To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IC 1101 (SDSS III).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IC1127-SDSS.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:M78 sdss.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0002 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0060 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0157 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0252 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0364 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0400 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0407 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0459 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0523 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0530 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0584 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 821 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1020 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1062 SDSS Aladin.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1474 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1488 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1491 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1496 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1539 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1541 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1542 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1552 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1568 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1576 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1580 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1586 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1587 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1588 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1589 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1590 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1593 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1594 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1604 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1607 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1609 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1610 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1614 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1615 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1620 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1628 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1635 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1642 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1643 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1645 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1924 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC3550-SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC5929-5930-SDSS.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:PGC 53372 SDSS.jpeg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikisky.org-NGC16-SDSS.gif

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".

Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.

If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

If the SDSS images were in public domain, what the SDSS license for images would be for? Licensing of something that is already released to PD is poinless and raises a significant doubt as per COM:PCP.

If the images are CC-licensed and not PD, I suggest to request undeletion of images that can be currently found on SDSS site and cannot be reuploaded due to earlier deletion: this way you can identify current source for the deleted images. Unfortunately, most of the above images lack precise information about source; they have {{Own}} or "English Wikipedia" provided as source. Ankry (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry bro, I and @SevenSpheres meant that before SDSS moved to PD, these images are uploaded and deleted due to at that time the things were copyrighted but now as they are under PD these images should be undeleted as they are now not copyrighted and are under PD. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

S o what is the CC-BY license (as mentioned in the initial request) for? Maybe, the "data" applies to numeric data only. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think he meant about CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see ) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM ^(t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM ^(t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM ^(t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Then  Neutral as I do not know where the text in NOP Slovenia not consisting with the legal act content originates from. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This interpretation of the law is provided in: Trampuž, Miha (1997) (slovene) Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah: s komentarjem, Gospodarski vestnik. --TadejM ^(t/p) 19:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZeta^C 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Polserb,

You are allowed to upload any file that is in the COM:Scope and under a free COM:License.

One could argue that the file is not in the project scope if it contains errors.

Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Several Chinese pictures

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above

Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above

Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above

Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above

File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

There are many more cases, I'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.

In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.

From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。

I don't believe the Directive can give us any clue about this, considering it's not even a law.

(also, to provide some guidance, check this discussion where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born.

For the post-October 1949 Mainland scenario, the question is "when" did the RoC law expire.

• Is the expiration date the proclamation of the PRC in 1949?
• Is the expiration date the creation of a Constitution in 1954 (it's 1954?)
• Given the non-existence of any copyright law until 1996, was the RoC law the one to consider prior to 1991 (even if 1991 was retroactive)? NOTE: under international law, copyright should never be considered non-existent
• Can we agree that at least any work created before 30th September 1949 is under RoC law?

That's why I asked for any court ruling anything on this regard, to have some kind of guidance (I hate when Commons users became judges on Copyright issues, which I believe happens sometimes here) TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The enactment of the 1954 Constitution is irrelevant to this issue, as the PRC government had already promulgated numerous edicts prior to that year. For instance, the Regulations of the PRC on Punishment of Counter-revolutionaries was enacted in 1951.

Furthermore, Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on September 29, 1949, served as the de facto Constitution. Official sources have confirmed that the Common Program functioned as the interim constitutional law during that period. Teetrition (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on pre- proclamation should be a safe terrain (Proclamation of PRC, 1st October 1949).

Even if I insist on asking if there is any judicial precedent on any kind of court, be it Chinese or international, ruling on this issue. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Still, changing a Constitution means nothing.

• Spain have had several regime changes by 1987, and still they used the same XIX century copyright law under all of those different regimes.
• Current copyright law in Iran is from the Sha's time.

RoC copyright law the last copyright law in China in the 1950s-1980s. They don't having any kind of copyirght protection or recognition is not an issue of changing the laws, but because of their very specific understanding of Communism. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Indeed, 1950 Conference resolution and 1984 regulations are considered to be valid texts and seminal to copyright in China.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I found some legal base under PRC law:

• 1950 Publishing Conference Resolution is considered the first legal work where copyright is mentioned (there was an administrative recognition of copyright as something which exists, but there is no term)
• 1994广电部 608号文 confirms 1950 as the strating point of copyright in China (for films) it states:

现对1949年10月1日至1993年6月30日期间国产电影发行权归属问题作出以下规定

October 1, 1949 (the date of the PRC's founding) is the starting point. Films from this date forward are treated as having 版权 (copyright) from the beginning, and they're considered to have copyright because they had distribution rights (1950 Resolution, which was for books). There a alot of nuances on this law, but at least we can consider 1st October as a safe date for under RoC laws works.

合同期限超过十年的（包括影片发行权永久性或一次性出售给中影公司的如《生死树》、《关键时刻》之类的影片），根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》合同的有效期限不超过十年的规定，从合同签订之日起按十年计算，合同期满后发行权归制片厂，必要时双方可以续订合同。

--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:7Games Logo.png, File:Betao logo.png, File:Logotipo OIG Gaming Brazil.jpg, File:Logo One Internet Group.jpg

Hello,

I am requesting the undeletion of the following files and categories deleted on 22 March 2026:

Files:

• File:7Games Logo.png
• File:Betao logo.png
• File:Logotipo OIG Gaming Brazil.jpg
• File:Logo One Internet Group.jpg

Categories:

• Category:7Games
• Category:Betao
• Category:OIG Gaming Brazil
• Category:One Internet Group

These files and categories were deleted as G10 (advertisement/spam) in the context of a sockpuppet investigation involving the accounts d:User:Pamela drudi and User:Fernandin oig on Wikidata.

However, on 24 March 2026, a full undeletion request was submitted on Lymantria's talk page on Wikidata with extensive independent sources demonstrating the notability of these entities. The full discussion can be found here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Lymantria#Request_for_undeletion_of_Q138685752,_Q138711584,_Q138738665,_Q138749746

Administrator User:Lymantria reviewed the request and on 31 March 2026 restored all four Wikidata items:

• d:Q138685752 – One Internet Group
• d:Q138711584 – OIG Gaming Brazil
• d:Q138738665 – 7Games
• d:Q138749746 – Betão

All four items were restored with the note «As requested», acknowledging that the original deletions were made in the context of a misunderstanding that has since been resolved.

The logos and categories are now needed to illustrate the restored Wikidata items. The original files were legitimate logos of notable Brazilian companies that operate under federal licences issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Finance.

Any questions, I am ready to help.

Thank you for your time.

Beto Amaral pm (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just following up on this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support Images are educationally useful (at least on Wikidata) and should be undeleted if no other problems (such as with copyright) exist. Pinging deleting admin @Lymantria. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I undeleted the one that I deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging other admins (apparently, there's more than one who got invloved in the deletion) @Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy You can review this undelete request regarding my images. If you have any questions, I'm here to help. Thank you. Emigma Sonhador (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio, @The Squirrel Conspiracy, don't keep us waiting, huh. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 22:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have undeleted the 3 categories, which are currently empty. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, please undelete the files you deleted (mentioned above). Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 07:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, you're the only one left, please respond. This has been going on for over a month now. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your attention @Dabmasterars@Lymantria . I see that @Túrelio restored the files he deleted, including the categories deleted by @The Squirrel Conspiracy, but one file deleted by @The Squirrel Conspiracy is still missing. I'm still waiting. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Georges Arlabosse.jpg

• File:Pierre-Georges Arlabosse.jpg was a better version of File:Arlabosse.png, and probably be PD (PD-EU-anon, etc). Perhaps File:Arlabosse.png needs a DR... JayCubby (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment File:Arlabosse.png is in use on 28 pages..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I can fix that JayCubby (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:1948年三毛流浪记 大公报.jpg

per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=1182351221#Several_Chinese_pictures, similar pre-1949 Chinese works were already deemed PD under ROC law and not subject to URAA, so this file should be treated consistently. --JaydenChao (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The works in the DR cited above are anonymous photographs, so their copyright term was publish plus fifty years. This is a cartoon drawing by Zhang Leping (1910-1992), so it will be under Chinese copyright pma plus 50 or until 1/1/2043. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

per , 著作物用官署學校公司會所或其他法人或團體名義者，其著作權之年限為三十年。(English: For works published under the name of a government agency, school, company, association, or other legal entity or organization, the term of copyright shall be thirty years.), newspaper publications are typically issued under the responsibility and name of the publisher, which may indicate corporate authorship under Article 7. JaydenChao (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a signed drawing, so it was published under the name of its creator, albeit probably in a periodical of some sort. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Snail photos by User:II52tt52

• File:Parakaliella serica.png
• File:Parakaliella serica2.png
• File:Parakaliella serica3.png

I had tagged these as COM:NETCOPYVIO because they were previously published on Reddit. Turns out the Commons user and the Reddit user are one and the same. They added "I tried to upload a photo I took to Wikipedia, but it got removed. This photo is also on Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA" to https://www.reddit.com/r/snails/comments/1paeiyr/parakaliella_serica_pilsbry_1926/, so please add a license review as well to prevent future deletions. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Parakaliella serica bottom view.jpg

File:Parakaliella serica bottom.jpg

File:Parakaliella serica side.jpg

File:Parakaliella serica.jpg

I have re-uploaded the high-definition photos! Will there be any issues with the newly uploaded photos......? II52tt52 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@II52tt52: I hope not, but you may be required to contact the Volunteer Response Team to verify your ownership of the photos

Chill :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't know what VRT could achieve here. This is a job for a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Faraday's Law of Induction shown in EM fields.gif

I never received any notice of the proposal to delete this image. It is not a personal or low quality image as claimed, but a valuable illustration of Faraday's Law of Induction, which I was about to add to that article--Loodog (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I find it confusing, in that it moves too fast and the timing is wrong -- the field appears before the magnets. We have many images that do a much better job of this. It is, as noted, personal art of a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Well, let me take another look. No... I confirm that the timing is correct. Remember that the electric field swirls are not proportional to the magnetic field but to its time derivative. The B field goes like sin(omega*t) so the E field swirls go like cos(omega*t), which is necessarily ~~pi/4~~ pi/2 ahead of the field in its phase. I can link you the colab code; it's really just taking time derivatives this way so there's not much to mess up.

2. As for the many images, the fact that none of the images linked are animated was what led me to create this gif to illustrate to a student of mine. I just thought that once I'd generated the gif, it would be valuable to a larger audience than just the one person I made it for.

3.On the issue of the image moving too fast, that's a reasonable take and I can easily modify the code to slow it down to whatever pace works better for illustration purposes.

Thank you for your time in reading and considering my response. Loodog (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled by your labeling of me as non-contributor. I've been contributing significantly to Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects for 18 years. Loodog (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Timing: The field appears before the arrows, which is backwards. Or perhaps I don't understand your symbolism -- note that I studied electrical engineering at Cornell...

As for Non-contributor -- 23 uploads over 19 years does not look like an active Wikipedian to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. A user with 16,948 edits. Account created on 12 January 2006." I specifically created this gif to add to the Faraday's Induction Law article.

2. Explain which field you mean. Maybe you're concerned that the electric field doesn't assume an initial condition of B(t=0)=0. The electrical field will be exactly pi/2 ahead of the magnetic field for reasons described above. When the magnetic field is 0, it is also in maximum change (sin(omega*t) has a max derivative when its value is 0), which is when the electric field will be maximum. Again, I can give you the colab code but the math it implements is very simple: derivative of sin is cos.

Loodog (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Crumbling Castle.mp3

Deleted per COM:Deletion requests/File:Crumbling Castle.mp3 due to the officially stated non-commercial license and dubious public domain claims. The track has since been relicensed CC BY 4.0 (see Bandcamp page), meaning it is now compatible with Commons' licensing policy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 13:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support: the DR was 1.5 years ago; we're good Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of General Trias, Cavite.jpg

I wish to undelete the Flag of General Trias, Cavite, due to:

I own this flag, The owner gave a free license, though it is government created I have ownership to my flag

Please undelete the flag as soon as possible...

I have ownership to the file.

By: Government26⚙️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government26 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose per © Copyright © 2023 City Government of General Trias. Government of General Trias is not the same as Government of Philippines. It also does not seem to be a government-owned and/or controlled corporation. Ankry (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

More files by Renamed user c65d0c50abae01d9e87c128f272c0451

In continuation to a previous undeletion request in April, these are more images but the same user that were deleted as lacking source. The user claims to be own work and that removed metadata to protect personal information (See Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2024/09#Adding_source_tag_for_a_large_amount_of_images). The files were marked as own work and that there was no reason cited as to why this would not be true. Some of them were full size and with EXIF data (eg. File:Μεταβυζαντινές τοιχογραφίες Αγιών στον Άγιο Αθανάσιο Αλεποχωρίου 4.jpg, which was recently undeleted by Yann), but some others are smaller and stipped of them.

• File:Ταφόπλακα από το 1691 στον Μεταβυζαντινό Ναό Αγίου Αθανασίου Μεταξάδων.jpg
• File:Δάσος Μεταξάδων.jpg
• File:Η περιοχή όπου στεγάζεται η Ρέμβη, κοντά στο Ύψωμα των Μεταξάδων Έβρου.jpg
• File:Παρεκκλήσι Προφήτη Ηλία Μεταξάδων.jpg
• File:Πλεκτή ανδρική παραδοσιακή φορεσιά περιοχής Μεταξάδων σε κούκλα.jpg
• File:Πλεκτή παραδοσιακή φορεσιά περιοχής Μεταξάδων σε κούκλα.jpg
• File:Παραδοσιακή οικία Μεταξάδων Έβρου.jpg
• File:Εσωτερικό Αγίας Παρασκευής Αλεποχώρι Έβρου.jpg
• File:Αγία Τράπεζα στον Μεταβυζαντινό ναό Αγίου Αθανασίου Αλεποχωρίου.jpg
• File:Εσωτερικό Μεταβυζαντινού Ναού Αγίου Αθανασίου Αλεποχώρι Έβρου.jpg
• File:Συντριβάνι στον κεντρικό δρόμο του Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Ο Ιερός Ναός Κοιμήσεως της Θεοτόκου στο Αλεποχώρι Έβρου.jpg
• File:Αμπέλια Αλεποχώρι Έβρου.jpg
• File:Μικροφράγμα Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Παραδοσιακά στοιχεία μέσα από τον σύλλογο Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Ποτάμι Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Παλιό σχολείο Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου, σήμερα Σύλλογος Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Ο μεταβυζαντινός ναός Αγίου Αθανασίου στο Αλεποχώρι Έβρου.jpg
• File:Εξωκλήσι Αγίας Παρασκευής στο Αλεποχώρι Έβρου.jpg
• File:Φυλάκιο Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Πλατεία Αλεποχωρίου Έβρου.jpg
• File:Ναός Αγίου Αθανασίου Αλεποχωρίου.jpg
• File:Πέτρα Μεταξάδων.jpg
• File:Ιερός Ναός Προφήτη Ηλία και Σύλλογος Μεταξάδων.jpg

There are also some maps which were apparently based on open street map, which is available with a compatible license, deleted again as lacking source:

• File:Χάρτης μεταβυζαντινών ναών στην περιοχή Μεταξάδων EN 2.png - that had been kept after a deletion request, but despite that it was deleted subsequently as lacking source
• File:Χάρτης μεταβυζαντινών ναών στην περιοχή Μεταξάδων GR 2.png
• File:Χάρτης μεταβυζαντινών ναών στην περιοχή Μεταξάδων GR.png

C messier (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please Restore File:Every Ism Creates a Schism.png

Please restore the File:Every Ism Creates a Schism.png The file was used in the essay Every Ism Creates a Schism and was specifically commissioned to represent the topic of the learning resource it is used by. Please note that the file was in use until the user making the deletion request edited the essay, presumable to support this deletion request. The image is a brilliant visual representation of the key concept of the essay. The central sphere represents objective reality, our common ground. Each ray extending from the common ground represents an ideology, an “ism” which is a fixed set of beliefs that that are often substituted as a simplified and ridged shortcut to reality. These ideologies continue to branch into a multitude of schisms. The red-blue gradient represents the political divide. By following any branch toward the center, we can escape ideology and find common ground.

Please restore this file so I can again use it in the essay it was commissioned for. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose AI slop in an article written by one who has no particular qualifications to write it. The In Use rule does not apply to works where the creator and the person creating the article in which the work is used are the same and especially in cases such as this one where that person created and made all of the substantive edits in the article. We do not keep art by non-notable artists; that is particularly true of AI art. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

File:DuaneQuamSombrero.jpg

Requesting undeletion because the file is public domain --~2026-27504-56 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Material on Twitter is generally not public domain. Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose And the overall quality, both cropping and focus, is so terrible that it is unusable for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)