Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
49 copyvios • 202 duplicates • 16 adverts • 15 selfies • 45 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:The Route.jpg

The user had contacted VRT users before (see: {{RaftFilms Permission}})

Not sure but as far as I can remember these two images had been published on Commons for the first time so netcopyvio is not valid.

Hanooz 18:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS images

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

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

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

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

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

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arif Havas Oegroseno, Ambassador, Mission of Indonesia to the EU (7280855166).jpg

And also other similar images:

Earlier this day I was trying to upload these image from its original source in Commons when I discovered that the images had already been uploaded before but was deleted. Looking back at the rationale I don't see why the images are out of COM:SCOPE, since the subject has clearly passed the notability threshold (the deputy foreign minister of Indonesia) and the license used for the images were clearly compatible for Commons. I hereby request these images to be undeleted for the sake of common interest and override the original uploader's deletion request. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 17:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Info As far as I can understand it was deleted because the Flickr license was claimed to be incorrect, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Gleamlight. Thuresson (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There is no evidence that the Flickr license is valid. Almost all professional photographers' licenses allow the subject to use the image for promotion but do not allow the subject to freely license the image as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

revert Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"Forgotten photos of Russo-Turkish War"

  1. These pictures were all taken pre-1880 (see file names)
  2. According to the museum that held the exhibition, authors of these photos are: a) Russian photographer Alexander Ivanov, and b) Franz Duschek (w:bg:Франц Душек) born in Budapest around 1830 - died in Suez 1884, court photographer of Prince Carol I of Romania.
  3. Deletion request was created by PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs). striking false information Ankry (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC) (FACTUAL CORRECTION:) is a direct conseqence of PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs)'s actions (removing license templates from uploaded files). -- Wesha (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC) 'nuff said, I believe.[reply]

I can now track down individual photos from that batch, but I do not believe it is really needed, since authors are not "unknown" anymore. -- Wesha (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request was a good amount of time before her global ban; I kind of see the last point as a personal attack
She didn't even create the request herself Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only contributions I ever saw from that user was getting stuff removed, and bickering. Never anything constructive. Yes, I will always "attack" (call out, rather, but nowadays it's called "attacking") baseless accusers whos contributions are destructive. -- Wesha (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You liar Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pretend that this time I didn't notice this gross violation of COM:CIVIL and COM:AGF. -- Wesha (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesha: I spend my time on Commons keeping it safe from unsuitable content
You violated COM:CIVIL first Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time I COM:AGF and ignore a factless accusation. Any further ones will be reported to admins. -- Wesha (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The problem here is that while the images are undeniably old, there is no evidence of publication, so they may still be under copyright. PCP requires that they remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Stadio Riviera delle Palme

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of two images:

They were both deleted in 2013 after this DR. They both depict the en:Stadio Riviera delle Palme, designed by the living architect Vincenzo Acciarri and built between 1983 and 1985. It was commissioned by the Municipality of San Benedetto del Tronto (see here), therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2006. It'a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright. Friniate (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hail damage on a building.jpg

Hail damage on a building.jpg was taken with the same camera and on the same day with:

File:Hail_stones.jpg
File:Hail_stones_1.jpg
File:Hail_damage_car.jpg

Does Khalid Mahmood/Postmedia has the other 3 pics as well? I shared these pictures widely before posting them on Wikimedia 6 years later.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-97269-5 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose IP users cannot upload images, so the claim above is false.

This image appears in the Calgary Herald for June 13, 2020 with the byline "Khalid Mahmood/Postmedia". That pretty well nails down where it came from. Your images, on the other hand, are all small and have no EXIF, so, far from proving your point, they raise the question of whether you are the actual photographer of any of them.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dacia 500 engine compartment.jpg

https://autolatest.ro/stiri/la-rar-a-trecut-inspectia-tehnica-periodica-un-exemplar-dacia-500-lastun-complet-restaurat/

features a cropped https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_engine_compartment.jpg

Wikimedia uploaded pictures:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_rear.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_dashboard_2.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_dashboard_1.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_engine_compartment.jpg

have been taken the same day and with the same camera. I shared these pictures widely before posting them on Wikimedia YEARS LATER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-97269-5 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose IP users cannot upload images, so the claim above is false. In any event, images previously posted elsewhere require that the actual photographer send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dacia 500 rear.jpg

https://autolatest.ro/stiri/la-rar-a-trecut-inspectia-tehnica-periodica-un-exemplar-dacia-500-lastun-complet-restaurat/

features different pictures of Dacia 500

Wikimedia uploaded pictures:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_rear.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_dashboard_2.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_dashboard_1.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_engine_compartment.jpg

have been taken the same day and with the same camera.

I shared these pictures widely before posting them on Wikimedia YEARS LATER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-97269-5 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose IP users cannot upload images, so the claim above is false. In any event, images previously posted elsewhere require that the actual photographer send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dacia 500 dashboard 1.jpg

https://autolatest.ro/stiri/la-rar-a-trecut-inspectia-tehnica-periodica-un-exemplar-dacia-500-lastun-complet-restaurat/

features different pictures of Dacia 500

Wikimedia uploaded pictures:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_rear.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_dashboard_2.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_dashboard_1.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacia_500_engine_compartment.jpg

have been taken the same day and with the same camera.

I shared these pictures widely before posting them on Wikimedia YEARS LATER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-97269-5 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose IP users cannot upload images, so the claim above is false. In any event, images previously posted elsewhere require that the actual photographer send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of Corfu monuments and public spaces

Files to undelete:

Reason for undeletion: I urgently request the review and undeletion of these files. They were factually incorrectly mass-tagged by User:Εὐθυμένης as "derivative works missing source".

1. These are my original photographs: I took every single one of these photos myself using my smartphone camera. They were correctly uploaded with the Source: Own work and Author: Gkaridis0 metadata. 2. Not a copyright violation: These are photographs of public spaces, parks, and historic buildings in Corfu, Greece. The underlying architecture and monuments are very old (well over 100 years), meaning the original creators' copyrights have long expired. Therefore, the "derivative work" tag requiring third-party permission is entirely invalid and inappropriately applied.

Please check the file histories to verify my metadata, restore the files, and remove the false tags. Gkaridis0 (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please contact the VRT volunteers to inquire about your ticket number 2026020710000238 at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Thuresson (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Please remember that "well over 100 years" is young in copyright terms. In Greece, copyright runs for 70 years after the death of the creator, so 140 years after creation is not unusual and 170 is possible, albeit barely so. Greece has no freedom of panorama, so the fact that these are "public spaces, parks, and historic buildings" is entirely irrelevant. I looked at the first three and all appear to be recent, so I think before we restore these you should document the age of each one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-admin, I can't see the deleted files, but the following info is submitted:
    The metal pinecones date from the 1500's-1600's[1]. The ones currently placed may be renewed replicas but might not count as new art.
    The Durrell Gardens plaques and bronze busts were unveiled in 2006.[2][3]. This sign doesn't look significantly above TOO to me if it matches the deleted file. Obviously the busts are still under copyright.
    The Church of Saint Spyridon was built 1589-1594, bell tower 1620. The casket dates from the same period.
    The Fortress is from the 6th century, with updates in the 1500's-1600's.
    The Philharmonic Society moved to the current building around 1900. I could find no info on it's construction.
    Church of the Virgin Mary Mandrakina was built 1722, renovated 1860 by Ioannis Chronis, Corfiot architect (1800-1879).
    Gate of the Palace of St. Michael and St. George was built 1819-1824 by architect George Whitmore, died 1862. Church of St. George built 1840, same architect.
    Church of Panagia ton Xenon, built 1689.
    The Liston (built 1807-1814), architect Mathieu de Lesseps, died 1832.
    Statue of Sir Frederick Adam (sculpted 1837 by Pavlos Prosalentis, died 1837).
    Spianada grass field, circa 1850. Doesn't seem to be copyrightable. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taipei Metro Xinyi line eastern extension.jpg

Obviously, this picture is provided by Taipei Dorts, and it's licensed under {{GWOIA|wikidata-item=Q9105560|zhurl=https://www.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=10FDEA7683714512&sms=AA987E1C50412097&s=3B6C92FD22C01611|enurl=https://english.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=4E3FA84AC9A12D24&sms=5E019B60E5224755&s=52C7D2409618530A}}. --Sinsyuan✍️ 09:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orelha (Cão).png

See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2026-02#File:Orelha (Cão).png.

@Yann: This AI image can be used to illustrate pt:Caso do cão Orelha. It was widely used in the media, and it was deleted before we knew it was AI generated: "Foto do Orelha, usada por imprensa e famosos, é falsa e gerada por IA" (The photo of Orelha, used by the press and celebrities, is fake and generated by AI)... And @Thuresson: in case you didn't see, the discussion you mentioned isn't even finished yet. Also, pt:Orelha (cão) and pt:Caso do cão Orelha are two different pages. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Heylenny: First, you declared that YOU are the original author of the image; that false declaration is serious violation of policy. Second, Own work declaration is accepted in Commons ONLY for unpublished works; for anything else that is used eg. in the net the uploader is REQUIRED to provide a free license EVIDENCE, not a free license DECLARATION. Third, as Yann is not Portuguese Wikipedia editor, his opinion whether Portuguese Wikipedia users prefers AI-generated image over a real image is irrelevant. It is up to you to provide evidence of such consensus. Ankry (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Where, exactly, with evidence, do I say that "[I am] the original author of the image"? I did not say that and did not even upload it. Also, when the image is undeleted, the "author" and "permission" must be corrected using the {{PD-algorithm}} template, as I said before. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my mistake, it was declared "Own work" by the uploader not by you.
|source=Own work
|author=110280Andre
and here attemted to grant a license on-wiki:
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
Anyway, we have no valid license at the moment. Ankry (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The valid license is {{PD-algorithm}}: "This file is in the public domain because it is the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim."! heylenny (talk/edits) 18:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have to believe that if this AI creation looks enough like the real dog to be useful, creation must have required carefully worded lengthy explicit instructions. Commons and the case law have not yet fully defined when an AI image has required enough specific instructions to be over the ToO, but this surely is a case where {{PD-algorithm}} does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have precedents, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Gaza.webm, showing that the idea that a "carefully worded, lengthy prompt" automatically exceeds the ToO is not established consensus. Those files were way more complex, commercially produced, and of known authorship, yet it was kept under {{PD-algorithm}}. By contrast, the Orelha dog image depicts an extremely common type of dog in Brazil and does not appear to require any particularly sophisticated or highly creative prompt. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:eelco-eerenberg-wethouder-portretfoto.jpg

Dear,

Recently I changed the photo of alderman Eelco Eerenberg on his Wikipedia page using Wikimedia Commons. This photo is free for publication as is stated on https://www.utrecht.nl/bestuur-en-organisatie/college-van-b-en-w/burgemeester-en-wethouders/eelco-eerenberg. The photo I uploaded is https://www.utrecht.nl/fileadmin/uploads/documenten/bestuur-en-organisatie/college-van-b-en-w/eelco-eerenberg/eelco-eerenberg-wethouder-portretfoto.jpg. Could you please restore it?

Dennis Brouwer Spokesperson to alderman Eelco Eerenberg Municipality of Utrecht, The Netherlands --Woordvutrecht (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The only mention of copyright matters I see on the source page is "De foto’s op deze pagina mag u gebruiken voor publicatie." (Google:"The photos on this page can be used for publication.") That is not a free license. Commons licenses must be for any use any where by anybody and must be explicitly irrevocable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Small Icon of german podcast termfrequenz.png

File:Small Icon of german podcast termfrequenz.png is one of our company-owned logos, so there is no conflict of permission to upload

https://www.gettraction.de/get-seo-intelligence/podcast-network-termfrequenz/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GettractionWikiInfo (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GettractionWikiInfo (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GettractionWikiInfo: For anything previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 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 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revert accidental delete for Lion and Sun slogan flag

Yesterday, I had asked for the file "File:Lion_and_Sun_flag_(زن، زندگی، آزادی, alternate).jpg" to be deleted, so that only the File:Lion_and_Sun_flag_(زن، زندگی، آزادی).jpg be kept (both files were created by me). However, the reviewer in charge deleted both files and deleted File:Lion_and_Sun_flag_(زن، زندگی، آزادی).jpg once more when I tried to reupload it. Therefore, I'm asking if it's possible to undo the deletion of the main File:Lion_and_Sun_flag_(زن، زندگی، آزادی).jpg file (not the alternate; that one stays deleted). I am the creator of the English-language Wikipedia page for the "Lion and Sun flag" and my design is used on the associated Commons file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConflictFan (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best, ConflictFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConflictFan (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those links lead nowhere. You did not upload jpg files with those names (logs). You probably mean svg files. Note that each file was deleted for a different reason. Notifying The Squirrel Conspiracy. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I did mean .svg for both files. The reason for the deletion of the alternate file was the request that I was made, so there is no issue with that. The deletion of the main file though was "Personal photo by non-contributors (F10)", so I think it was done mistakenly.
Also sorry for not having signed that previous message properly; the link I clicked did not include the template for the signature. ConflictFan (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I purposefully deleted both versions, not just the one you requested. The Lion and Sun flag doesn't have any text on it. Fictional flag [variants] are out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per TSC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uttar poster 1.jpg

So this is my film's poster. Made by me, i have to upload it so that i can use it on film's wikipedia page. which Uttar (film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santawalkingaround (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Santawalkingaround: Hi, In what capacity did you make this? Anyway, for anything previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Marathi film poster made by me. It does not have copyright issue. I just want people to know that this is the poster of film, so i want to upload it. Santawalkingaround (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose

  1. Please provide some evidence that this is notable -- that it is in scope.
  2. Policy requires that the producer of the film send a free license using VRT.
  3. Note that reloading an image wastes your time, other editors' time, and system resources. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Freigabe für Datei: Albumcover der Oi!Band Sexgeräusche für "Geile Töne" (2025).png

Hiermit bestätige ich, dass ich der Urheber und/oder alleinige Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte an dem Werk „Albumcover der Oi!Band Sexgeräusche für Geile Töne“ bin. Ich erkläre mich damit einverstanden, das Werk unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International“ zu veröffentlichen. © 2025 Sexgeräusche. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Nutzung für Pressezwecke und Berichterstattung gestattet. Sofern die Lizenzbedingungen eingehalten werden bin ich mit der Nutzung einverstanden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrueneMamba (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Google "I hereby confirm that I am the author and/or sole owner of the rights to the work "Album cover of the Oi! band Sexgeräusche für Geile Töne". I agree to release the work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. © 2025 Sexgeräusche. All rights reserved. Use for press purposes and reporting is permitted. I agree to the use provided the license terms are observed."

File:Albumcover der Oi!Band Sexgeräusche für "Geile Töne" (2025).png This request is internally contradictory -- CC-BY-SA is a broad license, but "Use for press purposes and reporting is permitted" is very narrow. In any event, policy requires that the producer of the album provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kshitij patwardhan film fare.jpg

This photo is taken by me. The source is me, so please give me permission to upload it here. It has no copyright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santawalkingaround (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:ShreeZad, who is listed as the author, is a former name of User:Santawalkingaround. That may be why this was deleted.

What is the black object in the image? It appears to be a trophy of some sort, which would have a copyright and make this image a violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


File:Samuel Appiah Darko (Director SRC).jpg

I own the work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilante eye 1 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears on Facebook, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag map of Canada and United States (American Flag).png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: should be a good stock image, since similar stuff has been reported https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115925888562624963 https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/trump-shares-altered-map-of-us-flag-covering-canada-greenland-and-venezuela/ , and similar image File:Map of Canada with the U.S. Flag over it.png is used. RoyZuo (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gainbridge Super League.png

This image (also available here) was deleted for not having a license. It should be undeleted because it's too simple to be copyrightable; {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Lapiedra foto.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2026020710004958. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:GBAF Print Magazine.jpg

Undeletion request. I am the owner of GBAF Publications Limited. “Copyright owned by GBAF Publications Ltd. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoacrosseverything (talk • contribs) 11:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The magazine cover appears on Flickr with an NC license. In order to have it restored here, either change the license on Flickr, removing the NC, or send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag_of_Oita-Seze.png

Undelete this now losers

Why?

1. People know about this on YT

2. “Personal photos by non-contributors” this is unfair dipshit

So fu — Preceding unsigned comment added by SezanPatriot (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"