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 • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
96 copyvios • 111 duplicates • 14 adverts • 9 selfies • 60 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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover.jpg

admin remark was "Dupe of Image:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover ArM.jpg" — but these pictures are different. File:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover.jpg went through Wikipedia Fotowerkstatt and the original one (the undelete rq got "polished"). Note that ArM means User:Artmechnic. I need the original because of the EXIF data. Thanks a lot, best wishes from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC) (formerly "User:Mattes")[reply]

 Oppose Image is identical except that it has an unpleasant green cast and the other, good, image cited above has been cropped by a few pixels without any important loss. EXIF data is:

"Camera manufacturer Eastman Kodak Company
Camera model Picture Maker G3
Exposure time 8,538/512,279 sec (0.016666699201021)
F-number f/8
ISO speed rating 50
Date and time of data generation 13:28, 23 July 2006
Lens focal length 5.8 mm
Orientation Normal
Horizontal resolution 72 dpi
Vertical resolution 72 dpi
Software used Picture Maker G3 PM V5.2
File change date and time 13:28, 23 July 2006
Y and C positioning Centered
Exposure Program Normal program
Exif version 2.2
Date and time of digitizing 13:28, 23 July 2006
Image compression mode 4
APEX shutter speed 5.907
APEX aperture 6
APEX exposure bias 0.33
Maximum land aperture 3 APEX (f/2.83)
Metering mode Spot
Light source Daylight
Flash Flash did not fire, compulsory flash suppression
Color space sRGB
Sensing method One-chip color area sensor
Custom image processing Custom process
Exposure mode Auto exposure
White balance Auto white balance
Digital zoom ratio 0
Focal length in 35 mm film 35 mm
Scene capture type Standard
Contrast Hard
Saturation High saturation
Sharpness Hard
Subject distance range Distant view"

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

It seems to have been deleted because it was considered a derivative work. But actually, checking it from the Archive, it does not appear to be a derivative of any particular depiction of Ali. There are many similar illustrations of him with many variations, which are ubiquitous. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, see this image, which is in the public domain. It is also quite similar to the deleted image, so I think these kinds of depictions of Ali are too generic to be considered derivatives of one another. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The argument above certainly has some force, but side by side the deleted image and the one cited at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mola_Ali.jpg look very similar. Compare the folds in the shirt and the creases in the face. The position of the eyes is also identical. The image cited above does not have the same similarities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: This quote from page 39-40 of the referenced book implies that some of those features you mention are very common in his contemporary portraits:

Contemporary portraits of Imam Ali also give importance to the face. The viewer’s attention is drawn to the Imam’s face by a light illuminating the upper part of his face, that is, the forehead, nasal bone and cheekbones. However, the iconographic detailing of the face often differs between images to present a variety of physiognomic traits all held to represent Imam Ali. The most commonly produced and distributed portraits, which I call the ‘conventional’ facial type, are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 12 and 14. Imam Ali is shown in part profile with lofty forehead and wide, a little oversized, eyes with large pupils. The high eyebrows accentuate the size of the eye. Ali avoids eye contact with the viewer and the gaze seems to be directed slightly upwards with the look of a far-sighted visionary, creating an almost dream-like appearance. The face is oval, and the cheekbones round. The lips are full rather than thin. Cheekbones and lips are partly covered by a dark, thick, well-trimmed beard.

Also, actually, I can't entirely agree that the public domain image I shared does not have these similarities. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippe Ballard.jpg

J'ai oublié de préciser qu'il s'agissait de mon propre contenu.

Named photographer is subject, although it is not a selfie. Uploader is third party. Needs a license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Unsure what you mean: the subject is Philippe Ballard and the declared author for the recent photo version is LuilGG. I found few external uses of this photo but they seem to be newer than the upload here and probably originate from Commons. The image was tagged by User:Gyrostat as *no source* but it is unclear to me why (just guessing that it may be due to lack the original metadata from the camera). However the tag includes clear instruction to the uploader to provide a written free license permission to VRT. @LuilGG: Did you? Ankry (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha -- sorry. The subject was named as the photographer for the first version, but it is as you say for the second. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Updated coat of arms of Negrar di Valpolicella.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason why the file was deleted provided by the person who deleted it is not sufficent, it does not explain anything, my intent was only to produce a higher quality version, in fact the assets I used are 100% free to use, this is because they were taken directly from the official coat of arms that the municipality of negrar uses. So I did not violate any copyright laws or regulations found in wikipedia or in Italy.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version) Eritiloi5 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eritiloi5: Only images that were never published before upload to Commons can be licensed as Own work. For other image you need to provide an evidece of PD status or free license. See also COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe 50 Dollars 2020 obseve.jpg

Banknotes were demonetized on 30 April 2024 (source) and therefore should no longer be protected by copyright. See COM:Zimbabwe#Currency. Also affected:

Eyesnore (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: except one, because of a bug: Some or all of the undeletion failed: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/e/e3/Reserve_Bank_of_Zimbabwe_5_Dollars_2019_obseve.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends.. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:THEOUTLAW LOGOTYPE PICTO.jpg

The logo is freely available on theoutlaw.world, in all possible formats, and I was able to speak with the logo's author (Jeremy Mendoza/DOZAMENART) who confirmed that the logo was free to use.

The deletion is unjustified. Baenjch (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no indication of any free license on the source page, theoutlaw.world. Also, given that the page has very little on it, it is not clear that this logo serves any purpose other than advertising the site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I made it clear in my comment that I have the agreement of the author of the logo, in this case Jeremy Mendoza (DOZAMENART). Baenjch (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless my colleagues believe that the logo is in scope, it will not be restored. If they do think it is in scope, then Jeremy Mendoza must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Signature of Chiman Maru.png

Dear Wikimedia Commons administrators,

I am writing to respectfully request the undeletion of the file File:Signature of Chiman Maru.png, which was deleted for reasons of "self-promotion." The file in question was an image of my personal signature, intended for legitimate and non-promotional use.

The purpose of uploading this file was to provide a visual representation of my signature, which can be relevant for documentation or verification purposes. The image was uploaded under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, allowing others to share or use the file with proper attribution. There was no commercial or promotional intent behind this upload.

I believe this file meets Wikimedia Commons' guidelines, as it serves an informational purpose rather than promoting any service or product. I respectfully ask for a reconsideration of the decision to delete the file and request its restoration.

Thank you for reviewing my request.

Sincerely, Chiman Maru Saurashtraivrsolutions (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Commons is not your personal file host. There are several private companies that provide this service to you for a fee. Thuresson (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: How many accounts did you create? It looks like User:Beingmaruchiman0000 → User:Saurashtraivrsolutions → User:Info.globally → User:1525dsdd2wd5wd → User:Fynoxinc. --Achim55 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I blocked all these accounts. Category:Sockpuppets of Beingmaruchiman0000. --Yann (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"