Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎中文

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)

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.

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.

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:

  • 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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Лейтенант ГИБДД Арина Прунь на выборах в Госдуму 2016 года.jpg

См. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Лейтенант ГИБДД Арина Прунь на выборах в Госдуму 2016 года.jpg

Избирательный участок место, где нет никаких запретов на съемку, более того, Арина в данном случае не праздное лицо, а человек обеспечивающий охрану избирательного участка. В сети лежал видео всех участков РФ, лежат в соответствии с законом, и тут появляется человек удаляющий файл по причине, что мол разрешения не спросили... Все что защищает закон - это права личности, то, что нельзя под этим фото написать, что "Арина-покллонник пива Туборг" и использовать так в рекламе, но её нахождение на выборах ну никак не под какую защиту не подпадает. Прошу восстановить файл, а админу объяснить правила и законы на которые он ссылается. --S, AV 17:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a mess. Neither the comments above nor at the DR addressed the concern over which this was ultimately deleted: COM:CSCR. Whether photography is allowed in the polling place, whether the woman is an official, and whether it is a "real picture from real event" are irrelevant considerations. That said, COM:CSCR is implicitly an offshoot of COM:NCR, which are issues and considerations germane to those who choose to use Commons' content, but not necessarily to the Commons as a mere host. Thus, deletion for CSCR reasons may be questionable, or at least would certainly benefit from more discussion on how this law would apply to us. That said, this is simply not in scope. This is a non-notable, junior official sitting in an unremarkable room (i.e., no indication it's related to an election--let alone a specific election--or to polling but for the written description) talking on her mobile. Although one of the DR participants added it to an election article in response to the DR, COM:SCOPE requires files be legitimately in use; that addition strains credulity and has an air of gaming the system (although, to be clear, I have no doubt the person was acting on a good faith, albeit misguided, belief that retaining the image would be helpful to the project). Frankly, that use is (was) somewhat akin to illustrating the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II with a picture of a constable having a chat in a back pew at Westminster Abbey: no realistic educational value or use. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • А вам не приходило в голову откуда я знаю, что даму зовут Арина Прунь? Она довольно публичное лицо в городе, занимается связями с общественностью. [Текст], [Видео], [Фото]. Если собрать все видео на местных телеканалах, выйдут не одни сутки с её участием, это не Опра, конечно, но более известная личность, чем 90% людей так или иначе промелькнувших на Викискладе и надо отметить, что её карьера сейчас на пике. Нет ни одной недели, чтоб её не помянули региональные СМИ. Она гораздо популярнее, чем все те, кто пришел на данный участок голосования вместе взятые. --S, AV 19:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Completely arbitrariness of admin User:Jcb:

  1. Deleted a file (near speedy after 3 min he was pinged) with false reason.
  2. After address him, he declared this CoA file (fully flimsy) as logo, he declared also that the given source/reference is not the same depiction (fully flimsy)[1]
  3. I was blamed to "disturbing the process" {no source} tagging, on removing this tag for the existing DR for exact this reason with exact this edit comment.

For me this all told is absolutely specious reasoning (and so uncivil (one-man show) behaviour for an admin. If I was really pissed off, I would make a report on AN).
PS: it is the exact SVG source of File: Rothenstadt.png. User: Perhelion 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't see it, but a "no source" tag is for copyright only. It is not appropriate to use that tag to indicate that a COA is fictitious (or has no blazon information) -- that should then always be a regular DR (at best) to see if the community thinks it's not useful for an educational purpose. It is not a copyright violation to have a CoA with no blazon reference, so the tag should not have been used. The lack of blazon source info is at most a scope question and therefore should never be a speedy deletion. (Same for sourcing of data information on maps, graphs, etc.) So... Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion as it appears deletion was out of process, though a regular DR may still be warranted (no real idea there) (valid copyright source provided; appears existing tag was correct; see below). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, the fully clear reference with reputation is this (and maybe the only one you can find online). The DR was only a very cynic reaction (awkwardness) from Btr though this situation with "no source" tagging (the admin was aware of this, so he decided ad hominem twice. In fact a reason for an admin admonition).[2]
User: Perhelion 08:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - as already explained at my user talk page, this version of the COA is unsourced. Every different presentation of a COA has its own copyright situation. The "source" as given by topic starter points to a different version of the COA. The license only applies if it's a government work, but in this case we don't know, because vital source information is missing. So this is about copyright: the copyright situation is unknown, because the source is missing. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Was the file marked "own work" ? If so that would be a source, and a "no source" tag is inappropriate. Or are you suspecting that the SVG was extracted from a vector source like a PDF? If so, we would need to identify that source. Much of the time, SVGs are self-drawn by contributors. If that is the case, then a "no source" tag should never be applied -- the contributor probably does own the copyright and can license it. If it's too close to an existing version, such that you feel it has been traced, then we'd need to find that to compare the two. Some countries do disallow copyright on all versions of municipal COAs regardless of the artist, though a self-drawn COA from those countries could still have copyright elsewhere. What was the license tag on this? And was it the original license? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, and your comments above aren't really on point. We don't require an external source when the uploader is the creator (except, of course, for the issue of scope and conformance with the CoA/blazon description). We do, however, require a source when a particular CoA/blazon is not the work of the uploader, taken from an external source. This, the latter, is presumably the case here as the author entered was "unknown", the source entered was "unknown", and the template was {{PD-Coa-Germany}} (i.e., not self). Presumably that template is true, but COM:EVID and COM:L require a source so confirming. Similarly, if true, a source should be trivially easy to find and should have accompanied this request, instead of the unhelpful and inappropriate comments directed at Jcb. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Hrm. I was assuming this was self-drawn, but if not -- and the PD-Coa-Germany was the license on the original upload, with an unknown source -- then that is fair. We do need to show that the file came from an official source to use that tag, true enough. That is a copyright issue and using the no-source tag would make sense. That is assuming the vectorization was done by a third party -- if done by the uploader, and was just making a version of a coat of arms seen elsewhere, the initial license tag itself was wrong (or at least misleading). When was the file uploaded? I don't even see that in the logs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
02:19, 5 January 2013. INeverCry 03:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No, what Jcb says can't be true and he also says this the first time "to me" (so I had probably unhelpful and inappropriate comments directed).
It doesn't really matter who created the CoA, because they all are PD-Coa-Germany and the Nutzungsrecht - "right of use" and Namensrecht - “legal name” is always by the CoA owner. So I don't understand the logic behind this, what changes the license if the creator is someone other? Also "nur ähnlichen Wiedergabe gegeben"[3] - so even if at only similar reproduction.
Anyway the uploader Btr is probably also the creator (as he said on the given link above). But he don't agree to set own because he assume wrong license calling, because he only redrawn it. So he is definitely right not to have the right to own the Schöpfungshöhe - threshold of originality (which also generally in most cases not exist for CoA in Germany, only for extraordinary depictions). As I said it is helplessness of the user and I'm only the helper in this “game” (actually, this should be the task of admins, but instead they accuse me to be even unhelpful and inappropriate, but Im sorry if this all is a big missunderstanding). User: Perhelion 10:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Requester acknowledges that uploader copied a pre-existing work ("he only redrawn it") which means we require a source. This is unambiguous per COM:L. Also unambiguous is that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained" to provide this sourcing. (COM:EVID). Admins are volunteers like everyone else and have no obligation to do sourcing work for others. Currently there are over 54,000 files tagged as no source; it simply wouldn't be possible. The deletion was proper, and that the requester has devoted time to being "unhelpful and inappropriate" (not an accusation, fact: "absolutely specious reasoning (and so uncivil (one-man show) behaviour for an admin. If I was really pissed off, I would make a report on AN [4]) instead of finding a source is unfortunate. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is still a bit odd to me. I now do see File:Rothenstadt.png, uploaded by the same user, with a similar license issue, and that was almost certainly generated from the SVG in question. That used to be named Rothenstadt.svg and was uploaded about the same time. User:Btr was both the original uploader, *and* the one who nominated the SVG for deletion for lacking a source (was that after a speedy tag was applied?). That user does not have a large history of SVG work, though there is a little. I do see a virtually identical image here, which is a bit different border but obviously have the same source, although that was uploaded there after the upload here, so it could have been taken from here. Very different version here... can't find much other info, and don't see another obvious source for the uploaded file here. There may be some confusion over the PD-Coa-Germany tag... I read that as being versions from official sources are OK, and anyone can use the design (per other rules), but it may still be that personally-drawn versions can still have a copyright. If the uploader assumed that the law means that *all* versions are not copyright protected, regardless of author, even if they would hold a valid copyright in other countries and just put that tag on it rather than "own" as they were entitled to, that could get us into this situation. If the user feels they drew the SVG but slavish followed an existing bitmap such that there was no additional authorship... OK, but what was the copyright status of the source image they were copying? That is the copyright question here. If that was an official source, the tag may make sense. If not, that's where things get dodgy -- if the original had a copyright, and the SVG author assumed it was inherently PD, that could be an issue. But if they just made their own drawing of an existing official design -- i.e. it was not slavish, just vaguely close -- that would be fine. It's just hard to know, especially when the uploader themselves questions the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's odd to me too. As you articulate, there is a myriad of possible scenarios here; the desire (putting aside requirement) for a source is a desire for a reconciliation and explanation. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Эlcobbola I really don't understand you, I've given the source three times. This file is also the first German CoA ever I see deleted with this reason and I've seen thousands of CoA here.
There are only two possible scenarios: own work or not, in both scenarios the CoA is PD-CoA-Germany. There are no German CoA with copyright tag other than PD (although it would be possible?). So can you (or someone) please explain why the given source is not sufficient?!? And please let us forget all that ad hominem to Jcb to me and Btr, I mean this all is a big missunderstanding. User: Perhelion 00:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Bleah, I should have looked at that source ([5]) again once I saw File:Rothenstadt.png. The SVG is pretty clearly a slavish copy of the CoA in that picture (and that is also the direct source for the picture). So... the question is if there is any copyright to the pictured CoA at that source. If that is an official version (would seem most likely, it is a picture of the CoA on a wall) then it would be PD-CoA-Germany, and the SVG would be PD-ineligible on top of that. Some places, especially the UK, may still consider it separately copyrightable, so it would not hurt to have an explicit license on the vectorization for those jurisdictions). It would be best to note that the SVG was self-drawn after the arms seen in the source photograph. But since this does seem again to be self-drawn by the uploader, I'm back to supporting the undeletion. Still odd that the uploader requested deletion, and I can't really fault the original no-source tag, but that is clearly the graphical source of the SVG. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Perhelion:: Okay, I'm with you now. I hadn't noticed the domain/owner (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst) of the link you'd provided; I saw the Wappengalarie to the right and the "Mit My Wappen haben wir eine Fotogalerie eingerichtet, in der Sie Ihre Wappenfunde präsentieren können" description and mistook the site for a collection of user images (i.e., unknown origin, status, age, etc.), not something officially affiliated. If HdBG says it's the Rothenstadt CoA, that's good enough to validate {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Accordingly, I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion (I would restore myself but for @Jcb:'s remaining opposition above). Danke für deine Geduld. Эlcobbola talk 18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As a note... it is a photograph of the CoA on a wall (you see a plant at the bottom left). So it's not the photograph source itself we'd care about, just what building the pictured CoA is on -- that would almost certainly be a municipal building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
An assumption that can be made because of the site it is on. Эlcobbola talk 20:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That does help the assumption, yes ;-) If it was a photo on some blog, and they mentioned it was the municipal building, that would be just as good though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(As mentioned in my first post in this discussion), the linked COA is different from the deleted image. At least the colors and the border are different. Jcb (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That is not enough to cause a copyright problem. The file is an SVGification of the CoA at that link; you would not be surprised to see the colors and border slightly different -- those are not that significant in heraldry, and do not cause a copyright issue regardless. You really want to look at the delineations of the castle, the bricks, etc. -- and those are basically slavishly copied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per consensus of Carl Lindberg, Perhelion, and Elcobbola. @Perhelion: Can you update source/author/license info as needed please?. --INeverCry 04:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Files by User:Thinkingarena

The copyright owner of the following files agreed to release the files to public domain under CC-BY-SA-3.0. ticket:2016091410018598. However those files deleted as out of scope. So I am bringing the issue to her.

Also, files uploaded by User:Thinkingarena include official document of the Israeli authority which deleted also as out of scope. I don't know if there is anything coprightble in this document. Your advice regarding be appreciated:

I beleve that the file in project scope. They can be usefull in the article Patent claim. They can be usefull in wikibook to describe the process of patent in Israel etc. As there is no copyright issue her I think they should be undeleted. We have a lot's of file of patent documentation (including PDF). Examples: File:US2308051A, Arthur T. Cahill, Means for Generating Music Electrically, filed 1938, issued 1943.pdf, US2253782A Keyboard for Electrical Musical Instrument (1940-05-07 filed, 1948-08-26 published) by Laurens Hammond - Solovox.pdf, File:Keskari, Keska-Veschluss, Österreichische Patenturkunde.jpg, File:MR. DARRAC'S PATENT.png, File:Parkradar2.jpg, File:1933 05 13 C. Keskari Eintrag in Gebrauchsmusterrolle-1 (Mufftasche).jpg, File:Brevetto inglese per il motore Barsanti-Matteucci (12 giugno 1857).tif, Category:Patent certificates, Category:German Patents, Category:Patents -- Geagea (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If something is good for Wikisource, we can hold the source PDFs. Those are in scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Geagea: I undeleted the first three files. could you please take care of the OTRS-part? Not sure about the last file so I am leaving that one for someone more familiar with this specific topic. Natuur12 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done and undeleted temporarily the last file for review. -- Geagea (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg, can you check please if this file - an official document of the Israeli authority, contain anything copyrightble. In your opinion it may qulify as {{PD-ineligible}}? -- Geagea (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
For the U.S., that would be a "blank form" and not really copyrightable. Less sure on Israel. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Request by Teacher1943

Above all files are original ,not copied and for educational purpose .Reason not clear for deletion .Please undelete my above files.--Nagric 04:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 02 October 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. Also note that we have many well drawn SVG files of these subjects and that in addition to the crude drawings and out of focus photography, several of them have misspelled words in the drawing. I also note that this user has been told at least five times that he must sign his posts and how to do it, but he still refuses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Tulsi (garland).jpg

All files are original and for educational purpose only .I am signing as --Nagric 04:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 02 October 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of COM:SCOPE per poor quality/no COM:EDUSE (these are blurry, crudely drawn, and badly photographed). Deleted by me via Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Teacher1943, which was filed by Jameslwoodward. INeverCry 05:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I am requesting for undeletion of this image because this is a legitimate official logo of Beta Sigma Omega Phi known as Betans. I wanted this image to be added in the infobox of my article Beta Sigma Omega Phi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Caintic (talk • contribs) 06:31, 02 October 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think you mean File:19 Betans 68.jpg. This is a copyrighted logo, so in order to keep it on Commons we need a free license sent directly to OTRS by an authorized official of the organization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 04:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Permission received in ticket:2016022410017403. Please ping me so I can clean up the description pages once these are undeleted; attribution needs to be updated. ~ Rob13Talk 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Ping. ;). --INeverCry 04:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Benburb castle castlesnl.jpg

Request for Undeletion

I, Vami IV, editor, request the undeletion of the above (and non-existant as of 10/2/16) file for the following reasons:

  1. I request permission to use the file from the copyright owner, Marko Tjemmes at via email
    1. He responded, gave permission, and gave such details as when the file was taken and what copyright (Creative Commons 4.0 (BY-SA)).
    2. If you do not believe me, I can show you an image of our correspondence.
  2. The file was uploaded according to the copyright owner's wishes (see above) WITH his permission.
  3. The filename had the names of both the website and the copyright owner (Marko Tjemmes) displayed on the photo's page.

Vami IV (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Non nobis, Domine.

We ask that you kindly contact Marko (the copyright holder) to email (NOT forward your communication with him) Wikimedia commons (see COM:OTRS) specifying that <filename> is indeed released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and can be used for *any* purpose under the condition that credit is given to him. Please see COM:OTRS for further information. Thank you kindly! --CoolCanuck eh? 23:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at the page and sent an email with what I thought he would need for this process (I am new to this annoying copyright gig). --Vami IV 2/10/16 18:49 (CST)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. Don't worry, it's a lot easier than it seems at first. --INeverCry 04:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ashesh Shah.jpg

Dear Editor, Under the policy of Wikipedia I have the right to upload my own copy righted photos. Please do not delete any of the photos I have uploaded via wizard. I categorically say all the photos I have uploaded are my photos and no one else owns the copyright.

01:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporate and industrial photography (talk • contribs) 01:30, 03 October 2016 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it was first published at with no indication of a free license. I also wonder how this meets COM:SCOPE and isn't COM:ADVERT? Can you show any significant coverage of your work in Hindi, Marathi, or Malayalam, etc? I don't see any indication of notability searching in English. INeverCry 05:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


The file mentioned in Title, is owned by me, i created that Logo about 7 years ago & now are using for our forum, so i think it must be undelete. for further anyone can contact with me. i am owner of Sindhsalamat-logo.png file. --Thaheem Ubed (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)thaheem*ubed

Can you post a note at stating that the logo is released under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license? You could then link to this message here and then in the permission field of the image when it's restored. Alternately, we would need OTRS permission from an email address at the domain releasing the logo under CC-BY-SA-4.0 or another free license. This is meant to protect Commons and your copyright. INeverCry 04:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Deletion request for the image Sanki_King_portrait.jpg was posted by User: Ruff tuff cream ( and his comment was that the metadata shows the author as "Taha" and copyright holder as "amr and trk photography". The photographer Taha signs all of his emails as "Taha Rizwan Khan", where TRK stands for Taha Rizwan Khan, it should be no riddle. I have also taken a copy of the email that was sent to wikimedia from the photographer himself and the email clearly shows the photographer's signature there. I previously uploaded this image, taken with permission from Mr. Sanki King's team, whose managing team emailed wikimedia with the permission but some Robert Bruce insisted that the photographer and Sanki King email wikimedia commons personally, even though Sanki's managing team clearly explained that the portrait was a part of a paid photoshoot and Sanki King had the rights of all those images and since the team who represents Sanki King had given permission for the image to be used, why were personal permissions required?

Robert Bruce still insisted for personal permissions but the photographers and Mr. Sanki couldn't email wikimedia commons in time and the portrait, along with another image of Sanki King and his work, were deleted. After that I took permission from Sanki King's team, and the photographers of both the images a few days ago and I re-uploaded the images as my own work. Emails of transfer of copyrights of these images have already been sent to wikimedia commons by both photographers & myself. The other image is Now please tell me why was the image deleted in such a hurry and with no research when a signed email by the photographer was sent to wikimedia commons? Ticket numbers: Ticket#2016092310000866 and Ticket#2016092310000866, and I also haven't received any reply from Commons as yet, its been 2 weeks.

The photographer is a part of a duo, AMR & TRK, first person is Mohsee, second is Taha. The name of the author on the image was Taha, as Ruff puff said, and the copyright holder was AMR & TRK Photography, please pay attention to the facebook link of their page if you will "". His full name was in the email and first name is in the link of their page. Most importantly, the file was deleted without any discussion with the uploader. It was nominated for deletion but it was deleted just like that by User: INeverCry. Now please tell me will I have to reupload the image on wikimedia or will the deletion be undone? Looking forward to a prompt reply. Cheers

SameStruggle (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)