From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:OTRS(Redirected from Commons:OTRS/N)
Jump to: navigation, search
OTRS Noticeboard
Welcome to the OTRS noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers, or OTRS volunteers 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: 21 days  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, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages
Commons discussion pages (index)

Shortcut: COM:ON

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.
Translate this header


Little help[edit]

I need some help from other users with the list of files uploaded by me on March 13(Ticket#2015031210026238). I handled myself with the copyright's holder, and he sent me the permission, but another OTRS member has pointed that the files are uploaded at Flickr (The original source) as "All rights reserved, so it could bring some confusion, on his opinion, so the holder's will have to change on by one the files licensing at commons. I asked him to do so last February, but I think his very busy. I'd like to know if I can ask for the deletion, cause I don't think he's going to this soon. Can a sysop help here deleting?Willy Weazley 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

About File:Lai_Ying_Tong,_Hong_Kong_Songwriter.jpg[edit]

Hi! I've uploaded a photo on commons a few weeks ago, I've ask the owner to send the email to However, the photo still got removed. It's been more than 2 weeks since deletion. I really hope you could help me to restore the photo as this photo is for one of my wiki articles for class assignment. Thanks! Tvchan (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Files from Izikson[edit]

Dear Sir, could you please check if the email about permission for these files have been received? It has been sent by copyright holder (Alexey Gusev) at 10 April. Is it too early to any answer, or, maybe, something is wrong?..

List of files:

Две сестры.jpg


Day desert.jpg

Алексей Гусев.jpg


Promo of Gusev's 858.webm

These files have been deleted (by EugeneZelenko, I suppose), but, as I know, it is possible to just restore them after the permission will be granted (is it true?). I'm sorry so much if I did something wrong, but, as a newcomer, I'm a little confused. Sincerely yours, Izikson (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Izikson

Files Affiche Le Mur.jpg and SophieRobert.jpg[edit]

The above two pictures have been recently deleted. I'm trying to help the owners of the copyright for these two pictures. They sent in February this year emails with all the required information requested in the Wikimedia commons procedure. They asked me to convey to you their surprise that the images were deleted without notice and wonder why the email they sent was not considered. I understand there is a large backlog, so perhaps the "grace" period could be extended to take into account this backlog. Best, Dessources (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dafna Lemish (2).jpg[edit]

This file has an OTRS ticket but no copyright tag. Can this be investigated? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Geagea: The PDF contains a link to w:he:WP:CC-BY-SA, which is {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}, not {{CC BY 4.0}}   FDMS  4    22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No it gives a link and says: "or choose other..." etc. -- Geagea (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Geagea: If it's under a license "of our choice" (no attribution or sharealike requirements), why didn't you choose {{CC-0}}?    FDMS  4    00:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It was mentioned on he-OTRS noticeboard to recommend the new {{CC BY 4.0}} instead of {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}. -- Geagea (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Oscar Luigi Scalfaro 2.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission is incorrectly written into license. As this is the uploader's only contribution, I ask: is the permission OK? Taivo (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping User:Paginazero.    FDMS  4    01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The ticket doesn't look valid. Can't see clear consent. @Paginazero: Can you please explain? Please don't ask the user to add tickets self. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

another one[edit]

Could someone check whether the ticket, added by an apparently non-OTRS user to File:Mattarella Chiellini Coppa Italia.jpg, is valid. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Made a subsection as it concerns the same ticket.    FDMS  4    01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Paginazero: Ping, can you please explain why this is in pd? --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No reply, asked him on his itwiki talkpage to reply here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's years that I'm no longer active on OTRS - I even think I no longer have an account there (I just tried to log in and failed, I asked for a new password and nothing came). If I well remember this should be the official portrait of the former president of the republic and - as such - considered public domain when first uploaded on it:wp. If you need to verify the ticket (of which I have absolutely no memory), please ask another italian-speaking OTRS operator. I apologize for not being more helpful than this.
For what concerns File:Mattarella Chiellini Coppa Italia.jpg I never saw that image before and I strongly doubt it can be a public domain image. Please ping @Caulfield:, maybe it's only a mistake in reporting the OTRS ticket number. As before, please ask another italian-speaking OTRS operator to verify the ticket, if necessary. --Paginazero (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo, Steinsplitter: This authorisation from Quirinale was given at a time (November 2006) when all of us were less precise in requiring explicit authorisations. As of now, this is no clear consent, while at the time it kinda was. By the way, I would suggest to wait for us to contact again the Italian Presidency and get an answer or a confirmation. It will be likely to require some time, unfortunately. Sannita - not just another sysop 10:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


There appear to be several maps and other images on this ticket. The image pages appear to have different possible copyright holders.

I include two samples causing me concern, however I have not examined the several other images relying on this OTRS verification:

  1. File:Russia Water 1909 Year.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) would be public domain if it were originally published in 1909. It has been labelled as "own work" of the uploader but it is unclear from the description on the image page how this is a valid copyright claim.
  2. File:Papua VA Helicopters Contrast.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) seems to have a copyright claim of a book author/editor, however the artwork is the property of an airline.

The OTRS volunteer handling these has no doubt gone through the details, but the image pages lack the clarity needed for reusers to be certain of who the copyright holder is and if the given copyright license is the best to apply. -- (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Please check OTRS permission for this file. I've uploaded this photo after request in IRC chat, however, I don't have OTRS system access, just used number, provided by irc user. Recently this person led an agressive promo in Russian Wikipedia, used fakes and fraud, and now I am not sure, that it is all ok with this permission, bezik (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The ticket is in Russian. It contains an eMail from a freemail account forwarded using a freemail account, but also a signed document which isn't a release. The agent who dealt with, User:Lvova, is no longer active.    FDMS  4    00:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hazal Kaya.jpg OTRS permission[edit]

uploaded by SuhailAzaz from Pakistan that has a OTRS ticket is in copyright violations. uploaded picture isn't "own work," and not been taken in 2012. Copied from the original picture of the behind the scenes (promotion of "aski-memnu (forbiden love tv series) made by Ay yapim downloaded from > > you can also download the (full-lenght) of the same photo from > taken in Aug 2008. In short, picture taken in 2008 not 2012, and remains the property of "Ay yapim" the production company.

@Cirt: Pinging the agent who added the ticket.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS and UploadWizard[edit]

FYI: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Raise awareness of OTRS by including it in the Upload Wizard. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request[edit]

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for reliqushment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) (Form I plus an Affidavit is an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules); We request your support, so as Affidavit part of the document becomes accaptable to wikimedia as an email template also for OTRS purposes.

Rgds. Mahitgar (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

2015030210011512 Primorsky[edit]

I adduce that this is an VR plan of an estate, or planned estate, in Primorsky. However the copyright holder for the 3D projection may not be the promoter of the VR technology who is the uploading account holder. Could a clearer statement be added to the image page please?

A technical note, the TIFF seems to have the same image in its envelope twice, possibly a mistake with the rendering software using the image as its own thumbnail. -- (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


There are currently 288 journalist quality photographs using this 3 years old OTRS ticket, with the above being a recent example. The tickets are applied by an account without OTRS access (which generates warning flags). As the ticket appears to have no added value, the website source gives a clear free release with an attribution requirement, can the uploader please be advised to default to start using the weaker process of license review? This has the benefit of not needing to rely on old secret correspondence where it is unnecessary. Thanks -- (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I copied licence and OTRS from older files. Licence is CC-by-3.0 (which is from the OTRS?), based on the release under images licence should be {{attribution}} (although it doesn't specifically allow modification or commercial use). So maybe we should create a specific template for this source with licence, OTRS and explanation which images it covers? --Sporti (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I would interpret the website as sufficient to justify CC-BY as there is no restraint against modification or commercial reuse. Where website terms of use exist they must to be explicit as restraints on reuse cannot be retrospectively interpreted for a claim of damages using copyright, even though an absence of terms would be interpreted as equivalent to all rights reserved. An improvement to the source website would be if they could upgrade their release statement to a CC one. I would avoid custom templates, these are likely to create a headache for some future time when folks try to harmonize image data on Commons. -- (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
So this would be OK [1]? --Sporti (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, let's see what a license reviewer does with it (I'm a license reviewer, but I'll stay clear as I raised this discussion). -- (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@: Well it didn't work so well - file got deleted as a copyvio. So other ideas? --Sporti (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Flagged at User_talk:Thibaut120094#File:Bojan_Radej_2015.jpg -- (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I restored the file, I don't see explicit release under CC-BY on this webpage so I added {{attribution}} instead... Feel free to correct and sorry for the deletion. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the generic attribution template seems like a good one to apply. -- (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

deletion of plans regarding Caisse d'épargne de Bordeaux and Edmond Lay (french wikipedia articles)[edit]


My files seem to have been deleted, even though the copyright owners have sent the e-mails to ticket:2015060610009101 and ticket:2015060610011198 will they be restored ? i'm seeing the architect which made the original files in a week, he will be very happy to see the wikipedia page about him, but even more if all the files are there.

Files concerned are :
Copyright holded by Brice Viricel: files on this page

  • File:Axonométrie Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe DD Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe BB Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe AA Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe CC Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+5 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+4 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+3 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+2 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Rdc Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R-1 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+1 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+5 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck2.pdf
  • File:R-2 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R-3 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Plan masse caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade sud caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade nord caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade est caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade ouest caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf

Copyright holded by Amandine Colin: files on this page

  • File:Kenneth laurent house fluides.jpg
  • File:Norman Lykes house fluides.jpg
  • File:Agence Edmond Lay fluides.jpg

Best regards,

Klarggyjk (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


I see that this photo, which was previously deleted as a copyright violation, has been restored along with several other uploads by the same user. According to the file description, which has supposedly been vetted by OTRS, the author of the photo (i.e. the photographer) is User:Sixpacz (who apparently also personally designed the logos that were also restored). However, as I pointed out in the {{copyvio}} tag (which was removed after the file was restored), the author according to the file's metadata is Cameron Spencer/Getty Images. The photo is available in higher resolution at Getty Images' website. Given that Getty Images also claim copyright, was any attempt made to contact them? LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Ankry:, who handled the ticket. Although the OTRS ticket does look legitimate, this is clearly a Getty photo and the photographer who took it [2] seems to be a freelance photographer, not someone who works for "Netball Jamaica". This photo is unquestionably a copyright violation and should be deleted. It may be an "innocent" copyright violation - the source website might own the other photos and just not this one - but a follow-up email needs to be sent seeking clarification about whether or not a staff photographer took the rest of the photos or whether they were submitted by or purchased from a third party. --B (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If anybody except Netball Jamaica is claiming copyright to these images, it is a valid reason to delete these particular images. The permission is from Netball Jamaica (verified) who claim copyright and wish to atribute User:Sixpacz as author. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ankry: Another upload from Sixpacz (talk · contribs) — File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg — is made up of three constituent photos. The third credits "Collin Reid", who, from googling, according to [3] donates the copyright of his photos to Netball Jamaica (probably not a problem). The other two credit "", which looks like a stock photo company. The middle one even has a watermark of some sort (look right under the ball that the girl is holding). I don't think we can take this uploader's claim of copyright at face value. Though I'm sure that they probably purchased rights to use these photos for their website, I'm not sure that they realize that purchasing rights to use a third party photo on your website typically does NOT give you the ability to sub-license the photo as needed by Wikipedia/Commons. Another one: I find File:WinningTeamUnder21Medals1024-e1413347441714.jpg at [4], which credits "PHOTO: COLLIN REID, COURTESY OF SUPREME VENTURES, COURTS AND SCOTIABANK". File:Jamnbryan.jpg is cropped from [5]. Without a really really really good explanation, I'm not sure we can trust their claim of authorship. --B (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@B: the uploader was asked for more explanation about photographers and the agreements few days ago. No response till now. If there are any doubts concerning copyright owner, feel free to delete apropriate images. In such case, the images can be restored later if they provide satisfying information. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The two other constituent photos of File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg were created by Getty Images photographers Christopher Lee and Sandra Mu. LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I have tagged File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio. I have nominated File:Jamnbryan.jpg for deletion as a possible copyvio. File:WinningTeamUnder21Medals1024-e1413347441714.jpg is concerning because I can't tell who or what "SUPREME VENTURES, COURTS AND SCOTIABANK" is, but Collin Reid seems to be Netball Jamaica's staff photographer, so I'm more or less okay with that one as probably legitimate, despite the odd credit. --B (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg[edit]

File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg

Emilio Magistretti died in 1936, surely his paintings should be in PD? Brightgalrs (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Likely not in all juristictions so a release is nice anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added {{PD-70}} to this public domain image (noting that the source is hosted in Italy). @Natuur12: could you explain in more detail why you believe a legal claim of attribution is required in the USA for the Artgate Fondazione Cariplo? The advice from WMF legal always has been that faithful reproductions of public domain artworks have no new copyright in the USA. I disagree that "a release is nice" when this introduces a false claim of copyright to a public domain work. -- (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the ticket they are the copyright holder. I am not familiar with this organisation but it could very well be that the rights where transferred to them before the file/painting became PD in Europe. I trust that the agent who dealth with this request investigated this properly. I don't speak Italian so I can't validate everything. There are juristictions with a longer duration of copyight, there are countries where PD-art is a really grey area or some countries might not even support PD-art. (I know that PD-art is not a legal term of course but this way it is clear). People livng in those countries should be able to use the file safely after there has been a release. More people can use the file and isn't that ultimatly our goal? Spreading free knowledge? Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The correspondent appears to be subject to European and Italian copyright law, these are not special jurisdictions where there are longer copyright durations or where this is a grey area. Granting the work and potential income to the institution by use of copyright cannot exceed the 70 year rule, as the artist's copyright remains unchanged; if they want money then falsely claiming copyright is not the way to go about it. The image is public domain. By all means if they are the source this can be explained on the image page, but using a Creative Commons attribution requirement is a legally enforcable claim of copyright (i.e. they can sue for damages if a reuser fails to provide moral rights), and in this case is inappropriate as they have no legal claim on the artwork.
I will go ahead and remove the misleading {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} template unless you can provide a clear reason as to why it is required and this is not a public domain work. -- (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever read Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs? Sure, this file is likely PD in the US but is it PD in Scandinavic countries? In my home country this would be a borderline case. And please also read the section about Italy. Of course stuff can be made more clear at the file page but that is not the actual point. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that guide is rambling and out of date; it is NOT a commons policy and is wrapped in disclaimers. Nobody, in the entire history of Italian law, has ever been prosecuted for failing to provide moral rights for the creator of a faithful reproduction of a public domain work. The reason is that they would have suffered zero damages (there can be no case where there is no exchange or loss of property). The CC-BY-SA in this case (especially for a low resolution image) is misleading, and Wikimedia Commons should stand against propagating false claims of copyright. -- (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If you don't have any evidence that there is no copyright involved under Italian law I suggest we leave this be. Or we (with me I mean you want you want to chang the status quo) invite people who have deep understading of Italian law to discus this case in com:VP/C. Natuur12 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to prove a negative. However we know that on Commons where there are PD and CC license, not only can reusers ignore the CC license, our community routinely deletes the weaker surplus licenses.
Rather than a self reflective copyright debate, I am happy to start a general policy thread on the VP, requesting that projects like this fix their licenses to respect public domain images, and positively discourage institutions from using CC licenses in a false way (or for volunteers, such as OTRS volunteers, giving poor advice), when what they really want is to tag images they have donated.
In my view after working closely with several GLAMs and large mass uploads of PD material, we should reject donations with these expectations and instead work harder up front with the institutions to ensure they are not surprised when any weak CC-BY licenses are removed. -- (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Fae, I am afraid that without you respecting your opponents view we get nowhere. An intelectual debate is impossible this way. The set-up you suggest is far from neutral. International copyright as you know can be complicated and even legal experts can have different opinions. Natuur12 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not worried about "opponents" as this is not a war. The general community norm is that if an image is Public Domain, then there can be no restrictions on reuse. The risk that a publisher might have to withdraw a book from sale because one of our public domain images has been used as a book cover, and it cannot be sold in a single European edition, is not one that anyone should find acceptable. Similarly Commons should not indulge organizations that attempt to retrospectively claim copyright over public domain images. Whatever license is chosen it should be legally correct, have legally enforceable rights (where there are any) and not subject to future unexpected changes apart from copyright expiration. I'll ponder how to express this on the Village Pump so that we might have a chance of turning the community norm into a solid documented consensus. -- (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Just wow, you actually didn't understood a single word of what I wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I carefully reviewed everything you said here, and the essay you pointed to. An image we publish as PD can be used anywhere. If it legally requires attribution in some countries then a PD licence should be avoided (this is what the community needs to discuss). If it requires attribution in either the source country, or the USA, it should not be marked as PD. The current multi licensing templates and guides can easily give misleading claims of PD such that a reuser could be sued for failing to comply with moral rights. -- (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Aurel Barglazan 1.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted by user:Fastily (now inactive), the reason being „no source”. The source is the Bărglăzan family's archive. As Romanian OTRS volunteer I received the permission #2015062210006575 (in Romanian). The license is CC-BY-SA-4.0 International (standard license). I cannot reupload the file. Please tell me what to do to recover the image. Thanks. --Turbojet (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would start with asking some questions about how they became the copyright owner. Based on this current ticket thi file should not be undeleted or reuploaded. Experience learns that the person wha manages a family archive is often not the copyright holder. Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but the donor has very little knowledge about copyright, he could not understand the question. --Turbojet (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That happens a lot when dealing with family archives but in most cases the outcome is that we cannot accept the files. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

2015040710024935 Gustavo Sebba[edit]

There are two quite different uploaded portrait photographs in the file history. Here's the order of events:

  • 12 March 2015, the first version is uploaded, Sebba wearing a jacket.
  • 13 March 2015, file deleted as copyvio.
  • 07 April 2015, OTRS email received.
  • 10 June 2015, the second version is uploaded, creating a new page, Sebba without a jacket and the image has a digitally masked background.
  • 11 June 2015, file deleted as copyvio.
  • 24 June 2015, files restored, given OTRS ticket.

Can an OTRS volunteer please confirm that both photographs have been released, noting that the OTRS correspondence started well before the second version was uploaded to Commons? If this is the case then the overwritten image can be split to a new file as an alternate. If not, then it should be removed from the file history. Thanks -- (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done @: Thanks for watching out! Both versions are covered by ticket:2015040710024935. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Goof grief, the new one is hideous. @Hedwig in Washington: does the submitter express a preference as to which image is used in the article? (I have no idea if the pt Wikipedia takes the preference of the subject into consideration for photos or not.) Unless there is a really good reason to prefer the one with the blue background, it is an eyesore. --B (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@B: As fr as I remember they did not. The blue one is the newer one, current job. Other just a bit older. I'd use the older one, the blue is killing my eyes. :-) ---Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have reverted to the prior version. If the uploader or subject of the article really wants the blue background, I won't fight with them over it, but it's hideous and you can see that it doesn't even blend right - there is a light-colored fringe around the outline of the photo where the real background was cropped out poorly. --B (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Macnee - File:Patrick Macnee in Lobster man from Mars.jpg[edit]

Commons has 3 photographs of Macnee, with his death yesterday these will be much in public demand.

Can an OTRS volunteer please double check the details of the eight years old ticket:2007083110009978? The release is from the film director, so there should be sufficient in the correspondence to validate the release, though the other publicly available stills from the film appear absent from Commons. In addition there is no date on the image page, it would be good to be able to correct this using information from the correspondence. Thanks -- (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ticket contains a Wikipedia only permission. Do you want to start the DR or should I? Natuur12 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I create very few DRs in comparison to other things I do, so I've gone ahead and started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrick Macnee in Lobster man from Mars.jpg. If this is clear cut, I suggest it is deleted in fewer than the normal 7 days, otherwise it is highly likely to be used in obituaries with reusers thinking this is public domain.
I suggest:
  1. an OTRS volunteer double checks other tickets as old as this one where the same OTRS volunteer had made similar choices.
  2. we carefully review the other 2 photographs on Commons of Macnee (I have a number real life commitments today, so only have time for a brief look), see category in thread title, there have been long running issues in the past attempting to determine if copyright marks were on reproductions of producer released film stills/posters.
@Deadstar:, if you are about, you may wish to take a look at this case and see if similar actions are needed.
@We hope:, as an uploader of other images of Macnee you may want to double check the alternative image pages are accurate and there is no linkrot. Thanks -- (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
These were uploaded close to 3 years ago and unfortunately the links are dead. I've always uploaded both sides of photos with the front uncropped and unaltered as the original upload. Since then, I've also taken to putting the eBay links and photo links into Wayback Machine. We hope (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking good care with your uploads. These examples of linkrot making it hard for us to verify old copyright statements, are why a long term reliable webcite like service is needed by all Wikimedia projects. -- (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I used to use WebCite, which not so long ago, I'd heard WP was considering buying. I stopped using it some time ago when every time I went there to create a link, my A/V would go off, telling me it had just stopped a trojan download. Not long after that, the gmail addy I used to use for citing started overflowing with spam-sometimes more than 10-12 per day. An en:WP friend also used WebCite as I did, so I asked him whether he had A/V issues and spam. He was using a different A/V program and his was also issuing warnings; he also had a mailbox full of spam. We began thinking that the site was hacked for the email addys and stopped using it until Wayback Machine offered the same type of service without needing to use an email addy. No idea what was happening there or it it still is.We hope (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question-everything in the category Lobster Man From Mars seems to have the same OTRS number as the Patrick Macnee photo which is now at DR. Since the ticket number is the same for all of them, are there problems with the files in this category too? We hope (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think so - this is a 1989 film, I don't see that these are in the public domain unless they have a specific release from copyright holder, which seems to be lacking. Is there a way to re-contact the film director for a clear release on the specific images we have? I will add them to the DR. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought they would be at issue because of the same OTRS number, but can't view the details as I'm not in OTRS. Someone who is an OTRS member should be able to see the director's contact information and ask him to consider changing the permission for all of these. We hope (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Sami-ninne-Sri ragam-Ramakrishnamurthy.wav Missing permission information[edit]

The recording can be linked to this source, instead of the current source.

File:Ninnukori-Mohanam-ramakrishnamurthy.wav - Missing permission information[edit]

This link can be used as a source instead of the existing link.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thomas Ebbesen par Claude Truong-Ngoc septembre 2014.jpg and ticket:2015062910016917[edit]


I am not used to deal with Commons request (yet) and may have made a mistake by asking the deletion. Can OTRS agents gives their opinion and also tell me what is the normal process in such a case ?

The ticket has been quickly translated to english in an OTRS note.

(ping me)

--Scoopfinder(d) 11:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Scoopfinder: Bonjour,
Pour ce cas, je m'en réfère au photographe. C'est lui qui sait le mieux dans quelle condition a eu lieu la prise de vue, et si le sujet a donné son accord. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, In this case, I would follow the photographer's opinion. He knows best how and where the picture was taken, and if the subject has given his consent. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Yann, thank you for your reply. It seems, in that case, that since the consent was given during the time of the shooting, there's no reason to remove that picture. --Scoopfinder(d) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:2010 Nikolai Litvinov Nantional Branding C1 BM 4.pdf[edit]

This file has an OTRS template but has not been edited by an OTRS member as far as I can see. Is the OTRS template correct? Could a copyright tag be added to the file? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Email is in Russian. Natuur12 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

4X-AHC Martin Harrison - no ticket number[edit]

The livery of the aircraft turns it into a giant flying fish. Could an OTRS volunteer check the ticket is from the copyright holder for the design and note this on the image page? Thanks -- (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The permission is from the photographer. Regarding to design please see Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet. -- Geagea (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Good case study. However the Pokemon case had 8 cartoon figures and smaller items in the livery, the rationale being that DM applied as the image focus was the aircraft, not an individual Pokemon character from the group. In this case the single fish is the entire aircraft, thus if the aircraft is the focus, the fish must also be the focus of the photograph and DM cannot apply. -- (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, this in not case for OTRS noticeboard. If you still think that there is a problem here, you know the way. -- Geagea (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
OTRS volunteers are relied on by the community to place tickets on images that are not copyright violations, once a ticket has been given it is rare that anyone will think to check further as non-OTRS volunteers have no idea what has been checked or verified.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg.
-- (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

2015063010010349 Gold medal[edit]

The modern medal design and certificate copyright in this image is likely to be the organizers of the LA international extra virgin olive oil competition. Could the release be confirmed and information added to the image page? Thanks -- (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That permission is not on file, I have modified the permission tag accordingly and sent a request to the individual who provided the permission for the photo.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action. :-) -- (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pussy versus Putin[edit]

Hi, the three files in this category are claimed to have a permission via russian OTRS by the uploader. I found ticket:2015062010013892 but can't read it and wonder wether there could by the OTRS-template in the file descriptions or not. If notz there should be a {{OTRSreceived}}-template. Is this permission okay? Regards, --Emha (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emha, I do not understand Russian either, but this is a standard release form for CC-BY-SA 4.0 permission, send by a confirmed owners email, specifying these three files. The Russian OTRS volunteer send back a confirmation email. I think this is confirmation and it can be tagged as permission received. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

2015062910018424 Dolorean band[edit]

I find a crop of this photograph in higher resolution at (all rights reserved) and discovered an eight times higher resolution version (3,984 × 2,335 pixels), with original EXIF data, which I have now uploaded over the OTRS released image. Could an OTRS volunteer double check the discussion and update the image page with the name of the photographer (which is given elsewhere as Sarah Jurado), correct the date of the photograph (new EXIF data shows 23 May 2010), and check that the photographer has released their rights rather than a presumption that this is the property of the band or their production company? Thanks -- (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@: True that. On, underneath the photgraph you find a list of email addresses. One of them was used to email OTRS. IMHO work for hire. The photographer has the same last name as one of the band members. Seems OK to me. Do you think we really need more? Sure, I can send another email out to partisanrecords if needed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It's more a question of whether the image page is a correct representation of the photograph and its copyright status. I have no idea if the photographer really was Jurado, whether she was on a work for hire agreement with DLpictures at the time (if she did take the photographs or if DLpictures is her company) and what relationship she had with the band in 2010. There probably should be enough information on the image page so that a reuser is not left in doubt when they find other versions of this image on the internet, with varying claims about it. Being unable to read the OTRS correspondence, means that I cannot really be expected to determine if further correspondence is needed. That must be an OTRS volunteer's call.-- (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the information provided. But I'd be happy if someone else could take a peek? Pretty please? Clin --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy clarification needed for images with {{OTRS pending}} but no license[edit]

I began this discussion at Village Pump. Please join. --Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Fertőd - The Eszterházy Castle or Palace.jpg[edit]

can i use in CC2.5? there's CC license in that wikimedia page but, this OTRS is on the page, too. Can I use on CC? or Do i have to get a permission with OTRS?

Yes, the file is CC-BY-SA-2.5 licensed; you should feel free to use this license as all the OTRS tag indicates is a confirmation of the uploader's identity. See COM:REUSE for more. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OTRS for IrfanView[edit]

This not urgent. Just want to know how to find/trace an OTRS whether it was filed with the Commons. I requested Irfan Skiljan of IrfanView to provide the OTRS permission to transfer his logo from Wikipedia, and just received an email from Irfan that he provided the OTRS. — Ineuw talk 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Irfan should be aware that, for a single person, it will be enormously difficult to force take down of competitive products violating his IrfanView for trademark reasons, while it is often a lot simpler to get what he want through copyright. Unless you are a big company, you should probably not waive copyright. -- Rillke(q?) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. IrfanView seems to be a one person operation and Irfan doesn't seem to care. He wrote me earlier this year and I quote "anyone can use any IrfanView icon or IrfanView logo/image from my website." (I can forward this email to you.) His software is widely known the world over, as well as that it is of his own making. Truthfully, I only wanted the logo to be used in the infobox collection of my home page to indicate that for better or for worse, my contributions to the Commons were processed using his software. — Ineuw talk 22:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi! Above ticket (added by uploader/non-OTRS member JzG}) is used for File:Shefali Chowdhury.jpg (a 1987 born British actress for the Harry Potter film series) and here (same uploader, appears to be related to a 1987 South Pole expedition) which does not fit. Could somebody please check the ticket? Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Tag for multiple images from organization[edit]

I am told that If a large number of images will be released by an organization/source, a special licensing tag can be arranged through OTRS, which can be added to each image. INeverCry This applies to most of my deleted photo uploads that had simply email permissions. Please send this tag to Jzsj (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Oskar Bandle (1926–2009).jpg (deutsch / German)[edit]

Nur als Hinweis, um die Zuordnung für das Team evtl. zu erleichtern: Ich habe den Uploader Freigut in Bezug auf die Vorgehensweise etwas beraten, es sollte inzwischen eine Freigabe-Erklärung der Fotografin Inga-Lill Nissas beim OTRS eingegangen sein, worin allerdings offenbar statt des Dateinamens die Bildbeschreibung "Oskar Bandle (1926–2009), Schweizer Nordist und Onomastiker (Photo: Inga-Lill Nissas, ca. 1985)" genannt ist. Ich hoffe, das passt so und ihr könnt das entsprechend eintragen :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Related ticket is ticket:2015070810016866. Natuur12 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

May I use the picture "Cornell War Memorial" taken by Alex Sergeev?[edit]

I am working on a website to promote U.S. higher education.

You can refer to my LinkedIn's profile to know more about my job.

I am currently designing a new website to promote U.S. colleges and universities for Asian market.

Here is the link to my LinkedIn profile.

I hope to hear from you ASAP.

Tanya T. Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Quoting from the FAQ linked at the top of the page:

Can you give me permission to use a file?
No. Please don't post requests for permission to use content from this site. The content can be used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license displayed on the file description page.

The licensing terms for File:Cornell War Memorial.jpg are stated on the file description page. LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Asking for OTRS ticket[edit]


I'm working on the french page of the american sculptor Cecil Howard, and probably later, the english one. As his grandson I'm the right holder of his works and of a certain amount of images concerning him.

I posted yesterday 3 reproductions which have been promptly taken off, as they where suspected of violating copyrights, and I've been advised to ask Wikimedia Commons for an OTRS ticket. I have to precise that each of those 3 images (links listed below) have been taken by myself from objects witch are in my possession.

Could you give me the informations of what to do and where to go to do so ?

Do I need an OTRS ticket for each image ? Because I have some more to use...

How can I prove my quality of right holder ?


--Marsange (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC),_recto_(1915-17).jpg,_verso_(1915-17).jpg

Please check tickets[edit]

Special:Contributions/Jeollo have ticket number in many pictures, are the tickets valid.--Motopark (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Motopark, thank you for taking the effort to have this checked. Jeollo uses this ticket correctly. Ticket:2011071910017502 confirms that user Jeollo owns the images he uploads from As such, no further action is needed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo sur l'article "Pierre Saint-Paul"[edit]

Bonjour, j'ai envoyé l'autorisation de publier une photo "Pierre Saint-Paul, photo André Morain 1999" le 28 05 2015 en courrier électronique à Mais vous semblez ne pas l'avoir reçu. Que dois-je faire??? Merci de faire le nécessaire ou de me renseigner. Bien cordialement --Philippe HENRION (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem with ticket #2011102610023226[edit]

Hi, I have problems with this ticket:2011102610023226 because the autor not give us permission for upload all images of his accounts. He doesn´t like that all her photos are in commons free. The pictures have all rights reserved in his flickr account. I need help with the process of remove the images of commons. Thanks. --Nicop (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The ticket is from 2011. Why now? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The author had not realized that the bot has been automatically uploading photos from his accounts since 2011 despite having all copyright, the author does not want all your photos will be free forever, because it wants to retain copyright on the majority. --Nicop (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually the permission (from October 2011) says: I agree to publish any photos and other materials found published at:
in addition to any materials which may be provided by email, under the GFDL 1.2 licence.
The permission also says: I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. -- Geagea (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Finding a pending OTRS[edit]

Is there a way to find a pending OTRS filed by the owner of the Irfanview logo File:IrfanView Logo.png. Being a third party to the request, I can only provide the emails from Irfan on the subject. His publicly accessible email address is through which I contacted him. — Ineuw talk 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ineuw, thank you for bringing this to our attention. The permission was received and approved to use all images and logos on under CC-BY-SA 4.0. This can be checked in ticket:2015070710007556. Since the email did not specify any file name, the OTRS volunteer on duty did not take any further action. I have now added the ticket to the image. No further action is needed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ticket#2015060110013258 - undelete request[edit]

Good day for all interested.

Since all required confirmations has been sent by the copyright owner (09-07), I'd like to ask for undeleting following files:

NOTE: Permission was in polish (pl)

Sincerly --Navias (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navias, thank you for your question. The OTRS volunteer you spoke to earlier still needs to approve the permission. They will have the images restored if they find the permission to be good. I do not know why it is taking so long for them to respond. I have send them a reminder by email. I hope this helps speed up the process. Please let us know if you do not receive a reply from them in the next week. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
--Jarekt (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Carmi Gillon.jpg[edit]

Can someone on otrs check this file cause usually the otrs members should post the ticket number.--Sanandros (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sanandros, thank you for your question. I cannot locate a ticket for this file. It was uploaded by User:Yonidebest who is a long term Wikimedian. It is possible they have an email in their inbox but did not send it to OTRS, or send it to the restricted hy OTRS system instead of the permission system. Yonidebest was active this month. I have emailed him. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yonidebest has replied that he no longer wishes to participate in Wikimedia, and does not care what happens to the image. I used his email adres and some Hebrew texts to try to find the permission in a second search. However I still I cannot locate a permission. There are alot of other permissions he send in though. I think we have to assume there is no permission. Maybe he forgot to send it at that point in time. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Photographs of Lee Rigby[edit]

File:Drummer Lee Rigby.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), deleted by @Taivo:

Hi, recently a Ministry of Defence released portrait photograph of Lee Rigby in uniform was deleted, along with a derivative version. Though the image has apparently removed from the source MoD website without explanation, the image had been successfully kept after a deletion review. The photograph is widely available on the internet, and was used by all major press outlets, for example the Metro sources this as "MoD/PA", showing they used the Press Association database for the MoD photo and Rochdale Council has different crops of the image on its website with no specific statement of copyright, meaning that their standard terms apply and the image ought to be free to reuse.

If an OTRS correspondence about this photograph has occurred, could this be explained publicly please? If not, then it may be appropriate to reopen the original deletion request to discuss our best approach. Thanks -- (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no OTRS message in file page. Taivo (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I read en:Talk:Murder_of_Lee_Rigby#Photograph of Fusilier Lee Rigby and decided to trust the deletion request. If you think, that this was mistake, I am not against restoring and opening a regular request. Taivo (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is unclear, but if a copyright mistake was made by the MoD, then they should be able to confirm that this was the reason for removal. If the photographer wishes us to remove the image for other reasons, then a case via OTRS would be a good idea. The webarchived version of the page states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence, except where otherwise stated" and as no other licence was stated for this image, there is still a case that OGL applies. Could you undelete and create a second DR? Thanks -- (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I restored file and talk page and created a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. To make it easy for readers to follow, here's the link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drummer Lee Rigby.jpg. -- (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Cartel IV Maratón Fotográfico de Madrid.jpg[edit]

Five days ago, Josve05a asked for an email of permission at the orignal Flickr page. Did we receive any message yet? The file is up for deletion so we need a proof in writing other than the chat at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Platonides:, can you please help about tickets 2015051910014814 and 2015062310009114 ? Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A second bite of the apple[edit]

I'd like to bring to your attention an unusual situation. An employee uploaded images to Commons in the course of writing and editing articles on about the organization he works for, under orders from the organization. After I informed him about the COI problem, I have been working with him to edit those articles and, since he was not the owner of the copyright for the images, getting the proper permission to OTRS for the uploads. Now, however, the organization is apparently having second thoughts and only wants to give permission for one of the images, not for the original 5 that were uploaded. It's my opinion, that since the employee uploaded them at their behest, either all 5 images are kept, or all 5 are deleted. I do not think that the OTRS process should be used as a device to get a second bite of the apple and delete images which were uploaded under an irrevocable license. Either the employee had their permission, or he did not.

The relevant threads are here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that the uploader had been given permission/orders to publish all photos, but that the organisation was not aware of our free licensing requirements, and that the licensing was not authorised. That should not prevent the organisation from approving publication of a subset of the content under a free license. LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You want to open a slippery slope by which any organization can remove photos they uploaded previously? "Oh, we never intended for our employee to upload that one, now that it might hurt us in some way, so we rescind the authorization for that one photo" What a mess that would be.
Either he could upload them, or he couldn't, you really can't have it both ways. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not at all what I said. And no, it's not as simple as either he could upload them or he couldn't. The critical point is the licensing. LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was given permission to upload them, but that was before they were aware of the free licensing requirements and the need to send a declaration of consent, which states that if we release the photos, we give anyone the permission to modify the photo. The organization is protective of those particular 4 photos because we use them a lot on other promotional collateral and are not comfortable with people being able to modify and manipulate the image. Editing the page and adding new photos to a wikipedia page is a learning experience for us and truthfully an honest mistake was made on our part for not being aware about the declaration of consent and what that all entails. It's really just the modification part that we were uncomfortable with. At this point, we are fine with you deleting all 5 photos. Sorry if this caused such a stir.n- ksumagit1

Template:Indian navy[edit]

Hi, See Ticket:2013090610005872. The permission does not seem to come from an official from the Indian Navy. @Jcb: Opinions? See also request at UDR, past discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 52#Indian navy images, and User talk:Yann#Indian navy images. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Timor images[edit]

User:Smooth O has put templates into some of the images, I loaded up, but now he is telling me, he couldn't check, if there are permissions still send or not. It made me a little angry, because the emails have been send long time ago.

Photographs by Natália Carrascalão Antunes: The permission was sent in Feb. 2012. I do not have the mails in my backup anymore. Three years after upload it is a little bit difficult to retrace the former dialogue. Ambassador Natália Carrascalão Antunes seems to be a little busy, so I got no answer for a new request to permite the upload again, so it would be good, you can find the old one. Would makke it easier.

Photographs by Artur R. Braga: The permission for the pictures was sent to on 2014-11-14. This information is written at the File pages. The subject was "hola bondia". Artur wrote: "mr. fischer is allowed to load up the photos at wikimedia under license CC-BY-SA-30. l the photograph." Two days before, he sent the photos to me directly. I still have the mail in my backup. I can resend all three mails, if needed. To get contact again via 12,000 km is not that easy. Done --JPF (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

--JPF (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to confirm this permission ticket: JHVipond (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO not a valid ticket due to the shortcut in the statement given. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permission[edit]

Can you please check ticket #2015072210011147 for this file? Thanks in advance for your help. --Bundesverband Deutscher Leasing-Unternehmen (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)