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
66 copyvios • 193 duplicates • 1 selfie • 111 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

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

I propose to:

  • Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
  • Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM (t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.
  • First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
  • Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
  • There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.
To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!
In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM (t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).
While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM (t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.
I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:
  • Ajdovscina
  • Beltinci
  • Benedikt
  • Bistrica ob Sotli
  • Bled
  • Bloke
  • Bohinj
@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.
As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM (t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.
As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.
And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM (t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM (t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM (t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.
Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).
I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bon o bon.jpg

This is under the threshold of originality so it must be undeleted inmediately

— Preceding unsigned comment added by El Nuevo Doge (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The ToO in Argentina is very low. This probably exceeds it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was wrong to tag it with the {{Duplicate}} tag. It appears the supposed duplicate file, File:Wilkes Barre Panorama.jpg, contains a different file that was overwritten in breach with COM:OVERWRITE. I'm planning to revert the file to the original, different version should "Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg" be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is confused -- none of the files mentioned above have a deletion tag or have ever been deleted. The subject file is widely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the file was originally uploaded as File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg and then overwritten with a different file, and then deleted as a dupe, before a redirect was created. I think he wants to try undeleting it and then reverting to the original version. Curiously, File:Wilkes Barre Panorama.jpg was also uploaded as one file and then overwritten. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, given the confused file status here, I'm not sure what you want done. Since the subject file is not deleted, if there is nothing else you need here, please close this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nard, you're probably right, but JWilz12345 is active on a daily basis, so it's better to actually get them to tell us what to do lest we guess wrong. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward@Nard the Bard correct Nard, I have some hunch that "Wilkes-Barre Panorama" image was originally different, and the redirect "Wilkes-Barre Downtown" was originally the current version of "Panorama" image (it's visible in the file history of "Panorama"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logos with the Latvian flag

Deleted despite not being part of deletion request. The flag also wasn't technically discontinued according to Latvian law. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I fail to see how these are in scope. They were never used by Eurovision, and we've been steadily culling the fake/fan Eurovision flags as out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason stated upon their deletion was that they were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision heart flags of discontinued flags. However, these 5 files did not appear in the DR, and were deleted by you after the discussion on your own volition. As I already explained to you before (and you apparently ignored it), these are not "fake/fan" flags, these are Eurovision flags containing the flag of Latvia; not a "weird alternative version" as you put it. As there was no DR on these files, I ask that they be undeleted. If you think they're out of scope, make a DR on them. I  Support restoring them. ImStevan (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the 2004 and 2015 ones were actively used. The 2026 is simply a continuation, as it is still a flag that is used to date interchangeably with the digital one. ImStevan (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Latvia flags are at Category:Heart-flags of Eurovision (Latvia). I've yet to see a convincing reason why we need another set, in the wrong color (and it is the wrong color, these are digital images), on this project. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...because, as I am now stating for a third or a fourth time, this flag was used (in digital spaces) 2000-2018, and because, again, there was no discussion regarding these files. ImStevan (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Eynard-Lullin Bern.jpg

This file was initially flagged at Commons_talk:AI-generated_media#Possible_AI-generated_images with User:MHM55 being concerned that all of User:Beeckfrau's images (mostly outdoor photos of statues) were AI generated. It was then put up for DR, and deleted.

MHM55's concerns about the file are that the timestamp is wrong, that the bust is known to be on display in Geneva yet the filename contains the word "Bern", and that the size of the books is "not realistic".

The DR discussed whether the image might be AI generated: two users said it was "clearly AI-generated" and "clearly a fake image", only singling out "details in the lower part of the statue which do not exist" (although the nature of these details wasn't stated). Other users, including one who said they'd "seen a lot of AI-generated images" (and myself, I've also seen and deleted a lot of this on Commons), didn't think it looked like AI at all. I also don't think that any of Beeckfrau's other images look AI-generated, and MHM55 didn't give any further reasons for thinking so.

Unless there is some giveaway clue that the Anna Eynard-Lullin image was generated by AI, I think the concerns can be explained by Omphalographer's theory that the bust could be a replica. This would resolve the questions of why it was in Bern instead of Geneva and was of an unexpected size. But it could also just be that the filename is misleading (the uploader forgot which library they took it in, or meant something else by the word "Bern") and the reference books on this Geneva Library shelf are unexpectedly larger or smaller than one might think.

Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images of this bust or this person on the internet, Commons would benefit from hosting one if the image is genuine. I don't think we had enough discussion to be able to decide that it was definitely a fake. Belbury (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose

  1. A very similar, but not identical, bust appears here with ARR.
  2. All of a random sample of similar images from this uploader show EXIF with Camera=Oppo. This has no useful EXIF.
  3. Contrary to "Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images ... of this person on the internet", we have Category:Anna Eynard-Lullin with 21 files including paintings, photographs, and sculpture. We do not have an image of this bust.

I therefore think it very likely that this is an AI image based on the bust at (1). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on other images of Eynard-Lullin! That makes this less important.
The similar bust was mentioned in the DR and does seem to be the only other reference image to compare it to online. From memory the bust is identical (including the crack across it), the texture of her clothing looks a little different (which may be the lighting; its contours appeared identical) and the pedestal had been swapped out for a different one. From my understanding of AI image editing, if you asked a current model to redraw the same bust but on a bookshelf with different lighting and a different pedestal, other alterations would creep in - and you would have to manually apply other filters to the output, to give the appearance of a pixelised low-light camera image. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After further examination of both images under high magnification, I am almost certain that the two photographs discussed above are the same bust. There is a small defect just above where the fold in the cloth that goes down from left to right hits the fold that surrounds the bust. That appears in both images. The subject image shows significant pixelization typical of AI work and, of course, the subject image is missing most of its base. Since the uploader has a history of uploading AI work, I think we must close this as not done and I will do so unless someone can provide a good reason not to do that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the user actually has any history of uploading AI content. The only discussion I'm aware of is the discussion at the AI media talk page where User:MHM55 said they were putting all of User:Beeckfrau's statue images into Category:Unconfirmed likely AI-generated images to check, apparently largely because of their "impossible" timestamps. I checked the images and removed them from the category as they didn't appear to be AI generated, and MHM55 said OK. I am not a specialist in this regard. Belbury (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis Davids 1928.jpg

The linked archive (https://archief.amsterdam/beeldbank/detail/4a7b5fee-4c0c-5845-7436-8e2fb89cc2d3/media/923acd1f-11bd-6cee-533d-c7434d933238?mode=detail&view=horizontal&q=louis%20davids&rows=1&page=2) explicitly states ‘copyright free’ (auteursrechtenvrij). The Amsterdam City Archive should be deemed trustworthy. This particular image is copyright free, period. Goran.Mont (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jcb made the case for it not being trustworthy in this case. Abzeronow (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose In this case there is a known author and no indication that it has been licensed by the heirs. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t the fact that a trustworthy archive explicitly mentions it being copyright free enough indication that it has been licensed by the heirs?! User jcb has a history of nominating without valid reason for deletion; see discussions under Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herman Heijermans 1923.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Willy Corsari 1921.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Davids Kleine Man.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:August Theodoor Cornelis Kiehl.jpg among others. COM:PCP states that objections must rise to significant doubt, this is generalised FUD. Goran.Mont (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally the first guy to say the second something hits 95 years old (URAA) with no known author or publication date we should host it. But we literally know who the author is in this case. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Author died in 1963, can be undeleted in 2034. And yes, this specific archive has a history of interns puting images online without proper understanding of copyright regulations, so while they are clearly wrong in this specific case, they are also not thrustworthy in general. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're bluffing again. Prove that the archive has a history. Goran.Mont (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but we also literally know the license in this case. It is stated very clearly. Doesn't that make user jcb's vague accusation of untrustworthiness the only thing that matters now? Goran.Mont (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no known author. An assertion has been made that it is Godfried de Groot, but there is no actual source backing this up. The archive doesn’t mention him and trying to reverse image search and search directly for images of Godfried de Groot doesn’t reveal any place that lists him as the source of this particular 1928 photo of Louis Davids. (Only a different photo of Louis by Godfried from 1935.)
But all of this is moot anyway, because the archive has literally listed it as copyright free. Jcb’s persistent claim that the official archive is unreliable has yet to be backed up by any concrete proof — so far, all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence that Jcb talked with people from the archive and thought they were making lots of mistakes. Every time I have asked for proof Jcb has failed to provide even a shred of it. MKoot (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now why the claim was made in the first place. Godfried de Groot has been etched into the original picture. Okay, this changes my opinion. There is now good primary evidence that the image is by De Groot. It shouldn’t change the general claim that the archives has listed the image as copyright free. ‘Collectie Stadsarchief Amsterdam’ is a widely used source for images on Wikimedia.
But having done some more specific research into this particular case, it seems that copyright of Godfried de Groot was indeed dissolved.
On this site by the University of Leiden (https://depthoffield.universiteitleiden.nl/1022f01en/) it mentions that De Groot had no kids and only one heir, his partner Jan Wieling. The copyright owning company ‘Godfried de Groot’ got shut down as of 1971 and Jan Wieling transferred the photos to the Leiden Archives. There is no longer any legitimate claimant for his copyright. MKoot (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a license from the Leiden Archives? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 13:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Leiden license for this particular image, as it is not part of the Leiden prentenkabinet collection. The only copy is held by the Amsterdam municipal archive, I presume (but that is merely a presumption) because Davids was an iconic Amsterdam figure. Whatever the case, other images by De Groot in said archive that áre still under copyright are correctly labelled as such. The copyright for this particular image of Davids has clearly been released, and until user jcb proves his baseless claim that the archive may have made a mistake (which he will not) undeletion seems in order. Goran.Mont (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence above tells us that the images were transferred to the archive. In order for the archive to be able to say that the images are copyright free, the then copyright holder would have to have executed a formal written transfer of copyright in addition to a deed of gift. If that was done, it would have most likely have covered all of the images. So, we have a situation where the archive tells us that at least one of the De Groot images is under copyright and another, this one, is not. It seems to me that rises above a significant doubt that the latter claim is true. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 2.svg and File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 3.svg

Not out of scope since both images exist at https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!e1.gif and https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!b2.gif, firstly, and they can be used in an article to illustrate municipal symbols of Guadalajara, a big Mexican city. Both images are supported by photographic evidence, and the illustrations themselves conform to real photographs. Flagvisioner (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-11#File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 2.svg and File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 3.svg. Thuresson (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"FOTW is 'generally considered unrealible'" is not a statement which applies here. I'm sourcing the drawings based on photographs on the site, not information. A photograph of a more current flag can't be faked like a historical flag. Since the photos are clearly more modern and clearly visible in more public spaces in these photos, it is clear they are at least somewhat used in reality. They are unofficial so they should not replace a header image, but serve well to illustrate the evolution of the flag in physically used forms. Flagvisioner (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2018 SA PEIXATERA Tossa de Mar.jpg File:2003 RAMON REIG (pintor) Figueres.jpg File:2021 DONA D'AIGUA Caldes de Malavella.jpg File:Ció Abellí - Autoretrat.jpg

File:2018 SA PEIXATERA Tossa de Mar.jpg
File:2003 RAMON REIG (pintor) Figueres.jpg
File:2021 DONA D'AIGUA Caldes de Malavella.jpg
File:Ció Abellí - Autoretrat.jpg

Demano la restauració d'aquests arxius perquè no incompleixen cap norma. Les fotos són propietat de l'escultora/pintora, per tant, ella en té els drets. També ella és l'autora de les escultures i la pintura que s'han suprimit, per tant, no només té el dret de les fotos sinó també de la imatge del contingut com a autora que n'és. Quan feia la pàgina, vaig pujar les fotos a la Wikimedia Commons i ja vaig senyalar que tenia els drets i les deixava que es publiquessin per altres autors que en tinguessin interès. Espero que entengueu aquestes raons i les pogueu restaurar.

Gràcies!!

Ministrer (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose When you uploaded the images, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Your message above suggests that is not true, which makes it difficult to believe anything you say. Since you are apparently not Cio Abelli, you have no right to freely license her work. These can be restored only if both the actual photographer(s) of the 3D objects and Cio Abelli send free licenses using VRT. If these are in Spain, it is possible that Spanish FoP will allow Commons to keep the images of the works if they meet the requirements of FoP and we have free licenses for the photographs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dravedian Arc - Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Greco-Roman map adaptation).jpg

Hello, this is another image file Trimtrent has acted rudely and deleted without properly explaining what alterations I need to make, including several others that I spent considerable time creating, uploading, and describing for the purpose of educating the public and waived my copyrights to make these freely available.

Bizzarely the deleted image file in "subject field" was adapted from an existing commons File:Periplous of the Erythraean Sea.svg and I Mention the commons author and licence when I used his original work ie stating it belongs to "George Tsiagalakis / CC-BY-SA-4 licence" and here I adapted it for my academia research project and I too also shared it for the public issuing it as CC-BY-SA-4.0 as I consider the public would benefit from and appreciate. I chose to share it early on Commons, even before formal publication and peer review of my research, which naturally takes many months. I respectfully request that this and my other images be reinstated. If any of the text in the Description section needs to be removed or adjusted, please advise me accordingly so that I can make the appropriate changes in line with Commons’ requirements. Kind regards, Jeeva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeva S Sk (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This file is a crop of the file you state with the addition of a legend that says the present day locations of cities depicted on the map and an illustration of a ship, and the legend moved up within the crop and made smaller. Abzeronow (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but whats wrong with that as the author has provided it on the basis of CC-BY-SA-4 and my version adds extra educational information to that image. Plus there are many other Perilous of the Erythraean Sea adaptations by other users and uploaded onto Commons - so why cant mine? Jeeva S Sk (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not the place for your personal research. If you continue to upload such files, you will be blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeeva S Sk see the reply from the deleting administrator directly above. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Administrator: Pi.1415926535, the new file I uploaded yesterday after previous one deleted by you I have removed all mention of my research paper based on the advise provided and just uploaded a new revised image of Perilous of the Erythraean Sea created by George Tsiagalakis with CC SA-BY. 4.0, with just additional new educational info which is commonly know and image of an Indian Ship construction by Radha Kumud Mukhopadhyay (1912, which is now available as public use). And both the new image file, or my description of the image uploaded last night, makes no reference to my research paper and uploaded for public education purposes. As I clearly don't understand. Can I ask are you saying any images on CC cannot be altered by another user in anyway even though proper source attribution is provided for source and the uploading-user becomes the author of the new altered version but obviously meets commons requirements and is uploaded without any copyright restrictions and free to use by others for their altered version?
Please do kindly explain how I can work around this difficulty as its difficult to work out what changes I need to make for my new images I wish to share with the public. Jeeva S Sk (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pacho asse psg 2425.png

I believe the nomination that led to this deletion was made in error - this is not one of my uploads but I noticed its disappearance from a page on my watchlist. The CSD on this image cited a Facebook link, which dates to May 2025 - the original image, per my discussion with the deleting admin was uploaded in April 2025. I believe as a result this was an erroneous nomination and this Facebook page took the image from Commons, not the other way round. Further, per the uploader's uploads of similar training photos this is almost definitely their own work. Ser! (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Upload to Facebook dated May 29, 2025. Appears to be a sloppy deletion. Thuresson (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Milwaukee Bucks at Philadelphia 76ers, March 28, 1986 (Dr. J first half).jpeg

Relevant piece of sports league history as it pertains to records for that league. - Brutal Reply (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Hmm. This is a poor, incomplete, photograph of a score sheet. I doubt that the score sheet itself had a copyright as there is nothing on it but facts and the arrangement of the data is routine. The photograph also probably meets the requirements for Bridgeman treatment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Claudio_Baglioni_1985.jpg

Hello, I would like to request the undeletion of this file. The image was originally uploaded with the correct source and author attribution, and I believe it meets Commons licensing requirements. It is an important historical photo of Claudio Baglioni 1985, taken by photographer Alessandro Dobici. Please review the case and consider restoring the file. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotociao2000 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as the deleting admin. The file was uploaded as "own work" from 2025 with a CC0 license tag. It's a posed studio shot, very similar to this record cover (apparently from the same photo session), so {{PD-Italy}} does not apply, and it is also still protected in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 18:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Perhaps you should review Commons:L as I see no reason to "...believe it meets Commons licensing requirements." It can be restored only if the actual photographer sends a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. Account blocked for socking. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - City of Ronzo Crest by Ronzo (9446987228).jpg

Hello, I noticed that this image was deleted per the DR in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London in August 2025. However, the deletion reasoning was for 2D works, but it appears this same image was kept in the DR in 2020 for being a 3D artwork.

I'm not sure what the image depicted, but if it is the same 3D "crest" artwork in File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - City of Ronzo Plaque by Ronzo (9603950416).jpg, then I think it should be allowed under COM:FOP UK (I checked the latest Google Streetview from October 2024 and the artwork is still there, so it appears to be a "permanent public 3D artwork").

Can an admin please check if this is the case and undelete this image? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support It is a similar casting, although the subject example is painted bright green. I think it is probably a 3D work for UK law purposes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US passport photos

Hi, Some US passport photos were deleted, while others were kept, so I request undeletion of the deleted pictures (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Passport photographs of Tupac Shakur and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andrew Anglin.png were kept). Yann (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wonder how these came to be in public hands. The second one looks genuine, apparently taken from a copy of the passport page. The first one is probably a fake, as it has far more white space around the face than the Passport Office allows. Compare it to the tight crop on the second one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ulbricht's passport photo was admitted into evidence during his trial. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all US passport photos are public domain, only images taken by State Department employees count. Anything taken by USPS employees (after 1971) or third parties doesn't count. Without evidence that the photo was taken by a State Department employee, we can't restore. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: And this one: File:Janis Joplin Passport.jpg? Yann (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Note I can't see deleted files, if the Janis Joplin photo is this one[5] then it's also 100% PD by being published without a copyright notice, and being from before the 1971 USPS change. As for the Ross Ulbrict photo, the only case law I can find on point is Oriental Art Printing, Inc. v. Goldstar Printing Corp, which ruled that pictures of food on a menu were below TOO. This case is viewed as non binding in other circuits though, and the issue is unsettled. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, all three of the Janis Joplin images above are the same image. Apparently the US Passport Office was less demanding fifty years ago.
Second, we have kept a number of passport pictures on the grounds that the requirements are so strict that the images were below the ToO. That made sense for those, but less so for this. On the other hand, a passport is probably a published document, so the argument that this one is PD No Notice makes sense to me.
Therefore, I would restore:
File:Janis Joplin Passport.jpg
but not:
File:Janisjoplin.png.
They are the same image, but the first one has the context of the passport, while the second is simply an isolated very small image of a woman for whom we have many images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergner, Ralf portrait.jpg

File:Bergner, Ralf portrait.jpg Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der Datei. Nach Rücksprache mit dem abgebildeten Künstler möchte ich die Urherberrechtssituation aufklären.

--Pianistic physicist (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The upload says that the photographer was Ralf Bergner, the subject, but it does not look like a selfie. In any even, in order for us to restore the image, the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Hi, Do you support or oppose undeletion? Yann (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusion. If, in fact, it's a selfie, than let's restore it. If not, VRT. Pianistic says they would like to clarify the situation. That would be helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morning by Ishikawa Toraji, 1934, woodblock print, Honolulu Museum of Art.jpg

Toraji Ishikawa died Aug 1, 1964. Therefor, this work is in the public domain and should have the tag {{PD-Japan}}{{PD-1996}}. --Hiart (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose PD in Japan, yes, but it was under copyright there on the URAA date, so it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2030. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:James L. Coke by George Burroughs Torrey, 1939.JPG

George Burroughs Torrey died in 1942. Therefore, this work is in the public domain.--Hiart (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If the work is actually unpublished, as claimed in the upload, then it went off copyright 70 years pma = 1/1/2012. If it was published around the time of creation, which seems most likely, then it would have to have had notice and renewal. A renewal of copyright on a painting seems very unlikely to me. I don't see notice on the front of the painting, but it might be on the back. The only way it could still be under copyright is if it were unpublished until 1990, which seems unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. Either {{PD-US}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Yann (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Business attire portrait with flag background.jpg

Hello there, I’m requesting a undeletion for one of my photos that I uploaded to Wikipedia a while ago. This photo should be undeleted because it fully complies with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons image policies. It is an original photograph (except for the background) that I personally took and own full rights to, and I have released it under a free license, allowing its use on Wikipedia and related projects. The image was uploaded to serve as a clear and accurate representation of myself for legitimate encyclopedic purposes, not as a personal or promotional file. It was properly sourced, accompanied by a clear statement of authorship and licensing, and does not infringe on any copyrights since I am both the subject and creator. The photo adds educational and visual value by providing a reliable, freely licensed depiction that supports the biographical or user-related context in which it was used. If the image was deleted under the F10 (“personal files by non-contributors”) or F9 (“copyright violation”) criteria, I would like to clarify that it was specifically uploaded for valid encyclopedic use, with all necessary rights and permissions confirmed, and should therefore be restored.

--RazerKiyoPro (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request from TeddyFazzber

== Вид_на_территорию_Вердиса_с_Дуная.jpg Дэниель Джексон на территории Вердиса.jpg Президент, министр иностранных дел Вердиса и ещё одно официальное лицо на интервью газеты Danas.jpg Паспорт гражданина Вердиса.jpg ==

Dear Wikimedia Commons Support,

I am writing to provide official permission for the following files that were previously blocked due to copyright concerns. The copyright holder, Daniel Jackson, has granted explicit permission for their use. Here is the written consent from Mr. Jackson: Start of Permission

I, Daniel Jackson, as both the creator (copyright holder) and the person depicted in the following photographs, hereby release them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License:

"Дэниель Джексон на территории Вердиса.jpg" "Вид на территорию Вердиса с Дуная.jpg" "Президент, министр иностранных дел Вердиса и ещё одно официальное лицо на интервью газеты Danas.jpg" "Паспорт гражданина Вердиса.jpg"

I confirm that I am the original author of these works and have the authority to license them.

End of Permission

This permission statement was sent directly from Daniel Jackson's email address to your official permissions-commons@wikimedia.org mailbox, as required by your verification process. The email originated from his verified account, confirming its authenticity. Could you please review this permission and consider unblocking these files? The copyright issue has now been fully resolved by the rights holder himself.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, TeddyFazzber — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyFazzber (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дэниель Джексон на территории Вердиса.jpg, not deleted
File:Президент, министр иностранных дел Вердиса и ещё одно официальное лицо на интервью газеты Danas.jpg, not deleted
File:Паспорт гражданина Вердиса.jpg, not deleted.

Regarding File:Вид на территорию Вердиса с Дуная.jpg, permissions should be sent to VRT. There is nothing to be done here. Thuresson (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Grynspan with WMO’s Celeste Saulo and WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at COP30 - 54914067819.jpg

Hi,

I was very interested to see this image of Celeste Saulo as we have few images of her. Another image of her in the same set was also deleted. This image was taken by UNCTAD who are a valuable source of free images for Wiki commons. All of the people in the photo appear to be aware and happy to be in the photo. The reason given for deletion is "request by photographer/uploader". I'm curious as to which and why we agreed? This image continues to be available at UNCTAD's site with an identical license. [ref https://www.flickr.com/photos/unctad/albums/72177720330139620/]. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: Please check the file name again, File:Rebeca Grynspan with WMO’s Celeste Saulo and WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at COP30 - 54914067819.jpg has never been uploaded. Thuresson (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sodipodi logo.svg

== Sodipodi logo (logo of free software) isn't a copyright violation ==

Several years ago I uploaded a logo of sodipodi program. Which was, you know under GPL! And I took the image from Inkscape repository (from successor of sodipodi) and uploaded here. The logo to undelete: File:Sodipodi_logo.svg. And now I find out it was deleted because of "copyright violations". It is clearly a mistake! Moreover deleted file is a vector version of png file uploaded on wikimedia File:Sodipodi-orav.png

There is also one more Sodipodi logo here which isn't deleted too File:Sodipodi-logo_squirrel.svg DustDFG (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Copyrighted works that are licensed under GPL can not be distributed without attaching the copyright license and informing reusers about the terms and conditions of the license. Because of this the upload of this particular file was a violation of copyright. Thuresson (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will add the appopriate template after it's undeleted. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restauro de File:Linhas de Floresta IA.png - Contesta CSD F10

Eu, User:Yvytu15700, solicito o restauro do ficheiro File:Linhas de Floresta IA.png, que foi eliminado sob o critério de **Eliminação Rápida F10 (Fotos pessoais por não-contribuidores)**.

O critério CSD F10 foi aplicado incorretamente pelos seguintes motivos factuais:

1. **Não é uma foto pessoal:** Trata-se de uma imagem gerada por inteligência artificial (IA) para fins editoriais e conceituais, usada para ilustrar o conceito de "Linhas de Florestas", e não se enquadra na definição de "foto pessoal". A descrição do ficheiro, antes da eliminação, comprovava a sua natureza conceitual. 2. **Sou um contribuidor:** Eu sou um contribuidor ativo do projeto, o que invalida a segunda parte do critério F10 ("não-contribuidores").

A eliminação de um ficheiro editorialmente motivado deveria ter sido feita, no máximo, através de um processo de **Discussão de Eliminação (DR)**. Peço que o ficheiro seja restaurado para que a comunidade possa avaliar o seu valor enciclopédico, dada a aplicação errada da regra de CSD.

Yvytu15700 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABLOTTIERE3.jpg

On November 3, Charles Guislain, the owner of the exclusive copyright of this file, sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org the permission to publish it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. The file was deleted before this request was reviewed.

--Koselfy (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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