Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 4

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Who's (redacted)!?

He's apparently someone who replies to tickets on the info-en queue but doesn't seem to provide any indication as to their username, nor is the link between their username and real name public (that I can find). I need to ask him about a ticket sent by a blocked user who intended to confirm their identity but which (redacted) seems to have misunderstood. Can anyone point me towards the right person? Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To editor Salvidrim!: Content such as this is unfortunately confidential. I'm not sure what the best solution to do right now, but to probably email a OTRS admin, in which they may be able to link you to the ticket and/or the volunteer in general. ///EuroCarGT 04:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. It seems I've put off volunteering for long enough and must finally accept the suggestions of others to join the OTRS team myself. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: If you want me to pass something along, feel free to email me - while I won't reveal his contact address directly, I will look him up and forward anything on that you wish, so he can reply directly if you wish. Unfortunately, this is the easiest solution I fear. Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Why can't you just reply to the ticket? I'm assuming if you know the person's name, then you are in possession of the email - why not just reply to it and contact him through the system? By the way, I'm not hugely comfortable with someone's real name being disclosed here, even though it's not associated with their account. I wouldn't want my real name posted here (even if not associated with my account) - that seems like something of a privacy issue and so I have redacted it. --B (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Tomkudirka#June 2015. Without repeating it, I also noticed this particular responder's name being mentioned repeatedly elsewhere (both on-wiki and off-wiki) as someone who responds regularly to info-en. The list of OTRS members is very public and after reading the policies surrounding it, there was no indication that the identity of responders vs. their on-wiki usernames were the subject of exceptional confidentiality, and I assumed that, like UTRS, responders are expected to make their on-wiki account generally known, instead of taking steps to intentionally obfuscate any attempt at communication. It is my understanding that if you do not want your real name "out there", you should avoid responding on behalf of Wikimedia to OTRS tickets while signing your real name.... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, all I meant to do is exactly what Yunshui just did -- find out why the original e-mail to info-en wasn't an appropriate confirmation of identity, and let the user know. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(I realize now, from the talk page you linked, that you don't have the email available to reply to and that's why you posted here rather than emailing info-en directly - understood, not a problem.) The list of Wikipedia volunteers is public. Their real names (or pseudonyms) are not. Just because you send an email (off wiki) with your real name does not mean that you want it posted on wiki. While we won't necessarily notice where an inexperienced user, in good faith and not realizing the consequences of it, posts an OTRS volunteer's name on their talk page, posting the person's name here on a heavily watched noticeboard is different. (I'm not jumping up and down screaming "doxing" - just politely suggesting that we avoid posting real names here where those real names are not revealed on Wikipedia.) In any event, it's oversighted here and will be shortly from the user's talk page as well, so no harm no foul. --B (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment here... the name used in OTRS can and often is an alias, and as far as I know it is not confidential. People will often say here on Wikipedia that they "received an email from Kosten Frosch" or some such, and that can be tied obviously based on contributions to the SUL account of the agent. I repeat, not confidential. It's just that we generally don't want people to correspond with "FreeRangeFrog" or "Salvidrim!" via email, which is why anyone who joins OTRS must provide that more serious-sounding "name" they wish to use in their signature. I hope to heck no one thinks it's a secret, because it's not. Our end of the exchange is confidential, but the other one is not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There are different levels of "confidential". It is not "confidential" from the standpoint of their being any sort of legal obligation on the part of the OTRS requestor to not reveal that information. However, that doesn't make it a good idea to post that information on this noticeboard if the OTRS volunteer has not self-identified on wiki as that name (be it a real name or a real-sounding pseudonym). --B (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming that the name they use in OTRS is their real one (as you said above), my point is that whether it is or not, it ceased being confidential the moment the agent replied to their first ticket. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh ... I give up. I'm not saying that there is any sort of duty of confidentiality on the part of the requestor. I'm just saying that just because you may be able to legally do something doesn't make it a very nice thing to do or a good thing to do. --B (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Something that is, as you say, allowed but "not very nice" doesn't sound like it would justify Oversight'ing of revisions, especially when you consider, as FRF says, that the suppressed "name" might just be another pseudonym, and not a real name. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

B - I understand. I'm not objecting to the suppression, but rather pointing out that there is no expectation of confidentiality about this, here or elsewhere, and those of us who volunteer for OTRS need to be aware of that. Above there is the given impression that this is some kind of tightly held secret, and that is not the case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a tightly held secret - just common courtesy to not post it on wiki. (WP:OUTING forbids the on-Wikipedia posting of names, even if that person has self-identified elsewhere.) I would hope that if someone identified on Wikipedia my real name as someone who regularly replies to permissions-en tickets (which, let's face it, there's few enough of us that connecting the dots isn't too hard), someone would have the decency to oversight it. I fully realize that the OTRS requestor has no duty in this matter whatsoever and there is nothing (other than common courtesy) preventing him from posting the person's name or contents of the email to his blog, etc. --B (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File:California topographical map of proposed HSR route (2014).jpg

re Deletion pending for File:California topographical map of proposed HSR route (2014).jpg

I received an email authorizing use of this image, however, I did not know that I needed to forward this email to you. (Your rules are very complicated, and not well organized for a new user.) I DID put information from the email into the long, complicated image copyright form that you have. So, you already have authorizing information, if you care to look.

If you want the actual email, then I will have to look for it. Since it was a couple months ago, it is possible that I deleted it, and I will have to request another email again.

So, either look into the copyright info already saved for this file, or let me know that you need the actual email. In either case, I do not expect that this image should be deleted. If you have any issues with this, please email me at robert92111@twc.com AND benson@ucsd.edu so I can respond properly.

Thanks.

Robert92107 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: - I found ticket 2015051110023677 which pertains to this image, but is not sufficient permission for Wikipedia. I do not see an email in the system with the "long, complicated image copyright form", but even if you did fill out this form, that is NOT what we need - we need for the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to fill out the form and send it to us. --B (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this image not covered by {{PD-CAGov}} in any event? Nthep (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: No idea. Does {{PD-CAGov}} cover every creative work of the state of California the same way every creative work of the US government is public domain? http://www.hsr.ca.gov/ claims copyright - it says "Copyright © 2015 State of California" whereas US government websites have no copyright statement. And actually, from reading the ruling, it looks like the court was basically saying that state law had to specifically grant an agency the right to copyright their work in order for it to be copyrighted. (This sounds tortured and I'd be curious what a higher court has to say here, but it is what it is.) They then name two examples - local school boards and health departments - as ones to which that authority was granted. So in order to say that this is {{PD-CAGov}}, we would have to demonstrate that there is not a provision in California law permitting the HSR authority to copyright their works. --B (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This weekend (when I next have access to my work email) I will check for the old email contact, and if I can't find it then I will contact the Authority again to get someone to fill in the permission. In the meantime, I would appreciate Wikipedia's cooperation with my good effort to get this done and not delete the file pending my getting the information. Robert92107 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The file will not be deleted before 22 July, 2015. Nakon 03:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Gerry Campbell Headshot.jpg

Ticket: 2013052310012893

The OTRS permission tag was added on 31 May 2013. Subsequently, a new image was uploaded with the same filename on 23 October 2013. This is a different image, not merely a new version of the original one. Please determine whether the permission on file applies to the current image with this filename. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no new ticket for this image so I've reverted the image back to the one for which there is a permission. Nthep (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is any other action required now, such as hiding the revision that contains the unlicensed image? – Wdchk (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thought I'd already done that but appears not. Anyway done now. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sent email to permissions-en with photographer's permission to use photo File:Dutch UN Consul and Haudenosaunee Leaders renew Two Row Treaty.jpgt.jpg

Hello,

Yesterday I forwarded an email from the photographer who has give me permission to use the subject photo in my draft article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canoe_Journey_to_Renew_the_Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty. Please let me know when the photo can be restored, now that the permission has been sent.

Thanks, Paul Kor Gorgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Image query

Hi, I've recently improved the article on Reg Pollard (general) and I'm just a little leery of the supposed origin of the lead image (File:PollardRG1963.2.jpg) as described on the Commons page, so was hoping to get it checked. The picture just looks a bit 'official' to have belonged to a family member... If you guys still give it a clean bill of health, that's great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Without directly quoting the e-mail, 2008011210000979 is literally just: "Subject's son gives permission to use image" and an in-bracket supposed quote from said son who gives authorization to Wikipedia to use the file, which isn't even a valid release if it is indeed legit. Additionally, there doesn't appear to be a valid license. My recommendation would be to have it deleted and use File:Reg Pollard 1942 023756.jpg instead. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Woodwind section

A user has stated that Wikipedia has been granted permission to use copyrighted material from http://www.woodwindorchestra.com/history. They say that it is ticket number 2015073010018303, and I would like to confirm that permission has been granted. —George8211 / T 10:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I can confirm that permission was granted. The article was moved to User:Woodwinduser/Woodwind_orchestra for additional work. I've added the confirmation tag to the Woodwind section article. Nakon 03:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

report a problem

I googled a request for help with a computer error I got on my computer and a link to Wikifixes came up. It is a scam corporation which downloads malware onto the computer if you click on it. At first glance, I thought it was affiliated with Wikipedia; however, it is not and it masquerades as being affiliated and endorsed by Wikipedia. I am still trying to get it off my computer and I still have the error message coming up. I think you should post a disclaimer on your website directing people to not click on the imposter site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.6.239 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Model rs3 bridge.jpg

Hi there OTRS volunteers. There's link to OTRS ticket number 5175426 in an edit summary here. Could I please get one of you with OTRS permissions to have a look at this ticket and add it to the file if there's adequate data in it to do so? The reason I ask is because the image is listed at PUF: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 August 13#File:Model rs3 bridge.jpg. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ref:Ticket:2010071710008983

@Diannaa: This is a strange one. They said they had no objection to us using the image, however have not specified a licence or explicitly given permission. I'm not satisfied they have consented to release this under the licence on the page, however you may draw a different conclusion. Mdann52 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The copyright holder e-mailed OTRS in July 2010 saying we were using one of his images, File:Model_rs3_bridge.jpg, with the attribution to his abbreviated name and the mention "used with permission". He notified us that this was in fact incorrect, as far as permission is concerned. However, he said he did not object to the image being used if we attributed his full name. The OTRS responder (incidentally, who has since become a WMF employee, as highlighted by Redrose64) corrected the attribution. The question is whether "I do not object to Wikipedia's usage" constitutes appropriate free licensing under CC-BY-SA-2.5, and in my opinion it does not (per the top second and third paragraphs of WP:CONSENT); I don't find any mention or evidence or any specific license. The copyright holder's contact information can easily be found online so perhaps they would be open to properly licensing the media if contacted, in case someone wishes to pursue that avenue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! That's plenty of information with which to make a keep/delete decision. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Valshe Butterfly Core.jpg

(ticket) Can you please add the source of the photo, the author who should be credited, and confirm that the license is correct? Thanks, —innotata 21:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, the uploader claims full authorship of the picture and the licensing on the file page matches the e-mail sent perfectly. However, two things appear clear to me -- the uploader (who self-admits to being in Bangladesh) is certainly not the photograph of this picture of a Japanese singer (making this, at best, a derivative); and secondly, a quick search online leads me to believe this is a simple cropping of an otherwise official-looking image (you can even see some of the original lettering in the lower righthand corner), but whose source I have been unable to determine (otherwise, a fair-use case might be made). This was already at PUF in November 2013. I guess the question is how much good faith we wish to attribute to the uploader? I'll ping Callanecc in case they have more insight into this. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

use of File:Concetta headshot.jpg on wiki page Concetta Antico.

Wikimedia administrators, Copyrights for this image are held by Concetta Antico and with this email she gives permission for use of File:Concetta headshot.jpg on wiki page Concetta Antico. URL for image is

ConcettaAntico.com

I make the wiki edit to reinstate use of the file on the wiki page by request of Concetta Antico. I send this email by request,giving permission for use of the image by the copyrights holder.

Neither Use of this image , nor my reinstatement of it on the wiki constitute a conflict as I have no financial or legal ties to the page or its contents. I will continue my right to edit the page for inaccuracies and omissions.

I submit this email per request of Concetta Antico as a personal favor.

KAJameson (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ticket:2010030310047992

Hi team! Could you please confirm that this ticket states that the uploader (Indiejilly (talk · contribs)) is the copyright holder of this image? And that their name matches up with the EXIF data? The image description page merely states that the uploader works with the subject of the photo. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Storkk - The ticket confirms that Indiejilly (the uploader) is Anne Aghion's assistant. It also presents appropriate licensing of the text of http://www.icepeople.com/filmmakers.html under CC-BY-SA-3.0, but explicitly only the text, not the images or any non-text material. There is no licensing whatsoever of the images. There is no mention nor do I have information with regards to the name "MARCO LONGARI" indicated as author/copyright holder in the EXIF metadata, other than it seems he was probably the person holding the camera that took this picture. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: - Thanks! Best regards, Storkk (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Permissions timeline?

Hello everyone, I just received confirmation that the copyright holder of an image I want to use has granted the Commons License, so the email went to "OTRS". How long does it take for the email to go through? I saw on another page that there is a 68 day backlog. That's horrifying. Please tell me that's not true. I've put the "OTRS Pending" note in the image's description but I know from experience that that kicks it off Wikimedia in about a week. How can anyone upload anything if the waiting period is 10x longer than the time the image is allowed to sit waiting for OTRS permission? I'm completely dumbfounded by this problem. It took me 2 months to get this permission. Was it all for nothing? Say it ain't so! Please advise. I'm at my wits' end. Any info is appreciated! Bczogalla (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

There is currently a very high wait in the permissions-en queue. Do you have an OTRS ticket number or image name so that I can investigate this image? Nakon 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ticket:2015082710019263 looks to me like appropriate licensing under CC-BY-SA-3.0 by the copyright holder of commons:File:141110 Motive Vega 43831 R2.jpg. I only have read-only access to permissions queues though, so a volunteer from Commons will have to respond to and process the ticket. Hopefully the mention of it here will be sufficient to get this underway sooner rather than later. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought sure I had responded here, but I don't see it so I don't know what happened. It has been a rather hectic day, I don't know whether I composed a response in my head and didn't post it or wrote it here and forgot to hit safe but I me jump to the main point, I reviewed the permission statement and accepted it earlier today, so the specific issue is closed.

A little bit more information on the backlog. For quite some time, the English Wikipedia backlog has been long, while the Commons backlog has been longer. Some time ago, I looked at the longest queue (Commons) and decided to attack it. Another agent helped, and in fact close more tickets than I did, but between us we get the Commons backlog down to almost nothing. However, real life intervened and I didn't handle tickets for some time. The backlog grew. I've been working on it for the last couple weeks, and the Commons backlog is down to seven days. That isn't a good measure of the true backlog if you're interested in the average length of time to handle a ticket. Occasionally, a ticket just looks like it will be a challenge, and sometimes it sits a while well more recent tickets are handled. Because I have been concentrating on what tended to be the longer queue, I hadn't paid close attention to the English Wikipedia queue. That backlog, as measured by the oldest ticket is 77 days. Again, that does not mean that any ticket created in the last 77 days has gone unanswered. However, I think it is closer to true for the English Wikipedia. I just checked and only 18 tickets have been handled in the last week, so somehow we got to figure out how to get more eyes on that queue.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, you did respond earlier, but in the file's deletion discussion. Your confusion probably stems from the fact I practically copypasted my note here to over there. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh, that explains it. Maybe I'm not going crazy :)--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Salvidrim

Salvidrim and Sphilbrick Thank you both so much for your help. I really didn't know what else to do. I'm so glad I found this talk page and some kind souls who were able - and willing - to help. Thanks again!! Bczogalla (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Permission without outing

I recently took pictures of two historic markers [1] and another one I have yet to upload. Another user tagged it for deletion as a possible copy vio. The size was reduced and the deletion was denied. I contacted the state of PA and obtained a release to use both pictures on Wikipedia. How can I submit this without outing myself? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, a valid release must be e-mailed by the copyright holder directly to permissions-en

wikimedia.org. A forwarded e-mail from a third party (such as you) cannot normally be accepted, because a forwarded message can technically be altered. Instructions can be found at WP:CONSENT, which also points out that a copyright holder should not give permission for use on Wikipedia, but must license the text/images under a free license for anyone to use or reuse. Lastly, please note that any private information sent to OTRS is kept strictly confidential (such as names, employers, e-mails, etc.), so you would not have to worry on that front even if you were to personally communicate with OTRS. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

They sent an actual letter, on letterhead, as well as a scan of it. However, when I asked for permission, I asked to use it on Wikipedia and that's how they worded the permission, so I may have screwed it up. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I... well, I'll admit that it's not everyday a question poses itself involving snail mail. Sending a scan to the permissions e-mail might suffice? I dunno. If your privacy is what really matters you can just create any old e-mail (niteshift36wikigmail.com or whatever, a lot of users do that) to forward the letter in question, but I'm not sure it would actually suffice, so I wouldn't want to mislead you on that front. I'll attempt to find someone more well-versed in copyright exceptions :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The email address isn't the actual issue. The letter itself is done in a traditional office format, which includes my name and mailing address. I'm fine with forwarding it to OTRS as long as the information is confidential. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Information sent through the OTRS system should remain confidential to the best of our ability. Only OTRS agents will be able to see the contents of the email and it shouldn't be discussed openly. Mike V • Talk 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ticket:2010060810041858

The EXIF information on File:Skipper Stowe.jpg credits a Desmond K. Shaw, and mentions this is from an ESPN shoot. Would an OTRS agent please clarify the wording on the ticket, and voice an opinion on whether these are correctly licensed given the "ESPN shoot" issue? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a very complicated ticket and I hesitate to summarize it myself. Pinging VernoWhitney the agent who handled the ticket, who is in a better position to respond.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sphilbrick... I am now an agent and can see the ticket. I plan to bring it up for wider discussion on OTRS-wiki and/or contact the press address for followup. Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations (or condolences as the case may be).--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ticket:2015052010025014

Deletion pending for File:Rock Workshop78.jpg Wiki page for - Andy Richards

Dear Sirs - pending deletion of this image is completely incorrect as we had already received a response from permissions covering all 4 images on the page 'Andy Richards' granting all images were correctly approved. Please see email below from Permissions back in June.

Thanks Bumbledog

Heading+links added and email chain removed Hey Bumbledog! I've taken a look at the email chain, and the only file mentioned in it appears to be File:Andy Richards OutofEden.jpg - I see no mention of the file above. Unfortunately, we cannot just say "All files on X page", we can only go with what is included in the email. You need to get the copyright holder to send this permission note naming every file that should also be covered. Mdann52 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I see the others - but they appear to be "Wikipedia only"-type permissions: see the first forwarded message on ticket:2015052010025014. Storkk (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

2015081710018391 Igor Milic picture

Here is ticket link for this picture: 2015081710018391 (Igor Milic.jpg) Please undelete it to commons so it can be freely used again for wiki pages. I have provided picture before it was edited to permission center by e-mail, with my approval as i am the author of the picture, and also permission of the Igor Milic who is on the picture. Everything has been explained and filed so picture can be free used through commons. Thank you! --MayaSophia (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

MayaSophia It is not deleted. See File:Igor_Milic.jpg. It is not on Commons but normally a bot moves images from Wikipedia to Commons on a regular basis when they qualify. There is probably a way to speed up the process but is there any reason this image cannot be used? Or some reason the move is so urgent that it must be handled out of normal process?--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@MayaSophia and Sphilbrick: The file is now on Wikimedia Commons (C:File:Igor_Milic.jpg). Mdann52 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Images on Michael Wildes page (Ticket#2015091310007479)

Just want to state that I have received explicit permission for every image on Michael Wildes' wiki page, and forwarded the email to Permissions. That includes

File:John Lennon, Leon Wildes, Courthouse steps, 1976.jpg and File:Michael Wildes, Pele, outside airplane, April 2014.jpg are currently pending deletion even though permission has been attained for them. Also, File:Michael Wildes, Bill Clinton, June 2012.jpg has already been deleted but permission exists for that as well.

Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ashershow1: - please provide the ticket number for the Lennon, Pele and Clinton photos. I tried a full text search with "Lennon Wildes" as well as your email address, but found only the one referenced above. Storkk (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? The email I sent includes all the pictures.Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 16:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The search in the OTRS system may not be the best - I have had trouble finding things, but searching for the ticket number works well, and is much faster, so providing the ticket number will help. --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Storkk: It is ticket number 2015091310007479 I'm sitting in an airport so not comfortable handling it now.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ticket#2015091310007479 Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Two things are not clear to me: 1) that the claimed copyright holder is the actual copyright holder, and 2) the files above are the ones the claimed copyright holder is supposed to have released. The ticket has multiple attachments, but it is a forwarded reply to a different email with no specific files listed. @Sphilbrick: I will flesh this out better as an email reply tomorrow, but if you would prefer to take it, I will gladly release the ticket to you. Storkk (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain my earlier confusion, I was expecting at least a second ticket because, for example, File:Michael Wildes, Pele, outside airplane, April 2014.jpg was tagged as OTRS pending since June, however this ticket was received in September. Storkk (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find evidence that File:Michael Wildes, Bill Clinton, June 2012.jpg has ever existed. Storkk (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Storkk: Commons Mdann52 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep... I should have updated this page with this link. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

permissions for File:Salvatore J Stolfo.jpg

Hi, I received a note regarding permissions for this file (the note is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatebott#Deletion_pending_for_File:Salvatore_J_Stolfo.jpg). I had posted the picture on behalf of the owner of the photo, so I'd e-mailed a statement of permission as described in the initial note. Recently, though, I've received a second note about permissions and I'm not entirely sure what to do so I'm posting my story here and asking for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatebott (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is Ticket:201507011002311. @Hatebott: a request for clarification was sent on 2015-09-06 and has not yet received a response. Storkk (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dan Rodrigues.png permission has been sent

I received word this AM that a proper permissions email has been sent for Dan Rodrigues.png, for the article of the same name. Posting per instructions left on my talk page.Timtempleton (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This concerns ticket:2015070210022119, ticket:2015091110017515, and File:Dan Rodrigues.png. Storkk (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtempleton. These are being dealt with. Permission from copyright holder seems to have been received on 2015-09-14. I have removed the no-permission template from the file to alleviate your sense of urgency. Storkk (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Email permission sent for File:JF photo standard.jpg

I have just forwarded the Email permission sent for File:JF photo standard.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulodell (talk • contribs) 09:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ticket#2015091610010281 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulodell (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Paulodell Thanks for identifying the ticket number, that made it much easier to find. The permission statement as provided was not quite sufficient. I've written out one it is sufficient, and identified one other small issue that needs to be addressed. I emailed both you and the subject a few minutes ago.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Email permission set for Audrey Capel Doray Hexagon on June 29, 2015 from Conceptual Aesthetics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conceptual-Aesthetics (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 September 2015‎

This heading without a message obviously refers to File:Hexagon-Six-Panel Multi-Media Installation by Audrey Capel Doray.jpg. Can someone please check the mailbox for the permission? De728631 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just did a search and did not find it. That said the search function doesn't always seem to work as well as we would like, so the fact that my search failed is not proof that it isn't there.

I'm not sure why it was uploaded to Wikimedia rather than Commons, although this may simply be a case of a person not knowing where it belongs. I mention this because I have been trying to keep the Commons backlog in check- there are currently only 22 open items in Commons in the English language, and I think I have looked at them all (none are older than seven days old). The Wikipedia backlog is longer, more than 200. I haven't and do not plan to look at all of those individually. If the person who provided the permission could respond to the ticket number I can look into it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I found it and processed it. (FYI, the search failed because the filename wasn't mentioned in the permission!) --S Philbrick (Talk) 14:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I transferred the file to Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

File:JordiFolchPi.jpg and File:AlbertFolch2.jpg

Can an OTRS volunteer take a look at these files and see if they are OK for upload as free? "JordiFolchPi" was lacking permission, but this seems to have be resolved by additional information added to the source for the image. The same was done for "AlbertFolch2.jpg", but not sure if this is sufficient since the file's metadata lists does not list the subject of the photo as the original copyright holder. Anyway, the uploader seems to be getting frustrated with having the same photos deleted or flagged for issues, so I'm hoping there's a way to help them out. They say that even though permission's emails were sent to OTRS, they have not yet be verified, so perhaps an OTRS volunteer can check into this for them. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly I did a search of the OTRS database for "AlbertFolch2.jpg" and "JordiFolchPi.jpg" and came up empty. If they submitted to OTRS, they get an immediate return email which includes the ticket number. If they can supply the ticket number I can search again. Normally, I would think it would be impossible to provide a permission statement that did not include a reference to the image name, but I saw it happen this week so people do manage to do it. Searching on a ticket number won't run into that problem.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I notice that File:AlbertFolch2.jpg Has a copyright assigned to Scott Manthey. I searched the OTRS database to see if there was a permission statement from Scott, but I did not find one. We either need a permission statement from Scott or documentation that the copyright was transferred to someone else who can provide permission. (I do understand that the hoops that must be jumped through are a bit frustrating but they are driven by copyright law not Wikimedia rules)--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking S Phibrick. I updated the uploader about your reply and asked them for the ticket number per your request. (I pinged you in that post, just in case I got things wrong or in case you wanted to provide further clarification yourself.) For reference, I did previously mention at User talk:Rogerfpurcell#File permission problem with File:JordiFolchPi.jpg_2 that the metadata of "AlbertFoch2" indicates the name of the copyright holder of the image and they gave their response in the thread where I pinged you. If you check the source links provided for both "JordiFolchPi" and "AlbertFolch2", a statement has been added by Albert Folch which says: "This image can be re-used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License." Is this acceptable in lieu of an OTRS permissions email? If it is, then the {{di-no permission}} tag can be removed from "JordiFolchPi" at least, right? I'm still not sure though if such a statement is acceptable for the "AlbertFolch2" since it's not clear whether that means there has been a transfer of copyright. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly Unfortunately, no, it is not acceptable for two reasons, one minor, one significant. We do need to have contact information on file and an email from someone constitutes contact information but a note on a Wikipedia page does not. The more serious concern is we need to have some evidence that the person supplying the permission is the copyright holder. That would seem to be quite challenging. I understand the photo came from the family, but the original copyright holder is the photographer. In recent years it is quite common for photographers to transfer the copyright along with the photo but that hasn't always been the case. I don't know when that photograph was taken but it appears to be of an age during which it was not common for photographers to automatically transfer copyright. Therefore we either need permission from the photographer or evidence that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years (that last point is from memory I'll have to check it if that turns out to be relevant).--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

OK Sphilbrick. I understand about the notes left on the files' Wikipedia pages, but what about notes left on the Picassa pages where the files have been posted. For example, whould this be considered acceptable as an explicit declaration of consent that the file is free to use per CC 3.0. I believe it was text recently added to the image by the Albert Folch, the owner of the Picassa page. Should "AlbertFolch2" also be tagged with "no permission" if this kind of declaration is not acceptable? If you've answered this above, then sorry for repeating. Today looks like its going to be a "bad hair day" for me, so my brain is working a little slower than it usually does. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

California High-Speed Rail images

On 9/23/15 I received an email indicating that you did not have the permission for an image. However, I had already sent in the permission. Here is a forward of the permission I received on 7/31/15.

PER YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, I AM ALSO POSTING THE EMAIL HERE...

<contents of email removed> Robert92107 the image in question exists on Commons as File:Statewide Topo 22X34 July 2014.jpg and has been marked with the appropriate permissions and was dealt with under OTRS ticket 2015073110017821. The file on Wikipedia File:California topographical map of proposed HSR route (2014).jpg is a duplicate and should be deleted under WP:F8. Nthep (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Two files

These files have inconsistent source and licensing information. One of the files has an OTRS ticket. Is the information in the OTRS ticket correct, and does the conflicting information from the duplicate copy somehow invalidate the OTRS ticket? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: The OTRS ticket on File:The Center for Longevity building on Viceroy Drive, Dallas, Texas.jpg is plausible to me, and is not invalidated by File:The CVL Building.jpg. File:The CVL Building.jpg is, however, an exact duplicate and I have tagged it as such. Storkk (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging ticket owner. The direct ticket link is ticket:2015061210017261. Storkk (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Appears ok to me - note that they have previously used this as their Facebook picture, so it appears they do own the rights to this. Mdann52 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

All OTRS editors should have received an email as well as a notification on your user talk pages at the Meta Wikipedia.

m:Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Initial notice to OTRS volunteers

"The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access." They're using the new legalpad Phabricator. m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. Just wanted to pass this along in case you're like me and don't check the Meta Wikipedia and/or email that often. Mkdw ^talk 02:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Janice min 14.jpg

Would like to request verification of the OTRS copyright permission. It was uploaded by a user blocked by @Smartse:. Many of the uploader's other image uploads were deleted for copyright reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Janice_min_14.jpg

David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This one appears to be fine. Paging TLSuda who verified the ticket earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 18:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks fine, but its also from a generic free email company. The email address is not found on the alleged photographer's website. And the image has the tag on it, which a photographer likely would not have included. I might have not covered this one as well as I have others. I'll ask for more information. I've updated the image. If we don't hear back in a bit of time, we can probably go ahead and remove this image as a potential copyright violation. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

TLSuda, I did a brief check on the email address before posting here, I'll leave a note on your talk page on OTRS wiki. —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@TLSuda:, you might want to ask directly at The Hollywood Reporter too [2]. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Kocharian-debate.jpg

This file is tagged with {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, which was added by the uploader, who is not an OTRS member. There is no author information. The uploader also has a fair share of blocks under their name. Can an OTRS member look into this and see if the ticket number is valid? — ξ ^xplicit 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been removed as invalid.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Change attribution for Commons photo?

I submitted a photo to Commons that pertained to a current event and got permission from my friend, the author, to submit it under my name and have it be attributed to my username in order to post it quickly (she didn't want to create a Commons account). It ended up being used in the national media and I would like to make sure she gets proper credit. Can someone point me in the right direction on how to resolve this? Valfontis (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Valfontis: Sure thing! Can you drop us an email at info-en

wikimedia.org, and I (or whoever finds it first!) will get this sorted out. Just mention Mdann52 said they would deal with this and it'll find it's way to me. Mdann52 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Valfontis (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: ticket:2015100510022545. I've marked the image as {{OTRS received}}, copyright holder should confirm license. Storkk (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm contacting the copyright holder. When she gives me her e-mail I'll have her contact you--I expect I'll get an e-mail about this? Valfontis (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Beverly_Willis,_2015.jpg

Update on OTRS pending for File:Beverly Willis, 2015.jpg -- The copyright holder has emailed a statement of permission. Ticket#: 2015101010010619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunelleschi9 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Files by User:Lift truck

Lift truck (talk · contribs) uploaded files, claiming he works for Toyota Material Handling, U.S.A. and has the right to release them under a free license. File:Toyota 6-series.jpg and File:Toyota 8-series.jpg are tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}, but File:Toyota's first US Lift Truck.JPG and File:Toyota's first forklift.JPG are not. Is the second group of files covered under the ticket number for the first group of files, or are they lacking evidence of permission? — ξ ^xplicit 18:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Explicit: The ticket only covers File:Toyota 8-series.jpg, File:Toyota 7-series.jpg, File:Toyota 6-series.jpg, and File:Toyota 5-series.jpg. Mdann52 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

permissions

Hi,

I created the pages for Bond Offshore Helicopters and Bond Air Services. I am the copyright holder for the images referenced in the notes below and have permission to publish them accordingly.

Thanks

John Fyall

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Deletion pending for File:EC135 at WAA.jpg[edit]

Hello, Flerg. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:EC135 at WAA.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now. If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so. If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Bond Offshore Helicopters logo.png[edit]

Hello, Flerg. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Bond Offshore Helicopters logo.png — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now. If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so. If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flerg: Thank you for your message. Please note that it is not sufficient to merely tell us here that you are the copyright holder - documentation needs to be submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. When you uploaded File:EC135 at WAA.jpg, you stated that "Bond Air Services" was the author. Is that correct? If so, then we need to have a statement of permission similar to the one found at WP:CONSENT from someone authorized to issue licenses on behalf of this company. --B (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Image Verification of (File:Vattan Sandhu Punjabi Singer.jpg)

Actually I have uploaded an image which was sent to me in message for use on Wikipedia by Author/Owner. Now please guide me how can I validate this? Should I send you screen shot of that message?

@Vattansandhu: There are a couple issues to address. You uploaded the image to Wikipedia rather than Commons. With rare exceptions, which don't hear to apply here, images such as this should be uploaded to Commons. That's not a major deal, as a bot will eventually move it, although I think it's actually easier to upload to Commons than it is to Wikipedia.

The copyright owner should send in a permission statement indicating their willingness to license it. You can find the desired wording at this link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates

I note that the image is a photo of an individual but the file information claims the same individual is the author. Does this mean it was photographed using a self timer? If it was photographed using a self timer, in addition to the permission statement, the subject should state that it was created with a self timer. If was a photograph taken by someone else we either need the permission statement from the person that took it, or affirmation that the copyright was transferred from the photographer to the subject.

Finally, the uploaded image is not the original photograph. It would be helpful if the permission statement could include the original photo as an attachment so we can be sure we are in communication with the copyright holder.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pamela Meyer - Permission has been resent

I have just resent the license to use the photo of Pamela Meyer to permissions-en. Thank you. JSFarman2 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@JSFarman2: Sorry in advance if I'm missing something. I see a new ticket created on 12 October stating that it's a resend but it didn't include a permission statement. However, if the permission relates to:

File:PamelaMeyerSeptember2015.jpg

A permission statement was filed and accepted in September. The permission tag is on the image.

I do not think anything needs to be done but your note suggests that you received a message that your permission statement wasn't received.

I'm curious to know what you received, although I will understand that your primary focus may be on making sure that permission is confirmed.

Adding a ping to @Jcb: in case they know something I'm missing.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I had another look at the ticket on File:PamelaMeyerSeptember2015.jpg and everything seems fine to me. So if you are talking about that file, don't worry, everything is in order. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a bot notice on my talk page. Thank you! JSFarman2 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. File:PamelaMeyer2015.jpg is a scaled-down duplicate of File:PamelaMeyerSeptember2015.jpg. I have removed the 'no permission tag', but the low-resolution version will be deleted anyway, because we have a better version available. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Check requested

Is File:Echofrombridge.jpg covered by the same ticket as File:Sunderland Echo 001.jpg? Kelly ^hi! 09:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly: the ticket covers

File:Echonewsroomcc.jpg, File:Firstechopic.jpg, File:Echo001.jpg, File:Echovan.jpg, File:Echo003.jpg, File:Echopressnow.jpg, File:Echodig.jpg, File:Echoofficebeamish.jpg, File:Echoboy.jpg

I can't find any ticket relating to File:Echofrombridge.jpg but I will contact the person who gave the original consent to see what the position is in relation to this image. Nthep (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File: Stanley Silverman at Home

I have forwarded express permission from the author of the work for use on Wikipedia to permissions-en@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devushkao (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Stanley_Silverman_with_James_Taylor.png, this was resolved by Ticket:2015101110014266. If you are talking about a different file, please specify it more precisely. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Devushkao: Actually, it looks like you are referring to File:Stanley Silverman at Home.png for which an email has been received, but is insufficient (ticket:2015101310004121). Storkk (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OTRS-tickets for promotional content?

Hello, I just came across Carla Fache. Apparently permission for the article's content (copied from the artist's website) has been validated via an OTRS-ticket (2011043010564379). Of course I understand, that OTRS is primarily about verification of permissions, and not about judging the suitability of such content. But still, it feels wrong to validate contributed content, when it violates several fundamental guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NPOV, WP:SPS just to name a few). If such content is contributed, are the contributors informed about such possible problems? I appreciate, that OTRS-volunteers cannot proofread every single contribution, just wondering about the handling of such cases, and possible safety measures to prevent COI misuse. GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As a minor note, I'd like to mention that OTRS does a number of things other than simply permissions. However in the context of a permission request, which are mostly about images but occasionally about text, the main task is to ensure that the person supplying the license is actually the copyright holder or an authorized representative of the copyright holder and has provided a license that works for us. We do not, in general, opine on the suitability of the material for Wikipedia articles.

I do not think it would be a good idea to encourage or expect that. In some cases of permissions for text, the covered material is fairly short, but in other cases it is quite voluminous. It would be an unreasonable burden on an OTRS agent to expect them to review all of the text on the chance that some particular snippet might be used in the article.

In some cases, I have one the copyright owner that our acceptance of the license is not the same as approving it for inclusion in an article. In many cases, the pros on a website which often is promotional in nature is quite inappropriate for an article. However when I do so I feel I am doing so over and above my duty as an OTRS agent and I'm not convinced it should become a required practice.

In the specific case of this article, the text is obviously quite promotional. I hope no one assumes that acceptance of a permission statement via OTRS means the language has been approved for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. We might debate whether such wording is needed although I don't think it is. I see the concern about copyright was expressed on the AfD page, and you pointed out that it was licensed. However, I don't see any suggestion there, nor do I ever recall seeing a situation where someone assume that if the text was licensed that it meant it was okay to use in an editorial sense. It only means that copyright issues have been resolved.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I noticed, that such text contributions are also included in Category:Items_with_OTRS_permission_confirmed just like images. With 3,000 contributions (most of them likely legitimate or relatively uncritical), and only 500 of them BLPs, the issue is probably not as widespread as I thought. I'll do some more random checks, when I have more time. GermanJoe (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte Verity Portrait

Hi

We have permission for the photograph, named in the subject above, to be uploaded to Wikipedia and used by Wikipedia and it's users free from any further need for permission.

Nicola — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.60.21 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

José Pereira Coutinho image

The image was uploaded by me with the authorization of José Pereira Coutinho himself. It is an image that was edited with the background of the house added. This house is where the Parliament of Portugal is located in Lisbon. Many photos of Coutinho were taken on that site on that day (end of August 2015). However, none of the photos matched greatly with the background. Therefore, this photo is the combination of two photos that we own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicacoca (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gicacoca: we need permission from the copyright holder (usually the photographer), not the person in the photo. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It will be very difficult for us to find a proof from the photographer that he is the owner of the photo because the photo was taken without any contract. It is a free work that the photographer did for Coutinho. Could you please advise what can be done to overcome this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicacoca (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gicacoca: Please ask the photographer to send a license confirmation available at WP:CONSENT. If the photographer refuses to confirm the license, there's not much we can do. Storkk (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

File:David Elmasllari.jpg

Please inspect the OTRS permissions for this file. Template added by uploader. Fiddle Faddle 11:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

it looks fine to me, although the last T hasn't yet been crossed. There are a couple issues the ~~uploaded~~ uploader needed to address, they have been addressed, now we just need for the agent handling it to finalize it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

– Storkk (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Laura Branigan live in Massachusetts.jpg

I uploaded a photo of the singer Laura Branigan last week and have been in contact with the copyright holder guiding them through the process of getting an OTRS ticket for it. According to them, the declaration of consent email was sent to the OTRS team yesterday, however the image has been deleted prematurely in the early hours of this morning by an administrator. So I ask: what do I do now? Do I re-upload it? — Dell9300 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dell9300: The file will be restored once the ticket has been processed. Mdann52 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I found the ticket and consider it sufficient. I restored the file and tagged it with the proper ticket number. The ticket will be responded to and confirmed by an OTRS-permissions agent. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Robert Jolles.jpg

Can an OTRS volunteer take a peek at File:Robert Jolles.jpg. It's uploaded as non-free, but since this person is still living there is no reason not expect that a free equivalent cannot be created per WP:NFCC#1. So, I have tagged it with {{Di-replaceable fair use}}. However, the non-free use rationale seems to contain a statement stating from the original copyright holder, Merrill Worthington, which states: I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that - by doing so - I will grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I'm pretty sure that something more formal than this is needed for verification purposes, but maybe this would mean the image is really "free" and and should be tagged with {{No permission}} instead. The "Di-replaceable fair use" tag gives the uploader only to November 1, 2015 to fix the problem, but the "no permission" would give them until November 12, which is a big difference. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Search on Robert Jolles.jpg and File:Robert Jolles.jpg (and the full link) all gives No ticket data found. I think this is enough to say we haven't received any tickets regarding the file. — regards, Revi 13:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Revi. For reference, the file was deleted per WP:F7. If an OTRS permisson is eventually found, then the uploader can request that it be restored per WP:RfU. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly: I won't comment on -revi's search fu, but the ticket was located easily: ticket:2015090210027272. The files were joined to the e-mail, and the OTRS agent replied asking "what article are they for" (since there was no mention of Robert Jolles and the files had numerical titles). One of the two files was a better-quality copy of what is now deleted at File:Robert Jolles.jpg. The full e-mail is more than sufficient when it comes to licensing. I think we should upload both files and tag them with the OTRS ticket and the licenses they were released under, and add them to Robert Jolles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for re-checking Salvidrim. If you found the relevant OTRS ticket and verified the email, then I can't think of a reason why the image cannot be restored and re-added to the article. Maybe it should even be moved to Commons? I cannot restore the file because I am not an admin, but perhaps Explicit can help if necessary since they deleted the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The deleted file is a VERSION (a poorer one) of of the two files actually licensed in the ticket, hence my preference for a fresh upload of the file really licensed properly. And I've no objections to seeing them uploaded (by myself or another) on Enwiki or Commons. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin or OTRS volunteer so I cannot see each photo to comment on which is better. I just posted here because the "poorer version" was non-free of a living person (thus failing NFCC#1), but also seemed to have a permissions email in its nfur (thus possibly meaning it wasn't non-free to begin with). My concerns regarding the image have been resolved now that its OTRS status has been sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File: AlbertFolch2.jpg should not be deleted! Please stop tagging it

Sorry this file keeps on getting deleted by one of your Bots ... This is just absurd, this file was taken by the author himself and emailed to me. I've tried many different ways of submitting this image, the author himself has submitted the image and it just doesn't work. The technology you guys use is inadequate because there is no way to understand it by normal people, there is no other way to put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfpurcell (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rogerfpurcell: The files were not deleted by a bot; They were deleted by an adminstrator named Explicit per WP:F11. This has been discussed before at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 4#File:JordiFolchPi.jpg and File:AlbertFolch2.jpg and on your user talk page. As S Philbrick explained at the time, no OTRS permissions email could be found for either image and there were other problems as well. The images were tagged with {{OTRS pending}} for quite some time before being deleted, so I am assuming that a permisson email could not be found for either file. Do you know if a "declaration of consent" email was sent to OTRS? If so, then the person who sent the email should've received a reply from OTRS which included a ticket (reference) number. This number can be used by OTRS to find the email and verify it. If they find everything to be in order, they can restore both images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rogerfpurcell: please see Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard/Archive_4#File:JordiFolchPi.jpg_and_File:AlbertFolch2.jpg

In short, we need to have an acceptable permission statement on file and we have not received one. Please let me know if you need more information.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia disconnect leaves editors defenseless

I'm trying to resolve an issue with OTRS (image AlbertFolch2.jpg being deleted), I just raised the issue and meanwhile I undeleted the file (because I know it's perfectly valid). But KylieTastic undid my changes. Wouldn't it be more productive if you assumed that we are being honest, and you talked to each other? From our end, it feels we are being questioned by the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfpurcell (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference, KylieTastic did not delete the file; All they did was remove the link of a deleted file. When a file is deleted, it is no longer displayed in the various Wikipedia articles, etc. were it was being used. The links to the file, however, often remain until they are eventually removed by a bot or an editor. What you saw was a bot removing a red link to a file that no longer existed. You then undid the bot's edit and re-added the red link (the image had been deleted, so all you did was re-add the link). KylieTastic simply removed the link because as they said in their edit sum it is pointless adding back link to a file that has been deleted (unless re-upload or restored by OTRS first). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

see the section above. My apologies for your observation that you feel like you're being questioned by the police, but I can assure you that many images are uploaded every day without the permission of the copyright holder and we take great pains to respect copyright. In some cases, as in this one, we may be deleting an image for which the copyright holder is perfectly happy to provide permission but we need some evidence. At the moment we do not have it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Beverley Heath Hoyland

I had previously sent an email relating to the image uploaded to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Heath_Hoyland and including a copy of the release signed by Tony Hutchings. I did not receive an OTRS ticket.

As such, the image was removed. I have subsequently re-uploaded the image and sent, again, the licence release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and received the ticket: Ticket#2015111210004693. Please check.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjitChudha (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see Ticket#2015073110004496. More specific permissions is requested, waiting for reply. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Josiah-henson-cabin-img-034510.jpg

According to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6#File:Josiah-henson-cabin-img-034510.jpg, this issue with this image has been resolved, but was never properly tagged with {{OTRS permission}} template. The ticket number is 2015042210014391. Can someone take a look and verify if this is the case? — ξ ^xplicit 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Jasun Martz.jpg

Resolved

Could someone please verify the image license on this file? When the OTRS ticket was added, it was public domain...but afterwards another user showed up (possibly the photographer) and changed it to {{attribution}}. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly: Clear PD declaration in the ticket, I've tagged and moved to Commons accordingly. Mdann52 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Clitovnici

Draft:Daniel Clitnovici has just been restored after a request at WP:REFUND; however, the title Daniel Clitnovici was salted in 2009 after articles were twice deleted due to ticket#2009010910019026. Please comment here or on the draft page as to whether this ticket gives any reason why the draft should be declined if it is otherwise acceptable. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: I suspect this is ok and a case of mistaken identity, so ok to restore. Mdann52 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the list of teams played for, the subject of the present draft is the same person as the subject of the deleted articles from 2009. Do you mean that the 2009 caller to OTRS was not that man? JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's borderline enough for me to say that I'm not going to hold the OTRS ticket against this, and I don't think that under the current procedures, this would lead to deletion. Mdann52 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unsalted the title so that the draft can be published if accepted. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Lloyd and Bailey.jpg

Requesting a ticket check for correct attribution. The name of the photographer was changed by an IP editor after the OTRS ticket was added. Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The ticket doesn't provide attribution. And to be honest, I don't think the license grant is sufficient; "free to be used" isn't "free to modify" per se. L Faraone 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I no longer have access to OTRS, and I don't remember the details of this specific photograph. Was the response "free to be used indefinitely, throughout the entire universe, etc." a reply to a formal question about whether it can be used for any purpose, including resale and modification? If so, I'd argue that answer with "etc" means "yes to all the above". But that's just my opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Stile Project

Stile Project contains: __NOINDEX__ ... why? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Lexein (talk · contribs), who added the line in January 2014. I wasn't able to find any relevant records. L Faraone 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevevent ticket is actually Ticket:2013031410000461. This looks like a temporary fix, so feel free to remove if needed The Quixotic Potato; I don't think this is an OTRS issue any longer. Mdann52 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I have removed it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:LFaraone

– L Faraone 06:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the NOINDEX because the individual with alias "Jay Stile" begged that the page " be taken down or blocked or something" because it was ruining his life, as it contained his real name. I told him the best I could do was NOINDEX after removing his real name. I would not say that the intention for removal was temporary at all. I haven't been policing the page, and cannot devote my life to doing so. So I'd say that the NOINDEX should stay, as long as there's a risk that the real name could be added back at any time. Lexein (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lexein: Could we move this discussion back to the noticeboard? In any case, I don't think blanket NOINDEXing because someone could add some information to a page is appropriate. And, if it isn't supported by sources, such an allegation should be reverted and considered for suppression. L Faraone 01:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NOINDEX is pointless here - if the name is readded without reliable sources, we can easily remove it, and if Google picks it up, it can easily be purged - feel free to send cases to me if you don't know how this is done. Personally, I don't think NOINDEX should ever be used on stable articles, especially on the back of a 2 year old ticket with no repetition since. Mdann52 (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Task Force 1-41 Infantry photos

Emails have been sent by the owners whose photos needed verification. Thanks.Don Brunett (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

File:Governor White 70th Leg 1987.jpg

Resolved

Request a license check on the above file (OTRS ticket added by non-OTRS member). Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The email chain sent to us has a representative of the copyright holder agreeing to allow us to use the file under terms consistent with the template on the page, looks ok to me! Mdann52 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Walter Balderson with Emmy Award.gif

Request check on this file, as the editor who added the ticket isn't shown as having OTRS rights (perhaps a past member)? Also hoping for creator information, this appears to be an old television screenshot, not a photo. (Perhaps explained by the fact that the subject is a television engineer?) Kelly ^hi! 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly: Adambro was an OTRS agent at the time. However, the release is from the person depicted, so is likely invalid. Storkk (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

File:PaulosFarajRahho.png

Request OTRS check on this file. OTRS ticket was added by non-OTRS member (Chaldean), and I've found other mentions that this user has added fake OTRS tickets in the past - such as Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:صدام و چند آمریکایی.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 11:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Kelly: that OTRS ticket does exist but it does not contain permission to use those files. A great number of files have been similarly deleted on Commons; I'll delete this one too. Good catch. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Questionable copy of copyrighted information to an article with an old OTRS ticket.

A new account User:Jason Graves has recently copied verbatim from http://www.jasongraves.com/ to Jason Graves. The website states "© 2014 Jason W. Graves. Material from this website may not be copied or retransmitted without written consent of the author." The user has not responded to my request to clarify if he actually is Jason Graves, although it seems likely. The article has a seven-year-old OTRS ticket 2008120910029443 stating that Wikipedia was given permission to use copyrighted material. The account currently adding copyrighted material from the website was created just a few days ago and thus cannot be the same as the one which proved his identity and gave permission to use the copyrighted material. I'm not sure how this works.

Does the original ticket still apply to new uploads after seven years?
Can any user upload under that ticket or only the original requester?
If not, can the new user prove his identity again and use that ticket with his new account?
Should all the new copyrighted material be deleted until this is settled?

Meters (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Meters according to WP:COPYRIGHT, yes the copyrighted material needs to be removed. The exact text is If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for detailed instructions KoshVorlon 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meters: the permission ticket does actually cover the material, however it is licenced exclusively under the GDFL licence - as the content has changed since then, and we now need dual licensing, this permission is no longer valid - they have not responded to out request to update the permission.

@KoshVorlon: not always, in this case, there is permission to use the material on the Talk:Jason Graves - this was just a query to see if it's still valid. Just because the source says copyrighted does not mean that it hasn't also been released under a freer licence. Mdann52 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the copyrighted material pending a new OTRS ticket. Meters (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually restored the biography version prior to the new copyvio addition, but left all other edits. Meters (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Bunyoro-king-ugandasolomonigurui.jpg

The use of this image appears to conflict Template:Non-free promotional: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project." The file has an OTRS ticket. I'd like to know if it specifies a free license and, if it doesn't, should the file be deleted. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: the ticket makes it clear they don't object to us using the image under a fair-use claim. IT appears that getting a replacement in practice is almost impossible, so this will have to do. Mdann52 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had extensive discussions on what the "almost all" in our WMF Resolution (wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy) means in terms of our WP:NFCC#1 and the consensus tends to be that it's extremely limited: only prisoners, fugitives and recluses are taken to be out of reach. For instance, we think that Kim Jong-un is within reach of photography. I am going to nominate the file in question for deletion under Rfu, Mdann52. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright and the article Ian Sprague

Several weeks ago I created an article on the Australian potter Ian Sprague. Zpeopleheart drew my attention to an apparent copyright violation in the second and third paragraphs, and accordingly brought them under a violation template. The potentially offended author has written giving her permission for her material to be used, but I have preferred to take the rewrite option. The duplication detector now shows nothing but repetition of personal and place names. Normally I would get back to Zpeopleheart to ask that the template be removed, but Zpeopleheart is now her/himself banned from editing for six months in relation to a different matter. Could someone with the authority please take a look at the article and remove the template if that is appropriate? Erictimewell (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Transferring fair use photos from Croatian Wikipedia to here

Jerkovic9 asked me how to transfer some photos used on hr:MNK Futsal Dinamo to the English article Futsal Dinamo. They are the author of both pages and uploaded the images on the Croatian Wikipedia. The copyright holder has given permission to use the photos on the Croatian Wikipedia. An example image is hr:Datoteka:Kcdppun.jpg. I haven't a clue if it is possible to transfer and what copyright language to use. Any help would be appreciated. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bgwhite. You can't use any of the photos on en.wiki. A "[Croatian] Wikipedia only" license isn't a free license, and fair-use doesn't apply to any of the photos, because free alternatives could be created (WP:NFCC#1). You can upload the logo as fair-use though, and no permission is needed to do this. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping Jerkovic9 so they can see this and sorry about your photos. Thank you Finnusertop. Atleast my advice on the logo/shield was correct... I got something correct for a change! Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

File:David Elmasllari.jpg

Please examine this, which declares OTRS approval, and which I doubt. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle Permissions have been archived under the ticket number posted. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Fiddle Faddle 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Help

Can someone take a look an this ticket:2015122210021966. There's like 30 emails on the queue, I merged mostly all, but maybe there's more emails from the sender lost on the system.Angus Guilherme¶ 11:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 29#File:AndyReed-MP&Family.jpg

A user claims that something was sent to OTRS in 2010, but there is no OTRS ticket listed. Can you check? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved and replied to at WP:PUF. Nthep (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 evaluation of Dow 30

The return of Nike for the calendar year 2015 is way off. Please correct these numbers. Thank You Michael Treffiletti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.55.82 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately this is not the correct place to voice concerns regarding an article - please consider raising your concern at the help desk. Thank you -- samtar ^whisper 19:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing OTRS-tag after content was moved

It's a pure formality, but could an OTRS-member please copy the OTRS-tag from Talk:Annefield (Saxe, Virginia) to Talk:Jacob W. Holt? Some partial content was moved between the articles with this edit in 2011: [3]. This content is based on the OTRS-verified source document (Section 8, Page 10). I tried to fix the talkpage myself, but got an edit filter warning. GermanJoe (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: I'm not experienced enough to action this request but, I will point out VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing. only mentions one article in the permissions form and the page is Annefield (Saxe, Virginia), so if any non-free information was copied to another page, I wouldn't be sure if it's proper. (just my take) Mlpearc (open channel) 23:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the OTRS-tag on the original talkpage the content has been released under a "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license". Thus copying or moving the content from one article to another is legitimate (the moved content seems to be a verbatim copy from the source document), but needs attribution. An additional OTRS-ticket would merely serve as clarification of this copyright situation, and as attribution of the copyright owner (which is currently missing in the second article). Without such a clarification the content in the second article might get deleted, whenever a bot checks it for copyvios - the source document is still online and triggers a false positive. GermanJoe (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Done That seems logical but, it might be un-done if deemed inappropriate. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries (I am no expert either), and thank you for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, any time

Mlpearc (open channel) 01:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian Sprague copyright issue

This article has not been cleared by obtaining permission from a copyright holder, though this is available (see the article's Talk page). Instead the dubious paragraphs have been rewritten to the point where the Duplication Detector shows only proper names. So as the original author I would now like the warning template removed and do not know how to bring this about. If no one has the power to do this then presumably it is OK to remove it myself. Erictimewell (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Richard Adlam profile picture.png

File:Richard Adlam profile picture.png has a message received by OTRS but without sufficient permission. That was Sep 2015. Is there any update to this? Next steps? -- Whpq (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq: thanx for pointing this out. No further information was received. I tagged it for deletion. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Dan Price photo.png

There are two different photographs in the history. Does the OTRS ticket apply to both of them or just to one of them? Also, why is there a fair use rationale if the picture is freely licensed? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Permissions are logged under that ticket number as the following: "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)" Mlpearc (open channel) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dongseo University images

The above images were deleted by me for lacking evidence of permission in early December. The uploader contacted me and let me know that they emailed OTRS before I had deleted the images. Two months later, it seems that they have not yet received a response. I'm aware that there's currently a 112-day backlog, but would it be possible to have OTRS look into this case specifically? They state that they used an email affiliated with the university (probably @dongseo.ac.kr), if that helps. — ξ ^xplicit 02:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Explicit:, @Diannaa:, @Keir Thornburg:, I found the permissions VRTS ticket # 2015121010001661. I have replied to the sender. If someone could un-delete the files and ping me I can add the permissions tags. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: All images restored. — ξ ^xplicit 02:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Done All files tagged. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Norm Sartorius page, image copyright

The image NormSartoriusHomage2.jpg copyright release has been submitted to permissions. The rights hold holder is photographer Jim Osborn. He listed it as "NormSartoriusHomage.jpg" in his permission email. You can see that is it is the same image. Or I can rename it to correspond to his written permission.

Thx, Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiger19 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC+9)

File moved to Commons Mlpearc (open channel) 02:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Torriano Primary - main gate through Gatehouse Building.jpg

I have now replied by email to your message.Nescio vos (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nescio vos: I have applied a temporary template to File:Torriano Primary - main gate through Gatehouse Building.jpg to indicate that an email has been received, it is no longer in imminent danger of deletion; I believe it was simply missed the first time around. However, I believe the ticket is insufficient as it stands. The photographer needs to clearly state which images (ideally by URL) they are claiming to be copyright holder of, and are licensing. That was not apparent in the email chain, the language used was "the images I took of XYZ". Additionally, permission should ideally come directly to us rather than being forwarded. This applies to all of the images from that set. Pinging @NahidSultan:, owner of the ticket. Storkk (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with Storkk on this and replied the ticket accordingly. ~ Nahid ^Talk 01:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:UPRmuseum.gif

Hi, I was thinking of moving this above mentioned file to Commons, but the page says the licensing involves an ORTS ticket, so I just wanted to make sure everything is in order before I make the move. Thanks In veritas (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@In veritas: everything looks OK. Please tag it as {{subst:OP}} and make a note of the ticket number (2009091410051583) on the Commons description page after the transfer and an agent will add the required template. Storkk (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the file is moved to Commons, just need an agent to finish the required paperwork; thanks for the help. In veritas (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Washington Papers

Hi! I'm writing on behalf of Papersofgwashington, who filed a ticket through OTRS to give us permission to use material from their website. It's kind of turned into a perfect storm of sorts, since I haven't been on as much due to school and I sort of lost track of things with the page for The Washington Papers.

The editor and the project's director is very concerned that they would have to get rid of the page, so I was hoping to give them some good news with the OTRS ticket. I just posted and told them that this can take some time, but I figured that it wouldn't hurt to ask and give them an update. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: I've had a look, but can only find ticket:2016021910009995, which was from you. In that ticket, Bluerasberry mentions another ticket regarding Washington Papers, but I cannot find that ticket (perhaps it's in a queue I don't have access to, or the ticket in question does not use the string "washington papers"). Storkk (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've sent the WP project's leader an e-mail with BR's advice and I also created a PDF file for them to look over and send to OTRS, along with you guys' e-mail. I hadn't heard back from them, but then it's the weekend and they may not do anything until Monday. The article has a lot of the content back so they may be satisfied with that, but I'd like to add a few bits of information back into the article, which I wouldn't be able to do until permissions are given. Not much more we can really do at this point, I guess. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am being cautious about privacy, as is expected on OTRS, but I have replied to two email threads (Tokyogirl's and another) about the Washington Papers. I requested a PDF file of the text being released. There are other options but getting that would make for the easiest way forward, I think. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 I just uploaded this file for that organization.

File:The_Washington_Papers_material_for_OTRS.pdf

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool - that looks like it's very similar to the one I made, which is good since it contains the stuff I wanted to re-add to the article. I figure that if everything is OK, I'll go about re-adding stuff as soon as the OTRS ticket clears. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Followup on File:Sapphire_2010-06-02.jpg

Was an OTRS email ever received for File:Sapphire_2010-06-02.jpg? It would've been sent around 22 August 2010. I'm not sure that the fair use rationale hold up otherwise, since an older free image of the ship is available. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Doubtful unless it was referred to by a different name, in which case it would be very difficult to find. I can find three tickets matching "Sapphire 2010", none of which concern an image of a ship. No tickets match "Sergio Moreiro" or "shipparade.com". If you can think of other search strings to try, I'd be willing, but it looks unlikely. I have access to all permissions queues as well as selected info-en queues, but it's possible it might be in a queue I don't have access to. Storkk (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Critical Commons logo.jpg

How much usage latitude does the permission in this OTRS submission give? Enough to make this a free logo, or just {{Non-free with permission}}?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The fact the the file is tagged by OTRS, at least on a licensing level, means nothing. The file has been released to Wikimedia as Public domain. The non-free rational is no longer required, I will amend the file page. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jorge Bolet 1964 on Southern Africa tour.png

There is a mention of an OTRS ticked otrs:2014051610000391, does someone know about it?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Omar Espinosa by Ryan Mitchell.jpg

I just deleted this image, which was tagged as a copyvio, but I then undeleted it after noticing a talk comment about OTRS permission. Could you check to see whether ticket 2016030510003292 really does grant an acceptable permission, as is claimed on the file's description page? Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The ticket does not give significant permissions. I've sent a mail requesting a more specific (consent form) release. Reference:VRTS ticket # 2016030510003292 Mlpearc (open channel) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nyttend: It would appear the editor did indeed contact the copyright holder, but the information and steps involved would not satisfy Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. The image should be deleted until the editor can ensure the correct information is properly communicated to the copyright holder and they consent to the requirements of free use. Mkdw ^talk 23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for the input! Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

File:LS40075.jpg

Confirmation of the receipt of the permission was received in September 2015. I have sent the confirmation number again. VRTS ticket # 2015092510023554 JMcC (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game)

The deletion logs of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) say that the page was "OTRS courtesy blanked"—wouldn't the proper procedure be to blank the text and keep the page history? Because now it's as if that discussion never happened. czar 14:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The relevant ticket is VRTS ticket # 2009011310004015 but as I was neither an OTRS agent nor an en:wp admin I can't comment on what practice then was or should have been. Nthep (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep, how about what it should be now? I'd like to have the text in the public record (though courtesy blanked and only in the page history is fine) if possible. czar 18:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The admin in question, Zscout370, is no longer active. I do think this could have been blanked and noindex'ed, not deleted altogether. However, the AfD's closure was immediately overturned at DRV and followed up immediately by another AfD which resulted in a "keep" consensus, which does demonstrate that the first AfD was unlikely to be of very high quality or relevance. Any admin can still read it, if needed, in order to analyze the arguments made therein. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there something in the ticket that would require that we don't undelete it and hide it in page history? The article will likely be back at AfD soon, and I'd like the page history to be accessible for those who want it (unless there is some reason otherwise). czar 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Without disclosing the actual content of the OTRS ticket, I do not believe there was anything to warrant a deletion of the AFD discussion. WP:CBLANK only recommends deletion in more serious cases. It should be noted that the other AFD and DRV were not even blanked in comparison. Mkdw ^talk 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Would someone please undelete and just courtesy blank it then? czar 18:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Seicer closed the AFD and presumably would be familiar with the discussion. They're still "active" having last edited on 25 February 2016. I've only skimmed the very lengthy discussion so I think it would be within our due diligence to ask them their thoughts on the matter before this were to occur. Mkdw ^talk 20:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My closing rationale from 2009: The result was '''delete'''. Regarding [[Threshold (online game)]], there is a of [[WP:RS|reliable]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources. In addition, there seems to be little [[WP:N|notability]] to this particular game, and no major notability was established. The article also suffers from overuse of [[WP:APT|peacock terms]] which has the effect of promoting the game without parting with any useful information. As such, the article is [[WP:NPOV|not written from a neutral standpoint]]. Regarding [[Frogdice]], it is entirely [[WP:CITE|unsourced]] sans one magazine mention -- which has not been [[WP:V|verified]]. There is not much else content on this article to really make it [[WP:CORP|notable]]. In addition, excessive [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] from various Internet forums has muddled the AFD process. After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional [[WP:RS|reliable]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources. [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Seicer, I think Mkdw wanted your input on whether you would have any opposition to undeleting (and courtesy blanking) this page. I'm not seeing any opposition other than that everyone wants to be careful. czar 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Seicer: I had already reviewed your original closing statement in the deleted versions. We're not here to review the deletion rationale; this is an OTRS noticeboard not DRV. This discussion is about overturning an admin action to undelete the discussion. I thought it would be wise to check with someone familiar with the discussion if they foresaw any problems in undeleting it. You're the next obvious choice since the deleting admin is inactive. Mkdw ^talk 15:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Harbhajan Singh Yogi with Hopi elder.jpg

This file has inconsistent copyright information: it's both free and non-free at the same time. Can you check what's wrong and fix the file? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Rrburke (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Sven Inge.jpg

For information: Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:Sven Inge.jpg. Maybe something can be noted somewhere to keep track of what looks like a 2012 public correction to something that was written in a 2009 OTRS ticket. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. I have added a note to the OTRS ticket. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Files : Over Hill + Smaug

Hello,

I would like to check the permission for these files :

File:Over Hill - Bilbo and Gandalf by Joel Lee.jpg Ticket#: 2016022110009285
File:Over Hill - Smaug par David Demaret.jpg Ticket#: 2016022510029256

I believe that the emails containing details of the permissions had been sent. Thanks ! Guise (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Emails have been received from the artists but there is currently a backlog in permissions being processed. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

-- Rrburke, thank you for this confirmation. Best regards. :-) Guise (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

i've already sent permission years ago...?

what's the deal here, i had the photographers send permission in 2014... why is this coming up now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_Live,_Crystal_Ballroom,_Dec_2014.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_2010.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) VRTS ticket # 2014121810015732 and VRTS ticket # 2014121810015652 seem related - @Trungpa6: it appears you never replied after being asked to follow the email consent template? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
According to B, the emailed permission is apparently not sufficient for Wikipedia.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

what do i need to do then? i had the photographers who took the photos send permission... that's all it says to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_2010.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_Live,_Crystal_Ballroom,_Dec_2014.jpg --Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

both photographers sent the template filled out with permission to the email you listed. should be good now, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Did this get corrected?? both photographers sent in what you asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can i get an update here please??? both photographers sent in approval in your approved template. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Trungpa6: We have received your emails, and they have not been answered yet. Please be patient, as the permissions queue is quite backlogged. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 16:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure the images won't be deleted tomorrow as the warning listed originally. permission was sent last week for both photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone respond letting me know these images will not be deleted after today? permissions were sent last week... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Trungpa6: I found VRTS ticket # 2016031610016856 which gives permissions for File:Mackintosh Braun 2010.jpeg, I found no other new information. I have removed the deletion tag and marked permissions received for File:Mackintosh Braun 2010.jpeg. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

but you removed the other photo on our page that permission was sent in for?? what do i need to do, i did what was asked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

any idea when the other image that permission was sent for will be back up? you guys removed it even though permission as sent in before the deadline... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a permission on file as of March 17. I will request to have the file undeleted. -- Rrburke (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement of permission has been re-sent

A statement of permission for the picture at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gullu_Yologlu_(Mammadli).jpg#Summary has been re-sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Also the person in the photo has expressed that the photographer, who is the person under the username 89MsHm also permits to upload the photo. So it's me who took the photo. Both the photographer and the person in the photo allow the picture to be used for any purpose at Wikipedia or anywhere else. Thank you 89MsHm (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Permissions are now in for the following images -please do not delete files

Please cancel Deletion pending for

File:Andrea Jarvis Hamilton.jpg 
File:Luminous Icescapes by Andrea Hamilton.jpeg
File:Wondrous Strange by Andrea Hamilton.jpeg

All on page Andrea Hamilton

The copyright holder has now sent the correct copyright permissions to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

ticket:2016040410011756 not yet sufficient... awaiting reply to inquiry. Storkk (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

2 photos used in article "Lightwave Electronics Corporation"

I emailed y'all the copyright agreement from the copyright holder, for 2 pictures I uploaded quite a while back. Ticket is: Ticket#2016040610012797 Below are the names and the photos:

Lightwave Electronics_model_142_Laser_Optics_Fix.jpg

Lightwave_Electronics_laser_model_122,_complete,_with_covers.jpg

If the agreement I sent in is not enough, please let me know what would be adequate, by sending me an example of an agreement which is acceptable to you. Thanks! C=lambda*nu (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@C=lambda*nu: An email requesting further information has been sent regarding VRTS ticket # 2016040610012797 Mlpearc (open channel) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

for File:Diving the Concepcion.jpg — statement of permission to permissions was sent to -en@wikimedia.org.

Resolved

submitted a letter of authorization for File:Diving the Concepcion.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, I submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesec3434 (talk • contribs)

@Mikesec3434: Regarding VRTS ticket # 2016040610018577 (which was just received yesterday) There is not enough information for permissions, I have sent a request for that information to the email address connected to the ticket. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Permissions received, file tagged. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Ebs Burnough.jpg

i sent confirmation on copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.97.7 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@173.3.97.7: Email received, insufficient permission information, request for further information was sent to the email address connected to the VRTS ticket # 2016040910008126. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

mutek

Hello, can you see #2016031610020583 ? It's an valid autorisation for reuse [4] content in MUTEK 's article. --Gratus (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I use ConfirmationOTRS, can you see if you need to unhide contents ? Thanks. --Gratus (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Parables TV Logo Deletion/Permission resent

The permission form for the Parables TV logo has been resent to Wiki Commons. It was originally sent in November 2015. Please do not delete the image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_TV#/media/File:Parables_logo_TM.jpg LG Brichetto (talk)

VRTS ticket # 2015111210002775. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please verify

Someone posted a claim on File:Fat kitty.ogg claiming it has an OTRS ticket (2016043010007284) associated with it. Can an OTRS member please verify it. Feinoha ^Talk 02:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The ticket contains the normal release template, properly filled out by the author (for CC-BY-SA-3.0 though, not PD as the uploader claims). However I'm not tagged as permissions-approving so I can't directly apply the OTRS-verified tag to the file page. But as soon as an agent gets to it, it should be fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Has now been tagged.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Destroyed Iraqi reconnaissance vehicle Burgan Oil Field, Feb1991.jpg

You have been sent a email.....again. It will be from drb@crawler.comDon Brunett (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

@Don Brunett:. Recieved. ticket:2016050310013263. Please wait for it to be processed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Has my Orangemoody report sent in via email been received?

Per the instructions near the bottom of the Orangemoody page, I emailed in a report to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org about two weeks ago. This was regarding some suspicious editing and deletion attempts on articles Robert Louis Miller and Cosmetic Solutions. Some other editors and I were alerted to an email received by Mr. Miller regarding his article, which I included in the report. I haven't received any reply or notice and I note the the two AfDs (here: 1 and 2) are still active. Could someone confirm whether my email report was received and let me know if I need to do anything else? The two users I identified has having been involved haven't been active since my report, but I'd like to know if someone looked at it. Thanks. --Krelnik (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your email is sitting in the queue. ticket:2016042810015351. However, volunteers have been asked to not act on OrangeMoody tickets so they will be left until someone takes it. Sorry. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanks. As long as it didn't get lost. The suspicious actors seem to have gone inactive lately so there's nothing on fire or anything. I've them on my watchlist so I'll yell if I see anything. --Krelnik (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Stefan2#Question by User:Toreeva

I tagged a user's uploads as 'no permission' and requested the user to contact OTRS. Two weeks later, the user replied with a few OTRS ticket numbers on my talk page. Do the tickets contain sufficient evidence of permission? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that the OTRS team received 5 copyright permission emails for the OTRS tickets on your userpage, however, these emails did not provide a direct link to the media in question. The images in question, however, are attached to the OTRS emails. If you could please provide links to the media, we can cross-reference them and add proper copyright information to the pages. Thanks, Nakon 02:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that the five e-mails refer to the uploader's five uploads: Special:ListFiles/Toreeva. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Variety-artists-club-new-zealand-logo-2016.jpg

Have emailed a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.104.182.25 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Paul Draper photos

Statement of permission has been emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks.

Eriuvation (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/File:Mr_Sean_O'Farrell,_Managing_Director_of_National_Ploughing_Association_%28NPA%29_of_Ireland_meets_President_of_French_Republic,_Charles_De_Gaulle,_at_9th_World_Ploughing_Championships_in_Grignon,_Paris,_France,_1961.jpeg

I have fowarded official permission for use of photo to email: permissions-en@wikimedia.org in response. Richard O'Farrell Eriuvation (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016021810005508 received, but insufficient as of yet (permission is from the subject, not the photographer). I have replied to the ticket. Storkk (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: permission transfer?

Good Evening,

The image File:Logo of the Royal Society of Chemistry.jpg has an OTRS ticket attached. Now, in accordance with graphics guidelines, this JPG image has been replaced with a SVG image File:Royal Society of Chemistry.svg. Can the OTRS permission be transferred to this different file format, or was is format-specific? Thanks, — kashmiri ^TALK 00:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Variety-artists-club-new-zealand-logo-2016.jpg

Permission was emailed for this picture, is everything suitable for this to be marked ok and OTRS cleared? Thanks.

As of 14 May, we are still awaiting confirmation from the copyright holder in VRTS ticket # 2016051310022869. Thanks, Nakon 03:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Stefan2#Permission Granted for Photo Uploade; now what?

A user wrote that The photographer has provided a permission statement in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Has something been sent to OTRS for one of this user's uploads? Looking at Special:Log/Kurzenhauser, I see that the uploader has uploaded multiple files, and I have provided comments on several of those, so I'm not sure which file he is talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2016052310031411

Please review [[File:Dejuan Lucian, Photography.jpg]], a OTRS ticket number was sent. --OGfromtheGut (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@OGfromtheGut: The ticket was replied to today, it's awaiting a response for more information. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:EV Nautilus.jpg

The OTRS ticket was added by a user who is not a member of the global group "OTRS-member". Is the ticket valid? Also, considering that there are two files in the history, does the ticket cover both files or only one of them? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ticket is in the queue, and has not yet been dealt with. A further back-and-forth with the copyright holder (who is not the ticket submitter) will likely be necessary. Storkk (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that we simply have passive assent rather than any language indicating they have read and understood the license, or even that they are the copyright holders. Ideally it would also come directly from them, yes. See c:COM:CONSENT for the type of language that avoids ambiguity. Storkk (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Replied on wrong page (was supposed to be a reply to a comment on my talk page Storkk (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Storkk, note that the page you linked to uses vague language too: it says 'the media work'. In this case, the file has been overwritten so that there are two different 'media works' (photos) in the history. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Apologies... that comment was meant to be a reply to a message on my talk page - apparently I had the edit box open on both pages and somehow typed my response into the wrong box. You are correct in that I (and I hope other OTRS agents) would take an ambiguous permission to apply only to the file as it appeared when the permission was sent, and the agent who deals with the ticket should request clarification. If permission ends up applying only to one version, the other should be deleted. Storkk (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Izzy Lee dark cropped hi res.jpg

Hi! Can someone help me with the image File:Izzy Lee dark cropped hi res.jpg?

Long story short, I contacted the filmmaker in the hopes of gaining an image that can be used on her article. She was more than happy to donate an image and she's sent an e-mail to OTRS with the image and the required permissions. The e-mail address in question is (redacted) and the image was attached to the e-mail. She was told to upload the image and since she didn't have an account and wasn't entirely familiar with the process, I was asked to upload the image. I've placed an OTRS tag on the page and went through the whole image upload process, but now the image is tagged for deletion as a non-fair use image. I've posted a bit of a dispute on the image, but I need some help here.

What can I do to ensure that this image is not deleted? I'd posted an OTRS pending tag on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to have done anything and the image was still tagged. I've added the tag to the image main page itself as well. Considering that there's a huge OTRS backlog and the ticket can't be placed until the image has been uploaded and the deletion tag only gives me about 1-2 days, I'm concerned about its deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Permissions have been recieved ( VRTS ticket # 2016052610001143 ) and I have modified the file page. Please fill in the {{information}} template on the file page. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 05:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 14#File:Pierrenorthcarpicture.jpeg

Could someone with access to the ticket take a look at this discussion? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The copyright information for this file has been verified on OTRS. We are aware the image is from Facebook, and the source has been verified in VRTS ticket # 2015022210010121 Nakon 06:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Buckland Trophy image

Hello, I uploaded the image File:Buckland Trophy.png a few years ago. It was tagged for deletion recently with a need for permission from the original photo owner to be sent to the OTRS. I contacted him, he sent the form letter to OTRS, in which he cc'd me... and yet the file was deleted about 3 days later.

Please help me with...

DMighton (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have restored the image as we have received the proper copyright information in VRTS ticket # 2016052410014204. Thanks, Nakon 06:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! DMighton (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Tsalta Baptiste.jpg and File:Tsalta Baptiste 2.jpg

I have been asked to provide evidence of permission from the owner of these images. The owner granted me permission via Upwork messages rather than email, but I have been informed that screenshots of these may not be adequate. Will I have to ask the owner to "re-grant" me permission via email or will screenshots be enough to get the images on the OTRS system? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The owner should follow the instructions above on licensing. Complete the form and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for the photos. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Glane23: Cheers. I'll have the owner do it as soon as possible. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: note that if the "owner" you refer to is the subject, they will have clarify how they came to hold the copyright, which almost always is held by the photographer, not the subject. Storkk (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: Noted, but I assumed the subject would have rights to the photos because the photos are of the subject. Then again I'm not an expert on copyright. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Incorrect, Storkk is absolutely correct. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're not alone, and subjects often assume that. However, only the copyright holder can legally license the files and that is almost always the photographer. In some circumstances (e.g. a photograph at a location where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy), we might additionally require the permission of the subject, but that is a separate issue. Storkk (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Portrait 2008 use.jpg

It's not clear whether the OTRS permission applies to one photo or both of the photos. If the both the current revision and the older photo have OTRS permission, the older photo needs to be uploaded to the Commons as a separate file (the newer photo is already there, under the same name). — Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The permission is almost certainly OK for the current revision. I'd say it probably applies to the old revision too, but it's not certain enough for me to endorse splitting the file and applying the OTRS template to the new file. Storkk (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The image has now been deleted from this wiki, so I will bring it up at the Commons, Thanks for your help. — Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Anlace and photos attributed to C. Michael Hogan

While moving free images of historic landmarks to Commons, I came across many photos uploaded years ago by Anlace (talk · contribs) that are attributed to a photographer named C. Michael Hogan. I am sure many more have already been copied to Commons. Some are licensed as {{PD-release}} and some as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. However, I am not able to determine if Anlace and Hogan are the same person - if not, the files are missing evidence of permission. Anlace has been asked previously on his talk page and not responded, and in fact has not edited for five years. I did notice, however, that two of the files - File:Tchaacrmacal.jpg and File:Roundbarnsocounty.jpg - have OTRS tickets. Based on the licenses in those OTRS tickets, can I assume that the license applies to all photos by Hogan uploaded by Anlace, or only those two particular photos? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly: The ticket on the first file applies to Image:Schaamacal2.jpg, Image:Tchaacrmacal.jpg and Image:Schaamaya.jpg, which are mentioned specifically. Ticket on second file applies to Image:BennettValleylookingsecmhogan.jpg and Image:Roundbarnsocounty.jpg. No mention is made in either ticket of Anlace or any other files or users. It might be worthwhile to try contacting Mr. Hogan... but I have a feeling that Anlace may be the only person who can shed light on the other photos (I'd say there's a reasonable possibility that they are Anlace's own work, but that's just an educated guess based on the language used). Storkk (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: - upon further digging, I came across File:Monasteriocathedral.jpg which appears to state Anlace is Hogan. Do you think this a reasonable enough basis for an assumption that the photos can be tagged with {{self}}? Kelly ^hi! 16:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly: Anlace's user page biography is also quite similar to C. Michael Hogan's here... It's likely that they are in fact the same person, but I've sent Dr. Hogan an email (Ticket:2016060410007052), hopefully we can get an affirmative answer. Storkk (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Fernea.jpg

Resolved

A user added {{OTRS permission}} in Special:Diff/724178999. However, it looks as if the user who added the template isn't a member of the global group "OTRS-member". Is the permission valid? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Permissions received, VRTS ticket # 2016060710015789. File page adjusted. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

reconfirming permission for Hot Sardines photos

I sent a letter to permissions with this title regarding Deletion pending for File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg

Per your request regarding copyright permission, I have just sent the following:

From: Sue Jenkins Date: June 07, 2016 12:34:13 PM To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org Subject: Deletion pending for File:Robert Beck self portrait.jpg

You kindly informed me that I had not sent the statement of permission by the copyright holder of this image. I apologise. Here is the statement. I have not done this before and could not find a template in your help files, so am attempting something. Grateful for any feedback if I have messed it up again:

Statement of Permission for File:Robert Beck self portrait.jpg

This is to confirm that this work was created by Robert Beck and he has requested it be included with his Wikipedia entry. He gives Attribution permission for it - it can be used by anyone as long as it is attributed to Robert Beck

SueJ 16:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueJenkins (talk • contribs)

@SueJenkins: Permissions received,VRTS ticket # 2016060710014146. File page adjusted. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@SueJenkins: File:Robert Beck self portrait.jpg has a email on file but, this email does not have sufficient permissions, I have responded with a request for more information. Please see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Alleged owner of Pot House Hamlet "withdrawing" permission

Resolved

Hi, Pot House Hamlet (talk · contribs) is claiming to be the owner of Pot House Hamlet and now "no longer" wants the content on Wikipedia. Can a volunteer with access to the original ticket please advise the user about this, and remind them what their original decision in 2008 entailed? Chenzw Talk 12:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved at WP:ANI here. (permalink) Kelly ^hi! 14:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

File:New Zarih for Hazrat Abbas April 2016.jpg

I have submitted the explicit email granting permission for the free use of this image, please let me know if more is need Hooperag —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Dunn's yellow rose design.jpg

This file mentions an OTRS ticket number but does not contain any OTRS template. Does the ticket number refer to a valid permission statement for the picture? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: yes it does. Mdann52 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

RE Your recent copyright message to me, I can confirm I have now sent to the permissions-en address, the permission to use the image noted below. Your original text is copied below for your reference

"Hello, Crisbbacon. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:MandyBoylett - Politician-Singer Image Apr16.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

   If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so."

Princess Aisha marriage

(Raising this here after User:Ronhjones - who applied the edit - suggested I get a second opinion, after I raised it on his talk page.)

I just wanted to check that we're confident that this correction of a name per OTRS "copies of official documents" isn't part of a hoax. There was some weirdness (mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Banayoti) of various IPs and SPAs insisting that Princess Aisha of Jordan's husband was the Canadian defence contractor "Ed Banayoti" rather than "Ashraf Banayotti" and/or that they separated a month later. One account claimed to be Ed Banayoti, explained that the Royal Court announcement itself had a typo on it, and offered to send us his passport and wedding photos. If the OTRS is from that same person, it seems very odd that a member of the Jordanian royal family is concerned enough to send his passport to Wikipedia, but unable to get the Jordan Times to run any kind of correction. Is the OTRS material conclusive enough to rule out a worst-case hoax? --McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Colac1.jpg

Ticket was added by Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk · contribs) - not sure whether they used to be an OTRS member or not. Request a check on the permission prior to moving to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

They don't appear to be (yes it's possible to see who's behind a "Vanished User" nickname, no I won't say how). They appear to have no user rights other than just "user". KoshVorlon 15:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly and KoshVorlon: Permission all looks ok, I've updated the licence and information and moved the file to Commons under a better filename. Mdann52 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

- Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg

Request a check on the ticket for this image, as it was added by the uploader, not an OTRS member. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Ping. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly: I'm suspicious - the claim in the ticket this is public domain appears to be countered by the website this was taken from at the time (which displayed a copyright symbol). I don't think this is a valid permission for the file, so have removed the ticket from it. Mdann52 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mdann52: - there are other files with the same ticket by the same uploader. Would I be correct in removing the ticket from those files, or are there any photos for which the permission is valid? Kelly ^hi! 17:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly: this is a blanket ticket, however I'm not happy it's covering the files tagged with it (as it is just too broad, and there are clear cases, such as the one above, where it isn't valid). I'd say it can be removed from all as invalid. The email itself doesn't actually include a release, just what someone interpreted a statement on the site as. Mdann52 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Passport verification

Hi! I was asked to help restore some basic personal information on the article for Vikram_Singh_(actor) on my talk page here, by Piyushratnu. (Just for disclosure's sake Piyushrantu is a COI editor. I've worked with him on various articles and he's always been careful to try to follow COI guidelines, so I can vouch for his trustworthiness.) One of the solutions I brought up was Singh confirming this via his Twitter account, where I would ask him a direct question that he would answer with specific detail, as the info we want to restore is something basic like date of birth, birth location, and parentage, as well as his siblings. Another option was news coverage, however Indian news papers are less likely to report on this since it's seen as far less important than his movie roles - something I can vouch for, as someone who has searched Indian newspapers for various articles.

The question was asked if the actor's passport and Pan Card could be used to verify some of his personal data. Obviously this shouldn't be posted to Wikipedia, but maybe it could be sent to OTRS and there can be a ticket on the page? It could also help to verify his Twitter account, in case someone wanted to challenge that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: I can't remember the exact link, but there was an RfC on this exact point a while back, with a consensus against using passports to verify personal information. Mdann52 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably this one. I suggest again that no one at OTRS is equipped to verify government-issued documents. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... it it necessary for him to get his Twitter account verified via OTRS? This I'm asking because the Twitter option is the next step. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Swaminarayan charity.jpg

Greetings, File:Swaminarayan charity.jpg is currently tagged with an OTRS template but the file contains more than one file. To which version does the OTRS template refer to? Pinging Peripitus but they have not been very active lately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that ticket number is invalid. Ticket number must always be 16 digits. Correct ticket number is ticket:2009060810030176. There is no indication whether old version or new version is for review, just name of the file. — regards, Revi 12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Standards have changed in OTRS permission. I don't believe the permission granted at that time would be considered best practices today. However, the permission statement was filed on 8 June 2009 and granted on 9 June 2009, at which time the more recent image was present. The slight cropping was done after the date of the OTRS but I don't think that materially changes the issue. The main point is that the more recent of the two fundamentally different images was present at the time the OTRS was filed and granted.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sent it to FFD then.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:I'm confused. My main point is that the current image is covered by the OTRS ticket. Maybe I wasn't clear? --S Philbrick (Talk) 14:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you were clear. But the file needs to be unsplit in some way regardless, the thing about "questions" is in reference to Standards have changed in OTRS permission. I don't believe the permission granted at that time would be considered best practices today.. I probably overstated it, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I should have read the FFD entry before responding. I agree, it would be good to do a split as one is covered and one is not.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

File:The Gas Dynamic Trap, Structure and B-Fields.gif, File:Gas Dynamic Trap Overhead.jpg, and File:The Gas Dynamic Trap Photo.png

I deleted the above three files for lacking evidence of permission in mid-June. There was no confirmation since its upload in February. However, the uploader contacted me, claiming that the issue was resolved in March. The ticket number is #2016022210012804. Can someone take a look into this and see if the permission is sufficient? — ξ ^xplicit 00:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

link for ref. Other OTRS agent mentioned the permission on the ticket is insufficient and they need to be more specific (and I agree with his decision) and the requesting user has asked the copyright owner to grant specific permission — no response after that. — regards, Revi 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't reupload the files until permissions have been verified. — Music1201 ^talk 04:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Typical Cover of Phys Chem Glasses Eur J Glass Sci Technol B.jpeg

Could someone perhaps have a look at this file? There's a ticket number, but no OTRS template. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ticket seems valid, I removed the template questioning it's validity. Not sure what template is missing ? Mlpearc (open channel) 15:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: - I think Randykitty (talk · contribs) must be referring to the {{Information}} template. The file doesn't have any author information. Currently the license requires attribution but a re-user would have no idea who to attribute the file to. Kelly ^hi! 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot added that template, not me... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Permissions are now in for the following images -please do not delete files

Full use permissions were sent in April for ALL images on page Andrea Hamilton:

Wondrous Strange Andrea Jarvis Hamilton Luminous landscapes

However I note you have deleted the Andrea Jarvis Hamilton image. I will reload - please do not delete, the artist is resendng the permission email today (20 July 2016). Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisenFall (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that File:Artist Andrea Hamilton.jpg has both an {{OTRS pending}} tag and a ticket number. Volunteers, can you confirm the permission on this image? Kelly ^hi! 08:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly:

Done — Music1201 ^talk 16:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Permission sent

I have written to permissions-en@wikimedia.org giving permission (as the creator of these images) for use of two disputed images,

File:Mortenportrait.jpg

File:Posternew.jpg

Thanks for keeping these images published! -Michael Stillwater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstillwater (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mstillwater: Tickets reviewed. Marked {{OTRS received}}. Permissions currently insufficient. Please check your email for the response. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Klaus Headshot.jpg: Permission Email Sent

An email granting permission for the use of the file "Marilyn Klaus Headshot.jpg" on Wikipedia has been sent from Marilyn Klaus, the copyright-holder of the image, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org via info@balletswithatwist.com. Please do not delete the file.

Miohcal Flork (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miohcal Flork: Ticket in processing. Not yet confirmed. Image tagged with {{OTRS received}}. --Majora (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement of permission forwarded; File:Ian McNabb, Digbeth 2014.jpg

Ticket#: 2016081310002974 --Jonie148 (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Done --Majora (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo inquiry from SanDiegoDWC

Dear OTRS noticeboard,

I have resent the email that I have previously sent (permission of Flynn Larsen, photographer, to upload the image of Don W. Cleveland - sent on June 13, 2016) and the URL of the image I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Ticket 2016061310015099 - sent on June 22, 2016).

The subject line of the email I sent today (August 15, 2016) is RE: [Ticket#2016061310015099] Licensing Permission from Flynn Larsen and URL of image of Don W. Cleveland on Wikipedia

And here is the URL of the image I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cleveland_Don.jpg

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanDiegoDWC (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

[Ticket#2016061310015099] Licensing Permission from Flynn Larsen and URL of image of Don W. Cleveland on Wikipedia

I have resent an email to Wikipedia with the URL of the image I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (originally emailed on June 22, 2016) and the permission of the photographer of the image (emailed on June 13, 2016). The subject line of my email is [Ticket#2016061310015099] Licensing Permission from Flynn Larsen and URL of image of Don W. Cleveland on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanDiegoDWC (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@SanDiegoDWC:

Done The image was already processed by another agent and is now OTRS confirmed. The tag has been updated. --Majora (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo inquiry from Realstuart

The permissions note from Tom Szczerbowski will be re-forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org regarding the picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyman-First-Goal-Buffalo.jpg. Please do not remove it as we have obtained permission directly from the photographer for the use of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realstuart (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The permissions note from Tom Szczerbowski will be re-forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org regarding the picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TML-Hyman-Puck-BOS-Chara.jpg. Please do not remove it as we have obtained permission directly from the photographer for the use of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realstuart (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Realstuart:

Done Both of those images were processed by another agent and are now OTRS confirmed. The permissions tag has been updated. --Majora (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Permissions for 3 images

We have sent a permission email from the image owners, to permissions@wikimedia.org for the following three images:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Gas_Dynamic_Trap,_Structure_and_B-Fields.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_Dynamic_Trap_Overhead.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_Dynamic_Trap_-_Diagnostics.png

(OTRS # 2016022210012804) We also got them to issue a statement of release, using your tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ . The images are still tagged as having insufficient permissions. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHelper2134:

Done The permissions were sent to the wrong queue. Please ensure that permissions for images hosted on the English Wikipedia are sent to permissions-en

wikimedia.org in the future. Emails sent to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org are sent to a different queue and can get misplaced that way. The tags have been updated on the three images. Please update the information section on File:Gas Dynamic Trap - Diagnostics.png as that image changed from fair use to free use. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo permission re: File:Lee Grodzins in Chicago.jpg

On July 7, 2016, David Romm sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail licensing File:Lee Grodzins in Chicago.jpg under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. It is the first image listed in his e-mail. I have just re-sent the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:

Done Email was in the wrong queue. All set. --Majora (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2nd photo: File:Lee Grodzins, NYC 2015.jpg

On July 7, 2016, David E. Romm sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail licensing File:Lee Grodzins, NYC 2015.jpg under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. I just re-sent it to to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

To help you find the image that he licensed, see:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153097778355138&set=a.10153097670530138.1073741959.530260137&type=3&l=981cd71adf&theater

which is one of the images contained in the second link listed by Romm in his e-mail on July 7: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153099537670138&set=a.10153097670530138.1073741959.530260137&type=3&l=981cd71adf&theater

-- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:

Done Email was in the wrong queue. All set. --Majora (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for permission to use picture

Hi, On August 7 I put a picture up on wikipedia, and had the owner of the picture send an email with the permission letter to Wikipedia, but the picture still does not have the permission tag. Can I put the picture on the Wiki article without the correct tag on the picture, or is it better if I wait? And if so, how long can I expect it to take. It says that the backlog is only 6 days long, and the permission was sent before that time. Thanks so much. Here is the URL of the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Don_Slager_Portrait.jpeg Paintbynumber (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Paintbynumber:

Done You sent it to the wrong queue. Please send permissions for photos hosted on the English Wikipedia to permissions-en

wikimedia.org in the future. Not permissions-commons

wikimedia.org as those get sorted into a completely different queue. --Majora (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Majora:Thank you. I will remember that information for the next time.Paintbynumber (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Help request

Dear sir/madam I am writing to inform you that the request email has been already sent to ask for the authorities of Hamidreza Payman's photos and genrously the ticket code is sent to us .here:[Ticket#: 2016081010016009]
since the photos have been deleted, I would be gratful if you take Appropriate action.
Thanks in advance
Your faithfulyFarhangname1395 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Done both images have been restored and tagged MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dont delete the picture!

Hi, I put up a photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_John%27s_Owner_Jimmy_John_Liautaud_Presents_$1_Million_Check_to_Folds_of_Honor.jpg but the permission email from the owner of the photo sent the email to the wrong address- he sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by mistake. Can you look there for the email giving permission? I would really appreciate it, thanks. Wineconnoisseur2016 (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The image was already on commons, there was no need to upload it at en-Wikipedia. I've deleted it as "Now on Commons" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't delete my pictures!

Hi, I've submitted statements for File:Sarah Palin at CPAC 2012.jpg, File:CBLPI Logo.png, and File:Marsha Blackburn CBLPI.jpg, but I don't have access to the email where I originally sent it from. Can you look back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amv1997 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amv1997: I do not find an email that mentions the "Sarah Palin" image, the other files are tagged as accepted. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Putchers.jpg

I have asked the copyright holder, Adrian Williams, to email to you his permission for release of this image to Wikipedia. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done @Martinevans123: Ticket not found. Please provide a ticket number so we can assist you better. I have added it to my list of "things to watch for" and will continue to do so however any further information you have that can be used to locate the ticket would be appreciated. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I need to get a ticket number first? I thought I had to request the owner to email first. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Emails sent into permissions will be automatically responded to by the system with an assigned ticket number. Each ticket has a unique number and this number is the easiest way to find tickets. If the owner emailed it, the autoresponse would have been sent to them. If you weren't CC'ed on anything don't worry about it. I'll keep an eye out for it. So far, I am not seeing anything though. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I only emailed Mr Williams today, with the standard text, so I'd give it a few days. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

He copied me in. Should be with you now. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:

Done --Majora (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Majora. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright question regarding image for Tim Bedding

Hello

I was requested to provide confirmation the image used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bedding page was free of copyright. It is. I was provided the image by Tim Bedding himself and he authorised me to load the picture on the site. I have also sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org confirming this. Tim Bedding can provide a further authorisation to use his own image if required.

Regards

Stephen Berry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezzanet (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bezzanet:

Not done Email not found. If you have a ticket number please provide it. However, it wouldn't matter anyways. The copyright owner is the photographer not the person in the photo unless the copyright is transferred by contract or legal action. But that is moot, as I cannot find the email. --Majora (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

VRTS ticket # 2016090610000621 Mlpearc (open channel) 01:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: It was sent after my first response. And it isn't valid. --Majora (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I wasn't insinuating anything, I just found the ticket. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)