Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Files uploaded by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Hystrix and Josve05a: Most of these files were deleted as "out of scope" but they seem to be acceptable images, mostly of natural landmarks. They were indeed uploaded with the intent to promote tourism in Nigeria, but there is no conflict with our project scope. Also, the uploader has verified via OTRS their identity as a representative of the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation, which should resolve most copyright concerns. Guanaco (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please see homepage of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation [1], Point 3: “Unless expressly stated otherwise, you may not reproduce, modify, disseminate or otherwise exploit our Content in any way or form without our prior express approval. ... Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation trademarks and Tour Nigeria logos may only be used in conjunction with goods produced by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation or with the express prior approval of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation For the avoidance of doubt, the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation corporate logo may only be used by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation.” and also com:L and com:advert. --Hystrix (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but since the account is verified, dual-licensing applies and should be good. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
As for the mention of COM:advert it links to the section that the file must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Simply stating that something is an advertisement is not sufficient reason to delete it. That section is intended to say that advertisements are not automatically useful, not that they are automatically unuseful. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Guanaco: the e-mail to OTRS contains only the permission for the user account (NTDC). All photos are missing the name of the photographer. Some were previously published on Instagram. If NTDC is the rightholder, a permission must be shared for all photos. (Die E-Mail an OTRS enthält nur die Genehmigung für das User-Konto Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC). Bei allen Fotos fehlt der Name des Fotografen. Einige wurden zuvor auf Instagram veröffentlcht. Wenn NTDC Rechteinhaber ist, muss eine Freigabe für alle Fotos erfolgen.) Hystrix (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Hystrix: These should be OK if they were not previously published elsewhere, or if the EXIF data is consistent. The logo should also be OK. That's the point to have a verified account. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
The logo is restored. However, the photos are so different that they probably come from different photographers or websites. There is currently no approval. EXIF data are not available on any photo. (Das Logo ist wiederhergestellt. Die Fotos allerdings sind so unterschiedlich, dass sie vermutlich von verschiedenen Fotografen oder Webseiten stammen. Es gibt derzeit keine Genehmigung. EXIF data sind bei keinem Foto vorhanden.) Hystrix (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Files uploaded by Aspahbod

Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

In the deletion request here a person said that "No indication of own work on any of these" images, but the user's page on English wikipedia [2] shows they claimed them as own work and have a consistent artistic style. (A few images survived the deletion request because they were uploaded first to WP, then to commons by other users).

Streamline8988 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Aspahbod.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
See "pictures" at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aspahbod. If these are not pictures, they should be in svg format.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Can’t realize what Jeff speaks of. Isn’t wikt:picture a synonym for “image”? Why did Jeff introduce a new noun into this thread? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Some images, including those stated above, have arrived with information which suggests they are not "own", for one example: " (diff) 03:57, 24 September 2012 . . Aspahbod (talk | contribs | block) (589 bytes) ({{Information |Description =
English: Iranian Raad air defense system
|Source =http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10187/_DSC1171.jpg |Author =M-ATF, from military.ir and iranmilitaryforum.net |Date =2012-9-21 ||Permission =The author gave me permission to upload this here with Creative Comons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. A link here.)" Each item must be considered carefully, those which require OTRS be done, and any which are actually drawings should be in a suitable format. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not trying to restore that image, or any similar photo. Everything I'm requesting to be undeleted is a CGI drawing made by Aspahbod, as evidenced by the png extension. Streamline8988 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
_DSC1171.jpg is evidently a photo. Ellin shouldn’t bundle photographs with images of unclear genesis, at least some distinction had to be explicated on the delreq – it could conserve a lot of time for Commoners. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: didn’t you notice the word “Raad” in Ellin’s post? Why do you expect to find any wrongly deleted media among nineteen JPEGs listed on 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)? License reviewers can make mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Read the deletion request and understood that Ellin misinformed the community about files to be deleted – not every file was claimed by Aspahbod for themselves. Also, deletion by Steinsplitter was rather irresponsible – he didn’t check Ellin’s allegations. An exemplary poor job by two Commons sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:앞산전망대.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

those pictures are free copyright pictures, those are from Daegu City, and Daegu City permit use it as the Korea pubilc certificate it call 공공누리. and also i have been got OTRS with 공공누리 when i edit 대구광역시, so i think it is not wrong about my upload (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Received an OTRS ticket, but non-government-controlled email address asserting government agent. Directed them to re-send using Government email address. The license in permission ticket was CC BY SA 4.0 Intl, not {{KOGL}}. — regards, Revi 10:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Willem van Waning (1897-1968).jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I took and modified this photo from [3]. It is said in their copyright page, [4], that Verder geldt dat de auteurswet niet van toepassing is op materiaal afkomstig van de overheid, mits het auteursrecht uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Roughly translated in English as "Furthermore, the copyright law does not apply to material originating from the government, provided that the copyright is expressly reserved." (My apology that i don't speak Dutch) Since this photo is a work of the city government of Leek, could this photo is considered copyright-free? Any help from Dutch users here would be really appreciated, Thank you. Afrogindahood (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  •  Comment I do not see any statement, however, that all the photos there are the work of government. In fact on many of them it lists specific photographer. Since I do not know which specific photo it is, I am unable to comment further. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

File:Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg; you have deleted this image I have uploaded as an illustration in my project of contribution "Nathalie Ros" because you have found it on a website (Koufa Foundation) and thought there was a copyright violation. I have taken this picture myself and I offered it to Nathalie Ros in order for her to use it in her CV; I am the autor and not Koufa Foundation that has no copyright on this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagrimardière (talk • contribs) 2018-10-31 10:00:00 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I can't see it. It's redeleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
  •  Question @Lagrimardière: Es que c’est possible de faire apparaitre dans un page ouaibe officielle de la Professeur Ros (et/ou bien ici) une declaration informant que l’auteur de cette photo c’est l’utilisateur Wikimedia Lagrimardière, que a le droit de la licenser comme CC-BY-SA? Ça eteait le plus simple. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Marek Michalak and Tymon Radzik.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file shouldn't have been deleted as it is not a copyright violation. It is an official material and therefore, by the law of the Republic of Poland, it belongs to public domain. Please note, the photo has been published in .gov.pl domain (governmental domain extension). It has been misleadingly marked as copyright protected by some newspapers, which used it. These newspapers could use it without mentioning the original author only because it's an official material. Rembertow02 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  •  Oppose As far as I can tell, the exemption in Polish copyright only applies to "normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols" (see {{PD-Polishsymbol}}). Publication of a third-party photograph by the government would not make it an official work though. De728631 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Haldjad ooperist Midsummernights Dream Madis Nurms.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It has been tagged with {{Npd}} by User:Mitte27 most probably by mistake (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carmen Finale.jpg as another example). It has a valid OTRS ticket (ticket:2009122810016222). If there is any issue with this file, it should be clearly explained in a regular DR. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The same story for the following files:

4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose - I don't think these OTRS tickets should ever have been accepted. The permission comes from the organizer of the event, apparently not from the photographers. Jcb (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I added five other files to the list. Each file should be evaluated separately, preferably in a regular DR. For example, see ticket:2009122810016357 in which the customer has stressed they are both the designer and the photographer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, maybe one or two files can be saved. But most of the files have no valid permission. Also many deleted uploads of this uploader had no OTRS ticket at all. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Generałowie podczas Święta Wojska Polskiego 2007.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was valid. The photo was taken in 2007 and the licensor's license terms for photos from MON were changed in September 2013. There's more photos taken by MON on Commons. File:Gen. Marek Dukaczewski.JPG, and File:Jarosław Kraszewski.JPG were uploaded in January 2018. Both files were kept after starting the deletion request. User:Nemo5576/MON doesn't specify if the license is valid for files uploaded to Commons or MON before September 2013. Photos taken by MON before September 2013 don't mention their authors. ElCet (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • @Shizhao and Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • @Jcb and Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
            •  Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [5]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头，30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。"，很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD（特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品）--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看，此类大型规划，政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标，同时也一定会拨给一定款项，所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elhDhnkXwDc

File:印军越界现场照片（一）.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-11#File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg, I asked DIEGO73 to overwrite the file in full size with EXIF metadata intact per COM:HR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. Type/Size/Px/Ppp DIEGO73 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@DIEGO73: By "overwrite", I meant for you to use the link "Upload a new version of this file".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Pauli Heikkilä - Tampere - 26.10.2005.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I'm the photographer of this portrait and therefore also the copyright owner. I was requested to upload it myself because previous version which was uploaded by a person to whom I gave my permission to use it here was deleted. I accepted that this portrait is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. What did I do wrong?

--Zabex (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The other user who uploaded the photo was asked to use Commons:OTRS to verify the license. You can do that as well. Thuresson (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I sent official release of rights statement to Finnish OTRS (permissions-fi@wikimedia.org). --Zabex (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zabex: Unfortunately, that queue is backlogged 294 days.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh my God! I need it much faster ... Is there any way to speed up the process? If I publish this image under a domain owned by me with correct license information, is that enough? The backlog of English OTRS is quite long too, I assume? --Zabex (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
En queue is 170 days. I see the ticket in the fi queue Ticket:2018110510009544. I can tell you now that a gmail e-mail address is going to be a stumbling block - the whole purpose is to validate that the permission is correct, anyone can create any unused gmail address in seconds - your best option might be to put it on your web site (add the logo from https://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by-sa&jurisdiction=&version=4.0&lang=en) so long as that web site can be properly traced to you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ok then. If I'll register a fresh new .fi-domain and put this image under it with correct lisence is that proof enough? Finnish Communications Regulatory Authory verifies me when allocating domain to a private person (via my Finnish personal identification number). The owner of the domain in the whois-database will be me (Petri Sabel). --Zabex (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G.: The 300 day backlog doesn't meant that it takes that long to solve new tickets in the Finnish queue. Maybe there is one problematic ticket that has been abandoned and it makes the backlog seem so long. Unfortunately there is only one Finnish user handling the queue, so it depends on how he has time to check it. -kyykaarme (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Максим Кучеренко.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Прошу срочно восстановить удаленную "по подозрению " в неправильном использовании личную фотографию Максима Кучеренко. Фото принадлежит мне. Комментарии по английски я не понимаю,даже через гугл переводчик, в связи с чем прошу ответить мне на русском языке, почему я не могу использовать фотографию Максима Кучеренко для оформления личной страницы Максима Кучеренко?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тётя Юля (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Planetshakers_band_en_concierto_en_vivo.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No estoy de acuerdo que se me haiga borrado esa imagen, puesto que lo tengo desde hace dos años desde el 2016 que yo lo subi esa foto y no tuve problemas porque fue por creación propia, no viole los derechos de autor porque esa imagen nunca fue subida al facebook como lo afirma el usuario que lo nomino para el borrado. Considere mi petición de poder restaurarla mi imagen. Por favor considera mi petición. Bendiciones. Chico sensación (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Mercedes de Vega 2015, Feria del Libro de Madrid.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Solicito la recuperación de mi archivo fotográfico: Mercedes de Vega 2015, Feria del Libro de Madrid.jpg Este archivo es de mi propiedad en exclusiva. Sin derechos cedidos a terceros. Espero que pronto lo restituyan. Gracias, Mercedes de Vega — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedesdevega (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

El archivo es de mi propiedad y mantengo todos sus derechos en exclusiva. Ruego su restauración — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedesdevega (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:461472 144118915720601 141251566007336 176409 1205232217 o.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The file was deleted by User:JurgenNL for having no permission. However, it is found on English Wikipedia as en:File:Whangarei airport upgrade.jpg with sufficient author and permission information. Therefore the file can be considered to be undeleted. (But anyways, major cleanup and renaming process is needed.)廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Info Uploaded to Commons on May 17, 2012, deleted on January 16, 2014, uploaded to en: on June 6, 2014. Thuresson (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@ThuressonThank you.Then how can I transfer the file to Commons without using Commons Helper? It just returned that the file was uploaded to Commons previously but was deleted here.(ERROR: Warning duplicate-archive : 461472_144118915720601_141251566007336_176409_1205232217_o.jpg)廣九直通車 (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
You have asked for the file to be undeleted. If the file is OK an administrator will undelete it. Thuresson (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Сипягин В.В..png

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

глупое основание для удаления - использование этой фото на регнуме, где указано, что АП принадлежат мне АнатоликДАМ (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Planetshakers band en concierto en vivo.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Foto borrada sin motivo y sin sustento. Soy el propietario de los derechos de autor de esta imagen. Por favor restauren la foto. Muchas gracias.Chico sensación (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Green places Community Clubhouse.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter.

I wish to release my works under a specific free license.

attach the my link https://www.chain10.com/project.html

Not just this work,

Please tell me how should I do it.

thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chain10 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Files of WIKIBASIA

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I do not understand why this photo has been removed. I am its author and I agree to use it according to Wikicommons principles --WIKIBASIA (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)WIKIBASIAReply

Do you mean File:NOVI SINGERS IN WHITE PORTRAIT 2 (1977) fot. Barbara Szeremeta.jpg? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Polimerek: Are these files covered by Ticket:2018102910006334?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on

Latest comment: 6 years ago30 comments5 people in discussion

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

{{Support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: , please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only  Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission@wikimedia.org which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a wikimedia.org address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jcb: Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jcb: Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G.: I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uploads by Accipite7

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Encomio Solenne.pdf

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: mistake in deletion MarcoMichele2018 (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Comment. You shouldn't recreate deleted files out of process. Why is this Italian WWII document free of copyright? You need to tell us. Don't license historical documents cc-by-sa 4.0 unless you get them from a reputable source that licenses them that way. This document is not your "own work" (own work means you created the document). Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MarcoMichele2018 Abzeronow (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Walter WIZ (1921), kresba Milan Tošnar 1981.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

File:Walter WIZ (1921), kresba Milan Tošnar 1981.jpg Milan Tošnar (1925-2016) was my father. I'm the only heir - "kresba" is drawing (picture).

File:Walter Super 6 (1930) na vzpomínkové jízdě 1000 mil Čs. 2018.jpg I am the author of this photograph personally. The photo was created on Saturday 16th. June 2018 before the National Technical Museum in Prague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltosnar (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Libor Tošnar --Ltosnar (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:计客超级魔方.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The photo is taken by myself with my smartphone, and I did edit some information when uploaded. It should not be marked as copyright violation and be deleted. And I checked the reason which said copy from a link but the photos showed in the link are not like mine. Please double check for the photo.Guangiiker (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:На представлении тренерского штаба алматинского «Кайрата» 25 ноября 2018 года.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Неверно указал первоначальный источник. Первоначальный источник https://fckairat.com/news/klub/aleksey-shpilevskiy-predstavlen-komande-/ На sports.kz, который я указал изначально файл брали со страницы https://fckairat.com/news/klub/aleksey-shpilevskiy-predstavlen-komande-/ Makinsk (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Lenz Klára 00.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

After deleting this file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lenz Klára 00.jpg) the user uploaded this file to Hungarian Wikipédia: hu:Fájl:Lenz Klára 00.jpg. He claims that this photo was made in Venezuela after her emigrating to there, the end of the 1940s (see the article of en:Klára Lenz for details). She was born in 1924, so I think this statement is true. And if the photo was made in Venezuela, it is in public domain due the {{PD-Venezuela}}. The photographer is unknown. --Regasterios (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose as no proof that this was first published in Venezuela before 1958. Photo looks like it could be a 1950s photograph but need date of publication to evaluate claim. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
And what about if it is an unpublished photo from the family archive? The user is Lenz Klára's grandson. He live in Caracas. What more information would be needed to evaluate? --Regasterios (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
If it's unpublished, date of creation becomes important to see when it would be free of U.S. copyright. {{PD-old-assumed}} uses a 120-year rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzeronow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The uploader claims it was unpublished. But 60 years have passed. --Regasterios (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any info on how Venezuela treats unpublished material. Hopefully someone can clear that bit up. Abzeronow (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Cherechensergei.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Авторское право на фото принадлежит ООО "Информационный спектр" (сайт SPEKTR.BY). Владельцем и директором компании является Черечень Сергей Владимирович. Sadowskis (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Cesar Asenjo Jerez.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Serian tan amables de restaurar esta imagen, con anterioridad indique de forma incorrecta el autor de la Foto Franco Basso, producto que la entrega fue directa e indique erróneamente un link donde el subiría la fotografía pero no lo hizo, dejándola a disposición en wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenscts (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Anna Barkova.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Anna Barkova.jpg Photo from the investigation file. The photo was taken by an official photographer for the needs of the state and the court. The materials of the investigation file are a state document. {{PD-RU-exempt}}: "other materials of state government agencies and local government agencies ..., including ... other materials of ... judicial character". Like Category:Mug shots of people of Russia, Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union. Original photographs with attributes exhibited by several museums[8]. --Терпрп (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Barkova.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:1933-01-22 Henri André Hillewaert potloodtekening.jpg to undelete

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re: [Ticket#2018102910006138] or send an email with copy of awritten permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)

Geert, zijn de afbeeldingen al geupload? Kun je deze anders emailen, liefst met de bestandsnamen zoals Ilse deze heeft doorgegeven? Yours sincerely, Edo de Roo

Waren geuploaded, nu gedeleted, ik heb ze ook al eens per reply mail OP JULLIE AKKOORD doorgemailed. KUNT U DIT AUB REGELEN ? -- Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/

> > > > Bestand:1933-01-22 Henri André Hillewaert potloodtekening.jpg|1933 potloodtekening > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert kerkje van Vlassenbroek olie op doek.jpg|Kerkje van Vlassenbroek (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap olie op doek.jpg|Landschap (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap en boom olie op doek.jpg|Landschap en boom (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij boeket bloemen olie op doek.jpg|Boeket bloemen (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap en velden olie op doek.jpg|Landschap en velden (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij kerkje Vlassenbroek olie op doek.jpg|Kerkje van Vlassenbroek (olie op doek) > > ALL his other painting images > > > > Mvg, > > Geert DEBLIECK > > 0471 888 884 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geert Deblieck (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  •  Oppose Ticket:2018102910006138 is in process by an OTRS volunteer. You should be patient, and correspondence should continue via email. Please note that OTRS has a backlog of 30 days, and you have been lucky to receive a response within a week. Nevertheless, it may take some time (maybe months) to process the ticket completely, because OTRS is entirely staffed by volunteers and is shorthanded. Thanks for your understanding. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:DNR 2018.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

File:DNR 2018.jpg could you please restore the image of my band, I'm the owner of this photo, bassplayer and leder ofthe band, I don't understand why has been removed, thank you very much for your understanding. I'm ready to cofirm everything trough the official email of the bad info@dnrofficial.com (if it's needed) thank you --NewMoonGuy (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Kira (Marco Stasino) 03-12-2018Reply

 Oppose If your name is Marco Stasino, then why is it that Shi Yun Lee is the photographer and own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

She is my wife and my personal photographer too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewMoonGuy (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done Please wait for the permission email to be processed. The current backlog in permissions-commons queue is 3 days. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

ULC Lisa and Stedman

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Dietlin (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Lisa Dietlin if you mean File:Author Lisa Dietlin with entrepreneur Stedman Graham.jpg. Have the photographer contact Commons:OTRS to verify permission. Abzeronow (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files

Discussion

Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Keep Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).Reply

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138.

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in liesthrualens.com. If you see the url "Portfolio" in https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38, you will see that it links to http://ww1.danbowenphotography.com/.
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [9]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946 and http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847 has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha https://500px.com/monochromatique and https://www.flickr.com/photos/79376323@N03/ that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [10] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [11] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?


      • The site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [12]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [13]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  •  Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
          •  Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
            •  Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.


            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 www.liesthrualens.com redirected to thenarratographer.com.


@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [14]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to narratographer.com ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at archive.org - http://web.archive.org/web/20160204014528/http://www.narratographer.com/ - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply


 Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Avistamiento de delfines con Pescaturismo.png etc.

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Buenos días

Me pongo en contacto con vosotros porque se han borrado archivos de imagen y de vídeo de artículos que ya estaban publicados y de otros que estaba preparando. Todas las fotos y vídeos son de mi propiedad o tengo autorización para poder utilizarlos. Es posible que al ser novata haya cometido algún error a la hora de documentarlas.

Por todo ello os solicito que reconsideréis vuestra decisión o me indiquéis cuál es el error para que pueda solucionarlo.

Muchas gracias, Merce García --Mercè Garcia Roca (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is mostly Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mercè Garcia Roca. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:René Rock.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

René Rock.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by HontheimRP (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I can't find this file when I search "all public logs". However there is File:René Rock, 2018.jpg which has not been deleted yet, and File:René Rock (FDP).jpg which was deleted for "(Copyright violation: https://fdp-hessen.de/person/rene-rock/)" Any reason why File:René Rock (FDP).jpg should be undeleted? Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
René_Rock,_2018.jpg is copyvio from the same source. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Goergen 1951 2.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo, ich habe die Freigabe des Bildes mit dem Ticket#2018111710004795 erledigt. Mfg Werner Beckmann Fannigo

Fannigo (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

Karsten Rudolph (SPD).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I own the rights and would therefore like to publish the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BüroRudolph (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Shahram-Mirjalali.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

this file belong to me , it is taken to be used the cover of one of my art covers and now i am trying to use it in my wikipedia page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirjalalishahram (talk • contribs) 12:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mirjalalishahram: Who has taken this picture of you? 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Do NOT recreate deleted media! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Stephanie Horne.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The image that was deleted is the official portrait released by the Adkins-Horne campaign, to which Stephanie Horne is running as Lt. Governor. Not only has the campaign made it publically available (see: RockyForKy.com), media outlets have used it across Kentucky (see: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article221588695.html). The deletion suggested that the photo was copyrighted because Stephanie Horne used the photo in her Twitter profile picture, that is ludicrous. Of course an elected official/candidate would use their publically available portrait as their profile picture, they want a cohesive image, which is why they would have no problem with Wikipedia using the same article.

--Spexer99 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Spexer99 12/06/18Reply

@Spexer99: That's not how it works here and we are not a media outlet. In order to be here it must be under a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). That image clearly was not under a license we accept and therefore it was a copyright violation. You claiming it was under cc-by-sa-4.0 was also a blatant lie. Please do not mislicense photographs. In order to be here we either need an explicit statement on a public website saying that the copyright holder, which is generally the photographer not the person in the photo, has released it under an acceptable license or the copyright holder needs to fill out the form located at COM:ET and send it into our OTRS team. As it stands, the image is simply not going to be restored. --Majora (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Ishani-Shrestha2.jpg undeletion request

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Sir/Madam, The image I used named "Ishani-Shrestha2.jpg" was deleted on copyright ground. But I could find the same image in google advanced search under category of the images which can be shared freely. So, I want to consider the undeletion of the image.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajansharma (talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Sudhir-Yadav.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am requesting Undeletion of because the creator of this images has allowed anyone to use this image from any purpose. on his website i.e. https://www.sudhiryadav.in/my-photos/ he said "Hi I am uploading my Photos just so that All People are free to use this image anyone can use, copy, modify and sell it." so it doesn't have any copyright violation Digitaldiary4321 (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Flag Institute Logo.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I am a volunteer with the Flag Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Institute

I tried changing the logo of the Institute as the Wikipedia page still had the old logo.

The new logo I uploaded has been deleted twice.

I do not understand why.

I did not design the image, but I am able to upload it to the Wikipedia page on behalf of the Institute.

Could it be undeleted and re-uploaded to the article please?

Best wishes Bernard 7 December 2018 --Bigbermus (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose undeletion of File:Logo of the Flag Institute.png and File:Flag institute logo.png. Files hosted at Wikimedia Commons, our global media repository, should be freely-licensed or in the public domain per COM:L. Please upload the logo to the English Wikipedia locally using this link [16] per the policy of fair use. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Kannada and culture department Govt of Karnataka Declaration-Dec-27-2014.pdf

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This was a declaration from the Department of Kannada and Culture, Govt of Karnataka (GoK), India, releasing the books published by them under CC-BY-SA. This is the second set of books released by GoK. First set is mentioned in this file - File:Kannada and culture department Govt of Karnataka Declaration.pdf. Hence I request to undelete this file.--Pavanaja (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Eyelids - Synesthetic (Cover Artwork).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The file is a cover artwork taken from an external website (online music shop, where the album can be purchased) and is described as being taken from the third party, while in fact, I represent the band as a whole and I have all the rights to the picture, as I have created it. It is used only for promotion of the band and signed as their (my) property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmshy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose If you are the copyright holder, you should contact Commons:OTRS using one of the email templates linked on that page. Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:John with a scientist from NASA.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I request undeletetion for this file as this file contains no copyright violations and I have full authority to use this media freely on platforms such as Wikipedia. Please do consider my request. Thank you and God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazinnghelloworld (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose - please ask the author to contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Colpach-Bas jardin château 01.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Sculptures from sculptors dead after 1939 in Meyers Blitz Lexicon 1932

Copyright has expired on these. Aristide Maillol died in 1944, and Georg Kolbe died in 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done: {{PD-old-70}}. --4nn1l2 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Hasan Şıldak Resim.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Permitted by Burdur Goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellespontes (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose if you mean File:Hasan Şıldak.jpg, you shouldn't recreate deleted photos. You've been notified before that OTRS permission is required Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Mimiko-inauguration.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This photo is my work. I took it at Governor Olusegun Mimiko's inauguration in Febuary 2013. I was his official photographer from 2010 till date. I was a staff of the government at the time. A wikipedia user interested in Mimiko's profile (two of them in fact, one is a student in Ekpoma university and another a graduate student in Germany) notified us of the need to add photos to the governor's profile.

One of them had added the photo and it was removed because the reference to Flickr profile of the Mimiko Campaign Organisation was considered "not evidence of copyright ownership".

I, Sam Olusegun took the photo and I had added it to Wikipedia by myself. I have a whole gallery of photos to add to Wikipedia from Ondo State and about the governor. I wish to request that the photo is undeleted.

I want this matter resolved before I add other photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samolusegun (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Modern hijab in the 21st century.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My friend gave me the permission to use it for my project . She gave me the permission

--Saharsolomon25 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)--Saharsolomon25 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Sahar SolomonReply

File:ScottHarper portrait.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I had uploaded this image for the article on composer Scott Harper, however that article was removed by Speedy Deletion. I rewrote the article strictly following the guidelines of living biographies, and the article is now here to stay. It has been assessed as a Start-Class from a stub article. Please see the Wikipedia article here: Scott Harper (composer)

May I request for the image, the portrait of the composer Scott Harper to be undeleted so that I may include it in the article? File:ScottHarper portrait.jpg It is the only image I have been able to source that is public domain of the composer.

Thank you for your help. --Olivettilly (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Al fajr.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the deletion request it was mentioned that the photo was from a Fars News Agency photographer. "Fars News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" and there are many Fars News photos on commons. Streamline8988 (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Support - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done: Restored. --Majora (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

UDR by Alexis Jazz

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Some had redirects:

And no, undeleting these won't even come close to repairing all the damage. But I guess we need to start somewhere. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose - no reason for undeletion specified - Jcb (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Un-fucking-believable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Info From this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco.  Neutral until there is a specific reason to undelete these. Abzeronow (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Jcb is untouchable. How dare you suggest that he could possibly make an error. Don't you know that admins are infallible and must not be questioned?
There will be no review of the content here, or the question of licensing (and Jcb gets to make simple untrue statements about this and get away with it, as always). But Jcb is an honourable man and plebians do not get to question him.
Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Jcb Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_71#User:Jcb Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:Nicholas van Hoogstraten in 1988.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I think this file has a CC licence and should not have been deleted. I took the file "Marie Jahoda and Nicholas van Hoogstraten appearing on 'After Dark' with host Henry Kelly" in Category "After Dark", that was used in the article "Nicholas van Hoogstraten", and cropped the image to make it more specific about the subject. I then uploaded the cropped image file back into the same category, changed the file name, and then swapped it with the original file in the article about Nicholas van Hoogstraten. The original file noted its CC licence allowing unrestricted use, and I referred to that licence in the new file. I am, therefore, not sure why the newly created file has been deleted. (Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC))Reply

 Support - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Comment - a link to File:Marie Jahoda and Nicholas van Hoogstraten appearing on 'After Dark' with host Henry Kelly.jpg was absent, so that the story as above was not visible at the moment of deletion. Please be aware that you must provide proper source information on upload. Jcb (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
 Support Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done: Derivative of an OTRS confirmed image. I'll fix the tags. --Majora (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Nadja Naidenow Elba 1988.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am the Boyfriend of Nadja Naidenow and she personally gave me permission to use this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subscious (talk • contribs) 12:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please ask the photographer to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:MehranModiri-GhahveyeTalkh.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to iranian rules for photoes right this pic is free to publish by anyone because public relations of this project "ghahve ye talkh" had publushed it for public domain — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.184.80.73 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose Noncommericial only licenses are not acceptable for Commons Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:MehranModiri1.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to iranian rules for photos right, this pic is free to publish by anyone because the photographer of this pic had published it for public domain and it is released in every sites — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.184.80.73 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). --Yann (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:MehranModiri3.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I used a pic as it said under the first page "مطالب با ذکر منبع آزاد است" and it means that we can use the pic if we credit ilna as I did and Safari( the photographer) is working in ILNA. why you delete the pics that are from that site and they are free to use? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.184.80.73 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Stuart Merrill par Albert Sterner.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stuart Merrill par Albert Sterner.jpg

Albert Sterner died in 1946, so this is now public domain in France. 1889 work so also PD-1923. Pinging @Infrogmation who was closing admin Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Mehran Modiri in Concert.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I used a pic from a site that it said under the first page "مطالب با ذکر منبع آزاد است" and it means that we can use the pic if we credit ilna as I did and Safari( the photographer) is working in ILNA. why you delete the pics that are from that site and they are free to use? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.184.80.73 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Mehran modiri4.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I used a pic from a site that it said under the first page "مطالب با ذکر منبع آزاد است" and it means that we can use the pic if we credit ilna as I did and Safari( the photographer) is working in ILNA. why you delete the pics that are from that site and they are free to use? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.184.80.73 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

File:MehranModiri-Hezarpa-38.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the bottom of filmnetnews.com is written: کپی از مطالب فیلم نت نیوز با ذکر منبع بلامانع است

That it means "you can copy the content by filmnetnews if you credit to the site" I credit to it so it is no need to delete — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.184.80.73 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Oppose No evidence of a free license that allows for commercial use for any purpose. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: Now, this insistence smacks of disruption. The user was blocked [26] some time ago, and while they are not blocked now, they are using IP address to make several undeletion requests. They have received a comprehensive response, but still they insist on their position. They are also using OTRS system as a kind of forum shopping ticket:2018120810004238. By the way, the file has not been deleted yet, and this request does not merit further attention. --4nn1l2 (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=330718863"