Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

Sloppy deletions: Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam was started as "Not used logos of non-notable companies and photos of non-notable people, spam / out of scope" by Xunks. Among the files were File:ArmeniaTV logo.png and files with similar names. Ikan Kekek asked "Is Armenia TV not notable?" Wikipedia says it is "one of the leading TV channels in Armenia". P199 closed the request "Deleted: per nomination. Unused logos are not educational, out of scope".

This is troubling, as IK notes in Commons talk:Deletion requests#"Unused logos are not educational, out of scope" as a deletion reason.

Being in use makes a logo automatically in scope. Not being in used means the assessment must be done on other grounds. How can a company with an article in Wikipedia be regarded not notable by Commons? How can an administrator blankly state that unused logos are non-educational?

Obviously this closure was a mistake. I don't know whether some of the files are out of scope as I cannot read the descriptions or view the images, but if they are, they should be deleted in a new DR with better rationales.

Something is wrong with the procedures when such sloppy nominations can succeed.

–LPfi (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the files mentioned in the linked DR, there are only 2 different logos, one of Armenia TV and one of a "Film factory". The others are (sort of) duplicates, and two show people. A more relevant rationale for deletion might have been the fact that the uploader claimed all these files as own work, which is unlikely, at least for the logos. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logos are obviously almost never going to be own work, but if they are textlogos and therefore DR, they shouldn't be deleted on that account, right? However, I don't remember what TV Armenia's logo looked like and I'm no expert on laws anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azure Logo.jpg is a similar case, but without a Wikipedia article to make it as obvious. I think "no educational value" is not a convincing reply to: "Textlogo, and a web search shows a good deal of media mention of this company. One example: 'Azure Pharmaceuticals, which compiles the Medicine Shortages Index, said manufacturers including companies producing medicines domestically are getting paid up to four times as much for their products abroad than in Ireland.'" Instead, the closing admin should have addressed how the media coverage of the company is somehow so insufficient that the logo couldn't possibly be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you all think about that case? Should I nominate it separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the DR was not handled perfectly.

  1. File:HarutShatyanAraBaghdasaryan.jpg
  2. File:Ara Baghdasaryan.jpg
  3. File:Film Factory logo corner.png
  4. File:FILM FACTORY LOGO crop.jpg
  5. File:ArmeniaTV logo.png
  6. File:ArmeniaTV.png
  7. File:FILM FACTORY LOGO.jpg

1 is two unidentified men. 2 probably should be restored 3, 4, and 7 are the logo of a completely unidentified organization. Depending on the country of origin, it may or may not have a copyright. The logo may or may not be in scope. 5 and 6 are almost certainly in scope, but probably have copyrights and probably are not the work of the uploader as claimed. 1, 3, 4, and 6 have no useful categories. Category:Director and Category:Producer are far too general. Files without categories are useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2 in scope as depicting a random person or as depicting Ara Baghdasaryan? In the latter case 1 is probably depicting Ara Baghdasaryan and Harut Shatyan, not two unidentified men. I assume they are from Film Factory in Yerevan. I don't know the notability of that company (or whatever), but I don't think it is hard to find for somebody who read Armenian. Thus most files might be salvageable description-wise, allowing useful categories to be added. However, if the logos are above the threshold of originality and we don't have permission from any copyright owners, then little can be done. –LPfi (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenia TV logos are very likely below TOO in the US, but the legal situation in Armenia is unclear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalle-Paatalo-1969.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These photographs were free to use at the time of deletion for two reasons:

§ 1. The lawful copyright holder, Finnish Heritage Agency (FHA), had released them under CC-BY-2.0 license. So there was no copyright violation in the first place. (Although the license at Finna has not been updated, the more lenient license at Flickr is the one to be followed.)

§ 2. These files are Public Domain anyway because these are over 50 years old press photographs from Finland (and PD-Finland50 applies). It is difficult to understand the original campaign against Helge Heinonen’s pre-1972 photographs here. Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Since these are photographs after 1966, URAA would apply. I'd also be inclined to say that we don't follow the Flickr license but rather the license at Finna. This may require COM:VRT anyway because how do we know Heinonen's copyrights were transfered to FHA? Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. A quote from an earlier discussion: “In this particular case the collection was donated to Museovirasto at 2016 [1], [2].”
In a case of conflicting licenses from the same holder, the more recent and the more lenient one must be taken into account, so as to determine their actual intention. (The FHA simply doesn’t have manpower enough to update the licenses into Finna, too.) Heinonen’s photographs were originally published in Finnish magazines, e.g. Apu. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the link on Heinosen's donation. Technically, the CC-BY-ND 4.0 is a more recent license than Flickr's CC-BY 2.0 license. But in terms of chronology, both licenses were applied on the same day so you could make the case that either applies. I'll let someone more experienced than I in these matters determine if they can be multi-licensed or not. Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the file File:Pentti-Saarikoski-1977.jpg was kept because it has CC-BY-2.0 at Flickr but something else at Finna. It seems safe to consider the Finna license obsolete in a case like this, and trust the one at Flickr, given more recently. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought on the matter, and seeing that other Finna files are passed with a CC-BY license, I have decided that I will  Support this undeletion request. I really hope FHA does update their licenses though so things like this can be avoided in the future. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment [3] exists currently in Commons. --Geohakkeri (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:São José dos Campos flag (construction).svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per PD-Brazil, as a vector recreation of a work published or commissioned by a municipal government in Brazil in 1960, which is prior to 1983, this work falls into public domain. File was deleted for the stated reason of "no license". Image will be used as base for new version of File:Bandeira de São José dos Campos.svg. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: flag has been uploaded as new version of Bandeira de São José dos Campos.svg. Withdrawing my request. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: request withdrawn. Ruthven (msg) 09:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg

I am requesting undeletion on the presumption that this file is a raster rendering of the front cover of the 1973 Pink Floyd album Dark Side of the Moon (if this is not the case, please quickly close this request as misguided). I presume that this has been deleted on the basis that the work is copyrighted in its country of first publication (such was the assumption at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg), but I don't think that this is actually copyrighted after more closely examining the history of the work and looking through copyright registrations.

The creative portion of the art composing the album cover's key artistic representation is the light refracting through a prism to form a rainbow (see: File:The Dark Side of the Moon Cover.svg for an existing vector version of this on Commons that appears to be mistagged as below TOO). The first time that this artwork was published appears to have been in the United States (the album released in the United States on 1 March 1973 and was only later released in the United Kingdom), so the source country of the work as referred to in COM:LICENSING appears to be the United States rather than the UK (see: COM:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, which notes that [t]he "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published). Based off what I'm able to find, I don't see a copyright notice for the cover art on the original album's front or back cover, and the artwork for the album cover itself appears in an advertisement published on Page 3 of the February 24, 1973 United States edition of Billboard. The latter would warrant a {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} tag if that is indeed the first publication of the artwork, while the first publication being considered as the release of the U.S. album on March 1 would render the {{PD-US-no notice}} appropriate.

To confirm that was not missing something obvious, I also did search through copyright records to find evidence of registration of a copyright for the album cover artwork in the United States, but I was not able to find an applicable registration record. The URAA would not restore this artwork's copyright, as this artwork was published in the United States before it was published abroad.

In light of the above, this looks like a work first published in the United States that is not copyrighted in the United States for failure to adhere to copyright formalities, and it should be undeleted on Commons as such.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment it is this Flickr file. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support A similar image illustrates The Dark Side of the Moon with a fair use tag. According to the article, the original release was in a gatefold cover, so perhaps the copyright notice appeared on the inside? However the appearance in Billboard seems to be definitive.
Note, by the way, that registration was not required in 1973 and, unlike the period 1978-1989, registration did not cure lack of notice, so it is irrelevant to the discussion of a 1973 work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. COM:L requires that the work be free in "at least the United States and in the source country of the work". It does not further define "source country". I have always assumed that that was the country of first publication. According to the cited article, the work was not a preexisting work -- it was created by Hipgnosis in several versions for Pink Floyd. Although it was created in the UK, its first publication was in the USA. So, which is the "source country"? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Source country," or country of origin, is the country of first publication per the Berne Convention ("The country of origin shall be considered to be (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country.") Эlcobbola talk 13:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Berne Conventions uses "country of origin" while we use "source country". That suggests to me that they can be different, so that doesn't answer my question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it did--"'Source country,' or country of origin, [...]"--they are one and the same. You yourself use them interchangeably. That clause, by the way, was originally rendered as "country of origin" but has morphed since. This is a wiki; language is routinely revised, and not necessarily (and indeed seldom) with reference to source documents or care for linguistic precision. When you read "the United States and in the source country of the work", what precisely do you think "source country" could mean otherwise in context? What did you think "source country' meant here, here, here, here, etc.? Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Эlcobbola, I don't understand. On the one hand you oppose restoration on the grounds that the source country is the UK. On the other hand, you argue that "source country" and "country of origin" are synonymous. Berne defines "country of origin" as the place where first published in most cases and says
""published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. [snip] the exhibition of a work of art and [snip] shall not constitute publication." (Article 3 (3)).
Since Hipgnosis created the work for Pink Floyd, it was never exhibited or copied until the album was published in the USA, so how do the facts make the UK the source country? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction; please reread my initial comment. Publication is the distribution of copies (or copy) of a work by sale or other transfer of ownership. The sale from Hipgnosis to Pink Floyd is publication. The subsequent use of the work by Pink Floyd on the album was with Hipgnosis' consent. "[I]t was never exhibited or copied until the album was published in the USA" is simply untrue, and contradicted by both common sense and the many, many articles on the origin of this work. Per the Copyright Office link I provided above, "When a work is published in a foreign country and then subsequently published in the United States, the publication in the foreign country is considered the first publication of that work." This is a U.K. work. Эlcobbola talk 20:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my reading of the Berne definition. It requires sufficient copies "to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public". Mere exhibition is not publication and there is nothing in the Berne definition to suggest that licensing a work is publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The position of the United States Copyright Office is "When a work is published in a foreign country and then subsequently published in the United States, the publication in the foreign country is considered the first publication of that work." Publication is the distribution of copies (or copy) of a work by sale or other transfer of ownership. The US considers this a foreign work, whatever your reading of Berne. Эlcobbola talk 21:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree -- it was not a normal sale of copies, rather Pink Floyd was licensing the work for use on its cover. Whatever copies were given to let them make that decision, would be considered "limited publication", since Pink Floyd would have had no right to distribute them further. Same thing for a book author -- they will distribute copies to publishing houses in order to get a contract, but that is limited publication. They are not "general publication" until copies were distributed to someone who was free to distribute them further (i.e. copies of the book were sold to bookstores and the like). Movies were not generally published until copies were sent to the distribution company -- a private screening by the production company was not general publication. Pink Floyd licensing the work would not cause a publication right then. It can seem counter-intuitive when this is a British company licensing to a British band, for sure. That fact through means it's more possible there were advertisements in the UK prior to actual release of the album, so the details will come down to what evidence the parties can bring up in court. If they can find where the work was published in the UK more than 30 days before the US, it would be a UK work which got restored in the US. If it was published within 30 days of each other, the lack of notice may have lost US copyright while the UK copyright is still valid, and Europe (now that UK is not part of the EU) would need to use the Berne rules only, which means the country with the shorter terms... which I'm not sure about what would mean in this situation. Maybe the US, which would (without the notice issue) last 95 years from 1971, versus the UK, which would last 70 years from 2013. I am hesitant on this one, just on the possibility that there was publication in the UK in some form earlier, but given the evidence we have, does seem like a US work (or at least simultaneous work) which means the lack of notice still matters in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A publication is limited if it "communicates the contents of a [work] to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale." (underline added)(White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952)) "And" is not "or." If I purchase a work from Hipgnosis with the objective, and Hipgnosis' knowledge and approval, of using it on my commercial album cover, the plain is fact is that it was with right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The story goes that Hipgnosis showed several possible designs to Pink Floyd, who unanimously and instantly picked the one which ended up on the cover. But, the final artwork probably wasn't done until later, and it sounds like the band members got involved a bit too (more on the inside), and someone else did the final artwork, so sounds like joint authorship (some of whom are still alive). It was not a design they were selling to anyone who came along who wanted it (which I would agree would be general publication), but a private work made specifically for the album. The area is gray enough to be a little arguable, but it's not like Hipgnosis was selling copies just then. I don't see a US copyright registration for it, though I do see them for several other Hipgnosis covers, and in all of them the copyright was owned by the record company -- so from a US perspective, they most probably just sold the unpublished common-law copyright (possibly to the band instead of the label), and was still unpublished until the copyright owner did something further. If there was a registration, the date on that would rule, but I could not find one. There was apparently a London premiere on February 27, so it was certainly published in the UK by that point. We did find a US advertisement from Feb 24. Odds are, there were also earlier ads in the UK as well -- we may simply not know about them. That chance (along with the gray area on exactly when publication was, and the visibility of this particular work) does make me hesitant. Publication per the Berne Convention (which is what the 30-day window and "country of origin" is based on) though would pretty much require copies available to the public (though ads and billboards would count), so it's probably more the dates of that which matter more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I always though to "source country" and "country of origin" as to be the same, and as being the country where a work have been firstly "published" or "made available to the public"'. E.g. the photos I take in France, I edit on my computer in my home in France, and that I publish on Wikimedia Commons are firstly published in USA, and are protected in France because of the Berne Convention. That being said, not being a specialist in the many specificities of USA copyright, I am neutral about the Pink Floyd disc cover, but Jim's reasoning seems consistent. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are virtually the same thing -- the Berne Convention uses the term "country of origin", and the US URAA law uses the term "source country". They are basically equivalent, except in the case of simultaneously published works (within 30 days); the rules about determining the country differ between the two at that point. But yes, both are the country of first publication for the most part, regardless of nationality of the author. If unpublished, the rules can also be slightly different between the two. In your example, there can be questions on if they were published in France (since you distributed them from France to Wikimedia Commons), or the U.S. (where they became available to others). Or if it means they were simultaneously published in all countries of the world (since all have access to Commons). Some judges can rule on slight differences of interpretation like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola: I agree with you that a publication in the UK an indeterminate period before the release of the album would pose a problem here, but I'm not sure we've got evidence that the work was published in the U.K. prior to its distribution in the United States of America. I'm reading the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by subsequent legislation), which defines "publication" as the issue of copies to the public. It's not clear to me that copies were issued to the public prior to the publication of the cover art in an ad in Billboard; are you saying that unless Pink Floyd/its record company are to be considered "the public" for the purposes of the U.K. statute?
Would you be willing to elaborate more on why you believe the sale of the artwork/grant of a license to use the artwork worldwide to Pink Floyd constituted publication of the album cover under the law of the United Kingdom? Is there relevant case law or U.K. government guidance that I'm missing here, or am I just misreading the statute? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. I'm looking in a bit more to see if there was publication of something like the design prior to February 1973. This poster appears on several websites as being an ad for Pink Floyd's May 1, 1972 Carnegie Hall performance. The design is similar to this 1973 poster, but I have doubts about the authenticity of the design. The poster isn't in the Pink Floyd Archive, nor does it appear consistent with the style of the other posters, but the archive does confirm that there was a concert on that day in NYC. That led me to this poster allegedly from February 1972 relating to a concert at the Rainbow Theatre in London, England. Similar sort of situation (I'm skeptical of the authenticity), but I did want to share these for transparency sake in case my skepticism is misplaced. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg's arguments above are pretty convincing, but your link to the archive shows that there was a performance in England on January 20th, 1972. Don't you think that the cover design was shown at that place and time? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They had some of the songs written by then, and were experimenting during performances, but the actual recording did not start until late May 1972 at Abbey Road, lasting into June, with some more work there in October and then later in Jan/Feb 1973. Possibly some other times, in between their touring. It sounds like Hipgnosis brought their designs to the band in a basement room at Abbey Road, so the design couldn't have existed before then, but not sure exactly when during that recording time it was decided on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE Following file: File:Stefan Bladh.jpg

This is my self portrait file, taken in my studio with remote controlled shutter - please undelete this picture asap --Stefanbladh76 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support HR with EXIF data, while the copy is small. Also this is a good portrait, so it is in scope. Yann (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sufficient proof of authorship, high-res version not found online. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:joseph volpicelli headshot.jpg Please undelete; I own this photo

This image is found on instituteaddictionmedicine.org because I run that website! I took this photo with my iphone and edited with my own software. Please undelete so I can continue to edit my draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriffith10618 (talk • contribs)

Appreciate the quick response. As you can probably tell, I am a novice editor. I have never used wiki before so I'm having to youtube or google every step of the way. Would it be more simple to just take another photo that hasn't been used for anything else yet? I visited the VRT page and am feeling like it might be more than I can handle. Lgriffith10618 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually figured it out! VRT was extremely helpful. Loving this community. Thanks again. Lgriffith10618 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg and others

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

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

 Support That has happened to me a couple of times (one of which I caught before deletion and fixed). Restore the original uploads/credits. Possibly rename, or just make the newer names a redirect to the original one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My photo has been deleted and I would like to appeal. What I have done is translate the photo File:Nitrogen fixation Fabaceae en.svg into Basque. The author of this photo is (User:Nefronus), I hope we can use it.

File:Nitrogenoaren zikloaa.png

They have blocked my photo and I would like to appeal, since the only thing I have done has been to translate the image File:Nitrogenoaren_zikloa.jpg of(User:Mulenholaadios) into Basque. I hope it can be fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaitzduquee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source is copied from [4], with no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nitrogenoares ziklo irudia.jpg

They have blocked my photo and I would like to appeal, since the only thing I have done has been to translate the image into Basque. I hope it can be fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaitzduquee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Comment No file by that name, but this probably concerns File:Nitrogenoaren zikloa irudia.png. Yann (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Derivative work from [5]. No evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete file - Dr. Adil Shamji.jpg

I am the rights holder and photographer. This is the official headshot of the MPP and should be used on this page at his request with my permission. It is provided to the official government sites as well. --PSmithYYZ (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support HR with EXIF. The links mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. Adil Shamji.jpg are small copies. Yann (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg

I have submitted vario­us files to the Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 contest.​ but 3 of the files I sent have already been delet­ed.​ In my opinion, my deleted files were deleted because the admin users made a wrong decision about my files.​ but I think my files were covered by Wiki Loves Folklore 2023. Plea­se re-examine the de­leted files. If you re-examine my deleted files, you can see that each of the images in the files has elements of folklore.​ I also wrote this in the discussion section of the candidate files for deletion.​ but the user in the management who deleted my files deleted the files without paying attention to them. maybe it would have been one of the winners in Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 if my files hadn't been deleted--Naturalezalover (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Naturalezalover. Yann (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is doubtful that the pictures should be deleted anyway. Naturalezalover (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rómulo_y_su_banda.jpg

Se ha enviado autorización del autor para ser publicada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacicuri (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not own work, and no permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=753047306"