Bonn Zoological Bulletin

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoologica5712010zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoologica5722010zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoological6012011zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoological6022011zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoological6112012zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoological6122012zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoological6212013zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/bonnzoological6222013zool/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document bonnzoologica5722010zool
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document bonnzoological6112012zool

For example:

• File:Bonn zoological bulletin (2012) (19771709524).jpg which is from , p. 262

The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License per https://zoologicalbulletin.de/content-policy. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Support per nom Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

 Support same Wikisquack (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per above. --Yann (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Francisco Narvaez Paris 1929.jpg

Deletion rationale needs review. --RAN (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Support Old enough to be PD. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose In both France and Venezuela, for anonymous works, the copyright term begins upon publication. As noted in the DR, there is no evidence that this was published until recently. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per RAN and Nard. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Eupsophus insularis.jpg and File:Eupsophus insularis top.jpg

These files were originally deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Recent uploads from ReneeWrites (per the uploader's request) for not having a free license. However, looking at their pages on iNaturalist shows these images are available under a free license (CC0). (Eupsophus insularus.jpg on iNaturalist, Eupsophus insularus top.jpg on iNaturalist). Tymewalk (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Support The uploader promptly requested deletion of these and we generally honor such requests. However, as noted correctly by Tymewalk, these appear with CC-0. Since we have no images in Category:Eupsophus insularis, I think we should restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per Jim, license reviewed. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:An anciet statue.jpg

Hi, I would like the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_anciet_statue.jpg to be undeleted, as a new update has confirmed the author’s permission for upload to Wikipedia. The author has agreed to have it uploaded under the CC BY 4.0 license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshax (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Advice first: Please use wikilinks (the link button in the reply system may help you)

Anyways, did they contact the Volunteer Response Team? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Fellow Kids.png

This file was uploaded to exist in the Google vendors portal. I followed the instructions and uploaded it as requestred. Can I please undelete it. --Nealfellow (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia foundation is not your free web host but there are companies that will sell you web hosting if you will pay for it. Thuresson (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

OP appears to have simply recreated the image; I'll nominate it for G10 and they need an indef Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused, we do not indef raw beginners (5 total edits Globally) for things that newbies often do. We don't even block them. We put {{Dont recreate}} on their talk page (which Yann has done) and keep an eye on them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Unquiet Nights Live in Italy.jpg

This picture was taken by myself and is my own work at Marmore Rock Festival in Italy on 08-08-2013. I give usage of it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) Dazjones251 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://eclecticmusiclover.com/2019/06/12/new-song-of-the-week-unquiet-nights-four-winds/ without a free license. Policy requires that the actual photographer must therefore send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, understood. I can send a free license using VRT. Dazjones251 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:JG6484.jpg

• File:JG67594.jpg

Please restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19970-72 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose: no reason given. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Probably not {{Own}} as claimed. No categories and no useful descriptions, so these are out of scope even if the copyright is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tajiks of Uzbekistan.PNG

This file was nominated 3 times for deletion (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tajiks_of_Uzbekistan.PNG) but was kept each time. All of the deletion nominations were arguments that the map was biased or inaccurate, but, per COM:NPOV which explicitly discusses maps, that is not grounds for deletion on Commons.

Despite that, it was eventually deleted with the log stating: No permission since 4 January 2025. I do not see what justified that rationale, since, from what I can see on the Wayback Machine, it had permission (a CC license of the own work of the uploader) and was derivative of an underlying PD source (File:Central_Asia_Ethnic.jpg). —Micler (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The three DRs referred to a different file. The latest file is quite different from those that were kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If that's true, then can we undelete the file that was kept? From what you say it seems like "revert" should have been done, not "delete", no? Sorry if I'm not understanding here. Micler (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I  Support restoring the last file that was kept after the DRs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I cannot undeleted the file due to phab:T422130. Yann (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Images of Stadio Olimpico (Rome)

Hi everyone. I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

• File:Image-Roma stadio olimpico2.JPG
• File:Roma stadio olimpico1.JPG
• File:Roma stadio olimpico2.JPG
• File:Roma stadio olimpico3.JPG
• File:Smoke on the Stadium.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico 2009.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico after works.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico Field.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico in Rome.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico roof.jpg
• File:Italia-Argentina.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico 29052011.png
• File:Stadio olimpico as roma.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico Concerto Madonna.JPG
• File:Stadio Olimpico Field.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico in Rome.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico, Roma.jpg
• File:Stadio Olimpico, Roma2.jpg

They were all deleted in 2013 after these DRs. They all depict the en:Stadio Olimpico in Rome. It was almost completely demolished and rebuilt between 1987 and 1990, before the 1990 World Cup. The project for the reconstruction was designed by Maurizio Clerici (1929-2019) and en:Annibale Vitellozzi (1902-1990). The project was commissioned by the en:Italian National Olympic Committee, which is a public entity. Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2011. It's a building visible from the public space, therefore there's no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2024 (PT)-Matrix.pdf

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026040110012331 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: . --Abzeronow (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Matrix-energia-BESS.png

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026040110012331 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:NightShift 1532x2176 StewDeane.jpg

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026022610001997 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:TRUMATCH Color Model.jpg File:Hue 28.jpg

I am the copyright holder and release the images, "TRUMATCH Color Model.jpg" and "Hue 28.jpg" WMsteve (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Steve Abramson

 Oppose: OP is engaging in self-promotion at w:Draft:TRUMATCH Color System. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose @WMsteve: Please, request undeletion after the relevant Wikipedia article is accepted. Ankry (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment A logo does not have to be in use for it to be kept, as long as it can serve an educational purpose and is under an appropriate license. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 11:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, the educational part is uncertain Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The second file is File:TRUMATCH Hue 28.jpg.  Oppose I think Ankry has it right -- WMsteve should request restoration only after the article is accepted on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. I will not seek to restore the images, which illustrate the organization structure of the TRUMATCH system for 4-color process, until WP has accepted the article. Steve WMsteve (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:DepEd Undersecretary Michael T. Poa.jpg

Hello please undelete this photo because I mistaken that photo is copyrighted. This photo is public domain came from the website of Department of Education (Philippines).

These official portraits are public domain.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240501085329/https://www.deped.gov.ph/about-deped/deped-executive-committee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniker0501 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Support: per nom; this should be marked with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I cannot undeleted the file due to phab:T422130. Yann (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Sylvester Magee chair.jpg

This wwas originally an AP Wirephoto distributed without a copyright notice as can be seen here and it was published in many newspapers with no copyright notice at all for example:

• The Orlando Sentinel
• Houston Chronicle
• Ann Arbor News
• St. Petersburg Times
• Spokane Chronicle
• Detroit Free Press
• The Evening Sun (Baltimore)
• Hartford Courant
• Newark Star-Ledger

Previous discussions about similar wire photos: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#h-Copyright_for_wire_photos_published_from_1963-1978-20250214230200

Special:Diff/425814117#File:Campus_Guns.jpg ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @999real: FYI. Please add the author if known. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Yves LOAËC.jpg

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026040210011633 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  @JJPMaster:  Done

Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Joy-Slayd.jpg

• File:Leroy-Jacques.webp

I want picture back — Preceding unsigned comment added by G-frero (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Both of these are copyright violations, along with all of this editor's other uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose per Jim; OP is also blocked for the pattern of copyvios. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Super Flu Press by Falko Gerlinghoff 017.jpg

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026040310008949 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Miodrag Topić.jpg

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026040310002669 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami 06.png

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026032910021557 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Claudio Del Pup portrait.jpg

I request undeletion of this file.

The image is a self-portrait of Claudio Del Pup (DURIK), and the author of the photograph is the subject himself. The file can be properly licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I can provide confirmation of authorship and permission if required.

ArchivoSur (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The permission was never completed. Please ask Claudio Del Pup to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Works attributed to Nora Blanka Vlášková

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026031310006497 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Jaroslav Šolc artworks

26px|link=|VRTS Please restore the file per Ticket:2026031310006497 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: Please add the license. PS: Please use a simple * list, otherwise the undeletion tool doesn't work. --Yann (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Natalia Markova.jpg

• Please restore the file per Ticket:2026040310006398 for permission verification. JJP_Master (she/they) 20:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @JJPMaster: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Grant Report SUPER SIGN.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Grant Report SUPER SIGN.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: : Well this is awkward. I accidentally uploaded that file while mass exporting Meta files, and so I marked it for deletion as it was out of scope. Between the time of marking it for deletion and it actually getting deleted though, the local copy was deleted, meaning there is now a big ugly redlink in the transcluding page. Can someone temporarily restore the file so I can reupload it onto Meta‐wiki? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN _{wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo} 05:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Anohthterwikipedian

Hello, I suggest you ask a Meta-Wiki administrator to undelete the local copy instead. Otherwise, Request temporary undeletion

Best, Wikisquack (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Solution lies with Meta, not here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Just an FYI, this file has already been undeleted on Meta on 23 March 2026. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 17:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Hugo Chávez Frías.jpg

Although the original Flickr upload is licensed as "All rights reserved", which reads:

"The content owner retains all rights provided by copyright law. As such, you cannot reproduce, distribute and/or adapt any part of the work without permission",

which would by itself would be grounds for removal, according to the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325:

Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition,

permission to use this image is given by the previously mentioned law releasing works like it into the public domain.

As such, I believe that the photo should be reinstated, since the image was uploaded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (a ministry of the Venezuelan government, making it part of the public sector) official Flickr account, with the image being, according to said account's profile, courtesy of the Presidential Press (also part of the Venezuelan government and public sector). thinqpad (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been recently uploading multiple Venezuelan media from official sources, so I like this proposal of undeletion (also related to this discussion, check Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NoonIcarus).

For a Chávez portait, however, I'd like to ask: When was the file released on a Government-owned channel (Flickr, in this case)? Was it prior or after the May 2012 date? I'm not sure if the law is retroactive. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Good question; to begin, the image was released in April 2012. Regardless, the law is retroactive, since all works previously made or owned by the Government were released into the public domain through it, including, for example, a previous portrait of Chávez. The copyright already belonged to the government; as previously mentioned, the law just served as a way to release the works it owned already. thinqpad (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

So who is the photographer that has a legal right to be recognised for her or his work? Thuresson (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The Government hasn't shared their name, all we know that the copyright currently belongs to it. They were the first to publish the image, after all. thinqpad (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

So there is no evidence at all that suggests that the photographer is a government employee or that the photographer was paid by the government to take the photo? Instead it may be a press photographer and the government does not own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It says "foto oficial" and it's published by the Venezuelan cancillería. I believe it is safe to be assumed the "foto oficial" of the Venezuelan government was indeed made by a government employee (or it's a corporate work, anyway).

Indeed, because it is a Corporate Work, it even seems logical to me they don't share the photographers name (they don't need to).

To me the important question is if the (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325 of Venezuela is retroactive or not. Questioning if an official portait published by the government could have been license-washed is not what I believe should be done in this conversation, In my humble opinion. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Who spoke of license washing? The photo is not licensed. The ministry states that it is all rights reserved, not free. The burden is on who claims that they know better than the ministry to present convincing reasons to contradict the statement, and prove that the photo is free in the United States and in its source country. Even in the hypothesis that the photo were uncopyrightable or otherwise free in its source country, no rationale has been offered for why it could be free in the United States. For the status inside Venezuela, as discussed in previous discussions, it seems a shaky theory to extract out of its context a bit of sentence from the Law on the Labour norms, and try to apply it to general copyrights. It seems that we do not have doctrine from Venezuelan legal professionals about that theory. (And I don't know if anyone has found what was the result of the constitutional challenge of that particular part of the Labour law.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The ministry states that it is all rights reserved, not free

Where? {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} clearly applies here, and (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325 has been applied in Venezuela, so, whether you like or hate the government, the law does apply. And any work in PD in the home country is also in the US, the exception were the works restored by URAA 1st January 1996, and this file was created after the date.

(And I don't know if anyone has found what was the result of the constitutional challenge of that particular part of the Labour law.)

Yes, the law remained: I couldn't find the exact rulings, but here is a 2024 text proposing changes to the law, antoher work critising the law, but pundits complaining does not make a law null. It seems obvious the Venezuelan courts are applying the law, otherwise there won't be articles critizing it.

So,  Keep the file, forward with undeletion. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Where?" At the source, of course, at the ministry account. It is the reason why there was a deletion and why there is this undeletion nomination here. It is copied and linked by the nominator at the top of the discussion. So, "whether you like or hate the government", the burden is to prove the opinion that the government is lying or wrong when it states that this photo is all rights reserved. About "any work in PD in the home country is also in the US", that's not how it works. A work that is copyrightable in the U.S. and is published after 1989 gets a copyright in the U.S., independently of its copyright status in other countries. A photo published in 2012 got a U.S. copyright. On the Venezuela side, thank you for the mention of the judgments. Are there links to online copies, by chance? Does one of the three contain something relevant for this issue? If so, I certainly would read it. The issue being if and how a bit of the Labour law outside of its immediate context could be invoked to trump the copyright law in matters of artistic copyright (not industrial process). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

the burden is to prove the opinion that the government is lying or wrong when it states that this photo is all rights reserved

"All rights registered" is the default license on Flickr. Obviously, Venezuelan copyright laws are far more important than whatever the default license says.

A photo published in 2012 got a U.S. copyright.

Assuming it was ever published in the US.

On the Venezuela side, thank you for the mention of the judgments. Are there links to online copies, by chance? Does one of the three contain something relevant for this issue?

I found whatever I could find (it's not easy to access to texts about the Labour law) and those are linked. They're in Spanish, though.

The issue being if and how a bit of the Labour law outside of its immediate context could be invoked to trump the copyright law in matters of artistic copyright

You're judging the legitimacy of the Venezuelan law system. And that's out of Commons user's scope. I don't know which legal procedures were used by the Venezuelan law system to consider such a law with such a writing valid, but it is a fact this law has been in use since 2012 in the country. Commons does apply the laws as the courts do apply, not as their indivual users believe it should be done. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

On the constitutional aspect, I'm happy to just assume that the Labour law is constitutional. There's no need to go out of your way to find more about it. I was asking mostly in the possibility that a decision might also contain something that could bring some light about the opinion of the user who added the bit to PD-VenezuelaGov, which seems a stretch in the absence of at least doctrinal support. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Nobody knows the name of the photographer and the circumstances at which the photo was taken. It is undisputable that it is available at Flickr with the license "All rights reserved". Thuresson (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

And you know the photographer and circumstances in which an official portait of a US president was taken? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes: en:Portraits of presidents of the United States. Thuresson (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, you got me. But this is the paintings, not the photos. Trump's first portrait was taken in December 2016 by an unnamed staff member, ahead of Trump's first inauguration in January 2017.

Still, other countries might have different customs, and even US used unsigned works. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion -- ARR on source site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Signed complaint mangione - arrest photo.jpg

According to Wikisource this file is free because it was relased by US federal government, if it is free there why it can't be free on commons? --Wikitalovin1 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

ps (if the file is not free at all it must be deleted also from Wikisource). Wikitalovin1 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

"Deleted: per nomination. No indication that Altoona police have waived their copyright and Pennsylvania does not automatically release government works to public domain." – Abzeronow closing the first request

 Oppose and delete from Wikisource (s:Wikisource:Copyright policy § Fair use prohibits fair use) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't think Commons admins have the authority to delete content locally hosted on Wikisource. You would have to initiate a deletion discussion at s:Wikisource:Copyright discussions to have it deleted there. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: of course I know

Perhaps we can wait for this one to close before taking action on the Wikisource file Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

English Wikisource should delete it, but that's a matter for them. The photograph is not a federal government work, but a work of the Altoona Pennsylvania Police Department. Abzeronow (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Undelete. I have trouble seeing the copyrightable subject matter here. The guy who took the photograph didn’t design the building, or lay out the interior; Mangione picked his outfit that day, not the photographer; and nothing of the composition of the shot is unique (at least that I can see). Just because someone took a photograph doesn’t automatically imbue that photograph with a copyright; there has to be some sort of creative choice beforehand to justify it. (See Burrow-Giles, which discussed the creative choices informing the composition of this photograph.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

TE(æ)A,ea., I'm not sure I understand your comment. In Burrow-Giles, the Court found that photographs have copyrights. As far as I know, except for Bridgeman, there is no US case law that says otherwise for photos that were actually taken by humans. The mere act of pushing the shutter button at a moment is enough creativity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• (Jameslwoodward): But that’s not what Burrow-Giles said. The Court recounted how the photograph came “‘entirely from [Sarony’s] own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression,’” and that, because of these creative choices, the photograph is “an original work of art, the product of plaintiff’s intellectual invention,” and therefore eligible for copyright. In fact, what matters is not the “act of pushing the shutter button,” but the creative choices; the Court favorably cited a case in which it was held that the person who designed the composition for a photograph, and not the person who actually pushed the shutter button, held the copyright. The Court also disclaimed copyright in such photographs as “involve[] no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose That may all be true, but as far as I know, in the 130 years since Burrow-Giles, there have been no cases except Bridgeman in which the Court denied copyright for a photograph made by a human. Also, while Burrow-Giles dwelt on creativity, the current USCO Circulars use the word "original", but creativity is not mentioned. In long lists of things that have copyright, there are a variety that have little creativity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Images of Stadio San Nicola

Hi everyone. I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

• File:Stadio San Nicola - Curva Nord.jpg
• File:Stadio San Nicola Bari.jpg
• File:StadioSanNicola.jpg
• File:Stadio San Nicola .jpg

They were all deleted in 2013 after two DRs (1, 2). They all depict the en:Stadio San Nicola, designed by en:Renzo Piano. The stadium was built between 1987 and 1990 and it was commissioned by the Municipality of Bari (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2011. It's a building visible from the public space, so there's no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sei Ami Nei Ami stills

• File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami featuring Fazlur Rahman Babu 03.png
• File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami featuring Fazlur Rahman Babu 02.jpg
• File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami 03.jpg
• File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami 02.jpg
• File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami.jpg
• File:Bangla Eid Natok 2026 Still frame from Sei Ami Nei Ami featuring Fazlur Rahman Babu.jpg
• File:Bangla eid natok 2026 Sei Ami Nei Ami Poster 01.jpg
• File:Bangla eid natok 2026 Sei Ami Nei Ami Poster 02.jpg

Per ticket:2026032910021557. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

{{Doing}} Ankry (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done @JJPMaster: Please, fix the source/authorship and verify licensing information as per the ticket. The screenshots / posters are definitely not unpublished works by an anonymous Wikimedia user and cannot be hosted so. Ankry (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All files uploaded by User:Simuliakrai

Per ticket:2026032910021164. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: They are deleted due to lack of information about their license. We need information about the declared license to undelete. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry: The copyright holder asked for CC BY-SA 4.0. JJP_Master (she/they) 16:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Per the permission granted in the ticket, all images from the Category:Photographs_by_Gytis_Grizas can be restored. It is true that the cc-by-sa-4.0 licence was specified. As for the other files uploaded by @Simuliakrai, the text in the ticket is ambiguous. I will ask the client about it. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done @JJPMaster: . Ankry (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:FPPICTURE.jpg

Kindly undelete the file as I will be tagging it with {{cc-zero}} to release it into the public domain.

Thanks!--Aultrition25686 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aultrition25686: How did you acquire the copyright to this photo? Thuresson (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

As contained and sourced from his official website:

https://femipedro.com/media Aultrition25686 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aultrition25686: Where is the CC0 license declaration on this website? Works that were already published cannot be licensed on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update @Ankry

How can the image be published alongside the page? Aultrition25686 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Per policy, we need either a free license declaration at the initial publication site, or a free license permission from the actual copyright holder, who in most cases is the photographer, using VRT. If the author has transferred copyright to someone else, the person granting the license may be asked to prove this fact (eg. providing a copy of copyright transfer contract). Ankry (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry: Perfect. Will reach out the original publicatin site for a free license declaration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultrition25686 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mosaic_Street_Art_-_Style_de_RV2011.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2026032310011462. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Mussklprozz: This was uploaded twice. Please check history. --Yann (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mosaic Street Art - style de Waldo.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2026032310011462. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:類延峰2026.png

I would like to request the undeletion of the file “File:類延峰2026.png.”

This image was uploaded with the consent of the subject, and it reflects his personal choice to have this specific photo used on his Wikipedia page. The file is intended solely for identification and informational purposes within the article, and its use aligns with the subject’s preference for how he is represented publicly.

Given that the image is directly related to the individual and supports the completeness and accuracy of the article, I kindly ask that it be restored.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsun2088 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a free license permission from the copyright holder (presumably the photographer who made the original photo used). See VRT. And do not reupload deleted images or you may be blocked. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Aksel Bech 2025.jpg

A Facebook post has been made that confirms CC BY-SA 4.0 license.TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a selfie, so the license does not seem to be granted by the photographer. If copyright has been transferred, the actual copyright holder may need to prove that using VRT procedure. Ankry (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:tim mander.jpg request undeletion

Hi team,

Request undelete for tim mander.jpg

This is his official portrait on the parliamentary website. Unaltered. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Members/Current-Members/Member-List/Member-Details?id=951395001

This seems to be provided under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License.

 Comment Non-commercial licenses aren't acceptable on Commons. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done As well as non-derivative ones. No valid reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

This image provides a visual record of a notable Maranao digital strategist and cybersecurity educator. It is intended to illustrate an upcoming or existing biographical article regarding his contributions to digital strategy in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abfiphco (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please give actual file name. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mosaic Street Art - Style de Mr Djoul.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2026032310011462. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: yes I have noticed that there were two attemps to upload. It is partly my fault, because I left the ticket unanswered for too long. Mussklprozz (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Pr Jean Verne (années 1950) Col. Famil.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2026040110004705. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: What is the declared license? Ankry (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry: cc-by-sa-4.0. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done @Mussklprozz: note, the image seems to be signed by the photographer. Ankry (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Covers of books by Adrián Daumas

Please restore:

• File:AdriandaumasPrincipe.jpg
• File:AdriandaumasEco.jpg
• File:AdriandaumasElTributo.jpg

We have permission from the graphics designer per Ticket:2026031710011152.

Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Muzeum Fotografii w Krakowie.jpg

It seems that agreement sent to VTRS is valid, but the VTRS agent who managed this ticket forgot to put the relevant template. See ticket:2026022010003077, Polimerek (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Kaina Bernd.jpg

Prof. Bernd Kaina asked me to upload his photo to his wikipedia page. I am his secretary and the information contained on this page was submitted by me years ago with his consent. If you want to verify this, please send a message to Prof. Kaina, he will confirm it is as described. Regards, Paula Vinhais --Paulavinhais (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Paulavinhais: Hi, Sorry, but it doesn't work exactly that way. We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is by default the photographer, not the subject. If the copyright was transferred, which can only happen in writing, we will need a proof of than. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg

Per {{Simultaneous US publication}}, we generally consider images simultaneously first published in the United States to have a country of origin of the United States, regardless of where the photo was actually taken. en:File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg demonstrates several US publications which must be at least simultaneous given the date the photo was taken. See also Based5290 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support undeletion and reopening the DR: the simultaneous publication argument was not raised there. Ankry (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Fishing.1101.jpg

File:Fishing.1101.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

This file has been deleted with many others as personal, but this file is good example of amateur fishing (sorry if I am wrong). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm convinced that all aspects of fishing can be illustrated without using photos of partially nude people. Thuresson (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't object to the bikini, but it's not a great picture. Her feet are cut off and the dark background obscures the rod and bait. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Thuresson. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Nanda Herbermann Ehrengrab.png

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2026033010006606. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Mussklprozz: please update permission and add a license. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Nilia Viscardi Perfil

Content collapsed. Out of scope of undeletion requests. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No deleted gallery with this name. Ankry (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ralph Nader 2000 Oval.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Ralph Nader 2000 Oval.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having permission although the source is File:Ralph Nader 1999.jpg. Obviously User:Krd should not be involved with deleting files on Commons. Thuresson (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose A third pointless work by Benadrylchallenge. I see no reason why we need an image of Ralph Nader in a green oval. We have more than 80 pictures of Nader and I can't see any educational use for this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All other primary photos have this. Democratic Party, Republican Party, and the Green Party in 2020 and 2024 has this. It's fair to have this for the rest of the candidates (including Libertarian), Can't you use this same argument against the Republican and Democratic Primary pages? The Green Party Primary pages past 2016? the Libertarian Party Primary pages past 2016? It's not fair to exclude certain primary pages but let others keep it, either let them all or non of them. Benadrylchallenge (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per discussion, keeping consistency across 2000 election. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Files provided by the Museo Histórico de Salud Mental del Hospital "José T. Borda"

All but one file of this category have been deleted. Please restore the other ones. We have permission per Ticket:2026032610015908. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Deleted files are no longer in a category and search through deleted page content is not available. Please, identify the files. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry okay, I will try to get them from the client. Mussklprozz (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You may give link to DR. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: See below. --Yann (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Files provided by the Museo Histórico de Salud Mental del Hospital "José T. Borda"

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2026032610015908.

Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Powergroundmoon.jpg

 Not done: No reason provided, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Péter Kiszl in 2026.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Péter Kiszl in 2026.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: licence and permission arrived in ticket:2026040710008254. Bencemac (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The permission given in ticket:2026040710008254 seems valid to me. It is in Hungarian, which I do not speak, but according to automatic translation by deepl, it is the standard permission text which is used in many languages. Do we have any VRT agents who speak Hungarian? – If not, I think we can be so bold to answer to the ticket in English and accept permission. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

See also Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#VRT_agent_seeked_who_speaks_hungarian. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: I can confirm the validity of the permission, please check my user page. Bencemac (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bencemac I am also convinced that the permission is valid, but lets see if we find a VRT agent who speaks Hungarian who can deal with the ticket. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is that I am a VRT agent, but let me ping @Regasterios and @Grin. Bencemac (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Bencemac: Please add the license and the author. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

File:David Cobb Oval Portrait.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:David Cobb Oval Portrait.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having a source although the source is spelled out clearly, File:David Cobb on fire.jpg. It would be a public benefit to not have User:Krd delete files. Thuresson (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason to keep this. It takes a blurry image of a man and crops it into a green oval background. We have several much better pictures of the subject, so I see no educational use for this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All other primary photos have this. Democratic Party, Republican Party, and the Green Party in 2020 and 2024 has this. It's fair to have this for the rest of the candidates (including Libertarian), Can't you use this same argument against the Republican and Democratic Primary pages? The Green Party Primary pages past 2016? the Libertarian Party Primary pages past 2016? It's not fair to exclude certain primary pages but let others keep it, either let them all or non of them. Benadrylchallenge (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per discussion, fairness in election media. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Board of Peace logos

Please restore the following pages:

• File:BOARD of PEACE full logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Board of Peace logo (2).png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Board of Peace logo (cropped).png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Board of Peace logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Files were deleted in a fairly small DR, which, while making a reasonable doubt that the image was created by US Government employees (which I would dispute as it was first published by US Government employees and the organisation was set up by the US Government, but alas consensus was that there was enough doubt), mostly ignored the fact that they are an AI-generated work and cannot be copyrighted in the United States, which doubles as its origin country. Per COM:AI the files are okay copyright-wise, and they should be undeleted with {{PD-algorithm}}. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Note that the "fairly small DR" had five delete comments (including the nom and the closer) and no keep comments. That is actually more discussion than happens in most DRs.

The claim that somehow these do not have a copyright seems odd to me. Even if they were entirely created by AI, a human thought up the design and give the AI the instructions necessary to create the works. Further, there is no evidence that they were not, at least in part, created by a human artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Images of Stadio Brianteo in Monza

Hi everyone. I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

• File:MB-Monza-Stadio-Brianteo-01.jpg
• File:Monza-Stadio-Brianteo-02.jpg
• File:Monza-Stadio-Brianteo-03.jpg
• File:Monza-Stadio-Brianteo-04.jpg
• File:Monza-Stadio-Brianteo-05.jpg
• File:Stadio Brianteo Monza.jpg

They all depict the en:Stadio Brianteo in Monza and they were all deleted in 2013 following this DR. The stadium was built between 1982 and 1988 and it was commissioned by the Municipality of Monza (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2009. It's a building built before 1990, so there's no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Marcos Ivan Vilchez Ruiz - Daz Zuvr - Official Portrait 2026.jpg

Hi Yann. Thanks for letting me know. I've already corrected the file information. The error was in the author's name in the template. Please check the file's change history, and you'll see that it was originally under my name. The author's name that appeared initially was an editing error in the template. I am the original author of the work (Jose Ángel Gonzales) and the subject of the photograph (Daz Zuvr). The authorship is my own (Own work) and now matches my user account (User:Jose Ángel Gonzales). --Jose Ángel Gonzales (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: File not deleted -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Fishing.11102.jpg

File:Fishing.11102.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) this file has been deleted as personal, and is better than File:Fishing.1101.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (it's undeletion has been declined). Fishing being in bikini isn't unusual, so it makes sense to illustrate such fishing. Thanks. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Standing on the foredeck is not a good idea, so this image might be a good illustration of "unsafe fishing". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

If even this fishing isn't safe, it exists, together with many other unsafe things. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I don't think this is a valid reason for keeping it deleted. However it may still be out of scope, as mentioned above. Yann (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, the photo depicts following: a woman in a red bikini stands on a boat, fishing with a rod. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

For complete clarity, the woman is standing on the foredeck, when she should be in the cockpit, and is without a PFD. The rod is almost invisible against the background. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Not very useful, but well... --Yann (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:ONLYOFFICE logo (default).svg

Per https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/blob/master/LICENSE.txt, this logo is also licensed under AGPLv3.

Also please reinstate related files depicting ONLYOFFICE logo. --Ahri Boy (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: All logos undeleted. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please undelete the photo: Andrea zoom (headshot).png

Hello! I would like to return to the file Andrea zoom (headshot).png and have it undeleted. I will be using it to build a page about Andrea and she authorized the use of this particular photo.

I would very much appreciate help - I am so new to all the Wiki things and it was difficult to figure out how to proceed.

Thank you for understanding!

Kind regards, Olya--OlhaKlymenko (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@OlhaKlymenko: Do you mean your the only upload File:Andrea Greenhous.png? The file may be undeleted after a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder (presumably the photographer) is received and verified by VRT permission team. Ankry (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is File:Andrea Greenhous.png. As noted in the upload, the image was taken from https://www.vision2voice.ca/ which has "Vision2Voice Communications Inc. © 2026" and no free license. Permission from the subject is not helpful, as is permission to use an image on WP -- images here must be free for use anywhere by anybody for any purpose. In order for it to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:雲普發標誌.png

its not violation of copyright. I am the brand owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlags0519 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ruben Sim (2026).jpg

on march 8th, i initially told the photo's subject to email the wrong address by accident. (permissions-en@wikimedia.org instead of permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) it was my first time uploading a file to commons, but this was quickly fixed. the image was released under CC BY SA 4.0. i told them that i had contacted someone to tell the subject to make the email: they misunderstood this as a "proxy statement", when the subject themselves had in fact sent the email. after that, they couldn't locate the permission sent the first time. so it was sent again, and i gave image proof that this permission was given. that was march 10th.

since then, VRT has been radio silent with me, after follow-up emails on the 19th, 31st, and april 7th. the image was being used for a wikipedia good article about the subject, and the infobox no longer has an image after it was deleted. as of now, the VRT noticeboard hasn't replied either. the ticket is ticket:2026030910013442. can someone please tell me what i have to do from here? Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject rarely has the right to freely license an image. Even if the subject has a license which allows them to use the image, such licenses very rarely allow the licensee to freely license it. VRT is almost certainly waiting for a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

only took 33 days for someone to say anything... Kinnimeyu (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

permission has been sent out by the original photographer, michael (schlep), now that i know this was required. Kinnimeyu (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ruby slippers display promoting The Wizard of Oz at Sphere on Aug 28 2025.jpg

I think this file should be moved to Wikipedia for use on the article "The Wizard of Oz at Sphere." I am currently unable to edit Wikipedia because I do not want to run the proprietary hCaptcha software. Can the one who approves the undeletion request transfer the image themselves, as well as revert "Revision as of 16:17, 6 April 2026" by CommonsDelinker? If not, I plan to make an account eventually and then I can request undeletion again in the future. ~2026-22143-53 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The file is available at Flickr, this request should be made at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Thuresson (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:René_Deroux.png

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2026030310007577. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: @Mussklprozz: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Undelete File:Social isolation.jpg

Dutch Wiktionary, WikiWoordenboek used the file "Social isolation" as an illustration of the Dutch word "mobieletelefoonverslaving". On 18 June 2025 it was proposed to delete this file from Commons with the stated reason "Ai generated". WikiWoordenboek was properly notified that day, and I argued to keep the file, referring to COM:INUSE. On 26 June 2025 it was kept for this reason.

On 24 February 2026 Dronebogus made a new proposal to delete this file from Commons with the stated reason "Awful looking AI slop". This time WikiWoordenboek wasn't notified. When Prototyperspective argued to keep the file, referring to COM:INUSE, Dronebogus twice attempted to delete the picture from WikiWoordenboek and was reverted both times. Dronebogus saw no reason to create awareness on WikiWoordenboek of their proposal to delete the picture on Commons or even state their reasons in an edit summary. On 28 March 2026 User:Pi.1415926535 deleted the file with the reason "incredibly poor quality". I politely asked Pi.1415926535 to undelete, but they instructed me to make this request here "and let the community decide".

In this case the relevant community to make a decision is WikiWoordenboek, as Dronebogus showed by his failed attempts. Commons' editors do valuable work, but deciding on the most appropriate way to illustrate the meanings of Dutch terms, including the suitability of AI-generated images for this purpose, is better left to the WikiWoordenboek community. As for the Commons community, it has made clear decisions by way of COM:AI and COM:INUSE. Of course one may advocate to change these decisions, but if we want to work together we should adhere to guidelines and official policies in the meantime. As Social isolation was in realistic educational use, I request undeletion of this file so WikiWoordenboek can use it again. MarcoSwart (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@MarcoSwart: This file has severe generation artifacts endemic to LLM-created images: inhuman faces, extra limbs, distorted perspective, and body parts that meld into each other. Can you detail why such a file was considered educationally useful on Dutch Wiktionary, and why it was preferred to the thousands of images of people using smartphones on Commons that do not have LLM generation artifacts, particularly the images available in this category? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a matter for the WikiWoordenboek community to judge (my succinct contribution to that judgment was made here). Commons is neither the place to discuss the nuances of Dutch or the specific considerations using pictures in dictionaries. It however is the place to apply its own policies and guidelines. There are good reasons not to use Commons as a project censoring other projects, however much you may dislike some files. MarcoSwart (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This seems like an easy case for undeletion, it was in use by Dutch Wiktionary, and we don't overrule them. Abzeronow (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I also think it should be undeleted – could not find a fitting better image in Category:People with smartphones and for this subject an artistic illustration would be better. However, the image really was of low-quality. Nevertheless it should not be deleted but replaced with a better image or a better version be uploaded as a new revision of the file. It's illustrative and explanatory even with the misgeneration issues which can't even be noticed at the image's thumbnail size which is how most people would see it. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

A possible replacement is File:PikiWiki Israel 62841 isolation area in tel hashomer - shiba.jpg. Not the same, but perhaps fits? Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted above, it is incredibly poor quality, showing a woman with five fingers and an unseen thumb, shoes on a man that are not a pair, a weird hand on the left, and so forth. While "In Use" is good policy, it should not be taken to an extreme -- where a significant number of experienced editors here find an image embarrassingly low quality and one or two people on a WP have not bothered to find an alternative, we should not keep the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Who cares if a finger is missing when this is viewed at thumbnail size though. Your claim that there is a better/equivalent alternative is unsubstantiated. If you could, you'd have a valid point. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Visitors Watching Smartphones after Event 20140705.jpg

File:Diverse_people_using_phones.jpeg

File:Ignoring Each Other (33390897436).jpg

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the quality of any image. But "quality" is dependent on the purpose of a project. Dictionaries use images in a different way than an encyclopedia. Dutch is a different from English. A realistic photograph of people using phones is not conveying the meaning of "mobieletelefoonverslaving" in the way the uncanny image "Social isolation" does. You are in fact proving the point that the Commons editors are not in a position to decide for all projects whether an image is suitable or not. And that is precisely the rationale behind COM:INUSE. MarcoSwart (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also of these only the first is suitable but I see no urgency to decide for another project that they must use this and it's debatable whether the photo is better than an/the artistic illustration. (2nd is people who are total strangers on commute; 3rd is just two people). The right way to go about it would be to bring the arguably better file up during a DR, and maybe getting the file in use replaced. Another issue to mention with using a realistic photo is that it kind of shows people in a dignity-concerning way and is overrealistic. Nevertheless, the first of these photos is a good point and while I still support undeletion and still think the deletion was incompatible with important policy, this substantially weakened the case for it. Basically I see no urgency or need to delete the file so I see no need to delete at all cost a second or Nth best image about the subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

With well over 100 million images on Commons, the fact that we cannot find one that is good for helping define this phenomenon suggests that the phenomenon is of too little importance to have a place in WP. That said, if the only way to get a good illustration is to go to AI, it seems to me that our wish for good quality screams out that the person creating the AI illustration should not accept an image that has grotesque errors. Images that have grotesque errors are distracting and have no place in the Scope of Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. It is not describing phenomena, it is describing words. And there are sufficient reliable sources for "mobieletelefoonverslaving" being a Dutch word. The "errors" in this specific case contribute to making the picture uncanny and that corresponds well with the negative connotation "mobieletelefoonverslaving" has. Using a picture showing only persons of Asian descent to illustrate this Dutch word could suggest a xenophobic sense the word doesn't have. Yes, we ought to strive for quality, but quality is context dependent. The "Scope of Commons" states explicitly: "It does not matter if [the file] is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." MarcoSwart (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Roger Quincey Dickerson (1899-1951) portrait.jpg

Deleted because someone challenged the identification made by Discogs. In the past we have kept images where the identification has been challenged and used {{Inaccurate description}} or {{Fact disputed}} and kept the discussion on the talk page. When we delete, we leave the original image at Discogs waiting for someone to find the potential mistake again. So far there is no evidence presented that the image is of the wrong person, just that Discogs may be wrong. See: https://www.discogs.com/artist/1420158-RQ-Dickerson?redirected=true That may be a reason for not using it at Wikipedia, if the evidence is strong enough, but it should be restored. See here for examples of disputed images we have kept. --RAN (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no particular strong feelings about undeletion, but this is a rather low quality photograph. We cannot know for sure that it is Dickerson, there is no educational value in a potentially misleading photo. Abzeronow (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:1x1-nswitchds-agnostikoorigins-button-1720791888246.jpg

I have the copy and it's ok to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videogameresearcherfact (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose No information about source, date, and license. What is the educational use anyway? Owning a copy doesn't make you the copyright holder. Do not reupload deleted files, and please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Heroengine.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Heroengine.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The file was uploaded with the wrong license; it should normally be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} edit request Request to restore for use in creating a source for HeroEngine Wiki. Retrieved on 21 March 2026. FairyLinda (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This all text logo does not have a US copyright. There is no USA copyright for anything that is solely text too short for a literary copyright. This is true no matter how fancy the font might be. From USCO Circular 1, "Not covered by copyright:mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring". It was deleted as out of scope, but Heroengine has been in place on WP:EN for six years, so having the logo on Commons is appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The file should indeed be under CC-BY-SA 4.0 Requesting admin review for restoration. Ms. Fairy Linda.. (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

User:FairyLinda, that is not correct. CC-BY-SA requires both that a user acknowledge the creator and allow use only in the same way. Since this all text logo cannot have a US copyright, it is not possible for the creator to require anything. It can be used anywhere without acknowledgement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward Oh, thank you again for clarifying that. I dont know much about licenses. So, id appreciate it if you could let me know which license option to select when i re-upload the logo. Im trying to get things done with as few mistakes as possible. Thank you.. Ms. Fairy Linda.. (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Uploading a deleted image a second time is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and community resources. If my colleagues agree that this should be restored (which I expect they will) it will be restored without further action on your part. The person restoring it will replace the CC-BY-SA with {{PD-textlogo}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward Thank you for clarifying that, sir. I didnt dare to restore a deleted page on my own. Thats why i submitted a restoration request. I have the utmost respect for the MediaWiki community. We (I hope i can count myself among them) are the unsung heroes of the internet.. Ms. Fairy Linda.. (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:PlayM2M logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:PlayM2M logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The previous deletion reason no longer applies.

This file was previously deleted because the source site appeared to show "all rights reserved" and there was no visible evidence of a free license.

The file is sourced from PlayM2M’s official press kit page: https://playm2m.com/presskit

On that official press kit page, the logo and wallpaper assets are explicitly published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

The uploaded file is the official PlayM2M logo from that press kit page.

Please restore the file. Thank you. Ms. Fairy Linda.. (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This seems OK. Yann (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Done, per request. Link changed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Lenny Ibizarre.png

File:Lenny Ibizarre.png The image of lenny Ibizarre is free to use as it has been put up on his website to download.

Reason: I would like to use the image to complete the infobox of his Wikipedia article. Please look into it, thank you in advance.--Izak.50 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Available for download is not equivalent to absence of copyright. We need a free license from the copyright holder, who is by default the photographer. If the copyright was transferred, which can only happen in writing, we will need a proof of that. Please se COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . --Yann (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:雲普發logo.png

I am the brand owner and own the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlags0519 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose: OP appears to be an undisclosed paid editor for a certain Tianda Pharma on Chinese Wikipedia; see zh:Special:Contributions/Arlags0519, which revolves around editing the article for the company itself, as well as creating drafts.

The drafts are Draft:雲普發 and Draft:天大研究院, which are now both in draftspace following recreation that itself followed speedy deletion. See the respective logs for evidence (former draft, latter). Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The same logo appeared here last week with a different file name. Closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Club the seals now! Save the whales for later.jpg et al

ArthurWilliamJack uploaded a bunch of images of pins scanned by the London School of Economics, then realized that the LSE was claiming copyright over them, and requested they be speedy deleted G7. Many of the pins can be kept as {{PD-Art|PD-Text}}, and I'm going though the list to save the ones I can, but a few got deleted by Túrelio before I got to them.

• File:Club the seals now! Save the whales for later.jpg
• File:A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.jpg
• File:Pog Mo Thoin.jpg
• File:Even us dirty old men need loving.jpg
• File:Gay Switch Board Appeal 1982.jpg
• File:Real Men Use Condoms.jpg
• File:I am a member of an immoral subculture.jpg
• File:Danger Tories at work.jpg
• File:Freeze the Arms Race.jpg
• File:Pink triangle against a black background -.jpg ({{PD-Art|PD-Shape}})
• File:I only take orders in bed.jpg
• File:Nice bum - Shame about the moustache.jpg
• File:International AIDS Day 1987.jpg
• File:National Fuck-it Day.jpg
• File:Skinheads against the Nazis.jpg
• File:Six inch killaz.jpg

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. These are all clearly below the USA ToO, but I suspect most of them may be above the UK's ToO since there is a typographical copyright there. See File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which is under copyright in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the new standard *is*, but there has been a new, more lenient standard since the THJ v Sheridan case in 2023. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Please can my request as uploader to delete them all be honoured? I thought that was a given? I appreciate differences exist between US and UK copyright, but also that we shouldn't upload to Wikimedia Commons if they are protected by copyright in the home country. It was an error that LSE marked them as 'No Known Copyright Restrictions' on Flickr and that has now been resolved. They remain on LSE Digital Library. Do I need put in the request again The Squirrel Conspiracy? Thanks! ArthurWilliamJack (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I am inclined to believe that whether or not they are above the normal copyright ToO, they fall under the UK Typographical Copyright, which we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Aigaleo Flag.png

@Krd it was moved a few days ago from Simaia Dimou.png Miraitowa963 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Miraitowa963 (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Miraitowa963: and where is the licence? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused it was in the lemma before being moved from Simaia dimou.png Miraitowa963 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant, can it be proven externally? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused it was listed as own work Miraitowa963 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh well; I'm gonna COM:AGF Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done: AGF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Moonbase Alpha Logo.jpg

The game was published by NASA, a US government agency, making the game assets public domain. While Unreal Engine 3 and RAD Game Tools are proprietary software (as described in the deletion request), neither their code nor interface are depicted on the cover.

Various games made with proprietary engines (for example, Unity games) have logos and screenshots on Commons that are free to use, such as Alto's Adventure, Outer Wilds and Rain World.

Pinging deleting admin @Abzeronow. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 06:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Being published by NASA is not the same as being developed by NASA. For it to be in the public domain, it has to have been created by a government employee in the course of their government work. If NASA commissioned the creation of the game, but didn't purchase the copyright to it, or to the art in question, it's not PD-Gov. What do we know about who developed the game and made the art? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Whoever created this patch art probably didn't intend to release it into the public domain either, but the fact is that is was published by NASA counts. Publisher copyright usually takes priority over individual copyright due to contract obligations. Notice how File:Celeste box art full.png is credited to the publisher Maddy Makes Games and not the person who created the cover. Same for the files in categories for games I linked above.

Regardless, the assets were likely created using NASA's public domain photography. Also, one of the developer companies is literally owned by the US Army, another US government agency.

Edit: An important note is that NASA didn't just commissioned the game, they published it. See Steam page. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Publication by a federal agency is not enough to send something to the public domain; only creations by federal agencies are automatically in the public domain.

I can't see the VRT email for File:Celeste box art full.png, but it can be presumed that Maddy Makes Games demonstrated sufficient evidence to show that, if they did not author the image, they held copyright over it or were given the legal rights to sublicense it to another entity. There is no such evidence that NASA owns the copyright and has released said copyright. Based5290 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: As noted several times by TSC, the fact that NASA published this is irrelevant. The Federal government owns many copyrights that are not PD. In order to restore it here, we need evidence that a NASA employee actually created this in the course of their work for NASA. That has not been proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Glenn McQuaid at DIFF 2026.jpg I assume my reasons for undeletion are understood, because this video is licensed as CC-BY-4.0 Unported in the YouTube filter

I assume my reasons for undeletion are understood, because this video is licensed as CC-BY-4.0 Unported in the YouTube filter. The subject himself did not like the current image in his Wikipedia article, but it was voted as keep. He himself uploaded an illegal image, which was quickly deleted. When I uploaded a second perfectly legal image, it was quickly deleted in confusion, despite its legal status. I think we, as an organisation, owe it to this man, having now the opportunity to present an alternative legal image. And then, well if he doesn't like that one, its tough luck.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose @James Kevin McMahon I'm not seeing a CC license at or . is how a CC license looks, scroll down to the bottom where it says License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Also, could you start adding {{LicenseReview}} or {{YouTubeReview}} to your uploads from external sites and youtube? HurricaneZeta^C 19:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• User talk:Túrelio#A barnstar for you!
• User talk:Alexis Jazz#A barnstar for you!
• User talk:James Kevin McMahon#File:Glenn McQuaid at DIFF 2026.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glenn McQuaid in 2026.jpg

Pinging @Túrelio - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it appearing in the CC queue means it had a CC license but they removed it? Though if we don't have proof it was under a CC license (the archive from April 4 doesn't show one) it has to be removed. Might be worth reaching out to them to see if they meant to put it under CC. HurricaneZeta^C 20:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz HurricaneZeta^C 20:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta, my best guess is that YT hides the CC BY license on the video page because w:Content ID detected a song in the video. This is only a guess though.- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

As you can see by my page, I am very experienced at finding images under Creative Commons. lots. I have over uploaded 700 images that qualify for Wikipedia articles. During the time when I started this, There has been complaints of 4 images from over 1000, uploaded. All of which were removed from Wikipedia articles. Can give you details on request.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta, I looked for other ways to check the license. yt-dlp --print license "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v10gRb49jBQ" reports no free license, but does return "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" when you query so that method does work. According to Google Content ID does indeed prevent Creative Commons. And a filtered search no longer returns the video, so it was likely just YT's outdated search index cache that James Kevin McMahon was looking at. I believe the video likely was CC BY when it was uploaded, but it probably got hit with Content ID in seconds, losing its license. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz That's interesting, I didn't know that YT could do that. I am  Neutral now, will wait to see what others say on this file. @James Kevin McMahon: You should also verify the license by going into the description and looking at if there is actually a CC license there and add {{YouTubeReview}} while uploading files from YT. HurricaneZeta^C 21:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This may have been CC-BY, but is not so now and no License Review was requested. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for undeletion: File:Kyuketsu Poster.jpg

I am the original photographer and the copyright holder of this image. The file was deleted as a copyright violation, but this is incorrect.

I took this photograph myself and I own 100% of the copyright. I can provide additional evidence (original file with EXIF, unpublished shots, etc.) if needed.

Please restore the file. Thank you.

@Polarlys: Could you please review this undeletion request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuji-oo7 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

courtesy link to file: File:Kyuketsu Poster.jpg applecuckoo (he/him) 23:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

One CentralAuth check later, the "Kyuketsu" in the file name appears to be w:Sanguivorous (film) (see w:Special:Contributions/Fuji-oo7)

@Fuji-oo7: you cannot upload that image to Commons. Our guideline on derivative works says:

The poster, as a creation related to the film, is presumed to be copyrighted by the film's producers; it may be uploaded locally on English Wikipedia Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyways,  Oppose Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

well I am the actual director of the film Naoki Yoshimoto and I own all the rights for the film which happens to be conducted and released in the region of Japan. The poster was made during the period of screening in Tokyo Japan back in 2009-10. Therefore it is all printed in Japanese. A couple of years later the film was found and distributed in US from Tidepoint Pictures. The distributor owns the rights for anything conducted mainly in US and some other countries but Japan has never been included. This film was made as an independent film. There is no commercial distributor or company involved from the beginning and still to this day. So technically the rights belongs to me. Fuji-oo7 (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that in the case of cinema posters, an authorized representative of the production company (which is usually the producer) must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Caricature of Musk doing Nazi salute-2025.jpg

Derivative work from footage which has been established to be free licensed.--Mayimbú (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caricature of Musk doing Nazi salute-2025.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep If the original is free licensed, the derivative can be kept. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no "original". The so-called caricature consists of a photo showing an unknown person, giving or simulating the Nazi-greeting, on whose face a different photo-print of Elon Musk was (badly) superimposed. So, here are 3 copyrights, for the 2 photos, wherever they were taken, and for the superimposition, which is a derivative of the other two. This problem is the same for the cropped version (discussed here) and for the uncropped version (also deleted). --Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that we need licenses for all three copyrights, which we do not have. Also, given that we have images (cited above) of Musk himself doing the salute, why do we need a grossly sloppy imitation? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:ולקר יוסף.jpg

upload from personal archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razwalker (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

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

1. The image is not deleted, so out of this page scope.
2. 2026 dated photo of a person who died 43 years ago? From modern photos, we need complete camera data in EXIF, for old photo we need a free license granted by the photographer, not an archive owner. Ankry (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done not deleted. Ankry (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ולקר יוסף.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr_Albert_Kushlick.pdf

This file had the original filename 2026-01-08 11-16.pdf. The image, under that name, was given full permission for use in an email to photosubmissions@wikimedia.org on 3 April by the copyright holder, Dee Kushlick-Williams. That was acknowledged by permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with ticket number #2026040310005022. Paulgwilliams (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose despite VRT permission and indef; consistent use of w:Albert Kushlick for self-promotion (w:Special:Contributions/Paulgwilliams). Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the objections above, with which I concur, I note that policy strongly discourages PDF photographs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done PDF images are not accepted in Commons. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Emblem of the Nora Alliance.png

I am quite certain that the upload I submitted was deleted in an inappropriate manner. The content itself was not of low quality, nor was it generated by an artificial intelligence system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LahLoop (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It had been tagged as CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors). What was your purpose of uploading this image? --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The deletion was entirely appropriate. LahLoop, the uploader, has no remaining contributions here.

I note an article at https://geotubepedia.miraheze.org/wiki/NORA which shows a different logo. It also has

"Recognition and mentions

Nora has been profiled in a Medium article detailing its role in online diplomacy. It is also referenced as a case study in a broader academic-style article on digital diplomacy and ideological neutrality."

Which is certainly minimal and confirms that NORA does not meet our requirements for notability. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Older copies of File:Willy Brandt Wahlplakat 1972.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Willy Brandt in 1972 two files were deleted based on a missing or incorrectly applied FoP rationale:

• File:Willy Brandt Wahlplakat 1972 align.jpg
• File:Willy Brandt Wahlplakat 1972 HdG Bonn.jpeg

Both can be restored, because FoP doesn't matter, since the election poster is published under a free license (CC BY 3.0 DE). Thx for attention.-Jordi (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Does the library own the copyright to the photo used in the poster and/or have they gotten permission from the photographer or their estate? Abzeronow (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I don't read German but it looks like the Deutsche Digitale Bibleothek is merely an aggregator and as such they can't actually license the work - the actual poster is in the custody of the Baden-Württemberg state archives. The source record on their website doesn't state anything about a CC license. comment retracted per Jordi's response applecuckoo (he/him) 06:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The Website Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek has nothing to do with licensing, nobody said that. This is merely the aggregator. The license comes from Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, as you say. Though, obviously, the page you are citing is the archive's Findbuch (finding aid). The findbook never says anything about licensing, nothing to do with that matter. Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek is not a private webpage but the official aggregator of all German state archives (including Baden-Württemberg's), of course they are completely trustworthy. The site is owned by Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, this is a public body and has even an English Wikipedia article. If they say the image is licensed, this has the same weight as if the archive itself were saying it, because the archive is a co-publisher of the site. So, there is no doubt that the image is licensed, please don't go on with that argument. If there were any doubts, I wouldn't have uploaded the image (I read and speak German, and I know who I can trust and why and how these things work). This talk here is just to debate if restoring the older versions is also necessary, not intended to spark a debate about the actual licence, which is beyond question.--Jordi (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I am afraid I don't understand. The image is a photograph of a poster taken inside a museum. There is no web site involved. I see no evidence (except the unsupported assertions of Jordi) that anyone has freely licensed both the poster and the image of Willy Brandt in it. I also have much less confidence in the copyright expertise of large institutions than Jordi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unsupported"? The license is linked above and there is nothing unsupported and no doubt about that.

The case is not so difficult to understand. This is one of the most emblematic election posters ever seen in Germany, perhaps the second one after the famous Adenauer "No experiments" poster from 1957. So it is exposed in the Bonn National Museum of German History and also held at the State Archive of Baden-Wurttemberg.

Years ago, a user made a photograph of the poster inside our National History Museum in Bonn and uploaded it to Commons under FoP. This rationale was not correct, since German FoP does not extend to protected works inside a building. So the image was deleted in february.

On the other hand, deletion was not necessary, because the poster is not a protected work, but already published under a free license by the State Archive. So the photograph of the poster taken inside a museum does not vulnerate any protection rights, even though FoP does not apply to this specific photograph. So the files could be restored without a problem.

Also, the poster and the portrait photograph of Brandt was shown in the streets all over West Germany in 1972 and of course there are many photographs taken outside buildings which show it, some of them also uploaded to Commons. In this sense, also FoP does apply, hypothetically speaking. But since we already have a clearly free licensed version shown on the webpage of the official aggregator of German state archives (linked above), we need not to resort to that in the first place, the CC BY 3.0 DE documented is already enough. I hope it is clearer now, thx.--Jordi (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Since the photographer is apparently unknown, the CC-BY license is not valid. I suspect that, as noted in the cited footnote, "Digitization: Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg CC-BY Attribution 3.0 Germany", the Archive is taking credit for the digitization and has completely glossed over the question of the license for the photograph. Also, since we have File:Willy Brandt Wahlplakat 1972.jpg, why do we need the two files above? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This last one was my whole question, I do not see so much use of the old files, since I uploaded a new one, so I questioned if it makes sense to restore them or not. Obviously, if you think the license is fake, you should also delete the new file I uploaded, it is the same photograph. If not, there is no legal reason not to restore also the old files, only a practical reason (keeping the old files is not necessary to use the photo).

This photograph of Brandt is widely used by all important institutions (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Deutscher Bundestag, Willy-Brandt-Stiftung) with no restrictions ever cited, it is sometimes referred to Willy-Brandt-Archiv as the ultimate source. It was widely shown in the streets and very often photographed in public in 1972 (, , , ), it is even shown in public today in some locations, not only museums (Willy-Brandt-Forum Berlin, German Historical Museum Berlin, Haus der Geschichte Bonn), but also outside (Leverkusen), so it could and can even today be photographed under FoP and used without restrictions. So, reasonably it cannot be protected any more, even if you think the license is fake. I don't think so, because Digitale Deutsche Bibliothek does not show images with fake licenses (and usually does not show images at all, if not properly licensed).--Jordi (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Info Also the German Historical Museum in Berlin shows the poster under its own copyright ("© DHM"), which means they have also scanned a copy of the original and are taking credit for the digitization and not for the photograph, meaning that the photograph has no valid protection which would restrict them in doing so.--Jordi (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

More  Info: I now luckily found the name of the photographer, there is a whole article about this photograph by Sven Haarmann at the site of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the name of the photographer is Harry Walter (1929–2013), he worked for the Campaign Agency ARE and made this snapshot at August, 18th 1972 in Murnau, Bavaria. Congratulations!--Jordi (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC) P.D.: Also here.--Jordi (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicates of better versions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tawacomen_tribal_seal.png

This file, File:Tawacomen_tribal_seal.png, is an original work created for the Tawacomen Tribe. While AI tools were used in part of the design process, the final image is not a generic or unmodified output. It was intentionally directed, refined, and edited to reflect specific cultural symbolism unique to our tribal community

The elements of the design—including the tree, roots, branches, and color choices—were deliberately selected and adjusted to represent the identity and meaning of the Tawacomen Tribe (“People of the Scattered Roots”). The image is, therefore, a human-directed creative work rather than a purely automated or random generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefPemchis (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

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

How is it useful in Wikimedia? Which wiki community wants to use AI-generated images and not imaged of original objects? Ankry (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that the image is not used at https://www.tawacomentribe.com/. I also note that there appear to be no Google hits for "tawacomen tribe" that are not self generated. I suggest that you return here after you have an independently written article accepted on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Kameshwara God.png

I would like to clarify why I uploaded it, as it definitely serves an educational purpose and is not for personal use.

I recently created the Wikipedia article for the Hindu deity Kameshwara (you can currently see it on the French Wikipedia: fr:Kameshwara). Since it is extremely difficult to find free, public-domain historical images or statues of this specific deity, I generated this image using AI to accurately represent his traditional iconography as described in ancient scriptures like the Tripura Rahasya.

The sole purpose of this image is to illustrate the encyclopedia article and help readers visualize the deity's specific attributes.

If I need to add specific template tags for AI-generated media or adjust the description to better fit Commons policies, please let me know and I will fix it right away. I would really appreciate it if the file could be kept so I can use it to improve the article.

Thanks for your time!

--Arunsharma1028 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Arunsharma1028: Which wiki community wants to use this AI-generated image and in which article? Ankry (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry: I believe that OP is a single-purpose account on Hinduism; see their CentralAuth and their edits on English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Wikidata. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

SPA are nothing wrong if they operate within a community-established consensus. Agree, that unlikely here. Ankry (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Give me a while friend; I'll show you what's wrong Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, OP needs to be blocked; interwiki activity on this Kameshvara guy appears to only come from a sockpuppeteer

See the en.wp creation log for "Kameshvara" (the first creator is indeffed there as sockpuppeteer Mili977); the fr.wp creation log for "Kameshwara" (of course, by OP), and the simple.wp creation log for "Kameshvara" (the sole creator is indeffed on en.wp, again as Mili977) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ankry@Whyiseverythingalreadyused

Hello everyone. I just saw this discussion and I want to sincerely clarify that I am absolutely not the user Mili977, nor am I a sockpuppet of anyone.

My primary focus on Wikipedia is simply expanding the French Wikipedia by translating articles related to Hinduism from other languages (mainly English, Hindi, and Sinhala).

Regarding the Kameshwara article, since there is no standard English Wikipedia page for this specific deity, I looked for sources in other languages. I found existing articles on the Sinhala and Simple English Wikipedias, and I simply used those as my source texts to translate the content into French. I had absolutely no idea that the creator of the Simple English page was blocked for sockpuppetry. I was merely using the available pages across different wikis to gather information for my French translation.

I understand why the overlap in the article subject might look suspicious, but it is purely a coincidence resulting from my translation workflow. As for this image, as I mentioned earlier, I only generated and uploaded it because it is extremely hard to find free public-domain images of this specific deity, and I wanted to add an educational illustration to the French article I just translated.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. I am just a translator trying to improve the French Wikipedia in good faith.

Thank you. Arunsharma1028 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Incredible. And not in the good way. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused

Hello again, I would like to add a bit more context to make the situation completely clear.

Here is the Sinhala Wikipedia page for Kameshwara . This is the exact page i used as the source text for my French translation.

After reading your comments, I checked the page history of that sinhala article and noticed that the user Mili977 was indeed the one who created it. However, I want to firmly state that i have absolutely no connection to that person.

The real reason i ended up translating this specific page is this, I was working on translating the Tripura Sundari article into French. While doing that, I started searching across other language wikipedias to see if there were any articles about her husband (Kameshwara) so i could create a linked page for him in French.

That is how i stumbled upon the sinhala wikipedia page. I simply took that existing information and translated it to create the French page.

I completely understand how this coincidence might look suspicious from your perspective, but i assure you it is just a byproduct of my translation workflow. I am just a good-faith editor trying to expand the Hinduism related articles on the French wikipedia.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. Arunsharma1028 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

This is clear AI slop Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused I see you are an anti-ai. But it doesn't my problem, it is your problem. I used ai for my reply because for better explanation for my reply. I am frenchman and i am not god at English. Thank you. Arunsharma1028 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Personal opinion of a single user is irrelevant. Question is about community consensus. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I was talking about the response Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done out of scope. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Accountant Sabil Academy.jpg

There is no any good reason for deleting this Image. This is my own work and its been developed by me, and I want to used it inside our own Article on English Wikipedia. Muktee1494 (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no File:Accountant Sabil Academy.jpg (the original title of this section), only a File:Accountant Sabil Academy.png which isn't even deleted

Also go back and read the decline banner on w:Draft:Sabil Academy, which is not an article Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:LaDuke Oval Portrait 2000.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:LaDuke Oval Portrait 2000.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having a source, although the source is clearly listed as File:Reception (4099192018) (cropped).jpg. It is becoming more and more apparent that User:Krd should not have the privilege to delete files on Commons. Thuresson (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason why this adds to our educational purpose. It is the same size as the image from which it is taken with the background changed to a garish yellow oval. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All other primary photos have this. Democratic Party, Republican Party, and the Green Party in 2020 and 2024 has this. It's fair to have this for the rest of the candidates (including Libertarian), Can't you use this same argument against the Republican and Democratic Primary pages? The Green Party Primary pages past 2016? the Libertarian Party Primary pages past 2016? It's not fair to exclude certain primary pages but let others keep it, either let them all or non of them. Benadrylchallenge (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: per discussion, fairness in election pages. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Restoration of multiple historical family files uploaded by [User:Fuzayl1]

File:Nawab Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam.png

File:Nawab Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam & H.H. Maharajah Trivani Singh Hisua.png

File:Nawab Mir Syed Tasavvur Imam Hosting Guests.png

These are historical photos from 1909/1933. They are in the public domain under Indian Law (60 years post-creation). Please restore so the correct tags can be added.

--~2026-22363-54 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Remainder

I am requesting the restoration of a comprehensive series of historical family photographs and documents uploaded by [User:Fuzayl1] that were recently deleted or flagged for deletion due to "No Source/License."

This collection is a vital record of the Imam and Hasib family of Bihar, documenting a lineage that dates back to the 12th-century migration from Aleppo to India.

Legal Basis for Restoration:

Public Domain (India): Under Section 25 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the copyright for photographs expires 60 years after creation. The historical portraits (including those of Nawab Tasavvur Imam and Raees Imam Khan) date from 1909 to the mid-1950s and are legally in the Public Domain.

Source & Ownership: These files are digital scans/reproductions from our Private Family Archive. As a family representative, I am authorized to share these.

Licensing for Recent Files: For more contemporary family photos (e.g., academic/medical portraits), I wish to release them under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license for genealogical and historical preservation.

Please restore these files so that I may properly apply the {{PD-India}} and {{PD-old-70}} templates to the historical items and ensure this legacy is not lost.

--~2026-22363-54 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Sixty years after publication, not sixty years after creation. Regardless, 1968 is not 60 years ago. See User talk:Fuzayl1. Thuresson (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: I created a supersection out of OP (the TA's) former four sections to consolidate everything Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose per Thuresson and for OP's AI use and clear logged-out sockpuppetry. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose First, "As a family representative, I am authorized to share these" is not correct. Copyrights are held by the actual photographer and owning copies gives the owner no rights other than looking at the images.

Second, the claim that these are PD is not correct. In the case of works where the photographer is not known, Indian copyright lasts for sixty years from publication. Images in a family album may not have been published until they appeared on Commons. Earlier publication must be proven, case by case. In any event, any image from 1936 or later was under copyright in India in 1996 and therefore has a URAA copyright for 95 years from publication.

Finally, I see no reason to put a lot of time into a request by an anonymous IP editor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Pre-WWII pictures from India are in the public domain in India and in USA (per {{PD-1996}}) regardless of publication, as the copyright started from the date of creation. Otherwise, I agree with you. Yann (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who understands the law better than I could rewrite Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I#India where it says:

"Photographs were formerly protected for 50 years after creation (for creation before 1958), and for 60 years after publication (for publication after 1957)."

Where does that leave a photograph created in 1956 but first published in 1959? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, post-1957 pictures are probably not in the public domain in USA. But I said above Pre-WWII pictures, and the request mentions "historical photos from 1909/1933". Yann (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. According to the sentence I quoted above, a 1931 image first published after 1957 is protected until 2017. That's relevant here because it is likely that these haven't been published until recently. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Laws are not retroactive, except a few cases (URAA), and explicitly mentioned. So copyright of a 1931 image from India expired in 1982. Yann (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support undeletion of the first 2 images, dated 1933 and 1909. For the rest, we need more information. Yann (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I see all reason to put all time and effort to preserve culture, and respect all contributors, even anonymous ones, without preference to those who are more "expert." There seems to me to exist some level of lack of cultural sensitivity in this matter. "Publication" has different meanings in the rich First World, from the places where some of us come from. "Publication" happens by the act of sharing an item with others. Also, a family album is never artistic work belonging to the photographer, but rather "work for hire," copyright belongs to the one ordering the photo to be taken. Yamaplos (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not so. As far as we know, in all countries the copyright belongs to the actual photographer unless there is a written Work for hire agreement in place. That is true even if the work was commissioned (this was not true in the UK before 1989). The usual license for commissioned works allows the licensee to use the work for publicity and other purposes, but rarely allows the licensee to freely sub-license the work as required here. Therefore in the case of works appearing in family albums, we must must

(a) have a free license from the actual photographer or an heir or

(b) determine from the date of the photograph and its publication whether the copyright has expired.

Where "publication" is part of a national copyright law it is always defined in the law and by subsequent case law. We apply the definition applicable to the country involved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: As Yann says the first two are public domain in India and the US. The third from 1950 is public domain in India but not the US. I'll add it for Undeletion in 2046. We have to follow US law on Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

File:YamaPress.jpg

That picture is my own. Might have published in Facebook, no recollection (no longer have FB account, BTW) The name says it ... Yamaplos (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:YamaPress.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

send an email to COM:VRT -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

jtb grave_page-0001.jpg

I don't understand why this image was deleted from both my Mabel Bent and the J. Theodore Bent wiki pages. I am a specialist researcher of the Bents and this image is my own personal photograph taken several years ago. Perhaps when uploaded it originally i did not make this clear or specify that it is intended for unlimited access. If this particular image is unsuitable I will upload another taken by me on the same day. Thank you. Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Please specify correctly the filename. You have no upload (either deleted or not) with the above mentioned filename. --Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose You have apparently forgotten your participation in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Memorial (right) of Theodore and Mabel Bent, St Mary's, Theydon Bois, UK.jpg which explained to you both why the file was deleted and what you should have done to prevent it being deleted and must now do for its restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done, apparently concerns File:Memorial (right) of Theodore and Mabel Bent, St Mary's, Theydon Bois, UK.jpg. OP has chosen to upload a different photo of the same subject, File:Theodore and Mabel Bent's grave-memorial, St Mary’s, Theydon Bois, Essex, UK.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

ارجو عدم الحذف فالصورة اصليه — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabwah (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. Only deleted image is out of scope. --Yann (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

Please explain me why was my photo deleted!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyivMax (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You mean File:Над Хмарами.jpg? There are two deletions, and two reasons

Deletion no. 1 was the result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Над Хмарами.jpg, where your photo was deleted as a violation of the Ukrainian prohibition on commercial freedom of panorama

Deletion no. 2 was the result of an administrator determining that the file was "empty, corrupt, or in a disallowed format" Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Procedural close: not an undeletion request. And File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Adult Diaper with Fading Wetness Indicator.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Adult Diaper with Fading Wetness Indicator.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: There was no good reason for this photo to be deleted. It has clear resolution and depicts exactly what the title says. Look up all the pictures under "adult diaper" on Wikimedia commons. There are many pictures that are less useful than mine. Mine is the only picture that clearly describes how the wetness indicator works. Some people just upload pictures and say "man demonstrating abdl fetish by wearing a diaper", so why do those files get to stay? Categorizing this as nudity/sexual content is ridiculous. Just look at the picture and the caption I provided. It is clearly educational. ALPHASKYYYXXX (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose: why do you come here when you could have participated in the normal deletion discussion which you were prominently alerted of on your talk page? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Issac I Navarro, Dronebogus, and Jon Kolbert: users who participated in the DR: do you find the above argument convincing? Ankry (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The above argument seems to be that since there are wrose images this one is okay. However, that sounds more like there are additional photos that should be deleted, rather than this one being restored.

The reason for its deletion was that there didn't seem to be a realistic COM:EDUSE. Furthermore, I don't follow with the argument above claiming that it is “ridiculous” that it was in Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/pending. The image appeared to be fetish material. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

....? I'm absolutely baffled. It doesn't sound like you even considered anything I said. I don't know how I can be any more clear about my statement. "The image appeared to be fetish material" <-- and I clearly explained how it was not. My argument is not that there are "worse" images. My argument is that these are legitimate topics on Wikimedia commons, and despite my comparison of my photo to others, there really is nothing wrong with any of them. If there was, I'm sure they'd have all been deleted as I don't see why mine are any less valuable. ALPHASKYYYXXX (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No new argument provided that justifies reopening the DR. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Berly Thomas.jpg

File:Berly Thomas.jpg

Creator's relative requesting undelete. This is Berly Thomas's self-portrait from his own WordPress blog: https://berlythomasblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/gse_multipart18772.jpeg

I confirm permission to release under CC BY-SA 4.0 as his relative. Username Thannkachan_Kurishngal matches family name. Original source documented. No copyvio. Thannkachan Kurishngal (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose You can't release an image on behalf of someone else. Only the author can. Yann (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. Have Berly Thomas send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Azizul_Hoque4.jpg

--Muksit Ibne Shamim (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted - nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)