Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
6 copyvios • 2 duplicates • 23 adverts • 8 selfies • 5 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:Sia – Reasonable Woman cover art.png

I would argue that the arguments in the DR for deletion were flawed:

  • User:LeftRightRightLeft's nomination "We need a fair use image 'stead!" seems to imply that the file page on the English Wikipedia should include something like w:Template:Non-free album cover instead of {{YouTube CC-BY}}.
  • User:Heylenny first argued that the photograph was not a work for hire belonging to the record label, but rather an independently authored work requiring special licensing. Heylenny later argued that, because the cover contains the text "All rights reserved," that it can never be relicensed (unlike many files officially relicensed via COM:VRT).

The CC BY licenses on Warner Music New Zealand's YouTube channel (an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group) have been found many times to be legitimate (see COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, COM:DR/File:Ed Sheeran – Shivers sample.ogg and COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa – Dua Lipa cover art.png). Thus, this file should be reinstated. (As I said in the DR, if the point was to question the validity of the YouTube channel's CC BY licenses, that should be discussed at COM:VP or COM:VPC [or perhaps even w:WP:RFC/Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!] but not in a DR nor a UR.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

I propose to:

  • Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
  • Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM (t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBFC 18.svg

 Question Any more opinions about this? Yann (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. TOO UK says: "The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom used to be very low." In my opinion, per British law this is complex logo. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment After THJ v Sheridan decision in 2023 ,some logos simples are OK in Commons,peer {{TOO-UK}} (my opinion). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Yayan550:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillermo Francos - Retrato Oficial 2024.png

This image comes from the official portal *Mapa del Estado* (https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/), which belongs to the Argentina.gob.ar portal. In the "About" section of Argentina.gob.ar it is expressly indicated that the published content can be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, the same license through which I uploaded the images to Wikipedia Commons.

For this reason, I believe that the files do not violate any copyright regulations and I request that should be undeleted. Expressly the source and license are as follows:
- Source: https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ministerios/Jefatura-de-Gabinete-de-Ministros/48/detalle
- Portal licensing policy: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca
KmiKC16 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the same case with these other portraits that I have uploaded, as I detail them below:

KmiKC16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have undeleted these files. Could someone speaking Spanish confirm that the license is valid please? If that is the case, they should be {{Licensereview}}. Yann (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Yann: per Yann, but i speak in Spanish but im not a licensereviewer (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca) but in Spanish says:Por supuesto. Podés copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y adaptarlo para cualquier propósito, incluso comercial, siempre que cumplas con los términos de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional. También podés compartir un trámite, una noticia o una página en tus redes sociales. La información de Argentina.gob.ar es pública, es de todos nosotros. (ENG:Of course. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and adapt it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY-4.0). You can also share a procedure, a news story, or a page on your social media. The information on Argentina.gob.ar is public; it belongs to all of us.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca is for content from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ (the actual T&C is here https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones). These images were taken from https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/, a different website. Günther Frager (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't vote either for or against this request, since I was the one who originally nominated the files for speedy deletion. However, to give my opinion: as Günther Frager mentioned, I requested deletion because the files were taken from mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar, which is not the official government website. Therefore, the CC-AR-ArgentinaGobAr license, nor any of the licenses listed in Category:License tags of Argentina, would apply as far as I am aware. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 11:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ is an official service that depends on the Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros (under the national government) which content is part of what is published in Argentina.gob.ar, as seen at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/desregulacion/mapa-del-estado, I believe that it is reasonable to consider that it's content is covered by those policies. KmiKC16 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think gob.ar is not a government website? @Franco Brignone Bedivere (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, "Which is not 'the' official government website." I never claimed it was not government-managed; it is a subdomain, not the main site. As Günther Frager pointed out in the comment below, even subdomains of the official site can operate under different licenses that may conflict with the free license stated on argentina.gob.ar. Assuming that every subdomain automatically has the same license requires more careful consideration, both for Argentina and for other countries with similar cases. This issue perhaps deserves a more detailed discussion, not necessarily in an undeletion request. As I mentioned, I do not believe a free license would apply, but that is just my reasoning when adding the deletion tag. Regards, Franco Brignone • Talkpage 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different webpages and they don't have the same content (one has photos the other does not). Besides assumptions are not real evidence Take a look at https://casarosada.gob.ar it has a slightly different license. It has a CC-BY 2.5 while https://argentina.gob.ar CC-BY 4.0. Even better, take a look at https://cursos.argentina.gob.ar/ that is a subdomain of https://argentina.gob.ar, it has an incompatible CC-BY-NC license! To avoid headaches we should stick to website with known licenses, argentina.gob.ar has plenty of material, e.g. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2024/04/francos_1.jpg (found at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/jefatura/) . Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Günther Frager you might have a fair point. Still, I believe these images are free to be copied and redistributed since we are talking about the official portraits of Argentinian ministers. I will search information to back this belief. However, as I do not possess that evidence now, you may delete these images. I will request another Undeletion if I find proof of what I am claiming. Regards. KmiKC16 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Any more opinions about this? Yann (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 tornado warnings and reports.png

This file does not surpass the threshold of originality, so I am appealing the deletion request, which had split consensus. The image was created soley using public domain data, which came from the National Weather Service (under {{PD-NWS-employee}}) and the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (confirmed public domain disclaimer. The background is just a map of the United States, which almost certainly is not more original than File:Appraisers.com - Map of the United States - May 2002.gif, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was below the threshold. The only remaining aspect is color choice. Unless we wish to determine a person can copyright their choice of color, this image should be undeleted. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Appraisers.com map is a simple map of the USA with state abbreviations. There is no visible data. This map has hundreds of data points plotted. The fact that the data behind the map is public domain is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's irrelevant. The location of every data point is not creative -- that is part of the public data, as is the number of elements. That is determined by which warnings the weather service issued, and which tornadoes were reported, since this shows all of them. As for a selection and arrangement copyright, it's limited to the choice of those three elements to display -- it's the same copyright as if there was a single thunderstorm warning, a single tornado warning, and a single tornado report on the map, if those were the only ones which happened to occur. The question then is if such a map of three elements would have a copyright, based on the selection of those three elements in particular, and those particular colors to represent them. The choice of how to represent them is really not creative, as the two warnings are given as regions, and tornadoes as a particular location (at least at this scale), which are directly represented here. So there really isn't anything to the arrangement, which is dictated by the data. Any copyright is basically the selection of those three elements, to me, combined with the color choice, and maybe date range (though that is also dictated by the subject at hand). It's possible but it's really thin to me, as those three elements are pretty strongly correlated. I don't think there is a copyright on the choice of those three elements alone, nor the color choice alone. If there is a copyright, it's about the thinnest one possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help everyone, here is a brief breakdown of items:
  1. Tornado reports come from the Storm Prediction Center (US Gov) on this website already in dot form. SPC colors tornado reports red, this map colors them black.
  2. Tornado warnings and severe thunderstorm warnings themselves come from the National Weather Service, who issues them and draws the warning polygons. Tornado warnings are automatically colored red and severe thunderstorm warnings are automatically colored yellow. GIS archives of these warning polygons are hosted on the Iowa Environmental Mesonet site.
  3. Date choice is dictated by the event being discussed which also has its' own Wikipedia article for those dates: Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025.
  4. The only aspect not automatically provided is the outline of the US, which absolutely does not meet the threshold of originality per Supreme Court.
I honestly do not see any copyrightable aspects to this article. This essentially is just a compilation of U.S. government-created aspects overlayed over a simple outline of the US. The Commons has confirmed numerous times that attribution does not equal copyright, i.e. the "By: Ian Livingston" is not proof it is copyrighted. The U.S. government requires by law they are attributed in any creation that has mostly aspects created by them (see warning on {{PD-NWS-employee}} for that law), so the "Source:" line is required by law, not creator choice. Literally, there is nothing creative about this work. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:VFAW-4 Squadron Insignia.jpg

Request to undelete the file VFAW-4 Squadron Insignia

Apparently I forgot to put the license on the page. It's my mistake. The correct license would be PD-USGov-NAVY or alternatively PD-USGov. This military unit insignia is a work of the United States Navy and in the public domain. I will fix it if restored. Thank you for your time. Gore2000 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Probably about File:VFAW-4 squadron insignia.png (note that capitalization matters in file names). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In order to use this license, we need an evidence that the insignia was created by a US Navy officer during their duty that was not provided above. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:第78回カンヌ国際映画祭 レッドカーペットにて.jpg

本画像は、WEBサイトから拝借したものではありません。WEBサイトへの画像提供元から直接提供を受けたものです。写真家の許諾も得ています。また、写真家のクレジット（C)KAZUKO WAKAYAMA　も記載しておりました。 --チロル１２ (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

本画像はWEBサイトhttps://www.chunichi.co.jp/article_photo_chuspo/list?article_id=1071212&pid=5905062　から拝借したものではなく、写真家に当方が直接許諾を得ており、クレジット（C)KAZUKO WAKAYAMA　もページ内に記載していたにもかかわらず一方的に削除されました。チロル１２ (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article_photo_chuspo/list?article_id=1071212&pid=5905062) with an explicit copyright notice and no free license. I note that when you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Your statement above makes it clear that that is false. Making false statements about authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. You may be blocked if you do it again.

In order for the image to be restored, KAZUKO WAKAYAMA must send a free license directly to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

理解しました。誤解を招く表現を用いてしまい、申し訳ありませんでした。 チロル１２ (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yelini_Capsule_Instagram_Promo.jpg

I respectfully request undeletion of the file Yelini_Capsule_Instagram_Promo.jpg, which was created and uploaded by me, Venkat Suveki. This image is part of a civic-emotional archive titled SuvekiStories, featuring original symbolic art and bilingual capsule poetry. The visual is not promotional—it represents a coined civic term (Yelini) through emotionally resonant design intended for public semantic discoverability. - Authorship: I am the original creator of both the artwork and the poetic content. - License: The file was uploaded under a free license (e.g., CC BY-SA 4.0). - Educational Scope: The capsule is designed to support civic storytelling, emotional literacy, and semantic archiving. - Commons Relevance: It links to Wikidata items and contributes to public understanding of coined civic concepts.

As further justification, please note that the coined civic-emotional term **ஏலினி** (Alieness) is already documented in **Tamil Wiktionary** with definition, usage, and semantic clarity: 🔗 [1](https://ta.wiktionary.org/wiki/ஏலினி)

This confirms that the term is not promotional or arbitrary—it is part of a **lexical and civic archive** with educational intent. The image visually represents this concept as part of the *SuvekiStories* capsule series.

Thank you for considering this request. — Venkat Suveki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.86.23 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Where the file was used in Wikimedia or intended to? We do not host unused personal art. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:United Airlines 737-800, N77510, IAH Airport, Dec22010.jpg

This is not an all rights reserved file. It is a some rights reserved file and I got permission from the photographer to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymrat16 (talk • contribs)

Please, provide a link to the license or ask the photographer to follow VRT instructions. We need to verify if the license granted by the copyright holder is compatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. The license at the Flickr source page is different to the one you declared: neither noncommercial nor no derivatives clause is accepted here. Ankry (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose "CC BY-NC-ND 2.0" at Flickr. Thuresson (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bakstein4-1-11.jpg

Мне было указано, что файл удалён, так как он легко находится в других местах, где не обозначено его авторство. Изображение полностью сделано мной в рамках моего авторского проекта "Многопортрет", моя съёмка (есть негатив), моя печать (есть бумажная фотография). Я выкладываю свои работы на своих ресурсах, откуда они могут быть свободно взяты безответственными людьми без указания источника и использованы в своих интересах. Вот оригинальная ссылка на фотографию Иосифа Бакштейна на моём ресурсе: https://cloud.mail.ru/home/Многопортрет/Иосиф%20Бакштейн/bakstein4-1-11.jpg Можно увидеть, что фотография там бОльшего размера и необрезанная. Конечно, есть у меня и скан ещё бОльшего размера. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Извините, правильная общедоступная ссылка на эту фотографию на моём ресурсе: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/zyWf/bJG4eZrP6 Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"