Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files of Elz seweryn

Monsieur, Je demande de réintégration de mes fichiers sur Wikimedia via le lien <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests>VOICI NR DE LICENCE. The permission to use this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2013091510004285 for users with an OTRS account. Voici mes arguments principaux: la licence est permanente par n'importe quel projet de Wikimédia et peut être utilisé par tout le monde dans le but de faire connaître ses œuvres. J'ai vu cet argument souligné par la communauté Wikimédia dans sa discussion récente pour "undelatetion request". Ils n'apparaissent toujours pas via le lien Wikimédia. Merci pour ré-intégrer les fichiers, pour que le visuel s'affiche sur ma page existante http://elisabeth-seweryn.eu/ Cette licence existe depuis 4 ans, depuis 2013. Le lien a pour but uniquement la confirmation d'existence de mes œuvres, sans aucun discours ou prétention de notoriété. Voici le lien Dropbox vers un dossier contenant directement mes fichiers : <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6f1tz6m1ue71z9f/AACkxsUPBf-yG76U2qZ2Ji0ba?dl=0>

Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur attachés aux œuvres publiées à l'adresse https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Seweryn Je donne mon autorisation pour publier ces œuvres sous la licence: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Licence_Ouverte Merci pour votre attention, Elisabeth Seweryn 29.10.2017

J'espère que ce discours intellectuel sera enfin clôturer, si oui ou non j'ai le droit, tout simplement, exister via le visuel de mes tableaux. Et le lien restituer. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.90.21.142 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this has something to do with Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Elz seweryn or Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Elz seweryn from 2013. Thuresson (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment @Elz seweryn: N'étant pas admissible sur Wikipédia, vos oeuvres ne peuvent être acceptées ici que si elles peuvent être utiles pour montrer un style ou une technique. Mais pour cela, il faut que les images soient en haute résolution, et de bonne qualité, ce qui n'est pas le cas des fichiers supprimés. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose We do not keep art from artists who are not notable. Elisabeth Seweryn has no useful hits on Google and WP:FR rejected an article on her on the grounds that she was not notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Commons is not a free web host. Thuresson (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Roke 2017-07-22 1945Z.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-08#File:Roke 2017-07-22 1945Z.jpg, uploaded has an educational purpose. 218.102.34.81 06:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In what context is there any advantage over File:Roke 2017-07-22 0800Z.png? Guanaco (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Please see my reply below.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a 249x313px B&W image. File:Roke 2017-07-22 0800Z.png is the same image, but is 611x750px and is in color. I see no reason whatever to restore this smaller B&W version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: This image shows the structure and position of Tropical Storm Roke at its peak at 1945Z on 2017-07-22, 11h45m after File:Roke 2017-07-22 0800Z.png. The color is almost irrelevant.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Jeff, I see the difference in times, but looking at the two images side by side, I am sure they were taken at the same time, either with the same camera or with two cameras in the same satellite. The cloud pattern is absolutely the same. I have restored the subject image temporarily so you can see it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, the position against the land masses is the same. Given that File:Roke_2017_track.png shows it moving at least 100 miles in 12 hours, and File:Roke 2017-07-22 0600Z.jpg puts File:Roke 2017-07-22 0800Z.png in about the right spot, given the speed, File:Roke 2017-07-22 1945Z.jpg is the wrong time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward and Prosfilaes: The time may be off, but in 239px tall standard thumbnails per my prefs, File:Roke 2017-07-22 0800Z.png has a dark eye, while File:Roke 2017-07-22 1945Z.jpg does not. However, the quality of File:Roke 2017-07-22 1945Z.jpg is really poor for a satellite photo from 2017. Also, the products and layers used at https://re.ssec.wisc.edu/ and the connection to the University of Wisconsin were not specified.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion -- it's a poor duplicate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Filipinki Niagara 1966.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was published for the first time in December 1966 concert programm and on small poster of Filipinki band without copyright note. Those promo materials was printed by Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne Kraków publishing house in Krakowskie Zakłady Graficzne printing house. This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland. Selenium (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support per request. {{PD-Polish}} applies. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per De728631 above. --Yann (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hublot logo.png

File:Hublot logo.png was deleted as a copyright violation. However, it may have been a duplicate of File:Hublot logo.png, which does not meet the threshold of originality and can be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}. If so, it was incorrectly deleted, should be restored. The deleting administrator has not been active for nearly seven years, so I would appreciate it if someone can take a look to determine if it's the same logo. ℯxplicit 05:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment But is it below the Swiss ToO? Maybe yes, maybe no. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Switzerland defines the threshold of originality as "creations of the mind, literary or artistic, that have an individual character", and considering the example at COM:TOO#Switzerland, I don't see how it would meet that definition. ℯxplicit 00:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That's similar to the definition of a copyrightable work in most countries, but it doesn't answer the question of whether the symbol above the text has an individual character within the meaning of the Swiss law. It might in the USA, probably would in the UK and Australia, but Switzerland, I don't know. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above, PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kyle-Interview-17.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Jcb, Secondarywaltz, and WolvesS: The source is YouTube. The image was deleted because the video description contains "©2017 A-Side Entertainment. All Rights Reserved." A-Side Entertainment is the owner of the YouTube account and the creator of the video. The video is licensed CC-BY via the standard YouTube licensing mechanism.

I don't believe "All Rights Reserved" here is intended as anything more than a standard copyright notice. The company has selectively applied CC-BY to several of their videos. Guanaco (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose WWW.asideentertainment.com is down, so it is impossible to confirm that the YouTube account actually belongs to them, I think we should require a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The website is archived and has a link to the same YouTube account. Guanaco (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support Thanks, Guanaco. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim above. Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

Gegmelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegmelo (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No image named here. No request made. This user has no deleted images, so there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

#2013091510004285, file

Nous pouvons longtemps discuter et donner à chaque fois des arguments différents, pour OUI ou NON, undelation request. La licence est PERMANENTE, Nr #2013091510004285 for users with an OTRS account, pouvoir faire connaître mes œuvres. Au bout de 4 ans quelqu'un a décidé pour une raison ou une autre, qui est une appréciation et point de vue personnel, d'ôter le visuel de ma licence Wikicommons. Quand je ne serai plus de ce monde, vous pourriez disposer comme bon vous semble, pour le moment cela n'est pas le cas, j'ai le droit d'exister via licence Wikicommons sans discussion intellectuelle de la qualité, de ceci, de cela...on trouvera toujours un argument si on veut ou on veut pas de faire. Donc JE VOUS DEMANDE DE BIEN VOULOR restituer le lien sur le Wikicommons de ma licence faite en 2013. L'existence de ma page et du lien visuel (dont la prise du temps et savoir faire informatique est crucial) ne dérangeât personne, pour moi cela a été un point de discussion important. À qui serve cette méchanceté ou cet intellectualisme plutôt déplacé dans mon cas, qui a pour le but d'imposer destructivemnt son point de vue et sa conviction sans égard. Cette manipulation d'ôter le lien visuel n'apporte RIEN de positive, au contraire, apporte perte du temps et d'énergie, gaspillage de tout genre et méchanceté gratuite vis à vis de l'autre, comme si la Vie en général ne poserait pas assez de problèmes. Ceci est un problème informatique dont vous avez la clé. 14 visuels de tableaux. Voici mes arguments: la licence est permanente par n'importe quel projet de Wikimédia et peut être utilisé par tout le monde dans le but de faire connaître ses œuvres.

J'ai vu cet argument souligné par la communauté Wikimédia dans sa discussion récente pour "undelatetion request". Ils n'apparaissent toujours pas via le lien Wikimédia. Merci pour ré-intégrer les fichiers, pour que le visuel s'affiche sur ma page existante http://elisabeth-seweryn.eu/ Cette licence existe depuis 4 ans, depuis 2013. Le lien a pour but uniquement la confirmation d'existence de mes œuvres, sans aucun discours ou prétention de notoriété. Voici le lien Dropbox vers un dossier contenant directement mes fichiers : <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6f1tz6m1ue71z9f/AACkxsUPBf-yG76U2qZ2Ji0ba?dl=0> File:FleursBlanches-ES.JPG File:IndianSummer-ES.JPG File:Musique-Couleur.JPG File:Sur l'étang.JPG File:Les Pavots 1.JPG File:"Les Pavots 2".JPG File:Art at Marygrove.JPG File:Tallin Portail.JPG File:A la montagne.JPG File:A la Recherche.jpg File:Autoportrait2111.jpg File:Yale Graduation.jpg File:Nude, oil on canvas,18"x30".jpg File:Autoportrait.E.S.jpg

Merci pour votre attention, Elisabeth Seweryn — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.90.21.165 (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This was discussed and closed. We do not keep art from artists who are not notable. Elisabeth Seweryn has no useful hits on Google and WP:FR rejected an article on her on the grounds that she was not notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Statue of the Great Syrian Revolution.jpg Delete a licensed image (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Dears,

I had uploaded an image to use it in article The Great Syrian Revolution and I surprised to delete this image, Although the license for this image is Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) as specified in the source of Photo, at site Flickr so There is no justification for deletion, Please find below the Photo Link: The deleted image at Flicker

Please undelete the image to enrich the article and thank you very much.--Just For Syria (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This was explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of the Great Syrian Revolution.jpg, but I'll try again here.

There are two different copyrights in this image. There is one for the photograph itself and a different one for the sculpture. The Flickr user put a CC-BY-SA-2.0 on the photograph, but that says nothing about the license for the sculptor's copyright. The Flickr user has put a CC-BY license on many photographs that he obviously did not take, so I doubt the validity of that license (see Flickrwashing). However, even if the Flickr license is valid, in order to restore this we would need the sculptor to send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear (Jameslwoodward) regarding of the sculptor's license, please note that the status is located in public square in the center of Majdal Shams city, which is occupied by Israel (Times of Israel) and according to Israel freedom of panorama (FOP) (FoP / Israel) Photography of work of sculpture is permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place, So deleting the image is incorrect and unjustified.--Just For Syria (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether Israeli law applies in occupied territories is interesting. Fortunately we do not have to debate it here. As I said above, the Flickr user has put a CC-BY license on many photographs that he obviously did not take. All but two or three of his posts there are obviously not his work. It is certainly well beyond a significant doubt that the Flickr user does not have the right to put a CC license on this B&W image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(Post closure comment for the record) We denied restoration on the ground that the license was not valid, which made the question of which country's law applies moot. On further reflection, I am fairly certain that it is not the occupier's law (Israel), but that of the base country (Syria) that applies. We certainly don't apply USA, UK, French, or USSR law to images taken in the four zones of occupied Germany from 1945 through 1955. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, the image was available in the web before into Flickr, and unlikely the Flickr account has rights to licence this photo. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ПрофВасилРадев.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is part of our family archive and I am giving all rights for any use to the public. Perhaps I didn't specified this fact correctly at upload. Hsherlock (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the file, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you say that you are not. The fact that you may own a paper copy of the image does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the actual photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: If you are the copyright holder by inheritance, undeletion can only be requested by emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. See COM:OTRS and COM:CONSENT for more information on what we would need. --Guanaco (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:S D Jouhar self portrait.jpg

This was the reason given for deleting the file that I put on S.D.Jouhar's Wikipedia page:

According to en:wiki "S. D. Jouhar (1901 – 1963) was an influential amateur Fine Art photographer, active in the period 1935 to 1963." So it's very hard for me to see how this can be "own work" and "self-portrait" of a man who passed away in 1963. Also that is not sufficient time for this image to become public domain. If the uploader is the heir of the creator, please file the form at COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand the reasoning. I am the heir of the creator so I own the copyright to the image. I don't understand how to file the form as you mention. Please can you just put the picture back as it is relevant to the Wikipedia page. Thank you. Kelvinjouhar (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

For the UK, copyright lasts 70 years past the author's death. So, it sounds like that would would expire in 2034, and is therefore still under copyright, and needs a license. If you have inherited the copyright, then yes indeed you can license it (and "own work" can make sense). "Own work" is normally saying the uploader is the author, which is obviously not true in this case, but can also simply mean the uploader owns the copyright -- a license can be wrapped in {{Heirs-license}} to make that more explicit. However, I'm guessing the image is one of those seen at http://www.sdjouhar.com/gallery_220604.html . Since user accounts are anonymous, we generally do not assume good faith when uploading images already available on the Internet, but need the copyright owner to go through the Commons:OTRS process (which involves a private email being sent from an identifiable address), so that the identity can be better confirmed. Using the form at that link also makes sure the copyright owner is aware of the rights being given away -- they must be granted to everyone, not just Wikipedia. Alternatively, the license could be made clear on the source web page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose You are apparently the heir of the photographer who is also the subject of the image. As Carl says, in that case, policy requires that you send a message, as explained at OTRS, giving a free license for the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 Not done as per Carl and Jim. Thuresson (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Althingi protest iceland 04.04.2016.png

This file's deletion was in the wrong. It was claimed that it violated copyright because The Guardian used my video (that the file was a screenshot from) in a report they did on the protests in Reykjavík in 2016. As can be seen in the report I'm even quoted in the article as the owner of the footage.

The media is on youtube under a CC licence. It was here under CC0. It is mine and I followed all protocols when I uploaded it. I also mentioned all of this in the file's talk page when I got the deletion notification earlier today.

I would appreciate it being undeleted. I would also appreciate any information you can give me on who submitted the deletion request.

Best regards, Þórgnýr Thoroddsen. --Thorgnyrthoroddsen (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file deletion was in accordance with policy. We do not know who User:Thorgnyrthoroddsen is, so any statement made here might be from the copyright holder, a fan, or a vandal. Therefore policy requires that when an image has appeared elsewhere without a free license, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Look. If you actually look into my statement, you'll find that the video IS under an open licence. The info is freely on the youtube link for it. So my identity isn't even an issue here. Here's the link: Video in question--Thorgnyrthoroddsen (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That being said. I'll look into sending the licence through the that ticketing system tomorrow. Can't see how it's going to change anything though because all of my submissions here have been by the book to my knowledge. Thorgnyrthoroddsen (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The YouTube license proves nothing -- it could easily be license laundering of the Guardian's copyrighted version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The Youtube page authoritatively says "Streamed live on Apr 4, 2016". That's from YouTube, not the poster. How could he stream it live on the day it happened from the Guardian's copyrighted version? Is there a link to the Guardian's copyrighted version, because it's 100 minutes of people milling about a square. Excellent recording of history, but something that news organizations only publish in short excerpts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Newspapers and Magazines preserved at Hofilena Ancestral House`.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Users, I am not doing anything that unsuits the rules and regulation of Wikipedia. I'm the one who took the picture, I go to to the museum and write their story. I wanted to make this museum to be well-known. It's my phone, and it's my picture. Please don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldok (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Jeff, you may want to revisit this. This was deleted because it is a photograph of a display of copyrighted material and is therefore derivative of the copyrights of the items shown. It cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holders of each of the items shown. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Thirst morad daoud.jpg

this image was taken from the sculptor official website , it is published there to view his sculpture to public, and i used it as an example of his work thus i believe it is not violating copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoudalaa (talk • contribs) 21:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose The site has an explicit copyright notice:

مراد داؤد

حقوق النشر © 2017 جميع الحقوق محفوظة يعمل بواسطة SITE123 - تصميم مواقع 

   الرئيسية
   المنشورات
   اللوحات
   حول
   الاتصال

(Mourad Daoud Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved - translation by Google) Therefore it is a violation to upload his images to Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Even without a copyright notice, almost everything you find on the Internet is copyrighted. Please see Commons:Licensing. --Guanaco (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kamali Ivan.jpg

Kigali Rwanda — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.138.87.75 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No file to act on. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SoTomay-Hrid-Majhare-Rakhbo-----ft-Anusheh-Anadil--Coke-Studio-Bangla-Song-2016.webm

--Fathullah.elyasi (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per linked deletion request: Advertisement, self promotion and not educational - anything in the video can be better represented in structured text. Commons is not a web host for advertisement. Please see Com:Scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:La Paz FC-Escudo.png

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/1007/m5JmZx.png

https://www.escudosfc.com.br/bol.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by DACR 24 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Complex logo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no free license at either of the cited sites and no reason to believe that this is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No hay expresamente una licencia libre. Leer Commons:Licensing/es. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SGC3D.jpg Should not have been deleted while other depictions of copyrighted material is allowed

I do not not see why this file should be deleted, whereas the whole Star Wars category for instance (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Star_Wars) which is also "clearly derivative work of copyrighted material" is still there. Kilohn limahn (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We have 42 million images on Commons. It is inevitable that some of them should be deleted, so arguing that File:XYZ breaks the rules, therefore my File:ZYX should be allowed, is not valid. This file is clearly derivative of a Star Wars set, violating the production company's copyright, and cannot be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: agreed with Jim, it is a derivative work of "Stargate", and the fact it exist several other copyright violations is not a reason to restore this one. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ABL.png

La foto que ha sido borrada, así como la que se ha subido en su reemplazo (también marcada para ser borrada) son fotos aportadas por el propio autor. Aunque estén en otras páginas de Internet, la misma no tiene ningun derecho de propiedad, y es de libre uso en Internet. --Leoravier (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Por favor, lee Commons:Licensing. "Libre uso en Internet" no significa nada a efectos de licencia y, por supuesto, no es una licencia válida aquí. --Discasto talk 08:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Ya que hay publicaciones anteriores, pedimos que estas publicaciones (o al menos la primera publicación) sean expresamente con una licencia libre o el titular de derechos de autor debe enviar un permiso a OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:The 1up Fever official poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted Ticket:2017100110006307 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored by Guanaco 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MatchbookFX_Logo.jpg

This is in regard to :

File:MatchbookFX_Logo.jpg


This file was deleted from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MatchbookFX_Logo.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchbook_FX on

12:20, 11 October 2017 by ‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,293 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (Removing MatchbookFX_Logo.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Christian Ferrer because: per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MatchbookFX Logo.jpg.)

Here are the relevant links:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Matchbook-FX_logo.gif

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MatchbookFX_Logo.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MatchbookFX_Logo.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matchbook_FX&type=revision&diff=804832643&oldid=799554123


The artwork / Image file has now been 100% permissioned with proof of such emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Nov 2nd 2017 by the 100% owner and creator.

There can/will never be any [valid] claim of any kind on this image / file / artwork.

Please speedy UNdelete.

Thank you. --ForexualHealing (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC) ForexualHealing.

 Not done: If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Monikha.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: To serve as source and attribution for File:Monica (actress).jpg. These files may need a seperate DR to discuss possible copyright status though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It seems to me this should go the other way. The larger image has been deleted, so the crop should also be deleted. There is no reason that somehow having a crop proves that the larger image is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be the reasoning if the original files had been deleted for reasons of illegality or if they were irremediably out of scope, but that's not the case. If we look at what happened, we find that, in 2012, the uploader uploaded some 62 files. Judging by the files that are still on Commons, they were photos of actors and actresses known in their countries, who were photographed holding a magazine. At some point, at least 12 of those 62 files had cropped version made and uploaded separately. The cropped versions were probably made to remove the "holding the magazine" part and center on the person's face. In 2014, a deletion request was made about 58 of the 62 uncropped files. The rationale for the deletion request about the uncropped files invoked various variations around the notion of scope, such as a possible advertising aspect or personal photos. The criticism about advertising may be justified, because of the "holding the magazine" aspect, but the criticism about "personal photos" does not seem justified, if we consider the fact that many or most of the cropped versions, which were not deleted and are still on Commons, are in use in the articles about those people in the Wikipedias. From the 62 uncropped files that had been uploaded, 58 were deleted and 4 were not deleted (the nominator of the deletion request may have missed those 4 because they had been renamed). The 12 cropped versions were not nominated for deletion, they are still on Commons, their "holding a magazine" aspect has been cropped out, many or most are used in Wikipedia articles, and even those that are not currently in use probably have a reasonable potential for being inside the scope of Commons, if the pictured people are known in their countries. (Come to think of it, the 46 uncropped files that were deleted before cropped versions of them were made might also deserve to have cropped versions made and kept.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Restore Per Asclepias, unless there is some copyright issue with the larger images. Platonides (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 Service Rationale was: Images seem promotion/advertisement to "Thangam Book". Possible COM:ADVERT COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:NOTHOST
Temporarily restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that my comment was more a reply to say that there was no need to delete the cropped version. I don't really have an opinion about the original under discussion. It seems rather innocuous. And, when possible, it's better to preserve the transparency of the chain of sources. It would not be a big problem to keep it. But it would not be a big problem to delete it, if the magazine seems too much in evidence. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Hedwig in Washington. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArturMas Press conference on Nov92014 Catalonia independence poll 01.jpg

The images in the DR, per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-gencat --Discasto talk 18:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Smartcardmap2.jpg

This image was created by the page's creator. There is no copyright infringement as I created the image myself. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 107.77.210.181 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The base map is (c) Google Maps, so you were not allowed to publish this so-called derivative work. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation. You could, however, recreate this with OpenStreetMap, whose contents are available under a free license. --Guanaco (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Donald Trump president-elect portrait.jpg

The file I am requesting undeletion for is File:Donald Trump president-elect portrait.jpg. It was deleted by KTo288 based upon Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump a discussion from June. The file was kept as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump Official Presidential Portrait.jpg where Jameslwoodward kept the file in a close in October. Corkythehornetfan moved the file from File:Donald Trump Official Presidential Portrait.jpg to File:Donald Trump president-elect portrait.jpg where it was deleted based upon the older discussion. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this was part of a mass deletion of photographs by the same photographer. I have started a discussion at the Commons Village Pump about another one of these photos.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
These two files are by the same author but have survived. File:Donald Trump at inauguration.jpg and File:Donald Trump preparing to be sworn in as President.jpg. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This file should not be undeleted. A compatible license has not been granted by the copyright owner. The same photograph has been deleted at least twice before after thorough community discussions, review by OTRS agents, and consultation with WMF. Nothing has changed since then. Pinging BU Rob13 who is knowledgeable about this and who has reviewed the OTRS ticket.- MrX 17:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
"Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me."

When he looked at the page, he wasn't looking at the photograph -- he was looking at everything else, in particular the attribution and the license. I don't see any way to read "it's fine with me" in any way other than as an acceptance of the CC-BY license that he saw when he looked at the page on May 5. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jameslwoodward, I was unaware of the discussion on your talk page, this was tagged as a speedy delete with a link to the deletion request as rationale; that, and the dearth of files in the parent category, led me to believe that the file had been recreated against community consensus, the renaming of the file to that of one that had been deleted per that dr didn't help. However we are where we are now, this discussion is underway, and I can not in good consience unilaterally undelete the file as an act of goodwill. Therefore I think it best to allow this undeletion request to run its course, and if at the end of this, the community consensus is that I made a mistake in deleting the file, I will be more than happy to correct it.--KTo288 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You should not have closed the discussion as you did, ignoring that there was consensus to delete the photo, as in the prior two discussions. COM:L is quite clear that "The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag." Since the copyright owner has not specified such a license, it would be impossible to satisfy that requirement.- MrX 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support undeletion. Even if the photographer had been ambiguous or silent about whether the Commons image is fine with him, a federal government website has said that it’s under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. And my understanding is that the federal government website said so before the image was posted at Wikimedia Commons, so it’s not like the White House copied info at Commons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The U.S. Federal Government does not own the photograph. They can't re-license it. If this is such an important photo, why doesn't someone simply ask Coulter to declare a license for its release? It seems that that would be more productive than trying to find loopholes to circumvent our own policies, and repeating the same invalid arguments over and over.- MrX 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - During the latest deletion request for this photo, I stated that I was going to DM Doug Coulter on Twitter and ask him about whether the photo was free. However, I was stopped from doing this by the closure of the request. However, now that a new discussion has started and it has been proven that Coulter has authorized the photo's use on Commons (but not necessarily under CC-BY), I am going to DM Coulter today and ask him to license the photo under CC-BY. Hopefully, my doing this will settle this debate for good. Philroc (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The image should be undeleted now, without any further instructions from the photographer, because he has confirmed rather than refuted what the federal government has said about this photo. If the photographer wants to refute the feds, he is free to do so, but I disagree that he has done so yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It was made clear in an OTRS ticket that this is not available currently under a license that is suitable for use on Commons. No release has ever been received, and information in the ticket directly refutes the release on the White House website. ~ Rob13Talk 19:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose undeletion as per my previous closing statement and  Oppose this fishing expedition for details in the OTRS-ticket by making false statements and  Oppose Jim leaking confidential OTRS-information. Man, man, man, kansloos dit. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, as I said, now buried above, on May 5, Coulter wrote for OTRS:

"::"Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me."

That is an explicit statement that he saw the page with the CC-BY license and wanted it to stay on Commons..

As for the accusation of my handling confidential OTRS information incorrectly, I welcome any investigation. Coulter's name had been disclosed by the White House and by previous mentions in the DR. The subject image appears on his Web site. The words he used in agreeing that the page was OK are not confidential. I did not disclose anything that falls within the definition of confidential information in either the OTRS instructions or the WMF privacy policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Coulter-

I am Philroc, a volunteer at the Wikimedia Commons, the photo repository of Wikipedia. Last May, an anonymous individual who may or may not have been you sent us an email stating that you were OK with the use of your photo of Donald Trump (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/45/PE%20Color.jpg) on the Commons as long as it was properly attributed to you. However, you did not name a specific free license that it was OK to use the photo under, even though you were asked to do so multiple times. The Commons can't use photos unless they are under a specific free license. Now, I am going to ask you once again to give us a specific free license that we can use the photo under. One license that you can choose is the Creative Commons Attribution License, which lets anyone use your photo for any reason as long as they properly attribute you for it. You implied you were OK with this license in your email to us, so this is probably a good choice for you. If you do not want to release your photo under this license, a list of other Creative Commons licenses you can choose is at https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/licensing-examples/. (A couple pointers before you make your decision: Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable, meaning you can't take them back, and if you choose a license that prohibits commerical use, the photo cannot be used on the Commons, and it will be uploaded to Wikipedia's local photo repository instead.)

Sincerely- Philroc

Philroc (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  • English Wikipedia and most (possibly all) other projects won't accept this file if the author/copyright holder confirms it to be under a No Commercial or No Derivatives licence. It can't be used under fair use to illustrate Donald Trump because other freely licensed photographs already exist and particularly important in this case, freely licensed photographs can (and will) be created in future (as we will, hopefully, be getting an official portrait which is work of the White House photographers and therefore released into the Public Domain). Nick (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to keep this deleted what are we going to do about the other pictures by the same photographer? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep them deleted (or delete them again if they've been re-uploaded) in the absence of an appropriate release. ~ Rob13Talk 14:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The two images I am talking about are File:Donald Trump at inauguration.jpg and File:Donald Trump preparing to be sworn in as President.jpg. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: we can't host this file for now, as per COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SWAAMI APARAMPAARA.pdf

What is the reason for deleting the file? An OTRS is already sent for all the books put together. Now do you need one more to be sent for each book separately?--Ananth subray (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Although the file description mentions a license from the author's daughter, there is no link to any OTRS ticket. Also, does the daughter own the copyright to the artwork on the cover? That right would usually be licensed by the publisher, not the author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Daughter own the copyright to the work and the entire book is digitised on Wikisource as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananth subray (talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
You said that before. However, without a link to the OTRS ticket and evidence that the daughter owns the copyright to the cover art, the file cannot stay on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS pemrission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

800 Jahre Dresden.jpg

Ich bin der Autor dieser Datei. Ich bin der Künstler, der die Münze entworfen hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marabu12 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Hallo, Marabu12. Diese Gedenkmünze wird dem Künstler Heinz Hoyer zugeschrieben [4]. Bei Werken, die bereits vorher veröffentlicht wurden, benötigen wir immer eine Freigabe per Email durch den Urheber, da wir keine Möglichkeit haben, die Echtheit der freien Lizenz anhand des Wikimedia-Benutzerkontos zu prüfen. Mehr dazu findet man unter Commons:OTRS/de. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: wie oben. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Artworks by Sukharev and Prus

Maxim Sukharev's artworks:

Viktor Prus' artwork:

The permission for CC-BY-SA 4.0 publication of the artworks was regularly asked to and received from the respective authors, and sent to OTRS. See tickets #2017062010024699, #2017062010024886 and #2017071910017224.

Thank you.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I have looked though onlyone of these, but I suspect they are all the same circumstance. Eckhardt Etheling is the uploader, not the OTRS agent. He has forwarded messages to OTRS. We do not generally accept forwarded messages because forging one would be trivial and we have too many bad actors here. License must come directly to OTRS from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I forwarded the messages I received from the authors including their email addresses, so that OTRS operators may ask them directly whether they gave me the permission. I swear that the permissions are authentic.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Policy does not allow forwarded messages. It is not up to our OTRS volunteers, who have a long backlog of work, to spend time reaching out to copyright holders. These will be restored automatically when and if the artists send free licenses directly to OTRS and the the licenses are read and accepted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Chuck Berry beim Steinegg Live Festival.jpg

Ich bin als Mitglied des Kulturvereins Steinegg Live sozusagen Rechteinhaber. Ich habe das beim Upload bestätigt und bestätige hiermit noch einmal dass das Foto FREI VERWENDBAR ist und somit den Wikipedia-Richtlinien entspricht. Das wird für alle Bilder gelten die ich nach Wikipedia hochlade. DonClemente12F67 --DonClemente12F67 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The photos have clear and explicit copyright notice watermarks. We do not know who User:DonClemente12F67 actually is, or what relationship he has to Steinegg Live, so policy requires that an authorized representative of Steinegg Live must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permisson needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Andy Warhol Portrait of Dr Luigi Accame.png

I own the original painting. Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topjur01 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of the painting does not mean you own the copyright -- that would have needed to be assigned separately. See 17 USC 202. If there is proof of such, that may need to go through the COM:OTRS process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. There are numerous images of paintings by Warhol and other artists on Wikipedia. In which way my image differs from them? Why other images can stay on Wikipedia and my image cannot? Also, does the 17 USC 202 apply even if the painting is in Europe? Thanks. Topjur01 (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
On Commons, images must be free in both the source country and the United States. Also, most countries in Europe have legislation similar to 17 USC 202. Artwork that you see on Wikipedia falls into four categories:
  1. Public domain works, whose copyright has expired
  2. Art which has been released under a free license, usually by the artist or the heir
  3. Fair use images. These must be uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons, as Commons doesn't accept fair use.
  4. Copyright violations, which don't fall into any of the above categories. If you see these, you should nominate them for deletion. The easiest way to do this is the "Nominate for deletion" tool, located on the left sidebar on desktop. Guanaco (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Unless you have an explicit written copyright license from Warhol or his heirs, you do not have the right to freely license his work. You certainly understand that owning a book does not give you the right to make and sell copies of the book. The same is true of all copyrighted works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I understand. You are right. It should be on Wikipedia under the fair use. Topjur01 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn by uploader. --Guanaco (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Portrait d'Annick Girardin.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission provided with Ticket:2017060910009549. Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS permission. --Guanaco (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vaucanson duck1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: No evidence to actually say that this is not in public domain. Original request to delete was based on assumption that this was a spurious photograph referenced in a book (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/feb/16/extract.gabywood), although the question mentioned in the book is if it is of the original duck or not, and NOT a question of the authenticity of the photograph. There is no direct connection of this photo to those mentioned in the book. This does appear to be an aged photograph, and based on subject matter presented, it is most likely in the public domain. 174.62.111.90 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Proof of PD status is required, not a proof that the PD status is missing. No year, no author, no original source. Most likely in the PD is not sufficient. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support Hedwig, according to the file description, the subject automaton was destroyed in 1879. That would qualify the photograph for {{PD-old}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
IF the original is depicted. My understanding is that there's doubt about it. Otherwise I'd agree with undeletion. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Aha. Thanks, Hedwig, according to WP:EN Digesting Duck there have been at least two replicas. It this is one of the replicas then it is entirely possible that neither the duck nor the photograph are PD. Since there is no information on the source of the photo, we must assume that it is PD-old. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. If this is one of the photos I see on the net, it does seem old enough. I did find four photos at the French Musée des arts et métiers, which label them "purportedly" the Vaucanson duck. No real source information, and the only copyright information is on the modern photos of the original photos. I doubt the museum would put that label on there if the photos were not old enough to be possibly valid (i.e. from 1879 or before), and if that old, there is likely no copyright concern (and the museum doesn't seem to have any derivative rights copyright concern). There are other versions of these photos on the net, but from independent sources, as there is some damage on those prints (like this one) which is not present on these. The reconstruction in Grenoble was made in 1998 and is definitely not this one (photo of that here).
I would still lean  Support on this, if it is one of the four linked photos. It is likely old enough. I would rather know where the photos came from, and our description pages should also indicate the doubt, but if they are old enough to be photos of the actual original, the copyright should be fine if they are of the original or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg it is the same photo as http://phototheque.arts-et-metiers.net/pdf/7423_6580_9600.pdf Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. However, that file names a photographer, Pascal Faligot, and has an explicit copyright notice. Google finds a living photographer with that name. As was noted above, if the image actually is of the original duck, then the photograph is likely, but not certainly, out of copyright - the photographer would have had to live for 68 years after taking the photo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Pascal Faligot is a current-day photographer, who took those photos of the cards for the museum, it appears. Those may have a copyright, but once you crop to the original photo, they would be PD-Art, so I don't think that claim is an issue here. The second reproduction mentioned in the en-wiki article is also modern (David Secrett is still alive I think -- the article links to a BBC video on him made in 1979), so the photos are not of either of those. Per this book, a Johann-Bartholomé Rechsteiner from Switzerland repaired the original in the early 1840s, when it went on display again. Rechsteiner later made a complete reproduction of his own, though it was reportedly broken by 1853 -- but may have been sold after his death, as it reportedly went to a man in Leipzig after which trace of it was lost when that man sold it. So, perhaps the photo is of that. Per this article, the photos at the museum I linked above were discovered in the mid 1930s, and labeled "images of Vaucanson's duck, received from Dresden". Goethe described the duck in 1805 as "A duck without feathers stood like a skeleton, still devouring the oats briskly enough, but had lost its powers of digestion." That does seem to somewhat match the photo. Per This 2002 book, the museum also has a "letter written by an Italian man to the museum's director in 1899, offering him not only the photos, but the machine as well." (The museum turned down the offer, as the asking price was too high.) That would indicate that either Vaucanson's duck was not destroyed in 1879 (perhaps that was the Rechsteiner one), or the photos are of a different machine. So, it's possible the photos date from the slightly later 1800s, but also appear to be anonymous. That book mentions the museum's director in 2002 did not believe the photos are of Vaucanson's duck, but two Vaucanson biographers (Doyon and Liaigre) believe they are. Either way... I think the photos are PD, at least beyond a significant doubt. They were certainly published in this 1958 book, per some of the snippet text, and likely earlier as well. That book supposedly also has a drawing of Rechsteiner's duck but it is blocked from view. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support per the clear wording of the precautionary principle. The intent of our policies is that Commons hosts files for which there is no significant doubt that they are public domain. When doubt is based on a series of thin and compound hypothetical presumptions, the doubt has to be considered a magnitude below "significant". --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support I still think there is a significant possibility that this is not PD, but I'll support undeletion on the grounds that I think that the uncertainties above make it extremely unlikely that anyone will get in trouble using this image and, yes, I know that line of reasoning is explicitly forbidden by COM:PRP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim and others above. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Goigs_Sant_Calze.ogg

This is a file I did extracting the audio Perezmartin40 (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. The file was not deleted, but I saw this and deleted it. You extracted audio from a recording of a recent performance. Even if the underlying written music is public domain, this recording of people singing it is an original, copyrighted work. Guanaco (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:1942 Überbrückung des Fehmarnsundes und des Fehmarnbeltes Vorschlag Heinrich Bartmann.png

Liebe JuTa! Ich schrieb doch bereits, daß ich die Bilder vom 1982 verstorbenen Urheber mit allen Rechten geerbt habe. Die Freigabe zur Nutzung dieses Werks wurde im Wikimedia-OTRS archiviert; dort kann die Konversation von Nutzern mit OTRS-Zugang eingesehen werden. Zur Verifizierung kann man jederzeit bei einem OTRS-Mitarbeiter anfragen.

Dear JuTa! I told you, that I am the owner of the rights of the works of Heinrich Bartmann, as you can see at OTRS: Ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2014011110008032

Please undelete the picture!

--Elmar Nolte (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elmar Nolte, that might be, but there was a license template completly mising within the file description - see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags, for which I notified you on October 12. Even with OTRS pending any image on commons needs a valid license template, and will be deleted one week after the uploader has been notified. PS: You should have used {{OTRS pending}} (best through {{subst:OP}}), instead of {{PermissionOTRS}}. That template is reserved for OTRS-Members only. I am happy to undelete the image, if you tell me here the license you (as the assumed copyright holder) you wish to publish the image. I will then convert the PermissionOTRS into OTRS pending from 2017-10-19, cause OTRS stuff needs to confirm the case. PS: I am not a member of the OTRS team. --JuTa 12:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@JuTa: Would you like to be such a member? @Raymond: I think a template for Heinrich Bartmann in German and English would allow Elmar Nolte to license at will, what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank You! Here is my license-proposal {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} --Elmar Nolte (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The file is back. --JuTa 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Undeletion requests

by the way, I would like to reprocess a part of the file that was previously restored by the administrator Sanadros just on 27 August 2017. where he told me that he would have had the opportunity to reprocess part of the previous file restore.

link of discussion: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-09---> (discussion number 6) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.14.89.79 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: You don't get it, ey? GO AWAY. You are not welcome here anymore! NO request from a vandal/LTA like you will be done. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Обійми Дощу Світанок (сингл, 2010), обкладинка.png

Hi, I would like to request the file undeletion. It's stated on official band release web-page http://rain.in.ua/svitanok/en.html that "Non-commercial distribution is allowed and even encouraged". If it's not enough I can provide you with an agreement to use this image in wiki from official copyright holders. --IVAN POMIDOROV (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@IVAN POMIDOROV: We cannot accept a license for non-commercial use. If they would like their images to be allowed on Commons, they can specify a free license such as CC BY-SA 4.0, either on their website, or by emailing us at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). See Commons:Licensing for more information on what's allowed. Guanaco (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: NC is not allowed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hussain Ali Yousafi.jpg

Please do not delete this photo This is my own work And this is not vandalism--JanbazkhBasir (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This was originally uploaded from a Flickrwashing account. Now the uploader claims own work. I asked him to upload the original, uncropped photo if this is true, and he has not done so. The copyright status of this image is highly doubtful at best. Guanaco (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The same portrait can be found here without a free licence. So the copyright status of both these derivative works is unclear. De728631 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

But I do not reuploaded from Flickrwashing. I take responsibility second time myself

  • Just like this file

File:Latif Pedraam.jpg --JanbazkhBasir (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

De728631

This site


--JanbazkhBasir (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Clear Copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Quattroruote.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photos are made from a copy of magazines that belongs to me. It was deleted without discussion with reference to the rules regarding downloads of photos from the Internet. Anton V. (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for discussion. Both files are copyrighted, you don't own the copyright of this images. You own only some papers where the images have been published. You are mainly resistant to advice. 2003:62:4439:920:C4CC:4702:A311:5458 23:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC) PS: Also check his discussion page and vandalism report.

 Not done: Owning a magazine or booklet does not give you the right to freely license photos in it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jamila Abitar-1-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017110410004221 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: . --Guanaco (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Camille Little.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted Ticket:2017110210002745 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. The copyright holder, BDZ sports, has a web site, http://www.bdzsports.com/, but the OTRS email came from a gmail account. I can't tell from the web site whether that gmail account actually belongs to BDZ sports or not. If I were the OTRS agent who owned this, I would ask for more evidence -- it's trivial to open a gmail account in any name that isn't used. The easiest thing would be to have BDZ sports add a note to the bottom of http://www.bdzsports.com/ saying that Bdzsports photos is their account here. That would also cover any future uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The email address has already been verified. In article #5 of the ticket, I have asked the customer to re-send us the permission statement from a professional email address. In article #6 of the ticket, she has responded that the gmail address can be seen at the bottom of the website. In article #7 of the ticket, I have archived the webpage using Wayback Machine so that we have solid evidence in case she changes her mind. I think everything is OK. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support Apologies. I looked at the web site, but missed that. I shouldn't work here when I'm hurried -- I also failed to notice that you had already put an OTRS note on the user page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted and tagged with {{BDZ Sports}}. --Guanaco (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Global_Universe.jpg

El logotipo es una creación propia para GLobal Universe, tengo los permisos necesario para utilizarla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugocebrian (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a complex logo. If you have a permission from the copyright holder, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Rachidhitouche.jpg

Hello, The pic is about an author. I'm writing biography of kabyle authors on wikipedia and Rachid Oulebsir gave me permission to use his picture. It's the same picture he was using on his FB Profile. https://web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100014371719897

Rachid Oulebsir is an author, a writer. He wrotes a lot of books about the kabyle culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belkacem77 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because you took it from Facebook without any apparent permission from the copyright holder. Copyright is almost always held by the original photographer, and owning a copy of the image does not put Mr. Oulebsir in a legal position to licence the photograph. We need a written permission by email from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Foto di Sara Mazzaglia.jpg

Foto appartenente a Sara Mazzaglia 26/10/17 Sara Mazzaglia (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at https://www.saramazzaglia.it/. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, not the subject, must send a free license using OTRS.

If you are actually Sara Mazzaglia, our username policy requires that you identify yourself by sending an email using OTRS. That email must come from the address shown on the Web site, sara1970mazzaglia@gmail.com.

Alternately, and much faster, you may post a note on https://www.saramazzaglia.it/ saying both (a) that Commons User:Sara Mazzaglia is you and (b) that the image cited above has a CC-BY-4.0 license. Once you have done so, post a note here and the image will be restored and an Admin will post a note on your User page confirming your identity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request for undeletion (or for deletion of the same photo that remains published)

The image File:Jaime Alberto Parra - El Médico Farc.jpg was deleted, but the same photo, published 7 years ago but with worst quality, remains published. Both are the same and both were used freely for media and academy for years.

 Oppose We cannot keep a recent photograph whose source is "Public Domain" and author is "unknown". We must have a source in order to verify that the PD claim is correct. It is entirely possible that the other version of this photo should be deleted, but that is not a reason for keeping this one..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Penumbral Lunar Eclipse of Sep 16, 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uploaded claims that it is own work. 219.79.127.121 06:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It may or may not be a copyvio. It is very small because it was cropped from a very much larger original, so I am not certain it is actually useful. We have several much better images, see Category:Lunar eclipse of 2016 September 16. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MatinKarimli.jpg

It is photo of Matin Karimli. I can`t understand cause of deletion, can you explain me? Please, do not delete this photo. There is no copyright infringement because it is common photo, which was taken by photograph, who is my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xasmammad (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

--Xasmammad (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xasmammad: If your friend is the photographer, we would need them to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, releasing this under a free license. We have more information about what's required at COM:CONSENT. Guanaco (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. It is copyrighted and your friend, the photographer, holds the copyright. Therefore only he or she can license it. He or she must use the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Воробьев Сергей Иванович.png

Reasons for the request: The file was in an open access, I downloaded it from old.1msmu.ru/person/166796/ Unfortunately, the page was deleted.

2017-11-05TonyTuanx (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Logo FCS.png

The logo should be back, it is a simple logo recreated by me of a public university in Venezuela which allow the use of their logos to membrete documents by students or teachers or any other personal, and allow its use by the press they acctualy published this document refearing about this in: http://www.uc.edu.ve/archivos/MANUALIMAGENUC.pdf --Tomasddl (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Images at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose, and not just for university faculty, students and the press. The logo is complex enough, too, to be copyrighted, so we would need permission from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The logo is probably above the ToO. Images on Commons must be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kz-aral-clouds-780x439.jpg

Im Text war die Freigabe erläutert! Lesen lernen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forggen (talk • contribs) 12:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Wer Lesen kann, ist klar im Vorteil. In den aktuellen Nutzungsbedingungen der Weltbank steht nämlich nicht, dass alle Beiträge immer unter ein und derselben Creative-Commons-Lizenz verfügbar sind, sondern dass entweder CC-by-3.0 IGO oder CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO oder keins von beiden gilt. Das heisst, dass die Lizenzen immer individuell geregelt sind. Auf der Webseite, auf der das Bild eingebunden ist, wird aber überhaupt keine freie Lizenz angegeben, also gilt dort automatisch "alle Rechte vorbehalten". De728631 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Paulaner Hauptverwaltung München.jpg & File:Wohnhhochhhaus Koppstraße München.jpg

Please restore two images with the OTRS Ticket#2017092710033572 if there are no problems. licenses: AttributionShare Alike 4.0 International. -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Ticket fehlerhaft, Absender informiert. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DSAMA.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A logo from http://www.marine.gov.mo/index.aspx, under {{PD-MacaoGov}}, therefore it is a free logo. 219.79.127.121 06:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support per request. Also, while it did not have a weblink, the file did have a source statement in Chinese "澳門特別行政區政府" which translates to "Macao Special Administrative District". De728631 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done as PD-MacaoGov. but the filesize is only 166×117 pixels, bigger version would good. Taivo (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:FM Macau.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{PD-MacaoGov}}, same as above, also a free logo. 219.79.127.121 06:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support The Macau Foundation is a statutory corporation which should make the logo applicable for {{PD-MacaoGov}}. I would even disagree with the deleting admin and call it a PD-textlogo. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Not a textlogo, but restored as PD-MacaoGov. Taivo (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vibhavari Apte Joshi.jpg

This is my own work.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautuk1 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, this is taken from a YouTube video. That video has the Standard YouTube License, which is not acceptable on Commons. If this is actually your own work -- if you are actually the person who took the video, it can be restored if you change the license on YouTube to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Supranational European Bodies-en-edit.svg

In 2015, File:Supranational European Bodies-en-edit.svg (rectangular version originally uploaded by Grandoise in 2013) was deleted as an exact duplicate of File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg (round version originally uploaded by NikNaks in 2010, with rectangular version uploaded by Aris Katsaris in 2015). However, it appears that Aris Katsaris's version might be a derivative of Grandoise's (now-deleted) version. The file should probably be undeleted in order to allow proper attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 22:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:1970 Filipinki Nie wierz chlopcom.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo is a scan of promotional poster of Filipinki band for their 1970 concert tour „Nie wierz chłopcom” („Boys are liars”). It was published by Estrada Dolnośląska in Wrocław, Poland in January 1970 without any copyright note. I believe that {{PD-Polish}} applies. 83.9.62.51 10:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 22:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DE JUN TEAM.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{YouTube CC-BY}} license. B dash (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If you visit the YouTube source and click on "Show More" the license is shown as "Standard YouTube License", not YouTube's optional CC-BY license. —RP88 (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC
 Not done, requester withdrawn
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Floods in Debe, Trinidad from TS Bret 19 June 2017.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1BNFG-A7aQ, with YouTube CC-BY license, not copyvio. 158.182.231.245 01:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If you visit that YouTube link the license is shown as "Standard YouTube License", not YouTube's optional CC-BY license. —RP88 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn. --158.182.231.245 02:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Various images

These were prematurely deleted. I had begun laying-out that these, particularly the first two, in fact did not contain copyrighted content. SecretName101 (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose All of these are from Flickr and all are CC-BY there, but none of them qualify for Commons. The first contains photographs which are undoubtedly not the work of the Flickr user. All three are apparently the unused personal art of the Flickr user and therefore out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, no educational value on Commons. --Guanaco (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dominiu llingüísticu astur.jpg

own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dageno (talk • contribs) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The first is a map which has two copyright notices at the bottom. Neither name matches the uploader and I can't believe that the uploader actually drew this complex map from scratch without using a base map. The second is titled "Club de fútbol Asturias". It is a logo. A Google search on "Club de fútbol Asturias" does not turn up anything remotely resembling this, so it appears to be unused personal art, which is out of scope. If it actually is used by a football club, then it is almost certainly a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Marco Tagliabue.jpg

Non capisco il motivo della cancellazione di questa immagine fotografata da me. Chiedo il ripristino, oppure se non volete ascoltarmi la riinserisco AshtonLogan!--07/11/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshtonLogan (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. This file appears to also have been uploaded by IL CESTISTA.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jeff : there is prior publication and now the copyright holder must send a free license directly using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kz-kokaral-dam-735x490.jpg & File:Kz-aral-clouds-780x439.jpg

Please restore two images with the OTRS Ticket#2017092910002575 if there are no problems. licenses: Cc-by-3.0-igo ???. -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The ticket (which has been reassigned to ticket ID#2017092910002566) seems to be a forwarded email. "New" OTRS practices are to not accept forwarded statements. Please follow up with the emailer and ask that the copyright holder emails us instead. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake and put two tickets together because the browser was slow. -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 Not done longer discussion, make new request when it is clarified. -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Foto ganadora 1ra. feria internacional del libro de República Dominicana.jpg

  1. La foto fue tomada por mi esposa, ya fallecida (si necesitan evidencia me indican).
  2. Se hizo de.dominio público en toda República Dominicana, publicándose y enseñandose en casi todos los diarios de circulación nacional de ese entonces; de hecho el pie o comentario que aparece en la foto es de uno de ellos.
  3. Si aún así no se puede dejar, me disculpan.

Plinio Pérez (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Plinio Pérez

 Oppose If the image contained only the photo by your late wife, then you, as her heir, would need to send a free license using OTRS. However, this version is from a copyrighted newspaper, so the permission must come from the publisher of the newspaper.

More important, the file description says only

Foto ganadora del primer lugar en la categoría color, en el concurso "La Palabra Gráfica", en el marco de la Primera Feria Internacional del Libro. La foto fue tomada en San Luis, Distrito Nacional.
Winning photo of the first place in the color category, in the "La Palabra Gráfica" contest, within the framework of the First International Book Fair. The photo was taken in San Luis, National District.
translator: Google

Unless your wife were a notable photographer, with an article in WP or many hits on Google, we would not keep the photo because it is out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose. The quality is so poor that it will not be used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim : Para que la imagen se restaure, se debe enviar una autorización del propietario del copyright a OTRS, y se deben hacer argumentos sobre la utilidad educativa de esta imagen. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The Passage of Love.jpg

This image is the cover of my husband, Alex Miller's novel, The Passage of Love. Alex and I have joint ownership of copyright and I do his Wikipedia entries for him. The image is available at the Allen & Unwin site for the novel at https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/fiction/The-Passage-of-Love-Alex-Miller-9781760297343

Could you please undelete the image?

Thank you, SPullin (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I see that you have four deleted images, none of them with the title above. File:Xthe-passage-of-love.jpg.pagespeed.ic.xOEh20hRdA.jpg is a book cover. The T&C for the site you cite above are clearly far from what is required on Commons. Since the copyright to art on the cover usually belongs to the publisher, policy requires that an authorized representative of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim : an authorized representative of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Rolf Weijburg Portret 1.jpg

Even though I indicated I have written permission from the copyright owner, the picture was deleted by Moira Moira, who did not reply to my reply about the proof which I sent as well. This is very strange indeed. Herewith the permission as granted. Upon request I can also send it by PDF or the original email.

I hereby affirm that I am Rolf Weijburg, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright both the work depicted and the media as shown here: https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/155.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/602.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/784.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/217.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/749.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/777.jpg https://weijburg.nl/images/portret1.jpg

and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Rolf Weijburg, Copyright holder November 4, 2017 --Qudz (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Explained on admin talk, pleae use OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Weijburg Gomera 155.jpg

Even though I indicated I have written permission from the copyright owner, the picture was deleted by Moira Moira, who did not reply to my reply about the proof which I sent as well. This is very strange indeed. Herewith the permission as granted. Upon request I can also send it by PDF or the original email. Quote I hereby affirm that I am Rolf Weijburg, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright both the work depicted and the media as shown here: https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/155.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/602.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/784.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/217.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/749.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/777.jpg https://weijburg.nl/images/portret1.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Rolf Weijburg, Copyright holder November 4, 2017

Unquote Best, Qudz

 Not done: Explained on admin talk, pleae use OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Weijburg Rotterdam 749.jpg

Even though I indicated I have written permission from the copyright owner, the picture was deleted by Moira Moira, who did not reply to my reply about the proof which I sent as well. This is very strange indeed. Herewith the permission as granted. Upon request I can also send it by PDF or the original email. Quote I hereby affirm that I am Rolf Weijburg, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright both the work depicted and the media as shown here: https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/155.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/602.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/784.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/217.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/749.jpg https://www.weijburg.nl/portofolio/etsen/777.jpg https://weijburg.nl/images/portret1.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Rolf Weijburg, Copyright holder November 4, 2017 Unquote Best, Qudz

 Not done: Explained on admin talk, pleae use OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Screenshot VLASOV VJA4ESLAV.jpg

Я сам находясь на своей учетной записи, создал скрин сообщения, которое появлялось при попытке редактирования ОПРЕДЕЛЕННОЙ статьи в РУССКОЙ вики, чтобы администраторам была понятна суть моего запроса касаемо ОПРЕДЕЛЕННОЙ статьи. НЕПОНИМАЮ, какие именно авторские права нарушает скриншот если я сам его и создал (скрин)... Разве скринить сообщения которые генерирует ВИКИПЕДИЯ это нарушение авторских прав? ПРОШУ РАЗОБРАТСЯ!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterXOM (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) I, myself on my account, created a screenshot of the message that appeared when I tried to edit the DEFINED article in the Russian wiki, so that the administrators could understand the essence of my request for a DEFINED article. I DO NOT ACCEPT which copyrights violate a screenshot if I created it myself (screen) ... Is it a copyright infringement to screen messages that are generated by VIKIPEDIA? PLEASE UNDERSTAND !!!! MasterXOM (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @MasterXOM: although you were clearly not allowed to upload the image again, it is evident now that {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} applies in this case. I have changed the license accordingly and the image can be kept. De728631 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Anjum Fakih.jpg

Hello administatore please do not delete thi file — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.29.66.181 (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given, request made by LTA. --Guanaco (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: The uploader शिवम कुमार श्रीवास्तव - अभिनेता (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appears to be a sock of Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — Jeff G. ツ 12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, I noticed there were two SKS socks that uploaded the file. I've blocked the IP because it's clearly him. Guanaco (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Agence Rol

Hi, Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hector should not have been deleted. The copyright holder was Creator:Agence Rol and expired 58 after publication (50 years + war prolongation), so these files are in the public domain since 1976 (for the first one) and 1989 for the last one (see {{PD-France}}). They are tagged as public domain in the source. They are also PD-1923 or PD-1996. We have thousands of them here: Category:Agence Rol. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - there is no evidence that any of the reasons for {{PD-France}} would apply, as I have pointed out already here at the talk page of deleting admin. There is no evidence that the photographers would have died before 1947 and there is no evidence that there would not have been a publication with authorship information at some point. We just don't know. They are not old enough to apply {{PD-old-assumed}}, so in the end we don't have evidence for any valid PD reason --> deletion per COM:PCP. Jcb (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Jcb: We don't care when the photographers died, because they didn't own the copyright of these. I already explained that to you, but you continue to put forward senseless arguments... :( Yann (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced by your arguments, because there is no evidence at all that the individual photographers (or their heirs) would not be the copyright holder. We simply don't know. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we know. The photographers are unknown, and therefore they can't own the copyright. Yann (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence at all that the photographers would have been unknown at the moment of first publication or thereafter. Just repeating such a claim over and over again doesn't make it plausible. Jcb (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support As the photographers are unknown. Per Russell's teapot, the burden of proof is to demonstrate that the photographers can be identified, at least sufficiently to support a claim of significant doubt existing, not to "prove" they are unknown. This has always been how COM:PRP is applied, otherwise Commons would never host any orphan works. The surprising thing in this discussion is that an administrator does not understand the logic of how our policies work. @Steinsplitter: for comment, as the deleting admin. --Fæ (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support (disclaimer : i am the ugly uploader) I am not an expert in licensing, but I am convinced by the teapot argument above (and very surprised that what is claimed by an official national specialized website is counted for nothing) Hector (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If the photographers were named, we care when they died, because that would determine the copyright term (regardless of who actually owns the copyright). France does not have a separate corporate copyright term. They *do* have the anonymous 70 year from publication term though -- so if the photographer did not become generally known within 70 years of publication (or 70 years from creation, if not published before that expires). That is a real part of law, so if we can reasonably establish that the photos were published anonymously, that is generally enough to assume that {{PD-anon-70-EU}} becomes the copyright term. If we have little idea of the publication history, that is when the anonymous determination becomes more in doubt. But if we know of publications by the copyright owner, who do not name a human author on the publication, I think we can assume that the 70 year term applies. It is not enough that the company might privately know -- they would have had to make the photographer known before the 70 years was up. I'm not sure what the actual source is, so it's hard to see how close it is to something published by the copyright owner, or something reasonably expected to name the author if known.
The URAA is an additional consideration -- the term on the URAA date would probably be 58-60 years though. (Photos set to expire on Jan 1, 1996 itself are a bit of a gray area due to the copyright directive, but ones that expired Jan 1, 1995 would be OK and would not have been restored by the URAA, per the language in the 1997 law which implemented the directive -- but the 1996 ones not have expired in France on that date). So if these photos were published 1923 and later, and still under copyright in France in 1996, they would also be a problem to restore. But ones that had expired before 1996 in France should still be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Carl Lindberg, these files come from the National Library of France (BNF), which has thousands of pictures by Agence Rol up to 1939. You can look at the source by searching the ID number: btv1b53005252n. AFAIK, the photographers are never mentioned. The BNF usually mentions the photographers when they are known. And as I said above, the copyright term was 58 years, so it expired before 1995, and they are also free of URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The files in question seems to be indeed PD-anon-70-EU, thus restored. Consensus to restore as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The Golden Killer Book Cover.jpg

I actually made this cover myself!!! It took me a month to make it!! It is not a copyright violation because it's my cover!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcaligioneauthor (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There actually is a book, "The Golden Killer", and this is one of several of its covers found on Amazon. However, we do not know whether User:Vcaligioneauthor is actually the author Vincent Caligione. Our username policy requires that users whose usernames are those of a notable person must prove that they are, in fact, that notable person and not a vandal, fan, or other identity theif. The easiest and fastest way to do this is to post a note on your Facebook page and then tell us here to look there. Alternately, you may do it by sending a message using OTRS, but that will take weeks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC).

 Not done As per Jim; I find a Facebook page for an author with this name but I can not find any relevant information there about copyright license; OP has received information about Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Portrait of Louise Francoise de Bourbon.png

Salve vorrei chiedere il ripristino di questo antico dipinto del XVIII Secolo di Scuola Francese ,il seguente dipinto e' stato eseguito dal pittore francese François de Troy (1645 –1730) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.244.103.57 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA A3cb1 request. Jump in a lake, find another playground. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:PEERS logo copy.png

{{Non-free use rationale 2
<!--Obligatory fields-->
| Description    = This logo represents Peers Envisioning and Engaging in Recovery Services (PEERS), a 501c county-contracted mental health nonprofit in Oakland, CA, USA
| Author         = PEERS
| Source         = www.peersnet.org
| Article        = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3APeers_Envisioning_and_Engaging_in_Recovery_Services_(PEERS)
| Purpose        = This logo illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
| Replaceability = It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
| Minimality     = The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
| Commercial     = The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.
<!--Optional/expert fields-->
| Date                = 10/9/17
| Publication         =
| Replaceability_text =
| Other information   =
}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickcglass (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair Use is not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2016-2-9_MK_protests_5.jpg

This image originally publish by user Citobun on 9 February 2016 . But I don't know why there have a blog use the picture and publish on [5] on 17 February 2016. But the administrator Jcb labeled this photo is copyright violation and it is a mistake actually, so the picture should be kept.--Wpcpey (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, if you compare the image in commons with the image uploaded in that blog [6][7], it will be very easy to find out the latter was a downscaled image (1280x960px, 208.5kb) from original (1500x1125px, 329kb). In addition to the difference of upload date, we can conclude that the image was uploaded by User:Citobun first and was copied to that blog later. Therefore it should be a mistake. --Baycrest (Talk) 16:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, restored by Jcb. --219.79.127.90 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2016-2-9_MK_protests_3.jpg

Same as above case, This image originally publish by user Citobun on 9 February 2016 . But I don't know why there have a blog 「端木皚」directly copy the picture and publish his own blog on [8] on 17 February 2016. But the administrator Jcb labeled this photo is copyright violation and it is a mistake actually, so the picture should be kept.--Wpcpey (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Question: The blog didn't state the date that the blog was posted, as you can see here, it was posted on February 2017, so there is a doubt whether the blog or this image was posted first. --219.79.127.121 02:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
If the date in the filename is correct, it was uploaded here the same day it was taken. Not really a lot of time to pull from another site. Secondly, the EXIF of the image at the mentioned blog has a "Comment" section with a value of "File source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016-2-9_MK_protests_3.jpg". So, there is really no question over what came first.  Support if that is the primary reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

when you search the article name 為什麼教會只關心林淳軒？, it shows that the earliest post is publish on 15/2/2016. So the author is use the photo in wikipedia first and publish it into his own blog. --Wpcpey (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, if you compare the image in commons with the image uploaded in that blog [9][10], it will be very easy to find out the latter was a cropped image from original. In addition to the difference of upload date, we can conclude that the image was uploaded by User:Citobun first and was copied to that blog later. Therefore it should be a mistake. --Baycrest (Talk) 16:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, restored by Jcb. --219.79.127.90 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Aluísio Ferreira de Lima, Psicólogo Social Crítico.jpg

There is a deletion request on a picture in the Wikipedia page I created for Aluísio Ferreira de Lima. All the photos of the page were taken by me, and they were used by Aluísio as profile pictures on Facebook as well. I'm his daughter and I'm the producer of that photos I used, so I ask you to undelete the file and the page. I'm grateful for the opportunity of exposing my position about this.

Best regards.

PS: If you want, you can send the picture to my father's email aluisiolima@hotmail.com and ask him who own them and who took them. Also, he authorized me to create the page for him.

--Stephanie Caroline Lima (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Stephanie Caroline Lima

The image is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aluisio Ferreira de Lima, Psicólogo Social Crítico.jpg. Since it has not yet been deleted, you must discuss it there, not here.
I don't see an article on him in WP:EN or WP:ES. If a page has been deleted from one of the Wikipedias, you must discuss that there, not here on Commons. Also note that most Wikipedias have strict rules against people with a conflict of interest editing them. As his daughter, you clearly would be breaking such a rule and anything you wrote would probably be removed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: the image is not deleted, procedural closure. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:EscuderoUFC.jpg

This is a photo from Efrain's facebook. He took it himself. We are good friends from college. I've been running his wikipedia since 2007. He gave it to me to upload. How to prove it is free use? Screenshot facebook message from efrain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsyGold (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claim that you took the image. Here you claim that Efrain took it. It would be good if you got your stories straight. Since it does not appear to be a selfie, it seems likely that Efrain Escudero did not take the image as you claim above.

Since the image has appeared on Facebook more or less simultaneously with Commons, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

SFMotorsHQ.jpg

SF Motors company reached out to me to make their Wikipedia. They own this image and have given me permission to use it. How to provide proof to get it undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsyGold (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, let me point out that WP:EN has a strict rule against conflict of interest and you appear to be violating it. Anything you do there may be deleted.

Second, apparently you were not the photographer of this image as you claimed when you uploaded it. Making incorrect claims is a violation of Commons rules and makes it hard to trust any claims you may make in the future.

Since you do not actually have the right to freely license the image, an authorized official of the actual copyright holder -- probably a corporate officer of SF Motors -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:John Ashburnham, 1st Earl of Ashburnham.jpg

a file relating to a painting by Michael Dahl (1659-1743) painted in 1715, the painting is part of a section licensed by copyright, since the painting is dated 1715 and the AUTHOR IS DEAD IN 1743 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.248.92.59 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support Krd, you deleted this because the uploader is a bad guy. However, the image is of an 18th century painting and the subject's WP:EN article, John Ashburnham, 1st Earl of Ashburnham could use a portrait. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No objection if the painting really is created by Michael Dahl in 1715, which is not self-evident for this uploader. --Krd 11:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I generally oppose the undeletion of images provided by this uploader, but FWIW this is in fact John Ashburnham as painted by Dahl: [11]. The year 1715, however, remains to be verified. De728631 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored per discussion - Jcb (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DWCL-new-logo-1.png

The file in question, File:DWCL-new-logo.png, has been granted permissions by its creator, as the file can be seen on a public domain and were not listed in any copyright claims by its creator. Kindly restore the file and undelete it from your system. User:175.158.216.30 November 11, 2017

According to the image description the source is dwc-legazpi.edu which says "Copyright Divine Word College of Legazpi © All rights reserved." Thuresson (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: In order for us to restore the image, an authorized representative of Divine Word College must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Biblioteca nacional open house.jpg

la quiero eliminar por que esta sacada desde un celular. I want to delete this file because i took this pic with my phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvdr9696 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment That is not a valid reason to delete a good image and this is not the way or the place to request a deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Closed, this is not an undeletion request. Jcb (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kz-kokaral-dam-735x490.jpg

Die Freigabe war in der Lizenz benannt!--Forggen (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Siehe meinen Kommentar bei #File:Kz-aral-clouds-780x439.jpg. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: wie oben. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vod-res-bam-e.gif

Die Freigabe war im Text erläutert und an die Wikimedia gemeldet. Lesen lernen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forggen (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Die Freigabe Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,... usw. war zwar angegeben, aber nicht nachvollziehbar. Der einzige Weblink auf der Dateiseite war dieser hier zu der Originalgrafik. Die Grafik selbst hat aber keinerlei Hinweise auf eine CC-Lizenz. Die Beweispflicht auf Commons liegt dabei immer beim Dateilieferanten, also bitte Regeln lernen und nächstes Mal auf Verlangen einen Weblink liefern, der auch die Freigabe dokumentiert. Die Landkarte wird übrigens in diesem Dokument (S. 12) verwendet, ohne dass ein Hinweis auf eine Creative-Commons-Lizenz gegeben wird, und auch auf Flickr hat Zoi Environment Networks das Bild nur unter "all rights reserved" eingestellt. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: wie von De728631 korrekt ausgeführt. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Southeastern Lincoln County Habitat Conservation Plan Final.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Obvious PD-USGov image. 219.79.127.90 14:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Not at all obvious. In fact, it has no Federal connection. If anything is obvious here, it is that it is copyrighted and we do not have permission to host it. On page three, it says that it was prepared by Entrix, Inc. for the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners, Pioche, Nevada. Entrix probably holds the copyright, but even if the Board holds it, the work is not free.

It is also not clear that it is in scope. We do not generally keep works such as this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It would easily be within scope. Source document for a wikisource page, for example. Government planning documents are always of general interest. However, agreed on the copyright issue. PD-USGov is for the U.S. federal government only, not state or local governments. Local governments may copyright material if they wish, other than the actual text of laws, judicial decisions, or other government edicts. Other material would follow normal U.S. copyright law, and be copyrighted for 95 years from publication. If a work was published before 1989 without a copyright notice, or published before 1964 without a copyright renewal, older U.S. copyright law would apply to make it public domain, but other than that it would need to be licensed by the copyright owner. If I'm seeing a copy of this on the fws.gov website correctly, it says Original work of authorship in any medium, including data in any form, prepared and originated by BLM, USFWS or Permittees as a result of work conducted under this Agreement on or pertaining to BLM administered lands, shall be shared jointly by the BLM, USFWS or Permittees with each having full and unlimited rights of use. If any requirement of the SLCHCP or Agreement involves information, including data, previously developed and under the control or copyright of BLM, USFWS or Permittees, BLM, USFWS or Permittees shall permit the other parties limited use of such information and data as necessary to accomplish the Agreement, to the extent otherwise allowed by law. The county is a "permittee" in that clause. It sounds like the USFWS has full rights to use it, but that does not automatically transfer to everyone, so there would still need to be an explicit license -- that is still different than being authored by an employee of the federal government. This would qualify as a "public record" anyways, meaning it would be fair use under copyright law to make and copies at least in educational contexts, but that status does not include full copyright authority.  Oppose Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done PD-USGov is only valid for works prepared directly by the Federal government of the US, but not for works prepared by third parties for a county-level administration. De728631 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:The procession of Nawab Polo Khan towards palace

This file has proper data so please nominate it for undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawabs of Indian subcontinent (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, this is about File:The procession of Nawab Polo Khan towards palace.jpg, which hasn't been deleted (yet) but which most certainly does not have "proper data". —LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, the requester is a serial sockpuppeteer. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please provide appropriate information. --Yann (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files uploaded by Nitekatt

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: hi, when I uploaded these files first, I did not manage to provide proof they are licensed for public use within the set 7day period, however on second attempt I added the link where it can be seen that the copyright owner (Kirovsky Zavod company) declares them CC 4.0 licensed ( http://kzgroup.ru/rus/s/227/б ) although looks like it went unnoticed. Please undelete! Nitekatt (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored - Jcb (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mola mola 1887.jpg

The give away is the date in the filename. See https://archive.org/stream/guidetogalleries87brit#page/94/mode/1up and VP discussion Commons:Village_pump#Save_the_fish. Several other uploads by Citron appear to be salvageable if they have the same sourcing issues (i.e. "n" in the source field). --Fæ (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File has been undeleted by a colleague. Please fix the image description page. Jcb (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done — Huntster (t @ c) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Feira Cebolas Castelo da Maia Inicios sec XX.jpg

Use authorized use via OTRS, see ticketLeon saudanha (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done - ticket is invalid for two reasons: permission is Wikimedia/Wikipedia only, not a valid free license. Also permission from the heirs of the photographer who took this picture back in 1920 is missing. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kaiser Josef II.png

Salve, chiedo il ripristino del seguente file ,trattandosi di un ritratto del Imperatore Giuseppe II d Asburgo , il Ritratto e' stato eseguito dal pittore Adam Ludwig d'Argent (1748–1829) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.31.200.109 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not taking any request from you, vandal. Jump in a lake, get friend. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Phyllodytes megatympanum-2017.jpg

Per OTRS autorization. ticket 10118805.Leon saudanha (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Michael Paxton.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Michael Paxton emailed explicit permission to use this photo to Wikimedia Commons. See [Ticket#2017091810020227] Michipedian (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Michipedian: Although you had been asked to do so at your talk page, you did not put any notice like {{OP}} on the file page. That would have prevented deletion. As the deleting admin I have now restored the file with "OTRS pending". De728631 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Maria Cordero（肥媽）與陸浩明.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: User claims own work. He has uploaded some photos with similar resolution. 219.79.127.90 09:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That is true, but irrelevant, because it is not the reason it was deleted. As I said in my closing comment, "It appears elsewhere on th Web, but not at this size. However, it infirnges on the copyright for the photograph on the left. It is too blurry to be cropped to eliminate that or to provide a good image of Maria Cordero, so it cannot be kept." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Amy ng (cropped).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amy ng.jpg, it is own work. 219.79.127.90 09:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose While I agree that it is a crop of any image that we kept after a DR, the quality is so poor that I am not sure it is useful for any purpose. Also, I note that Amy Ng does not seem to have a WP article, so why do we need more than one image? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. However, I don't think the article would be improved by using the cropped image in place of the uncropped one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: The original is very blurry at the resolution required for a head, bust, or even full-length shot, but shouldn't we leave such decisions up to the editors of zh:吳幸美?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Jeff, I think there has to be a point at which we say, "This quality is so bad that keeping it embarrasses Commons". We might keep this if it was the only image we had, but we have the larger one, which is in use now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: In that case, how do you feel about the quality of File:Confucius 02.gif?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It's marginal. However, it is apparently the only black on white version we have of the portrait. There is, I think, a much better white on black version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Very poor quality, the person can't be recognized. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Провід Апостольської Чоти.jpg

Доброго вечора. цей файл є моєю власністю бо я є керівник цієї організації і я там зображений. чому ви видалили мій файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Апостольська Чота (talk • contribs) 18:59, 11 November 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Are you actually the photographer of all of these images as you claimed? I doubt it. In order to restore this, the actual copyright holder(s) must send free license(s) using OTRS. That will usually be the photographer(s), not you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Shaped By Fate.jpg

Hi,

I uploaded this photograph of my band 'Shaped By Fate' as there is no image of the band on the page. The photograph was taken on my own camera during a European tour. I'm a founding member of the band and I own the photograph.

Nobody is going to dispute the use of the image as it belongs to me and the band split up several years ago.

I'd really appreciate it if the photograph could remain on the page!

If there's anything else I can do to reaffirm it's authenticity then please let me know.

Best, Richey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chichester Hart (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chichester Hart:  Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shaped By Fate.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 Comment - warning: do not reupload the file yourself. An administrator will decide whether this file will be undeleted or not - Jcb (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The image appears without a free license on the Web -- see Discogs, for example. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MSU's_Leonard_Falcone.jpg

Please explain the deletion of [these files]. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.20.176.203 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@AnonymousSpartan: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:IMessage logo (Apple Inc.).png

This file is eligible for inclusion in Commons under the following rationales: {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}}

Schrijveryas was the original uploader and NahidSultan performed the original deletion.

I just found a duplicate which has not been deleted. Could I get comments on the image's copyright?
duplicate

Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems a bad way of discussing the original file. Undelete the file and raise a DR. It was not an obvious copyvio and so was not eligible for speedy. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry and Fæ: {{O}} iMessage logos have been called unfree by multiple enwiki uploaders. Apple vigorously protects its intellectual property. We don't "Undelete the file and raise a DR", instead, we discuss here.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see how that would get a copyright. The background rounded square with gradient, definitely not. The quote oval... extremely unlikely, and there is nothing else. An iAd logo was ruled uncopyrightable by the Copyright Office -- see here. I commented the same way on the other DR. It's possible this should remain deleted as a duplicate though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Undeletion. If anyone is still worried that this damages Apple's IP, then they can raise a DR. This would ensure a full record to set a case study, rather than a hard-to-find archive of an undel thread. --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ and Jeff G.: Yes, I want to start a deletion review on the original file. Can you remind me where that happens? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry and Fæ: Fine, you wanted a DR (Deletion Request), please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMessage icon.png.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support. It's PD-textlogo according to our common interpretation. If Apple has a different view, they can file a DMCA notice. The fact that users have claimed fair use, or that Apple is litigious does not change the copyright status of this image. Guanaco (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support on grounds of copyrightability per US Copyright Office, Blue, Fæ, Carl, and Guanaco. This is less complicated than the iAd logo. However, the question of keeping this or File:IMessage icon.png on the basis of duplication remains per Carl.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per discussion above. --Yann (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:IT-79 logo.jpg

The autor charged it on Facebook and I've got the permission from who charged it on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gioggio 02 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe there could be a U.S. copyright on it, but have less idea about Denmark/Greenland. Shouldn't be non-free on en-wiki, but less sure here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @ShakespeareFan00 and Ronhjones, as editors of that page.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Since uploader says he has permission from the author, then the easy way is to send the permission via COM:CONSENT, and OTRS can undelete when permission is verified. Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:KKND 2 Split Screen.png

Скриншют снят с эмулятора для PS1.Лично мной.И не нарушает никаких авторских прав.(The screenshot is taken from the emulator for PS1. Personally, me. And does not violate any copyright.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealTH (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 15:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ESA logo.svg

This file (I assume it is same as w:File:ESA LOGO.svg) contains only text and simple geometric figures.

  1. Sequence of blue arcs in a circle is not copyrightable (See for example File:Reuters 2008 logo.svg where circles are arranged in a pattern)
  2. a white circle is not copyrightable per geometric shapes
  3. 'e' in white colour is not copyrightable per PD-text
  4. "esa" in blue is not copyrightable per "PD-text".


acagastya 08:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 23:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Filipinki 1966.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo of Filipinki band was published by Wytwórnia Filmowa "Czołówka" (polish film company) in the „Marynarka to męska przygoda” movie promotional leaflet in May 1966 without copyright note. I believe that {{PD-Polish}} applies. Selenium (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 23:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:International recognition of Catalonia.png

There was a lot of community interest to keep this map, the votes were 16:1 for keep. The opinion of the closing administrator (Jcb (talk | contribs)) was clearly using inflammatory and biased language with "This file is not in use and it's indeed original research. And as long as Catalunya is obviously de facto not independent, it doesn't seem useful to create such a map in which the few clownish small countries that do recognize this non-existing country are hard to find." It is not the role of Commons administrators to delete files because they personally believe that some "small countries" are "clownish". A political map showing recognition of independence of a country, especially when there is a highly notable ongoing territorial dispute and legal proceedings, is of use and of educational value. Many maps hosted on Commons are based on "original research", that has never been a policy based rationale for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, my comment is already here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support. I don't see any basis in policy to delete this image without consensus. Guanaco (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - this map was based on original research and useless. It was not used in any Wikipedia article for obvious reasons, even not in CA wiki, where they have an article about this non existing country. Even for the POV that Catalunya would be a country, this map was useless, because it was hardly possible to find the few small green countries on it. The map did not even show the point it was trying to show. Jcb (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Please explain why a DR closure with the words "clownish small countries", is a policy based close. Thanks in advance :-). --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The main problem seems to be original research. Determining whether a wanna-be country is recognized is simple: other recognized countries issue official statements recognizing the new country. The deleted image played an odd game: provided that no country had recognized anything, different colours were used at the editor's preferences (a politician in a given country said something: a different colour is used). International recognizion maps are useful when there's actually a degree of recognition (examples: File:Recognition of SADR.svg). On the other hand, even if it does have a one country recognition, no map on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus exists. --Discasto talk 11:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Maps exist for many purposes. It is entirely within policy for Commons to host a map that shows where there has been political support for Catalonia independence, even where partial, because there are users that find this of educational value. If you believe that Commons should now delete maps where there is original research, then please put that forward as a proposal, as there would be a lot of maps to delete. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought we're talking about Catalan Republic recognition. Now it's "political support". Next, it will be... The problem with OR is not OR in itself, but educational value (maps exist for many purposes, but not all of them are within Commons scope). --Discasto talk 13:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no rule against original research on Commons, but the result must be useful for an educational purpose. We would not, for example, host a map that showed the continental USA divided into 60 states because it would not be useful. I see no use for this map. It shows large areas in red -- including the USA, Canada, Mexico, much of the EU, Indonesia, and half of South America. It cites only four sources. The VOA article is simply a news story saying that the Catalonian Parliament had voted independence. VOA does not speak for the US government and as far as I know, the US has not recognized Catalonia. The other three sources are three articles regarding South Ossetia -- which appears to have recognized the action. So, it appears that 99.99% of the red on this map is completely unsupported by any source. No one is going to use that in any serious way. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim, in your role as a Bureaucrat, and hence in a position to advise on the correct use of Administrator rights, could you explain what "clownish small countries" was referring to in the DR close? There are at least 16 members of the community that would like to see that properly explained in the DR, and how that is an application of Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines, even if the closing admin is refusing to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that Jcb's remark was not as measured as I tried to be above, I sympathize with his frustration over having to spend time reading through 740 words of comment on a file that has no possibility of being useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The good news is that no administrator is required to close any specific DR, and Jcb was clearly not the right person to close this DR. Perhaps you could kindly now re-close the DR and remove Jcb's offensive comment which appears intended to degrade specific nationalities who come from the "clownish" countries? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Commons is not censored. While I might encourage Jcb to strikethrough his remark, I won;t delete it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus reached to restore it Ezarateesteban 23:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Society_of_Students_Against_Poverty.svg

Hello all,

Recently two of my files [ File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg & File:KNTU LOGO.svg ] are being deleted due to fact that I'm not Copyright Holder and need OTRS Verification by This two edits [[12] & [13]]; But the story going on as below:

I build this logo using Inkscape and I'm not copy it from Internet. At first glance I think because I use logo as the reference may be that is Copyright Violation and Fair Use is apply. I build another two logo exactly by same process which is File:International Centre for Theoretical Physics.svg & File:Tehran University of Art LOGO.svg. I mark it for Commons:Fair use to be deleted ASAP. One of admins decline my mark and notice Commons:Threshold of originality. So because that is controversial, First I want extend the deletion process from 2 days to 30 as note; And second I don't see any clear policy on how to handle this situation so what should I do in future.

Regards, Firouzyan (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Background for this is at User talk:Firouzyan#احیای تصاویر (in Persian).   — Jeff G. ツ 15:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Thanks for notice but I think because that is in Persian may be it isn't useful so far. P.S: This is as well User talk:4nn1l2#بر چسب حذف فوری برای چه؟ Firouzyan (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a copyrighted logo. The fact that you created this version in SVG may give you a copyright for this version, but it is still derivative of and infringes on the copyright for the logo, which is presumably owned by the Society of Students Against Poverty. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

So, Look at this: File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg Firouzyan (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
We have 42 million files on Commons. It is not hard to find examples that are copyright violations -- that is why we delete around 2,000 images every day. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg. It is never valid to say "You must keep this image because here is another image that violates the same rule." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First I give an example which is shown in Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany. Second I'm not use that logic which you notice, I only think there isn't clear policy in here. As you see in your request at least two people didn't agree with you. I care about common as much as you and don't want to be punish because Copyright Violation, But really there isn't clear rule. Firouzyan (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Because Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg archived and NOT DELETED and this apply to my case as well, I want my request become archive and deletion of my files become suspend. Regards, Firouzyan (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Per above. Users have had plenty of time to transfer the image to projects that allow fair use. Thuresson (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mjölby-kyrka-crodel.jpeg

Missed to put copyright information for Mjölby-kyrka-crodel.jpeg {{PD-self}} Focas.web (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Sweden.. Sweden's FOP applies only to outdoor works. This will be under copyright until 1/1/2043, 70 years after the death of the artist, Charles Crodel. THe image cannot be restored here without a free license from one of Crodel's heirs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Paridhi Sharma.jpg

Administration please allow me to Fair use article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Non-free logo (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no Free Use in Commons. Image deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Blocked user as a sockpuppet. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for obvious reasions. De728631 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Monitoreo de ph en Llanquihue.jpg

File:Monitoreo de ph en Llanquihue.jpg File:Monitoreo de ph.jpg File:Monitoreo de temperatura y ph del Humedal Baquedano.jpg

These is my own work. --SmokenFlames (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment FYI: User doesn't want to wait for OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Guanaco. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Postal el Sarao.png

Reasons: [Ticket#: 2017111710002244] of the OTRS grants copyright to publish the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokenFlames (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Guanaco. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Plan de Accion Medioambiental.png

Reason: Ticket#2017111710002128 OTRS --SmokenFlames (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Guanaco. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Micheal Martin (official portrait).jpg

In recent months I have been uploading photos of Irish politicians to Wikimedia Commons that are available from the Houses of the Oireachtas website (beta.oireachtas.ie). It is said in the Copyright Policy that all information (including images) on the site are allowed to be used without specifically asking for any purpose as long as the Houses of the Oireachtas is clearly attributed. This is outlined in the Oireachtas Copyright Policy and the Oireachtas PSI License.

An issue arose between me and Jcb over the permission to use the file in the subject above. As the copyright policy was slightly vague I decided to contact the Houses of Oireachtas myself and I got the following repy.

Hi CnocBride,  Most of the images of members are indeed copyright the Houses of the Oireachtas and are therefore available to re-use under our Oireachtas (Open Data) PSI Licence, which is very similar to CC-BY. Therefore, use in Wikipedia and Wikimedia would be permitted if attribution is included as you suggest. However, your query prompted us to review all member images and we have noticed that there are a few images that appear to be different in format than those taken by ourselves (eg, Lynn Ruane, Leo Varadkar). It may be that a member requested a change and supplied a separate one. We will get clarity on any non-Oireachtas (c) images and annotate those images directly with the appropriate (c) information if it belongs to a third party. Moreover we will endeavour to maintain CC-BY or equivalent licensing for any images. I will revert when I have an update. For now, you can take it that all the TD photos with a yellow background are (c) Houses of the Oireachtas, as are all Senator photographs with a solid white background. Two examples listed below. TD example --- https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/members/member/Brian-Stanley.D.2011-03-09 Senator example --- https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/members/member/Maria-Byrne.S.2016-04-25 Regards, Karin Whooley PS. It would be our preference to include the full attribution "Houses of the Oireachtas", rather than "Oireachtas". -- Karin Whooley Web Manager Communications | Broadcasting | Web Houses of the Oireachtas Dublin 2 t. +353 1 618 3501                       w. www.oireachtas.ie Twitter @OireachtasNews

In this email, Karin, explains to me that all images of TD's which have a yellow background are property of the Houses of Oireachtas and are usable on Wikipedia in accordance with their Copyright Policy. Also all Senator photos which include a white background are also property of the Houses of Oireachtas and are usable on Wikipedia in accordance with their copyright policy. The photo I uploaded is one of these photos and I therefor argue it is allowed on Wikipedia.

Another issue has arised, however, some photos such as the one I uploaded of Leo Varadkar are technically not property of the Houses of Oireachtas as far as Karin knows. She has stated she will double check whether or not they are property of the House or will check if they are property of a third party. If they are property of a third party she will double-check what license it is released under.

Any inquiries please feel free to leave me a message. CnocBride (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I think that your argument may be correct, but you do yourself no favor by uploading the image a second time in violation of Commons rules.
I have read the cited terms which are all good, except that I have trouble with the word "document" which is defined elsewhere. It would be helpful if you could provide a cite for that definition as the license covers only "documents" as defined, and that word does not always include photographs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment @Jameslwoodward: Clearly you didn't read the email, the staff member at the Houses of the Oireachtas confirmed to me that the PSI License covers all image of TD's and Senators with yellow and white backgrounds respectively. I don't really understand how your interpretation changes everything when the copyright holder themselves say the use of the images on Wikimedia and its sister projects is alright as long as proper attribution is give. Again it seems the community are making problems out of absolutely nothing. CnocBride (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I certainly read the email. If the writer had been copyright counsel, I would have reacted differently, but it is not at all uncommon for staff people such as the writer of the email to completely misunderstand copyright issues. Therefore, when I saw a set of terms that included questionable wording, I asked for a cite to the definition. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have contacted her again and she has said she understands the entire copyright status with the images. It his her job to deal with such things and she has also made sure with various other staff members within her department about the use of the images. She has stated that all images (which include a yellow or white background) are covered by the PSI License. Once again I do have permission from the Houses of the Oireachtas to use these files so I ask that this picture be undeleted as I see no need to constantly argue over a perfectly fine image that is free to use as long as attribution is given. CnocBride (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, our standard of proof is "significant doubt". The license says that it covers only "documents". That word does not usually include photographs and we have frequently had staffers who should know better make incorrect claims about the technicalities of copyright licenses. I think there is a significant doubt that your contact is correct about this license and ask again that you find a cite for the formal definition of the word. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the official definition provided by the Houses of the Oireachtas on the word document:

"(11) This Directive lays down a generic definition of the term "document", in line with developments in the information society. It covers any representation of acts, facts or information - and any compilation of such acts, facts or information - whatever its medium (written on paper, or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording), held by public sector bodies. A document held by a public sector body is a document where the public sector body has the right to authorise re-use."

Here is the full email I received:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CnocBride (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hi CnocBride,

I'm sorry to hear you are still having trouble. In terms of the word "document" -- this is defined by the 2003 EU legislation and I would refer your community members to it. (11) This Directive lays down a generic definition of the term "document", in line with developments in the information society. It covers any representation of acts, facts or information - and any compilation of such acts, facts or information - whatever its medium (written on paper, or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording), held by public sector bodies. A document held by a public sector body is a document where the public sector body has the right to authorise re-use. I am afraid I cannot provide you with any further documentation. The Oireachtas PSI Open Data licence was drafted by the lawyers in the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser here in the Houses of the Oireachtas and stands as a clear statement on re-use of all the "public sector information" on our website, other than Broadcast Proceedings or information clearly attributed to others. Sorry I cannot offer you anything further.

I do need to clarify the matter of the handful of member images added at a later date and I will revert on that. We have contacted the members involved.

Kind regards, Karin

Once again I deem this sufficient proof that the use of the image is fair under both Wikimedia policy and the Houses of the Oireachtas PSI License.

CnocBride (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support "written on paper, or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording)" emphasis added. Thank you.

Although this is a quibble, note that "the use of the image is fair" is a misstatement. Fair use is not permitted on Commons and is not involved here -- this is a licensed use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Sorry my wording was wrong. If you read all the emails you would see that Karin pointed out the Oireachtas PSI License is like CC-BY-SA. I apologize for saying "fair use", that was poor wording. The use of the file on Wikimedia is allowed because use of the images are allowed to be used by anyone as long as the Oireachtas is properly attributed. I believe this how a lot of images on Commons are already licensed. So lets quit this fracas and restore the image as it is state the image is allowed on Commons. CnocBride (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: This has been open without comment for two weeks. I am reluctant to close an UnDR where I had a significant comment, but time enough has passed so I think it is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Political divisions of Taiwan Province.svg

It is not a copyright violation. I made some respond on the copyvio tag but User:Jcb did not see them. Those links are png. If I copied from those links, why would I convert it to vector graphics? Also those links are copied from File:Political divisions of the Republic of China(Taiwan).svg--QBear (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw your response, but the only thing you wrote is "I think this is not apparently a copyright violation". In order to understand why you think this is not a copyright violation, please explain? Jcb (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It is because the deleted image was a map of the political divisions of the Taiwan Province which did not include the five special municipalities of Taiwan. But the images from http://www.a9958.com.tw/webc/html/page/index.php?kind=24, http://www.cndpushshare.com/mess/28357.html and http://140.112.89.41/NTU/consult_q.html are maps including all political divisions of Taiwan. They have different color and different appearance. Also, those images were very likely copied from File:Political divisions of the Republic of China(Taiwan).svg or File:Political divisions of the Republic of China (Taiwan).svg. If you take a look at http://www.cndpushshare.com/mess/28357.html you will find that the image there is linked to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Political_divisions_of_the_Republic_of_China(Taiwan).svg/300px-Political_divisions_of_the_Republic_of_China(Taiwan).svg.png. I think you should explain why you thought it was a copyright violation.--QBear (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Political divisions of Taiwan Province.svg is definitely a DW of Political divisions of the Republic of China(Taiwan).svg, it has got exactly the same vector data. All websites which were linked by B dash use images, not vector data. It is impossible to create a completely identical vector file by re-drawing an image. On the other hand Political divisions of the Republic of China(Taiwan).svg is cc-by-sa, so QBear cannot claim Political divisions of Taiwan Province.svg as "own work" without linking to the source file and naming its author. So this is a copyvio but one which is very unnecessary. QBear simply would have to meet the licence terms and everything could be fine. NNW 11:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I made Political divisions of Taiwan Province.svg by modifying Political divisions of the Republic of China(Taiwan).svg. It was my mistake not mentioning that. Finally a wise enough administrator.--QBear (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb and NordNordWest: }I think it is very clear that the deleted image was not copied from any external source. It was just a matter of the cc licence. Please restore it as soon as possible. Thank you.--QBear (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @QBear: Please correct the file description according to the license of the original file. NNW 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Israeli Army (Land Arm) Flag.svg

Hello,
The file was deleted with the comment "empty redirect -2003:DE:3E0:1298:1515:98A1:11E8:6BB9" but I think that it was a legitimate redirect (the consequence of a move) to File:Flag of the Israeli Army (Land Arm).svg, and that the redirect was erroneously emptied.
I am requesting an undeletion because File:Israeli Army (Land Arm) Flag.svg is still heavily used by many articles of Wikipedia, cf. its global usage.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Housekeeping. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:LancsWolverines-Logo-2017.jpg

This image does not violate the terms of use, I have given my permission for its use as the creator.

(Riseofthemonkey (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC))

 Oppose Published at [14] with an explicit copyright notice, "All rights reserved". Thuresson (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Because fans often upload logos without permission, policy requires that an authorized representative of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Assemblea costitutiva del Pcudi.jpg

the photo was wrongly uploaded by phone with a licence CC BY SA; the licence is in fact {{PD-Italy}} and the author is unknown. The same situation for all files listed here. Thanks --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In what manner was this photo first published in Italy? Thuresson (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The photo was published on a newspaper few day after 16 ottobre 1966.--Susanna Giaccai (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Which newspaper and which day? Thuresson (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
On Nuova Unità in the month of october 1966.--Susanna Giaccai (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Pardon; "Nuova Unità" is not a newspaper but a journal.--Susanna Giaccai (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. The date needs to be fixed. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:HickoryFlats.png

File:HickoryFlats.png

This file was deleted because the source had not been identified. I have finally found the source. The file was created by drawing a boundary for hickory flats on a scanned image of the Forest Service map "Jefferson National Forest (North Half), Virginia, 1983, Recreation Guide R8-RG 167, reprinted June 1997”, obtained from the Forest Supervisor for the Jefferson National Forest. WilderAddict (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@WilderAddict: Could you upload the scan of this Forest Service map for comparison? It's good to have the original work whenever possible. Guanaco (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The scanned image has a file size of 300 MB. I tried to upload it to commons, but the file size exceeds the 100 MB limit on commons. Do you have any suggestions on how I can upload the file. WilderAddict (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I use User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js for big files. To me, this is the most reliable way. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: See below. --Yann (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:CascadesMtnTreasure.png

Please undelete the following files

these files were created by drawing a boundary on a scanned image of the Forest Service map "Jefferson National Forest (North Half), Virginia, 1983, Recreation Guide R8-RG 167, reprinted June 1997”

This is the second request to undelete File:HickoryFlats.png. The editor responded by requesting the scanned image of the forest service map be made available on commons. A jpeg format of the scanned image has been uploaded as shown here:
1983 Map of the north portion of the Jefferson National Forest in southwest Virginia

Please inform me if you need additional information. WilderAddict (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support These are based on a PD-USGov map. We can restore the images and credit the base map. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The license should be changed to PD-USGov. --Yann (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Eye of Hurricane Earl on August 3, 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS-pending file, shouldn't be deleted so quick. 219.79.180.50 03:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Photographic Tourism Research - Literature Review.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am confused as to why only my pfd has been deleted according to your rules when other users work remains. It is clearly evident that from the links below that uploading text and image files in pdf form are acceptable.

Therefore, I kindly ask that you undelete my file or delete the offending files like mine to show consistency. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcasiaga (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please remember that we have more than 40 million files on Commons. Although we do our best to review them, it is inevitable that there are many -- at least several hundred thousand -- that should not be here. Therefore, arguing that since similar files are here, yours should be restored, is never valid. If there is anything to be done with the apparent inconsistency here, it may be to delete the three files you cite.

Second, I note that the PDF has a clear and explicit copyright notice with no evidence of a free license.

Third, as noted in the deletion, we do not generally keep PDFs of this sort. If the information contained in the subject PDF belongs in a WP article, subject to copyright restrictions, it should be inserted in the article as text, not as a PDF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Please note that the first PDF listed above is transcribed in Wikisource, so it is in scope. The other 2 need review. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Google Chrome Screenshot.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting temporary undeletion for discussion. I believe there may be a case to be made that there is no non-free, original authorship in these images. The Chromium software, available under BSD, LGPL, etc., is the basis for the Chrome software and its layout. The Google Chrome logo has been held to be below the threshold of originality. Whatever proprietary contribution Google may or may not have made to these images is likely to be de minimis. Guanaco (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jcb, Polarlys, and Rosenzweig: I'd like your input, as you deleted these images. Guanaco (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • At least you shouldn't rely on the licensing of Chromium for screenshots of Chrome. They have shared code, but there are differences and we don't want to need an expert in every DR who has to tell us whether the particular part is suffenciently simular to that part of Chromium. If somebody wants to rely on the licensing of Chromium for a screenshot, they should install Chromium and make that screenshot. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      The fundamental layouts are the same between the two browsers, and this is verifiable by comparing screenshots of equivalent versions. Proprietary Chrome features include media codec support, Google updates, error reporting, and similar; nothing that affects the base layout of the browser. If I wanted to upload a screenshot of a website, I'd use a free browser (Firefox is my personal preference), but when writing about Chrome itself, the Chrome screenshots are strongly preferred. If there's a question about some particular screenshot showing a non-free part of the browser, unfortunately we may have to go to the extra effort of comparing the browsers. Guanaco (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, we have many other images of Google Chrome, such as File:Google Chrome Finnish.png. I think we should address them all together in a single DR. Guanaco (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the file in July 2011 because it was marked as copyvio. The concern was mainly the Chrome logo. At the time, we didn't actually have the Chrome logo as a file on Commons (those came a little later), the threshold of originality was interpreted differently IIRC. Anyway, if we have the logo on its own now, there's no need to delete a screenshot because of the logo. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I restored the file. I overlooked the decision from earlier this year. Mea culpa. --Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Polarlys: Thanks for restoring it. Could you link the decision from this year for reference? Guanaco (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Google_Chrome_Screenshot.png. --Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This has sat here for almost two months without a resolution. Since our policy is to require proof that an image is PD or freely licensed, the uncertainty here requires that we not restore. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sigurimi.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Logo that was deleted was an official symbol of Albania’s state security agency “Sigurimi” for which an wiki article of the same name exists. I am willing to add the Albania-PD-exempt template to the logo page and reintroduce the source as the Albanian State. All state symbols are free to use according to Albanian Copyright Law. Kj1595 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kj1595: Can u say which article of the albanian copyright law applies here?--Sanandros (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support According to {{PD-Albania-exempt}}, item (c), "official symbols of the state, symbols of other public organizations and public authorities, such as: coats of arms, seals, flags, emblems, medals, medallions and other signage" are PD. The meat of the DR was a quibble over whether copying a logo exhibited on a museum wall is "own work". I think we can restore it and change the file description appropriately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: As per Jim. The source and author need to be fixed. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Shadow the Hedgehog - Games Convection 2006.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shadow the Hedgehog - Games Convection 2006.jpg. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anime North 2017 Pokemon Mimiku IMG 5036.jpg.

etc. I'm too tired to list all incorrectly deleted files, but I'm interested in recovery of File:Shadow the Hedgehog - Games Convection 2006.jpg.

It was not copyrighted to the Sega, and it was a part of PROTEST nomination from user Sw0, who had beefed that his files were deleted here – Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sw0 – and put a lot of files for mass deletion. User:Steinsplitter and User:Christian Ferrer ignored COM:COSPLAY and deleted some of those files, but User:Yann intervented and blocked user Sw0 and closed his nominations. --Lone Guardian (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment File:Shadow the Hedgehog - Games Convection 2006.jpg is clearly a derivative work. Not sure about the other one. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I'm confusing it with something else, but then I can't figure what it was. --Lone Guardian (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: request taken down, confused with another file. --Lone Guardian (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Society_of_Students_Against_Poverty.svg

Hi again. My file become deleted [again] and It shouldn't be. There is long discussion Here Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-11#File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg. One of similar files Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg didn't delete and also notice in here Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany. My file is completely legal and I created it. I don't know why the when User:Thuresson archive my discussion also delete my file.

Regards,

Amir

Firouzyan (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: There was indeed a long discussion and the conclusion was not to restore the file. There is nothing new in this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:PH airports.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is the cited webpage that copied an earlier version of the file, not the other way around Dakilang Isagani (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be true, but I don't believe that you created this map yourself from a blank page. Unless you did so, you must name the source of the base map and prove that it is PD or freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Andrzej Ruszczyński 2017.jpg

Please, undelete the file. I agree to use the picture. --PiotrGregorczyk (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as copyright violation for the following reason: "Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author as Constantine Alexander Vitt". Thuresson (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Using OTRS either (a) Constantine Alexander Vitt must send a free license or (b) Vitt's licensee must send evidence that User:PiotrGregorczyk has the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Anton Popov.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/140655668@N04/38180226466/in/dateposted-public/

the Licence has been changed to Attribution-ShareAlike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecatherina85 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:KMRTb6AplTQ.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/140655668@N04/38180198776/in/dateposted-public/

The Licence has been changed to Attribution-ShareAlike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecatherina85 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment This is the same image as below. Better to reupload it with a proper title. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose. Didn't have time to comment on the one below before it was restored and the discussion closed, but this is a recently created Flickr account, the file was uploaded immediately before being copied here, and the metadata indicates that the photos were taken by multiple different people. This one was created by Alvint Lopatin. Looks like Flickrwashing to me. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Ah yes, good catch. I nominated the one below for deletion. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Women leaders declaring to mobilize more women to end FGM in Okigwe Zone.jpg

This is an original file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinaija (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, but that tells us nothing. What we do know is that it appears at http://www.africmil.org/devatop-trains-115-advocates-to-end-female-genital-mutilation-in-okigwe-zone-imo-state/ with "Copyright © 2015 African Centre for Media and Information Literacy". Therefore, policy requires that an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is required, or you may change the source website to say it is available under a free license. --Guanaco (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Three Rivers Academy.png

Our logo file was removed for the following reason...

'Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission.'

However it is a simple black and white logo. Please can this be undeleted.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeroy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is clearly far too complex to be below the threshold of originality. Restoring it to Commons would require that an authorized official of the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. However, it is also too small to be useful (80 x 96 px), so it probably should not be restored in any case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is required. --Guanaco (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Atlantic Overview - Aug. 26 2008 (2800303577).gif

Screenshot from NHC, under PD license {{PD-USGov-NWS}}, suitable for Commons. --B dash (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support (all but one). I live on a boat in Boston, so I'm on the NHC web site every day during hurricane season. All but the last of these have the clear look and feel of NHC pages. The last one, however, is clearly from the Weather Channel -- it has the logo in the lower right corner and a completely different look. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored except one per nomination/discussion - Jcb (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Disneychannellogosmartphone.png

File:Disneychannellogosmartphone.png te perdono por borrar la imagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas5312 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 01:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:JSM30.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are covered by OTRS 2016090610024328. AntonierCH (d) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored - the intention of the closure was apparently to keep the files with OTRS - Jcb (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Filipinki 1961 01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo of Filipinki band was published in 20th anniversary book of Technikum Handlowe in Szczecin (economic college) in the autumn of 1965 without copyright note. Book was published by Wydawnictwo Poznańskie polish publishing house. I belive that {{PD-Polish}} applies. Selenium (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Closed per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-10#Files_uploaded_by_Selenium, undeletion was declined. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Filipinki w 1965 r..jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo of Filipinki band was published in Poland in Wojewódzka Agencja Imprez Artystycznych w Sopocie promotional leaflet in the spring of 1965 whitout any copyright note. I belive that {{PD-Polish}} applies. Selenium (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Closed per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-10#Files_uploaded_by_Selenium, undeletion was declined. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:A Fidget Cube.jpg

Fidget Cubes should not be seen as "toys" and are utilitarian in nature - a plastic box with random buttons on it. There is very little, if any, uniqueness to be copyrighted. Further, they are used for stress relief and to treat ADHD. The term "Fidget Toy" is often seen near the name, but in my opinion, not meant in the literal sense or to imply it is an entertainment or amusement toy for children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8133 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This particular image has two things in it. The sculpture of a woman on the left clearly has a copyright, so this image cannot be restored without a free license from the creator of the sculpture. Therefore, with respect to this image, the question of whether a fidget toy has a copyright is moot.

If this image were cropped to eliminate the sculpture on the left, then the decision would not be so obvious. However, the choice of colors and the arrangement of the large and small buttons clearly creates a copyrightable object. I doubt very much that a US court would call a fidget toy utilitarian. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Guanaco (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AKA$H in White.jpg

Hello! I don't know how to stop my works from deletion process! The photo represent an author Salman Aziz a.k.a. AKA$H. Here are some links to provide as evidence. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17071167.Salman_Aziz https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/6th-september-a-very-unknown-mysterious-story/id1265245873?mt=11 https://www.amazon.com/Salman-Aziz/e/B071XMBLBL/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1 Cause my fellow contributer Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) raised a deletion process! So tell me how do I stop deletion of those photos? Tell me everything about the process! Cause I've been worked with this author. --S Kahn (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Formal close, all discussion should be at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by S Kahn. Thuresson (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:1942 Map of Japanese Empire.jpg

Please, consider a temporary undelete for discussion purposes. Other maps were created by using this file as one of the sources. I want to try to verify the source, if possible. ThanksA ri gi bod (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

From the undelete WP page:

"To assist discussion Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. "

@A ri gi bod: Temporarily undeleted. Let us know here once you no longer need it. Guanaco (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An updated link to the immediate source would probably be www.talkingproud.us, where the image is marked "(c) 1997 www.historyplace.com", so the original source seems to be www.historyplace.com. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 Delete Seems to be a copy of http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/pacwar.gif , with black borders and copyright notice removed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done / Deleted Obvious copyright violation that cannot be kept. @A ri gi bod: The source has been identified above. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Lilyana Boyanova 2.jpg

I have submitted a licence release e-mail.

--Miryanka (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Miryana Zaharieva

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.
  — Jeff G. ツ 14:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait for the OTRS backlog to be cleared. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:2017 Eaton logo.png

Dear Wikipedia-team,

Could you please suggest what type of document you needed to save the Eaton's 2017 logo on your stock? This one is a valid Eaton logo for 2017 and uses in every Eaton materials (site, collaterals e.t.c).

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeydomarev (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC) --Alexeydomarev (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The required licence (PD-textlogo) and a source have been provided by an IP editor. That said, this page is for requesting the restoration of files that have already been deleted. It is not the place to ask for solutions how to avoid a speedy deletion. That would be Commons:Village pump/Copyright. De728631 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Il Carosello Mantovano.png

I ask for the restoration for a nineteenth century printing of the Sixth Century. performed in northern italy — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.14.89.173 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Requests of vandals are not honored. LTA A3cb1 IP as usual. YOu never get it, ey? Jump in a lake. Your requests / edits are worthless to the Commons community. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Vandalism. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dur et Douce comme le temps qui passe.JPG & File:Citizen Trump 90 x 120 cm acrylique et pastel.jpg & File:Arnaud Hippodrome Nancy-Brabois.jpg

Per OTRS 2016102010008111 as the other in Category:Arnaud Courlet de Vregille (I just had the e-mail) ; thank you ! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Kvardek du: Please attach the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

As of 09/03/2017 the Referendum or Special Election was officially over. Meaning Mueller we are attempting to wrap it up a lot of things going on right now as this guy is obviously Mentally Disturbed as concerns the use of Nuclear Weapons? In addition to sealed Indictments, we are all shaking over this stuff? This was part of a Master Treatise, as earlier "I" filed for a Canadian Commons registration to tag all my work, but "I" am often in more than one place at a time you see? This Paper was drafted here to follow me into Office? Its in the revised Messier Group triangulation? Anyways "I" work hard at what "I" do meaning preparation for Page II. My apologies too, however my nerves are bad. You can see this in my spelling or response. You riled me? You don't have to do that? Just communicate with me? "I" can interpret you? "I" was prepared to donate a million dollars, thats how much "I" regard wikipedia; wouldn't leave home without it!

Now "I" realize this sounds like sells talk, but it actually isn't.

It's the truth.

I've observed your request for Donations for over several years. But I'm hurtng myself you see?

No harm intended, its very important to me the Paper Children of the Guff?

"I" think you would have liked Part II?

You guys take care, and we'll see if we can remedy the situation once "I" become installed and get some contributions to you. Everybody uses wikipedia, children, doctors, business, college you name it? She is an excellent reference source for information?

Finally, see it - as in my nerves are calm right now? This is the way "I" prefer to stay? Anyway's we'll deal with it in stride, right now time to get this character out of there.

Signed: U.S. President Elect Rex Lon Mountbatten - Talk — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.100.90.5 (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done File not specified, your Majesty. Thuresson (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg I am independent so I did the cover by myself

You send me email cause you want delete my article for copyright. But I didn't sign with a label so I still independent. That's why I did my cover by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.175.14.82 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done File not specified. Thuresson (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I sent a message to commons requesting all photos removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Mitic be replaced. I understand that they may have not been uploaded with the proper authorization, but the email sent should have clarified that. I will attach the email below as well as the file names of other photos that were deleted.

Other photos: File:Incident.jpg File:Blasted Beaverbrook.jpg File:Hole Jesus.jpg File:Green, Shot up Portrait of Justin Bieber.jpg File:Odon Wagner.jpg File:Blasted Guernica.jpg

Email: I hereby affirm that I represent Viktor Mitic, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diptych_10_Aug_08_sm_web.jpg; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Incident.jpg; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hole_Jesus.jpg; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green,_Shot_up_Portrait_of_Justin_Bieber.jpg; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Odon_Wagner.jpg; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blasted_Guernica.jpg; and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Gregory Serrano Appointed representative of Viktor Mitic 11-02-17--

Gserrano0 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Gregory Serrano 11-21-17


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.De728631 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Will be restored after it reaches the head of the long OTRS queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

User:Mutter Erde/Kunterbunt

Please undelete this site. Thanks Mutter Erde (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted because User:Mutter Erde had been indefinitely blocked. Now that he or she has been unblocked,I see no reason why we cannot restore this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done De728631 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Joe-clifford-press.jpg

This regards the photo associated with the Joe Clifford bio page. I have just received and forwarded permission from the photographer. If the photo needs to re re-uploaded with correct info, I can/will do it. Rory1262 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Rory1262, please note that as a general rule, OTRS does not accept licenses that are forwarded. We require that the actual photographer must send the license directly to OTRS. This is the rule because there are bad actors around who are perfectly willing to forge a license in order to have an image kept on Commons.

Also note that if a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. You do not need to (and must not) upload the image again.

If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, understood. My request did contain the photographer's e-mail header, but I want to work within policy, so I have asked her to send it directly. Rory1262 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
That's good. It's easy to forge e-mail headers with the rest of the message. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Aerialview VOGIS Diebsschloessle.pdf

Die Nutzung aller Datein von Daten auf VOGIS ist frei zulässig (http://vogis.cnv.at/nutzungsbestimmungen/nutzung.pdf). Das Einverständnis vom Land Voralberg liegt zudem schriftlich vor. Ich kann es nicht ausstehen, wenn gelöscht wird, ohne dass zuvor miteinander gesprochen wird. SG, 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asurnipal (talk • contribs)

Why did you upload the map data as pdf and not as jpeg? Thuresson (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:adar_poonawalla.jpg

Image is taken by us and uploaded also in he's personal website. As it has our copyright and also can be used by anyone its open for public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adar Poonawalla Fan Club (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 November 2017‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Please read your user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Larisa municipalities numbered.svg

It was the map of municipalities of the old prefecture of Larissa, now regional unit, before Kallikratis Plan (2011), with all old municipalities. The map was correct. --151 cp (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

ticket:2017102410013524

All those pictures and logos are my own pictures which I have all the right to publish and use to writing an article.

I assure you that it is not a property of any other person or organisation rather than me and my self. I will be the only responsible person if anyone can prove that those pictures are not belongs to me. You can also delete those pictures if anyone can prove that those pictures are not mine. So please give me a permission to use them here and to be a contributor in Wikimedia community. Please think about it. It is my humble request to you.

Thanking you

Djzarkin (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Official portrait of Pierre Hermé

Please can this official portrait of Pierre Hermé be used for his page ? I am in charge of communication at Pierre Hermé Pars and Pierre Hermé has requested the unofficial image currently on the page be removed!

Thanks, Jennifer Lilley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlilley123 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SDJMC Proclamation.jpg

This photo was taken by Ruth Hertz Weber's husband who owns the photo and has given me (her son) permission to upload it to her wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enricomusic (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We need a permission by email coming directly from Mrs. Weber's husband. We get dozens of uploads by fans and imposters every day so please understand that we cannot rely on claims of permission made on this board. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Once the email has been processed, the image will be restored, but this may take several weeks due to a huge backlog. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kawaii Jumbo Squishy Strawberry.jpg

A "Squishy" is a generic term for any soft product made out of a spongy-like material that can be compressed while coming back to the original form. There are 100's of "Squishy" things, like items for pets, etc., that meet this definition. It should not fall under copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8133 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 November 2017‎ (UTC)

 OpposeThe several holders of registered trademarks for the word Squishy in reference to toys would object strongly to your claim that the term is generic. However, that is irrelevant as we do not concern ourselves with trademark here. Trademarked or not, 100's of them or not, there is no reason why this toy, and the other similar toys you uploaded, are not copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Green Giant (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files uploaded by Tohaomg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Received permissions: ticket:2017083010009291 and ticket:2017111510006968 TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored - please apply the correct OTRS tag - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hydrelia albifera.jpg

Image has been deleted as incorrectly licensed cc-by-nc-sa. It has been released cc-by-3.0 however here. Lymantria (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lymantria: ✓ Done, edited source, description. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Raphaël Ferret février 2017.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Need to asses permission provided with Ticket:2017111610005458. Please notify me when it's done. Ty Arthur Crbz (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: I have restored the file. De728631 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion, then deleted again @Arthur Crbz: Thank you for checking the file. I have deleted it again as you tagged it with "OTRS received". Please let me know if/when you get a sufficient permission. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Poor formatting.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}, which is a {{Free screenshot}}. 158.182.231.135 07:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the corresponding Wikimedia page so we can verify this. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: w:2017 Pacific hurricane season. --1.65.181.247 05:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I found the old revision where this infobox was being used. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Free screenshot from the English Wikipedia. I have adjusted the licence and attribution. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

Já se s tím seru a vy to vymažete? Měli byste se stydět a na wikipedii skončit, akorát to sabotujete, lotři. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Google Translate: "I'm going to * you with that serum and you're going to erase it? You should be ashamed and end up wikipedia, you just sabotage it, *." (Expletives removed). Thuresson (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Vojtaruzek: Please clarify if this is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Vojtaruzek. Thuresson (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Generic rants without providing a reason why any specific file should be restored won't get you very far. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Stella Von Klutch - Mistress of The Pharaoh.png

I am actually the owner of anything Stella Von Klutch. I use Tunecore to promote my music across multiple platforms, while only having to access one site (Tunecore) to manage them all. I do own all the copyrights to all of my Music, and Album Art, including Mistress of The Pharaoh which has been deleted (and I presume my other Album Arts will soon Follow)

Files I'm requesting for undeletion at this moment include: File:Stella Von Klutch - Mistress of The Pharaoh.png

Others that I presume will flag up as potential copyright include: File:Stella Von Klutch - D.I.V.A!.png File:Stella Von Klutch - Like a Unicorn.png File:Stella Von Klutch - Judging Panel.png File:Tomas Luke - Smoke & Mirrors feat. Stella Von Klutch.png

--Tomasluke (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose For media that have already been published elsewhere we require a permission sent by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Alternatively you could release these images under a free licence like Creative Commons by attribution 4.0 on your official website and then post a link to the site here. 23:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 Not done OP has received information about OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Stella Von Klutch - Mistress of The Pharaoh.png

NOT IMPRESSED... Would you like a Blood sample? maybe a letter from the queen? I do not know how much more you want from me tbh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasluke (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Also, please stop shouting.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 Not done As per Jeff.G. Thuresson (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Society_of_Students_Against_Poverty.svg

UPDATE: Because User:Jameslwoodward Archive the request WITHOUT RESALABLE STATEMENT. I have to make it for third time.

Read this BEFORE MAKE DECISION.

Case like me: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg

Rule apply in Iran: Commons:Threshold of originality#Iran Rule apply in Germany: Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany

Firouzyan (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This happen when User:Jameslwoodward archive request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-11#File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg 2

There is NO CONCLUSION! You make two different decisions by EXACTLY SAME CASE. I have problem with it. Firouzyan (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also Commons:Threshold of originality#Iran which about Iran, and logos are fine when "the mark presented". Your action is clearly out of scope and leave me without choice except complaint about it in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard Firouzyan (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Please also decide about File:KNTU LOGO.svg. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose For the third time. This is a copyrighted logo and making an SVG of it is a derivative work which requires a license from the holder of the original copyright. Arguing that there are other similar files on Commons is never valid -- we have more than 40 million files here and at least several hundred thousand should be deleted.

I won't close this this time, but I encourage a colleague to do so..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Ok! Because there is another opposite opinion about it I don't make the argument go further and try to contact to community to send E-Mail to OTRS. But ONLY FOR CLEARANCE, your arguing isn't true as well. There is clearly a problem if this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg can host here but mine isn't. This somehow look like discrimination for me. Best Firouzyan (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed previously and no new evidence has been presented. As to the threshold of originality: there is no single threshold we can apply, but whether a design is original enough for copyright depends on the jurisdiction in the country of origin. E.g. File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg may not be copyrightable in Germany but would definitely be above the threshold in the United Kingdom. Note also the question mark in the Iran section at COM:TOO. It is not entirely clear whether logos are in fact OK. Therefore we do need an OTRS permission in this case, even if the design of File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg may seem too simple for copyright when compared to other logos. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:CHAE.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was upload here in 2016, then upload to imbue in May 2017. 1.65.181.247 05:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This particular file was uploaded on January 16, 2017. This image has appeared on a fan site already on November 24, 2016. Thuresson (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done File appeared on the internet without a free licence before being uploaded to Commons (Commons:NETCOPYRIGHT). De728631 (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Caja_de_creral_Corn_Flakes.jpg

Necesito que por favor restauren este archivo porque fue borrado sin razón aparente, Es trabajo propio,bo está protegido por copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andchavcald (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • ¿Dices que eres el propietario de los derechos de autor de la caja de cereal? Si es así, debe pasar por el proceso descrito en COM:OTRS/es. De lo contrario, se trata de una violación de derechos de autor, correctamente borrada. - Jmabel ! talk 05:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Derivative work of a non-free copyrighted product packaging. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Marie-Ange Guilleminot. La Guirlande de Tsuru, 2003 vue de l'atelier de l'artiste, photographiée par Michel-Ange Seretti à Paris en avril 2011.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission provided with Ticket:2017110610000481. Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: Please attach the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ho scripts.jpg and File:Ho scripts 1.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

Can you please temporarily undelete these files? I want to move them as a fair use content to the Russian Wikipedia. -- صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @صلاح الأوكراني: please let me know when you have transferred the files so I can delete them again. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you for undeletion. Now you can delete these files. -- صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Transferred to the Russian Wikipedia as fair use content. De728631 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

THat account from which the picture is linked is also mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiq Surendran (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy close. None of your uploaded files have been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Taiwan Province (PRC) prfc map.png

Chinese: 我觉得这张图片是从fotoseimagenes.net搬来的可能性不大，反倒有可能是fotoseimagenes.net从维基共享搬走的，因为fotoseimagenes.net上的那张图片的分辨率比维基共享的这张图低很多，图片上的文字没有维基共享的这张图片清晰。

English: This image may not copy from fotoseimagenes.net. Image in fotoseimagenes.net is smaller than this image, words are hard to read. Maybe fotoseimagenes.net copy this image from here.

Sorry my not good English. ——彭鹏 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that it looks unlikely that the Commons image was copied from http://www.fotoseimagenes.net/provincia-de-taiwan. Possibly it was the other way around.

However, I do not believe that this is entirely the "own work" of User:ASDFGHJ. I think that it is very unlikely that he or she created this without using a base map from somewhere. In order for us to restore this, User:ASDFGHJ must show that the base map used is PD or freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Green Giant (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Элемэнтар̌ъ для дзеци вейскихъ.pdf

According to the GoogleBooks this book is in public domain. -- صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support {{PD-RusEmpire}}, see also Archive.org for public domain claim. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support 1865 is 152 years old, well within {{PD-old-assumed}}. Google Books and Archive.org aren't good sources to know if a book is PD for the purposes of Commons, but this is quite old enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Zarkovci.grb.jpg

This is my picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemus nemus (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 23:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MetroMapEnlarged.png

Image was deleted due to copyright infringement But The original image is on the Tehran Metro website, And this image is redesigned Kasir (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is in the public domain ({{PD-US-Medical imaging}}), so copyright isn't a problem. There was an IRC discussion where the doctor who took the MRI wanted it removed. He said he wants to use the image for a board exam question and not have the answer available online.

As of yesterday, the image was in use on multiple wikis. We also have no other images of its kind. Category:Scimitar syndrome only contains two versions of the same X-ray. This file is a much more illustrative MRI. Guanaco (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, BU Rob13, Bawolff, Doc James, Radswiki, and Filip em: Pinging everyone I know to be involved in discussion about this file. Guanaco (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think {{PD-US-Medical imaging}} applies because the author mentioned doing substantial work in Photoshop to clean up the image. That is creative; it is not merely a machine process. ~ Rob13Talk 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
They have said that they will get another image of the condition in question for us to use. I would request some time to figure that out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I made the call, but I concede it is a close call. In fact, I went back and forth myself before deciding to make the deletion. I'm led to believe that it isn't clear-cut that it's in the public domain. In my opinion, if, as promised, we get another image that is suitably licensed, that is the best solution. I hope that happens soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the IRC discussion about wanting to use it in a board exam is information that I did not have at the time I made the deletion. While the information I saw wasn't perfectly clear-cut, I got the impression that the uploader, in GF, believed it was public domain, but later realized that might be wrong (perhaps because patient's permission was needed). Deleting because the uploader unilaterally decided they prefer it no longer be available is obviously fundamentally different than deleting because the original claim of copyright status was incorrect. I still stand by my observation that if we can get a replacement image, that's the best solution all around.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm highly skeptical of the claim that there were digital alterations which exceed the threshold of originality. I'll withdraw my request if we get a replacement image soon, as that's definitely the ideal solution. Guanaco (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You would have to add something creative in Photoshop for there to be a copyright. Image cleanup takes skill, but usually not creativity, and typically will not create a copyright. What kind of manipulations would add creative expression to the finished product, do you think? Deleting because it would unexpectedly harm the uploader can be a valid reason. Is there a date we could undelete it, if that is the case? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
To follow up -- Chapter 900 of the Copyright Compendium has this to say:
The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.
The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.
So you would need to identify new material or substantial changes made during the post-processing for there to be a copyright. The request to hold off until after an exam seems reasonable to me though, if we know a date we can restore it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Two weeks with no comments here. Therefore COM:PRP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:17-27-47TM.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Need to assess permission sent with Ticket:2017102310009488. Please notify me when it's done. Ty Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: Please let me know when you have evaluated the image. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Need to assess permission sent with Ticket:2017102310009497. Please notify me when it's done. Ty Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: Please let me know when you have evaluated the image. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done These are two versions of the same image. The first is far larger, so is the one to keep. The second is much smaller and I have deleted it. I then renamed the first one to the much more descriptive name of the second. Per Ticket #2017102310009497. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files deleted by jdx

Hello! Please restore the following files I'd been updated:

Kindly also ask the OTRS volunteers regardings my request . They received the copyright holder's release and until it is still in process. Thanks.--RenRen070193 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS permission has been accepted. --Guanaco (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ivan Dorschner celebrates birthday with the Boy Scouts of the Philippines.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The copyright holder sent her release on OTRS RenRen070193 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS permission has been accepted. --Guanaco (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Referral letter 1.png

Can you undelete the following files for a brief period so that I can import them to Wikiversity for fair use? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. File:Dash outcome measure 1.png
  2. File:Dash outcome measure 3.png
  3. File:The dash2.png
  4. File:Referral letter 1.png

✓ Done: @Marshallsumter: Please leave me a message on my talk page or ping me when you're done. --Guanaco (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files deleted by Jcb

These files were speedy deleted out of process by Jcb. If they are to be deleted, then that should be done via DR. -FASTILY 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support Although I think that most of these will not survive a DR, I agree that the deletion reasons given were not sufficient to justify a {{Speedy}}. If we decide to restore them, then I will probably tag some of them in several groups for deletion..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support Speedy deletions out of process are abuses of power, and violations of the trust we placed during an RFA. How long must such abuses continue before something is done about them?   — Jeff G. ツ 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Fastily: Please clean up the file description pages. I'll go through these and nominate them for deletion if the problems remain. --Guanaco (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Лого а-мобаил.jpg

Прошу восстановить изображение с новым лого компании. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlen kapelle (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: This is a simple logo, apparently ineligible for copyright. If there are objections, please start a deletion request. In the future, please use {{PD-textlogo}} on such images in the licensing section, so they aren't speedily deleted. --Guanaco (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Carlotta Montanari.jpg

hi, this is Carlotta, Please can you tell me what to do? every photo I upload of my own work under my profile it gets deleted. I have all my pics taken with my camera and I don't know how to do. Please can you help? thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nueva2014 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are depicted in the image(s), how did you create them yourself with your own camera? Copyright is not bound to the owner of camera or the subject of a photograph but to the person behind the camera who pushes the release button. Two years ago, you were asked to provide a statement by email so you've had plenty of time to read COM:OTRS and ask how it works. We keep getting lots of user accounts made by imposters and fans who claim to be a real celebrity, so you need to clarify your identy and your ownership of copyright in these photos by email. Please send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: If this is a photo taken by you, please upload the original image with full EXIF data. --Yann (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Eletropaulo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Well, I thinks there's a misunderstanding here. Indeed, it was a registered logo. But the company which held it's rights is long gone in a merge with another company, twenty years ago. And I made this vector file myself out of a bunch of low-res images. Aftermore, there's a hell lot of other logos in SVG format uploaded by other thousands of users, which makes me think it's a pretty standard procedure to, whenever possible, get rid of those low-res jpegs extracted from press kits and things alike. I understand it's listed as my "own work", whilst I should've used the original year and designer. Although it's a very difficult information to find, if possible I'll fill it in correctly. Prppedro (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prppedro: We would also need info on the successor company, and you would be well advised to read COM:DW and COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Well, I've been reading it and albeit it indeed could be framed as a derivative work, the logo coulbe considered a simple geometric form. The company which holds the rights to "Eletropaulo" brand is AES' subsidiary "AES Eletropaulo". Legally speaking, though, the new brand is "AES Eletropaulo", which only historically relates to "Eletropaulo" name. So it's pretty safe to say that both the brand and the company ceased to exist uppon the privatization process in late 90s. Prppedro (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 Comment The history of the company that owned the logo is irrelevant to the decision here. Even if the company were completely gone, we would not keep its copyrighted logo. However, I am inclined to believe that this is {{PD-text logo}}, but I think it is a close call. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim, PD-textlogo. @Prppedro: Please add categories, as needed. --Yann (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DK3ois0WsAA9oct.jpg

Este archivo complementaba un articulo de siria, despues de esto este mismo queda incompleto, por favor, restaurenlo para tener mejor informacion sobre ese articulo [[Hammouda Sabbagh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vec02 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that the image is needed for an article is not important here. We do not keep images that are not freely licensed, no matter how important they are.

The image appears in at least five places on the web with copyright notices. If you are actually the photographer, then please send a free license using OTRS. If you are not the photographer, then please do not claim "own work" on images that you did not yourself take. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Photo by professional photografer Louai Beshara for Agence France Presse. Thuresson (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Japanese Empire.png

File:Japanese Empire.png (image originally uploaded on 22 September 2005 and modified on 6 October 2005) was deleted in 2007 with the deletion comment "dupe Japanese Empire2.png" (see logs). Also note in the the upload log that there was information about the origins of the file (hopefully that information was also present on the description page, because in the upload log the end of the comment is cut). "File:Japanese Empire2.png" was uploaded on 22 December 2005 as a modified version of "File:Japanese Empire.png", by a user who is not the same as the author(s) of "File:Japanese Empire.png". "File:Japanese Empire2.png" did link to its source "File:Japanese Empire.png", allowing readers to know the author(s) of the source images. However, the 2007 deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png" made all the information vanish from the view of casual readers (if not entirely from users who dig into the logs, as we are doing now, but that should not normally be required from users in order to find the essential information about a file). The information should at least have been copied to "File:Japanese Empire2.png" before deleting "File:Japanese Empire.png". From the license of "File:Japanese Empire2.png", I guess that "File:Japanese Empire.png" may have been under the GFDL, which requires attribution. If so, the deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png", thus removing information about authorship, had the consequence of turning "File:Japanese Empire2.png" into a copyright violation. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Original author seems to have been en:User:Kokiri, and it was indeed {{GFDL}}. Second upload was a minor modification (borders from black to white, minor color improvements) that was uploaded by Huhsunqu - the modifications are probably minor enough not to create a secondary copyright claim, however per the license they probably do need credit. I have tried to clean up the file description on the kept file... @Asclepias: do you think that adequately does the job? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've gone ahead and undeleted the file and tagged it {{Original}}. --Guanaco (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:UserAnoop Rao (1).jpg

Please undelete following image File:UserAnoop Rao (1).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) since it was deleted as authors request which i requested by mistake. Anoop/ಅನೂಪ್ (Talk)(Edits) 01:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose According to the file name and Google translate, it is a photo of User:Anoop Rao. It is uploaded as "own work", but it does not look like a selfie, so the question is, who actually took the photo? Also, it is extremely poor quality, so I'm not sure we should restore it, even for use on his User Page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is required. --Guanaco (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:محمد حافظ رستم.jpg

File:m.h.rustum.jpg
File:محمد حافظ رستم1.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.h.rustum (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The first has a DR on it, but has not been deleted. No reason is given for undeletion of the others. These are all personal images of a user who has made no useful contributions to Commons or other WMF projects, so they are out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Questionnement.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017112810006489 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Framawiki: please feel free to close this section if the permission is valid. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks De728631 ! --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: permission was accepted. --Guanaco (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Quran2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this is not a logo, it is Islamic calligraphy inside circle (القرأن الكريم) means: Quran, it is impossible to be a logo! this design also created by well-known user in Arwiki, he also make many calligraphy designs for Wikipedia. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support As @Ibrahim.ID: said, it's a calligraphy not a logo! --Alaa :)..! 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support not acceptable. Thats a clear calligraphy--باسم (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Calligraphic work created by a Wikimedia user. Not a non-free logo in any way. --Guanaco (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Photo of undeletion

Sir File uploaded by concerned should not be deleted. With warm regards. Maqbool sifu — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2405:204:A38D:2086:0:0:1E1C:58B0 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No file specified, anonymous editors are not allowed to upload files anyway.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ācārya Pūjyapāda’s Samādhitantram – Supreme Meditation (front cover) 01.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017091410001666 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Thuresson: Thank you, it can stay permanently.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request for undeletion

Kindly ask the OTRS volunteers regarding the undeletion request for the ff. images:

File:Ivan Dorschner celebrates birthday with the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (1).jpg File:Ivan Dorschner celebrates birthday with the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (2).jpg File:Ivan Dorschner celebrates birthday with the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (3).jpg File:Ivan Dorschner celebrates birthday with the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (4).jpg File:Ivan Dorschner celebrates birthday with the Boy Scouts of the Philippines.jpg

--RenRen070193 (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.De728631 (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Looking For Lowry.jpg

I have been authorised to use this file by the owners. Please can it be un-deleated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.O.Hutton (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@J.O.Hutton: Policy requires the owners of the deleted files to send permission to OTRS. Until that is done, I'm afraid the files will have to stay deleted. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Chopin_Prelude_no._3.ogg

I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Nov 9, 2017 that I affirm that I represent Dr. Everett N. Jones III, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miajoneswest (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:GWprelude EvJones.ogg

I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Nov 9, 2017 that I affirm that I represent Dr. Everett N. Jones III, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media --Miajoneswest (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This must wait its turn at OTRS. User:Miajoneswest, please note that since George Walker is a living composer, there need to be two OTRS e-mail permissions -- one from the pianist and one from Walker. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-11&oldid=567279229"