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)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
91 copyvios • 17 duplicates • 3 adverts • 41 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:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg
This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from
File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.
A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DwightBirdwell.jpg

Hello the photographer of this photo gave permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page. He was notified on December 11 that it would take around 5 days for it to be processed but the image/file was deleted on December 25. This is the file.

--Edbirdwell76 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The problem may be that "permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page" is not sufficient, Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere, not just on WP. Please make sure that the photographer has actually sent a free license and not just the limited one you describe above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer said they did send a release to Wikipedia that it was okay to use the photo, this was back on December 11th. Should I forward the email correspondence the photographer had with Wikipedia? Edbirdwell76 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Mark Umstot has uploaded the image with a CC-BY-4.0 license. That is the name of the photographer, but we have no way here of verifying that User:Mark Umstot is not an imposter. We see many of them here. Either Mr. Umstot can send a message from umstot.com to VRT verifying that the user is him or he can put a note on https://umstot.com/contact-us/ saying that he is User:Umstot here. In either case we will put a short note on his user page, User:Mark Umstot, confirming the identity. The image can then be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Botswana Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg

It has been almost seven years since this file got deleted. This file went into public domain on this year's public domain day, and therefore I'm requesting the undeletion of this file. See this. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since it was under Botswana copyright until yesterday and was written in 1962, Fatshe leno la rona will have a URAA copyright until at least 1/1/2058 and perhaps later, depending on its publication date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Province of Iloilo.svg

The flag belongs to a Philippine local government. It should be under PD-PhilippinesGov. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rohan khan.jpg

  • Rohankhan104*
    • Request**:

I am requesting the undeletion of the file *Rohan khan.jpg*. The file violates Wikimedia Commons policies because: 1. It is a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph without proper permissions. 2. The uploader has not provided sufficient evidence of license or ownership.

Please proceed with undeletion under the appropriate copyright guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan khann104 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sakura Fujimizu.jpg undelete

I was requested to change the photo to the file by the subject herself. So there are no issues with copyright. If I have something to do anymore, please tell me what to do.(This is the first time to edit wiki, so please advise me to success this edit.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOREHOTTER (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The copyright belongs by default to the photographer. And since this is not your own work, a formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kastaños inauteri taldea dantzan.jpg

Please restore this image. Its author is the amateur cultural association named "SALBATZAILE Dantza taldea" (https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbatzaile_Dantza_Taldea). The photograph shows members of the association dancing at street in Bilbao, is Salbatzaile association. The photograph was published with copyright in the official website of Salbatzaile (http://salbatzaile.org), but one month ago (2024-12-03) the president of this culture association sent an email to assign CC-BY-SA license to this photograph ([Ticket#2024112710004246], permissions-es@wikimedia.org). Last week (2024-12-27), I made corrections about its author (SALBATZAILE) and source (the association's website).

Please, consider that this is the same case for all the ten photographs deleted from the Salbatzaile_dantza_taldea category. Please restore all the ten images.

Noteː Later, (tomorrow, if I had time for it) I am going to add a different undeletion request for the five images deleted from Begoña Arroyo category. They were also mentioned in Ticket#2024112710004246.

Ksarasola (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The permission was never validated. Yann (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Also note that unless each of the photographers has given a written license allowing the association to freely license their works, the association has no right to do so. In order for this or any of the other images to be restored, the actual photographer of each image must send a free license using VRT. Please do not waste your time with more requests here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I am the support agent who processed the above mentioned Ticket:2024112710004246. The questions I asked to the client (on 2024-12-04) were never answered, thus this ticket does not constitute a valid permission. --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prodromos Antonoglou.jpg

own photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro loves wiki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a 1945 image. While it is possible that it is {{Own}} as claimed, that seems unlikely unless the uploader is 90 years old. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scp-1471-furry-art.jpg

The file is a drawing of SCP-1471, a character of the SCP Foundation collaborative writing project, a sci-fi wiki site, containing fictional entities and stories. The SCP Foundation text describing the creature, along with the majority of the SCP Foundation work, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (see here, at the footer of the site).

Consequently, the drawing of the character should also be under the same license, since the original work it is based on is in a ShareAlike License.

In order to avoid further confusion or problems that I may cause, I would like to know if I was correct to assume that the drawing is also in the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, since if I remember correctly, the contagious nature of the license is applied automatically, without the artist needing to precise it.

If I was correct, then the file could be undeleted if needed.

Thanks in advance, and sorry if I caused confusion or problems, Léo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecanautes (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, the license definition at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ says, among other things,

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

This implies that the creator of a derivative work (DW) must take the action of applying the license. If the DW creator did not do this, it would give the original creator a cause of action, but the DW would be unlicensed until the creator of the DW added the license.

If, somehow, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license somehow automatically propagated to the DW, this sentence would be redundant and I would expect to see something like the following in the license definition,

Derivative works of the works licensed under this license are automatically licensed with the same license.

That is clearly not the case in either the summary or the complete license.

Second, it is not clear that a drawing made from a description is a DW. After all, if the description is "Wolf", no one would call any drawing of a wolf a DW of that description. I think that in order to show that the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license applies, you would have to prove that all of the aspects included in the description were included in the drawing and that the creator of the drawing actually used them. I have not seen the description, but the example shown at https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-1471 is very different from the deleted image -- no one could imagine that they had been created from the same instructions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose (As the deleting admin) This is a clear copyright violation. E6 does have cc-by-sa and cc-by tags, and files there should be fine to bring over (if they're in scope and if you verify the license is correct at the original source) but I just checked and there are no images with either of those tags and the SCP-1471 tag. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:mirosmajdabio.jpg

This photo is photo of Miro Smajda from promo photoshoot with Miro at Kladno - Poldovka in 2019. I am the owner of the photo rights. I don't understand the reason why the photo was deleted. It is crazy that it's used 12 years old non actual photo of the singer where he has long hair instead of newer actual photo. This guy got his hair cut 10 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Call2nigma (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Illyria 1892.svg

Hi, First of all I would like to apologize for uploading an image that did not respect the project endorsed by Wikimedia Commons. To be fair, I was using a website that basically allows you to create parliamentary diagrams and host them on Wikimedia Commons. There is no indication on this website whatsoever that implies that diagrams cannot be hosted for personal use. I hereby request the possibility of temporarily restoring my diagram in order to find a way to save it on my device. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire&BloodHuhu (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Relevant guideline: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Illyria 1892.svg. Thuresson (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not, I was misled by this website, I am simply asking for the ability to rehost my diagram temporarily so that I can recover it and save it to my device, before permanently deleting it again Fire&BloodHuhu (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruno da Silva Antunes de Cerqueira.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hey there,

May you undelete that image? That's from Bruno's personal Facebook. I probably just set the wrong option while selecting the Wikipedia common and so with all others that were deleted too.

My apologies for that misunderstanding.

Best feelings,

Leandro Leandr'Arc (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file has not been released under a free license. Bedivere (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a work by one of Bruno's friends. He himself doesn't remember who, but the photo is free to use. May you explain to me how I could proceed to upload it without problems? Thanks. Leandr'Arc (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"