Commons:Undeletion requests

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


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.

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Alishan Taiwan Xiang-Lin-Elementary-School-03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: COM:FOP Taiwan accepts 2-dimensional works A1Cafel (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose for files like File:COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Notice of a Cram School in Hsinchu.jpg and File:COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Information Board at Campus Bus Stop in National Tsing Hua University.jpg. By the file names these depict COVID-19 information boards which IMO may not fulfill the requirement at COM:FOP Taiwan ("Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means..."). Are COVID-19 information boards/announcements for long-term basis? I doubt they would. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Also File:Doraemon 2007 poster on CTS Kuang-fu Building.jpg seems to be an indoor photo. Few others may need to be verified by Chinese-speaking users as they may refer to some temporary events. Also content of bilboards unlikely can be considered permanent. I suggest temporary undeletion of the images for discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Support for temporary undeletions. Since I'm from the Philippines, I hope Wikipedians from Taiwan (and perhaps from PRC) to conduct thorough individual reviews on each of the files indicated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Pinging users like @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: for discussion.--A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @A1Cafel: All images are deleted, then I can't see what the problem is in this situation. If you need to discuss further, please restore these images as they are vital to the discussion. By the way, I have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with Reke many times, but the result was 'no consensus'.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
            • If you ping me about the FOP-Taiwan part, I hope you'll consider my situation seriously. Because I was told by reke that I'm an annoying person and accused me of doing a destroy user pictures using DR (see: special:diff/514139241). In fact, he previously said that you (Kai) have Asperger's syndrome, and he also stressed that any disputes between me and someone else could be a problem for the disease. My plight in talk or communication with is similar to that of most users at Commons. It's very difficult to avoid disputes with users, and everyone should understand. I think...don't let them (including me) go away from Commons by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger.” I know it is hard not to become frustrated and the frustration just made it worse, but can't bear the stigma of choosing such a notoriously mental illness or psychiatric disorde. I impacted by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger,”so please don't ping me about COM:FOP Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion per Kai3952, unless I can see what they were, I'm not sure if they are photographed indoorly or outdoorly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion. Per above. SCP-2000 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For the "勞基法..." one, @Reke: is that TIPO article requires permanently placed, or temporary ones are also applied? The second one may fall under COM:CHARACTER so indeed shouldn't apply --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: as a nominator, do you agree me to "non-admin closure"-like remove the temporary undeletion tag here? That isn't even a 2D work, it's a 3D work. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: as it seems COM:FOP Taiwan now permits photos of exterior fixed 3D works, I support undeletion, but removal of temporary undeletion tags should wait for consensus here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I deleted most of images that doubts were raised about. The only remaining is File:勞工是我心中最軟的一塊 20191214.jpg where User:Liuxinyu970226 opposes basing on TOO, while we are discussing permanence. I do not understand how TOO is relevant here. I assume, all others can be considered kept already. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Note also that natural destruction of medium is generally not considered an argument against permanence. Not permanent = intended to be removed or replaced after some period of time. Not because of natural destrution of medium (eg. paper) due to weather conditions. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ankry: For "勞工是..." one, that has an animation/a cartoon-like artwork, so the question should be answered by the author @Solomon203:: Is this artwork really "your own work"? See also COM:CHARACTER. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: is the illustrated advertisement at File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg still exists (or has it already been replaced by another ad)? If replaced (just like most billboard ads), I'm sorry - this should remain delsted until it falls public domain. Most billboard ads are temporal in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    JWilz12345, I told you guys before that I'm not going to speak about the FOP-Taiwan part because Reke claims that he is more familiar with the policy than I am. You can look at his edits to see how 'claim' he is.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    "勞工是..." is an outdoor political sticker on Section 3, Xinsheng South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City. --Solomon203 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    So we can assume it is intended to be shown during an election campain or another temporary action, not permanently. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry reply so late. In my opinion:
  1. File:多個單位善心捐助高市圖通閱、故事書車_05.jpg is a bookmobile and it may not meet "long-term basis" since it has visited to school sometimes per this article
  2. File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg is a advertising board, which was placed temporary in common sense, thus we can presume it is not meet "long-term basis" FOP requirement.
  3. There is no evidence can demonstrate File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is in public domain at present and that should be deleted per COM:EVID.
Thank you. SCP-2000 02:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @SCP-2000: Nothing is late while the case is open. However, I think that we need some clarification of your comments.
    (Ad. 1) Why visited to school sometimes is relevant? Do you mean that the car decoration is dedicated per visit (or per few visits) or that Taiwanese FOP does not apply to art placed on vehicles per general? While I doubt the first, I have no opinion about the latter.
    (Ad. 2) Being an advertisement does not contradict being permanent (cf. signboards); that is why I asked for help here: is there any element in the content of the advertisement qualifying it as temporary? The board does not seem to be a displayboard for rent. Note, that removal of an art due to its weather-related destruction or even vandalism, does not contradict permanence. BTW, the copyright notice may mean that COM:CHARACTER applies here.
    (Ad. 3) Why we need an evidence that the art is still present? Do you mean that FoP did not apply at the time when the photo was taken, or something else? Note that permanence is not based on measured time that something was displayed, but on the intention. Even if the wall was destroyed in an accident few minutes after creation, it still can be considered permanent. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then I think that these are very likely permanently "set": File:Mackaystatue.jpg, File:Public art at the junction of Provincial Highway 20 and Provincial Highway 21.jpg and File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg, while others may not, so we can only permanently restore these 3 files. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ankry, SCP-2000: the description of File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is "臺灣嘉義市崇文國小圍牆裝飾,磁磚上上繪有林玉山的畫作:高山晨暉." When using literal Google machine translation: "The wall decoration of Chongwen Elementary School in Chiayi City, Taiwan, with Lin Yushan’s paintings on the tiles: Gao Shan Chenhui." The artist seems to be w:Lin Yushan (d. 2004), who seems to mostly work for w:En plein air paintings (perhaps the art in the image is... semi-permanent/semi-temporary???) For me, Purple question mark.svg Unsure. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Pictogram voting comment.svg respond So it's not in public domain, but still FOP applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

File:大黑松小倆口元首館 Salico Foods King Garden - panoramio (2).jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is COM:FOP Taiwan for 2D works —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ for any of the aforementioned images to be restored, the artwork must satisfy two conditions at COM:FOP Taiwan - these must be in "outdoor places open to the public" and their presence or display is "on a long-term basis" (in short permanence). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as has provided no detailed per-image explanation. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: if File:Mackay statue Tamsui.jpg is uploader's own photo, then I'm leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg Support for its restoration if it shows the sculpture at File:Mackaystatue.jpg. However, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restorations of files from File:名人塑像區.jpg to File:Wang02.jpg as these were restored recently but were deleted again because: copyvio (grabbed from JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg

This image directly debunks the idea the cited West-German source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" which states that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms. Therefore overturning the original rationale that lead to the image's deletion.

I am currently doing research into this topic and can't find this file, I am quite sure that this is a fantasy, but I am not sure if this file is a contemporary misattribution or not. Anyhow if u deleted I would add "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" to it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Please specify what exactly do you request and why? Do you request for modifying the deleted description, reopening the DR or something else? Ankry (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, just general undeletion, I plan on altering the description and tagging it as "disputed", but the reason given for deletion was one that isn't really an acceptable reason anymore. But I am planning on requesting on renaming it to "Alleged" or "fantasy". But I can't make a judgement without seeing the file. I suspect that it's the insignia of the Republican Guard, but again, I can't judge if I can't see the file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to override a DR decision we need a rationale that I do not see here. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, please always ping on this page, as I don't seem to get notifications for it in my e-mails. Regarding undeletion, the rationale for deletion was that the file was a fantasy, however, I suspect that it was merely misattributed, I am mostly requesting undeletion to see the file so I can work with it.
Furthermore, the claims by the original nominator merely States that heraldric source works claim that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms, later discoveries could have been made and the file could as well have been the coat of arms of a body of the Cochinchinese Colonial Council, if I can't see the file I can't research it. Does the file look anything like this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
So I am Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral whether the COA is in scope or not. However I may GA candidate.svg Weak support reopening the DR to take a decision there. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just curious, but what are the reservations for its undeletion? -- Always ping me on this page Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, regarding the original deletion, the cited source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" is usually a reliable source for national coats of arms, but it's not infallible, the nominator at the time found a lot of coats of arms through this work and similar works, but they got the coat of arms of the Second (2nd) Republic of Vietnam wrong, recently a Vietnamese person made a YouTube presentation based on Vietnamese coats of arms on Wikipedia and the entire comment section was filled with users pointing out that the escutcheon of South Vietnam was missing 2 (two) dragons. Also that book didn't showcase the coat of arms of the French protectorate of Annam (something that was also uploaded by this very Sockmaster and later deleted upon request as being "likely a hoax" by the same person that started the DR), but a 1941 official government Vichy (German-Italian-Japanese collaboratist regime) French work showed these coats of arms to indeed be legitimate. I am not saying that the original image was legitimate, I am just saying that because I can't view it that I have no way if verifying it and misattributed coats of arms on Wikimedia Commons usually get tagged with "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" rather than outright deleted. Both the Sockmaster and the DR nominator have had a track record with mistakes in this field, both both the sockmaster and DR nominator are excellent intelligent people that know how to research these topics well. I just want the ability to conduct my own research into this file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg I am an idiot, I just Ecosia searched (Ecosiad) in French rather than just in Vietnamese and I actually managed to find a contemporary French source showing a coat of arms of French Cochinchina among the first results. The internet is a very different place since the original Deletion Request was filed, but the whole reason the file was deleted was because the source consulted by the DR nominator stated that French Cochinchina never had any coat of arms. Now, the coat of arms I found in this image looks quite similar to the one the globally locked Sockmaster uploaded a few weeks ago with a more recent sockpuppet. I think that both the original DR nominator and globally locked Sockmaster in this care are very intelligent people with a strong dedication to research these things, and I am sure that either of them knows more about Vietnamese coats of arms than anyone here, but neither of them are infallible and the usually reliable West-German book on national coats of arms isn't infallible either. This image directly disproves the deletion rationale. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ankry:, out of curiosity (and because this is taking forever), could you please describe in words how this file looks like? What elements does it have like a large yellow stripe with three dark blue stripes in the middle. This way I can identify what it is and request it to be undeleted under its proper name if it's the insignia of another institution of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina that is simply misattributed. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Donald Trung: I have expressed my neutral opinion above, and nothing has changed. I do not think, that scope cases can be investigated here in details; at least I am not interested in such investigations. Unless they are obvious (eg. needed for an article, widely used in real world). That is why I suggested reopenning the DR. But I refuse to take a decision without a suporting opinion of another admin. If there is a consensus that the flags are in scope, we can go on. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Ankry:, also if I might add, the what I presumed was a fantasy flag from this very same Globally Locked Sockmaster that I requested undeletion for and was granted later turned out to be a legitimate flag. For years a lot of legitimate files have been deleted as "fantasies" because bad or incomplete sources. On this page (which also confirms what we all thought was a fantasy flag to be real) there is a badge, does the deleted file resemble this badge or an element of it? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Out of process deletions by INeverCry (Uploads by 南文會館)

INeverCry has / had the nasty habit of nuking any socks they came across, often deleting valuable free images in doing so, not only is this against policy, it actively harms the scope of Wikimedia Commons as its scope is hosting free educational images, not just free educational images as long as they're uploaded by "the right users", while inspecting some Musée Annam socks I came across this:

This user uploaded a number of Vietnamese flags of differing value, judging from the titles I can find a large number of fantasies ("Flags of the XXX Dynasty") and also a number of legitimate titles. The problem is that an INC sock nuked them, preferably I would like for all of these files to be undeleted, upon undeletion I would categorise all fantasy flags as being fantasy flags and request renaming of them as fantasy flags, for example "Flag of the X Dynasty" would become "Fantasy flag of the X Dynasty" (note that these circulate widely online and in nationalistic re-writes of Vietnamese history, so they do have an educational value, I just believe that they should be properly marked as hoaxes and then explain in the description their origins and perhaps note that flag culture as we know it today didn't exist). Note that in a number of cases such "dynastic flags" were actually based on Imperial Standards or Military Standards (such as the one of Quang Trung, also on Wikimedia Commons in the past uploaded by a Musée Annam sock, but I haven't been able to find it, this one actually has historical documentation, but wasn't a national flag like some Vietnamese nationalists like to claim). The other flags are those of political parties or small Vietnamese polities. The deletion rationale constantly seems to be " sockpuppet uploads" (for example here), which isn't one grounded in any actual policy, note that the deleting admin later bragged about their number of admin actions, so this might have been an ego trip to bloat those numbers. Note that upon undeletion I will immediately mark the fantasies and remove them from any categories that would falsely give them legitimacy. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: This is not a venue to discuss user problems. If you need some images to be undeleted, please, list them here and provide a common reason for their undeletion that applies to all of them. If there are various reasons for deletion/undeletion among the images, then the image undeletion should be requested in separate sections. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, they were all deleted with the same rationale, a nuke because of sockpuppetry, not any scope or licensing issues. I am requesting all images (redlinks) in the above link to be u deleted in case this isn't clear. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  1. If the uploader is a suckpuppet, the deletions were not out of process. Some actions of this admin were valid, some were abusive. If this one was abusive, an evidence is needed (the account is still marked as a sockpuppet), but this is not the right venue to discuss this.
  2. We generally do not want to support sockpuppets as Wikimedia contributors
  3. If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user
  4. If the undeletion is still needed, we need an explanation why the images are needed in Wikimedia on per image basis
  5. Massive undeletion tools require direct list of image links here. The permanent list is also needed for archiving purposes.
Ankry (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: But then, some were deleted by that WMF banned user really based on unfair reason like "no FOP in Sweden" (true???) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict because another section was edited, how is this page useful?) Wasn't pinged, please always ping on this page as this page notifies users about all changes not just the ones relevant to them (it seems almost by design that undeletions are difficult while deletions are easy), please point to the policy where sock uploads are prohibited? The community rejected this several times already. As for having to list every file individually, that just seems unnecessarily tedious for the sake of bureaucracy, there are deletion requests that are titled "All files uploaded by User:XXX", but somehow it is bad to file the exact same thing for undeletions. My argument is that these flags are in scope. As for fantasy flags, that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, some fantasy flags have been attributed or commonly mistaken in many (otherwise) trustworthy educational sources, being able to document which flags are real and fantasy is a part of a mission to educate, not spreading new fantasies. Also, the other non-fantasy flags are legitimate. "If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user" This makes no sense, how can I (re-)upload files I can't see? Also if the sockpuppeteer vectorised them or created them, wouldn't it be a copyright violation for another user to claim for it to be "their" works?
Regarding that discussion, I wasn't aware of that, I generally don't follow Administrators' Noticeboards as I am "too busy for such drama", I don't even get why policy issues are discussed there. But unless that discussion ends with claiming all fantasy flags to be out of scope I don't think that it would be bad to undelete the fantasy flags of this sock, but still, it contains plenty of non-fantasies. Filing an individual request for them would simply be too tedious. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, reading through that AN discussion, it isn't really relevant here, those are user generated fantasy flags, these are based on fantasies from Vietnamese nationalist revisionist history publications (often, and unfortunately, with scholarly and government backing to sell nationalism through history, but that's another discussion). Some of these sources were cited on Wikipedia before being removed, the sockmaster created free versions of the fantasy flags from those publications. Several others of his work haven't been deleted and are properly tagged as either fantasy or reliable. I don't see the value for people to delete free educational content. If "a valid user" is needed to stand behind these uploads then I am willing to do that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I still maintain to this very day that sock images should under no circumstance be allowed here .... however unfortunately they are and as such INC's sock deletions aren't valid and should be overturned. If I can't have sock images deleted then I don't see why anyone else can, might seem petty but shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason for deleting many sock images is that ordinarily we Assume Good Faith. With socks, that must not be the case, so the rule becomes "If there is any doubt, delete". In the case of INC's deletions, there may be good images among many not so good, so they must be dealt with on a case by case basis, not in bulk, as proposed here. There is nothing more to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:, it would be horribly tedious to nominate every individual flag from this user for undeletion, in most cases I would have to re-use of one two arguments (1) this fantasy lag was seriously proposed by a number of Vietnamese historians and history scholars, and (2) it's an in scope free image of a historical Vietnamese organisation. All these images apply to either of these. I don't see why I should waste several hours filing undeletion requests for each one individually to wait a month for them to be u deleted. If deletion requests worked like this we would have a lot more copyright violations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Donald Trung, the title of this UnDR calls out all of INC's deletions of sock puppet uploads, hence my comment above. I have no problem at all if you want to request undeletion of a specified list of closely related items. Making that list may be tedious, but you are the only one who knows what you think belongs on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


Real flags.
Fantasies mentioned by serious historians.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg For context, these fantasy Vietnamese flags are all (unfortunately) on display at the Military History Museum of Vietnam (Bảo tàng Lịch sử Quân sự Việt Nam), it is not as if I wish for some random proposals for historical flags to be restored by some random user(s), these flags are actually used by an educational institution to spread misinformation and not having them on Wikimedia Commons to explain their context actually prevents people from educating others about their historical inaccuracies. In some cases these were imperial standards misreported as "national flags" (something that only became a concept in Vietnam in the 19th (nineteenth) century). They are fully within scope, I just think that they should be properly labeled before we have another good faith contributor add them or find some educator doing research thinking that they have "a scoop Wikipedia doesn't have". Personally I prefer to add them in a list article and explain their context as misreported flags of Vietnamese dynasties and why they're illegitimate, that has more of an educational value than denying their existence altogether regardless of why they were deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg FYI, the article where I want to add those fantasy flags has a "misattributed flags" section and since those fantasy flags are widely circulating online it might be wise to point out that they're fake. The educational value of the fantasy flags is thus to warn people about the fact that such fantasies exist. Adding them to another Wikimedia website should automatically make them in scope, so I don't see why these files shouldn't be undeleted. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Where the flags can / will be used

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, at "List of flags of Vietnam" I can add all of these flags (after additional research), the elemental flags are cultural flags and will be listed as such and were used during the Nguyễn Dynasty period and sources that mention them are already in the article, furthermore the flag proposals were some of the 50+ (fifty plus) proposals that all failed during the First Republic of Vietnam (as the yellow flag with three (3) red stripes was perceived as being a remnant of the old Monarchist order), as these are "large proposals" their exclusion is actively doing the readers a disservice. The fantasy flags already have a section at "Misattributed flags", I am planning on making a whole section on the supposed flags of the Đại Việt quốc (大越國) and how these fantasies came to be (as they are heavily circulated on the web as they are actually based on historical Chinese / Vietnamese flags). So none of these flags are actively "Out of scope". Another page where the proposals can be used is "List of national flag proposals". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Drapeaux des cinq elements will be used in an article I an now writing about religious flags in Vietnam, these images are not out of scope and their current exclusion is doing the potential educational content that can be created with them a major disservice. One small note is that "Drapeaux" is plural --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Jameslwoodward:, excuse me for calling you out specifically, but as you raised the biggest concerns to this UnDR two (2) months ago and I have actually found a use case for each of the above files, have your feelings changed towards this UnDR? The specific files have been listed above and they are all in scope as the discussion didn't call for a blanket ban on fantasy flags (in fact there was consensus against it) and I specifically wish to use these images to fight misinformation by explaining their contexts on Wikipedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above. My objection was solely that the UnDR calls out all of INC's sock deletions. I specifically said that if there was a specific list of UnDRs with good rationale, I would not oppose their restoration. That seems to have been satisfied with the lists above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese symbols in the public domain uploaded by Fataobstant

First Republic of Vietnam files

These are all based on government works that ascended into the public domain before the last date based on 50 (fifty) years at "{{PD-Vietnam}}".

Grey area.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, do not undelete any medals, medals are 3D objects and scans of them are eligible for copyright ©. I am working with the assumption that the above files are either drawings and/or paintings or other such works that qualify as PD-scans, any medal should be struck. Always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Note that images that were not PD in Vietnam 1n 1998 are likely copyrighted in US per URAA. I am not sure if the 75 pd term was valid in 1998, please advice. Ankry (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note 📝: "File:自力文團標章.svg" was made by the globally locked Sockmaster as a faithful reproduction of an old logo, in some cases he would get "sweat of the brow" copyright ©, but he didn't assert it. So they used their sources as basis for the copyright © claim, the authorship is in fact the globally locked 🔒 Sockmaster but the original design is in the public domain. Will find relevant information about Vietnamese copyright © laws in 1998. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright:

"Article 7.- The author or the owner of copyright, as prescribed in Article 24 of this Ordinance, must comply to all provisions of law when he uses his copyright.

The State does not protect the copyright of the works which:

1. Go against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, damage the bloc of unity of the people; 2. Campaign for violence, aggressive wars, sow hatred among nations, diffuse reactionary ideologies and cultures, depraved and debauched life, criminal behaviors, social evils, superstitions, which sabotage the fine customs and habits; 3. Disclose secrets of the Party, State, military and security secrets related to the economy, foreign policies, private life of citizens, and other secrets which are protected by law; 4. Distort history, negate revolutionary achievements, offend great men and national heroes, slander and hurt the prestige of organizations, and the honor and dignity of citizens."

Any works from the Republic of Vietnam can be seen as #7 § 1, at least it States that such works are not eligible for copyright protections, not sure if this is the same as base copyright, but I am willing to open a village pump discussion. Further, that logo was created by the globally locked Sockmaster based on an old design, they are actually a very good graphic artist and the logo was used until 1944 meaning that it is a derivative work of a public domain file, meaning that the CC license holds up. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The French work is PD-France, at the latest it os from 1944. So it's a DW of a free work. No author is listed and the organisation in that form ceased to exist in 1944. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First Republic of Vietnam files from Fataobstant

These are all based on government works that ascended into the public domain before the last date based on 50 (fifty) years at "{{PD-Vietnam}}".

I will have a reply later. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Torre Eifflel - panoramio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ordinary lighting is not copyrightable per Yann in some UNDEL requests before. The particular court ruling refers to a specific lighting during the 90s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lawsuit in question was about a specific lightshow and this image is far from ordinary lighting. In this image, the tower is illuminated in the French national colours blue white and red with the tower itself being white and red and a blueish beam emanating from the top of the structure. In my book that is creative enough for copyright. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per my previous comments on this issue: light is not copyrightable. The court ruling refers to a light show with fireworks, etc. Yann (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nancy Rotering 39701076811 e00a2be8f4 o.jpg

While some of the photos that have been uploaded to this Flickr account have not been of their own authorship, some have. This image, very clearly, was of their own authorship. Should be undeleted. SecretName101 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The flickr account is not a personal account. If they lie about copyright elsewhere, how can we believe that they signged an appropriate contract with the photographer for this image? Photographer name is not provided despite licensing requirement to attibute the author. I strongly suggest to verify copyright status through VRT. Ankry (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The CC-BY license requires that any user name the photographer. The Flickr account is in a corporate name and the photographer is not named, so the use on Flickr is a violation of the CC-BY license. It cannot be kept here without the photographer's name and a clear understanding its license status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: That's not strictly true; there are many works of corporate authorship which should be attributed to the company (i.e. work for hire). The problem here lies squarely with this specific bad-author. -- King of ♥ 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
User:King of Hearts, yes. My vacation has left me out of practice. About all that is correct in my comment above is that we need a clear understanding of the license status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Files from When We Were Young Festival, The Observatory, 04/08/17-04/09/17 | Flickr

The files from this Flickr album are published in the public domain, per the Flickr uploader. All but 4 of the files were deleted for having no license. It will be easier to add the license after undeletion rather than re-uploading them all. Οἶδα (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The {{PDMark-owner}} seems applicable. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg (F3 deletion)

ReasonL In my view the file contained no copyright elements from the source file; which was the original 2004 Luas Poster (See earlier versions of File:Luaswelcom.jpg). Additional discussion: Per what may considered inappropriate overwrite of per discussion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg the creation of File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg was suggested by Ww2censor. However this was still deleted F3. Per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg (Which has a derived file with similar considerations), M.nelson has suggested I might consider an appeal if I felt no copyright elements remained visible in the image. I raised question on the deleting admin's talk page over 48h ago, I appreciate people have RL so have so I have raised to the next stage here. An intermediate censored/blurred may have helped, if that is so willing to know. To be clear I have become infatuated/involved this the Free LUAS campaign (doesnt mean I support it) so consider I have a COI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have temporarily restored File:Luaswelcom.jpg. The new version no longer has any copyright issues (but note that the final product must be licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0 rather than PD). We might question whether a fake poster is within COM:SCOPE, but per COM:INUSE it is not our prerogative to judge. It may be re-nominated for deletion if stably removed from all Wikimedia projects. -- King of ♥ 20:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou for that temp restore which may help others. That image will re-appear on the Japanese and one (zh) Chinese Wikipedia and its unclear if it should be removed from there. To a degree I have conceded the use of the later versions of File:Luaswelcom.jpg are inappropriate and have offered G7 on those ... it is File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg which is more the subject of the appeal, as much for general consideration as otherwise, but the difference is merely about one pixel column on the edge. The other file potentially influenced by this decision is File:Spencer Dock Luas stop Free Luas.jpg. Welcome consideration with regards to COM:SCOPE but also consider if a suitably licensed image for the campaign existed (I did check) I would not have transferred to commmons. Regardless of the outcome here I am minded similar images could potentially be published elsewhere as CC-BY-SA providing appropriate CC-BY-SA of the source files could be met. Please note I wish very much in the case of all images to get the licensing correct. unfortunately I may sometime fail, and in collages the risk of that is higher for everybody. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I note that with the (temp) undeletion Filedelinkerbot re-inserted the Luaswelcom.jpg thumb to the Luas Article on the English Wiki at 17:00, 9 September 2021‎ & Bungle reverted it at 17:20 with the comment "no longer relevant to this article". bungle did great anti-vandalism work on the Luas article on or about 7/8 August and 21 August. However with respect to King of Hearts's also I'd like to cover the relevance of the made up image, I'll call it as Luaswelcome20042021.jpg to be clearer. Luaswelcome20042021.jpg respects the basics original layout of the original poster when the Luas is introduced in 2004. It uses an adaptation of the original wording, a suitable image of a Luas tram train, and a Shamrock in place of the orginal map. These changes were prompted by the availability of suitable licensed images for the collage. The LUAS was actually free in 2004 for a few days when introduced (per associated text related to the article) and the modified image plays respect to that. It also links that free to the viral #FreeLUAS memes of 2021 by virtue of 2004-2021 under the Shamrock and use of the #FreeLUAS hashtab. And it is to a degree a "bit of craic" in the spirit of the campaign. It may be the only image of the campaign to link to the 2004 days of the free Luas. This the sort of stuff art students might I to right essays about I guess. Anyway I'd suggest "no longer relevant to this article" is a little overly dismissive without deep thought. It is possible the caption could do with a suitable update. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: The variant of the image is now untrue, a fictitious version of the real thing as it was in 2004. The caption read[s]: "Sign welcoming Luas to South Dublin in 2004". The variant you uploaded is not from 2004 - it's not from any date, as it isn't real. It's entirely not credible to promote a fictitious image as an actual one and i'd go a step further and question why either the original or the self-created variant enhance the article. I am also perplexed why you opted to include a hashtag "#freeluas" (the statement itself I won't get into, though surprised you opted for that, given our AV work recently), when twitter itself wasn't formed until 2006. There is so much wrong with this and pointless to the point that if the original image is a copyvio, then just delete it and pretend it never existed. The article is no worse off without it, but is misleading, at best, with it. Bungle (talkcontribs) 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bungle. Yes we did good AV work on the night of 7/8 August. During and since the clearing of the bareURLs related to the matter I began to become interested/involved in the campaign to the point I have needed to declare a COI on the matter. I disagree with your analysis and we are unlikely to agree; these are different viewpoints on the matter. If I had seen an image such as this one appropriately licensed I would likely have pulled it to commons. In the end it it reasonable, even for someone with a COI, to raise the matter whether the image should be placed on the Luas article, and the resultant decision would be via consensus. In practice I am waiting the result of the discussion and arguments here before determining any further publishing of a tweaked version, which on say en:WP for me would have to be via discussion or request edit. I am however very interested in rightful licensing and attribution matters. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Deleted photos of South Korean Bridges

These photos were deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.

However, in South Korea, bridges are not copyrighted.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yi Sun-sin Bridge, COM:FOP SK

So, these photos can be undeleted.

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The second image restoration. Copyright in South Korea covers "buildings". Bridges are not mentioned and are not buildings.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The first image restoration. Although the question of FoP was raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seohae Bridge.jpg, the principal reason for the deletion was that it looked as if the Flickr user did not actually have the right to freely license the image. The image is no longer on Flickr.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The third image restoration. It is arguable whether the bridge or the building is the main object -- but:
the bridge is truncated while the building is whole.
the bridge is ordinary while the building is striking
the image is vertical, if the main subject were the bridge, it would be horizontal and include the whole bridge. so I would argue strongly that the main subject is the building

Note that de miminis requires that an ordinary observer would not notice if the object were removed from the image. That's clearly not the case here as the building is very much in the center of the photograph. However, Korean law requires that for Article 35-3 to apply that the object in question must be incidental to the main use of the image. That's a much less stringent requirement than de minimis, but the file name and image framing make it clear that the building is not incidental..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I don't have permission to see deleted files, so I don't know what the main object of that file is. So I guessed by the file name. Also, I limited the cause of the deletion to simply the lack of freedom of panorama. Therefore, two of the three images are excluded from recovery. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:. Re: first file. Confirmed after a few visits of related links of the DR of the first mentioned file: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bru216. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: One as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Muhammad Labib Sikder.png

File:Muhammad Labib Sikder.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.labibsikder (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Also File:Muhammad Labib Sikder Two.png

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These are personal photos of a non-contributor and therefore out of scope. They are also copyvios -- the subject is the uploader who claims that he was the photographer. That is obviously not the case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:California independence flag.svg

This file is cited as the source from which File:California independence flag 2.svg was derived (and it's unclear what "derived" means in this situation). No earlier (pre-2012) alternative sources can be found linking this flag with any California independence movement or organization. It would be beneficial to be able to see the source of the original file so it can be determined whether it came from another reliable source or if it was just a user-created theoretical flag not connected to any organization or political movement.

Reverse image searches return identical (or near-identical) flags for multiple non-US entities:

  1. Gubin, Poland
  2. Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico
  3. San Rafael, Heredia, Costa Rica

--GEFinley (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is identical (except, perhaps for small differences in aspect ratio) to File:California independence flag 2.svg and to the three flags cited above. It appears to have been made up by the uploader/creator. The information block reads:

English: Flag of independent California / California secession movement.
Date 8 October 2012, 13:21:19
Source Own work
Author PadreDelElToro

Rather than restore this one, I think the question is, should we delete the other one as it is used only once, incorrectly, in an article on WP:HU. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Dear Wiki, this is image of my band and it was made by Janett Vučeta. I've had a conversation with her about Sage band images and she said that I'm allowed to use band images for Wikipedia page. If it is not enough, please help me with fixing that, thanks. Kristian Tomić KristianTomic (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to restore the image, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. Note also that "use band images for Wikipedia page" is not enough. Images on Commons must be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. This means, of course, that anyone could make and sell tee shirts or posters with the image on them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bashar al-Assad mural in Latakia.jpg

The deletion was requested per lack of "freedom of panorama" in Syria. However, the note about Syria states that:

1. The situation has been regulated with decree 62/2013, which was after the said photograph had been taken (late 2011). Therefore it cannot apply to the removed image. 2. The explanation there seems unclear and probably misleading. It doesn't state clearly whether the original or the derived work is supposed to be "permanently present in public place". However, both the mural on the street and my picture in Wikimedia Commons are.

--Emesik (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Leaning towards Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Emesik: continued existence here on Commons means continued exploitations of your image of the copyrighted public artwork without artist's licensing permissions. The fact that the law was implemented in 2013 means the exception ceased to exist at that point (assuming your statement may mean Syria had FOP before 2013), and all images have become violations of architects' or artists' right to pictorial exploitations. It is not on when the images were taken, but on if the continued free uses to pre-2013 images of contemporary Syrian architecture and public artworks is allowed or not after 2013. Perhaps only a law change to (re)introduce freedom of panorama for free uses of images of public works may solve this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree. The date of creation is irrelevant. The current law is the one that applies and that we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

María Herrera Mellado

File:María Herrera Mellado.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of the file María Herrera Mellado. --María Herrera Mellado (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC) María Herrera Mellado 20 de september, 2021

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While we keep personal images for use on the User pages of active contributing users, "active" and "contributing" must come first. Also, the uploader claims to be the photographer and has the same name as the subject. Since it does not appear to be a selfie, the license must come from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

File:龟山汉墓 0558.jpg

Several files uploaded by me were deleted, including this one. I leave wikicommons for a very long time, so I did not receive the notice message in time. I am pretty sure all those photos were taken by myself, I did not copy any images from the internet! But the messages showed that some were believed to be derivative works. But this one was not even taged as a derivative work. The target I photoed is an ancient mausoleum whose creators have died two thousands years ago! It must be a mistake, or maybe other websites copied the images I uploaded here. Please undelete it for recheck. --Cangminzho (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Túrelio: who deleted the file.
@Cangminzho: The image is overwritten with some text in Chinese. Did you add this text yourself? Do you have the original image? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)