UDEL. Daphne Lantier 05:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


Hello, is this file "File:Noah Cyrus (The 2016 American Music Awards).jpg" correct? — vscotalk 18:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No. This file is under a non-derivative license, which is unacceptable at Commons. I've deleted it. Please see Template:Flickr image info for acceptable licenses. Daphne Lantier 19:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Felix.kilonzo and friends (redux)

This may be a bit cheeky, sorry. You swatted some of the socks uploading images of Wavinya Ndeti; we've just had a fresh one which I've tagged at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wavinya_Ndeti_Machakos.jpg. It may be a bit more obvious to someone more familiar with the history, like you, why I've so tagged it. Could you take a look, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 07:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong country

File:Michelle O Neill.jpg can't have a UK Open Government License since the source is from a political party in Ireland; a different country and non governmental. Secondarywaltz (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed such an obvious detail. Thanks for noticing and tagging it. Daphne Lantier 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello Daphne Lantier,

I am handling ticket:2017071210024649. Some of the images have been already deleted by you. Could you please undelete these files, so that I can add {{OTRS permission}} tag to them.

Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Please add the OTRS tickets. Daphne Lantier 23:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for an amazing amount of work lately. I noticed just one admin was reviewing all my contributions, then looked - you have been doing hundreds per day! GRuban (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@GRuban: Thanks for the barnstar and for your uploads. I like doing the reviews since it allows me to help keep 100s of educational images and videos on Commons for everyone to use. Daphne Lantier 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion Request & Deletion Request - Rebecca Mader

Hi Daphne, can you please undelete the File:Rebecca Mader May 2017.jpg This is a free image, taken by me. I have the original uncropped image if you would like to see it, as well as multiple other photos I took of Rebecca Mader at the same time. Rebecca posted this current photo on her Instagram account @bexmader and gave me (Marc Kayne) photo credit, specifically to prove that this is my photo.

Additionally, I'd like to put in a request asking if you could please delete the following image from WikiCommons File:Rebecca Mader January 2015.jpg as this is not a free image. This image has been cropped and the person who uploaded the this file to Flickr can not be the holder of the copyright as they are the person standing in the original photo with Rebecca Mader and therefore could not have taken the picture. I've provided the link to the original image from Flickr. You can see that Steve Cranston who uploaded the picture is the person standing next to Rebecca in the picture.

Thanks for your help. Please let me know if you'd like to see any of the original unedited photo or any other unedited photos I took during the photoshoot where I took the following picture File:Rebecca Mader May 2017.jpg

Planb88 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't do either of those things. If you have an issue with Stemoc, you should take it up with him - I don't want to be in the middle of it. As regards the images, File:Rebecca Mader May 2017.jpg could be taken to COM:UDEL and File:Rebecca Mader January 2015.jpg would have to go through Commons:Deletion requests. But again, since that file was uploaded by Stemoc and your upload was deleted through a DR filed by Stemoc, I would advise you to discuss this with him first if possible. Daphne Lantier 05:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Daphne! The author or this file sendt yesterday an OTRS ticket. We have now the proper license for the file. Have a nice day!--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

When the permission is processed and confirmed, an OTRS agent can restore it or request its restoration at COM:UDEL. Daphne Lantier 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

when you revert and block an ip without warning as you did here [6], you tend to validate the remarks of the ip. calling negative feedback "nonconstructive comment" is straight out of the French Wikimedia playbook. as a sign of good faith, you might want to allow talk page access for an appeal. regardless, rest assured i will be discussing your conduct at wikimania with the Community Health staffers. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Was that your IP? Daphne Lantier 18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
you need to follow the Commons:Blocking policy; you need to speak of "disruptive" not nonconstructive. you can enforce your personal speech code if you will, but you will be widely ridiculed across wikimedia. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to maintain constructive and respectful discussion here on Commons. This IP, which may very well be engaging in block evasion, was being rude and disrespectful. That kind of comment is harmful to Commons, not helpful. I stand by my block, and your weird threats of sicking Wikimania staffers on me and wide ridicule across Wikimedia are inappropriate and need to stop. If you post anything like that here again, I'll block your account for intimidation and harassment. Please find something to do that's more productive than defending a rude and disrespectful single purpose IP. I was thanked by two fellow admins for that block by the way. Have a good day. Daphne Lantier 20:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted files

Hi, you recently deleted the files which were uploaded by Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Fritz_Fehling User FritzFehling. As I was involoed with his contribs at de-wiki I just checked here and found these files re-uploaded. I am not familiar with the proceedings I just leave you a note and ask you to check the files Special:Contributions/Fritz_Fehling. Thie man is on a mission. btw. worth a look: [7], [8], [9] --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Files nuked, and user blocked indef. Daphne Lantier 06:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mike Pence official VP portrait.jpg

Can you undelete this file and let us take it to a discussion, please? User:Yann declared it was not copyrighted after one user constantly keeps trying to get it deleted. It came directly from the White House website with no OTRS or any other form saying that the author doesn't want it used. A discussion would be more appropriate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 12:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 18:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: I restored it, but it was pretty quickly re-deleted by Nick, a much more experienced admin than me, and someone who is no doubt more familiar with this case. Your options of course are to discuss it with Nick, and go from there, or to post a request at COM:UDEL. Daphne Lantier 06:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw, I appreciate your help! I'm not going to worry about it any longer. My main concern was one Admin. had said it was fine and another user trying to delete it. It's a shame that the photo isn't in the PD. Thanks again, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: Yes, it's becoming rather annoying now, what should be a work of a Federal Government employee, with the resulting automatic PD 'release' is unfortunately a work of a private contractor who has informed us via OTRS that he did not agree to the file being made available under a Creative Commons licence (though he did not file a DMCA takedown request). I've absolutely no objection to the file being discussed for undeletion, but as there are so many other copies and derivatives we've deleted now, and because the Donald Trump portraits have the same issue, any discussion would need to be one larger central discussion given the number of images any undeletion would impact. Nick (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: I would recommend going to UNDEL and see if a precedent can be set. I would support any Whitehouse released photograph, and by extension any government or government agency photograph, that gets challenged on copyright grounds to be obliged to raise a DMCA notice, rather than allowing the non-legal informality of an OTRS request. OTRS volunteers are not lawyers and cannot give legal advice, so should not be left in a position where they are making a final determination on behalf of Commons in secret. The official releases should be reliably non-revokable and if the claimed copyright holder wishes to assert their claim, in my view there is nothing wrong with asking for a DMCA notice which forces them to make a public legally binding statement. -- (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Refer to Commons:Village_pump#Setting_a_convention_for_when_DMCA_notices_are_required where you may wish to express a view. -- (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: I think this would come down to who paid the photographer. If US Gov funds were used, it'd be PD. If Trump and Pence paid him from their own private/personal accounts, then it'd be copyrighted. PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, some people argue that the file is under a free license, as mentioned on the source (sorry, I don't remember the details). Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There's certainly a case for that. PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

how to upload the picture to Commons, without it being removed?

Hi Daphne,

I am making an article about Unmani Liza Hyde.

I want to put one photograph of her. I tried to upload it to Commons, and I see that you deleted it, maybe because there was not yet a copyright waiver of the owner of the picture. Now I have the waiver, she (Unmani Liza Hyde) sent it already to, on 10th July. Can I try to upload it now? The file name is: UnmaniLizaHyde2016.jpeg


MarieOdiel van Rhijn

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Movanrhijn (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Once the the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, an OTRS agent will automatically make sure that the file is restored, so there's no need for you to re-upload it. Daphne Lantier 18:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the delinker

When you delete something the delinker removes it. So if you make a mistake, please check it and undo (done in this case). Thank you, Multichill (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion File:Banner of the Inca Empire.svg

Hi, I just joined Wikiproyecto:Perú on Spanish Wikipedia, and I noticed you had deleted this flag. I was curious about the reason for deletion. Thanks! Furicorn (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the newest version was taken from There are several different versions of the banner in the file's history. I'll see if I can restore the file to how it was before this latest version was uploaded. Daphne Lantier 19:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  Done I've restored it to the original rendition. Daphne Lantier 19:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Daphne, I'm afraid but it seems you just fell for some long-term sock scheme at COM:UDEL. While the copyright status of these files may be ok, the uploader is no longer welcome. See steward Vituzzu's earlier revert and mine. While I'm not particularly afraid of out-of-copyright images being restored, I wanted to let you know that others could interpret this as wheelwarring. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: I had no idea. I'll leave such requests alone from now on. My apologies. Daphne Lantier 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello Daphne Lantier,

I am handling ticket:2017071510009535. Could you please restore File:Rebecca Mader May 2017.jpg as it has a valid permission now?

And another question: I am not very familiar with Commons procedures. Is it OK to go to the talk page of admins with undeletion request when dealing with OTRS tickets? I mean is there is any public (general) page for such requests? I do not want to bother admins with my requests. Thank you so much. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: OTRS agents usually post their undeletion requests at COM:UDEL, but it's no big deal. I've restored the above image, so go ahead and add the OTRS ticket as soon as you get a chance. Daphne Lantier 18:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Good girls always help

Hi Daphne.

  • We need help to revert a wrong move made on the cat «Yeoreum (Cosmic Girls)». It was moved to "Yeoreum", while we have two vocalists with the same name. Therefore, I kindly request you to make "Yeoreum" a p of disam for «Yeoreum (Cosmic Girls)» and Category:Yeoreum (Hello Venus). Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:Yeoreum.
  • On the other hand, a redlink user wrote some personal attack words on my TP, possibly because I DR'ed some of their files. I deleted the talk as it contains very rude wording, which I prefer not to translate. I kindly request you to rev/del it.

Thanks in advance and have a good day. --E4024 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 16:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your userpage

do you always act on your own behalf? Your userpage looks like that. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What? Daphne Lantier 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Najtingalino


I'm monitoring an article on French Wikipedia, where some images were obvious copyvios. After you deleted the files listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Najtingalino, one of them has been re-uploaded and another one is probably a duplicate, both by a different user. Can you have a look at it?

Thanks, Trizek from FR 17:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done I've deleted the two new uploads and blocked both accounts. If you find any other socks, let me know. Daphne Lantier 17:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Trizek from FR 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello, I'm not the original uploader of the file, but I'm interested in having this file - File:ArthurGrimsdell.jpg undeleted. I started a discussion at the Village pump [10], and it has been suggested that there may be a case for undeletion. The reason being that the image was previously published on 25 April 1921 in a British newspaper Leeds Mercury with no attribution. The scanned page of the newspaper can be seen here - [11] (registration is required to view the page), the relevant image is at the bottom right corner . The photographer appears to be unknown from a search of the web and books (e.g. [12]). As such it may qualify as public domain {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}}. Gettyimages has claimed copyright on this image [13] and credited the image to Topical Press Agency and an unnamed photographer (referred by the generic term "stringer"), although it would seem that the copyright might have already expired. Hzh (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you post this at COM:UDEL. Daphne Lantier 17:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the picture

Hi, Please help reviewed the picture. Appreciate your help.

File:Jennie Kim at the Lee Honggi's Kiss the radio on July 5, 2017.png found on internet at bigger size here.
File:Lisa at the Cui Huajing's Power Time on July 7, 2017.png found on internet in more complete version showing her legs (here) -- also found on sites uploaded at earlier date than this Commons upload.

Thank you very much. Amber19950120 (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but these look like the person whose page you took these from was not the copyright holder. It looks like he took the images from other sources and claimed they were his. Daphne Lantier 04:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For you

  Turkish tea and walnut kurabiye
Thank you very much for the good job! Enjoy some tea and a kurabiye... E4024 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I do my best.   Daphne Lantier 07:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perereca-macaco - Phyllomedusa rohdei.jpg‎

Wow indeed for 39 support. I think that is the highest ever. In the last two years, we've only had four images I can find with 30 or more supports:

-- Colin (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's great to see images like this, and many others at FPC that roll through, quickly collecting a bunch of supports. It makes me feel like the work I do as an admin is all the more worthwhile, seeing that Commons really does have professional quality free images and pro photogs. Daphne Lantier 17:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your admin work. Yann (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
One of these days I'm going to top Fastily! It'll be a while...   Daphne Lantier 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap file

Hi Daphne. I had restored this per a request on COM:REFUND, as the copyright actually is OpenStreetMap's and the license is cc-by-sa-2.0. Apparently I forgot to remove the {{Copyvio}} though (d'oh!). I'd rather not simply restore it again myself; would you mind restoring it? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Have a great day :) Storkk (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Daphne Lantier/Archive 4".