Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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)
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:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.

However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽，如其形式係依法所制訂者，依著作權法第9條，不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is based on 《陸海空軍軍旗條例施行細則》第五條. Looks ok to keep. --Wcam (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. (And should recover all revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revision history of File:Seal of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China.svg should be merged with this file if the latter get restored. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file (to request restoration of all deleted revisions) or for all deleted files of that DR? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait_de_Nicolas_&_Bruno.jpg

Bonjour, désolé je ne suis pas un spécialiste de wikipedia mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi la photo dont je suis l'auteur a été refusée sur la page de "Nicolas et Bruno" que j'actualise régulièrement.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_et_Bruno

Je me suis sans doute trompé dans la définition de la licence. Je souhaite que cette photo soit libre de droit, dans le domaine public, sans restriction d'un quelconque copyright.

Parallèlement on m'a informé que ma photo a été utilisée sur le site Focus-cinema, mais à l'époque avec mon autorisation. >>>> Reason for the nomination: file under copyright (See https://www.focus-cinema.com/7741868/what-we-do-in-the-shadows-vampires-entre-toute-intimite-sortira-fin-octobre-en-france/)

Pouvez-vous m'aider et me donner la procédure pour que ma modification soit possible? Ou pouvez-vous le faire vous-même?

Merci d'avance pour votre aide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmsChecker (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FilmsChecker: Bonjour,
Avez-vous l'image originale ? Si oui, vous pourriez l'importer pour prouver que vous êtes bien le photographe. Si non, il faudra confirmer la licence par email en suivant la procédure à COM:VRT/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci Yann pour votre réponse! Ça y est, je crois que ça a fonctionné!! Merci beaucoup. FilmsChecker (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The image as uploaded has a black border and appears in a number of places on the web. It is only 640px square. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question Isn't this resolution a standard for this camera model? Ankry (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha -- I think you are probably right, but it does appear in a number of places without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do any of those other places include the EXIF? The one I found does not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support undeletion of the deleted version as the uploader was able to upload the version with EXIF. However, this is probably not meaningfull at the momen as the original version is not deleted~and I see no reason to do so. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Bandai Namco

Hi, This discussion concluded that there is no reason to believe that the free license at the source of these files is not valid. This also applies to files published by Bandai Namco under a free license. Yann (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion you linked to had the closing admin specifically say Bandai Namco was not trustworthy. I'd be inclined to undelete the ones which Bandai Namco had complete ownership on but not the others especially given the complexity of Japan's production committee model for animated works. Abzeronow (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, fine with me. Yann (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAICT there were all license reviewed, and they still have a free license at source. Yann (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I undeleted all files. Yann (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: done by Yann. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg

And also:

I created the picture myself. So please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User85521 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:上海市延安初级中学 校徽.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: according to mainland china copyright website https://register.ccopyright.com.cn/query.html?spm=service_hall.25034570.0.0.39373f35dTC0hP this logo is not protected and is free to use in any way YananCoolCD (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Orussus coronatus.jpg

Both the earlier, higher quality image (this one) and the later lossier image were erroneously deleted in response to a deletion request that was only supposed to encompass the latter as a redundant file. This former file wasn't requested for deletion. This has also resulted in numerous delinkings across language Wikipedias after pages were updated to use the better image. Lhikan634 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment It seems @Krd: deleted it 2 hours after Materialscientist closed the DR. I assume it was by mistake, as sometimes deletion jobs fail and need to restarted again. Günther Frager (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Female barbarian from space vs giant ant.jpg

It is in use and the admin deleting it regardless violated WMC policy.

The image is high-quality and illustrates how some scifi pulp magazines looked like and/or an insectoid / enlarged-insects trope of scifi. It could for example be used to illustrate an article about either if no better image exists if it complements such. Unlike many other images here, it's educationally valuable. File:Ai-generated tarzanide.jpg would be good to undelete as well for the same reason but this request could also focus on the former. In the deletion discussion one user voted to keep that image while one user voted to delete. The nominator specified "gobbledygook text" as rationale but that image does not contain such. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Can you show me where the file was in use? I feel like we can better illustrate what pulp magazines looked like with actual examples. The AI art does have a 1950s style to it, but it is essentially a fanart using prompts. Abzeronow (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People often feel that way but they don't actually go and check the situation which is severe with AI art finally enabling the closing of some major gaps like illustrating what the art genre/movement/style "solarpunk" looks like and is about. Not pulp magazines, but large insectoids as depicted by scifi pulp magazines, that is what I wrote. It was in use here which the admin apparently felt like they can just ignore. I also wasn't saying this is the only image available just that is substantially educationally valuable in that regard, in other cases and especially when only few other images are available we don't just go ahead and delete all the subjectively less good ones. Yes, could arguable be even more reason to keep it. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, AI illustrates what it thinks "solarpunk" looks like. The two examples you have there are both fanart. We don't host fanart unless it is notable. And Wikidata is not sufficient by itself for something to be COM:INUSE. Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, I engineered it so that it illustrates what I think solarpunk looks like. Moreover, it trained on countless solarpunk images and thereby may even be able to better represent what it looks like than humans on average. Please stop legitimizing grave decisions against established Wikimedia Commons policies by your anti-AI bias and misunderstandings.
  • False, nowhere on that page does it claim that while it does say A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose.
Prototyperspective (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Unused AI-generated fan art, out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provably false. It's in use and thereby by definition within scope. What makes "fan art" intrinsically educationally not valuable? Is there a policy suggesting that or is that something you just feel like? Out of scope for what reason? That reason seems to be "it's AI-generated fan art" but that's not a reason in itself and the image wasn't even fan art so this is provably even false. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should read Commons:Fan art, and stop arguing ad nauseam, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator. Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actual arguments rather than baseless unsubstantiated claims and allegations are prohibited now?
Okay: that page says unofficial artistic representations of elements or characters in an original work of fiction, I'll ask again since my question at the DR was ignored like most of my points: what is that "original work of fiction"? Even if it is fan art how does that warrant deletion, especially since those files are by definition within scope.
It's a violation of WMC policy and I'd say it would be an important precedent albeit I've seen it before. To make things clear and evade further ignoring of my points: I asked about two things here: what is the original work of fiction and why would the deletion be warranted. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support This was COM:INUSE on Wikidata. If we were on Wikidata, I would contest its being in the item, and hopefully come to a consensus as to its inclusion. But we are on Commons. That is not our decision to make -- "Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". I do not opine on whether the filenames should be changed, whether there should be a more prominent disclaimer in the description, et cetera. If consensus on Wikidata is that the file should not be included in the item, we can delete it then. But not now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Questions: What was it used for in Wikidata? Who put it there? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was the highest quality image for 'insectoid' the other image was a barely decipherable very-low-quality magazine cover depicting something that looks like nothing or possibly an insectoid. I already linked the wikidata page. It does seem like this place is turning into a totalitarianism of unilateral decisions by admins supported by one or or three refuted opinions even when it goes against established WMC policy. It wasn't the uploader him/herself who put it there. We have basically no other high-quality image of an enlarged known insect like an ant despite it being a notable subject and the deletion nomination does not even affect the image since it does not contain any text, nor do we have many high-quality images of how contents of pulp scifi magazines look like. That it's on WMC doesn't mean it has to be used, it can be educationally valuable. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree with your opinion that the Amazing Stories cover was "very-low-quality". It is a 1957 cover by Leo Morey, and historically shows that insectoids were popularly used in 1950s science fiction. The cover is public domain so a higher quality scan could also be done. The deleted insectoid picture is aesthetically pleasing but not historical, and does not increase understanding of what historical pulp scifi magazines actually looked like. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do see your point but others can see that different, for instance I do and the uploader probably as well. The thing is that cover can be used and this image be valuable in addition to it, because even when not considering the quality and resolution of the cover, it's still a magazine cover with lots of text around – what was missing is an image of the content itself and only; and it does potentially increase that understanding depending on how it's used.
    It would also be valuable if there were few or some images of that type. Images here aren't only meant to be useful for inclusion in Wikipedia, they could also be useful for other purposes…for instance some blog-type post educating about pulp scifi or scifi about enlarged animals or insectoid animals in scifi or large ants in fiction (if there are such which I think there are) where quality is more important and many images can be used with having lots of images being important to make the post interesting; lots of text with too few images is often too boring and repelling to readers. In such a case and especially for uses within Wikimedia projects, it should simply be clarified that this is not a historical image but AI-generated. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Not done}}: We do not keep personal art from people who are not notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken the liberty of un-closing this so that discussion on the matter, which was ongoing here and below in #Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator, can continue. Cf. Commons:Undeletion requests#Closing discussions (instructing admins to, when there was a debate, only close "[w]hen a debate is settled".) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. Agree with above comments. "In use" is a valuable guideline in determining scope, but does not automatically supersede all other considerations (most obviously, that clear copyright violations will be speedy deleted regardless). IMO "in use" arguments such as this should include clear information as to exactly *where* the image was used and *who* put it there. If I were to upload an image that most others thought clearly out-of-scope and place it in some obscure article, wikidata, or other page briefly, my action should not give the image an eternal "Get Out of Deletion Free" card. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes in-use does not override copyright issues.
    But there are no copyright issues with that image, it's not a copyright violation.
    It seems like people just vote out by headcount content they don't like despite that it's clearly in scope because a) in-use b) realistically educationally valuable due to multiple specific realistic use-cases (and I could add more examples). As @Trade: has clarified elsewhere Training AI generation models does not violate copyright. The Patent Office have stated that ad infinitum, we have lots of other txt2img images, and I have also elaborated multiple times why people alleging these are copyright violations without any substantiation are basing that on misunderstandings of how these AI software work. It's like saying all human drawings can't be CCBY because they are based on the visual experience learning by the human which includes consumption of visual non-free media. If AI-software-based images are copyright violations due a societal/legal screw-up, outdated methods, and hyper-commodification, then all images made with AI need to go into some kind of temporary quarantine where they can't be seen anywhere on this site or elsewhere until it's clearer that they are/can be PD/CCBY, but not just recently deleted images in particular. Maybe that will happen to all images made with Photoshop because that software is proprietary code which intellectually protected and leveraged by whoever used Photoshop. One can create copyright violations using txt2img tools, just like one can do so with Photoshop, but not all of it are and these aren't. Images by @Fma12: were also deleted for no good reason despite that many where both high-quality and the only ones for major category/subject; one example was a image looking like this which is now used twice on Wikipedia even though some narrow brief opinionated considerations didn't immediately find it useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Neutral There are also some LTAs randomly inserted some Commons images as the image (P18) value, so based on this case, it should be discussed that whether COM:INUSE should be modified to exclude Wikidata's usages. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know what "LTAs" is; it's not self-explanatory. They are not randomly inserted but actually educationally useful, I don't know why it's so hard to understand when we keep humorous-softporn with no explanation of educational usefulness and I explain multiple specific realistic educational usefulness cases. Wikidata usages certainly should not be excluded. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I disagree that INUSE would need to be modified to exclude Wikidata completely. I think a better criteria would be looking if someone putting something into Wikidata or elsewhere is used to deliberate attempt to game the system with INUSE as a tool. - or even sincerely intended edits producing the same result. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
INUSE is not a tool but an important principle, exactly like must be realistically useful for an educational purpose :
A media file which is neither:
  • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
  • legitimately in use as discussed above
falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons. Even if you for whatever reason think it would be okay, acceptable and within bounds of current WMC policies to ignore and somehow sidestep point #2 as it's described there, point #1 still holds. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator

Deletion discussion is here. Deleted due to per nomination. Unused AI-generated fan art, out of scope. However, the files are in use and thereby by definition within COM:SCOPE.

The admin deleting them once again violated WMC policy by deleting them despite that they are in use. It seems like Wikimedia Commons policies do not matter anymore. Why do we even have WMC policies if admins do not follow them whenever it suits them?

Moreover, I addressed and largely refuted objections in the DR. For example unlike the deleting admin claimed, these are not "fan fiction".

I value these images not for the people depicted in it but the ancient settings, the artistic aspects, and the way they were made, all of which is educational, unlike many other images kept again and again for no good reason other than apparently somehow not being prohibited by current policy (which these images clearly aren't). These images here are high-quality and not just educational but realistically educational. That they are made via AI is marked quite clearly in the file descriptions.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Idem above. Yann (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is not undeleted it means that uses on Wikidata and Wikibooks uses are no longer considered to be COM:INUSE due to the file being in use.
Things are considered fan art once e.g. an admin alleges they are and no "original work of fiction" is needed. Once it is deemed fan art like that, it is sufficient rationale for deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose per GMG on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator "I don't really see how that's meaningfully different than me uploading my kid's drawing of George Washington. Of course you can imagine some use-case if you're willing to get specific enough. Say you for some reason want to write a post about children's drawings of presidents. Of course the fact that George has a mitten for a hand because she's not very good at drawing fingers, can be fixed if we fire up GIMP or Photoshop.
But in this case it's AI, and so you have an infinite number of children drawing an infinite number of pictures. So if you need one, then just go get it. We're not just talking about images that need fixing to be useful, but images that are imminently, literally infinitely replaceable"
Commons is not the place for amateur art attempting to depict the 15th Century when we have real, historical artwork by notable persons that do that. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not have that for the person in question and those images are high quality, not low quality.
There may a small percentage that features misgenerations but all of those high-quality relatively unique images regarding 'AI-revived historical figures at high resolution' were deleted, not only those with major misgeneration. This was the best depiction available and is low quality and looks similar to the older person in the image. These were not children's drawings but very high-quality images. And no, we don't have a lot of artwork at digital art quality/resolution that does that and even if we do have that doesn't make the image less valuable. I even was told things aren't deleted just because some better images are available, we e.g. have lots of images of the Eiffel tower. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree because you don't have to "imagine some use-case". If you did, I would agree. But there is a use-case, which is why the file was COM:INUSE on a sister project. As long as it's in use, it's in scope; we must not overrule our sister projects on what is useful. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Each image listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator was COM:INUSE on Wikibooks. Per COM:SCOPE: "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." If the images fall out of use (e.g. because of consensus on Wikibooks), they can be deleted then. I do not opine on whether the filenames should be changed, whether there should be a more prominent disclaimer in the description, et cetera. But the deleting admin erred when deleting in-use images as out of scope. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Weren't they added there by the uploader? Yann (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They weren't. Further clarification: requiring filename changes for the images in that cat could be a good thing to do, I do not opine on that either and support a more prominent disclaimer in the file description (suggested a auto-added template multiple weeks ago plus other ideas in the DR) as well as a more explicit requirement for it to be there. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The rule that an image that is in use is in scope has limits. For example, a map of the United States showing 60 states would not be in scope even if mistakenly used somewhere. Similarly, images that purport to be of historical figures but that are actually figments of an AI imagination are not in scope even if in use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward Where does that find support in policy? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Common sense. I can't imagine that you think we would keep a map showing the USA with 60 states. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward If it were in use, on purpose, yes. Perhaps the map is on an Wikipedia article about something like w:en:Texas divisionism. Or maybe it's on something less educational. But it's not our choice whether we find it educational, it's our sister projects' choice. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These images do not show a map of 60 states so the whole point is mute and unclear. I already explained how these images can be useful. One use-case gets clear at the place where it's used; for example if images are meant to illustrate how people imagined things in the past or how an imaginary story describes something, then historical accuracy is not so important. In any case, lots paintings of historical events for example also aren't accurate but they are or can still be valuable for many reasons but simply should not be used to illustrate the historical event at least without disclaimer. These images are not used for that and it's very clear from the file description that they are AI-generated. This is all just opinion of points that are largely irrelevant to the question based on a lot of flawed assumptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Admins can just decide when not to and when to ignore policy. I get it. And they can also choose to ignore clear points such as I value these images not for the people depicted in it but the ancient settings, the artistic aspects, and the way they were made, all of which is educational as well as the educational use that becomes evident when looking at the place where the file is in use.
  • Moreover, your claims are provably false images that purport to be of historical figures but that are actually figments of an AI imagination the image very clearly state they are AI-generated.
  • Also by closing the debate above about the pulp scifi enlarged ant image above you violated WMC policy as well as making a false statement not supported by any policy.
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the claim that the image was in use in Wikibooks. Where? There are no hits in Wikibooks for either "Joanna of Naples" or "Giovanna IV di Napoli". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah okay, Common sense and because we would not map showing the USA with 60 states according to the opinion of an admin is why WMC policy can just be ignored and things be deleted despite a) invalid deletion rationale with no basis in policy b) content being shown educationally valuable c) files being in use.
It's in use here which shows only further not the only educational value these, arguably high-quality, policy-compatible images have. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I guessed, the Wikibooks page on which it was in use has only one editor, User:Prototyperspective. Common sense suggests that the "in use rule" laid out at COM:Scope cannot be applied when a file is in use only because its only advocate created a use for it. I also note that the cited page was created after the DR was opened. COM:Scope says, "In the sections below, any use that is not made in good faith does not count." It seems to me that this falls under that rule. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. It is common sense to not delete a file which is clearly educationally valuable and within scope and for which multiple specific use-cases where elaborated as well as one being implemented. Especially if you keep all kinds of educationally useless files of which there already are hundreds of photos and the photo is the only or one of very few of its kind. So much for common sense.
  2. Why would that be the case. The file of the ant and many (or all) of the high-resolution digital art medieval scenes featuring 'Ferrandino d'Aragona' are in use and people who used such files are very much allowed to also have a say regarding the deletion discussion; I'd even argue that they should do so if they somehow take note of the DR.
  3. Re "any use that is not made in good faith does not count" – why do you think it's not in good faith? The use is not a talk page and very clearly shows how these images can be educationally valuable and used. The images are perfectly suited for what they're used for and again I already listed further specific educational use-cases so it falls under realistically useful for an educational purpose anyway.
Prototyperspective (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Mdaniels5757 that COM:INUSE mostly overrides other scope considerations. COM:SCOPE is pretty clear on that. When "out of scope" fails, the "copyright violation card" always sticks around, though. Good luck playing that one with AI-art... Strakhov (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose. Agree with other oppose statements above: Repeating my comment above: "In use" is a valuable guideline in determining scope, but does not automatically supersede all other considerations (most obviously, that clear copyright violations will be speedy deleted regardless). IMO "in use" arguments such as this should include clear information as to exactly *where* the image was used and *who* put it there. If I were to upload an image that most others thought clearly out-of-scope and place it in some obscure article, wikidata, or other page briefly, my action should not give the image an eternal "Get Out of Deletion Free" card. This seems rather gaming the system. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it does not overrule copyright issues; but these images do not have such. It's clearly in scope because a) in-use b) realistically educationally useful due to explained multiple specific realistic use-cases (and I could add more examples despite that one is not just specified but also also proven due to being implemented). See comment in discussion above. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Neutral Same concern as above case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Ctdmc

The source has released the contents with CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL. --Wcam (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Programmheft Rodauner Sommernachtstraum 2022 - Seite 2 und 3.pdf

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung. Die Datei ist ein Original PDF des Programmhefts der Theaterproduktion "Sommernachtstraum" des Rodauner Theater Sommers 2022. Alle Fotos und Texte in diesem Heft wurden von mir erstellt. Leider gibt es genau von der Innenseite dieses Programmhefts keine weitere Kopie, alle übrigen Flyer gingen bei einem Wasserschaden 2023 verloren. Ich bitte daher um Wiederherstellung der PDF Datei. Danke und lG Marcus Marschalek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xob (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 December 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xob: But how is this useful to a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xob: Willst du die Datei nur selbst runterladen, weil du selbst keine Kopie mehr hast (dann könnten wir sie für eine kurze Zeit, damit du sie runterladen kannst, wiederherstellen), oder willst du die dauerhaft wiederhergestellt haben? --Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CrunchLabs - MrBeast Opened the WRONG BOX!!! (MRus4BCPRyY - 0m28s) (cropped).jpg

It was removed because it was not "under Creative Commons Licensing Attribution on YouTube", but it was previously, and CC licenses are irrevocable. See archived page: https://web.archive.org/web/20230517050046/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRus4BCPRyY Endof (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info File:CrunchLabs - MrBeast Opened the WRONG BOX!!! (MRus4BCPRyY - 0m28s).jpg, from which this image was derived, was also marked with a speedydelete by @G9mmB, but I removed it before the image could get removed and clarified that the image is indeed under a free license.
Endof (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (137).JPG

I cannot see the picture, so cannot be sure which one it is, but there have been a number of requests for deletion, referencing images from my photoshoot at a village called Minskip, which was holding a scarecrow festival. The theme for the festival was Disney. Because the reason for deletion was given as "toys" in this case, I think this picture may be the one of two stuffed animals, made to look like dalmatian dogs, that is, dogs with black spots on a white background.

The two dogs were slightly different from each others, therefore almost certainly hand-made, like the rest of the festival exhibits. The dalmatians looked as if they were just representatives of dalmatians, that is, they did not imitate in any way the cartoon-designs by Disney in their film of the book. In the UK we often see the real dogs on the street, and it is common to see dalmatian-shaped objects which have nothing to do with Disney. There is no reason to suppose that the householder who made those dogs were interested in copyright, because they had displayed the dogs on the street, where we in the UK have panoramafreiheit, and in scarecrow festivals, all the passers-by are photographing the exhibits. So please confirm which picture this is, because if it's the dalmatians, I do not believe they are commerical orbjects or copyrighted, and they are certainly nothing to do with Disney's own designs. Disney cannot copyright images of the real dogs. Also the book, 101 Dalmatians, is popular here - it is read in schools - so it is highly likely that the objects refer to that story, i.e. the idea of real dalmatians. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support This is a (very) stylized bee, and I can't see any copyrighted element here. Yann (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (137).JPG. Thuresson (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The sculpture of the bee certainly has a copyright, so don't we need a free license from the bee's creator? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is one of the scarecrows, then would be possible this 3D artwork, which would definitely be copyrightable in the UK, was permanently displayed (since they are destroyed a few days afterwards)? Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jim, this is not a sculpture, it is very simple plush. Yann (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonetheless, it has a copyright as a sculpture. It is nowhere near simple enough to not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess from the above comments that the photograph concerned is the one of the bee, not the dogs?
This and this should answer your question on UK copyright laws regarding toys.
A photograph of a toy is not an infringement of copyright in the UK. Panoramafreiheit in the UK covers anything photographed from the public highway. The "permanent exhibition" element is about panoramafreiheit in museums, but a scarecrow exhibition photographed from the public highway is not a museum.
The one-off, handcrafted example in my above links is about a registered and patented original design example made by an artist for potential factory manufacture and sale. But manufactured toys are not copyrighted against photography in the UK, and neither are stuffies (as I believe you call them in the US) handmade by mothers and kids at home.
It also looks as if there are some misunderstandings in the above comments, about what we are doing on Commons (regarding the UK). We are licensing free use of our 2D images, including for commercial use. That is to say, the public can use our 2D photographs. We cannot be held responsible for what the public does about what they can see in the picture. For example, suppose that a criminal decides to copy that bee, handmade by the mother and child residents and not copyrighted (after all, who copyrights a stuffie?) Even if the criminal is a stuffie-design expert, they cannot know the shape of the base-piece, or how many darts and spacer pieces are used, or where they are used, if at all, or the exact size of the thing, or how exactly the face is created. This is because they can only see one aspect of the 3D object.
I have made stuffies all my life (called stuffed animals in the UK) - it is part of my background culture - but I could not expect to copy that item well enough so that an observer of both objects in real life could not tell the difference between my work and the original. This is one of the reasons why the law makes a differentiation between photographs of 2D objects and 3D objects for copyright purposes in the UK. So I think what is happening here is a US-oriented reaction to UK photographs, while referencing only US law. This platform respects the existence of international laws regarding copyright, e.g. panaoramafreiheit. Storye book (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure whether FOP-related questions can be accounted for toys. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, the bee certainly has a copyright. In both the UK and the US toys are copyrighted as if they were sculptures and in both countries copyright attaches automatically upon creation. Second, as clearly noted at the top of this discussion, the sculpture was displayed as part of a scarecrow festival. In the UK, FoP requires that the work be displayed permanently. That is clearly not the case here.
As for CDPA section 51, cited above, it allows people to make 3D copies of the design, but is absolutely silent on making photographs of the design. Note also, that even if the UK law allowed the photograph, US law does not. The note above assumes that only UK law applies here. That is not the case. Photographs on Commons must be free in both the USA and the country of origin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File: Twinks4Trump J in White - Hat text removed.png

This is a derivative of the commons file File:Twinks4Trump J in White.jpg, which is under a CC-BY-SA license. It was deleted for being uploaded without permission, but the terms of the original work’s license allows for derivatives to be shared as long as they are attributed and shared under a compatible license, which my derivative was. Zanahary (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context, the original is of a model wearing a MAGA hat. An editor at the enwiki page for Twink raised that it might be a problem to use a political image, so I made a derivative version with the hat text seamlessly edited out (it just looks like a model in a white hat). Zanahary (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any evidence of permission from photographer Lucien Wintrich in the original. And this was previously published before upload to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that Jvander22 claims to be Lucien Wintrich, but this is not a selfie, so the permission from the photographer is needed. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jvander22. Yann (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lucian Wintrich is the photographer, at least of J in White. Zanahary (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And then, who is the guy on the picture? Yann (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A model with the initial ‘J’. Zanahary (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but I get some doubt, as he claims "own work" for quite a lot of pictures which aren't. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There’s doubt that he understands licensing/copyright ownership. But this image was taken by Lucian Wintrich and uploaded to WC under a good license. Zanahary (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I have asked him to verify his identity via VRT. Yann (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, in the meantime my image should be undeleted. Zanahary (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support OK, it will probably be undeleted after 24h, unless someone opposes. Yann (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Agustina de Zuzuarregui y de Sotto4.jpg

The copyright term in Spain is 25 years from creation for simple portraits, the URAA date is not applicable. "It affects my interests as a person" is still not a valid reason for deletion. And the WMF and United States copyright law makes no legal distinction between "unknown" and "anonymous". They are both used to designate that due diligence has been performed and no named author has been found to date. --RAN (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Strakhov: I don't know what Spain considers a "simple photograph". And I'm not going to assume that a uploader who hasn't done any research can credibly claim that something is anonymous, but if it is a simple photograph, then claims of anonymity are moot anyway. Abzeronow (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abzeronow: I don't know either, since I'm no copyright lawyer, but TBH in the past I thought that to be a little more strict. Since 2022 I have taken the result of this deletion request as a Wikimedia Commons standard for simple Spanish photographs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisco Goñi.jpg in order to be consistent (that means I have mostly abandoned reviewing or questioning the copyright of Spanish old photographs). Strakhov (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I think we can call this a simple photograph based on Ruthven's close of that DR. But we'd still need to know if this was first published in Spain or Cuba since Cuba measures by publication and not creation. Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abzeronow: Here it says Agustina and her husband were in Cuba between and 1927-09-27 and 1929-08-09 (not a Communist country yet, though). And she was born in 1892. She looks pretty young, probably less-than-35-years-old? Strakhov (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you expand on the legal concept that a simple photograph can never be anonymous? I would love to read the judgments in the cases you have found. We have all the tools we need to perform due diligence to see if an image has an active copyright claimant or a named creator using Tineye and Google Image Search. Tineye by itself searched over 15 billion images. To see an example of a "complex photograph" see: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg which required elaborate staging, not just pressing the button to release the shutter. --RAN (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I didn't say simple photographs can never be anonymous, I said if this was a simple photograph from Spain, then the question about authorship is moot (i.e. it doesn't matter). I respectfully disagree with the notion that TinEye and Google Image Search are sufficient to establish if a work has a known author, further investigation would be necessary like checking the back sides of works if available and tracking down publishers if known and checking their records. Copyright laws regarding reasonable search were written before the internet, so while internet tools are good at detecting plagiarism, important records that establish authorship may not exist online, and many copyrighted works are not available online or are online behind a paywall which tools cannot penetrate. And so, information that properly establishes where and when this photograph was published is necessary to determine its copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support a search[1] for Agustina de Zuzuarregui shows that he was born in 1892 in Spain and that she lived mostly in Spain, with a period in Cuba (she returned to Spain in 1929). So the country of origin is either Spain or Cuba. In Spain non-artistic photographs are protected for 25 years since creation (not publication) and regardless of the author. The last valid creation date to avoid restoration is 1970. It is clear she is not 78 years old in that photo (at least what Google cache shows). The protection in Cuba is similar: 25 years since first use. The only chance not to be in the public domain is if it was published for the first time in Cuba at least 41 years after it was taken. This sounds far fetched: a communist regime publishing a photo of an old wealthy business person. The uploader claim is clearly bogus, as it is the argument from the person that opened the DR. I have many differences with RAN when he tries to save files from DRs, but here I find little evidence to claim it is protected by copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim.jpg Un delete request

Prof. Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim, the founder of the World Society for Virology Personal picture with permission of its owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim (talk • contribs) 06:55, 17 December 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info Re-uploaded as File:Prof. Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:World Society for Virology.png

The picture is uploaded after the permission of the World Society for Virology - Email: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 December 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cruise Bonaria 2022 Olbia.jpg RICHIESTA RIPRISTINO

Richiedo ripristino dell’ immagine in quanto non ho violato nessuna regola e l’ho presa dal sito faktaomfartyg.se. Riguardo alle altre opere che mi sono state cancellate alcune sono anche opere mie --InfoNavi (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)InfoNavi--InfoNavi (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The source site does not have any free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can't copy other people's photos off the internet -- only the photographers own the copyright and can license them. Which deleted photos were ones that you took? If photos were published elsewhere on the Internet first, such that anyone could copy them, we need separate email verification via the COM:VRT process, unless you can get the Internet source changed to state the free copyright license. Or you could upload a higher-resolution version not available anywhere else, something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gubaidulla-bubi.jpg

I didn't see the original file, but the uploader wrote me that it is from this source, so the photo is PD-old. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Photo is from that source. It's the middle of the three old photos. Abzeronow (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Infinity Train HBO Max logo.webp

The image was deleted by User:MGA73 together with some copyvios, however, in my opinion it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} as well as File:Infinity Train series logo.png. The image was used in plwiki. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday 2.png

Please undelete this image because its deletion was erroneus. This image can be used as fair use for visual identification. Michalg95 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose fair use is not allowed in Commons, see COM:L. Günther Frager (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Deletion was proper, we don't allow fair use material like album covers on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose per above. @Michalg95: This does not and cannot belong here. You seem to have completely misunderstood what Wikimedia Commons is about. Please see COM:SCOPE and COM:LICENSE for basic information. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

H_Baudu_wiki.jpg

c'est une photo personnelle pour illustrer bibliographie de ma page wikipédia en cours de rédaction. Merci hervé Baudu

le 17 décembre 2023

File:Example.jpg

There are nothing wrong whth the picture I posted. It's myself So please leave it as it is.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=755577566"