From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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: 104 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

Files from[edit]

Can someone check this File:Bosanska Dubica Center.jpg and ticket number stated there (2006050810011015). If it's ok can someone add template and check if can it be applied also for this File:Bosanska dubica-center.jpg. --Smooth_O (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smooth O: the ticket shows what appers to be a discussion (tldr) but, no permission release on OTRS ticket 2006050810011015 A second opinion would be helpful. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Flominator: Ist da irgendwann mal irgendwas positives entstanden? café --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

EU National ID cards copyright[edit]


I am asking for some help in confirming OTRS permission for the following images:

Front of the Lithuanian identity card (first issued on 1 January 2009).gif (file) Swiss national ID card - Reverse.jpg (file) Swiss national ID card - Front.jpg (file) Slovenia national ID card - Reverse.png (file) Slovenia national ID card - Front.png (file) Swedish national id Card (Biometric) - Reverse.png (file) Swedish national id Card (Biometric) - Front.png (file) New biometric Maltese national ID card - reverse.jpg (file) New biometric Maltese national ID card - front.jpg (file) New biometric Spanish National ID Card - DNI (Front).jpg (file) New biometric Spanish National ID Card - DNI (Back).jpg (file) New biometroc dutch ID cards, European part of the Netherlands - (Back).png (file) New biometroc dutch ID cards, European part of the Netherlands - (Front).png (file) New biometric Gibraltar national ID card (Document which proves British nationality) (FRONT).jpg (file) Luxembourg National ID card (Back).jpg (file) Luxembourg National ID card (Front).jpg (file) Bhutanese national ID card (Citizenship card).PNG (file) New DNI, Spanish national Identity card issued since 2016.jpg (file) French national ID card (CNI Securisée) - French government Specimen model (Front).jpg (file) Irish Passport card (Back).jpg (file) Irish Passport Card.jpg (file)

Those images are from the EU website:, and can be found in the EU national Identity cards Wikipedia page: Can someone please search for a ticket? I would really apreciate that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: A picture of a specimen of an ID-Card is published by a government for the attention of the general public as a matter of official concern. Therefore it is public domain.
For the situation in Germany please visit
Kind regards, --Olli1800 (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Image deleted, despite sending permission[edit]

I received this email shortly after submitting permission for an image that i uploaded. The image was still deleted, despite acknowledgement of the permission. Dear Naiele,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2016041810002061].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team thanks Naiele3 (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of permission and an automated response are to separate things. As you specifically quoted above, "If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later." Riley Huntley (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Naiele3: How old is the logo? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sculptor gave permission and uploader is photographer[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping to help resolve the OTRS issue for the file Dalton-Bust-in-PIVA-LR.jpg. User:Amitie 10g told me to address my issues in the ticket, but I'm not an OTRS user so I can't see it. The file was uploaded by the photographer, Dwight Pounds. The sculptor, Daniel Fairbanks, filled out a release for the photo. A volunteer told him that the sculptor would need to release the photo, and Fairbanks replied that he was the sculptor and that the photographer already released the file (by uploading it). Are there any remaining concerns? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ticket link:

OTRS asked for a release by the photographer as well. Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I figured that if I got the photographer to make a commons account, that it would be pretty clear that he was releasing the rights to it. The other photos he uploaded haven't been questioned... why is the enforcement more strict for that one photo? I can get an additional release from the photographer, but the image is deleted now... am I basically back to square one (i.e., I'll have to upload the photo and get the releases again?)? Thanks for your help. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Jackson Yi 20151013.png[edit]

Hello! I uploaded a picture (File:Jackson Yi 20151013.png) and sent an email to OTRS, but the reply is "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file". However, I have reserved the right from the owner, and he agreed to licensed the picture under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Internationallicense. In the email attachments, you can see the screenshots of my conversation history with owner. If this was not sufficient to confirm permission, please tell me what should I do, thank you so much. Pico cavadino (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pico cavadino: sorry it has taken this long for a reply. The main problem we have is verification and screenshots are not verifiable unless you bring your computer or phone to one of us and we look at the conversation, which would be an absurd amount of effort for some photos. Screenshots, like forwarded emails, can be easily manipulated, not that I'm suggesting you have done this. The best course of action is to ask the copyright holder to send a license statement directly to the same OTRS address or to publish the pictures on an official website together with the license. I realise that you have been given confirmation by OTRS but I've left a note for the OTRS person you contacted and hopefully we can resolve this promptly and properly. Green Giant (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket#2016042710019787[edit]

I had raised an OTRS regarding an image and received the response from OTRS team, but now an image included in OTRS mail was deleted stating that OTRS was not obtained in past 30 days, what exactly went wrong ? and how to restore it again ? can anyone help me on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu.engin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Himanshu.engin: Your OTRS ticken has the number 2016042710018395. Please give us the list of filenames of deleted images here (for example: File:Shri Satpal Maharaj.jpg). --sasha (krassotkin) 09:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • User has two images were deleted with the specified reason (no OTRS permission for 30 days): File:Shri Satpal Maharaj Official Display Image.png and File:Manav Dharam Official Logo.png. Both appear to be in the OTRS tickets (first in the fifth item, second in the first item) based on filename (I can't download the images at the moment to double check). I am not 100% comfortable with the ticket as it stands, as ticket submitter claims only to "represent" copyright holder: I would prefer an explanation of exactly what that means, and perhaps a confirmation from the copyright holder... but that should take place through OTRS, not here. Pinging @Amitie 10g: ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: If the client mail comes from an Organization address, is there a doubt to the claiming about representant of the copyright holder? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amitie 10g: You can ask to send a letter from another address or to confirm his rights/name/address by other means (for example, through a personal website, social network etc). --sasha (krassotkin) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amitie 10g: Someone who works in the organization is not necessarily legally able to license the files, so yes. We need to know first that the organization actually owns the copyright, and second that the organization licenses the files. Is this person in the legal department? Are they a spokesperson? Are they the web guy that someone is telling to get the files up on Wikipedia, and this is the only way he can do that? Storkk (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I know itl, so, I already sended a request for written and signed permission from the owners. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I represent by permission of the copyright holder, which in case is "Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti", I request to provide template/format for written permission as per wikimedia standards, I'll provide the same ASAP. -- Himanshu
  • I've Mailed the written permission from the copyrights holder (Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti) please proceed further. -- Himanshu

Ticket #2008030310010794[edit]

Can someone let me know what the release says for File:Kalki Koechlin and Emran Hashmi Shanghai.jpg? It's one of several images with unclear releases in a featured-article nominee on enwiki. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Sasha, thanks. The problem with the group permission is that it effectively says "we release images that we're in a position to release" (e.g. images taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer), but it doesn't identify which images that applies to. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sasha or anyone, can you say what the OTRS release actually says? Riana created the template, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, in 2008 to say "All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by their own photographers." [1] But the interpretation of the OTRS release changed over time. Now it says:

Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload.

That means that, in effect, a release has to be sought for each individual image. But editors are not doing that because they believe there has been a group release. SarahSV (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Initially, there says: "All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, promotional posters or wallpapers are exclusively created by their own photographers". But there is a vast correspondence (in 2008), which allowed us to clarify the mechanism and formulation. Now administrators or license reviewers can confirm this for individual images.
    You're right. This is confusing. But we have only this method now. If in doubt, you can send them a letter (with OTRS and this ticket in copy) and clarify the license of specific photos and/or offer them another way on the whole. At least we shall see that this permission is still valid in its entirety and our interpretation. --sasha (krassotkin) 17:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, thanks. Just to clarify, it's not me who wants to use these images. I'm just reviewing an article for featured-article status, and it uses several of these images. The article can't be promoted with unclear image releases. I'm not sure what you mean by "Now administrators or license reviewers can confirm this for individual images."
It seems to me that this is not a valid release, because the release for each image is going to have to be clarified separately, so the group release may as well not exist. SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: This means that trusted users can verify compliance. In fact, we have a lot of group permissions. This is a common practice. But if it's necessary you can offer creators of the article to write such letter to Bollywood Hungama. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, how do trusted users verify compliance for individual images? For example, is File:Kalki Koechlin at special screening of 'Margarita With A Straw'.jpg free? SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @SarahSV: This is a simple example :-). See original. Yes, because there's a watermark and we have permission from the owner of the watermark (was taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer - copyright holder is Bollywoood Hungama). In addition it is a photograph of a Bollywood party or event (see tags on image page: Parties and Events-Image, Bollywood, Parties & Events) and it's not screenshot, wallpaper, vacation picture, promotional poster or photo copyrighted by other websites. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sasha, I can't see the image on that site (your link doesn't work for me), but if they wanted to release it, I wonder why they would watermark it. People add watermarks to stop their images from being used.
We don't know who the photographer was and whether that person has released the image, or alternatively, if it was a work for hire and Bollywood Hungama owns the copyright, whether the company has released it. SarahSV (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: And this link? Usually watermarks are added for self-promotion of a copyright holder. Sometimes it do even those who transfers his rights into the public domain.
    Here the photographer does not matter. We are interested in the copyright holder only. In most cases the employer is the copyright holder of the all works created during the performance of official duties. This is a typical situation and on the contrary we should raise questions if it will look different.
    So all looks good here. But if there are doubts we have to ask the copyright holder and not each other. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, I think we are talking past each other. The problem is that image reviewers are passing these images as okay, when they are not okay. So we do need to talk to one another.
For example, File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg was taken at en:Lakme Fashion Week, which is not a Bollywood Hungama event. But the image has the Bollywood Hungama watermark on it. [2] Why? They don't say. Perhaps their photographer took it, or perhaps they use that watermark carelessly. So only half the image was uploaded to avoid the watermark, and Racconish passed it as being available on the Bollywood Hungama website. But that tells us nothing about (a) copyright and (b) whether the copyright holder has released it. The bottom of the page says "all rights reserved."
I've emailed Bollywood Hungama, but so far they have not responded. SarahSV (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: I think your email is the best way. If they do not respond within a reasonable time, we will think further. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If one of you thinks I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 19:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Racconish, it's not that you did anything wrong. You reviewed the file page to confirm that the file was available on the Bollywood Hungama, and it was. But that is leading editors to believe that these images have been confirmed as free. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this group release. I'd like to know what it says and who it came from. I'm thinking we should not rely on it until an authorized person from Bollywood Hungama confirms it and clarifies what it covers. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Could this old ticket please be checked again please, it is in use on over 2,000 photographs. No doubt the release was from the website owner (where the site is all rights reserved), however the resulting photographs on Commons have no verifiable release from any named photographers, no EXIF data and are low resolution versions; hence appear derivatives. All of this gives concern as to exactly how release was obtained from photographers and whether there is a record that can be verified of the releases.

Lastly, I can see files where this ticket has been added by non-OTRS volunteers, which raises the concern as to whether all of the photographs have been checked as valid against the ticket, the details of which are not public. -- (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: Ticket is in Russian. Ticket owner is Lvova. Storkk (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Noting that Lvova's last contribution to this project was in 2013, so they are unlikely to respond, and they are no longer an OTRS volunteer. -- (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, the issue of verification of a satisfactory copyright release does not seem well understood in the DR. -- (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

copyright protected photo of Norbert Hofer still not deleted[edit]

There is a copyright protected photo of the Austrian right-wing extremist Norbert Hofer which is now used in several language versions of Wikipedia - Obviously there is no licence proof in the OTRS-system which clarifies the licence of this photo. Why is it not deleted? -- 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Olaf Kosinsky. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In asserting "Obviously there is no licence proof in the OTRS-system which clarifies the licence of this photo.", you appear to be privy to information that we are not. Could you please clarify? From where I stand, it looks like the release not quite there, but stands a reasonable chance of being confirmed. The specific issue is that there is no explicit license in the ticket... but it appears to come from a credible source who was trying to license the file. Unless other information is available (to which you seem to allude), I would suggest allowing the process to run its course. Storkk (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Hello. I would like to ask you about something that puzzles me. More than a month ago I uploaded my first file on Wikimedia Commons. It took me a while to sort out the license and then I realised that I found out that I need permission for a valid OTRS ticket. Even though I am not the copyright holder of the photo I requested the copyright owner to let me upload it. I got permission to upload it, provided that I do not alter the content of the photograph, which I did not. Then I sent a statement to Wikimedia Commons (one that I found in the page about how to get permission and I thought that it might be ok to use it) and after various email exchanges with a volunteer I finally got permission for the file. I remember that the permission status of the file was updated. However, I cannot find it in my uploads. . . When I search it says 'No results', so someone must have removed it. However, I do not understand why it was removed if there was permission for it. I would be grateful if you could let me know what actually happened and if you could help me retrieve this file. Thank you in advance.Irene000 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is File:Fabio-Mancini.png and ticket:2016043010008471. There are two problems, first you write "provided that I do not alter the content of the photograph". We only accept images that can be freely modified by anyone for any purpose, please see COM:L. Secondly, the ticket contained only correspondence from the subject of the photo and yourself, but the copyright holder of a photo is the photographer, not the subject (unless copyright was transferred, of which there was no indication in the ticket). We need to have the photographer either confirm that they transferred copyright, or that they agree to a free license (which includes the terms that anybody can use it and modify it for any purpose, subject to the terms of the license). Storkk (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Storkk. Thank you for explaining these things to me. About the first problem: It is not a problem because the file was uploaded there so as to be used by everyone. I am simply an uploader so even though I uploaded it initially in a modified form (I changed the colour contrast) I soon replaced it with its original form as it was taken by the camera. A file in its original form can be used freely by everyone and can be modified according to every individual's different taste and purpose; not simply just mine. About the second problem: Indeed there was such a correspondence. However, the photograph I uploaded is one taken by the subject's personal camera and the sole owner is the subject and only the subject. I believe the subject mentioned that in the correspondence. However, there was another photograph uploaded by another user and I believe that was the one taken by the photographer. Is it possible to confirm this for me on the emails? I appreciate it for taking your time to respond to my query. Best, Irene000 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The person who took the photo should contact us to confirm the license. The ownership of the camera is not particularly relevant. Storkk (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, I apologize in advance for annoying you with this and for my persistence but I think I need a clarification. Firstly, I completely agree with you that the ownership of a camera is not that relevant. However, I checked the email correspondence and I found the last email sent by the subject to Wikimedia Commons permissions. In that email the subject states that the photo which I uploaded is taken by a friend of his (not a professional) but he also states that he is the only one who has the photos and he is the only one who decides how to use them, for personal purposes or for social ones. The way I understand it is that there is a clear indication that if the subject is the only owner of the file and most importantly if he has the freedom to use it for social purposes it means that he has the copyright for it. Therefore, his permission for usage and his agreement to free license should be enough to guarantee a valid OTRS ticket. On the other hand, there is a second photograph File:Giorgio-armani-and-fabio.jpg, which as stated in the subject's email it was taken by a professional photographer. In this case I agree that you need a confirmation from the professional photographer about the license. I also understand that even if the subject has the freedom to use this second file, you still need a confirmation from the legal owner whether he transferred his copyrights to the subject. Indeed, the subject did not mention clearly on the email that there was a copyright transfer for this specific file, but since he mentioned that it was originally taken by a third person it is absolutely logical to need a final confirmation about the license from that third person. So, my point is that I understand the deletion of the second file as it is basically a third person's work but still I fail to understand the deletion of the file I uploaded. In the case of the file I uploaded, it is quite clear that there is no issue of third person's copyright. If that was the case I believe the subject would have specifically named the person involved, as he did for the second file. Since he did not do that but instead he made it clear that he is the only one who has the file and uses it as he wants then he must have the copyrights for it and his permission was all you needed. Thus, this file shouldn't have been deleted. Again, I am really sorry for this long message but I tried to explain the train of my thoughts so as to make you see my point (I only hope that I did not confuse you with this!). Perhaps there are faults on my logic or perhaps there is something about copyrights that I miss out but from what I can make out of the situation I am of the opinion that the two files should have been subjected to different treatment. I am looking forward to hearing from you whether I have a valid point or not. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: The issues involved are not as straightforward as you make out. You are equating ownership of the camera and all the "negatives" (essentially, exclusive ownership of the physical means to reproduce) with ownership of the copyright. This is certainly not clear-cut. There has been previous discussion about similar issues at Commons:Own_work/Bystander_selfie, which if you read the accompanying talk page, you will see does not have consensus. But because the photographer was stated to be a friend, it doesn't even really fall into that category: the "bystander" is known to the subject and is contactable. So it would probably be best to simply have that friend/photographer send in confirmation that they transfer all copyright to the subject. However, it is a non-sequitur to state that since "he is the only one who has the file ... then he must have the copyrights for it". That is simply not true as an if-then conditional statement. In any case, for various reasons that are not particularly relevant to the specific file we are currently discussing, I should probably recuse myself and if you disagree with my opinions here, I suggest you take it to COM:REFUND for an independent pair of eyes. If you do, I will refrain from comment there (as opposed to {{oppose}}ing restoration). You are not annoying me, and I view it as part of my "job" here to answer questions to the best of my ability. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, Thank you very much for providing the link to the talk page. Indeed, some of the thoughts I have on this matter are discussed in the link you provided. It does not surprise me that it has no consensus as the factors and views regarding these issues could generally be non-exhaustive. I think I understand now your point of view. I would like to avoid making things complicated therefore I would not take this to COM:REFUND as we might end up starting another no consensus discussion like the one in the talk page of bystander selfie. In this case, I thing it would be better to make a request for undeletion. However, in order to make this request you need a confirmation from the subject's friend about the transfer of copyrights. I am pretty sure the subject has no idea that such a confirmation is needed but I believe that if he brings you in touch with the friend/photographer then that should be fine right? There is now a small problem... since the subject has no idea about this someone must inform him. Will Wikimedia Commons-Permission contact the subject directly or will I have to reply to the previous email correspondence I had with Permissions (where the subject is also included) and make the subject aware of this? Once again I appreciate it for getting back to me. Best, Irene000 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: given the current backlog of over 3 months in the OTRS queues, it would probably be better if you could take the reins in organizing the permission from the photographer. Storkk (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk , I can arrange for the permission. However, is this the correct procedure to restore the file: ? First I make the undeletion request using the link provided in the Wikimedia Commons undeletion page and then I reply to the email correspondence with Wikimedia permissions, where the subject is also included. This will make the subject aware of the situation so that he can arrange the permission for the photographer. If this is the correct procedure then can I also request the undeletion of the second file (since that one also needs permission from the photographer and perhaps the subject can arrange this as he will do for the other one) ? However, will someone reply to me on Wikimedia permissions? Last time I sent an email I did not get an answer but I do understand that you are very busy and I do appreciate it for guiding me in this. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: please first reply to the email: once a satisfactory permission is in the ticket an agent will request undeletion. If it appears that nothing is moving, you can place another note here and other agents will see if they can help out. Storkk (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, Thank you for the advice. I will reply to the email tomorrow and hopefully soon after you will receive by email the confirmation from the photographers (I will do it for both files that were deleted). Once again, I am grateful for your replies. Best, Irene000 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

#2009051410061605 (File:Radmor5100.png)[edit]

A few years ago someone had added a number which looks like an OTRS ticket number. So I just have added {{PermissionOTRS}} to it. Could someone check this? --jdx Re: 19:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @jdx: There is correspondence in Polish in Ticket:2009051410061605. But as I understand it, there are no satisfactory permissions. In my opinion, we should make deletion request for this image. But it would be nice if a Polish agent will check it before. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg[edit]

Hi, the author of the photo File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg, Dom Garcia (, sent the appropriate mail (with licence choice) the 20/06/2016 at So please undelete it. Thanks. (PS: we are french) Pierrem93 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


I think this may need one further back-and-forth to establish whether the gmail address is correct, but it may not... it needs a Dutch-speaker to confirm. @Natuur12, Basvb, Jcb: could one of you take the ticket please? Thank you. Storkk (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a note with some extra info but I am rather busy this week so I am not sure if I can take over the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm also rather busy, sorry. Basvb (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Abuse filter tagged this edition, so I did quick investigation and found out that Ldorfman claims to be OTRS team member, but according to the current list he is not. What do you think about it? It this ticket valid? --jdx Re: 15:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Till a few days ago, I was a member of the OTRS team and, as I've been informed, my current status is still in discussion. Hopefully, I'll be back in the team in a short while. Till then, this ticket refers to a message I sent today to the OTRS team and בריאן handled. The ticket contains a release note for 50 high-quality pictures released by Israel Channel 10 News. It is part of a cooperation between Wikimedia Israel and the news channel. Yesterday I visited the spokesperson's office and assisted her in the pictures upload. What wasn't taken care by her is now handled by me - It involves adding the name of the photographer, the Hebrew name of the person who appears in the picture and his role in the news team (exactly as it is now in File:Akiva Novick-2.jpg). In between, I assist בריאן by adding the link to the ticket in some of the files details. Since we talk about 50 files, this would have been long work for him, while he probably has other things to do. As this is a project I had been working on while still being officially part of the OTRS team, I had plans to make sure everything is taken care by me, not needing to trouble anybody. I hope I can still do it. Just to make things clear: בריאן checked the release note and all the information I sent and added the tag to the first pictures. I just continue his work. Is there a problem with that? Ldorfman (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm approving what Ldorfman said here. בריאן (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


According to the uploader the ticket applies to these files: File:Tradman 01.jpg, File:Tradman 02.jpg and File:Tradman 03.jpg Is it valid? --jdx Re: 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This ticket is not from the permission queues. We must know at what address he sent email. Perhaps a Swedish queue (f.e. info-sv)? --sasha (krassotkin) 06:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I have sent an email to Wikimedia Commons-Permissions regarding the restoration of some files. The files were deleted because you needed a confirmation from the photographers that they agree to a free license. Could an agent please check the relevant email correspondence? Both photographers replied stating that they give their permission for the upload of the files in Wikimedia Commons. I would like to know if this is ok or if you require any further information. Also I would like to know if I need to take any other action for the restoration of the files. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (I have just changed position of this section and put it on the bottom of the page. )Irene000 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Push Me Pull You videos[edit]

Hello, would someone please add OTRS permissions on the videos in Category:Push Me Pull You based on the latest replies in ticket:2016042710001885? The ticket was originally handled by Amitie 10g, but I see that there are some issues in that department czar 04:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)