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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →


File:Bo Derek on the Academy Awards Red Carpet.jpg

Any details on (very fast) deletion of File:Bo Derek on the Academy Awards Red Carpet.jpg? It is clearly marked as cc-by-2.0 at flickr ( (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Getty Images photo: Daphne Lantier 02:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: Unless you are very confident the flickr user is the photographer of an image in their flickr stream, I wouldn't trust flickr licensing one bit. And not all flickr licenses are Commons compatible, see Commons:Flickr files. PumpkinSky talk 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Yoonew (logo).jpg

Could you please explain how this is a 'Copyright violation'? It's the logo of an American company and obviously falls below TOO. -FASTILY 19:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This was tagged as a copyvio by Billinghurst. I'll restore it, and if he wants, he can file a deletion request. Daphne Lantier 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Please take care to review each item in Category:Copyright violations before deleting, as not everything in there is always correctly tagged. Regards, FASTILY 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-07#File:Saluc logo.svg

Hi Daphne Lantier. Just to let you know. Cheers, Leyo 20:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Band photo

Trying to find out why the file BAND LOGO 1632-2 LARGE COLOR NL.jpg was deleted? i am the webmaster for the band Lillian Axe and was sent this file by the artist and i have permission to use it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleaux (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Trying to find out why the file BAND LOGO 1632-2 LARGE COLOR NL.jpg was deleted? i am the webmaster for the band Lillian Axe and was sent this file by the artist and i have permission to use it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleaux (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Trying to find out why the file BAND LOGO 1632-2 LARGE COLOR NL.jpg was deleted? i am the webmaster for the band Lillian Axe and was sent this file by the artist and i have permission to use it.

--Joeleaux (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the directions given at OTRS. Daphne Lantier 19:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Mike Pence picture

Why did you delete File:Official VP Headshot.jpg? Copyright Policy: Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

See this recent deletion of the same image by Nick -- per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mike Pence official VP portrait.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mike Pence official portrait.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. Daphne Lantier 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, but I still don't understand how a statement from the grand high all-knowing commander in chief, about the copyright of Whitehouse website content, can be ruled invalid. I'll move on. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: I don't know any more about it than you do. I just know I restored it at COM:UDEL and converted an earlier speedy nomination to a DR, and that two hours later it was again deleted. I decided to move on too... Daphne Lantier 01:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: The photographer contacted us via our OTRS e-mail and has stated he did not agree to the files he created being released under a Creative Commons licence on the White House website and elsewhere. We have no reason to believe the photographer is lying or is mistaken, so out of an abundance of caution, we are removing any of the images he created and derivative images created from them. We have tried to clarify the situation with the White House and the photographer but so far, discussions are inconclusive and we cannot confirm with any degree of certainty the copyright status of the images. The best advice we can provide currently is to make use of any of the other images which we do know were taken by Federal Government employees and which are definitively public domain resources. Nick (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's not he said in the OTRS ticket. He only asked to be credited, but didn't answer when asked about a free license release. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I was told, or what has been explained in several discussions. If this is correct, then you should add this to the various discussions. I don't know why I seem to be the only person who is willing to deal with this when I don't take any part in dealing with OTRS, nor was involved in the original deletions. OTRS agents should be stepping up and dealing with this. Nick (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I read the whole ticket, and it is quite long. I already said that in several places, notably COM:UDR and COM:VPC, but nobody seems to care. As I don't care about Trump's picture more than that, I will let others deal with it. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Pioneer 10.svg

Hello. Why did you remove an original file with proper license - File:Pioneer 10 systems diagram.svg, and set redirect to this - File:Pioneer 10.svg, with license laundering? --Serhio Magpie (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I probably hit a wrong button and reversed the dupe tag by accident. I'll switch them back. Daphne Lantier 06:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  Done Alright, I've got them fixed now. Sorry for the confusion. Daphne Lantier 06:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Serhio Magpie (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


The following user has 77k+ edits on Commons and has a good file moving requests accepted. I request you to assign

atleast the file mover rights for further editing ease. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 12:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 17:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Priya Rai AEE 2013.jpg

Why did you delete this file when in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Priya Rai AEE 2013.jpg the reason that the nominator gave was "Priya Anjali Rai in blue dress". There seems to have no reason to delete and also if you see is last editions you can see he is a vandal. Thanks anyway. Tm (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tm: I went a bit to fast with that one and mistakenly deleted it. I've restored the image. Thanks for catching that. My apologies. Daphne Lantier 17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: No need to apologize as i knew what you did was a honest mistake. We all make them from time to time. Thanks again for the speedy answer and undeletion. Tm (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panoramica di Arzano.jpg

Hello Daphne. I was checking the image upoloaded by that user. He released his own images with a CC open license, but now he says that he's not happy beacause other sites are using those images without citing his name. Is this a valid reason for a deletion? Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 13:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion was mistaken. I've restored the file and noted this at the DR. Daphne Lantier 18:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft

If COM:UDEL would be a more appropriate venue, I'll gladly take it there instead, but since you were the closing admin I thought it would be easier to just bring it up here. I believe that three of the files in the DR I filed should not have been deleted:

  • The content of Tinkers Construct smeltery.png is available under the MIT license, and doesn't contain anything from the base game. El Grafo made the same comment on the DR.
  • Captura Minecraft Galipedia.jpg was made up of text from the Galacian Wikipedia and a photo already on Commons, both freely licensed and attributed correctly.
  • FelixINX Avatar.png is a personal skin uploaded by the uploader, which does not derive from any copyrighted Minecraft content. It is not a copyright violation and it satisfies COM:INUSE.

--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lewis Hulbert: No need to waste your time at UDEL. I figured it'd be easier to just delete the whole of those DRs and restore a few afterwards. I've restored these three here. Daphne Lantier 03:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted the delinker too BTW. Daphne Lantier 03:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Snow Suen.jpg & File:Jessica Kan.jpg

I am shocked that my photos were deleted by such a weak reason "Likely a photo found on Internet". I am an experienced contributor who started contributing since 2011, and has uploaded 1000+ self-taken photos. I thought I should be considered as a trustworthy user.

Even if anyone have suspicions for the photos, why don't check the Metadata? File:Snow Suen.jpg was taken on 21/1 (Sat) pm in Causeway Bay by SONY E6653 (Xperia Z5), and I have another photo taken at that time period in the place nearby by the same device. File:Jessica Kan.jpg was taken on 22/1 (Sun) pm in Mong Kok by SONY E6653 (Xperia Z5), and also I have another photo taken at that time period in the place nearby by the same device. These 2 photo were cropped to remove useless parts in order to get more focus to the subject. I can provide the original photos if needed.

Futhermore, when someone just said it is "Likely a photo found on Internet", but cannot provide the same photo from elsewhere in the internet, the deletion reason is actually very weak. If the photo is uploaded by a newbie, it is still reasonable to have the suspicion. Howerver, I am an user with over 6 years contribution history, how come the photo still being deleted arbitrarily? I hope you can review the cases. Thank you very much. --Ceeseven (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ceeseven: I've restored these two files. A big part of the deletion was that the deletion requests were unchallenged by you. In future, please try to respond at the deletion request, which lasts a whole week, rather than showing up after the uncontested deletion request has been closed as delete. Admins like myself deal with hundreds of deletion requests each day, so we need help from uploaders. Putting in a keep vote at a deletion request is very helpful for us. Daphne Lantier 16:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. As I am busy in these few months, I seldom log in recently, so when I noticed the deletion requests, the photos were already deleted. I did not expect that someone would challenge my photos, but now I will try to come here more often to monitor the status of my works.--Ceeseven (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Ich bin ein Niemand, du weißt Alles über mich, doch ICH niemals über dich, schade

Umweltheizung (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi, after a request within the community of deWP I started Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Jamesd.jpg, for a file you deleted. I forgot to ask you about it first, sorry for that; could you intervene? Best regards, XanonymusX (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The uploader of the file, JamesDukeMason, only did that one upload in 2009. A small file with no COM:EXIF, uploaded by a drive-by user, is pretty suspicious on its own, and this isn't a selfie, as Jim says at UDEL, so the uploader is very likely not the author. Other than that, if the file is in scope, I don't object to restoration. But the copyright status must be figured out first of course. Daphne Lantier 17:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You delete my picture

Cfd closing

Can u answer me here a question? sry have just one hand free to type.--Sanandros (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sanandros: You can close these manually by adding {{cfdh}} at top and at bottom type ---- and '''Done:''' (your decision) & signature, followed by {{cfdf}}. Daphne Lantier 22:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for un-rotating Centauros A

Hello Daphne,

thank you for un-rotating the Centauros A image. --Blauer elephant (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem.   Daphne Lantier 07:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Giovanni Antonio Canal, il Canaletto - Regatta on the Canale Grande.jpg

That's not a duplicate, it's not the same file, the colours are completely different. Please restore. You should really be more careful. Multichill (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The file I deleted is a lower quality, terrible looking version of the above. I see no reason to restore it. You'll have to take this to COM:UDEL if you want it restored, though why you would want such an inferior file restored is beyond me, especially when we have this high quality version. Daphne Lantier 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my photos?

Hi Daphne,

I have a moderately large upload history. I need to upload photos to Wikimedia Commons so that I can link them to my online computer analysis notebook. All of the photos I have uploaded except the most recent one was deleted by you. Why?



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Finchk (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
They were deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Finchk. Daphne Lantier 18:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Literature II tom, Harutyun Surkhatian.djvu

Hi Daphne, You closed this as Deleted. Do you mean Kept? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: This looks to be broken, so I tried to delete it. I got this error:

"API request failed (backend-fail-internal): An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-multiwrite"."

I've got it watched and intend to keep trying till it deletes. If you know what tag is used to indicate a deletion bug, can you add it to the image? I've seen the tag, but I don't know what the exact template is called. Daphne Lantier 01:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's already tagged - this same image has been undeletable for about two weeks now... Daphne Lantier 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:McLean County Courthouse Old.jpg

Did you also mean to delete File:McLean County Courthouse Old2.jpg? kennethaw88talk 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thanks. Sometimes those are tough to spot. Daphne Lantier 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Seb26/Tasnim maintenance/FOP evaluation

Hey Daphne.

When I was preparing this request, I nominated the following two files, but they were probably removed from the DR page itself by me by accident while I was formatting its list. Would you mind deleting them?


seb26 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 17:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate photos of United Kingdom MPs

Please note Commons:Village pump#Duplicate photos of United Kingdom MPs and preserve the images which are named in series. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about deletion of photos


I noticed that you deleted these files, although the problem the files had (that their license was "not compatible to commons") was no longer relevant, as the source for the photos had its license changed to a commons-compatible CC BY-4.0. So why were they deleted? Applodion (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I've reversed my action and restored them. Daphne Lantier 20:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. ^^ Applodion (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

License review

Hi Daphne, I wasn't trying to call you out or question your reviews at all. At the time I posted on VP/C those images were unreviewed. It was about ten hours later when you reviewed them. I was only trying to be thorough with my own reviews, especially because I'm new to the process. The anonymous user jumped in and made the thread more accusatory than I'd ever intended. Guanaco (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: A quick search in the file namespace shows more than 500 results for Trainpix. The vast majority of these have been reviewed by me or INeverCry. INC is on a long break, but I'm right here. Regardless of the timing of those 3 reviews, your question puts me on blast at COM:VP/C for the 200 or more I've reviewed, and even calls INC's reviews into question. That's not working together. I would've looked for an active reviewer (like me) to ask if I was in your place. It seems to me that you've come in at LR to take over. I won't be standing in your way. Daphne Lantier 00:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to take over, and I can't. From the 7th to the 22nd I'll be mostly away, though I hope to come back with some good photos. I also don't think I'm qualified to be in charge of LR, because I know I've made at least a few mistakes of my own recently. I value your work, because you've done a lot of it and I think you get it right almost every time.
Honestly I didn't think to investigate who had reviewed similar files. I'd seen the warning on {{Cc-by}} and studied the license incompatibilities of CC BY-SA versions, then during my review I saw the lack of specific licensing on the site. I thought VP/C would be a good place for such a simple question, but it seems I was wrong. I only mean to help, and I'm sorry it didn't come off that way. If it's still okay with you, I'll try to come to you first with license questions. Guanaco (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: I see you and the IP are talking about changing licenses and putting the files back up for review. I spent hours reviewing them. One thing I hate to see on Commons is hair-splitting image detective work. We have 500k+ blatant copyvios and out of scope images, but let's create a hassle for a trusted editor like Xenotron, who only uploads train-related images for use at, and who uses Trainpix as a native Russian-speaker, and for a reviewer who donates an hour or more of her time each day to license reviews. I don't need the irritation. I'm sure you'll do just as good as I have keeping the review backlog manageable. As for questions, I'd rather you didn't come to me. COM:VP/C will be fine. Take care. Daphne Lantier 06:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Creations by User:Chanthorn.mao

A few days ago you deleted File:Cam-vs-maungthong-39 large.jpg, an image uploaded by Chanthorn.mao (talk · contribs). Could I get you to review this editor's remaining uploads, as I sincerely doubt that they are this editor's own work as claimed? I've nominated the three images for deletion where I found obvious evidence that they weren't, but I don't really know enough about commons deletion procedures to know what to do about the rest. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Uploads nuked, user warned. Daphne Lantier 03:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh photos

Hello. What's wrong with the licenses of these two images? [1] & [2] They're like Leigh's other images on Wikimedia Commons: "public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". for example : [3] or [4] CerberaOdollam (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

These have a watermark in the bottom left corner that says "(c) PA". This would seem to be a copyright notice. Daphne Lantier 17:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Grounds for deletion

Thanks for your hard work. I have a question for the rationale of two deletions, however: File:UniGöttingen-Theology.jpg and File:Uni gottingen siegel.svg. The question posed was whether the University of Göttingen was a de:Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Deutschland). If so, use of the images is permissible. If not, it is not. Although the nominator doubted (without explicit declaration as to why, apart from general impression) whether universities fell into that category, both the aforementioned article itself and, more importantly, the official website of the respective university (more specifically, its legal page) indicated that the University of Göttingen was in fact such a body, which means its images are therefore open for use, as previously done.

For this reason, the file could perhaps be deleted on other grounds – but not on these. Furthermore, if this specific rationale were to be applied consistently, then all such images from public universities and institutes (not exclusively German) should then be deleted across the entire platform. But here again, it would need to be on different grounds. Clarification would be appreciated. --Foosland (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

These were nominated for deletion by a native German-speaking administrator/bureaucrat in Commons:Deletion requests/File:UniGöttingen-Theology.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uni gottingen siegel.svg. JuTa is much more experienced than me, and so I applied COM:PCP because of his doubts. It would be better to discuss these cases with him or to take them to either COM:UDEL or COM:VP/C. Daphne Lantier 02:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

About deletion photo: File:Celso Kallarrari recebendo o Prêmio da Associação de Liderança Brasil, 2015.jpg

Daphne Lantier, good afternoon! The photo I insert is my own. It was not taken on the web (as images of the internet), but taken in a public event, according to the regulation of Wikimedia Commons, that is, "images of people taken in public events." From the moment a person poses for a photo in a public ceremony, it is automatically entitled to the publication of said photo. What you might question in the photo are the other people (although not identifiable) that appear in the background, since they did not give us the right to publish. However, in this case, we can crop the photo by removing from it the images of people in the background. In that sense, I hope your considerations !!!Vivi1985 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The metadata of the image states that the author is Luiz Ruggero. We need OTRS permission from Mr. Ruggero. Daphne Lantier 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing Ara-mailikian-2016.jpg || 12:23 19 jul 2017‎

Hi Daphne, We have try to upload a actual AraMalikian´s photo, and i don´t know why it has been deleted. My company is the owner of the photo and we hace the consent of the photographer. What do we have to do to change it correctly?, Where was our fault?

The image is Ara -mailikian-2016.jpg

act | ant) 12:23 19 jul 2017‎ Yvonnefmur (discusión | contribuciones)‎ . . (9440 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (Photo) (deshacer | agradecer) (act | ant) 16:09 19 jul 2017‎ CommonsDelinker (discusión | contribuciones)‎ . . (9304 bytes) (-136)‎ . . (Removing Ara-mailikian-2016.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Daphne Lantier because: Copyright violation, see c:Commons:Licensing.) (deshacer)


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel puyuelo (talk • contribs) 09:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
OTRS permission from the photographer is required. Daphne Lantier 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing of At_the_Still_Point-The_Statesmen_and_the_Rulers_.jpg and "Ginevra_de_Benci_-13"_by_Shane_Guffogg,_2011.jpg

Hello Daphne,

I hope you are well. Both pictures of Shane Guffogg's work that were posted on his page were given to me by him to post on his Wikipedia. I am curious as to know why they were deleted and how I could prevent other and future images to be deleted. I look forward to hearing from you. Sarah.chapman1 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We need OTRS permission from Shane Guffogg. Daphne Lantier 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Imagenes del articulo Camargo (Chihuahua)

Hola, las imagenes que yo subí a Wikimedia son de mi autoria, imagenes que tambien subi a mi cuenta de Facebook y Youtube, después con esas imágenes contribui a el artículo de Camargo. Pero he visto que las has quitado de ahí, ¿entonces quiero saber cómo puedo hacer para que las pueda restablecer?--Lalof3 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

These were deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lalof3. Daphne Lantier 05:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
* Daphne, see also my reply here. JGHowes talk - 12:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-0122`JUDY-KWONG’.jpg [5]

Hello, Miss Lantier. I don't know the reason why my photo was deleted. Could you restore the page if I register a legal copyright through a company or website? I will paste it on " Summary " of the page. -- Miss Skyblue (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you post a request at COM:UDEL or that you send a permission email via COM:OTRS. Daphne Lantier 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance. -- Miss Skyblue (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Daphne

First of all, let me thank you for accepting my requests of speedy deletion of several pages. However, one of those deleted pages still appears in! On the page it's stated: " This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons", although the page does not exist anymore in Wikimedia. How can this be solved?

I profoundly appreciate your cooperation.

Best regards,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenki28 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
If the site is an actual wiki, you may just have a cache lag. If the site is independent, and uses media directly, you'd have to email them and notify them of the copyright violation. Daphne Lantier 22:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:OA Button.webm (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:OA Button.webm) (global usage; delinker log)

Hi Daphne -

The OAButton website is under an MIT license ( so there is no potential copyright problem there. Will it be ok to republish if I add the MIT License link in the blurb area?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lochoa23 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it was deleted because you only marked it as "own work" with no link to any license. Daphne Lantier 19:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:E18 019 vor VES-M Halle 10-1984.jpg

Please review the deletion as the alleged duplicate is gone too. --Denniss (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Denniss: I've restored File:E 218 019 Halle1.jpg. I haven't a clue how or why I came to delete it in the first place. I'm glad you noticed. Thanks for the help. Daphne Lantier 23:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems one was processed as duplicate but improperly handled (DR was neither removed nor a note left there). See there--Denniss (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi, this image is still available on DoD sites as public domain (and is declared as released by the Marinette Marine Corp). Looking at it, I cannot see why it is a copyright violation. Could you please consider undeleting and raising a DR? If a copyright owner has challenged the photograph, then I would like to see an OTRS ticket reference as part of the deletion record. To avoid unnecessary doubt on Commons, I believe it would be sensible to avoid removing photographs from Commons where there is no evidence of take down on any U.S. Federal archive or gallery unless there has been an extremely obvious error. Thanks -- (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This was marked as a copyvio by Denniss with the following rationale: Marking as possible copyvio because per exif data it's not a work of US federal governmant but of Marinette Marine Corporation and published with permission - PD-US Navy is invalid. Daphne Lantier 08:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'm aware of that scenario. However the photograph is declared as released. If we should change the licence to something else, that can be discussed in a DR. Please undel and create a DR. There is no evidence that this is a "simple" matter of copyright violation.
BTW, you may wish to consider how long this file has been hosted on Commons without issue, something I can not see as it needs sysop right post-deletion, but I would guess 6 years making it virtually grandfathered.
By checking EXIF elsewhere, I can see that there is no copyright claim by MM Corp, just the word "released". In these circumstances a DR is highly desirable as there is no obvious evidence to support a claim of copyvio. -- (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 110928-N-IC287-002 The littoral combat ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Fort Worth (LCS 3) transits through the Menekaunee Bridge in Green.jpg. Daphne Lantier 09:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Fae, you know (or should know) better - Released just means cleared for public release like (contains no secret elements). It's not a copyright statement. --Denniss (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Informe Tecnico N° 1

hello i want to know why you delete my Informe Técnico N° 1

Saludos Ing.JCC

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ing.JCC (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It was deleted as being out of Commons project scope: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Informe Técnico N° 1 - Edición 2.2.2.pdf. Daphne Lantier 08:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

FOP Israel

Hi, you speedied File:Eos xk (3), 1965.JPG and File:Musée de Jérusalem - Israël (7556056486).jpg als copyvios without thinking of FOP. In Israel the rules for FOP are pretty wide, as you can see at Commons:FOP. I restored both. --h-stt !? 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@H-stt: Thanks for the help. It's good to hear Israel has wide FoP. I don't deal with many Israeli images, though I did see some really great black and white images of Israel in the early days uploaded by Geagea. I hope to see more of those. Daphne Lantier 02:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks h-stt. Mistakes can happen. We are only human. -- Geagea (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Tram and taxi smash in Pitt Street 1937.jpg

Who originally uploaded File:Tram and taxi smash in Pitt Street 1937.jpg and when? If the lower res was uploaded before November 2016, then File:Tram and taxi smash in Pitt Street, 25-6-1937 - Sam Hood (2965612534).jpg should've been deleted with the correct res uploaded on the other. Bidgee (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bidgee: The redirected one was uploaded in a small size in 2014 and then the 1,100 × 833 resolution version was uploaded over it today by Elisfkc. It was Elisfkc that tagged his overwritten version as a dupe. The files are identical. Daphne Lantier 02:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It should've been done the other way round. The older file (even if it was lower res, as the higher res would be uploaded to it) is the one that always stays. It would've had better organisation. Please undelete and delete the other upload File:Tram and taxi smash in Pitt Street, 25-6-1937 - Sam Hood (2965612534).jpg. Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done Daphne Lantier 05:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Purplebackpack89

Could I get some more talk page and user page protection? The sock vandal is back, and he's threatened worse next week in this comment. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done User & talk pages protected for 1 year. Daphne Lantier 06:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Improper removal of File:Gavaari Bhanjara scens with gypsy trader being blocked by Meena bandits.jpg

Dear Ms. Lantier,

I have done the primary posting for the Wikipedia Gavari page and am writing on behalf of Harishankar Meghwal (WC user name & pen name Harish Agneya) who is a friend and not a fluent English speaker.

The picture you removed - Gavaari_Bhanjara_scens_with_gypsy_trader_being_blocked_by_Meena_bandits.jpg - is most definitely his work and is an adaption of one of his photos shown in his published work on Gavari: - Click on "See all 6 images" link to see another adaption of same photo.

He has been a relentless and selfless promoter of Gavari culture for many years and has contributed use of his work to many sites that deal with this topic, including the one you cite as evidence that the work is "not likely" his.

Please do whatever you have to do to undelete the picture as soon as possible. It is a striking significant image and eminently worth displaying on the Gavari page.

Thank you for your own selfless contributions to Wiki-world, but this was a mistake.

With respect and hopes for rapid corrections Eklingdas (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: Here is a picture of Harish-ji from the same website you say suggests he is not the picture's originator:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklingdas (talk • contribs) 04:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a self-taken photo. We need OTRS permission from the copyright holder, and that's usually the photographer. Daphne Lantier 06:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this IS a self-taken photo and was personally uploaded by the photographer Harishankar Meghwal who uses the pen name Harish Agneya. Why is this in doubt or so hard to understand? Eklingdas (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Eklingdas: Since this was previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Yann and Daphne, this is getting a bit surreal. The picture's author, copyright owner and Wiki Commons uploader are all the same person: Harishankar Meghwal/Harish Agneya. The only places he "published" it were in his own 2014 book and a Gavari website to which he contributes and is a core member of the team. You may also note re provenance, his book's cover graphic is the same character depicted in our photo here; and Harish-ji is not only the author of the book. but also its publisher. This is all indicated pretty clearly in my messages above, so I just can't fathom your reasoning. An individual tries to contribute a personally created picture to this Commons, but you won't accept it because he or she used it online somewhere else? And how is he supposed to send permission to himself to use his own picture? None of this makes any sense... Eklingdas (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Eklingdas: All accounts here are basically pseudonymous. There is no check that a "John Smith" account is in fact created by someone called John Smith. We also have quite a lot of files uploaded which are in fact copyright violations, with wrong claims of a free license. That's why we require that an image published and/or attributed to someone outside of Wikimedia gets a formal written permission. The processus to send a permission is quite easy, and would not require more than a few minutes. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, Harish has reloaded the file and applied for OTRS permission. Don't know how long that process takes but it's underway now. 03:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklingdas (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mirrors That Hang On Glass Threads.webm

Hi Daphne Lantier, could you please comment on this DR? This is about File:Mirrors That Hang On Glass Threads.webm, a movie whose license was recently reviewed by you. Thanks & kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've commented at the DR. Daphne Lantier 18:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted files

Hi, could you take a second look at these two files? I think I meant for the old revision to be deleted, with the cropped version being ok as de minimis. Guanaco (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Files restored and old revisions hidden. Daphne Lantier 21:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Purplebackpack89

Any chance I could persuade you to delete the handiwork of the SPA sock? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Already   Done by Natuur12. Daphne Lantier 23:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request for Bengkulu Utara

Hello Daphne Lantier, please delete Bengkulu Utara. The file is unused file, because I've uploaded the new one of it.

Regards and thanks. Relly Komaruzaman | Talk 05:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 05:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Nəcəfqulu Nəcəfov 1913.jpg

Hi. You've deleted this photo which was licensed with {{subst:PD-Russia-1923}}. But as I discovered just now this photo was made in Iran in 1913 and this year was stated in the name of file. As the person lived and worked in Isfahan, Iran from 1912 to 1915 it is obvious that the photo was made there. According to these rules the work is in public domain. So please restore this file. Thanks in advance.--Wertuose (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wertuose: Restored. Please fix the licensing. Daphne Lantier 20:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

le vieux tours

chère Daphne Lantier, ne parlant pas anglais, je vous parlerais donc en français, j'aimerais bien comprendre votre mode de sélection de suppression sur la page du vieux tours, ces fichiers photos ont été fait par moi, le premier s'appelle, Place foire le roi église des jacobins.jpg, et l'image vue-de-nuit-sur-la-basilique-saint martin, le fichier n'a donc rien avoir avec l'image, bizarre ou erreur voulu. Petit deux, sur les fichiers que vous supprimez curieusement vous conservez * File:Rue du commerce église saint saturnin.jpg ?????, mais vous supprimez * File:Rue colbert église saint pierre du boille.jpg pourquoi ???, et surtout pourquoi avoir supprimé la liste qui suit. Je ne pense pas que j'aurai une réponse de vous, car je persiste à dire que cette procédure, que LX et vos copains ont lancé contre desprez37, le jour de son anniversaire n'est réalisé que pour faire mal, totalement mal sans aucuns respect,et je ne suis pas parano, proche de la dictature et de l'histoire qui n'est qu'un mensonge que nul ne conteste. cordialement --Desprez37 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC) pantin, France, le 05 aout 2017

@Yann:, @Christian Ferrer: I followed the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Desprez37 closely in doing these deletions. Can you guys help out here to see what the problem is? I've translated the above message with Yandex, and it seems that something rude is being said about me and LX... Daphne Lantier 22:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Bonjour Desprez37,
Les fichiers ont été supprimés car soit 1. ils sont copiés depuis Internet sans autorisation, 2. les copies d'anciens documents ne contiennent pas toutes les informations nécessaires (source, auteur, date, etc.). Pour les premiers, il faut une autorisation de l'auteur. Pour les seconds, vous pouvez demander la restauration sur COM:UDR en précisant les informations manquantes. Merci de rester calme et poli. N'hésitez pas à me demander si vous avez des questions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

le vieux tours 2

chère Daphne Lantier je ne vois pas ou et la grossièreté d'écrire " do not think I'll have an answer from you, because I still say that this procedure, which LX and your buddies have launched against desprez37, the day of his birthday is only realized to hurt, totally bad without any Respect, and I am not paranoid, close to the dictatorship and the history which is only a lie that no one disputes, ou plus simplement plus c'est gros, plus c'est faux .

je ne revient pas sur votre décision, soit (petit 1) j'ai téléchargé des fichiers sur internet, comme tout le monde, mais dans la boite de dialogue il y avait 13 fichiers photo a supprimés qui ont été acceptés plus 15 fichiers sans droit , soit 28 fichier, soit les 10% des fichiers photos que j'ai glané sur internet, mais notre chère Daphne en a supprimées ( petit 2) 69 rien que sur la page du vieux tours, ont passe de 28 a 69 sans raison et 69 c'est ma date anniversaire, personnellement ont se fout de moi et je suis très poli et calme, ont me dis les autres ont été supprimées pour d'autres raisons, mais il n'y a rien dans la boite de dialogue qui en fait mention donc (petit 1) OK ( petit 2) pas d'accord c'est de l'abus de droit, c'est autoritaire comme l'écris LX " It seems the uploader either doesn't understand or doesn't care what the words "author", "copyright holder" or "own work" mean" ont juge sans foi.cordialement, peut être --Desprez37 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday.   Daphne Lantier 02:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

vieux tours 3

non seulement vous êtes bête mais en plus vous êtes méchante. je vais faire parvenir sur le web nos conversations, pour montrer qui vous êtes.--Desprez37 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • He's now blocked for a week. Daphne Lantier 06:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

bonne anniversaire

chère daphne lantier et tout ses copains, sans vouloir être impoli et je ne le suis pas, vous avez fais expert d'être méchante en vers moi avec ce " joyeux anniversaire " et tout le web va le savoir et va parfaitement comprendre ce que vous voulez dire comme " joyeux anniversaire " les gens sur le web ne sont pas stupides. je ne cherche pas a faire une guerre d'édition mais a montre à la face d'internet que certaines pratiques ou certaines personnes n'ont peut être pas leur place dans des projets collaboratifs et démocratiques. à bientôt --Desprez37 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I appreciate you warning him, but he doesn't look to have taken it seriously. "I'll see you soon" - what's that veiled threat supposed to mean? If he sees me soon, it will be while I indef block him. @Desprez37: Understand fully that if you post on my talk page again, I will block you indefinitely. Take your threats elsewhere. I don't put up with bullies and keyboard warriors. Daphne Lantier 06:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I endorse the block and I would certainly had done it if you had not done it. "Happy birthday" was maybe understood as a sarcasm, but first, here we "assume good faith", and this "Happy birthday" was maybe really a "Happy birthday", secondly the civility of Desprez37 was discussable since the beginning, and threats of any kind can't be tolerate, even in a situation of frustration. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I was trying to joke around with him a little by saying happy birthday to see if he would calm down, but he just kept coming. I still don't understand what he was so angry about. He calls LX "my buddy", but I've never spoken to LX in my time on Commons even once, that I can remember. Daphne Lantier 06:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Charge of status


I have seen that you ahve changed my status ( I am flattered but to what do I owe this and what that implies?

Pierre cb (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This just signifies that you're a trusted and experienced editor, and that if you need the right, you'll have it. You don't have to use it or do anything different. I just like to make sure trusted and experienced editors have all the tools they may need while working on Commons. Daphne Lantier 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I also noticed that you did the same for me, thank you. Ubcule (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Audio from

Hello, thanks for taking care of the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Audio from However, it seems like you have deleted File:Sv-kultur.ogg altogether, but I believe the original version of the file (which I had reverted the file to) was not taken from and was compatible with Commons. If so, I believe the file should be restored with the original version. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Original restored. Daphne Lantier 04:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pictures from government documentation

Hi, I noticed you've deleted 3 pictures (File:印军越界地点示意图.png, File:印军越界现场照片(一).png, File:印军越界现场照片(二).png) which I uploaded last week. Those pictures are from P. R. China Ministry of Foreign Affairs's official paper, titled with "facts and China's position concerning Indian border troops' crossing of China-India boundary"; there's also English version available. The question is: whether government's documentation should be considered as public record or not? According to Government works, "Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries." Since Copyright Law of the People 's Republic of China already stated in Article 5 that "本法不适用于:(一)法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件,及其官方正式译文 (This Law shall not apply to: (A) laws, regulations, decisions of state organs, decisions, orders and other documents with legislative, administrative and judicial nature, and official official translation)", so it is clear that the China MFA's official paper should be public domain - including attached pictures. The same understandings could be seen at About Copyright of Government Documentation on Chinese Wikisource. --Liouxiao (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you post an official undeletion request at COM:UDEL. Daphne Lantier 04:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I've posted a request there. Thanks! Liouxiao (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Beijing Airport T3 Building - panoramio (5).jpg

Hi Daphne, I hope you are well. You speedily deleted this file on request by Tyg728, who has been abusing the {{Speedy}} tag. The deletion rationale is that the photo is blurry, but image quality is not a speedy deletion criterion. Could you please restore and nominate it for a full DR? I've asked Tyg728 to stop using the template until they understand the criteria. All the best, Storkk (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 17:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Daphne! Storkk (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Similar categories

Hi: We have Category:Dogs surfing, created in 2014, and within which I just created a new subcategory, Category:World Dog Surfing Championships. However I now see we also have Category:Surfing dogs, created this year. What's to be done? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done I've made Category:Surfing dogs a redirect to Category:Dogs surfing. Daphne Lantier 19:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Statue of archibishop Damaskinos in Athens.jpg

Привет! Перешли мне пожалуйста оригинал удаленной тобой фотографии на мыло: Юкатан (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Daphne Lantier 08:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanx. Юкатан (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi! You have blocked the mentioned account indefinitely, stating that it is bot created account. I am an admin on huwiki and I can inform you that that is not a robot, it is a photoartist lady, who would like to share some of her pictures on Commons. User:Solymari is a relative, who is an established editor on huwiki. Certainly, all the copyright issues will be dealt with on all uploaded pictures, according to your guidelines. Do you think it would be possible to give her a chance to enrich Wikipedia? --Burumbátor (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Daphne Lantier. One of our users on huwiki complained that you had blocked User:Kriszti2083 on account of Bot created pattern account. This user is not a bot, she is his wife. Unfortunately he cannot log in as the IP is also blocked. Can you please review and release the block? Thanks. Csigabi (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Burumbátor, Csigabi, Kriszti2083:   Done I've unblocked the account. My apologies for my mistaken false positive spambot ID. Daphne Lantier 17:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Daphne. Csigabi (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ice-cold fresh gazpacho for you

  'Cause you're a jolly good admin
Enjoy! E4024 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ain't I?   Daphne Lantier 07:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Portrait Luise Wolfram

Hey Daphne You recently deleted the file "Luise Wolfram", wich i was allowed to upload by luise wolfram, who has the rights for the portrait. Apparantly she didn't send the photo when she send the clearence to the permissions-email. She did send it again now so i wanted to try upload the file again, but i can't since it's been deleted before. Can you help me figure out how the picture finally gets enabled? We thought we took all the steps necessary? Or didIi forget something?

ACKWiki, 7.8.2017 ACK Wiki (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If permission was sent to OTRS, it should be an OTRS member who either restores the file or requests it to be restored. You can post on COM:OTRS/N or another email can be sent to OTRS. Daphne Lantier 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


In view of your closure of this and the discussion that followed here, you may want to consider this edit. -- Tuválkin 22:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I've noticed that you've engaged in discussion at Eugene's talk page. If that discussion hasn't resolved the issue, than I think it's now the proper time to take this issue to COM:AN/U. I'm a new admin, while Eugene is an experienced admin and 'crat. This is a situation where community input is needed. Now that you've tried discussion, you can bring the case to AN/U without having to be concerned that the post is premature. Eugene can explain himself and his actions at AN/U, and the community (especially more experienced members of it than me) can decide whether or not they approve of his behavior. Daphne Lantier 22:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tennent's lager can.jpg

Hi! I'm not asking you to reconsider :) Just one doubt that I have, because I would have closed this one differently: in the bottom right of the can, there is a signature, which is not "simple text". Unless Mr. Tennent died more than 70 years ago, wouldn't this sign be copyrighted? --Ruthven (msg) 06:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: The signature might be COM:DM since it takes up such a small space, but even if it isn't, the bottom of the can could be cropped out rather than deleting the whole image. Daphne Lantier 08:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

License review

I added a ton of files to license review. A couple things I've noticed, if you decide to help tackle this:

  • has some files which may be license laundered, as [6] (note the actual source link saying all rights reserved).
  • The ones from only have links to the source file, not the data. A lot of these are mislabeled, especially licenses that are cc-by-sa-2.0-fr at the source but not here. Some are actually NC like the one I tagged and you deleted.

I'll try to tackle as many as I can before I leave. Guanaco (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: I'll get to as many as I can. It's too bad we don't have more active reviewers. The most active reviewer, INeverCry, is on a long break unfortunately. Daphne Lantier 17:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Duncan Brown

Hi. I'm later for this discussion, sorry. I note that you nominated and deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Duncan Brown. Can you tell me the size of the largest and the size of the smallest image please. Is there a minimum size? I also see that not having EXIF info is now a benchmark for removing images? That's news to me! I'm not an expert on Commons, but want to see fair play being done as Duncan is a new editor on WP and an expert in his field. John Jones (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Size and EXIF aren't hard rules, but are indicators that the file could have been downloaded from a web site somewhere, as opposed to uploaded by the person who took the photo. Modern digital cameras normally produce large images with EXIF data. Both tend to be removed when uploading images to web sites to illustrate web pages, in order to decrease file size and reduce web page loading time. So uploading a small image without EXIF data is a hint that the uploader doesn't have access to the original digital photo. Since Duncan Brown is an expert in his field, I'm guessing that the photos in question were of professional quality? That would also be an indicator - though we do have a non-negligible number of actual experts contributing to Wikimedia, strangely enough, for every actual expert, there are multiple amateurs who try to take their work without permission, and that's what we're trying to guard against. As Brown is an actual professional in the field, then I'd recommend him sending an email to (also known as COM:OTRS) to verify his identity, from his work email address, or giving some other sign that is highly unlikely to be from a random impersonator. As that page says, it could take a while for the OTRS folks to respond manually, but there should be an automated reply that gives a ticket number, that can be used to make a {{OTRS pending}} tag; when you get it, post it here, and Daphne or another admin will likely undelete the files with that tag until the manual OTRS response comes. She is highly reasonable (and does the work of twenty ordinary people, so I am here trying to take just a bit off her shoulders). --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

images being marked for copyvio and deleted without addressing my talk page responses

Hi, this is in regards to the commons images i uploaded recently that you deleted. i explained on the talk pages of two of the images that these are prototype pages created for wikimedia foundation research and testing and have no licensing restrictions. please revert these deletions. two others were deleted without me even getting a chance to post on those images' talk pages. there will be many future uploads similar to this, and if you can let me know how to avoid these deletions that would be appreciated. Dchen (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dchen (WMF): I've restored your 4 uploads. I would suggest that you ask at COM:VP or COM:VP/C about coming up with a licensing template that can be placed on the file page that will fit these and future uploads. Daphne Lantier 18:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier:Looks like one of them is already retagged with the copyvio :( I'll take a look at the provided links. Thanks. Dchen (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from

Hi Daphne! Thx for closing above DR... but the related template and category are still "living" (probadly because they were added to the DR manually). Could you reevaluate your closure? Thx. Gunnex (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Deleted. Who knows what the hell I was looking at?   Daphne Lantier 07:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thx again :-). My rationale in DRs may cause confusion in some cases, like here: could you pls restore File:Darcy Ribeiro.jpg. This file is the original, unproblematic file which was duplicated by nominated File:Darcy Ribeiro Agência Brasil.jpg   Gunnex (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done You and LX are very thorough with your DRs...   Daphne Lantier 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

  --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure.   Daphne Lantier 00:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I received a message yesterday from Glorious 93 indicating that this file has been removed for copyright violation. I took the photo in question, which is also online at:

and have utterly no idea why it was flagged. I wrote to Glorious 93 to say as much, but have not received a response, and gather that the photo has not been restored.

I see at:

that you are credited with the deletion. Hence, this message. I'll be grateful for a response, and am quite curious to know why the photo was flagged in the first place.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Adams (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It violates Commons:Freedom of panorama#Greece. Daphne Lantier 05:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and I offer apologies for not properly signing my last message.

I checked the 'Freedom of panorama' link you provided, and saw:

The copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim some rights under certain conditions (see § 29).

According to:

this cathedral was built in 1940, seventy-seven years ago.

If this doesn't persuade you, I'll respectfully withdraw, and live with the deletion. --Tim Adams (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It was built in 1940, but when did the author die? If he died after 1946, the 70 year's copyright is still in force. 1940 to 1946 is a very short time, so the author could've lived far past 1946. We need to know the author's death date. Daphne Lantier 00:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

photo advice

Hi Daphne you recently removed a profile photo of "Nick Osipczak" that i uploaded. I own the photo. please advise on how i can upload it again in accordance with correct wiki protocol.

many thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameoflife8 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You should post a request at COM:UDEL. Make sure you give the exact name of the file. Daphne Lantier 18:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Images re-uploaded

Hi, the recently deleted files Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ismael Ogando in exile (Rigaerkiez-Friedrichshain).jpg and the others by the same uploader were re-uploaded. Would you please check. Maybe a sock puppet investigation at commons would help to identify further accounts. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploads nuked. You should post a request at COM:RFCU regarding the sockpuppetry. Daphne Lantier 18:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Blason Odet

Je tiens à vous informer que je suis l'auteur du dessin du blason Odet.

A partir des descriptions données par Gourdon de Genouillac et de Pol Potier de Courcy.

Comme de centaines d'autres blasons, d'ailleurs, à partir de mon propre logiciel d'héraldique.

Cordialement --Jean-Claude EVEN / Marikavel 19:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll need the exact title of the deleted file (File:NameHere.jpg) in order to review the deletion. Daphne Lantier 21:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The name of coat of arms : Odet-blason.jpg Merci de rétablir ce qui n'est en rien un plagiat. Je ne refuse pas non plus de répondre à des questions préalables --Jean-Claude EVEN / Marikavel 12:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any deleted file under that exact name. Daphne Lantier 00:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please have a look there, at the history of the page : All that coats of arms are of my own work.--Jean-Claude EVEN / Marikavel 07:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you post an undeletion request at COM:UDEL. Daphne Lantier 07:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request File:Martin Baresch 2015.jpg

Hallo Daphne, ich verstehe gerade die Welt nicht mehr. Vor einiger Zeit hatte ich diese Fotografie hochgeladen: File:Martin Baresch 2015.jpg, die den Schriftsteller Martin Baresch zeigt. Das Foto selbst wurde von D. Adamzyk aufgenommen, die damals auch ihr Einverständnis an das OTRS-Team mailte. Später erfuhr ich aber, dass das Foto durch eine dritte Person weiterbearbeitet wurde (Montage von Sternbildern in das Foto). Damit entstand nach meinem Verständnis ein neues Werk. Diese dritte Person hatte das bearbeitete Bild allerdings nicht unter freie Lizenz gestellt. Und diese dritte Person hat nun ihr Einverständnis für eine Veröffentlichung dieser Bildversion gegenüber Martin Baresch bzw. D. Adamzyk zurückgezogen. Deshalb war ich davon ausgegangen, dass hier ein URV-Problem (copyright violation) vorliegt und habe die Löschung des Bildes beantragt. → Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martin Baresch 2015.jpg D. Adamzyk gab ihrerseits eine entsprechende Erklärung gegenüber OTRS ab. Nun hattest Du in der Löschprüfung aber entschieden, dass das Bild behalten werden soll („Kept“). Kann diese Entscheidung denn richtig sein im Hinblick auf die geschilderten Umstände? Oder unterliege ich da jetzt einem Denkfehler? Gerne kannst Du mir auf Englisch antworten. (Certainly you may answer me in english.) Viele Grüße --Unendlicheweiten (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Martin Baresch 2015.jpg isn't deleted. Daphne Lantier 18:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes! And this is exactly the problem! --Unendlicheweiten (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Since this involves an OTRS ticket, which I can't review (I'm not an OTRS member), and Olaf Kosinsky, who is an OTRS member, has said is sufficient, you'll have to post about this at the OTRS Noticeboard so other OTRS members can review the ticket directly and take the needed action. Daphne Lantier 00:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hallo Daphne! Ich hatte dieses Foto ursprünglich hierher hochgeladen. Inzwischen wurden mir Umstände mitgeteilt, wonach es mit dem Foto urheberrechtliche Probleme geben könnte. Gegenüber OTRS wurde das Problem beschrieben. Ich habe daraufhin Löschantrag gestellt. Den hast Du ablehnt. Ich wandte mich an Krd. Krd verwies mich an Dich. Du sagst nun, Du kannst OTRS gar nicht einsehen und verweist mich wieder woanders hin. Ich komme mir allmählich blöd vor. Ich habe jedenfalls den Löschantrag gestellt. Sollte es mit dem Foto zu rechtlichen Problemen kommen – mich kann man damit nicht mehr belangen.
Hello Daphne! I had originally uploaded this photo here. In the meantime, I was informed that there might be copyright problems with the photo. The problem was described in relation to OTRS. I then made a deletion request. You refused. I turned to Krd. Krd directed me to you. You say you can not see into the OTRS-System and points me back somewhere else. I'm getting stupid. I have made the deletion request. Should the photo come to legal problems - I can no longer be charged with it.--Unendlicheweiten (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. I would suggest posting at the OTRS Noticeboard. Daphne Lantier 21:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


By the way, Daphne, I've seen that he has done the deletions, without even having taken part in the discussion, "I really understand the rule of clearing out," but I would like to know if he checked the licenses, or is there any other reason? Before doing such a thing could and had to say it in the file retrieval discussion,, I await her reply, and good evening Cataplasan --Andrassy66 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I do a lot of work here, so you'll have to link me to the matter/s you're asking about. Daphne Lantier 00:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to address this question:

Since you had previously restored some of the following files, analyzing and scaling them carefully and correctly with sources and licenses, giving me the reason for the question I'm trying to say, and for that reason I will never thank you enough, but now I can not hear from you Matter, "while I first helped you with some restored files, I just want to tell you that the following files that you too have been restored regarding the authentic blocked, and accused of being a sock, be aware that the files that I ask for some time to be restored are in proper licenses, and copyright rightfully and scrupulously controlled ,,,, and the fact that you have in the past restored me, rightly so, I would now like to resolve the issue as long as you can Unlock it positively, since it is so wicked by everyone, since this issue is a gigantic disguise :) :)--Andrassy66 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Since this user is blocked/locked, a bureaucrat Krd decided to delete them, likely for the reason of not giving him a reason to keep socking. Several admins have backed up this decision, and I've gotten flack for the restorations I've done, which is why I don't do them anymore. I don't want to be involved in any conflict with fellow admins. I would suggest you contact Krd at his talk and see if he's willing to allow these files to be restored. Daphne Lantier 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand the information, "but in any case I would like to find a way to unlock the situation, in every way and at all costs, because there are a hundredth of portraits of photographs, and historical images where its half is in good Faith, I will now try to ask for help from the administrator you have suggested to me, but if by accident I would have to make a request to restore in ip out of the account, would you be willing to restore it, if I did it I would be the first To send you all the info about the file;) :), I do not want to accuse you of infamy for charity--Andrassy66 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
See what Krd has to say about it, and we'll go from there. Daphne Lantier 19:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
GRAZIE MILLE :)--Andrassy66 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons is a multi-lingual project

Hi Daphne Lantier, I was surprised to see this comment where you state: “No offense, but I don't go to wikis in languages I don't understand properly and interfere in their important processes, and you shouldn't be doing that here.” This is at odds with our policy which declares Commons to be a multi-lingual project. Everyone is here free to comment and vote in their own language. At Commons, we should be inviting to all Wikimedians including those who do not speak English or do not understand it well. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: But he says he has no idea what's going on. Is that fair to the admin who is up for de-sysop, or to the admins he's consistently wheel-warred with? I encourage participation of all Commons editors, but how can he participate constructively if he admittedly doesn't understand what he's taking part in? Daphne Lantier 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Daphne Lantier, Ralf Roleček just told that he does not know the meaning of wheel waring. Ralf pointed out that in his opinion it was justified to restore the files in question. It is perfectly legitimate to participate in such a vote as a regular Commons contributor and to add your opinion. When Storkk asked for a clarification, Ralf just pointed out that he does not understand one particular term. But he elaborated his point why he thinks that there was no problem with the admin actions of H-stt. To conclude from this that he should not participate at all at such votings is at odds with our language policy and uncalled for. This attitude adds to the problem that Commons is seen by many Wikipedians of languages other than English as less welcoming. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: This wasn't clear when I made my comment. If he made the vote because he doesn't see chronic wheel-warring as a problem, that's his right of course. I never said I don't want people to participate, but I do think it's fair to ask that people participating in an important discussion have at least a general understanding of what it's about. For example, I don't know anything about bots, so I wouldn't participate in a technical discussion about them here. It's not exclusionary, it's just common sense. Daphne Lantier 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope. It was clear from Ralf's comment. Why do you post such uncalled comments if you do not understand Ralf's German comment? Ralf has a general understanding of Commons and of admin roles. He is active at Commons as outstanding photographer since 2005 with nearly 100,000 contributions and he was admin at de:wp for a couple of years. Denying his right to vote here is simply ludicrous. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Please dont take my words as they are against you, they are not. I really appreciate your effort as an admin her and I think you are a great admin. -- Geagea (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geagea: Thank you for the message. I don't take any of that personally, I just want to see a fair de-sysop procedure, which is what the community deserves. Daphne Lantier 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am also disappointed, specially because you pretend to be a new user when you are not. I think you should resign your admin right. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Daphne Lantier/Archive 5".