Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

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

Closed undeletion debates are archived here by SteinsplitterBot.

Recently archived requests

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bagheri House (Garmsar)

Can someone please restore this photos? Their license is valid and they had watermark (see gallery), likely someone cropped it and then nominator wrongly assumed that their licence is dubious. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: IIRC, we've long held that the watermark and "photo : Tasnimnews" are enough for that license, even without a named photographer, so these are okay. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Vector Design Mascot Megaphone Advertising Orange.svg This is my work and there is no reason for deletion.

This deletion prompt may be an error. There is nothing wrong with it and I'm putting it in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoBlanchette (talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: was already restored by Krd with a VRT ticket permission. --Rosenzweig τ 15:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


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

User:LeoBlanchette Undelete it.

Feel free to make any changes needed to make it fit WikiMedia.

These are very old images and have gone around the internet and are now somewhat historic.

I saw the link leading to the author page and filled it in. Change it however you see fit.

Thank you,

Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoBlanchette (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored by User:Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Hossein Kazemi Painter.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission perTicket:2024111710004051. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as requested. @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

File:frgal-intro.jpg

Provided explanation to placing the file and providing also the confirmation, but email to address displayed on Wikipedia ([email protected]) returned as undeliverable. When asking any support, no feedback received and picture deleted ignoring the troubles. Therefore reuploaded the same picture with different filename and providing the permission again, deleted again. No communication or explanation, a picture used alseady in another webpage, I'm losing my illusions about the seriousness and professionalism of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrgalOlomouc (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@FrgalOlomouc: check if the address you are sending to is correct, or if your email server is configured correctly. If you still have problems you should probably contact the VRT team at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard as we cannot address your issues here. Günther Frager (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing to do here. Ankry (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:سيدي عبد العزيز الصغير.jpg

I hope you get the picture back because it is important in many articles about Algerian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by الأبيض آل يحي (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from the Internet, no permission. Yann (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as per Yann. Ankry (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Principe vis lub.jpg

It was deleted by Krd for the reason "no license" but, according to the discussion at Commons:Bistro, it did have a Cc-zero template (which may not be a license, strictly speaking, but still a status tag). The uploader, specialized in the field of such industrial objects, says that the image is his own work. That sounds believable. If someone has a reason to dispute it, a deletion request can be started with an explanation. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have been this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
 Support The claim of own work is credible here. Yann (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above, and uploader's talk page. --Yann (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Andrzej Jerzy Kozłowski.png

Hi,

The file I uploaded was deleted, and the reason given was that the owner of the photo is the XYZ.pl portal (in reference to the article: https://xyz.pl/andrzej-kozlowski-odchodzi-ze-stanowiska-prezesa-emitela-przed-nim-kolejne-wyzwanie-zawodowe/).

However, this is not true, I am a representative of the company that commissioned the photo, owns it and I have the authorization to publish it, among others in the structures of Wikipedia.

The photo was uploaded to the XYZ portal (alleged by the owner's algorithm) also by my company.

Please restore the file in order to illustrate the note about the person shown in the photo.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojciech.szczesny.10.10 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose photo available on the web before the upload, we need a valid COM:VRT ticket to undelete it. Günther Frager (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done As per Günther Frager: VRT permission needed. We cannot verify your identity on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Fernando Ledesma Bartret.jpg

Hereby affirm that I Consejo de Estado, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media as shown here: Fernando Ledesma Bartret.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.[5]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Pulido Escribano (talk • contribs) 11:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sergio Pulido Escribano: Copy of [1]. Could you please send the permission to [email protected]? Alternatively, you could upload the original image with EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done As per Yann: VRT permission needed. Ankry (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Raižiai, Vytauto paminklas.JPG

The deleted file meets the fair use requirements of Lithuanian Wikipedia (lt:Vikipedija:Fairuse) so I request temporary undeletion in order to transfer it there. For the same reason also please undelete these images:

Thank You. --Vilensija (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vilensija: Let me know when you're ready to do the transfer. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: 12 hours. I'd let you know after my work done. Additionally, I would like to request that you temporarily restore the previously deleted photos I took by myself, which I will transfer to LT Wiki:

--Vilensija (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vilensija: I've temporarily undeleted the initial three. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: The three already transfered. Waiting for the next ones to have undeleted. Thank you. --Vilensija (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Vilensija: re-deleted the first three. Temporarily undeleted five, I'll also transfer local copies of the Tower photos to enwiki. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: The three left. --Vilensija (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vilensija: last three temporarily undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Done, big job, thank you. --Vilensija (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Transfer to Lithuanian Wikipedia complete. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Aram Mala Nuri from Kurdistan, in Kalar city in Oct. 2024.jpg

This photo depicts a notable journalist and activist who has made a significant impact on society. The image is being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to ensure it can be included in a related Wikipedia article. The subject of the photo is a liberal advocate, recognized for his extensive activism across social, environmental, political, humanitarian, and wildlife issues. Despite his remarkable contributions, he lacks government support or acknowledgment, likely due to his outspoken criticism of governmental policies. Consequently, there are limited public records or articles documenting his achievements. Including this photo in the Wikipedia article is crucial to visually represent his importance and provide a more comprehensive understanding of his life and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhewar H. Ali (talk • contribs)

Not done, per Günther. Thuresson (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Ercole Drei, Il lavoro dei campi.jpg

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Ercole Drei, Il lavoro dei campi.jpg, deleted in 2014 after this DR. The image depicts a stele made by en:Ercole Drei as part of the agriculture pavillion of the planned Universal Exposition of 1942 (see here and here). As we can read here, all the buildings of the planned Exposition were commissioned by a public entity, the it:EUR (azienda) (way before its privatization in 2000). The agriculture pavillion was no exception, and therefore, all the external decorations, which had been finished by 1942, fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1963 (way before the URAA, so no issue with US copyright). The rest of the agriculture pavillion remained unfinished because of the war, and its remnants were destroyed in the 1950's. The already completed external decorations were placed in a public park where they still are today.--Friniate (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of the Wagner Group.svg, File:Flag of the Wagner Group (variant).svg, File:RMC Wagner Flag.svg

I want to be able to transfer these files over to Wikipedia to go into either the infobox or the general . --NorthTension (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@NorthTension: Let me know when you're ready to do the transfer. Abzeronow (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow Ready now. NorthTension (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@NorthTension: temporarily undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. Downloaded and transferring now. NorthTension (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Just let me know when you're done. Abzeronow (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I think I've transferred them over correctly, thank you. NorthTension (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Transfer to enwiki complete. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Nicolas Martin selfie.jpg

Hello,

Can you restore the following photo of journalist Nicolas Martin : File:Nicolas Martin selfie.jpg ?

This picture was deleted because of "Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web (on bougerabordeaux)and unlikely to be own work".

Nicolas Martin confirmed in this post on Bluesky that he uploaded this picture. He confirmed also that this is also his own work.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards

--Pronoia (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment the image was uploaded by Au diable vauvert (talk · contribs), a user with other obvious copyvios, so the deletion was justified imho. Notice also that in BlueSky he claims he uploaded it several times, so it seems he is also using sockpuppets as Au diable vauvert uploaded it only once. Günther Frager (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Günther Frager: Thanks for your answer. I'm not sure he's aware of the concept of sockpuppet on Wikimedia.
In conclusion, what is the best thing to do in this case? Should he create a Nicolas Martin account (with his real name) and upload this image with this account ? Or something else? Thank you in advance.----Pronoia (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pronoia: in general when a photo is deleted because it is available on the web, the copyright holder (usually the photographer) should send a permission following the instruction in COM:VRT That was indicated in the notification that Au diable vauvert received. Now, some admins might consider the message in BlueSky as a valid reason for undeletion. Günther Frager (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done. The image will be undeleted if properly processed and accepted by VRTS. Thuresson (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Documento Propio — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.176.107.198 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please sign in or provide an actual file name. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.svg

No consensus was reached before the unilateral deletion, and The Squirrel Conspiracy did not respond to a counterargument. The file was massively COM:INUSE before this was made, and there are a bunch of empty spaces on pages. If this is decided to be copywritten, then I'd at least like it undeleted and uploaded directly to Wikipedia, although no actual alleged copyright was established. NorthTension (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I redeleted this file. It was reuploaded after a discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and I don't see any reason to keep it. Yann (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any elaboration or is that it. NorthTension (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
In between it was transferred to :en to be used under fair-use (= unfree), which is not compatible with having it remain here on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Genuinely asking but where is that, I want to put it back on the Wiki page but I'm uncertain as to where the file actually is right now. NorthTension (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
You need to ask User:AntiCompositeNumber, who had left a remark about that in his undeletion-log of the file. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, the way you worded it made it sound like it was already moved. NorthTension (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The presence of other files that might also be copyright violations is not a valid argument for keeping one that IMO certainly is. Deliberate artistic choices were made in creating that logo (in converting the text into a circular form). That makes it copyrightable. And COM:INUSE doesn't apply to copyvio deletions, only to scope considerations. Also, I'd have appreciated a ping here, folks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done, per above. Fair use at en:File:Flag of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham.svg. Thuresson (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:KF_Skënderbeu_Korçë_Logo_1908.png

This file should be kept as it provides the real founding date about the club's history. The information about this date is here on this link: https://newsport.al/ckerkon-skenderbeu-ne-korce-historia-e-klubit-sportiv-te-qytetit-te-serenatave

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamSala (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The logo must be out of copyright in both Albania and the United States. It (assuming it was designed in 1908) is a free file in the United States because it was designed before 1929, but its copyright status in Albania is unknown. If it is an anonymous work, the copyright should have expired, but if there is a designer, you need to check the copyright status of the logo. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fumikas Sagisavas Yes, the logo is not copyrighted. I mentioned the copyright status as "my own work" and also I mentioned as "This work contains the work of others" and "Yes, the pre-existing work is not protected by any copyright law". I have also attached proof that the team is founded on that date, due to the reference I added, so restore the file and let me use it on the club's article page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KF_Skënderbeu_Korçë so I will also add the reference there to let the visitors know about the date of foundation. Thanks AdamSala (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, we need evidence that 1.) This logo was published before 1929 and 2.) That the creator of this logo deliberately withheld their name when it was published or that they died before 1954. Logo also looks somewhat modern to me like 1960s or 1970s. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow The file is original, is published before 1929 but it was upscaled to look better nowadays. Also the creator of the logo didn't mentioned the file as copyrighted, so the file should be restored. You can search the logo with Google image upload search and the logo will appear there as free to use. So please restore it. I have also a person @Yann which supports the file to be restored. Thanks AdamSala (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@AdamSala: Yes, I support undeletion if you can provide some evidence that the original logo is the same. This is a recent recreated logo, so we need some more information. Yann (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Yann I found the logo on this website: https://m.forebet.com/en/teams/skenderbeu but the logo was remastered by me to look fine on Wikipedia. The website in question doesn't mention it as copyrighted. Also I have found information that the real founding date of this club is on 5 September 1908, as per this website in Albania: https://newsport.al/ckerkon-skenderbeu-ne-korce-historia-e-klubit-sportiv-te-qytetit-te-serenatave so the logo should be restored and it should be added to the main article of the club, together with the reference. Thanks AdamSala (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I think @AdamSala: misunderstands copyright -- all works have a copyright automatically from the moment of their creation. In Albania, that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. 1908 is recent enough so that we cannot assume that the creator of the logo has been dead for 70 years. If the author is anonymous, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the first publication of the work, but note that "anonymous" is not the same as "unknown". In this case we do not have proof of the first publication date and we do not have proof that the work was anonymous. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question. How do we know that the logo wasn't changed recently? It is certainly possible to find some old document showing how the logo was in the 1920s or before. Yann (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Yann The file doesn't have documented information, but is the original file of the club since on that website is in low resolution and was taken directly from the team's archived data. Also the reference shows evidence about the founding date of the club, so you should restore the file. Please undelete the file now! Thanks AdamSala (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
 Support provided some evidence that this version is identical, or nearly identical, to the 1908 version. Yann (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow@Fumikas Sagisavas@Yann Another proof that this team was founded in 1908 is shown here at an Albanian sport newspaper: https://www.panorama.com.al/sport/foto-cila-eshte-stema-zyrtare-e-skenderbeut-po-viti-krijimit/#gsc.tab=0
So please restore the logo now!
Thanks AdamSala (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@AdamSala I have found references that the club was originally founded on 14 April 1909 as "Vëllazëria Korçë" so the logo that is mentioned the year 1908 is incorrect. I have added the information about the founding date of the club and the references corresponding to it on the article of KF Skënderbeu Korçë on English Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KF_Skënderbeu_Korçë and I want to let you know the logo which is used on Albanian Wikipedia: https://sq.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeda:Logo_SK_Skënderbeu_e_re.png should be used on English Wikipedia too. I can't use that logo since it doesn't appear on the article, but it appears the name of the file instead. Thanks Izmirrexha1992 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Not evidence provided. See also message by Izmirrexha1992 above. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Porträtfotografie von Julien Bam .jpg

Das Bild File:Porträtfotografie von Julien Bam .jpg sollte wiederhergestellt werden, da der Benutzer AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT seit 2019 nicht mehr aktiv war und daher vermutlich nicht mitbekommen hat, dass eine Freigabe des Bildes erforderlich ist. Es wurde aufgrund fehlender Lizenzierung am 4. November 2023 gelöscht. Eine Wiederherstellung des Bildes wäre sinnvoll, um den Benutzer zu kontaktieren und ihn zu fragen, ob er die nötige Freigabe für die Nutzung des Bildes erteilen kann. Falls der Benutzer nicht erreichbar ist, könnte auch das Netzwerk von Julien Bam, Y.O.U. Talent Management GmbH, kontaktiert werden, um die notwendige Freigabe zu klären. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticShadow187 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Strong oppose MysticShadow187 created an undeletion request today and not liking how it fared they decided to delete the discussion, see Special:Diff/963774217. Günther Frager (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Original post

The image should be restored because ...

  • Topicality: The current image from 2015 shows Julien Bam at an earlier stage of his career. The image from 2019 represents his more current appearance and thus complements the article with a more contemporary representation.
  • Additional added value: The image from 2015 continues to be a valuable resource as it shows Julien Bam at an earlier stage. However, it would be desirable for the image from 2019 to also be available to illustrate his development as a public figure.
  • Public availability: As the image from 2019 was featured in one of his videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS6S71u3dvE&t=431s), this shows that Julien Bam has released it to the public. Restoring it would improve the quality and topicality of the article.
  • Relevance': The availability of both images could enrich the article by visually representing different periods of Julien Bam's career.
  • Loss of the original version: The 2019 image is no longer available in its original unaltered and high-resolution form on any other website. Wikipedia was the only place where it was accessible in its full and unaltered quality. By restoring it, this image could continue to be preserved for the public and add a unique visual element to the article.
  • Image usage and copyright: The image was uploaded by the user ManagementJulienBam (formerly AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT). According to the imprint information on the official website julienbam.de, Julien Bam is represented by Annika Schulz, and Y.O.U. Talent Management GmbH is the operator and contact. This could indicate that the image usage comes from an authorized source who is able to provide the image.

I therefore propose to restore the image.

--MysticShadow187 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  •  Oppose None of that matters if the image isn't under a free license. That is a requirement for images on Commons. See COM:L. Unless I'm missing something, there's no indication that the image has a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
    I am the individual depicted in the 2019 image, and I hold the copyright to it. The image was released as part of my public work and can be licensed accordingly. Unfortunately, I lost access to my original Wikimedia account, which is why I could not add the licensing details at the time.
    Restoring the image would enhance the article by showcasing a more contemporary representation of my work. JulienBudorovits88 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The file was deleted for the reason absence of evidence of permission, not for absence of a license tag. (I assume that it had a CC BY-SA 4.0 like the other uploads by the account that are not deleted.) The last point by MysticShadow187 is relevant, if the uploading account is verified as authorized by the talent company. The account is in fact verified at de:Benutzer:AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT. The remaining issue might be if Annika Schulz's talent company owns the copyrights on their photos. I tend to assume that they do. I tend to support. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, strike the last part, now that a competing copyright claim was just posted by JulienBudorovits88. That now makes two contradictory copyright ownership claims, the first by Annika Schulz's company, the second by JulienBudorovits88 as an individual. Then, oppose the undeletion until this contradiction is resolved. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to clarify the situation regarding the copyright claim for the 2019 image. The account "AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT" was created and managed by my management team, which still represents me. The image was uploaded on my behalf as part of their responsibilities to handle my public image and content.
However, the copyright to the image has always remained with me as the individual depicted and the creator of the original work. My management acts as an authorized representative to handle such matters, but I am the sole copyright holder.
To address the issue directly, I created this account to personally confirm the copyright ownership and provide the necessary details for proper licensing.
I hope this explanation clears up the misunderstanding. JulienBudorovits88 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's the original conversation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 Comment MysticShadow187 also tried to delete this UDR, see Special:Diff/963849865. Günther Frager (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The uploader declared that she is the author (photographer) and copyright holder of this photo. Notifying anyone but uploader about doubts raised in this matter is (a) against policy and (b) pointless as nobody else can prove that the anonymous Wikimedia user named "AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT" is indeed the photographer and owns copyright. Regardless of whether this declaration was true or not, the status of the photo can only be resolved if the actual copyright holder sends a free license permission to VRT proving their copyright if they are not the photographer. Ankry (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I've given them a talk page warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Although the behavior of MysticShadow187 is wrong when they try to censor the discussions, if we leave that behavior aside, what they say does not seem unreasonable. Surely it cannot be against policy to contact the person or organization that is registered in the VRT system as being represented by an account. That would be one of the uses of having their identity and address in the VRT ticket, to contact the person or organization registered as represented by their certified account if a question arises. In the present case, the ticket seems to be 2016092210025636, probably in Deutsch. When the account wrote the description page of the file, in that context, it seems implicit that they meant that the agency held or was authorized to manage the copyright and that was the attribution they wanted. They probably did not mean to say that the CEO (Annika Schulz) of the agency (YOU Talent) necessarily took the photo herself. The explanation provided above in the second comment of JulienBudorovits88 (30 November 2024 at 16:30 UTC) is plausible. If the agency confirms it, at least that part of the problem will be solved. The Commons account officially represents the agency and the agency officially represents Julien Bam. They all seem to agree with a free license. That should end positively. Of course, the whole situation will need to be resolved through the VRT team, not here. VRT would decide if they need also a confirmation of the cession of rights directly from the photographer. The other files uploaded through the account might need the same sort of clarification also. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Tony Yarber.jpg

The image is produced by the Congressional Office of U.S. Senator Roger Wicker. Congress is a federal institution, and images produced by Congressional offices are therefore not copyrighted. I am unsure why the file was deleted. PoliticsIsExciting (talk)

@PoliticsIsExciting: Is there any evidence that this is a US Congress photo? Thuresson (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Thuresson Well, considering Congress is made up of independently run offices, and it is posted on the Office of US Senator Roger Wicker -- the government account -- and doesn't credit anyone else, it would be presumed to be a Congressional photo, no? Just like how if a photo was published on Sen. Wicker's government page, and it didn't credit anyone else, you would presume it to be the office's photo. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Presumption is not evidence. The source is Twitter which is not run by the US congress. Thuresson (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Yarber.jpg. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Fastentuch Wurm Stephansdom.jpg

This picture hung on the high altar of St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. It was in a public place and was created for the public and commissioned by the church for this purpose. It is therefore not necessary to obtain the artist's permission to publish the image on Wikimedia. A high-quality photo was deleted here completely unnecessarily! Therefore, please restore the image and reinstate it in the Wikipedia articles “Fastentuch” and “Erwin Wurm”.--Johann Werfring (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Per COM:FOP Austria, interiors of churches are not covered by FoP. @Rosenzweig: Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
What ist that: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pfarrkirche_Hetzendorf_2.jpg and that: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephansdom#/media/Datei:Wien_-_Stephansdom,_Wiener_Neust%C3%A4dter_Altar.JPG And that: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephansdom#/media/Datei:Wiener-Neust%C3%A4dter_Altar_Werktagsseite.JPG and so on. Furthermore, my photo does not exclusively show Erwin Wurm's Lenten cloth, but it is shown in the context of the church. If my picture is rightly deleted, then please delete all photos of works of art in church interiors from all Wikipedia articles. That would affect thousands of them. So, please delete them all or restore my picture.--Johann Werfring (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
THANK YOU @Johann Werfring: . Now my pictures will be deleted! Well done! --Stefan Fadinger (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Per COM:FOP Austria, Austrian FOP does cover building interiors, but only for parts of the building itself, like doors, windows etc. This textile artwork is not covered by Austrian FOP. Of the three images linked, the two altar images show a 15th century altar, old enough for the copyright to have expired; I've requested deletion for the Hetzendorf image. Finally, while the cloth is shown as part of the church interior, it is shown as the central and prominent part of the image, so Commons:De minimis (Beiwerk in German) does not apply. --Rosenzweig τ 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Images of copyrighted works cannot be kept on Commons unless either (a) the work is old enough so that it never had a copyright (the second two above) or the copyright has expired or (b) the creator of the work has given a free license. Also note that Commons has over 100 million images -- it should not surprise that some of them should be deleted -- that does not make this image OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Athletics Bologna Baseball Serie A 2024.jpg - Detentore Copyright

Siamo i detentori del copyright. A conferma il link dell'immagine sul nostro sito internet è il seguente: https://athleticsbaseball.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/team.jpg --Athletics Bologna (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Athletics Bologna: You are linking to the .jpg that exists on that external website, which is a reason why it can't be on Commons without evidence of permission. There doesn't seem to be a free license on the website, which states "© Copyright 2004-2024 athleticsbaseball.it". And there doesn't seem to be an indication that your account on Commons is certified as officially linked to Athletics Bologna Baseball. You can send an email from the verifiable address of Athletics Bologna Baseball to Wikimedia, to confirm a free license for this photo (or to certify your account, but, considering your difficulties with this user name on it.wikipedia, preferably after you settle on a permanent user name). Please see Commons:VRT/it for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Alziamo le braccia e ci arrendiamo. Pare tutto meno che qualcosa di libero. Se non interessano neanche contributi reali (i detentori di un'immagine che debbono fornire prove della loro detenzione...) non possiamo fare altro che avere pagine incomplete di informazioni ed immagini. Secondo me alla lunga a "gestire" le cose in questo modo il problema sarà vostro, non tanto per la pagina specifica in questione, ma perché il servizio fornito sarà sempre di più di basso livello. Athletics Bologna (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
That is the same strange attitude that you displayed on it.wikipedia when you were blocked there. It causes a doubt about the claim that your account might represent Athletics Bologna. Normally, an organization is willing and happy to take the basic precaution to prevent misuse of its name and property. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Secondo te di grazia quale sarebbe il vantaggio nel farmi bloccare per pubblicare una mia foto in una pagina wikipedia che tratta della mia squadra? Potrebbe essere che la tua precauzione sia forse eccessiva in quanto stai fondamentalmente chiudendo la porta a chi ha più corrette informazioni specifiche di te? 5.179.179.190 10:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Secondo te di grazia quale sarebbe il vantaggio nel farmi bloccare per pubblicare una mia foto in una pagina wikipedia che tratta della mia squadra? Potrebbe essere che la tua precauzione sia forse eccessiva in quanto stai fondamentalmente chiudendo la porta a chi ha più corrette informazioni e/o conoscenza specifiche di te sulla singola pagina? Athletics Bologna (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: In almost every case the right to freely license an image belongs to the actual photographer and not to the subject or anyone else who may have a paper or digital copy of the photograph. In order for the image to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license together with a written license from the actual photographer.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:BADVOID in Los Angeles.png

I have a written email from the original copyright holder proving there is permission to use this on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenesisGSE (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@GenesisGSE: you don't need to request the undeletion. A member of the COM:VRT will do it once they review and approve the permission sent by the copyright holder. The current backlog is 5 days. Günther Frager (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


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

My content has the right to be seen

I had someone say my content is crap and this isn’t my personal site I thought everyone had the right to share their content

I feel we all have the right to share our own content

I was told my content is crap which is very rude and unprofessional I should have been told a specific reason not that their opinion of my content is crap please reconsider posting my photos thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Briglio (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see anywhere in the record where it says your images are crap. The only comment on each of them is " (Requesting speedy deletion because of COM:CSD#F10, Personal photos of or by non-contributors.)". That is an appropriate comment -- only those who have made significant contributions are allowed personal photos and even if you were a contributor, these are questionable. Among other things, Commons requires that each constituent image of a montage be uploaded separately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That's been my comment on Commons:Help_desk#I submitted but pics aren’t showing where I also told them that their uploads are lacking COM:EDUSE and that Commons is not their personal free web host. The uploader seems to confuse Commons with flickr or the like. And Google images is so good to me making me famous speaks for itself. --Achim55 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. User warned twice. Seeing the file names, this is clearly not OK here. --Yann (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Javad Ghaffari.jpg

با سلام و خسته نباشید. من درخواست احیای این تصویر رو دارم. چون مجوز حق نشر دارد. در زیر سایت تسنیم نوشته All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. که به فارسی میشود همه محتوای خبرگزاری تسنیم تحت مجوز Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 بین‌المللی مجوز دارند. ابوالفضل زارعی (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The CC-BY license is site wide and only applicable to the text and images produced by them. Per {{Tasnim}} we only accept images with a watermark that acknowledge a photographer from Tasnim. The image has no watermark in the source link. Günther Frager (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Può accadere che il fotografo coincide con il soggetto, come in questo caso... 5.179.179.190 14:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose That seems unlikely -- the subject is speaking with a microphone and could not be holding a camera. Even if it were a selfie, we would still need a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Plainrock124 X profile picture.jpg

There is no doubt that the photo in question was in fact, AI-generated. The account that posted the photo is not an artist, and has previously embraced AI art with open arms. [2] The tweet previous to the one listed as the source of the image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons shows the process by which an image is generated using Apple's image playground. Not to mention, the tweet after the next is literally the Image Playground.

There's also this article which shows a very similar photo to the one deleted from Commons under the "Final Thoughts" headline. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plainrock124 X profile picture.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


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

User talk:Giov.c#COM:AN/U#User:Giov.c reverts and blanks DRs despite previous warning

<includeonly>''[http://Category:Italics Italic text]mamamela''</includeonly>Media:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giov.c#c-AFBorchert-20230705191700-COM:AN/U#User:Giov.c_reverts_and_blanks_DRs_despite_previous_warning — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.58.27.228 (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close. This page is for undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Gogarty official ballot paper photo 2015.jpg

Paul Gogarty official ballot paper photo 2015.jpg was deleted because of "Suspected Flickrwashing" simply because the Flickr account the account did not have many uploads or followers. The file was uploaded to Flickr in late 2015, well after Flickr had lost popularity to sites such as Facebook and Instagram. The account should not be expected to have followers. The subject of the image (Paul Gogarty) was a political candidate and elsewhere the account makes clear they were uploading the images with the hope they would be used on Wikipedia. The account name is "Paul G", obviously Paul Gogarty.

I believe the image should be undeleted because the subject/uploader's intent was for the image to be used publicly, and there is no good reason to suspect anything else. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Intent was for the image to be used publicly is not the same as public domain or a free license, which we require. Also the copyright belongs by default to the photographer, not the subject. Yann (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
the copyright belongs by default to the photographer, not the subject
Typically yes, but these photographs were taken for a political campaign. It is almost certainly the case that there will be an agreement between the Photographer and the Candidate that once the photographs are taken, that the copyright will go to the subject so that the subject can use the images on campaign material such as leaflets and posters. We should Commons:Assume good faith.
Intent was for the image to be used publicly is not the same as public domain
The image has been placed under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
It is not almost certainly the case that the copyright will be ceded to the subject. If it was ceded in this case, it needs better evidence. I took photos of political candidates for their campaign photos and I did not cede the copyrights to them. Giving the right to use is different from ceding the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
For info: source on flickr, 17 September 2015, original Commons log (slightly different filename), 18 September 2015, DR, December 2019, logs of Darepng. The uploader to flickr and to Commons may be the subject but it is not obvious that the subject owns the copyright or that the photos are self-portraits. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is entirely possible, even likely, that the photographer gave permission to the candidate to use the image for his campaign, it is, as Asclepias says, very unlikely that the photographer gave the candidate a license which permitted the candidate to freely license the image as required here. We should not restore this image unless we get a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Silence Wang 01.jpg

I don't understand why this image is deleted for possible copyright violation. The original photographer and owner of the photo gave explicit licensing for this image in her instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBTliRmPGZ-/?img_index=2 in the following language: "©️I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." I This follows the wiki commons image upload copyright and licensing instructions for images from instagram posts.

Exact instructions from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team I/We publish on social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Post your photo with a description or comment indicating that it is published under a free license. (Alternatively, edit an existing post to include such a comment. If the platform does not allow editing of posts, then make a new post referring back to the photo.) Please ensure that visibility is set to public.
--Etherealmama (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose This is license laundering. The images were originally posted at https://m.weibo.cn/profile/7574935809. The Weibo user has around 32K followers while the Instagram has only a handful. Also, in this post https://m.weibo.cn/status/5056100426056506 it is clear that the images can only be used for personal usage «所有图可以自印自留，但不授权自印后作为无料发放（举例：印了自己放家里收藏可以，但是不能公开发放❌，更不能标价开团❌）», (defective) Google translate: «All pictures can be printed and kept by yourself, but you are not authorized to print them and distribute them for free (for example: you can print them and keep them at home, but you cannot distribute them publicly❌, and you cannot mark a price to start a group❌)». Günther Frager (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Gunther. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Ministrite Nõukogu puhkebaas Valgerannas.jpg

Image was deleted due to no FOP but as per Category talk:Raine Karp there is a permission from the architect.

For same reason also please undelete the following images that depict buildings by the same architect:

--2001:7D0:81F8:9A80:D594:5491:AFB9:1C58 17:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Question Where is the permission? If it is non-public, it needs to go to VRT. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Given that the public comment was written by the VRT member at the same time they inserted the ticket template, I suppose that it accurately reflects the permission in the ticket. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: We have a permission from the architect. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Nazli_Selfie_photo.jpg

Nazli Choucri gave permission to use photo for her Wikipedia a page and freely on internet to fit your licenses. It was deleted because we did not use proper channel to upload. So she will email with the text from the upload template (Commons:Email templates) the the URL that points to that URL address to use photo. The email will come from (Redacted).

I'm making the request because in the template, it says to use URL that points to the image, but since it is delated, it may not work.

JMAmit24 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nazli Selfie photo.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose once the we have an explicit permission, a member form COM:VRT will ask for its undeletion. Günther Frager (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


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

Files deleted

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The design is likely above COM:TOO US however per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino the file acually became free through formalities so therefore these qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}}. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS 1971 id.svg which regards an older variant of PBS's logo, also resulting in keep. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.201.40.102 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Repost for the 3rd time a declined request. I soft-blocked this IP for 3 years, as there are many problematic edits and 2 previous blocks. --Yann (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Ella Morris.jpg

I would like to request this photo is undeleted. I work for The FA who is the owner of the copyright of the photo. I have the direct permission of the photographer and the agency who supplied the photo (Getty) for the photo to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethamc123 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Please ask the photographer to follow the instructions at COM:VRT in order for this permission to be verified properly. Thuresson (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:The Worshipful Mayor of Amesbury.jpg

File was deleted because has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Requesting undeletion because permission granted from copyright holder OTRS permission pending from copyright holder Scienceblogger1999 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose the will be undeleted after the OTRS permission is reviewed and approved, not before. Günther Frager (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Musia Totibadze.jpg

ticket:2024032910007228 is received and processed. Анастасия Львоваru/en 21:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg

File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg was deleted on the grounds of a "Copyright Violation". However, per the discussion on [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term], it seems files from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu are believed to be acceptable to be used under an Attribution license. File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg has the same notice all files in Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term do; that a simple Attribution to the European Union is all that should be required for their use. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I do not understand the comments above. The cited page, which is also cited on the file upload page, says:

"As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it." (Emphasis added)

This is an ND license, which we do not permit. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you see User:Rlandmann's comment in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term? They stated:
The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.
There are currently over 600 files Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term uploaded from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu under an attribution license, so one way or another this issue has to be addressed. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but this is not the place to address it. Here we must read the license for this image and apply it. Since it is clearly an ND license, we cannot restore the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
But I think that what CeltBrowne is saying is that this item is accompanied by specific usage terms and that therefore it is not under the general ND license. That view has merit. When reading the legal notice page, my initial reaction was the same as yours. But a question is: what does an item look like when it is under the general license? Logically, it would be an item that is not accompanied by any specific usage terms. One example could be this video. It seems that most types of items (e.g. videos) often do not have specific usage terms, and thus they are under the general ND license, whereas photo items are often under the specific "Usage terms: Identification of origin mandatory", which then apply to the item, to the exclusion of the general license. However, although "Identification of origin mandatory" necessarily implies the permission to reuse, it's not explicit if it allows commercial use and derivatives. That condition could be interpreted as either more permissive or more restrictive than the general license. The more restrictive interpretation means that the difference with the general license would be to disallow commercial use. But why would they do that? The more permissive interpretation means that the identification of the origin is the only condition for any reuse. Then the difference with the general license would be to allow derivatives. I don't know which makes more sense. Has someone tried to obtain a clarification from the source? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
 Support I withdraw my opposition. As you say, the usage terms are ambiguous, but it a rule of law that ambiguous provisions must be construed against the drafter, so we can interpret this as saying the image is free for any use as long as we acknowledge the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Iris Van Herpen Transforming Fashion at the Dallas Museum of Art.jpg

This image was uploaded on Wordpress.org/openverse as an image to be used on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The file is freely liscenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarbati7 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jbarbati7: NC-ND is not free enough for Commons per COM:L. Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done, wordpress.org/openverse redirects to openverse.org where I can not find this file. Unfree license at flickr.com. Thuresson (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Revolutionnaires_def_2.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024111510006043. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
How can we verify its official status? Where and when the decission that established this reward was published? Ankry (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
In general, the specific Russian department lists its award(s) on its official site (for example, награды Минобрнауки). Also, department order (приказ) of award establishment can be found in the Russian juridical databases (like pravo.gov.ru, consultant.ru, garant.ru, docs.cntd.ru, and others). Alex Spade (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose I do not see "Awards of Rostekhnadzor" on the page mentioned above. Ankry (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, Минобрнауки (Minobrnauki) was just example, it is not Rostekhnadzor. Link to current Rostekhnadzor awards. Alex Spade (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: This has been nearly stalled for months, and there isn't real opposition. Also there wasn't much discussion in the DRs. @Alex Spade: Please check that everything is OK. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Ikusgela-Bideo azala - Miguel Unamuno.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not understand why this file has been deleted. I think it is an error. I asked to delete another one (...Migel Unamuno), and both have been deleted. It is a cover of an educational video, please activate it again. Demonocrazy (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: I'd like to thank Demonocrazy for their highly valuable contributions. The image is a DW of File:Miguel de Unamuno Meurisse c 1925.JPG. --Achim55 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Рузил обыкновенный.png

The file deleted by reason "personal photos by non-contributers" but i am the contributer of photo. Is it possible to recover file? --Injir223222 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope photograph. You are not yet a substantial contributor to Wikimedia. Please read COM:Scope to understand that we want media with an educational use. We are not Facebook. Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MIZUTANI KOJI.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have valid permission in ticket:2024120610004604. I haven't seen the Commons file page so this is assuming the file content and the source statement match. whym (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:BG_27389_MPG_-FHD00Z02VFY.webm

I put a deletion request for the above file because I wanted to change some things in my schema. I'm going to do 300 uploads using OpenRefine and this one was the test upload. I deleted it in order to start the full upload. But I understand that I can't re-upload files, correct? So I want this to be undeleted because it is part of the full set that I want to upload.

Thanks!

edit: to be precise I get the following error when I upload the same file (with the new metadata schema): MediaWiki error while editing [Warning]: The file upload action returned the 'Warning' error code. Warnings are: {duplicate-archive="BG_27389_MPG_-FHD00Z02VFY.webm"}

And the file doesn't show up afterwards. So my guess it has something to do with the deletion that I requested before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeld en Geluid Collecties (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The upload says that the author died in 1952, so the movie was under copyright on the URAA date and, unless it was first published before 1929, it will be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after its first publication. This probably will also apply to most of the files you have recently uploaded..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is in the public domain, and was reuploaded as File:Opening tramlijn naar Wassenaar.webm. REDIRECT created instead. --Yann (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Калинин_Алексей_Иванович.jpg

Это фотография из личного семейного архива. На ней изображен Калинин Алексей Иванович, заслуженный летчик Российской Федерации, ветеран труда. фото сделано в городе Сыктывкар в 1973 году. Оцифровано 07.12.2024 года. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroInfoRF (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Google translate: "This is a photograph from a personal family archive. It depicts Kalinin Aleksey Ivanovich, Honored Pilot of the Russian Federation, veteran of labor. The photo was taken in the city of Syktyvkar in 1973. Digitized on 07.12.2024."
 Oppose OP also wrote "Автор фото не известен(скорее всего коллега по работе", eg. photographer unknown. Not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Unknown photographer and far too recent to be PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Ялта ТВ (о презентации книги "Монгольский хуйвалдагч").webm

ticket:2024100810002008 is received and everything is allright with it. Анастасия Львоваru/en 15:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Благодарность (Древнейшие пирамиды мира).jpg 2

I misunderstood why it was deleted the second time, after the ticket was received; please, restore again... Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Television series distribution license by NRTA.png

In the last request said {{PD-PRC-exempt}} only applies to texts, not images or photos. But I would like to reaffirm that, this is an appendix file of 国家广播电视总局办公厅关于使用国产电视剧片头统一标识的通知, which is not apply to the PRC Copyright Law. Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party (CPC) and Government Organs (党政机关公文处理工作条例) Article 8 states: "The main types of official documents are: (8) Notices. (公文种类主要有：（八）通知。)" But the nominator Wcam and handler Abzeronow didn't take my advice. For the same reason, File:China Healthcare Security (CHS) Logo.svg is also not apply to the PRC Copyright Law, which is an appendix file of a administrative notice too.

Therefore, I would like to submit my request to undeletion.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose You are repeating the same argument in the last DR without new info. I DR'd File:China Healthcare Security (CHS) Logo.svg as well. Wcam (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is an appendix file of an official document. As an important main body part of an official document, it is public domain (my personal opinion). Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Change my view: I saw Commons:Deletion_requests/File:上海市市标沙船白玉兰.png and finally found the answer. This case reflects copyright issues are complex, many people think this is in PD. If i am not sure, I can ask a profeissonal for copyright (IP). I will keep my opinion until someone has new opinion to support it. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Wcam. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:K.Ebnöther-029.jpg NO VIOLATION!

THE PICTURE HAS BEEN MADE IN ORDER OF ME PERSONALLY AND ALSO PAID. PLEASE PUBLISH IT. THANKS. KURT JUERG EBNOETHER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtjuergebnoether (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose First, in the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim that someone else was. Which should we believe? Second, while paying for a portrait may give you the right to use the image yourself, it very rarely gives you the right to freely license it as required here. That right is almost always held by the actual photographer. Third, the image appears elsewhere on the Web, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Please do not shout. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Заборчик на станции Приморская в сторону Василеостровской.jpg

<gallery> Заборчик на станции Приморская в сторону Василеостровской.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Илья Ковалёв (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

We need a reason to undelete, and this is a copyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Begaud.jpg

RE: Paul Begaud.jpg

Paul Begaud, the owner of the image has given permission to upload this file via an email sent to [email protected]. --StriderL (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC) 10 December 2024

 Oppose If so, a VRTS volunteer will check if the copyright owner has licensed the photo with an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:А.Ф.Попов- Ленинград 1978.jpg

It was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:А.Ф.Попов- Ленинград 1978.jpg, but in the ticket:2024082010005415 the user claims that it is really his work made in 1978. Анастасия Львоваru/en 08:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Séamus Pattison.jpg

Nominating File:Séamus Pattison.jpg for the exact same reason outlined in the just accepted Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg; files from this website have been found to be acceptable under a Template:European Union Government license so long as this is specifically outlined on their individual pages. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose per COM:PCP. Unlike Neil Blaney's photo, this one is photo of a photo. If EU Parliament are the copyright holder of the original photo, I do not see any reason why making a photo of a photo instead of using the original one. IMO, this constitutes a reasonable doubt if the photo was indeed made by a parliament employed photographer. IMO, more likely, it is an externally made photo just delivered to the parliament archive. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Mônica Magalhães Cavalcante.jpg

I request an undeletion for the file. I would like to upgrade the data and confirm its autenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriFerro1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Very small file with "source=Google", so we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew - Enea Salmeggia (1604).jpg

Buenas,necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen está en el Dominio Público (pintura fue creada en 1604),la imagen fue removida por (This is a derivative work and has been altered by Bridgeman Images (see the multiple "b"'s across the image), see metadata) y el logo de Bridgeman Images es totalmente simple (too simple) ,la licencia correcta es {{PD-old-100}}(fuentes:https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/noartistknown/the-martyrdom-of-saint-andrew-1604-painting-by-enea-salmeggia-in-the-church-of-saint-mary-of/nomedium/asset/3936599).— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. We most definitely do not want a PD image full of watermarks and a company logo on top of it. That's worse than not having the image at all. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Vali_VLZ.jpg

File:Vali_VLZ.jpg Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the file Vali VLZ.jpg, which was recently deleted from Wikipedia. I believe the deletion may have been based on a misunderstanding or lack of information regarding the file’s copyright status or relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vali VLZ (talk • contribs) 11:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose. I nominated the file for deletion under CSD F10, "Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions." The file name is "Vali VLZ.jpg", the uploader's user name is "Vali VLZ", and the uploader claimed the file as their own work, so "selfie" is satisfied. "Low-to-medium quality" is a matter of judgement, but I thought it was met. "No constructive global contributions" will require analysis of the uploader's contributions:
According to Special:CentralAuth/Vali VLZ, those are the only sites on which Vali VLZ has made any contributions. --bjh21 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per bjh21. User further warned. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Omnipedia poster 1.pdf

This poster is released under CC-BY 4.0. I'm not sure why it was deleted; I did not get a notification. (I got a notification about a concern that there was an image within the poster which also needed a license, which I believe was then addressed, though it is hard to confirm now that all edits have been deleted; I created the poster and its component parts, and it has a screenshot generated by an open-source tool we wrote.) --SJ+ 23:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sj. I'm having trouble seeing what the problem was, so I've (temporarily) undeleted it. I don't know why the nosource template wasn't removed when you dealt with the issue. Hopefully we can get this straightened out. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm converting this to a deletion request so we can clear up the discussion. I think it might have to do with the logos. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done see DR linked above for more discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 04:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Original uploader claimed this work as their own, but this specific file is licensed under KOGL Type 1 (see bottom right, http://www.moj.go.kr/minister/2089/subview.do) so the file can remain on Commons, just under the license Template:KOGL Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two logos in the bottom right of the cited page -- one leads to a page which has an explicit copyright notice. The other links to a page whose terms of use say, The copyright of the post posted by the member within the service screen belongs to the member who posted it. In addition, the public may not commercially exploit the post without the consent of the publisher. However, this does not apply to non-profit purposes, and it also has the right to publish in the service. (Google tanslation)" This is an NC license which we do not permit..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the two logos, the left one refers to WebWatch, which is a web accessibility quality certification agency designated by the Ministry of Science and ICT. From what I can see, this logo is the certification mark verifying this specific webpage is web accessible, so I don't think this would impact the underlying copyright of the webpage. Would like more thoughts on this.
As for KOGL, I'm aware it's just a link to its site. I do see on the MoJ copyright policy page that pages/files should ostensibly have a KOGL Type I in writing, which my source page doesn't. I've seen on other MoJ pages explicit KOGL Type 1 or Type 2 notices, so I will concede to your reasoning on that. I suppose my remaining question would be on that WebWatch mark, especially if it's seen on other Korean gov websites. Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Undelestion Request for several Files

Hello Administrators, I only now get on top of things sorry - some files I uploaded were flagged by an user quite some time ago (other users were kind enough to update some missing licencing information on my of my files, however some were overlooked and I guess deleted - please restore them for me so I can update the missing information accordingly).

Those files should be called:

(for those files I will put more precise names and put the following banners where still necessary: PD-art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1952; self|cc-by-sa-4.0 )

A different user flagged/deleted some other files of mine a bit more recent, please restore the following:

(for those files (if I remember correctly what they were, I now see the problem with IDing the files more accurately), I will also put more precise names and put the public domain license since when the artwork (puppets) were created, their images were published in the local art newspapers in the 1920s and 1930s, so the licensing is free).

Hope all is clear now and let me know if there are still problems I need to adress! Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtWriter22 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

((By the way, I did not put a hyperlink to the files since they only lead to the wikimedia page where it states that the file is deleted)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtWriter22 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Note that links are used by Admins to see the files in question, so they should be used here. Some of these were deleted because they are old works and are obviously not your own work as claimed. Others are copyrighted dolls whose images cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from their creators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@ArtWriter22: For each image, can you provide a list of authors, when they died, and when the work was published? If it's a photo of a person, the sole author is the photographer. If it's a photo of a 2D artwork, the sole author is the artist. If it's a photo of a 3D artwork, both the artist and photographer are authors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@ArtWriter22: (Edit conflict) As KoH said above, we need more information: who was the photographer, and who was the artist? Yann (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

To Jim, KoH and Yann - I hope this is right to edit here (and sorry for the missed hyperlinks). Yes for photographs deleted: the photographers for the artist portraits were family (and I sourced the photos from them and have publications rights), should I maybe just request a written statement from remaining family and provide it to Wikimedia then?

Same goes for the Scans (my own Scans): it was a collection of newspaper entrys that were published at the respective time of the creation of the artwork, I sourced the collected newspaper parts from the artist family (and could provide a statement for that, too). The newspaper publisher does not exist anymore, but I could request a statement from the city that these newspapers once existed and the artworks were published at that time (1920s and 30s).

Does that explain the context and does that work then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtWriter22 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above, no answer. --Yann (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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


File:6400 & 6524 (Coach USA livery) on Route 24.jpg

The reason why I want it to be undeleted is because the original owner: Arnold Binaday gave me permission to repost his picture with credit.

--Danny5784 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You have re-uploaded it, so there is nothing to do here via undeletion. However, it has also been sent to DR based on the same concern as led to the original speedy deletion. Please participate in the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Danny5784. DMacks (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. --Yann (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Jacob Raz.jpg

An email permission was sent by the copyright holders of the photo at ensoculture.com. The permission was even identified by the system. Kindly undelete. --Omert33 (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:蘇晏霈.jpg

my own photo to show on my personal introduction on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layeahh (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy allows one or two personal images for this purpose from people who have made significant contributions. Your seven edits is nowhere near enough. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Schardo Mitch.jpg

A VRTS release has been sent for the team responsible for checking it, and I believe this image was deleted unfairly without checking the corresponding response for the release of this image. --Owula kpakpo (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Owula kpakpo: This should be resolved at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead. Thuresson (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

this is my personal information and i vouch that it was based on my experience and professional work — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.158.63.43 (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. Please log in and provide a file name and a valid rationale for undeletion. --Yann (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


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

File: La liberté guidant le peuple to undelete.jpg

Pourquoi censurer l'art de l'artiste et supprimer une source qui illustre les propos sur son engagement comme Nouvelle Marianne ? Cette photo ne devrait pas être supprimée. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobleu (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close. File has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:La liberté guidant le peuple.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive&oldid=837992578"