Wikipedia cannot accept material that is declared to be "non-commercial use only".

You might think it's reasonable to restrict material that way, but Wikipedia's articles, sounds and images are syndicated around the world on the internet and in print, frequently for commercial purposes, using something called the GFDL - a licence that allows free use.

Non-commercial or Wikipedia-only content is therefore useless to Wikipedia as others cannot use it.

We have criteria for speedy deletion that say what we can and can't delete. Your image would have fallen under criterion I3. You're not the first to upload a restricted image here that gets deleted, so it's nothing personal. You're not the last either, sadly.

I'm an elected administrator here at Wikipedia. That doesn't get me any extra rights or make me omnipotent or anything. But it does mean the community here have asked me to do certain essential tasks. One of those tasks is deleting items that end up on this list. Your image was deleted because it automatically appeared on that list, was assessed and was deleted. This is how Wikipedia works - again, it was nothing personal.

No. The rules about what we can and can't accept were developed over years, by hundreds of editors coming to a consensus. I'm not going to overturn that - if nothing else, someone else will come along and delete the image a few minutes later anyway. And the rules are quite simple, really - any image you upload to Wikipedia must be allowed to be used elsewhere and must be available to be used commercially.

It doesn't work that way - the existence of one image doesn't create a precedent for upload of another. The other image may be wrongly tagged, or have a different copyright statement to the one you chose. If you're really annoyed about that, this page has full instruction about how to ask for the other image to be deleted.

Do you? Did you take the photograph yourself? Did you draw the diagram yourself?

Scanning an image, searching Google for images, buying a copy of a photograph, finding a nice picture - none of these give you the right to claim copyright or to give the copyright away. Remember, unless this is your own work - entirely your own work - then you can't upload it in the way you chose.

If it is all your own work, then there are other licences you can choose to upload it under. But we ask you make it freely available and don't put restrictions on the use of the image that mean we can't use it.

It will be deleted again. If not by me, then by one of the other thousand admins here. We have to.

It will be noticed. Even deleted images leave a footprint behind. Reupload the image with an unlikely different licence and people will start asking hard questions of you: why did the licence change? Where's your proof? How did you decide this was the correct way of continuing?

That's not to say that you can't reupload or you can't change licence. But the licence you pick must be consistent with your original claim of ownership of the image and must be backed up with proof.

This is a list of licences that you should choose from; and this is a page with detail on how to get permission to use an image and how to prove you've got permission.

There's a queue, so you'll need to join the end of that. Also, since I didn't break any rules, there won't be much support elsewhere on Wikipedia, but you're welcome to try elsewhere.

Did that headline shock you? Well, the first time someone said it to me, I was shocked too. No more, I'm afraid. You are now welcome to try to track me down. To give you a clue to help you, I'm to be found in Europe.