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 • 1 reason • 15 subpages) • 1 malformed
82 copyvios • 8 duplicates • 1 advert • 34 selfies • 11 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

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]
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[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]
This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the SDSS images were in public domain, what the SDSS license for images would be for? Licensing of something that is already released to PD is poinless and raises a significant doubt as per COM:PCP.
If the images are CC-licensed and not PD, I suggest to request undeletion of images that can be currently found on SDSS site and cannot be reuploaded due to earlier deletion: this way you can identify current source for the deleted images. Unfortunately, most of the above images lack precise information about source; they have {{Own}} or "English Wikipedia" provided as source. Ankry (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry bro, I and @SevenSpheres meant that before SDSS moved to PD, these images are uploaded and deleted due to at that time the things were copyrighted but now as they are under PD these images should be undeleted as they are now not copyrighted and are under PD. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
S o what is the CC-BY license (as mentioned in the initial request) for? Maybe, the "data" applies to numeric data only. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant about CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see [1]) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then  Neutral as I do not know where the text in NOP Slovenia not consisting with the legal act content originates from. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation of the law is provided in: Trampuž, Miha (1997) (slovene) Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah: s komentarjem, Gospodarski vestnik. --TadejM (t/p) 19:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1350balkans.png

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

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

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Polserb,
You are allowed to upload any file that is in the COM:Scope and under a free COM:License.
One could argue that the file is not in the project scope if it contains errors.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your "most of the time" case is actually an exception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment
Hello @Alexis Jazz,
In your answer on Wikilegal, you mentioned a potential joint authorship. Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very selective reading of what I said. Jameslwoodward's situation is special. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. While the museum may be a special case, I have never, anywhere, been given any specific instructions by the subjects of a courtesy photograph. And, even if the subjects give very specific instructions, modern point and shoots do almost all the thinking, so the only thing that makes a point and shoot image copyrightable is that the photographer has the discretion to take it at a specific moment.
Note that "Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license" is not correct. As a general rule, in the absence of a written agreement among joint holders of a copyright, any of them can grant a non-exclusive license such as the one we require here. An exclusive license requires the consent of all the joint holders, but we do not require that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several Chinese pictures

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

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

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above
File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

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

 Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.
In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.
From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。

I don't believe the Directive can give us any clue about this, considering it's not even a law.
(also, to provide some guidance, check this discussion where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born.
For the post-October 1949 Mainland scenario, the question is "when" did the RoC law expire.
  • Is the expiration date the proclamation of the PRC in 1949?
  • Is the expiration date the creation of a Constitution in 1954 (it's 1954?)
  • Given the non-existence of any copyright law until 1996, was the RoC law the one to consider prior to 1991 (even if 1991 was retroactive)? NOTE: under international law, copyright should never be considered non-existent
  • Can we agree that at least any work created before 30th September 1949 is under RoC law?
That's why I asked for any court ruling anything on this regard, to have some kind of guidance (I hate when Commons users became judges on Copyright issues, which I believe happens sometimes here) TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The enactment of the 1954 Constitution is irrelevant to this issue, as the PRC government had already promulgated numerous edicts prior to that year. For instance, the Regulations of the PRC on Punishment of Counter-revolutionaries was enacted in 1951.
Furthermore, Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on September 29, 1949, served as the de facto Constitution. Official sources have confirmed that the Common Program functioned as the interim constitutional law during that period. [2] Teetrition (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree on pre- proclamation should be a safe terrain (Proclamation of PRC, 1st October 1949).
Even if I insist on asking if there is any judicial precedent on any kind of court, be it Chinese or international, ruling on this issue. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still, changing a Constitution means nothing.
  • Spain have had several regime changes by 1987, and still they used the same XIX century copyright law under all of those different regimes.
  • Current copyright law in Iran is from the Sha's time.
RoC copyright law the last copyright law in China in the 1950s-1980s. They don't having any kind of copyirght protection or recognition is not an issue of changing the laws, but because of their very specific understanding of Communism. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Indeed, 1950 Conference resolution and 1984 regulations are considered to be valid texts and seminal to copyright in China.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found some legal base under PRC law:

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

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

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

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

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

Just as the (previous discussion on Chinese copyright laws, where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born, I believe we've reached a flaw on Commons guidelines. And probably it's not exclusive of China: because of the URAA restoration policy (Can I advocate for fully deprecate it?), we have policies and guidelines based on current laws, but, de facto, for Commons is 1996 law what is relevant.

In real world, the distinction between 1944 RoC law, 1985 RoC-Taiwan law and 1991 PRC law would be irrelevant, because any work post 1975 is PD under all three laws, making them reduncdant. But because of URAA, in Commons we should look at laws as they were, not as they are.

In short: First regulatory text on copyright in PRC is Trial Regulations on Copyright Protection of Books and Periodicals:

Article 11: The rights provided in Items (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Article 5 of these Regulations are enjoyed by authors for their entire life. After an author passes away, the lawful successor of the author or the Ministry of Culture Publications Undertakings Management Bureau protects them from infringements.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to the lifetime of the author and thirty years after his death. These thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the author; concerning joint works, these thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the last passing away author.

Concerning photographs, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

Concerning works of which the copyright belongs to bodies, collectives, industrial or undertaking work units or other work units and collective, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, after the author passes away, will be inherited according to relevant inheritance legislation.

Concerning works already published before these Regulations take effect, of all those that did not yet exceed the periods of the second, third and fourth paragraph of this Article, the copyright holder still enjoys copyright over the remainder of the time period.

So, between 1949 and June 1991 the valid normative was 30 years after publishing/death or author, and the law was only partially retroactive, in the sense it guaranteed 30 years term for works created after 1949, but did not restore any copyright for works having its natural term of 30 expired by then.

Our guidelines in Commons apply 1991 law as a whole because, in a non-URAA world, any of the Chinese laws is irrelevant because anything older than 1975 is PD. But in the URAA world we created in Commons, older copyright laws matter.

What does Chinese 1990-91 copyright law say about restoring copyirght? Article 59:

第五十九条 本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权利，在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的，依照本法予以保护。

本法施行前发生的侵权或者违约行为，依照侵权或者违约行为发生时的有关规定和政策处理。

This means the works falling in PD under the 1984 directive by June 1991 did not have its copyright restored.

Here there is an authoritative legal commentary on the 1990 Copyright Law with specific examples.

Which also aligns with Berne 18(2): A work that has fallen into the public domain in its source country through the expiry of a previously granted term shall not be protected anew.

And aligns with URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A): restoration applies only to works that entered the public domain due to lack of formalities or lack of treaty relations, not to works that entered the public domain because their copyright term expired.

And the 1984 Regulations granted 30 years terms, not 50. So, Works in PRC created (or whose author died) between 1st October 1949 and 31 December 1960 (maybe 31 May 1961) were PD by the 1991 law (and therefore, had its copyright expired by URAA time).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose because the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) was retroactive and we cannot say that it didn't apply to works created before 1949. The first point follows from the plain meaning of Chapter VI, Article 55, which says that protection is granted to any qualifying work whose "term of protection as specified in this Law [my emphasis] has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law." The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do

This is your interpretation, not the Courts one. The second point follows, and clearly states "the policies and provisions" (notice it does not say law, it does not refer to RoC law, but to 1984 directive and 1950 Publishing resolution) are the ones to follow for anything happening before the 1991 law. The article has two full paragraphs, You cannot read paragraph 1 in isolation. Whatever the Russian Empire template says or the Russian law said is not only irrelevant, but offtopic to this issue.

You cannot apply the first paragraph retroactively to revive works that had already entered the public domain under the 1984 rules, it contradicts the very 1984 rules (article 11), Berne 18(2) and URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A). Indeed, when Russia entered WIPO in 1995 they did it with a public reservation to article 18. They did it because Russian authorities understood that Article 18(2) prohibits reviving works whose term already expired. This is an international treaty, at the end Russia had to accept it. If China had intended to revive works that already fell into the public domain under the 1984 regulations, it would have needed to make a similar declaration or reservation—which it did not.

Let's do the URAA test:
  • If a Chinese work's 30-year term under the 1984 regulations expired before June 1, 1991. (Any infringements of copyright and the copyright-related rights or breaches of contract committed prior to the entry into force of 1991 law shall be dealt with under the relevant regulations or policies in force at the time when the act was committed.)
  • The 1991 law did not revive it (Berne Article 18(2); China Article 59(2))
  • Therefore, the URAA cannot restore US copyright for that work
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TaronjaSatsuma: The 1991 Copyright Law did, in fact, restore protection to works that had "expired" under the 1984 Trial Regulations. The NPC's official interpretation specifically uses the 1984 Regulations as an example of how the 1991 Law's "life plus 50 years" term overrides the previous "life plus 30 years" term.
As stated in the official interpretation of the retroactivity clause by the NPC (the legislative authority of China):
比如，1984年文化部颁布的《图书、期刊版权保护试行条例》，规定著作、译作的作者享有的使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终身及其死亡后三十年。假如某翻译者是1950年去世的，按照文化部的条例，该译作的翻译者不再享有使用权和获得报酬权，但依照著作权法，该译作的翻译者仍然享有使用权和获得报酬权。因为著作权法规定，公民的作品，其使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，到1991年6月1日，权利的保护期尚未届满。Translation: For example, the 1984 Regulations stipulated that the term of protection... shall last for the author's lifetime plus 30 years. If a translator died in 1950, they would no longer enjoy these rights under the Ministry of Culture's 1984 Regulations. However, per the 1991 Copyright Law, the translator still enjoys these rights, because the new law extended the term to life plus 50 years, and as of June 1, 1991, this new term had not yet expired by June 1, 1991.
Additionally, Berne 18(2) is inapplicable here because the PRC was not a party to the Berne Convention until 15 October 1992, over a year after the 1991 Law established these protections domestically. Therefore, the domestic restoration of these rights in 1991 did not conflict with any international treaty obligations at that time. Teetrition (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the 1984 Regulations were highly restrictive in scope. Per Article 2, protection was only extended to works "lawfully published by Chinese publishing entities." (我国公民创作的文学、艺术和科学作品，由国家出版单位印制成图书出版或在期刊上发表，其作者依本条例享有版权。) This means many works that did not meet these specific administrative requirements might not have been covered by the 1984 Regulations at all. In such cases, or where the publication status under the 1984 criteria is unclear, we should follow COM:PRE and apply the "life plus 50 years" term as established by the 1991 Law. It would be an enormous evidentiary burden to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards just to argue for a shorter, expired term. Teetrition (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check everything once I have the time to do so, but it is no be so difficult to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards: pre-1978 works were basically made always by state owned corporations, so: films by Changchun, Shanghai, Bayi, etc; works published by the publishing house making Renmin Ribao, Renmin Huabao, etc; books published by University publishing houses or Sanlian/Joint Publishing (Mainland branch), CCTN/Peking TV and Radio Peking, and many others were obviously "lawfully published" (they were state-owned corporate works). And the facto, any works PD by 1991/1996 would have been published by a state-owned corporation. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for unlawfully published works, it is also easy to discover when those were not.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To notice, {{PD-ROC-registered}} has been created. This is true for files made in the RoC, so for Mainland pre-1949 registered works it should work.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

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

Files:

Categories:

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions, I am ready to help.

Thank you for your time.

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

Hello, just following up on this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Images are educationally useful (at least on Wikidata) and should be undeleted if no other problems (such as with copyright) exist. Pinging deleting admin @Lymantria. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted the one that I deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other admins (apparently, there's more than one who got invloved in the deletion) @Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy You can review this undelete request regarding my images. If you have any questions, I'm here to help. Thank you. Emigma Sonhador (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio, @The Squirrel Conspiracy, don't keep us waiting, huh. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 22:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre-Georges Arlabosse.jpg

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

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

File:1948年三毛流浪记 大公报.jpg

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

Das Wappen von Heinrichsort im Landkreis Zwickau besteht weiterhin als inoffizielles Ortswappen.

Hallo, Das Wappen ist ein inoffizielles weiterhin verwendetes ortswappen. Es soll weiterhin auf der Wikipedia Seite verfügbar sein. Das Wappen kann bestätigt werden durch die ortschronik Heinrichsort.

Lg Fabian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo Dachs (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The post does not name a file and this is the editor's only contribution to Commons, so there is nothing for us to do here..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I guess this is about File:Wappen Kuber Tillmann Sänger.png (also previously uploaded as File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png), which was deleted several times per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Kuber Tillmann Sänger.png. I kept it the first time because I thought it might have been an official coat of arms and therefore in the public domain, but as written above, it is apparently an inofficial coat of arms and therefore protected by copyright. If it was indeed official at some point, we would need sufficient evidence.
@Jolo Dachs: War das denn jemals ein offizielles Ortswappen, also offiziell verliehen (mit Bekanntgabe in einem Amtsblatt o. ä.) von Landratsamt, Regierungspräsdium, Ministerium oder dergleichen? --Rosenzweig τ 09:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Snail photos by User:II52tt52

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

File:Parakaliella serica bottom view.jpg
File:Parakaliella serica bottom.jpg
File:Parakaliella serica side.jpg
File:Parakaliella serica.jpg
I have re-uploaded the high-definition photos! Will there be any issues with the newly uploaded photos......? II52tt52 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@II52tt52: I hope not, but you may be required to contact the Volunteer Response Team to verify your ownership of the photos
Chill :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't know what VRT could achieve here. This is a job for a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Norman Lloyd Johnson.jpg

At least temp undeleted. Nomination by banned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I would agree to keep the original, but this is a badly retouched image by AI. Yann (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See Norman Lloyd Johnson 1917-2004. Since he is obviously not a teen in this image, it must have been taken after 1936 and therefore was not PD on the URAA date. So, aside from the fact that, as Yann says, it's a horribly blotchy AI retouch, it's a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anarcho_Black_Sun.svg

Previously thought that this isn't really appears, but is seems that I was wrong. Please undelete as it have a potential use. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Ankry (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atrium-petersstrasse-leipzig-neo-ehemals-karstadt.webp | Lizenz auf Website einsehbar

Also:

Im Begleittext der Website steht geschrieben, dass alle Bilder linzenfrei verwendet werden dürfen. Sehr gern dürfen Sie diese Bilder kostenlos (lizenzfrei auch gewerblich) für Ihrer Webseite oder Ihr Printmedium nutzen und bearbeiten!

Dazu haben wir unsere veröffentlichten Bilder des zweitgrößten Kontinents unter eine Creative Commons Lizenz gestellt, um uns als Urheber und Sie als Nutzer einen unkomplizierten Schutz zu bieten. Alle Details dazu finden Sie hier: Was ist CC?

Die passende CC-Lizenz wurde verlinkt.

--Kaimu17 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source page shows, immediately above these images, "The images of the most beautiful sections of the Cape Town Cycle Tour are licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. This means you may use the images for non-commercial reporting and only need to link back to our site". . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello. I'm Filipe Rodrigues, the sole developer of the indie video game Gloomy Juncture and copyright holder of all its assets, all artwork, models, textures, and screenshots were created entirely by me, with no third-party assets used. Several files I uploaded were recently deleted by user Kirilloparma for copyright reasons. I intend to release all files under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), which is the same licence I selected when originally uploading them.

Files requesting undeletion:

File:Gloomy Juncture cover art.png File:Gloomy Juncture cleaning trolley interaction.png File:Gloomy Juncture art pipeline - Fortune Teller 01.png File:Gloomy Juncture art pipeline - Cretin.png File:Gloomy Juncture poster art.png

If theres the need to proof ownership other way I'll be happy to provide it (like an email from my ALIAS domain).

Thank you, Filipe Rodrigues - Subtales (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that you send a free license for all the images using VRT. I know it's a nuisance, but we get a lot of false claims here, so it's there to protect your copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good to know. Thank you for the detailed reply. Cheers, Filipe - ~~~~ Subtales (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Instructions provided. Ankry (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ato-0.webp

Undelete this AtotheCanimalFan (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: OP reuploaded the image after it was deleted for being a copyright violation; it has just been re-deleted. See also OP's edit history on English Wikipedia and the level 2 warning for vandalism I issued on their user talk page. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pi.1415926535 and Thuresson, I believe you will find this relevant Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unconscience learning.png

Reason for request: I am requesting the undeletion of this file primarily to seek a formal confirmation on whether COM:INUSE is an enforced policy or, in practice, a "dead letter."

As discussed recently at Commons talk:Project scope#Proposal: clarify relationship between COM:INUSE and actual practice, there is a clear discrepancy between written policy (which states Commons does not override sister projects) and current practice (where administrators delete in-use files based on subjective quality judgments like "AI slop"). By filing this request, I am seeking to determine if the community and the administrators will uphold the standing policy or if individual administrative discretion now supersedes it.

Conduct of the deleting administrator: I also request that the deleting administrator be addressed regarding their dismissive and condescending tone in this matter. An administrator should act as a bridge between projects, but the arrogance displayed in the deletion discussion discourages contributors and undermines the trust between Commons and sister projects. Using subjective personal dislikes to bypass policy while treating concerned users with disrespect is not the standard we should expect from the local community.

Context of use: This file is actively used on the Dutch Wikibooks. I have already improved the file locally and provided a clear explanation of its symbolic meaning:

  • The image serves as a conceptual illustration for "unconscious learning," where the visual metaphors represent cognitive processes that happen beneath the surface of conscious awareness.

Argument: The educational value and "meaningful use" of this illustration have been determined by the community at Wikibooks. According to COM:INUSE, it is not the role of Commons to editorialize or override that judgment. While I have provided explanations, I should not be required to re-justify the editorial choices of a sister project here on Commons simply because an administrator personally dislikes the medium (AI).

If this request is denied, it serves as a clear signal that COM:INUSE is no longer being enforced, confirming that sister projects can no longer rely on Commons as a stable repository for their illustrated content. --BeeBringer (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: BeeBringer should be ashamed of themselves. They have repeatedly refused to explain why they found it useful to upload an image where a monkey is hanging off a tree in a manner utterly inconsistent with physical reality, and why they think that illustrates the concept of "unconscious learning". Now they cannot be bothered to even write the undeletion request themselves. INUSE does not mean that Commons has to accept garbage from projects that lack basic curation standards. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed by the hostile tone of this response. Regarding the claim that I "refused to explain" the image: that is factually incorrect. I have provided the explanation clearly in this request and in previous discussions. To reiterate: the image is a conceptual illustration for "unconscious learning." The visual metaphors (including the surreal elements) represent cognitive processes that occur outside of conscious awareness.
Whether an illustration is "inconsistent with physical reality" is an artistic and editorial choice made by the sister project (Wikibooks) where the file is used. It is not a violation of Commons policy. Characterizing a sister project as "lacking basic curation standards" simply because they accept conceptual or AI-generated illustrations is a serious insult to those communities.
I am using this request exactly as the administrator suggested, to see if COM:INUSE is still a respected policy. His response here—labeling a contributor's work as something they should be "ashamed of"—only reinforces the need for the community to speak up about how administrators should treat users from sister projects.
Additionally, it has become clear that this is not an isolated incident, but part of a systematic pattern by this administrator to ignore COM:INUSE when it comes to AI-generated content. For instance, the same dismissive approach can be seen here: User talk:Pi.1415926535#File:Social_isolation.jpg.
This confirms the urgent need for clarity. If one administrator can repeatedly and unilaterally decide that the editorial judgment of sister projects is "nonsense" and thus bypass standing policy, the reliability of Commons as a central repository is fundamentally compromised. --BeeBringer (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you unable to make this argument yourself without having an LLM write it? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BeeBringer: I was going to make Pi's point, but they already said it
Anyways, about this...
"This confirms the urgent need for clarity. If one administrator can repeatedly and unilaterally decide that the editorial judgment of sister projects is 'nonsense' and thus bypass standing policy, the reliability of Commons as a central repository is fundamentally compromised."
Are you trying to invoke en:Predictions of the end of Wikipedia? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on the tools I use to translate and structure my arguments in English is a distraction from the actual issue. I am a contributor from a sister project whose native language is not English; using an AI assistant to ensure my concerns are expressed clearly and professionally is a common and practical solution. It does not change the validity of the points being made.
The core issue remains: Is COM:INUSE a mandatory policy, or can it be bypassed based on an administrator's personal dislike of a file's medium or "physical reality"?
Regarding the "end of Wikipedia" comment: No, I am pointing to a very documented and practical shift. As a result of this unpredictability, Dutch Wikibooks has already updated its local guidance to advise against using Commons for certain illustrations. This is not a "prediction"; it is a current reality caused by the gap between Commons policy and administrative practice.
I would appreciate it if we could return to the merits of the request and the application of the standing policy, rather than making personal remarks about my person or my language tools. --BeeBringer (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We, by far, appreciate a person's efforts to communicate as themselves more than their decision to outsource the PR to AI
If you have serious deficiencies in English, communicate in your native language; remember that Commons is a multilingual project. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dank voor je suggestie. Aangezien er nu vanuit meerdere kanten wordt aangedrongen op het gebruik van mijn moedertaal, zal ik dat vanaf nu doen. Mijn gebruik van taalhulpmiddelen was puur bedoeld om de discussie voor de internationale gemeenschap toegankelijk te houden, maar blijkbaar wordt dat minder gewaardeerd dan de taalbarrière zelf. Laten we dan nu terugkeren naar de inhoud, die blijkbaar steeds wordt ontweken om onduidelijke redenen: COM:INUSE. De essentie van mijn bezwaar is dat een moderator hier op Commons besluit om de redactionele keuzes van de Nederlandstalige Wikibooks-gemeenschap te negeren. De afbeelding is aldaar in gebruik en heeft een specifieke symbolische waarde voor het boek "Onbewust leren". Het feit dat een moderator de visuele stijl niet aanstaat ("nonsense", "garbage") is volgens de letter van de policy geen geldige reden voor verwijdering. Het is veelzeggend dat de discussie hier voortdurend wordt getrokken naar de vorm (mijn blijkbaar taalgebruik of tools zijn blijkbaar belangrijker ineens dan de inhoud) in plaats van naar de inhoud (het schenden van de regels). Waarom zou men dat eigenlijk steeds doen vraag ik me af?Ik verzoek de aanwezige moderatoren om te bevestigen of COM:INUSE nog steeds een bindende regel is, of dat we voortaan moeten accepteren dat individuele moderatoren op eigen houtje bepalen wat "zinvolle" content is voor andere projecten en welke tools en taal we moeten gebruiken (heel vreemd dit allemaal). --BeeBringer (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daarnaast valt me op dat wanneer een moderator inhoudelijk wordt aangesproken op het negeren van COM:INUSE, de discussie direct wordt geëscaleerd door medestanders te pingen op exact hetzelfde drogreden. Dit zagen we niet alleen bij mijn verzoek, maar ook bij File:Ato-0.webp, waar dezelfde coalitie van moderators wordt opgeroepen om een gezamenlijk front te vormen. Het lijkt er sterk op dat de persoonlijke voorkeuren van dit collectief momenteel zwaarder wegen dan de geschreven regels van de Wikimedia-gemeenschap. Daar schrik ik persoonlijk van. BeeBringer (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Generating text with an LLM is not a tool for communicating. In fact, it prevents any sort of useful communication. All it does is produce text that is similar to other text; it cannot think, nor can it evaluate whether an argument is reasonable, nor can it change its mind (for it has no mind) in response to new information. There is no way to have a useful discussion with an LLM that someone else is using; despite the claim of it being "professional", it is anything but. That is why I have reacted so strongly to your use of them to post here and on my talk page. It is fine to use LLMs for translation, but using them to write posts or change your wording is a poor choice.
The Commons community is largely opposed to most LLM-created images for a variety of reasons; we already have policies such as COM:AIIP that disallow certain images regardless of whether they are in use. If Dutch Wikibooks wishes to use low-quality LLM-generated images to illustrate concepts, rather than using or adding to the numerous high-quality images already available on Commons, it is best to keep those images locally rather than uploading them to Commons. However, was there any discussion on the project about changing the guidance, or was that a unilateral decision on your part?
I have no idea why you are complaining that I deleted an obvious copyright violation, nor why you are complaining that a few users happen to be active on this noticeboard at the same time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to return to English for this discussion. Your demand that I only post in my native language was clearly another distraction and a tactic to isolate my arguments from the international community. By forcing me into a language that most users here do not speak, you are effectively trying to silence the debate while you continue to ignore the actual policy questions.
You claim LLMs prevent "useful communication," yet YOU are the one avoiding it by refusing to address the violation of COM:INUSE. It is now obvious that you are using several tactical maneuvers to avoid accountability:
  1. Distraction: Starting a philosophical debate about the nature of AI text to avoid discussing the written rules of Commons.
  2. Isolation: Trying to keep this discussion in Dutch so other administrators cannot easily follow your refusal to adhere to policy.
  3. Divide and Conquer: Questioning my standing within the Wikibooks community to distract from your own unilateral actions.
  4. Collusion: Pinging the same small circle of medestanders to create a false sense of consensus when you are challenged on the facts.
I am not here to debate the philosophy of technology with you. I am here to ask: Does COM:INUSE still apply, or is the editorial judgment of sister projects now subject to the personal aesthetic preferences of a small coalition of Commons administrators who obviously hate AI? The community deserves a clear answer on whether written policy is still binding. --BeeBringer (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of those claims are remotely accurate, which is why using an LLM is an incredibly poor choice. I suggest you retract the verifiably false accusations before this turns into a referendum on your behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is weer another tactic: intimidation through gaslighting. You claim my statements are "verifiably false" while they are literally documented in the public edit history of this project. Threatening a "referendum on my behavior" because I am holding you accountable to written policy is a classic attempt to silence a critic. If you are so confident that my claims are false, then answer the following directly:
  • Did you or did you not call the content "garbage" and "nonsense" in your edit summary?
  • Does COM:INUSE explicitly state that Commons should not override the editorial judgment of sister projects, or does it not?
  • Is the file in use on Wikibooks, or is it not?
Instead of addressing these facts, you choose to threaten me. This only proves my point about the lack of accountability and the use of power to bypass policy. I have no reason to retract the truth. If you want a referendum, let it be about whether administrators are allowed to ignore policy and intimidate users who point it out.
If pointing out these documented facts leads to a "referendum" or my account being blocked, then so be it. I have no interest in being part of a community where pointing out policy violations is met with intimidation instead of a logical defense. If je believes blocking a user for quoting COM:INUSE is a proper use of your tools, you are only proving my point about the lack of accountability.
However, keep in mind that transparency works both ways. If the broader community decides that administrators are indeed bound by the written rules and must remain civil, it is your behavior and your administrative privileges that will be under scrutiny. Given your dismissive attitude toward sister projects and your use of threats to silence debate, a review of your conduct would be a welcome step for the integrity of this project.
I will not be intimidated no way you get me stopping pointing out facts. I am here for the facts: is COM:INUSE a binding rule or is it not? --BeeBringer (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Provide actual diffs for your claims. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See above, the discussion on the scope page and your personal discussion page. I rest my case BeeBringer (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Actually not an undeletion request and the discussion about Commons policies and their implemantation in practice and/or user harassment is out of scope of this page. Move the discussion to COM:VP. If the intention was to reopen the DR discussion using new argument, it should be expressed explicitly. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:WMHT logo.svg

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMHT-FM logo 2016.webp. The sunburst in that file was argued by the nominator to be complex, but administrator IronGargoyle voted keep, saying that the logo was clearly unoriginal under American copyright law. He also said that this logo at UDR should be undeleted by the same rationale.

I am here since the linked DR was kept. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I agree with IronGargoyle (and it was a good non-admin close). Abzeronow (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"