Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
13 copyvios • 1 duplicate • 46 adverts • 5 selfies • 13 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

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

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

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.
I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost has opened a new request below so we may as well close this one. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.
Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Also

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

Das Bundesarchiv Abteilung Deutsches Reich hat mir mit E-mail vom 27. März 2025 auf meine Frage, welche Urheberrechte im Zusammenhang mit Verbandsabzeichen der Wehrmacht - hier Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - folgenden Text geschrieben: "Die ehemalige deutsche Wehrmacht hat unserer Kenntnis nach keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Die durch sie erlassenen Vorschriften, Erlasse und Befehle sind mittlerweile Schriftgut des Bundesarchivs und unterliegen dem Bundesarchivgesetz. Personenbezogene oder zeitliche Schutzfristen bestehen für die Art Schriftgut nicht."

Da die Verbandsabzeichen nicht willkürlich verwendet werden konnten, sondern auf Grundlage übergeordneter Stäbe genehmigt und angeordnet wurden, bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der gelöschten Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - 1.GD, 3.GD und 4. GD - unter der Lizenz "gemeinfrei". --Jost (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This information could have been shared in the still opened but stalled UDR of this file. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Regardless if Bundesarchiv feels Wehrmacht insignia are public domain, they should contact COM:VRT so this information is on file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That actually says nothing about the copyright situation of the insignia. They're writing about "Schutzfristen", a kind of waiting period before archives can allow access to files to protect interests of people who might still be alive or died recently. So nothing to do with copyright. They probably didn't even understand the problem we have here. Which is understandable, because they are archivists, not jurists, and normally wouldn't bother with copyright at all. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Rosenzweig. From my perspective, the question is more about TOO. Gnom (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlos Donoso y sus muñecos.png

I spoke with both the photographer and his son at the time (the image is part of a family photo). The puppets were crafted by the same person who appears in the image, and he personally granted the usage rights. The logistics were somewhat complex, as it required explaining to the son (who uploaded the image to Commons on behalf of the author) how to do it properly and guiding him through the site's policies. This is a well-known individual who has a Wikipedia article. I strongly recommend the restoration of this image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wilfredor, in the case of o photo of an artwork, we need permission from both the artist and the photographer. Can you ask them both to send a permission to the support team, via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? They can use Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator to create their permission mail. – Having received the proper permissions, the support team can successfully demand restauration. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in that time the person passed away Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor, that is really sad. Are there heirs who can take over the baton? The son? Mussklprozz (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Es war derselbe Sohn, der das Foto gemacht und hochgeladen hat. Ich habe seit drei Jahren keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm, da ich ihn nur speziell für dieses Foto kontaktiert habe. Es handelt sich um sehr bekannte Personen, die schwer erreichbar sind. Da er das Bild selbst unter der richtigen Lizenz hochgeladen hat, halte ich es für überflüssig und bürokratisch, ihn zusätzlich um eine schriftliche Bestätigung per E-Mail zu bitten Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question en que año publicaron la fotografía?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Translation for English speaking admins: It was the same son who took the photo and uploaded it. I haven't had any contact with him for three years, as I only contacted him specifically for this photo. The people in question are very well known and difficult to reach. Since he uploaded the picture himself under the correct licence, I think it would be superfluous and bureaucratic to ask him for additional written confirmation by email. Mussklprozz (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please temporarily undelete the image? I would like to check the file description and history. If I find it okay, i think we can accept Wilfredor's argument above. I would write an artwork template in connection with a heirs-license into the file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Mussklprozz/Yann, for taking on this case and I really appreciate it! 🙏 Just a quick heads-up, I noticed that the image had been deleted when I checked my restored version and saw that the source link was showing up in red. Wilfredor (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think @Krd: didn't see this discussion and accidentally deleted it. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed duplicates

Túrelio deleted them by suggestion of OptimusPrimeBot. I asked him to show me the files, because I check what I upload and so many duplicates seem like not my mistake. He says that bot can not be mistaken, but I also know that I regularly get mistakes during uploading; I didn't pay too much attention, but maybe it is related. So I suggest that something happens during uploading -> problems with metadata -> problems with OptimusPrimeBot (I am sorry for 'something', I will pay more attention and will use phabricator after the next uploading). Please, take a look. Анастасия Львоваru/en 08:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had the 1st file already undeleted, as an example. It is clearly a duplicate of the paired file. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree about the 1st. Did you recheck others? Анастасия Львоваru/en 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Sepahan Logo.png

با سلام لوگوی بارگذاری شده باز طراحی اینجانب میباشد و بنده لوگو را از روی یک ویدئو طراحی نمودم و کاملا اثر شخصی بنده میباشد.

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speculative restoration of Siamosaurus suteethorni based on the tooth from Sao Khua Formation.png and File:Garudapfossil.jpg

Good to see User_talk:DinoThaiThai_Chatchy. The removal was unjustified. These images were deleted due to copyvio templates by User:shizhao. However, the website link provided as evidence of copyvio is invalid as it was added after the images were uploaded. First image was already used in 2022,[1] but the link shizhao proposed was from 2023.[2] Second image os uploaded in March 31st,[3] website they proposed is from April 3rd.[4] Therefore, I believe the removal of these images was unjustified and they can be reinstated. There is a testimony on the talk page from uploader DinoThaiThai Chatchy, but if more solid evidence is needed, should contact the uploader. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support evidence has been presented that the claims of prior upload were incorrect, and therefore the images should be reinstated unless proper evidence can be found that they are copyvios. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose restoration of the first image. There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the sculpture/reconstruction. While we have a request which covers the first of these, there is no mention of the copyright for the sculpture. The file does not tell us where the sculpture is, so it is possible that Freedom of Panorama might apply, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was posted for a Thai competition and the site that was supposedly a copyvio was also Thai, FOP in Thailand would seem logical here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Thailand is probable, although not certain. Thai FoP requires that it was in public place when photographed, but permanent installation is not required. We need to know where this photograph was taken. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward permanence is required. According to @Paul 012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti poster for mother's milk.jpg, the original Thai version included a Thai term which translates as "regularly", but "regularly" is missing from most unofficial translations like those held by WIPO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather support undeletion but opening up a regular deletion request on the basis of being suspected recent works of taxidermy/anthropological reconstructions, and DR history of Wikimedia Commons shows many of the more notable recent taxidermies are found in countries that either have no indoor FoP (e.g. Germany and Netherlands) or no FoP at all (whether complete or partial, like the United States or France); see this and this for the case of hominid reconstructions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although most seems against first file, but what about second one? Siamosaurus have multiple images on Commons so hopefully fine without it, but fossil image of Garudapterus would be needed, so want to hear opinion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ta-tea-two-te-to we need to review the existing images on a case-to-case basis, to be sure that the images show either very old reconstructions or newer reconstructions that aren't creative enough to meet the COM:Threshold of originality. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Hmm, you're not mistaken? The first file was an illustration. It was probably a work licensed by the uploader themselves or someone related to them. It was same time uploaded with File:Life restoration of Thaisaurus chonglakmanii in Chaiburi Formation.png, which shows "Own work". But anyway, I meant there are freely usable Siamosaurus images on Commons, as they were created by the uploaders themselves. Examples by User:PaleoGeekSquared:[5][6] However, File:Siamosaurus_suteethorni_sculpture_Phu_Wiang_Dinosaur_Museum.jpg and File:Siamosaurus_suteethorni_model.jpg may questionable as those are models in museum or somewhere. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in what country is the reconstruction of the second file located? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was not reconstruction, it was the image of hand holding fossil holotype. According to talk page, this photograph is taken by Dr. Sita Manitkoom who described it, and uploader claims got permission. It is from a video that user related to uploader uploaded.[7] (5:04) This user appears to have a Facebook account in addition to YouTube,[8] but I managed to get in touch with them by commenting on YouTube. The website cited as evidence of copyright violation cites Commons link,[9] yet evidence that the images were copied from this site is contradictory. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After comment in this video,[10] it is probably better to contact Facebook account to clarify about copyright of that photograph. Unfortunately I don't have Facebook account, so hope someone else better at Commons and have account can do. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can there is not actually any indication the Garudapterus image was a copyright violation, so I don't see why it shouldn't be restored unless anybody can bring anything else to the table. It'd be very appreciated to have back on the page. LittleLazyLass (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muselk vs Ali-A (cropped).jpg

The file was speedily deleted for the reason "per COM:Speedy" without mentioning a specific reason as to why it was speedily deleted.

Presuming the reason being F1, the original source of the image was a thumbnail from a YouTube video that was listed under a CC license. The thumbnail does contain copyrighted Fortnite imagery, but was cropped to exclude any of it. There isn't a COM:NET issue as far as I'm aware because Ali-A does actually talk in that video. In other words, the subject of the file is affiliated with the uploader in that specific video. This isn't just some random upload of gameplay that put his face in the thumbnail for clickbait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg

Hi, This was certainly published at the time, so the reason for deletion is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we already have a copy: File:StoryvilleRaleighRyeGal.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Nosferattus: as the nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infrogmation and Yann: Do you have any evidence that this specific photo was published before 1970? Nosferattus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not much reason to doubt publication, as Infrogmation explains above. Speculations are not a valid reason deletion, and are much beyond significant doubt, which is required for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is definitely good reason to doubt publication. (1) I wasn't able to find any evidence that it was published prior to 1970 when I nominated the image for deletion. (2) The MOMA book about Bellocq's nudes doesn't mention any previous publications and seems to imply that Lee Friedlander was the first to publish them. But I don't know why I'm arguing with you anyway. You're just going to undelete it regardless of what I say. Nosferattus (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOMA book is not a holy publication. It is not surprising that it doesn't mention distribution of these portraits to the subjects and their customers, which counts as publication. Association with prostitutes was not something people publicized. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:حسن البيجو.jpg

Photo rights have been added under my username (ARABXOOPS) at the same link, please take a look.

https://www.facebook.com/elbejoo/photos/%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%83-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%84%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%82/997644375136084/?_rdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARABXOOPS (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LulaLevy.jpg

I am the original author of File:LulaLevy.jpg. I uploaded it on April 12, 2025, but it was deleted on April 20 due to missing license. That was an omission on my part. I confirm that I took the photo myself and release it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). I kindly request undeletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonterski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Banfield: , who tagged this as not having a source. Thuresson (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonterski: The actual problem was not the license, by lack of camera metadata in EXIF. Can you upload the original photo version from your camera as an evidence of your authorship? We generall do not accept photos without EXIF metadata as Own work. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I  Strong oppose the last statement because in some countries or for some people it is necessary to remove the EXIF data for privacy and security  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion reason was for lack of license. I don't think we require EXIF, though it can help show that the uploader owns the copyright in case a file is previously published elsewhere on the internet (without EXIF). The real solution for that latter issue though is the COM:VRT process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bluto and many other Thimble Theatre characters are already in the public domain due to the strips from late 1930-1936 and maybe upward not renewing their copyright: Commons:Character copyrights

Bluto's debut strip was not renewed in 1959 and 1960 same for Wimpy's in 1958 and 1959. Swee'Pea, Poopdeck Pappy and Eugene The Jeep same for Alice the Goon's debut strips also never renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:e00:83f0:3cf9:5606:3cbd:15a2 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This request probably concerns all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bluto. Yann (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation and Nosferattus: for deleting admin and nominator. Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Signature (this is texted from a school computer): Zig-Zag. 63.81.59.162 13:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Marmite - N2 (djvu).pdf

(I translated this message from French using an AI) Hello, I'm requesting the restoration of this issue of "La Marmite," since I had previously asked for its title to be changed because I made a mistake when creating it. Afterwards, someone interested in the topic flagged the zine as potentially infringing on copyright — apparently because it's of good quality (which we find quite flattering, by the way).

Regarding copyright: it's a collective and anarchist project, and it's a fanzine. So basically, the question of intellectual property — well, we believe property is theft, if you will; this was never meant to publish works under proprietary rights. The goal of our zine has always been to share it as widely as possible, including posting it publicly wherever we could. In other words, we consider it part of the public domain. Well, I don't know, we never signed an official contract among the anarchist companions who worked on it, but for all of us it was obvious that it belonged in the public domain — that's even why we donated it to the Fanzinarium, which is like a zine museum in Paris.

We are people who grew together; we crossed paths at certain moments in our lives, and some of us have lost touch over time. Still, I can assure you that the atmosphere has always been one where the issue of rights simply didn’t come up — it was just too obvious for any of us to even discuss, like fanzine is kinda free of rights already but you add anarchism, I mean...

Moreover, we decided to upload it to Wikimedia Commons together with other ccompanions of the project — it wasn't my decision alone. In fact, I consulted the main editors of the project, the people who provided me with the digital versions, since these files hadn’t been available anywhere before, as they were created using InDesign etc., and you can clearly see they don’t exist anywhere else online.

Now, if you need proof that it’s actually me/us behind this project, we could do an Instagram story on the account linked to each publication, showing for example one of the uploaded files from Commons. This would demonstrate clearly that we are indeed the ones responsible.

I find this solution interesting in case you require such evidence, since we don’t have a centralised email address.Aristoxène (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note my answer on my talk page, which was more extensive and detailed. Aristoxène (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, it is not at all clear that this is in scope -- it is a creation by amateurs who are not noted for this kind of work. We do not keep personal artwork on Commons. Second, the copyright is held by each of the contributors, so in order to keep it we will need a free license from each of them. It is probably impossible to prove the various authorship to the level required by Commons, so I don't see any practical way for it to be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question pour User:Aristoxène : Indépendamment de la question de l'admissibilité, pourquoi la version File:La Marmite - N2 (djvu).pdf serait-elle conservée en plus de la version File:La Marmite - N2.djvu ? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward What do you know about amateurs or not ? It's under pseudonyms - you know nothing about the people who made it and their standing in the artistical life of the country and era - and you can safely assume that if the quality is good, as someone just told me was the reason why it was deleted, it's not by amateurs but also by people who know what they do in art. But they chose to publish under pseudonym for personal reasons, as we all did. Also, I should say it's noted since it's categorized and avalaible in the collections of Fanzinarium, which is some sort of museum for fanzines. They gave it a identifier and categorized it and use it in their collections to this day, they have maybe a small dozen issues. See my talk page for the details on that. I feel it's clearly disingenuous at this point ; I want to share stuff we do, I know the structure of the group since I'm part of it since day 1, I know how we publish and why we do it, you want me to text like an anarchist who is in jail in his country to ask him if the article he wrote 5 years ago is free of rights in our anarchist fanzine like this is impossible. But again, what I can do is using the Instagram, which is the official canal of the publication so you can see that it's us, like what do you want more than the official canal of the media to certify that it's them indeed. Separating the rights under each property rights
@Asclepias En fait, on m'a donné les documents en PDF et en format original donc presse avec les deux pages côte à côte si tu veux. En gros, j'ai parlé avec Alien33 (qui est un.e Wikisourcien.ne) et on parlait de journaux anarchistes des années 1890 dont je voulais ajouter des articles sur Wikisource sauf que les articles étaient écrits sans signature ou sans pseudonyme, pour éviter la répression. Cette personne m'a dit que c'était parfait si c'était anonyme+70 ans et je me suis agréablement étonné de ça, et ensuite ça a dévié sur des publications plus récentes, et au fil de la discussion la personne m'a dit que si vous leviez vous mêmes les droits de vos oeuvres, vous pouviez les uploader. Donc après ça, j'ai contacté les personnes qui sont les principales éditrices du projet ; et franchement c'est un petit groupe et comme dans beaucoup c'est souvent un faible nombre de personnes qui organisent tout, tu vois. En mode moi je connais en plus comment ça s'est organisé, on était ensemble, et c'est genre nous qui poussions pour avoir des articles, des dessins, etc ; nous qui avons demandé aux gens de mettre un pseudo pour qu'on puisse signer chaque production tu vois. C'est pour ça que tous ces trucs sur les droits ça me semble risible, parce que je suis littéralement celui qui ait eu l'idée de marquer quand même les oeuvres avec les pseudonymes - et donc quand je dis que nous ne voulons pas de droits d'auteurs, fin bon, je suis concerné un peu je sais ce qu'il se passe dans le groupe qu'on organise quoi :') Enfin bon, donc j'ai envoyé une demande dans le groupe pour demander si ça leur allait qu'on l'uploade hier soir ; sachant que j'en avais déjà parlé depuis quelques années, mais j'avais zappé ou eu la flemme de le faire avant, et pour le coup c'est surtout avec ce nouveau compte que je publie des trucs sur Commons, pas trop avec l'ancien (AgisdeSparte), et les principales personnes qui font l'édition, la mise en page, et qui poussent vraiment le projet m'ont répondu que parfait et m'ont envoyé les documents en format numérique à uploader. Et donc, tout ça pour dire qu'à la fin, bah vu que j'ai commencé à travailler sur Wikisource sur ce compte aussi et que là bas j'ai appris ce que c'était que le format djvu, et en plus je ne savais pas qu'on pouvait passer les pages juste avec pdf, je pensais que c'était juste en mode djvu qu'on pouvait faire ça, bah je me suis dit que je le mettrais dans les deux formats. Mais s'il ne faut pas faire ça et en garder qu'un, mieux vaudrait peut être garder le djvu, parce que le format pdf sous le document y a une sorte d'alerte en mode tu peux te faire espionner ta race en l'ouvrant visiblement, et ça m'inspire pas des masses confiances. J'ai aussi coupé les pages après en ayant leur approbation pour le faire, et elles se sont demandé d'ailleurs s'il valait mieux le couper ou pas en deux ou garder l'original presse, mais finalement vu que je pouvais uploader un nouveau document après le premier, bah c'était pas mal car on a du coup les deux versions, la première postée qui est l'originale presse et la deuxième où les pages sont coupées de manière à ce que ça soit lisible sur ordi. Aristoxène (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelques screens de mes interactions d'hier soir qui montrent que bon ou bien je suis le plus gros faussaire de l'histoire pour uploader un truc un peu osef et je crée des faux screens, ou bien bon... (1)
Dans ce dernier vous voyez ma volonté qui sous-tendait l'ajout en djvu aussi, j'ai expliqué ça comme pouvant être lu en kindle pcq je crois que c'est le cas mais j'avais la flemme de tout lui expliquer à ce moment (je l'ai fait plus tard dans les screens suivants). (3)(4)(5)
Fin vous voyez bien soit je me casse la tête à falsifier des échanges ou quoi pour de la merde soit bon c'est peut être bien nous qui faisons ce fanzine :') Aristoxène (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voilà quelle était ma conclusion avec Alien33 hier, dans notre discussion précédente, je la linke.(6) Aristoxène (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D'ailleurs vous voyez que ma première phrase c'était de base 'I mean it's kinda assumed it's public domain', genre j'étais déjà en mode 'Bon c'est du domaine public mais au moins au bout de 70 ans ça sera ok public domaine, donc tant mieux ça sera au plus tôt officiellement' et ensuite il me dit que tu peux lever le truc officiellement. 'Fin genre c'est un fanzine anarchiste, la propriété c'est le vol c'est littéralement le slogan de base des anarchistes, on va pas mettre de la propriété privée dans nos bails genre... :') Aristoxène (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long rants don't help your cause -- those who work here won't read them -- we are vastly understaffed with Admins -- there are more than 8,000 deletion requests open -- so we are careful with our time. This will not be restored without a free license from each of the contributors -- if that can't be obtained, so be it. There are many thousands of images that Commons would like to have that we cannot keep. In this case it is not even clear to me that we would like to have it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward All right, do as you want. Just to be clear about the time issue - I am a volunteer and not paid either: I’ve spent far more time trying to explain, justify, and offer concrete solutions than it probably took you to read this specific request — assuming you actually did since I don't understand your answer regarding that but whatever. So let’s not pretend I haven’t already invested a great deal of time here - a day in fact since I started yesterday at 20h and it's 17h today :) It’s frustrating to see my arguments brushed aside without real engagement, especially when the proposed responses don’t seem to address the core issues or solutions. But fine, it’s clear a decision was made regardless of what I wrote, from the first answer in fact. So let’s move on. Short enough I hope, and see you another time. Do as you wish. Aristoxène (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As if I didn't work here lol. 'Those who work here'. This striked me as very haughty. As if I didn't add dozens of images and media and works on Commons myself. Ok maybe you did tens of thousands or hundred of thousands but I did help here at a small extent too, so I hope it was like a random comment. Aristoxène (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But yes do as you feel best, sorry if I feel a bit rugous when I speak but it's just my way of being. Don't keep them if you feel it's not deserved, keep them if you feel it is ; I mean I have 0 power, the admins are the only ones that can do that or not ; so like always it goes back to you, do as you feel Aristoxène (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If we keep the DjVu version, I don't see any reason not to keep the PDF version. Yann (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same issues apply to the DjVu version -- is it in scope? and, whether the creators like it or not, it has a copyright and therefore we must have licenses from all the contributors or satisfactory evidence that each contributor licensed the work to the fanzine or was a worker for hire. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May be, but it is not deleted, nor nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Could you please nominate the DjVu file for deletion if you believe it should not be on Commons? So we can take a joint decision for both files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Record 2023.svg

Apparently, the result of discussion regarding the deletion of (File:Record 2023.svg) in November 2023 was flawed (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record 2023 with wordmark.png which also nominated an SVG). Brazil has very high threshold of originality per COM:TOO Brazil, and i'm sure the logo falls below TOO in the country. The DR sadly didn't mentioned how higher TOO does in Brazil. So, I suggested that the SVG file to be undeleted and place COM:TOO Brazil notice in file description (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record News 2023.svg for similar outcome). Please note that the SVG file mentioned is 2D version, not more complex 3D one (which is PNG). --Yayan550 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about ToO Brazil to comment about it. Someone familiar with it should add a variety of examples of acceptable works at COM:TOO Brazil, as the text description is not nearly as easy to use as examples. See COM:TOO US for good examples.

I note that it says there,

"Not OK .... Works from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country (Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.)"

That seems to apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Children playing four square with a utility ball.jpg

This was just deleted by User:Captain-tucker for "OOS", which I think means that it's out of scope, but the file clearly is in scope in terms of being freely licensed and having clear educational value. Why was this deleted? How is this out of scope? Why did the admin delete it with no actual discussion at the deletion request? This all seems confusing and backwards to me. @Captain-tucker: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the photograph seems to be in scope, but I also agree with the nominator that this was not taken in a public space and that there are identifible children in the photograph. There is no way to verify that consent for the photograph was given. Abzeronow (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I 1000% think you should be able to comment on that in the deletion discussion: in fact, having it was my idea. The file should be undeleted and the actual discussion had on the merits, not unilaterally deleted with a bogus reason. @Captain-tucker: please undelete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The DR was open for eight days. The uploader, User:Koavf was notified but chose not to participate in the discussion. Now they want to reopen the DR discussion. I see no reason to do that as the consent issue will not disappear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Willwongprd

@Bedivere: Hi, on 19 December 2024 someone mentioned some of my uploads contains emojis which has no attribution, so I've replaced them with NotoColorEmoji and then requested history version deletion instead. However I didn't nominate for keep, perhaps for this reason the file was finally deleted per nomination, so I'm here to request file undeletion but only keep the latest version. Many thanks.

Willwongprd (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't see any educational use for these files. Yann (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, these photos were used on two meetup record pages on Chinese Wikipedia. Willwongprd (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Move to local They were only used at serveral meetup pages on Chinese Wikipedia. So I think it would be more appropriate to host them on local Wikipedia. 0x0a (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These photos were taken by myself and I authorized them with CC BY-SA 4.0 License, so could it be better to host them on Commons? Willwongprd (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yann, these seem out of scope to me. Abzeronow (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per above. Bedivere (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These files were requested for deletion due to faces masked with emojis which has no attribution, but the photos were my own work. If I replace them with a copyright-free material, are these files still be considered out of scope? Before the deletion, I've uploaded the modified version using NotoColorEmoji. Is it possible to delete history version that violates copyright but not to delete the whole file page? Many thanks. @Bedivere Willwongprd (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request temporary undeletion

@Bedivere@Krd Sorry to bother you, to assist discussion, I request for temporary undeletion of these images. The history versions and the latest version before deletion has differences on masks, empty pages might not help to tell the differences. When recovered, please check the latest version of them to make sure they are not out of scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwongprd (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the latest version by clicking on it. The issue is that even with freely licensed emojis, these look like social media photos and I don't see an educational use for these. However, if it makes locally hosting these Instagram-esque friends photos easier, I could temporarily undelete them. Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Move to local Understand. Many thanks for help, I'll upload them to local namespace asap when temporarily recovered. Willwongprd (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Willwongprd: @0x0a: temporarily undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they were used at meetup pages on a Wikimedia site, they are technically automatically in-scope. I don't see much use for them outside of that, and even then they seem marginal to me (but speaking from a different culture). I would bury them in a category specific to that event and nowhere else, but I don't see why we can't just host them. It's not like it would save space to delete them, rather just use more by having copies elsewhere.  Weak keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: by Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter_Hilton_Signature.png

Good morning,

I was just wondering if it might be possible to request an undeletion of this file. Admittedly, I am still quite new to Wikipedia in the grand-scheme of things and am almost figuring things out as I go. I reviewed a comment on my talk page by User:Yann which indicated to me at the time that the copyright status wasn't clear and that further clarification was needed.

In response to this I believe I did make a slight amendment to the file(s) (see also File:Richard_Hilton_ Signature.png). However, I apologize if this wasn't sufficient, with this in mind I was wondering if the file could be undeleted so that I can rectify any errors that still persist to hopefully resolve and clear up any concerns regarding the lack of license/ copyright information?

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance with this.

--MilsMoose (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For copyright on signatures, please see Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Yann (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request temporary undeletion of File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg and File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg

I'm trying to request permission for the usage of these two logos on Wikimedia Commons, I'm following this Wikipedia guideline.

I'm at the point where I have successfully contacted the copyright holder via email, using one of these example letters and they have replied that they are willing to release the logos under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license by reaching out to the Volunteer Response Team using COM:CONSENT.

To facilitate this process, I would like to request the temporary undeletion of the two files for a period of one month. This would allow the copyright holder to clearly identify the specific files they wish to release and include them in their message. It would also allow me to add the {{Permission pending}} template to each file’s description, in accordance to the WP guideline I mentioned at the beginning. It's moon (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landsitz Kammerburg Blick auf das Haupthaus.jpg

This photo was originally posted on Facebook and was deleted in compliance with COM:SD#F1 criterion. However, the uploader hopes to prove that they own this Facebook page by deleting that post instead of adding a permission statement. Now, I was wondering if it it possible to undelete this file. --0x0a (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose After an evidence of free licence for this photo is provided (eg. on FB), the photo mat be undeleted. But not before. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They delete this photo from facebook, what now? 0x0a (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MyRepublic NEW LOGO (September 2023) Logo MyRepublic Horizontal - Black (1).png

I am the authorized representative of MyRepublic Indonesia, and I, along with my internal creative team, am the original creator of the uploaded logo. We hold full rights and license to this asset. This logo is the official updated identity of MyRepublic Indonesia, and it is different from the previous version which was aligned with MyRepublic Singapore.

We have updated the branding in 2023, and this logo is publicly visible on our official website.

The purpose of the upload is to reflect our updated visual identity across relevant public knowledge platforms, including Wikimedia projects.

I confirm that I have the rights to publish this logo under the appropriate free license required by Wikimedia Commons. --Tyrenia (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyrenia: We need a confirmation of the license from the copyright holder by email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. In addition, what is the educational use of this logo? Yann (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, thank you for your follow-up.
I will proceed with submitting the license confirmation via email, as outlined on COM:VRT.
This file represents the updated branding of MyRepublic Indonesia, which is now distinct from MyRepublic Singapore. We are no longer under the same operational entity, and therefore have adopted a different logo and visual identity. Including this logo on Wikimedia Commons supports accuracy and clarity on pages related to our company, especially in contexts involving corporate evolution, regional operations, and the digital service industry in Indonesia.
Please let me know if there’s anything else I should provide.
Thank you! Tyrenia (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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 17 days. . --Yann (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entrevista com o professor doutor Caetano Rodrigues Miranda.webm

I am requesting the undeletion of this file, due to the license information, as is present in the link below. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vI5uvqR0hqer5UEbihHHH09Kt1CJ41hq/view?usp=sharing --CarolScaliante (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Because they can easily be forged, we do not accept permissions in this form. The actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sìmbulu de A Foras - Contra a s'ocupatzione militare de sa Sardigna.jpg

The file source is unknown but it wasnt created following copyrights rules or other. The file is immage property of the political group "A Foras" but is in fact not subjected to copyrights rules or other laws. The immage is in fact under public domain and and can be downloaded and shared without limits: here's the link were i take it "https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=281804964189352&set=a.281804947522687". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSard (talk • contribs) 09:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Almost all created works, including this, have a copyright until it expires. In order for this to be restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

original-4E4DE381-0232-4BE1-AF84-B840A63A9005.jpeg

This image is a photo taken 30 years ago and it does not exist the digital file of it. It was taken by Sebastià Renom, my father, and we have the rights to use it. It is the same picture the writer uses in one of her books.

How can we justify we have the rights of this picture? We request to undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clararenom (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim your father was. That makes it hard to Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The url for the source is literally the uploader's post on Twitter. Opening the post and then opening the image in a new tab leads to the cited source url. Elisfkc (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no Creative commons license on that page or any claim that the account belongs to a Wikimedia user? Thuresson (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have claimed it themselves on the file page. I am happy to submit via COM:VRTS proof that they are Bioreconstruct on Twitter and Bluesky, pending their permission for screenshot of chat on Bluesky. The pictures also appeared on Bluesky at the same time as Twitter. Elisfkc (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent with screenshots of conversation Elisfkc (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-Weapon Source videos

Regarding the following 2 files:

Both videos come from this YouTube link. In the video description, it is stated that (key points underlined to emphasize):

'K-Weapon Source' can be used freely after marking the source of the material in accordance with the Korea Open Government License principles on using public works, and is updated every Wednesday.

In addition, there is at least one video that is explicitly marked with KOGL Type 1 ("KOGL1").

In User talk:廣九直通車#Why did you nominate a KOGL licensed work as a candidate for deletion?, Gasiseda believes that because of the statement that because these videos is marked freely available and does not specify the non-profit conditions used in KOGL Type 2 or 3, and based on the video explicitly marked with KOGL1, they are free and therefore licensed under KOGL1, or at least acceptable for Commons (presumably under {{Attribution only license}}). The uploader also accuses me that I am twisting the meaning of "freely" to ensure these video to be deleted.

I would be grateful to see if I misunderstood anything, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gasiseda and Túrelio: Notifying uploader and the deleting administrator.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Since the version of the KOGL is not specified, the PCP requires that we should assume the worst, Type 4, was is unacceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images from European Elegies

I am requesting temporary undeletion of the following images to enable their migration to English Wikisource:

The files were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Scans from Google Books/unverified. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the rationale of their deletion in Commons might be re-considered too. It was deleted as copyrighted per COM:CANADA because en:Watson Kirkconnell died in 1977. However, Watson Kirkconnell was the autor of the text of the book, not of those images used for the decoration of the book's inside cover (note that the images include the same symbol as the one present at the bottom of this page). The author of the images is some anonymous employee of the publishing/printing house, and thus they entered Public Domain in Canada 75 years after they had been published in 1928 and should be tagged as {{PD-Canada-anon}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support PD in Canada with {{PD-Canada-anon}}. 1928 work, so not subject to URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JavscrptZyrcun.jpg File:Princesa(PERRO).webp Britishcharacterzyrcn.jpg

Buenas tardes, querida comunidad de Wikipedia, la razón por la que pido la restauración del distinguido contenido eliminado de su pagina, es porque tengo entendido, que he completado de forma exitosa los pasos necesarios, abriendo lo que de por si, es mi contenido, al dominio del publico mediante la licencia Creative Commons CC0. Honestamente, no me podría permitir que por segunda vez consecutiva, sea testigo de la eliminación del contenido.

Quisiera algunas aclaraciones, recomendaciones, y especificaciones que quizás, yo este dando por sentadas, pero cordialmente les testifico, que de primera instancia, mi contenido es absolutamente parte de mi propiedad. https://www.pinterest.com/XdragonL7/ esa es mi pagina de pinterest, para que comprueben que soy exactamente el mismo creador. Sin más, mis más cordiales agradecimientos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyrcun (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, please state your opinion at the open deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zyrcun. Thuresson (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abysmal Oceans Members.jpg

I requested the band to send a mail to allow usage. The mail has been sent now.

--SurreaI (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"