Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

Translate this header

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 14 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

VRT Noticeboard

Main VRT-related pages

• Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Commons:Email templates
• {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

ticket 2010112310024892

• Template:OTRS ticket - List of photos using this ticket

Wat is er mis met dit bestand? Ik wil het graag (blijven) gebruiken op de pagina van Michel Szulc-Krzyzanowski, maar ik weet niet waarom, na nadrukkelijke schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur, het toch als "twijfelgeval" wordt beschouwd?! Groet, Patricia Borger

What is wrong with this photo? I would like to use this image on the page of Michel Szulc-Krzyzanowski, but I don't know why, after clear permission in writing (email) by the author, this picture is seen as a picture that is open to doubt?! Greetings and kind regards, Patricia Borger

Wat er gebeurd is, is dat het mailtje is aangezien voor het verzoek om een mail met een toestemming te versturen. Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski heeft uw mailtje compleet naar ons gestuurd, inclusief uw verzoek aan hem. Hierdoor is de verwarring ontstaan. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Question on confidentiality of OTRS. Is it safe enough?

Am I right that OTRS was established in purpose to store confidential correspondence, and to prevent revealing of private information, contained in letters addressed to OTRS? -- SerdechnyG 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but this applies in general more for article related things (like biography of living person) than for image releated things. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That is one of its main purposes. Other reason it exists are to ensure we have competent volunteers dealing with these matters and that all letters are archived in a permanent and organized manner. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to comprehend, is it normal way of conduct, to disclose publicly: 1) Original sender of letter addressed to OTRS; 2) Content of this letter. -- SerdechnyG 18:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we won't. If someone asks us to check a validity of a permission, we check it and we just respond if it's OK or not OK. Jcb (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not all of you. But, user User:Rubin16 did. Here, in this thread ([1]) he disclosed sender and content of the letter respectively (you shouldn't even be able to read Russian text, to find there my username). That's why I'm asking, should it be considered as normal? -- SerdechnyG 16:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked a native Russian speaking administrator to have a look at it. Jcb (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rough (edited after Google Translate) translation of what exactly Rubin16 said about the ticket: "The essence of the permission that SerdechnyG declares that such, such and such authors have given him the right to distribute photographs, which are hosted on Flickr. Prior to Flickr they have never been published, and there, in fact, have been published by SerdechnyG after obtaining permission from the photographers. They don't have the Internet, so they do not write themselves." I can't see anything confidential or any "private information" disclosed by Rubin16. Actually there was nothing new after the DR. Trycatch (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not surprised that you don't see there any "private information disclosed". It's no wonder, because you requested it. SerdechnyG 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that they'll get away with it? -- SerdechnyG 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why not? Jcb (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to deal with "OK or not OK" as you stated before. It's really no O.K. George Serdechny 21:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is discussion about a permission, OTRS people are free to share such non-private data. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not contested that. I contested that they did it publicly. George Serdechny 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• So... George Serdechny 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking clarification regarding the status of ticket #2010120210021182

I sought and received copyright permission from the photographer to use this photo of Margaret Hamilton (File:Margaret Hamilton 1995.jpg). I submitted the relevant correspondence to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org. Do I have the green light as far as OTRS is concerned to go ahead and link this image into a wikipedia article?

Thanking you, Annaamalia (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK. Jcb (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Edithgonzales 1.jpg

Nel75 has previously been blocked for uploading copyright violations and seems to have chosen not to learn very much from the experience. Do they need another block for abusing the {{Otrs pending}} tag, or is there actually any merit to their claim that permission info for Edithgonzales 1.jpg has been sent to OTRS? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment permissions in English, Dutch and Spanish are always processed within 48 hours so in my opinion OTRS-pending files may be safely deleted after 7 days. Remember that we may always restore a deleted file after receiving a delayed permission. Nothing is final in Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Twins0806449

Twins0806449 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is uploading files sourced from various websites, claiming to be the author of those files, and tagging them with {{OTRS pending}} in what appears to be nothing but a deliberate attempt to delay deletion. Could you please check if there's any merit to the tagging, and delete and block otherwise? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing related to that in the OTRS queue so deleted the earlier ones. I'll do AGF today on today's ones but feel free to prod me in 24 hours if I've not deleted the others (assuming nothing arrives in OTRS). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They've all been deleted.--Chaser (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Laura_Molina.jpg Ticket#2010120610020489

Paintdiva (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK - File:Laura_Molina.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

If you wish to have the image undeleted and verified, please reply by email to the email sent to you on 7th December from permissions-commons. Posts on this notice-board cannot be verified as being from the copyright holder. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ayala High School files

The files in Category:Ayala High School are tagged {{PD-ineligible}}, but I don't think they are what Commons considers "ineligible". Two of them have permission from OTRS #2010120810004485 but the permission field doesn't say whether the photographer explicitly considered the photographs "ineligible" or released them or what. Two of them are still being considered for deletion (one no permission, one deletion discussion). Can someone with OTRS find out what license the permitted ones were released under? The same uploader may know about File:Ayala High School View.JPG also (which doesn't yet have an OTRS tag). See also User talk:Blurpeace#File:Ayala BAC Picture 2009-2010.JPG and File:Ayala_Band_and_Color_guard,_2010.jpg Copyright. --Closeapple (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Further thoughts on the "ineligible" bit: Could it be that the band photos are ineligible for copyright by U.S. standards because they contain are only plain straight-forward shots of school groups, of the same style used millions of times by photographers, and therefore don't meet the "originality" threshold for copyrightable work? --Closeapple (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The ticket referenced gives a CC-BY release. The PD-ineligible template might be a misunderstanding of the templates as there is no particular reason why school group photos would not have rights for the photographer and I would have thought that {{CC-BY-3.0}} would be more appropriate. I suggest asking the uploader what their intention was and pointing out that the ticket referenced implies that one of the CC-BY licenses should be used. --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:CT Scanner Line Beam.jpg

Can I get confirmation that OTRS ticket 2010113010013783 is for File:CT Scanner Line Beam.jpg? Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be, the release is explicitly for "... the blog and website for Jesse Garant & Associates (http://www.jgarantmc.com/blog/ http://www.jgarantmc.com)". The uploader needs some guidance on how to ask for the existing ticket to be added to new images and the need to make the source explicit. This particular image appears to have been created by the uploader and so adding the ticket reference is not needed and may be confusing. --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Martin défilé 15 août 2010 Cambrai.jpg

This picture is tagged "No OTRS permission since" while File:Martine Défilé 15 août 2010 Cambrai.jpg is tagged "OTRS received". As far as I know permission to use was sent for both pictures at the same time (in the same email), so I think this should be checked. Thanks, Camster (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is correct, the ticket applies to both images. I have added the template for consistency. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Images by JGKlein

This user is frustrated because he has apparently sent several permission e-mails to OTRS but many of his uploads are still tagged for deletion as no permission (his father took many of the photos). Can someone confirm that the files he uploaded have been dealt with correctly, or that an e-mail was received at all? Check the user's talk page for example files that should have been included in the permission e-mail. Thanks, -Gump Stump (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the ticket and I found out that it has not been processed correctly. I will take care of it. Jcb (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Ministry of Defence

Hello OTRS staff,

Can someone help me further with Template:OTRS ticket, the files are from the Dutch Ministry of Defence site and I would like to know if I can help to solve/close this ticket.

Best regards,

Huhbakker (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Een paar dagen geleden ontvingen wij bericht dat alle tekst, afbeeldingen en videos van het Ministerie van Defensie zijn vrijgegeven onder {CC0}. Men stelt het wel op prijs als bron genoemd te worden. Dit staat in ticket 2010120610018876. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this means that we would not require ticket references on these images, though perhaps a standard template might help avoid any confusion for new images from the Ministerie van Defensie? --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, the source (Ministerie of Defensie) is also listed as "bad source" on [2], a template can avoid a lot of confusion (I think). BR Huhbakker (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea: Template:Mindef. - Jcb (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS emailed 2.5 months ago, with permission and question - no answer

So I uploaded these:

• File:AL Champ Halla 2 captain.jpg
• File:Brock radunske 2.JPG
• File:Dustinwoodanyanghalla.jpg
• File:Hallachampionshipphotoice.JPG

in september, and sent an email to OTRS. Along with a copy of the e-mail in which the team's english rep asked me to do so. I asked if that was sufficient in the e-mail, and never received a reply. The team has a history of giving OTRS permission for images on wikipedia, so this isn't a strange or unusual request. Today I notice that a bot has gone through and marked them for deletion since no one has bothered to address the email I originally sent.--Crossmr 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I could not find it by searching for each file's name individually. It may have gotten lost in the avalanche of spam we get, or something else may have happened. I'd suggest sending the email again. The commons queues are unusually low right now (backlogged about one day), so we should be able to get to it quickly.--Chaser (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject didn't have the file name in it since it was for 4 images. I gave it the subject "permission for 4 images". I've resent it with the same subject now.--Crossmr (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find anything with that subject from up to four months ago. I did find the recent email. Check your inbox.--Chaser (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bright_College_Years.oga

I just received notice that permission had not been received for this file. I forwarded an email thread from the licenser a few months ago, but it was as a raw attachment, so it's possible the formatting was bad. I've reforwarded that thread just now to permissions-commons as a simple inline copy. If the email headers etc. are needed, please let me know, and I can resend those. If anything is still missing, please let me know. I can get back in touch with the licenser if need be. Thanks for your help. Oconnor663 (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• File:Bright College Years.oga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - done. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Riquepqd's uploads

Riquepqd (talk · contribs) has uploaded several images for which it is claimed that permission was sent on December 13 (e.g. the stated rationale is "Já enviada por e-mail em 13/12/2010 (Permission of the author already sent by email to [email protected] on 13/12/2010)." or "Já enviada por e-mail em 13/12/2010." Is it possible to confirm that permissions have been forwarded from the uploader? BrokenSphere (Talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A native Portuguese collegue found out the permissions were not specific enough (no license was mentioned). Emails will be answered with instructions. Jcb (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission sent but not recognised

OTRS permission for File:Glider bungee launch.JPG was sent by someone with an e-mail address ending blueyonder.co.uk. This has not been received/recognised because a notice was put on my talk page. Permission was sent again today. If this has not been recognised again, please contact me before deleting so we can trace source of problem. Jmcc150 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We did not receive that email. Jcb (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Would that be ticket# 2010121410021758? Asav (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's that ticket. It came from another email address. I don't know why I didn't get it when I searched for the filename. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:MIT Herr 2734 F W-2.jpg

Sent email re: permission authorization for the above mentioned file. 12/15/2010, 3:50 PM email from [email protected]

We received that email. Further conversation over email please, you received a first reaction. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Priyanka at 'Haal Mureedan Da Kehna' Kirtan album launch.jpg

Does this image have OTRS permission? I don't see a ticket no and the source explicitly claims that they don't own copyrights and are only "archiving" the images. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No ticket appears to be relevant. I have marked for deletion on that basis. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission sent but not recorded

OTRS permissions for File:Sahrawi&camel.jpg,File:Aminetou Mandela.jpg,File:Haidarpamphlet.jpg,File:Haidar&oldfriend.jpg,File:Haidarwithoutoldfriend.jpg sent by me, but the OTRS team cant find any record that such an email has been received.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As these appear under an appropriate license on Flickr, an OTRS ticket is not required anyway. I have removed the warnings accordingly. Please add another note on this noticeboard if you continue having problems. Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Old OTRS

Here is a weird old one. Can someone find information for de:Datei:Plan Henneberg.jpg? There is an OTRS tag on that file. If it says that de:User:Archaeomax is Heiner Schwarzberg, then that would mean we can save File:Burg Schneidlingen - Südansicht.jpg (also from Archaeomax/Heiner Schwarzberg). Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing on Template:OTRS ticket to indicate this, further unless an email were to clearly release such information about the identity of a user or the user's own account were to make such a declaration then this would have to stay confidential. I note that Archaeomax has a contact email on their account so I suggest contacting them directly for a clarification or to send in a specific release for the other image. --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission for File:AccuPen.jpg User Name jackguerin

I am responding to the following request for permission.

Files you uploaded may be deleted

The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged

This image is missing verification of permission. It has an author and source, and it has been claimed that permission has been sent in by email. However, the permission has not been received by the Commons VRTS team for verification. Please forward proof of permission it to [email protected]. Unless verification of permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted 15 days after this template was added and the uploader was notified: (16 January 2011). If you have any questions feel free to contact any VRTS volunteer or ask at the VRTS Noticeboard. When applying this tag: Use {{subst:nopd}} to categorize by tag date. Consider notifying the uploader of the file by adding the following to their talk page: {{subst:Noticket|Volunteer Response Team}} ~~~~

 

An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent to the Volunteer Response Team. Note to uploaders: Please include the URL of this file in the email to help VRT agents associate the email with this file. Please have the copyright holder email permission in the format given here. Please do not send emails containing only the text "permission pending" or similar, as this is not of any use. Please make sure the file includes a license at the time of upload; this template is not a substitute for a license. If an email cannot be found in the VRT system or the file is missing a license, this file may be deleted because it is missing valid licensing information. Note to VRT agents: Please use {{Permission received|id=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX}} once the ticket has been identified. If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionTicket|id=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX}}. If the permission provided is not acceptable, please nominate the file for deletion or delete it.

for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have not sent the permission, please send it to "permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. If you have, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard, quoting the file name, so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 05:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

   * File:AccuPen.jpg

The permission is provided in the attached email chain. I am a marketing consultant. My client is Automated Ophthalmics which is the major distributor for this product. The photo is the property of Accutome which is the manufacturer. Jeremy Cohen represents Accutome and he has granted the permission.

Jack Here is the official authorization to continue to use the Accutome photo of Scott Cheek on Wikipedia.

Brian Congleton National Sales Manager Automated Ophthalmics Inc. 800.242.5602 410.772.1316 9150 Rumsey Rd, Suite A-5 Columbia, MD 21045 www.auto-oph.com

From: Cohen, Jeremy [3] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:08 PM To: Brian Congleton Cc: Cheek, Scott Subject: RE: return NEW

Hey Brian, That’s great. Scott is more than happy to donate his face for science.

From: Brian Congleton [4] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:07 AM To: Cohen, Jeremy Subject: RE: return NEW

Shoot! I forgot something else. I updated the Wikipedia page for Tonometer to include the AccuPen but I need your permission to continue to use the attached photo.

Thanks

Brian Congleton National Sales Manager Automated Ophthalmics Inc. 800.242.5602 410.772.1316 9150 Rumsey Rd, Suite A-5 Columbia, MD 21045 www.auto-oph.com