Open main menu
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: 175 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, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages

Shortcut: COM:ON

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


Removal of Images from Knanaya Article? [Ticket#: 2019012210001349]Edit


I wanted to ask if the following images have been verified for re-addition? To my knowledge the author had sent permission through Wikipedia's online system as well as email on Mon, Jan 21, 2019.

Thanks Thomast48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thomast48:Thank you for your inquiry. Would you please provide your 16-digit ticket number to me, in order to search for the author's permission email?廣九直通車 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @廣九直通車:,the ticket number is 2019012210001349 .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 April 2019‎ (UTC)
@Thomast48: For each photo relevant to Ticket:2019012210001349, please have the copyright holder send permission for the photo URL directly via OTRS with a COM:L compliant license and COM:CONSENT verbiage confirming that they understand what they are agreeing to, with a carbon copy to you. Pinging @Arthur Crbz, 廣九直通車.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Jeff G.:, the author already sent the following email to commons after permission was requested. Does he need to send an email to somewhere else too?

"This is Alexander J. Mapleton, author/editor of "KNANAYA CATHOLICS:HISTORY, HERITAGE and HEROES". I hereby give Wikipedia full permission to use the images from the texts contained in my above titled book. Further, I also hereby grant permission to wiki user thomast48 to upload the images from my book as needed by him. Please feel free to visit my website as noted below for any verification.

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 April 2019‎ (UTC)
  • @Thomast48: Hi, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You may not have noticed: signing one's posts on talk pages here with ~~~~ helps people to find out who wrote something when, and it provides them with a link to one's user and talk pages (for further discussion).
@Thomast48: That verbiage does not comply with COM:CONSENT, and it does not mention the URLs of the images.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ticket #2018062010007572 (Bob Reis from Anything Anywhere)Edit

Bob Reis from the website Anything Anywhere has sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia OTRS team giving permission for a few very specific pages on his website, due to the nature of his website (being a commercial business) I had made a deal with him that I would ask permission per page (or pages) and that he would evaluate permission to be released under free licenses based on several circumstances, usually if I would also use some of his images in a Wikipedia article and kept him up to date on it, the licenses however are free for re-use but as I would ask him separately per a number of pages I prefer that if an OTRS template for uploading his images would be created that it would be something alongside Template:Anything Anywhere1 so it could leave room for a future Template:Anything Anywhere2. I know that the backlog is 99 (ninety-nine) days so I have no hurry with this ticket being processed (also I am working on several huge projects on Wikipedia and have to import images from earlier tickets anyhow), however when it is processed could the agent who processed the ticket leave a message on my talk page with the template I should use for every upload? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, these separate templates for separate permissions should probably all organise into the same maintenance category (Category:Media contributed by Bob Reis (Anything Anywhere)) if possible so they can be grouped together, but as the permission will essentially be either per page or per group of pages each ticket should have its own template. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


Please kindly check why this file was deleted even when one of the moderators verified the copyright release at:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalvm (talk • contribs) 09:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Kunalvm: is not mentioned at or or Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kunalvm or even User talk:Kunalvm#Deleted content - how is one supposed to find it? Do you have evidence that "one of the moderators verified the copyright release"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:

Jeff, the copyright is clearly granted. Just tell me where do you want the mention to and it will be done ASAP. I can put it where ever you tell me. Please kindly stop blocking our requests. If you have the option of looking at the file history you will see the copyright was already validated by some other user. Obviously now that it's deleted, I can proof nothing Kunalvm (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kunalvm: and (or in the footer for all) would be ideal with a pointer to it at User talk:Kunalvm#Deleted content. Is it fair to assume you would like all your files which were deleted to be restored?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Jeff, we have added a link to the cc sharealike disclaimer at the footer of Please, kindly restore all the affected files. We've also commented this in User talk:Kunalvm#Deleted content Thanks for your help. Kunalvm (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kunalvm: Thank you. Please see COM:UDR#All deleted uploads of Kunalvm.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kunalvm: We have been waiting for your email response to Ticket:2018040810002317 since 8 April 2018.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

fotografii Pani Wandy Traczyk - StawskiejEdit

Dzień Dobry,

piszę w imieniu Agencji Make zajmującej się realizacją i obsługą plebiscytu "Warszawianka Stulecia" organizowanego przez m. st. Warszawa w celu uczczenia setnej rocznicy uzyskania przez kobiety pełnych praw wyborczych w Polsce. Tytuł ten otrzymuje kobieta - mieszkanka Warszawy - za swoją pracę zawodową, społeczną lub inne działania, które w szczególny sposób przyczyniają się do rozwoju stolicy.

Chciałabym zwrócić się z uprzejmą prośbą o niekomercyjne udostępnienie fotografii Pani Wandy Traczyk - Stawskiej. Zdjęcie będzie wykorzystane w celu realizacji animacji o każdej z nominowanych Pań, która będzie pokazywana na Gali Warszawianki 2018 oraz będzie streamingowana. Będę bardzo wczięczna za możliwie szybką odpowiedź. pozdrawiam, Katarzyna Łukasiewicz —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Good morning,

I am writing on behalf of the Make Agency dealing with the implementation and service of the "Warszawianka Stulecia" plebiscite organized by the Capital City of Warsaw in order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of obtaining full electoral rights in Poland by women. This title is given to a woman - a resident of Warsaw - for her professional and social work or other activities, which in a special way contribute to the development of the capital.

I would like to ask you with a polite request for non-commercial access to the photographs of Mrs. Wanda Traczyk-Stawska. The picture will be used for the animation of each of the nominated Ladies, which will be shown at the Gala Warszawianka 2018 and will be streamed. I will be very grateful for the quickest possible response. greetings,

Katarzyna Łukasiewicz
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Proszę określić, które fotografie, nie widzę żadnych.
Please be specific about which photographs, I do not see any.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about Crownest Highway shieldsEdit


I was looking at the files for the Crowsnest Highway (Alberta: en:File:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).svg; British Columbia: en:File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg) and they're currently listed as non-free. In reviewing the online sign catalogues from both Alberta (p 5) and British Columbia (p 5), I can't really find anything indicating they're copyrighted. Is it possible to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons? Cheers! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@MuzikMachine: Files are always copyrighted at creation-time. They enter into the public domain 70 years after the death pf the author, generally, unless specified differently. However, in this case, a lot of signs seem to be too simple to be protected (all the ones without a drawing); but we need some advice from users that deal with this stuff often. Try bringing this question to the Village pump. --Ruthven (msg) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Mugshot Sofie van den enk.png, ticket 2011112010040412Edit

Permission is highly doubtful. It is a scan, not a photo, it has a very low resolution, and the uploader has a history of trying to submit pictures of the subject with no regards for copyright. Tekstman (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tekstman: my money is on "screenshot from analog television". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tekstman: There is no license version number in that ticket.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tekstman: The email explains it is a picture of a picture he took himself. @Jeff G.: Is that a problem, no license version? It is our standard Dutch template. Ciell (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell, Drdreetje: That could be a problem if it was challenged in court.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I checked all our licence pages, but we do state a version number everywhere, though I might not know of another page. @Drdreetje: Can you recall what page you referred the copyright holder to? Just so I can update the text. Ciell (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell: "a picture of a picture he took himself" does this mean "a picture he took himself of another picture that he didn't take himself", "a picture that was taken of a picture he took himself" or "a picture he took himself of a picture he took himself"? Is there an uncropped version? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The last one, "a picture he took himself of a picture he took himself", sorry to be unclear. There's no original file in this 7 year old email conversation, so I'm not sure if there's any sense in a follow-up. Ciell (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell: sorry to go on about it, but is that your interpretation or is that literally what the ticket says? It wouldn't be the first time someone claims "I TOOK THIS PICTURE!!!" because they, in fact, took a picture.. of someone elses picture. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The OTRS agent asked about the poor quality, to which the author replies: "Het is een uitsnede van een foto die ik zelf heb gemaakt." You could interpreted that both ways, now I think of it: "It is a crop of a picture I made/took myself." Ciell (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ciell: exactly, that's what I mean.. They may have meant "I created this crop, so the copyright is mine, right?" It happens. I can't say if that's the case here, but it happens. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: "That could be a problem if it was challenged in court."
Actually, it wouldn't be. A judge would be much more likely to interpret the lack of a version as "the re-user can pick any version they like" rather than "the author can go extort the re-users for violating their copyright". (this is part of Dutch law: if something is not clearly specified in a contract, it will be interpreted the way that is most beneficial for the signee) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, that picture can be deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdreetje (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 February 2019‎ (UTC)
  • @Drdreetje: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Please review this and replace permission if the ticket is correct. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I'm not over the moon about this one. The OTRS agent told the e-mailer to add the Permission ticket. The agent appears not to be an agent any more. The whole ticket is based on a copy and paste e-mail from the copyright holder (not nice...) I think I will e-mail the copyright holder direct to confirm. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, Ronhjones: I've also spotted it and created {{}} for further uploads. I agree that the permission is quite weak... and thank you Ronhjones for following this up with the copyright holder. --AntonierCH (d) 19:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I sent it to 4 e-mail addresses, one bounced (I expected that), no one has replied to date. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

200 days backlogEdit

Today the OTRS reached 200 days backlog. And when I look to his history its growing in average of 2 days every 2 days. I dont know how many very old tickets are in the queue, but it might be an idea if one or several agents could search for them and work on these (hopefully only a few) tickets to reduce the number of days strongly. Just an idea. regards. --JuTa 08:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile several editors are on deletion binges, posting notices to hundreds of images that they will be deleted in 7 days unless they get processed for OTRS! Is everyone aware of what's going on with that? How many images we're losing that should have been given a little more time to for things to be fixed? Is it a problem? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
You would not believe how many permissions emails don’t get sent until the image is deleted and somebody notices that it’s not there anymore. —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That's true. But you would also not believe how many users get frustrated because of this process. They upload an image, request permission from the copyright holder, send an OTRS request, get an answer ("message received, please wait till we've looked at your request"), see their image deleted and removed from the Wiki article, complain, get a fresh answer ("OTRS has a backlog, so that it may take some time. As soon as an OTRS agent handles a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion") and look around in utter disbelief. Why can't we sync these processes? The least we could do is to stop deleting images for which an OTRS request has been received. Or am I missing a point? Vysotsky (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!! (Please forgive my screaming so ungodlily loud, but I couldn't stop myself when seeing someone finally agree.) The project is sorely amiss with this, urgently in big trouble, and a solution is urgently needed to the overly drastic deletion frenzy. If someone figured out how to effectively sabotage Commons, what's going on right now would be optimal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll note that images tagged with {{OTRS received|reason=processing}} are not deleted after 7 days, but 30 instead. The issue is that going through and tagging images with this would double the work we have to do to process the queue. TheDragonFire (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Krdbot does add OTRS recieved if it can find the ticket, but that doesn't happen in every case. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I was going to start working on some tickets, although I realized that I can't view the images that were deleted (which is basically all of the ones in the backlog), and thus cannot verify the permission. Is there any remedy to this? Vermont (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, those images shouöd normaly not get deleted. They got hold for as minimum of Commons:OTRS/backlog + 7 days. Currently the oldest pending category is from 28. May which is 207 days ago. Maybe the {{OTRS pending}} was missing on the decription pages. Vermont, if you name them, I can (temporariry) restore those files. --JuTa 02:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I added ", and then tag the subject file(s) with {{subst:OP}}" to Template:Email templates/Consent/en the previous day, so the situation for non-Admins should start getting better. It's down to 199 days 4 hours now.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Another problem I've noticed, that increases the unaddressed numbers, though not often the oldest tickets, is that several permission emails are duplicates for the same image/s sent without using the receipt ticket number, so they generate a new ticket unconnected to the original request ticket. It may not be noticed or starts the whole process over with another agent, and despite requests to only use one ticket number, they don't, and there is little we can do about it. Ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: We can review all the tickets sent by a particular customer when viewing a ticket by clicking "People" and then "Customer", and then merge as appropriate.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I know that and sometimes use it. It's still a problem we have to deal with. Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • An easier solution would be recruiting more members, I wanted to suggest to the Wikimedia Foundation to set up a stand for OTRS recruitment at the last Wikimania but I have no idea how to contact them, also adding it to a newsletter every 3 (three) months could help, when this year started the backlog was less than a month, so it's better to have too much (trusted) members than too little, also one could try to contact former members if they're willing to help again. ----Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be also be helpful if there was a public page that has a table with three columns for ticket number, last date of action, and status (open, pending, waiting for user mail, waiting for action by otrs member, closed, rejected, granted). In the case of my ticket [Ticket#2018071510002076], I gave additional requested information on 20th september and I have no idea, if I need to do anything more, because I am sure I gave all the needed information. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we must remove the "30 days" from Template:OTRS received. I have seen some files deleted at 30 days. Also although the backlog is 199 days - that's for the English queue, some of the other language queues have even bigger backlogs. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I concur. At :en, we do the greater of 30 days or backlog + 7 days and en:user:B-bot tags them accordingly. Deleting things when there is a 6-month backlog just leads to hurt feelings. --B (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Ronhjones: @B: Are you aware that files with {OTRS received} are being deleted 30 days after our first response, not 30 days after being tagged? For the past several years I have been the one who usually handles this process. I always open the ticket. If it is still unanswerred, I reset the timer. example. If there was a response but not yet 30 days ago, I reset the timer to the date of first response. I don't think that anything should be changed here. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Jcb:, a problem with that is that sometimes a copyright holder sends in a new email creating a new ticket. Or the agent who was handling it gets busy and doesn't handle the response, putting it back out into the backlog. Ideally, anything that has been in the {{OTRS received}} state less time than the backlog shouldn't be deleted unless either someone has reviewed it and is certain that we're not going to get an acceptable statement of permission, or unless someone has searched and made sure that no follow-up has been received. --B (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Such a change would paralyse the process completely, leaving a lot of copyright violations online in an attempt to save a relatively small number of files that may be undeleted anyway as soon as the new ticket has been handled. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Maybe there is a way to separate out the "really reviewed" from the not really reviewed images. If Krdbot tags an image as {{OTRS received}} but no human has ever even looked at it, deleting it after 30 days doesn't seem to be helpful. But if a reply has been sent and we never hear back, then that's different. --B (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes, that is the current situation. If a file has been tagged by Krdbot but there was no human response to the ticket by an OTRS agent, I reset the timer of the tag instead of deleting the file. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The current progress of undeletion is not user-friendly; creating new requests one by one (and checking that the user is an OTRS-agent or not) cots a lot of time. Why do not we make the undeletion tool smarter? Here is what I think: there would be a button for OTRS-agents (the tool or an AbuseFilter would check that the user is an agent or not). The tool would ask the name of the file and the ticket number, than it would create the request with a “verify me” link (ping Jeff G., who is using similar format). It would cost just few clicks and less than a minute, but it would make our work much-much easier. What do you think? Bencemac (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bencemac: We already have the generic {{UO}}. Before that was developed, I developed my own UDR gen URL, which uses my mostly filled out User:Jeff G./NewUDR preload. You are welcome to make DWs.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I was invited here. IMO the OTRS/Wiki image release system is just not up to the job. Women in Red publishes 100 of articles about women without photos. Why? These people are alive and only too pleased to send us a picture and we are 99.9% certain that we are talking to the right person and the picture is either a selfie (or very similar). There are notable/busy people. We can just about convince them that their twitter image is copyright.... but we tell them that they are going to have to send emails to prove who they are who they say they are and then they lose interest.... and I must admit I do too. We have keen editors who are trying to add pictures which everyone knows are OK, but they are accused and hounded as if they have some hidden reason for wanting to help our project. (Not only that our gatekeepers seem to take pride in deleting donated content because it MIGHT (in some strange unreasonable parallel universe) "breaks the rules"). I don't use OTRS and I cannot recommend it even to people who think they may be able to use it (no one has that much patience). It doesnt need fixing it needs rethinking and reinventing. Sadly I don't think that commons will the heir apparent to PD archiving. I am optimistic that another group will fork our content and create a better resource with a rethought way of adding new pictures, films, sounds and 3D scans. I do hope so. This job is worth doing. Commons is a great resource and was a great idea. Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it an unimaginable thought that we stop deleting any and all images which admins judge that they look like they will pass OTRS requirements, until time catches up and makes the whole process work again, giving uploaders a fair chance to conform? This (unless I'm mistaken, as I often am) is a good example of an image that someone claims is his, of himself, now deleted only because of the backlog. And this talk page, where a person with a limited enough command of English that it's hard to communicate with h at all, while that person is causing the deletion of a huge amount of images in 7 days after h/s tags them, to me is very scary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: No, this is a good example of the process working just fine. We responded to the ticket 25 November, but we never heared back from the client, so that the file has been deleted 26 December. Jcb (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Each year around chistmas WMF asks for donations and a large part of these donations is used for campaigns to attract new authors, espacially women. As Victuallers pointed out above the otrs backlog scares away this possible authors. Wouldn't it therefore not be a good idea, if WMF used part of this money to employ paid otrs members (and if it only was for half a year to get rid of the backlog) - this might do more for a wider authors base than any women in red edit-a-thon. I also like to come back to my idea of a status/statistics page: Even so the "owner" of my unanswered ticket has been pinged, I am still ignorant about what might be wrong with the ticket (happy new year, btw). --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, a backlog is not a problem at all. "Please patiently wait until an OTRS agent handles the ticket. If an OTRS agent handles a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion." And then wonder why people think Commons doesn't make sense. Vysotsky (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
("The process is working just fine") - When you say "fine" then that means that we missed the chance of sharing a picture with our 1bn users because we pissed off the person who was trying to help us. We wasted everyone's time, But we broke no rules so "The process is working just fine". *What* It needs rethinking. Imagine. I have a procedure agreed by WMF lawyers as imperfect but OK, an email and pic from the donator, a Wikipedian editor in good standing who 99% believes that its all OK and is willing to add it to commons with their reputation on the line if the abuse the process. We can load it, now, today, immediately! The process would work because we take down mistakes (like every other site) and we have a $1m dollar fund to pay out the $2.63 that is owed by the occasional person who can prove that they are the sole heir of a photographer who died 68 years ago and demands that we pay damages. If a site used this process then would you be convinced that the image was PD, I would.... and if I was a judge then I would say that this process was reasonable and law abiding. Victuallers (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Commons isn't "like every other site" - every other site on the planet cares only whether or not they are going to get sued for using the image. We actually only WANT things that are public domain or published under a "free" license. --B (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Info Permission-commons is under 1400 open tickets, which is minus ~100 tickets in the past days. Of course, some other queues have huge backlogs as well. Bencemac (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Many of the older tickets has been waiting for a replied of the customer over 6 months. See as example: Ticket:2018062510009472, Ticket:2018062710005043, Ticket:2018070110004644... Don't you think is it time to quick close those tickets? I don't think they're going to answer and, if they do, perhaps they do or did in another ticket. Others are waiting the response of an agent, such as Ticket:2018061510001801, Ticket:2018062610000139, Ticket:2018062510009276... --Ganímedes (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
PD: Regarding one of the oldest tickets, please see: [1]. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing it at m:OTRS/Personnel, Jayantanth (talk · contribs) is the only OTRS user who speaks ml? If this ticket is in ml, maybe contact him directly? --B (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@B:, I am not native speaker of ML, if you anything shown about India related subject, you can forward me. Jayantanth (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, yes. However, this is just one of the problems: many lenguages we don't have or have few agents actives, lots of spam generating new open tickets by minutes than we cannot erase or close (even the authomatic response system confuses and replies them, as such Ticket:2018091910005599, Ticket:2018100810003046, Ticket:2018102310009441, Ticket:2018110710005697, Ticket:2018120310001286, Ticket:2018120310007968, Ticket:2018121810001991), Ticket:2019010110000871, Ticket:2018102310009441, Ticket:2018120310001286... ), an inefficient system that make hard to see messages, follow messages, find something... As someone says, it's a 10 yr old sofwate and needs lots of patchs. It would be nice if someone request a new software in the next Whishes of the community campaing. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Besides, many of the new ticket are attendant immediately, but the oldest stay there. I think our delay is not so if we take this in consideration. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: If it's obvious spam, I don't think that someone speaking that language is really necessary to close it. If it's not spam, and nobody who speaks the language is available, what if we just process it using Google translate? If it is the simplest case where they are pasting the CONSENT form (and we can see it is the consent form using Google translate) and their claim of copyright seems reasonable (someone from the company that likely owns the copyright, etc), why not just process it? Heck, even if it's not the simple case, we could reply in English with a "Google translate" translation. Google translate is good enough these days that, while it may miss the nuances of local idioms or humor, if you use straight forward sentences you're going to get your message across. --B (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not been clear. Yes, I know this is spam. Question is: why we get over 4.000 spam tickets open? Why cannot close them as such? Why we even received this? My hotmail or gmail account is able to filter all this, or even avoid them. Instead, we're swimming in tons of spam, forever open, and sometimes (often, I must say) our system answer it. Everybody think this is normal? The system is old and inefficient. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a spam filter at all? If there is, it needs to be a very, very, very, very permissive filter because if someone sends a DMCA takedown notice (which might have a bunch of URLs in it and look spammy), there can't be any chance of the spam filter picking it up. It would be nice if we could blacklist email addresses - there are some newsletters that come in from the same email address every time and if we could simply blacklist them, we could cut down on it a lot. --B (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The system should automatically delete all tikcets in Junk queue after X time (one day, perhaps?). And of course, stop answer them. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"The process is working just fine." Well, it isn't. This user (Sarduzo) went to a German Forum on Commons to ask about the procedure (on 12 November), uploaded an image and sent an OTRS request on 14 November (precisely as advised), to see his photo deleted on 15 December by User:Jcb. When he complained, he got the encouraging answer: "As soon as an OTRS agent handles it and the permission turns out to be valid, they will restore the file". Though I can't take a look at the photograph nor at his request, and thus can't judge the validity of the decision, I do have a judgement about the procedure. If we want to chase away good faith users, we need to continue this way: deleting photographs while the OTRS ticket hasn't been handled yet. Vysotsky (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered volunteering to help with the backlog? --B (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that too. Since we've got over 100 tickets waiting more than 180 days, delete the files with an OTRS pending is extra unnecesary work. To access validity it's request a restoration, so another request in Noticeboard, wait for an admin... The deletion after 1 moth in this conditions is far unrealistic. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(A couple CoE later) Yes, I'm doing exactly so: I've attendant over 75 old tickets this week. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I wish we would wait until $BACKLOG days have passed to delete them because it blocks non-admins from being able to process tickets. At :en, I have a bot that automatically tags things that have been {{OTRS pending}} for longer than $BACKLOG days with {{subst:npd}}. I wish we would just do that here - so that humans don't have to make a decision about how long to wait before deleting things. --B (talk)
Totally agree. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thats allready included in the {{OTRS pending}} template. It marks anything "older" than Backlog+7 days with npd. But the value of backlog is just that huge. --JuTa 17:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: backlog is now 162 days and there are less than 1 000 tickets in queue permissions-commons. The number of tickets is decreasing. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think is enough. Over 65 months waiting for an aswer, when many (if no most) times permission is wrong or uncomplete it's too long wait, IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: That is 5 months 7 days, please check your math.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  Sorry, finger mistake  . Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
We're doing a good job! Increasing the activity in the last month is bringing its fruits, and it's more pleasant to deal with the tickets when the queue is shorter (or lowers quicker). Do not forget to ask to Commons admins to undelete the files that have an OTRS email, in order to check the author and the metadata, if you don't have the rights. Lets carry on! --Ruthven (msg) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: It takes time to answer all these emails and to reduce the backlog. Just wantes to mention that it's positive to see the backlog reducing. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for your interest: We are back at 200 days backlock - see Commons:OTRS/backlog. --JuTa 07:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very sad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Problem don't change: we're alway the few 5-6 same agents answering everything. Prior to be unactive, the backlog was around 150 days and 800+ tickets to solved. After some months of inactivity of my side, backlog is again in 200 and 1300+ tickets. If the system don't change, it's to me impossible to see how we're going to avoid this. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpgEdit

According to last edit, OTRS is received for File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg. Can someone add appropriate template. --Smooth O (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish:, who added the edit in question [2]. --B (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see on his talk page, Huji (talk · contribs) is the OTRS agent. Huji, what is the ticket number? I tried searching, but couldn't find it (presumably because of the non-Latin characters). --B (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@B: It is 2018122910002094 (PS: adorable username!) Huji (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huji: Whatever ticket:2018122910002094 is, it is not in a permissions queue and I don't have access to it. Are you certain this is the right ticket number? If it is, someone else (with info access I guess?) will need to take a look. --B (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@B: I'm in the same boat.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the late answer. Anything else needed from me? — Racconish💬 09:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish: Please specify the queue containing ticket:2018122910002094 and tag File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg more appropriately, or explain how you reached your conclusion in this edit.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Jeff G., I added {{subst:OP}} and would rather defer to an OTRS agent to add the date of the OTRS mail. — Racconish💬 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is all the deatils I can provide. ticket:2018122910002094 was originally sent to permissions-commons@ and then forwarded to info-fa@ because of it being in Persian. The original email has a link to the picture on Commons, and the sender of the email states (in Persian) that he or she is releasing this photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The sender's address and name indicate that it is not a person, but a legal entity (it appears to be the "official" email address for an entity (not a person), though the email address is from a publicly available email server).
I am sending this back to permissions-commons assuming that it will make some of you able to access it. Let me know if that worked. Also let me know if you have questions.
My question for you is: what are the procedures for handing these permissions emails? Just because someone sends an email in which they claim to be the copyright holder of a photo, do we accept their claim? Or are there additional checks we do? Huji (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huji: (Please remember to be careful about what you post publicly from OTRS tickets. I don't know that you want to say the claimants name here unless it has been published already on Wikipedia/Commons.) The first thing I usually do with a free email address is Google the email address and see if it is associated with the person or entity that is the apparent copyright holder. If it is, then at least you know that you're not talking with some random person who just made up an email address. In this case, I'm not sure who the copyright holder is, so I did a Google Image Search for this image and found it previously published at [3]. I can't tell from looking at it in Google Translate what, if anything, they say about the source/copyright of this image, but maybe you can tell from reading it in Farsi? If you are not completely convinced that the person you are speaking with is the copyright holder, then you can ask them to clarify. Ask HOW they became the copyright holder - are they the photographer of the image? --B (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@B: I modified the text so it is less speicific, and asked an Oversighter to hide the in-between revisions. Even though what I shared was not really "private" information, it is best to be less specific on wiki. Huji (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, I looked at the website you found. The website doesn't specify copyright status, but that is quite common among website in Persian. In those cases, we (at Wikipedia) assume the content is copyrighted. The sender of the email seems to be the admin of that website (based on name and email address), but should I ask them to somehow verify that? I will certainly ask them about who the photographer is as well. Huji (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, I don't know that verification that they are the owner of the website is necessarily the issue. The issue is asking where the photo came from originally. Did they take the photo? (I will sometimes say, "did you, personally, hold the camera in your hand and click the button?" That spells out exactly what we mean.) Did someone provide them with the photo? Is it an old family photo that has been passed down? If they, personally, held the camera in their hand and took the photo, then their license is valid. If someone provided them with the photo, then we probably need permission from that person. If the photo is an old family photo from a long time ago, then we need more information about where it came from. --B (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Photosubmissions-de queue: even long backlogEdit

There are some tickets in photosubmissions-de waiting very long. There is one, apparently moved from info-de, waiting 352 days today, with no answer, even automathic one. Can a german speaker agent attend to these tickets? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Potwierdzenie zezwolenia na wykorzystanie zdjęcia Big Cyc File:Big Cyc 2018.jpgEdit

Dzień dobry

Kilka dni temu wykorzystaliśmy w naszym serwisie zdjęcie, znajdujące się w repozytorium WC. Konkretnie chodzi o foto z linku: . Zdjęcie opatrzyliśmy stosownym, wymaganym podpisem, czyli "Jacek Jędrzejak [CC BY-SA 3.0 (], Wikimedia Commons".

Niestety, odezwała się do nas kobieta, która uważa się za autorkę zdjęcia, domagając się od nas zadośćuczynienia za złamanie jej praw autorskich. Czy mógłbym otrzymać potwierdzenie zezwolenia na wykorzystanie tej pracy przez Wikimedia Commons? Ticket znajdujący się pod zdjęciem to . Mój adres mailowy to

Z poważaniem

Damian Lebowski

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LB2510 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Confirmation of the permission to use the photo Big Cyc File: Big Cyc 2018.jpg

Good morning

A few days ago, we used a photo in our website, located in the toilet repository. Specifically, it's about the photo from the link: We have provided the picture with the appropriate, required signature, namely "Jacek Jędrzejak [CC BY-SA 3.0 (], Wikimedia Commons".

Unfortunately, a woman spoke to us who considers herself the author of the picture, demanding that we be compensated for the infringement of her copyrights. Can I get confirmation of permission to use this work by Wikimedia Commons? The ticket under the photo is My email address is


Damian Lebowski
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Zorro2212, Polimerek.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Jacek Jędrzejak, a member of BIG CYC - who is mentioned as the author of the picture has sent to OTRS routine agreement and he claimed that it was selfie, taken by him. There was no reason to doubt this claim, so it was accepted. I sent to him an E-mail again asking if he is sure that it is selfie. In a meantime I marked this picture as waiting OTRS confirmation. Polimerek (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
After discussion via OTRS with Jacek Jędrzejak it appeared that there was no agreement of real author of the picture to release it under any free licence. Therefore I nominated this picture for speedy deletion. Good lesson for future to be more careful with agreements... Polimerek (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

‎Inquire on the status of[Ticket#2018120710000743]Edit

Hi I would like to inquire on the status of[Ticket#2018120710000743] The below files have been deleleted for reason of (No OTRS permission for 30 days I have sent all valid Lic. in as requested sometime ago for the below image files. They were confirmed by the above ticket number. Could someone check for me the status on this. Thanks Mike Armando (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC),_NYC.jpg,_N.Y._Winterfest.jpg Mike Armando (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Convenience link: Ticket:2018120710000743. Pinging @Moheen.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think we should restore those files? If we do so, all files might be marked as unused. As I have seen Mike Armando haven't any entry on Wikipedia, even on Wikidata. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Moheen: Perhaps after a successor to complies with en:WP:REFB and en:WP:NMUSIC, with the en:WP:AUTO caveat.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello, could you please verify that the translated SVG meets whatever criteria was discussed in its bitmap version? Thank you! --Kijewski (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kijewski: Actually the file was considered below the threshold of originality, so the SVG version should be the same. --Ruthven (msg) 09:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Two permissions verificationEdit

Hello, I was reviewing licenses and found File:Lorraine Feather, Math Camp photo shoot—photo by Mikel Healey.jpg and File:Lorraine-Feather-Flirting-with-Disaster-photo-shoot.jpg, which have references to an OTRS ticket that seems pending. What is the permission status of these files? --Chiyako92 (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It's pending because the user never send the link to the files or the exact name. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Oooops... There are 4 files in the same ticket. We still need the name of the 3d and 4th files. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for OTRS service name change - "Wiki client services"Edit

Please participate at meta.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


@Jcb: added OTRS-permission to other uploads of Rmavers~commonswiki (talk · contribs), for example file:Nightevilc.jpg. Is file:Npcoverfinal.jpg covered with the same ticket? Taivo (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Taivo: Yes, it is. I have tagged it as such.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Lexikon-wirth-kleve.JPG Ticket 2016020610005781Edit

c:File:Lexikon-wirth-kleve.JPG Ticket 2016020610005781
Könnte bitte jemand Befugter in dem Ticket nachsehen, ob da der Buchdesigner Uwe Göbel genannt ist, der imho der Schöpfer des Buchumschlags ist. Sein Name steht derzeit nicht in den Bildattributen, sollte aber, auch wenn er aus irgendwelchen Gründen via OTRS- Ticket auf das Urheberrecht verzichtet hat. Siehe dazu auch diese Anfrage in der de:WP. --Goesseln (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ich kann zwar das Ticket nicht einsehen, aber dieser Herr Göbel hat tatsächlich den Umschlag gestaltet (PDF S. 5). Ob der auch Schöpfungshöhe aufweist könnte man allerdings diskutieren. Im besten Fall gibt es eine dokumentierte Überlassung des Nutzungsrechts in dem OTRS-Ticket. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Jason Wong.jpgEdit

Hi! An email was sent on March 16, 2019 by Keving Wong, whose email address starts with kevin.mark8, referred to this image and OTRS Ticket#2019031310005395. Thank you!

File:Jason Wong.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KarinaJelinek (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@KarinaJelinek: If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 175 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The ticket was reviewed by another agent. He couldn't determinated who the copyright holder was since the file was all over the net. An additional set of files were sent, but no metadata either. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was unable to determine whether they were the owners of the photos. -- 1989 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why the fuss?Edit

The flag and coat of arms are public domain and I can upload them. Why are you deleting them? The photo of the monument is my own.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charoplet (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Charoplet: Hi, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You may not have noticed: signing one's posts on talk pages here with ~~~~ helps people to find out who wrote something when, and it provides them with a link to one's user and talk pages (for further discussion).
What makes you think that "The flag and coat of arms are public domain and [you] can upload them"?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I wonder who tagged the files and didn't deign to notify the uploader.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Look, I don't know about your country, but my flag and coat of arms are public domain. The flag and coat of arms are made at the expense of taxpayers, so they are publicly available. You can check and study the legislation of Russia. You're a smart man, translate it yourself. And actually, I need Russian moderator, because you don't understand what is removed. If you again to disturb me to update the article I'll write you a complaint.

"Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации (часть четвертая)" от 18.12.2006 N 230-ФЗ (ред. от 23.05.2018) ГК РФ Статья 1259. Объекты авторских прав 6. Не являются объектами авторских прав: 2) государственные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и тому подобное), а также символы и знаки муниципальных образований;

You ignored my question. I asked why you deleted the photo I took. The photo is mine, I am its author. Or don't you like monuments and graves? Charoplet (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Charoplet: I am not an Administrator here, so I cannot fully evaluate your deleted files, tell you who nominated them and why, or undelete them. Which reason in {{PD-Russia}} would apply? I am hoping an Administrator can at least tell us who nominated them and why.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: who deleted your uploads. If the flags are public domain, he'll restore them, otherwise, he can explain you what was missing. --Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpgEdit

The photo owner/representative had sent email to OTRS, per OTRS ticket Ticket:2019013110001626 to be restored and annotated by Arthur Crbz. However it was deleted again.

After waiting and not seeing the restored photo, I couldn't find the photo file on wiki commons. I did find something that says the file had been closed/archived and I need to re-upload, which I did, which resulted in removal for duplication. Through recommendations I am posting here hoping you can assist. Thank you. Kievew (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


@Kievew: File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg was originally uploaded here 10 January 2019 by you. That file was deleted that day by @Hedwig in Washington as a copyvio. That file was restored 18 January 2019 by @Ankry due to alleged permission on iMDB, but deleted again by Ankry five minutes later due to "unclear copyright status". You started Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-01#File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg 16 January 2019. In that discussion, it was determined 23 January 2019 that we needed OTRS permission for the picture, as it had previously been published December 23, 2018. 28 January 2019 you reploaded the picture as File:Macau IMTF Award 2018.jpg and it was deleted by @Ronhjones a day later as a copyvio. Please explain exactly where you got advice to reupload, as the advice was incorrect. OTRS Ticket:2019013110001626 was created 2019-01-31 by a representative of Hongsheng Culture, an organization that claims copyright for the picture on behalf of a staff photographer. 31 January 2019 @Arthur Crbz restored that file per that ticket. 4 March 2019 @Jcb deleted that file because the permission was insufficient. 1 April 2019 you reploaded the picture as File:Wang Leehom Best Actor Award.jpg and it was again deleted by Ronhjones as a reuploaded copyvio. Again, please explain exactly where you got advice to reupload, as the advice was incorrect. 2 April 2019 you started Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-04#File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg. In that discussion, it was determined that we still needed complete OTRS permission. Having reviewed the perceding, I agree with Jcb that permission sent was for that picture, but did not address the fact that the picture is dw of the pictured "2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor" award, and we don't have permission on file for that award. Please have one of the organizations behind the "Golden Lotus Awards", Macau Film and Television Media Association or China International Cultural Communication Center, send such permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you, and stop reuploading.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you so much for looking into this. It's my first attempt to upload photo, and learning as I go. I have a hard time finding/re-finding things on wiki commons, including the messages where I learn about re-submit and re-upload. Will contact the organizations as recommended. Good learning experience, just wished it wasn't so complicated. Your assistance is much appreciated. Kievew (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kievew: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Found one of the messages that I misread. As I couldn't find the file, I took "file deleted" and "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it." as instruction to upload again, not realizing that all files are not deleted, only archived, as explained by other users.; not sure if you or someone can change the directions to make it clearer for new users not to re-upload. There were other pages I encountered which had instructions I mistook as to re-upload. Will share when I come across them again. Kievew (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kievew: I guess "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted." was insufficient.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Unfortunately I misunderstood it to mean that the file was deleted for a reason, so once I'm sure the copyright is legit, I'd have to upload it again, since the file was deleted/gone. Of course, now that I know the file is never really deleted, the message made more sense. However, I still can't seem to find the deleted file. Kievew (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kievew: Once an OTRS volunteer has accepted permission from Macau Film and Television Media Association or China International Cultural Communication Center, they will have the file restored. You must not upload the file again. You cannot see it here because it is hidden from your view here, but I am sure it is still on our servers.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk : File:Lotfi Sidirahal Portrait .jpg n'a pas à être supprimé. Une permission a été envoyé à ma demande.Edit

Bonjour, l'image File:Lotfi Sidirahal Portrait .jpg, trouvable sur le lien : est proposée à la suppression par deux agents. J'ai contacté le détendeur de droits qui a envoyé un mail suivant toutes les instructions pour avoir le droit de la publier : OTRS Ticket:2019041610007751 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 16:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC). Pourtant un deuxième agent l'a proposé à la suppression immédiate. C'est normal qu'elle soit sur plusieurs site web spécialisés, c'est un portrait pris en interne par l'architecte lui même, un portrait libre de droits qui circule sur le net. Merci de me répondre au plus vite. --Oumnia Benmansour (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk: File:Lotfi Sidirahal Portrait .jpg does not have to be deleted. A permission has been sent to my request. Hello, the image File:Lotfi Sidirahal Portrait .jpg, found on the link: is proposed for deletion by two agents. I contacted the regulator who sent an email following all the instructions to have the right to publish it: OTRS Ticket: 2019041610007751 has been received regarding the file (s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 16:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC). Nevertheless a second agent proposed it to the immediate suppression. It is normal that it is on several specialized website, it is a portrait taken internally by the architect himself, a free portrait of rights circulating on the net. Thank you to answer me as soon as possible.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Oumnia Benmansour: If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 175 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey there. I'm looking to get up update to File:The_Non_Sequitur_Show.jpg, the copyright holder has sent you an email, and i'm waiting for this file to be verified and authenticated as a right to be used. Currently its in the twilight "awaiting" zone.

Please help? AgnosticAussie (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@AgnosticAussie: That filename is related to Ticket:2019042610007741, received three days ago UTC. If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 175 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


I need some help here. Permission has send by the one who bought the negatives to Estate, since photographer died in 1983 with no inheritor. What shall we do in this case? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Very probably the rights passed to the Estate. In Italy, the owner of the negatives is also the copyright holder, but this doesn't appear in Malta copyright law. You've to see what the selling contract with the Estate says, because they might have retained the copyright. If the contract is lost or has never existed, an email confirming the transfer of rights from the Estate will be necessary. --Ruthven (msg) 15:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Rang Saint-Prime.jpgEdit

File:Rang Saint-Prime.jpg has a OTRS pending template about to expire. However, many other files from the same collection uploaded the same day have the OTRS ticket 2018102210010511. (Apparently, other files from the collection uploaded on different days have other tickets). Can someone please check if the omission of this file is because the sender of the permissions did not include it in any ticket or because a permission was received but it was not not added to the description page? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is almost 80 files in that ticket, but not this one. If there are other tickets, please let me know. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


The license used is CC BY-SA 2.0 Germany, citing this source, but the source is inaccurate. ticket:2008042410024381 can show the accuracy of the authorization. Also, I uploaded more re-scanned copies into Category:Wolfgang Händler with CC BY-SA 4.0. George Ho (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi colleagues,
I would like to know whom the above mentioned ticket actually requires to be mentioned as the author/copyright-holder. I've found a number of images, such as File:Robert Cramer 2015.jpg and File:Liliane Maury Pasquier 2015.jpg for example, which state "author=Inconnu" (unknown) in the description, despite the fact that the EXIF data for these images clearly state that "" is the name to be credited. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: The attribution requested by {{}} is "". Please use that or post on Template   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

Someone with access to the general Commons queue, please check this ticket and this deletion request. I do not understand what (s)he wants exactly. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC) using images from thereEdit

Hello, website, which is official website for Government of Macedonia use this license "The content of this website can be published with citation of source and without special permission.", but I would like to know it is clear enough for uploading images on Commons or not? --Ehrlich91 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ehrlich91: This question would be better answered on the Copyright Village Pump. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for your assistance --Ehrlich91 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


These three images listed below were recently deleted for lacking proper permissions. I believe that proper permissions were submitted, but there was some trouble connecting them to the appropriate uploads. Could anyone help me resolve this situation? Thanks!

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

File:NZ PM Jacinda Ardern - Kirk HargreavesCCC.jpgEdit

File:NZ PM Jacinda Ardern - Kirk HargreavesCCC.jpg is currently stuck at awaiting OTRS verification of permission before it can be promoted. There may be a little and the promotion may be denied. Could someone please check the status of the image? MER-C 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Federal Reserve banksEdit

I am seeking clarification on the contents of ticket:2007061110000679 as it applies to works by the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks. When the ticket was first added to {{PD-USGov-Federal Reserve}} in 2007, the template specified "work of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System". In 2016, the template was changed to read "a work of the Federal Reserve Bank or one of the twelve Federal Reserve branch banks which are owned by the Fed". This is a substantive change (see w:Structure of the Federal Reserve System). A number of A few images that use this template, including File:Birmingham-Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Birmingham Branch Office.jpg, are works of one of the twelve regional banks. Does the original OTRS ticket specify the Board of Governors only, or does it also cover the twelve regional banks? (I have also started a discussion about this at Template talk:PD-USGov-Federal Reserve.) Wikiacc (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (edit 19:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

@Wikiacc: It refers only to the Board. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


I have just moved Ticket#2019051510007395 to the general Commons queue. Please ping me if someone can get the issue fixed! --QEDK (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


We need help from an OTRS agent in COM:UDR#File:Fani affected areas from sky.jpg concerning this template and the underlying ticket validity. I had already pinged the OTRS agent who has added the ticket to the template, but no response from them. Ankry (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: What's the issue? --QEDK (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: The question is: how to verify whether this template (with ticket:2017091610169018) is valid to a photo made in May 2019 if the template is added to the photo by a non-OTRS-member user? We should not allow adding this template to arbitrary photos. My basic doubt is that the license established in September 2017 cannot legally cover photos that did not exist at that time. But as I do not know what the ticket is about (a license or something else?) I cannot take a decission in UDR. Ankry (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The remit is simple, as long as the picture was published in the following channels:
Extended content

Facebook: CMO Odisha ( ) Naveen Patnaik ( ) Commerce and Transport Department, Government of Odisha ( ) Twitter: CMO Odisha ( ) Naveen Patnaik ( ) Commerce and Transport Department, Government of Odisha ( ) Youtube: CMO Odisha ( ) Instagram: Naveen Patnaik ( )

It is eligible under CC-BY-4.0 International. From my examination, that is what the license release stipulates and given the unconditional nature of the release, applies retroactively and into the future (until revoked), as long as the picture is from the above mentioned channels. --QEDK (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: thanks, undeleted. I think that we could avoid this problem if the above-mentioned sources are listed some way in the template. Ankry (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)