Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

File:Emblem of Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Items were not exact duplicates per reason given for deletion and redirect. Images were being worked on as replacements for main emblem files per a request at enwiki's Illustration workshop, and protected edit requests were made on the emblem pages asking that the deleted files be uploaded as new versions of the main files. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I think I understand. Each pair of files are very similar but not identical. File:Emblem of North Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg (before deletion and redirect) File:Emblem of North Vietnam.svg. and File:Emblem of Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg (before deletion and redirect) File:Emblem of Vietnam.svg

User:HapHaxion, am I correct that you want to end up with the first of these replacing the second of these? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Correct. The "fixed for revision version" was requested to be uploaded as a new version of their respective files per the talk page and the request on the Illustration workshop. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please just answer my question -- am I correct? There is no upload involved here so your answer does not make sense. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My answer to your question is that you are correct. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I Symbol support vote.svg Support the requested change. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, no need to recover the File:Emblem of North Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg as the author has already uploaded the new version straight into the File:Emblem of North Vietnam.svg. However, I do expect the "as soon as possible" undeletion and any possible actions with File:Emblem of Vietnam (fixed for revision).svg. Thank you Hwi.padam (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg and others

This is a mess and I'm not sure where to go to start this process, but last year, someone did an improper cut-and-paste move on these files by downloading them and re-uploading them under new names as their "own work," after which the original files, their history, and the correct attributions were deleted as duplicates. Redirects currently exist at these locations.

--Ibagli (Talk) 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support That has happened to me a couple of times (one of which I caught before deletion and fixed). Restore the original uploads/credits. Possibly rename, or just make the newer names a redirect to the original one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
user:Ibagli There's a problem here which I cannot solve -- presumably this needs a "C" in the center, replacing the "E" on Elizabeth's flag. The deletion as a duplicate was, of course, wrong, as the current version of the flag belongs to Charles, not his mother and the two are not duplicates.
I have restored only New Zealand -- is what I did there what you want? If so, I will continue with the other four. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they all need to be undeleted, and then they'll have to be renamed/merged (not sure which would be more appropriate) to the locations where they had been redirecting (there's nothing wrong with the new file names, they were just reuploaded with no history and incorrect attribution).--Ibagli (Talk) 09:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure one of us understands. As I see it, there are two royal standards involved, that for Elizabeth and a new one for Charles, which we don't have. All we have for Charles is the version with the blank center. So there's no rename or merge involved, just taking the history back to just before the redirect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no current royal standard for any of these countries (Canada might be announcing theirs in a week), as they were personal flags for Elizabeth II, who is dead. The "blank center" version is fictitious/speculative and was changed by one user who jumped the gun on deleting E and EIIR cyphers from everything immediately after Elizabeth II died. These speculative, unsourced changes were largely reverted by various users, but this resulted in the the existence of identical duplicate files and and the improper deletion of the older files rather than the newly-uploaded ones. I don't know what the best course of action to remedy this is, but I think it would be one of:
  • Undelete all of these files, delete the newly-uploaded ones, and move/merge these files to the 19XX-2022 names, leaving redirects that can be replaced with the Charles III flags when/if they are announced.
  • Undelete all of these files, leave them at the unchanged names with the E in the center and not the fictitious blank circle until/unless new flags are announced, and simply delete the newly-uploaded ones as newer identical duplicates.
In any case, whatever way it's achieved, the blank center versions shouldn't be on here at all at least until we get an indication that the new reign's flags will follow the old pattern, and the old history should be restored.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume the files should be at names where the years are specified, and the names without specification should be redirects. I assume they should point to the "E" versions until we have the new versions, not to break uses where using the old one is unproblematic. The history post 8 Sep should probably be moved to the "C" version just before uploading the new version, to keep the file history. –LPfi (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:050221.ポケモンジェット1999.JA8288.767-300.jpg

Other images of Category:Pokémon Jet were undeleted, but this one was forgotten. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Pokémon_Jet for the looong list of DRs concerning this case. Yann (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why we are keeping these images. Given their looks and even the category name, it is obvious that the Pokemon characters cannot possible be called de minimis. The only possibility I can see is if any were photographed in an FoP country -- there is German case law that FoP applies to art on a cruise ship. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the photos focusing on Pokemon, or are they pictures of the entire plane? If the latter case, they could be incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl, take a look at Category:Pokémon Jet. Yes, they are the entire plane, but the entire plane is covered with Pokemon material. If it were just on the tail, or nose, I could understand an argument that it was incidental, but given these circumstances, I find that difficult. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is somewhat similar case law (as the German one) for Japan, so Japanese FoP may apply here (assuming the photo was taken in Japan). But Japanese FoP for artistic works (not for buildings) excludes commercial use and is therefore not suitable for Commons. I also don't see how the characters could be de minimis here by either US or Japanese standards (the characters are not minor components of the photo). --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: We need to be consistent in our decisions. After numerous DRs, it was decided that these pictures are acceptable for Commons. See the link I gave above. Yann (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not oppose (re-)nominating those files for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: So please do so. Or even better, create a vote on VPC or a RFC. Yann (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KOLINLAMIL.png

File:KOLINLAMIL.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The file was deleted by @Ellywa: as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atara123, whereas he said "per nomination, although a link to Instagram has been provided, this does not show per COM:EVID that these logo's are available with a free license. Therefore the images must be deleted".

However on this particular file, I have personally fixed the problem, added the source (not from instagram) and fixed the license used. I did that to show @Atara123: on how to fix the problem, I also put strikethrough on the file on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atara123 to indicated that this file was no longer have any issue licensing. Therefore it should not be part of mass deletions. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ckfasdf, I looked again at this file. Indeed, you uploaded a different design of the logo then Atara12 did. However, the source you provided, https://kolinlamil.tnial.mil.id/images/misc/kolinlamil_logo.png , is not avaiable now. It can be seen at this youtube channel. Do you have another source which shows this can be freely licensed? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you found it on the official Kolinlamil youtube channel and it also can easily be found on images related "Kolinlamil" proves that this is an official logo.
All military unit logo in Indonesia have been authorized to be used by highest command of each respective branches in the form of regulation and always with the same regulation of dictate the formation of that military unit. Refer to Article 42 of the 2014 Indonesia Copyright Act, file comes law acts and regulations are not copyrighted. hence PD-IDNoCopyright will apply. Kolinlamil is formed by regulation of "Skep Men/Kasal No. 5401.16", although that regulation may not be available online, it can still be verified to official Indonesian military source. hence, it should not be deleted.
Actually, this argument is also applies to military logo uploaded by Atara123, but he didn't put correct licensing. So yea.... Ckfasdf (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gloria Decker (1928-2017) and Charles Frederick Lindauer (1919-2005) at Christmas.png

I believe I didn't close one of the brackets on the license. --RAN (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem was missing information: if the author is an "Anonymous family member", how can you know who the heirs are? --rimshottalk 16:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Because it was either my father or my mother, either way the license is valid. The other images in the set have my parents and other family members paired up.
  • The log says it was deleted because of the absence of a license, not a challenge to the validity of the existing license. The template was malformed because I left off a closing bracket "}". Generally we do not require probate lawyers legal testimony for family images. I could see requiring that for well known commercial images, where someone is claiming to be the heir of a famous commercial photographer, not for some holiday snaps of family members. --RAN (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma vertical).jpg

Solicito la restauración de la imagen en cuestión. No entiendo por qué la eliminan si en la consulta de borrado tiene tres Manténgase. Agradezco su colaboración. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma vertical).jpg. I don't think we need all of the various versions of this image -- but let's restore one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently there is Ticket:2023041310012681 for this image. What does it say? --Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig, The ticket mentions three files viz: File:Renny_Manzano_en_Jesús_Villarreal_en_Bogotá,_2019.jpg, File:Ana_Torin,_2023_(Shot_vertical).jpg and File:Ana_Torin,_2023_(Shot_horizontal).jpg. The ticket is open and needs attention from agents who know Spanish. I feel all the files can be restored once the permission is verified and approved. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the horizontal one should be the one rightly linked on DR. File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma horizontal).jpg. Nonetheless, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration prior to successful VRT verification. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoring File:Renny_Manzano_en_Jesús_Villarreal_en_Bogotá,_2019.jpg as it is essentially a personal image. Bedivere (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg

Sorry for raising the discussion again. I don't want to spam but just didn’t get to respond last time before the discussion was closed. It simply can not be true that I can no longer upload the pictures of politicians. See for instance File:Mikkel Bjørn, 2023.png, File:Sólbjørg Jakobsen, 2023.jpg, File:Henrik Dahl, Deadline.jpg, File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg, File:Kim Edberg og Pernille Vermund, Brønderslev Marked.jpg. It is inconsistent that I am allowed to upload those images who I am the owner of but not this file and some other files that have been unrightfully deleted.

If you look at my discussion page, you will see that the first files concern “Nye Borgeliges Ungdom logo”. I didn’t violate the policy out of ill will but had communication with one who would send VRT. This took longer time than planed but was eventually done as you also can see. The same was the problem with File:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen.png and File:Mette Thiesen-Fotograf Steen Brogaard.jpg, but the VRT was unlike with the logo never send. As I since have stated, I thought uploading the logos of Årsskriftet Critique and Konstrast was alright as the are below the threshold of originality. I also had reason to believe that Buskampagne, "Lev med det".webp would get VTE’ed but never was. File:Minkmassegrav, Nørre Felding.jpg, I did not own which am sorry for having uploaded. I did indeed take the picture Kisser.jpg, but since it was a picture of an election poster with another picture on it was protected by copyright. I hadn’t thought about that. After seeing that the file Ny Alliance, 2007.jpg was removed, which I unlawfully had uploaded, I read though User:Marchjuly’s remarks from 18 May and have since when acted completely in accordance with Wikimedia policies.

What I’m trying to get through with is that I am not as bad as it first appears when looking at my discussion page. I am indeed sorry that I have damaged my credibility. At the end of the day, it is very weird that I with several pictures of politicians, especially but not exclusively from the Nye Borgerlige political party, cannot get to upload an image of Lars Boje with no proof of prior publication. Especially, when I 1-2 months before that image uploaded File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg. I the latter case, User:King of Hearts came to the conclusion that the file should be kept. I see absoluty no diffrence betwheen that file and this one and it apperes to me as completly arbeatrary. I would like to clean my name and get this file undelted.--Marginataen (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the text above is out of scope of this page. As you were notified in the previous request, you need either to upload the original photo with complete EXIF, or send a free license permission to VRT and convince them that you are the photographer. Nothing can be done here. Ankry (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support File:Brian Mørk, 2022.jpg was obviously taken at the same event. Yann (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Yann. As I have uploaded three different portrait images of Lars Boje Mathiesen – one of which is still one Commons (File:Lars Boje Frederikshavn.png) – I relaise by your comment that I have uploaded two different portrait images of Lars Boje with the same name (Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg). Really doesn't matter as I am the author of both but the one with the party logos behind him is actually taken at its extraordinary national meeting in Fredericia, not the same as the ordinary annual meeting in Copenhagen where the picture of Brian Mørk was taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment: Since I was mentioned above, I guess I might as well comment. First, I can't see the deleted file since I'm not a Commons administrator and am happy to defer to their judgment on the matter. Next, lots of people make mistakes when uploading files. Similarly, lots of files are probably mistakenly nominated for deletion. So, making a mistake isn't a problem per se, but making the same mistake over and over again can be seen as either not understanding or ignoring COM:L, particularly when it seems you've (here "you've" is being used in a general context, not in reference to one specific person) been warned multiple times before and your user talk page is filled with image licensing related notifications. Finally, my suggestion for Marginataen is from to try and ensure their future uploads have complete EXIF data and are as high of a resolution as possible, and also make sure they haven't previously been published somewhere else first. They might also consider emailing their COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT and make it known that they will regularly uploading their photos to Commons. For files that they've already uploaded which have been deleted, Marginataen is probably going to need to address them one by one. Marginataen can email their consent to VRT for individual files, but whether this is sufficient is going to depend on VRT. If the files were first published somewhere else before they were uploaded to Commons, perhaps having their en:provenance clarified (if possible) by whomever first published them would been seen by VRT as sufficient proof of Marginataen's copyright ownership. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly: If 1) an image is claimed to be own work and 2) there is no evidence of prior publication, then VRT serves no purpose. Any evidence of their authorship they might provide on VRT could also be done publicly. The benefit of on-wiki evaluation is that everyone can now weigh in and come to a consensus on whether to AGF on the own work claim, rather than relying on the judgment of one agent. For the record, I am a tentative Symbol support vote.svg Support unless someone finds evidence of prior publication or some other reason that "own work" should not be believed beyond what is already known. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that, I was only suggesting it as possibly another way for the user to make sure nobody mistakes any future uploads of theirs for copyvios by a sort of quasi-application of item 4 of COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. In hindsight, though, that's probably a bit of overkill as you point out. One thing the uploader should be able to do, though, is to archive/blank their user talk page to remove all the previous image related notifications. This won't change the facts that prior uploads had issues, but perhaps it will not serve as a constant reminder to the uploader everytime they look at their user talk page. It will sort of allow the uploader a clean slate with which to move forward from this point on; sort of like shaking an en:Etch A Sketch to start again. Of course, any archiving or removing of posts will be seen as either an acknowledgment by the uploader or at least of the posts in question have being read. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support I was myself thinking about deleting them but was afraid that it would been seen as trying to get rid of evidence. I don't quite know how to archive but reckon I can find out and will happily do so. As stated, I uploaded many of the files in advance with the expectation that they would be VRT'ed. This was done by the owner in the case of File:Nye Borgerliges Ungdom.png and should – in my humble opinion – indicate that I had reason to believe that other copyrighted files like File:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen.png and File:Mette Thiesen-Fotograf Steen Brogaard.jpg would also be VRT’ed but wasn’t. File:Minkmassegrav, Nørre Felding.jpg and Ny Alliance, 2007.jpg were as stated violations that I sincerely regret. Prior to Marchjuly contacting me on 13 March, I had only been contacted once back in June 2021 about the NBU logo. At the time, I didn’t really take it so seriously since I thought the file would be VRT’ed which it was. Following the stupid upload of File:Ny Alliance, 2007.jpg, I thoughougly read through Wikimedia policies and have been abiding to them since then. SHOULD this file be undeleted, I really don’t think it would make sense to go thought every single of my deleted file without prior publication individually. So IF this file is found to be undeleted, I would therefore hope the same would apply to the others of my deleted files without prior publication as there isn't any difference between this one, the other deleted ones and the ones still on Commons. --Marginataen (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marginatean: I've struck through your "Support" !vote since it's assumed that by requesting undeletion that you naturally support undeletion; so, a separate "Support" !vote from you would be technically !voting twice. As for talk page archiving, there are various ways to do so per COM:ARCHIVE and you can probably figure out which one works best for you just by looking at the talk pages of other users and seeing how they do it. You can also ask for help at COM:HD. Regarding VRT verification, it's not automatic and needs to be requested; in other words, somebody needs to send in an email to be verified. You can, however, use COM:RELGEN for future uploads to help you through the verification process without needing to email VRT if you want. Finally, for files of yours that were previously deleted, you still may need to request their undeletion, if not on a per file basis then maybe in groups of related files. Only an administrator can restore a previously deleted file, and you're going to need to give them a pretty good reason why. Expecting an administrator to go searching through your upload/deletion logs to find files that were perhaps deleted by mistake seems like a lot to expect; you probably should at least make one undeletion request for all the files you want restored with a brief explanation as to why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly

I was allowed to vote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg, so I just assumed that I could do it here as well. No big deal.

I am now aware of how undeletion technically works. I imagined you could just click a button and restore them. The thing is that there by nature is no difference between this file, the other deleted files, and the ones still on Commons. Therefore, if this file is found to be undeleted, I, for obvious reasons, do not find it reasonable to go through the same long discussions about all of my other works when they all have been deleted for the same reason: a presumption of guilt. When the issue is the same, I would much rather like to make this a discussion about all of them. Is this possible?
The files in question are:
  1. File:Pernille Vermund på valgaftenen 2022.jpg
  2. File:Nye Borgerlige stifterne, 2015.jpg
  3. File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg (both files named this)
  4. File:Anders Stjernholm, 2017.jpg
  5. File:Pernille Vermund, interview.jpg
  6. File:Pernille Vermund og Peter Seier Christensen, 2015.jpg
  7. File:Vermund og Seier, 2016.jpg
--Marginataen (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:VLAK-regeringen præsenteres, 2016.jpg has metadata showing that it comes from Facebook. So at least for this one, a permission via email is necessary. Yann (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, that's right. Removed it now. When I can't see them it can sometimes be a bit difficult to remember what they contain.--Marginataen (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marginataen: You didn't start the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg; it was started by another editor and you joined the discussion after it started. Starting a deletion discussion generally means you think a file should be deleted; so, that's considered your vote so to speak. Similarly, when you request a file's undeletion, that's considered your vote. For reference, the meaning of the word "vote" can be confusing in a Commons sense because discussions aren't really like real-world elections where the side with the most votes typically expects to win. The votes need to reflect relevant copyright laws or at least make a reasonable effort to address them, and administrators then decide what to do. Anyway, only administrators can "see" deleted files. I'm not an administrator, but everone else who has commented above is and they will figure out what to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha - Thanks Marginataen (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:450pxMakrykanoM1943.jpg

This photo 450pxMakrykanoM1943.jpg was taken at the war museum in Athens. It is a submachine gun manufactured by Chropei (1943),was used by the Greek resistance organizations and is one of the weapons that survived the second world war.

(No Copyright infringment intended) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fertitler (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The stated source page, http://army.gr/html/GR_Army/sxoles/spz/mouseio.html, comes up as Page Not Found. A search for "Makrykano M1943" on the site comes up empty. There is no indication that any of the site's pages are freely license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jacky Gallois.jpg

I would like to request for undelete this revision from 21 September 2014, since I recently tagged this photo with {{Personality rights}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookmeupabit (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Nothing to do here -- the file is not deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: I think he asked for the first version to be undeleted. I haven't had the time to look at it. Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha -- it's not clear that's what he wants, but it makes sense. The first version has a man in the background that is identifiable. In the second version he is blurred out. Since he is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the image, Jacky Galois, I see no reason to restore it. Ankry created the new version -- perhaps they can tell us why the person was obscured. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The person in the background asked for removing him from the photo through VRT. I found this reasonable as was not aware that he is photographed and the photo might show him in private situation. His face is irrelevant for the photo of subject. I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't see the VRT ticket number, how interesting. Hookmeupabit (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public Domain Mark files

These files have the public domain mark licence (PDM) on Flickr. The public domain mark is now acceptable on Commons (COM:PDM). (Note: I have made this request due to a request on my talk page by @Docosong)

146 files

Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The files were declared PDM by FCBQ, not by the actual photographers. IMO, in order to accept this, we need an evidence that the photographers transferred their copyright to FCBQ or that they declared PD status of the photo themselves. Also, the author of the photos is declared as FCBQ: this probably violates the photographers' moral rights (but this is fixable). Any evidence that Pol Puertas and Ricard Rovira were regular empoyee of FCBQ? Ankry (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ricard Rovira independent photographer FCBQ (2003-2019).-- Docosong (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My general approach to copyright transfers is: If an organization is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then we can assume that it sufficiently has its act together with respect to copyright that we don't need to see the detailed terms of the contract it has with its photographers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per KoH. Quite a reasonable criteria. Yann (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kawariha-utiwa.jpg

本画像の著作権は日本古来から（300年以上前）使用されていた紋様でありますので、著作権の所在は無いものと理解しています。 また、該当ページは掲載者本人の依頼に基づいているものであり、今までの「家紋」の誤りを訂正するものです。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocharake oyaji (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file description is blank. We cannot restore it without all of the information needed there. Please fill it in below:

== {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MashafWarch.pdf

thE file is Mushf(Quran) printed in Algeria in 1931. it is in public domain in Algeria and US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by حبيشان (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Owen31560 Edit.jpg

i am requesting an undelte of the file and the profile there is no copyright law breached here, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen0706 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 May 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Previously published at mandy.com. Thuresson (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Erzherzog Ferdinand Karl von Habsburg (1781-1850) im Stephansornat.jpg

I ask for the restoration of the following portrait done in 1831 by the artist Karl Jautz (1782-1873)--Stvg20 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chandelas war flag.jpg File:Chandelas Empire Imperial Emblem.jpgFile:Chandel Empire around 1202 A.D.jpgFile:Chedi or Chandel dynasty under Dhristhaketu.jpgFile:Last Chakravartin Rajput Emperor Paramardidev-Varman Chandel.jpgFile:Chandel Empire (9-11c.).jpgFile:Chandravarman Chandel (Haihaya-Chandel).jpgFile:Paramardideva-Varman Chandel.jpgFile:Emperor Vidyadhar-Deva-Varman Chandel.jpgFile:Sallakshanavarman-Deva Chandel.jpg

Hi, This all and manh portrait is based on Historical base and posted on Insta by a artist you should not delete that on the base of that a shockpuppet uploaded this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeryasen (talk • contribs)

 Not done - Veeryasen and another account re-uploading these images blocked as socks of Digvijay Mishra 99 and files re-deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=755577566"