Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard header translation[edit]

For translate header of this Noticeboard page, please see Template:OTRS Noticeboard/header. --Kaganer (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifications requests[edit]

Since verifications requests are everywhere, I started this page IAW this suggestion. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

I really hope this isn't me being anglocentric, but it bothers me when someone writes about a foreign language ticket in English. I'll spend the time reading the post, searching the OTRS system, finding the image, etc only find that I can't handle the ticket due to my language capabilities (or lack thereof). I think we should encourage users to use the language they sent their ticket in on this noticeboard, to weed out those OTRS admins who are not best suited to respond to the ticket. Maybe a friendly note at the top, reminding users they are welcome to communicate on this noticeboard in whatever language they like, and it would help the admins if they mention what language the ticket is in from the get go. I guess it isn't the end of the world if I run across a ticket I can't handle due to language, but it seems like a waste of volunteer resources (i.e. my time). -Andrew c (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Template:LangSwitch to the intro and translated the welcome message to German, I also asked German users to post their requests in German. Maybe some other agents can translate the intro to their native language. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 09:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Finnish translation, and also noted the multilinguality in the English version too. Perhaps the edit notice should be translated too, though? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I can translate to German later. LangSwitch should work there too, right? -- ShaggeDoc talk? 10:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it will work. Since the editnotice is on a mediawiki page (and only editable by administrators) feel free to leave it on my talk page and I'll add it. Thanks everybody, for translating these things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Header[edit]

Do you think it would be a good idea to add something to the header regarding wait time? Something like "If you are posting in regards to a permission e-mail you sent yourself, and have not yet received a response, please understand that we can be backlogged at times, especially for non-English requests. Please do not post about an unanswered ticket of yours until it has been at least 14 days since you sent it." 14 days is a number I came up with based on the current backlog. We could change it based on the backlog, or just make everyone wait 2 weeks or whatever. But I think we get enough requests here about unanswered tickets that it may be helpful to from the get go ask people to wait longer before posting. People shouldn't be able to "bump" their tickets in front of dozens of others just because they post on this noticeboard. -Andrew c (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it might also be good to ask for more volunteers. But definitely revised expectations are in order if you estimate two weeks delay. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a blanket statement about non-English requests is inappropriate and a bit anglocentric. I know the French and Dutch permission queues are normally real short and handled quickly, while others have a backlog going back months-Andrew c (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and would suggest a general FAQ section, including "I got an email that says 'Thank you for your email' and nothing else". Stifle (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An FAQ section/page does sound like the most sensible option. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First attempt done at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/FAQ. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Should we add a link to the header?-Andrew c (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that now. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language (2)[edit]

Hi, I noticed that people often reply to a request by saying the ticket is in a language they do not speak and it should be handled by someone who does speak the language. Nothing happens afterwards. The person who requested help cannot take extra steps, but we can. If you cannot answer a request, please look up who can in the volunteer list on otrs-wiki and refer the request. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

certainly a good approach for rarely-spoken languages but i don't really think this is an efficient way to, say, find a french- or russian-speaking volunteer. btw, we could make some use of http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&basecat=Commons+OTRS+volunteers&basedeep=1&mode=cs&tagcat=User+ru&tagdeep=1&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en (covers 165 otrs volunteers on commons, excluding those without babel/language cat). —Pill (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I once more want to express my concerns and urge all agents to act at once if an unknown language is requested. I would like to point out the extend of the problem with examples. See this version of the noticeboard from today, December 11 2011, [1]. Note that there is an unanswered Italian request from November 28 and an unanswered Polish request from December 5, that have been left unanswered for days. An agent even says they need an Italian speaker, and the effort seems to stop there. I therefor once more want to express my concerns and urge all agents to act at once if a language is requested outside German, English or French. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive after how many days?[edit]

I just noticed that, although the page header says "Recent sections with no replies for 15 days will be automatically archived", it looks like Miszabot is set to archive after just 7 days. Either the bot instruction or the human-readable header should be corrected so they match. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to 7 in the header—the noticeboard was getting a little clogged up with stale threads a while ago, so I changed the bot instructions but neglected the header. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving only resolved sections[edit]

I would like to change archiving to {{Autoarchive resolved section|age=2|archive='User talk:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/((year))'}} so that only sections marked as resolved get archived. Are there any objections? --Krd 19:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if that's possible: please implement it. —Pill (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done for testing. --Krd 17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

I've marked several sections resolved so they'll archive in a bid to tidy the page up a little. Could I encourage folks to use {{Section resolved}} for threads that are resolved or have gone stale so we can focus on the ones that need attention? And of course, feel free to revert my taggings if you disagree. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can; I'll use it more often if I see it's needed. :) Thanks for cleaning up! Trijnsteltalk 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2013040210010711[edit]

To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard. Is this the place I confirm the permission? I here by confitm. --Svedjebruk (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it means. That's aimed at editors or potential re-users who want an OTRS agent to check that the ticket is legitimate. The permission is confirmed in the sense you're thinking of if an OTRS agent has put {{PermissionOTRS}} on the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News on undeletion requests of validly and repeatedly declared photographs[edit]

Despite numerous postings of permissions by photographer and the subject (commissioning rights-holder), there appears to be no response from "Cindy" or anyone else about the undeleting of the uploaded files now the commissioning subjects permissions have been confirmed under Irish, European and International copyright law. Are you intent at criminalising normal copyright processes, when a subject makes an agreement with a photographer they ask, recruit or take images for them; by calling into question the legal process of rights transfer in the commissioning process - are you intent on criminalising the photographer who sold rights of their work under the commission or the subject who bought the rights under the process? The person who commissions or buys the rights for the purpose of media and promotional use has the rights.

If the context and reason behind rights is not in question, and permissions given - what is the hold-up? Have added discussions and details (except removing my office, the subjects and photographers @ in e-mail addresses and replacing with (at) in the discussions). See: My Talk Page AspieNo1 (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget that permissions (OTRS) are handled by volunteers with limited spare time. --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Granted; but into third week now ... would it help if the subject of the article who gives his permissions gives it in Flemish Dutch? How does that work? Is there a Dutch form of the permissions page I can give him a link to? AspieNo1 (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ticket:2013081810002407 and ticket:2013083010014943 are related to this. Lots of emails... I suggest you contact Cindy. I'll email her. Trijnsteltalk 14:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Damon, sorry to hear that there is still confusion with the licensing of these images. Quite simply stated, the photographer refuses to release the material under an allowable license. Both the photographer and you are in agreement that: "[the work] is an edited version of the pictures bought by Damon Matthew Wise from [Angles] Photographic studio, Henry Street Limerick and commissioned for home for promotional, publications and election materials in the elections." You repeatedly asserted your copyright as:
"© 2009 Angel Studio for Damon Matthew Wise/Federation Trust (Damon Matthew, Chair) All Rights Reserved - we reserve the right to grant permission for promotion, information and appropriate social media contents use in relation to the subject of Autism/disABILITY."
  • The photographer repeatedly asserted that you are able to use the images, but only on Wikipedia to be used in your article. I explained the conflict between her desire to limit the work and the purposes for which Wikipedia is designed. When I asked for the allowable license under which she wishes to release the work, she asserted that you have "full copyright", while also limiting the use to only you and Wikipedia. I continued to pursue a release under an allowable license to which she replied "I am happy to allow a licence for mr.wise, my question is can I limit it so that it is just for him?" and "Can I allow this license as a once off to Mr. Wise? I wouldn't like to have this license freely available, it could open a can of worms so to speak, with other customers." When all is said and done, she refused to provide a licensing agreement. It is clear that both you and Diane see the project as a promotional outlet, thereby meeting the conditions under which she originally released the copyright, i.e., "commissioned for home for promotional, publications and election materials in the elections." However, Wikipedia is not a promotional outlet. I realize that this must be very frustrating for you, but content available on Wikimedia projects cannot be limited or restricted for use. In order to be retained, it must be available for both commercial and derivative work by anyone. There's really no other way to say this. Wikipedia content is designed for reuse, therefore, the media needs to be released under a free license in order for it to be included in Wikimedia projects. The copyright owner refuses to release the work under a free license. While we sincerely appreciate the offer to donate materials, if the photographer is unable to release the content under an allowable license, we will not be able to retain the work. I wish it could have worked out differently for you (and for us), but our hands are tied. In all regards, I hope you and your family are doing well. Please note also that from a personal viewpoint, I think the work that you are doing to support persons with disabilities is outstanding. If at any time Diane changes her mind and agrees to release the material under an allowable license, we will be more than happy to restore the work. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from communications between the three rights holders that permissions are for ALL the images from the photoshoot of Damon Matthew Wise and Karen Christine Wise are available for use in relation to content about the subjects - if you read the message, she cannot have mandated _ALL_ of her photos ever done be subject to the same open licensing - these images were specifically arranged open for distribution and sold as such, but this does not automatically extend to EVERY PHOTO SHE EVER DID. That is what she posted to Damon, and I have had copied accordingly. Please release only these pictures subject to the permissions - and not require all photographs released AspieNo1 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"All pictures are subject to Irish Creative Commons License, with rights and origin attributed" AspieNo1 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that they appear to have is creative commons license requires attribution of publishing. Diane Published into a forum to Damon and Karen, which is available to all of us users in ICAAN. The issue is that who-ever used has to show what the image is and how it is attributable to the subject, and quote the origin of the copyright. That is all. I will attempt to mediate (again) with Damon, but I am pretty sure some people are not aware that copyright attribution and quotation are the norm in Creative Common License. This is what we all understand: All pictures are subject to Irish Creative Commons License, with rights and origin attributed. AspieNo1 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) This is how the images are listed - provided the context of listings on websites, and the rightholders are attributed, nobody has problem.[reply]

Similarly photographs from News Media, with permissions to use are available under Fair Use plus quoting source principal also have to be stated "With kind permission of National Library of Ireland", "permission to reproduce by arrangement with the Irish National Archives", "Donated to the State by the estate of Colman Doyle" Or "By permission through Irish Newspapers Archives" followed by {Name of Publication, editors, authours and photographers attribution, date, copyright notices etc].

Myself and others have been checking our archive websites and tags confirm with instructions given for their use accordingly the source and right-holders have to be accredited for any use.

Nobody can be expected to give ALL Rights unconditional for all images in an open-ended rights to all images by all the copyright-holders use without attribution as that IS ILLEGAL. They can only give rights on a case per case basis for particular image, or catalogue of images in a collection on a theme. The photographers will not allow ALL their works to be open to everyone - only certain image or images which have been arranged to be freely available, if they give valid attribution to the right-holders. AspieNo1 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC) AspieNo1 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Just for the record, I do not think anyone thinks Wiki as a promotional outlet, but a public awareness and information system. It occurred to me and others the shear volume of work in the archives sitting and doing nothing would best be used being available to the public raising awareness of autism and disability in Ireland. If anything, it was all those people like me who said - let this come out of closed members groups into the public arena - people ought to have free, unrestricted access to information - as a result been raising one issue after another checking facts, looking up references, articles, news coverage and asking permissions off the rights-holders, trying to get the best articles with balanced views, informations, sources and references and appropriate language and content for the subject. AspieNo1 (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Coup Images[edit]

Good morning!! Can you please tell me the status of the copyrighted pictures for the Beau Coup page? I'm not sure if I am allowed to reload the pictures. Amherst Records sent permissions an email allowing the pictures to be used on Beau Coup's page but I haven't heard anything as yet. Thank you for your time!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mmcard59 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2007092710010598[edit]

Could a French speaking agent please check if this ticket is valid? Natuur12 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12: apart from the fact that it's forwarded (I think that's probably OK for a ticket from 2007), it looks like they are authorizing any images photos from the site under an {{Attribution}} license. I don't believe this would apply in perpetuity, so should probably only apply to images available on that site before 2007-09-27. Also, it should probably be verified that the site owned the copyright to the photo in question. Does this clarify matters enough? Storkk (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Note: the ticket's historyt specifically mentions photos of candidates in an election and their successors, but I don't think that's a valid release Storkk (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2017072510011594 Request for archived correspondence[edit]

Could you please provide me with the archived correspondence for ticket #2017072510011594 Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2017072510011594 File:Life around jungle.jpg File URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Life_around_jungle.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopyEditor14063‎ (talk • contribs) 06:30, April 6, 2018‎ (UTC)

@CopyEditor14063: Sorry, we could not due to our privacy policy. However, you may converse with the uploader User:Pallabkabir.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any specific questions about the affected files, articles or pages this ticket may or may not discuss, we may be able to provide confirmimation of license statuses, archived copyright releases, or similar confirmations. We are however unable to provide quotes, partial or in full, from archived messages. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White space[edit]

Hi,

The notification about the archive-bot causes a lot of white space (at least in FireFox). Would some one be able to fix that? Ciell (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way better now, thanks! Ciell (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hi, It should be fixed now: Special:Diff/316223926. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 100% was just silly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innenaufnahmen aus Museum[edit]

Hallo, bei einem Wikipedia-Stammtisch mit Besuch des Kulturhistorischen Zentrums Westmünsterland (Artikelentwurf hier) hat uns das Museum erlaubt, Fotos von den Exponaten im Museum zu machen. Ich möchte eine Auswahl der Bilder in die Category:Kulturhistorisches Zentrum Westmünsterland hochladen. Im Hinblick auf die Mannheimer Geschichte mit ihren Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen möchte ich lieber auf Nummer sicher gehen und mir dies explizit vom Museum genehmigen lassen. Läuft das auch über OTRS, und falls ja, wie? Gibt es für diesen Fall auch eine E-Mail-Vorlage? Auch hier OTRS-pending-Vorlage verwenden? Wie gehe ich am besten vor? Besten Dank vorab für eure Antworten! --Watzmann Talk 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe im Folgenden, da Fotografien urheberrechtlich geschützter Werke als abgeleitete Werke gelten: [2] Atsme✍🏻📧 19:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für den Link. Allerdings geht es im konkreten Fall um ein rund 1000 Jahre als Parament, eine Urkunde aus dem Jahr 1752, Altarfiguren von 1717, ein Reliquiar aus dem 14. Jahrhundert, einen Altarschrank von 1750, ein Graduale aus dem 16. Jh., ... Das jüngste Objekt sind auf Büttenpapier gedruckte Tapeten aus dem frühen 18. Jahrhundert (ca. 1820er Jahre). Da müssten doch sämtliche Urheberrechtsfristen längst abgelaufen sein. --Watzmann Talk 20:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gern geschehen. Es scheint, dass Sie eine Freilassung aus dem Museum benötigen, die besagt, dass sie Ihnen am (Datum) die Erlaubnis erteilt haben, ihre Anzeige (Name?) Zu fotografieren, und dass sie keinerlei Rechte an den resultierenden Fotos von (Ihrem Namen) haben. Es muss von einem autorisierten Vertreter des Museums unterschrieben und per E-Mail an OTRS übermittelt werden. Bitten Sie sie, Ihnen eine Kopie ihrer Korrespondenz zukommen zu lassen, damit Sie die Ticket-Nr. Erhalten. Sie müssen außerdem eine CC-BY-SA 4.0-Lizenz ausfüllen, wenn Sie die Bilder hochladen. Daher habe ich einen Link zum englischen Formular bereitgestellt, den Sie online ausfüllen können. Es mag eine deutsche Version geben, aber ich konnte keine finden. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Ja, so in etwa hatte ich mir das vorgestellt, besten Dank. Wo bitte finde ich den angesprochenen Link zum englischen Formular? --Watzmann Talk 16:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template: [3]

Public summary of tickets[edit]

In a recent post, @Amakuru: makes a suggestion that I think is worth considering. Could we have public summaries for OTRS tickets? FredWalsh (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FredWalsh: tl;dr no, not really. OTRS tickets are considered non-public under the meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy. For that reason, OTRS volunteers are limited by the meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information in what public disclosures we can make about OTRS tickets, erring on the side of non-disclosure. We can, of course, use templates like {{OTRS permission}} and {{OTRS received}} to provide limited information about tickets, and OTRS volunteers should ensure that the file description page is accurate when they confirm permission for a file.
As far as what an OTRS template applies to, you should generally assume it applies only to the files it was placed on by an OTRS volunteer. Non-OTRS placement of OTRS permission is tagged by Special:AbuseFilter/69 and is visible in the article history. If a ticket applies to files other than those already existing on Commons, a custom license template wrapper should be created instead. In that case, we would be able to explain what criteria must be met for that template to apply. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if a permission is valid for one or a few images it should just be added to that or those image. If the permission is valid for a lot of images and they are not all uploaded then we should create a template for the photos like {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}} or {{BollywoodHungama}}. --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber and MGA73: thank you for clarifying the issues around it. It just seemed like a good idea that could help. FredWalsh (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that it would help, we just can't do it :) --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help to restore deleted files. Ticket 2019060210001172 and 2018100510004327.[edit]

Dear Noticeboard. Some days ago JuTa deleted to files which still not had permission from Commons although I have the copyright and have sent releasemails. Here is a copy of our conversation:

Hi Juta.Could you please restore the following File:Jesus_ved_den_syge_Pige._Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Tusch_og_Akvarel._Ca.1970.jpg, and File:Den_Barmhjertige_Samaritan._Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Tusch_med_turkis_Akvarel._ca_1980.jpg ...they belong to the article about the danish artist Elisa Maria Boglino, I am the owner of the copyright, and commons have signed papers about this- Arthur Crombez knows about it, and also Jcb , who might not be active anymore. If you have not recieved release mails from please help me to make new ones. I do remember very little about writing in wikipedia so please forgive me , for not doing it wright. I also beg you to look at the other pictures in the article which still not have persmission. I have uploadet all the pictures in that article , and I am the owner of the copyright. Please write Arthur Crbz about it , if he is still active. Thank you.User:HNBS

Hi, there was no confirmation for them by OTRS stuff. Pleas ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for these cases. The Ticket numbers were 2019060210001172 and 2018100510004327. PS: You are very likely not the copyright holder, as you are not the painter of those painting. Misses Boglimo died in 2002 this makes her work cpyrighted (by her heirs) until end of 2072 in most countries. --JuTa 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I am the heir, I am her grandchild and I own the copyright together with my sister and uncle. About 2 years ago I sent a lot of signed papers to commons about this. I am the writer of the article and I have uploadet all the files in the article and as you can see nearly all of them have permission, some time ago I did upload some new ones and some of them still miss permission. I hope you can help me to get permission to the files that still not have permission. Arthur Crombez helped me a lot with all this at that time, he knows about the Copyright. Thank youCiopone. (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into this one. Ciell (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HNBS: ,
If you upload an image as a new file, but want to use an older permission, that is no problem. But please ask an agent to tag the images with the old permission number, because otherwise they will get deleted. We tag permission per File, not per category, and with 60 million+ images, there is no way for us OTRS agents to keep track: we need users asking us, for instance through this here noticeboard.
I restored the three deleted images, please check is they are all back and none were left deleted. Ciell (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ciell: Thank you so very much:)It has been so difficult for me to work with all this, and I was so happy it was over, and then theese files were deleted. Today actually I sent this releasemail to Noticeboard. ticket:[Ticket#2020073010006511]..I dont know if there are still some files in the article which still have no permission?Thank you , once again...I am very happy it was solved.Ciopone. (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following 3 files, belonging to the article, miss permission?: De Gode Gerninger. Elisa Maria Boglino. Foto af Fresko (oprindeligt i farver) , ødelagt under bombardement. 1928.jpg( was destroyed during ww2) ,Triptykon. Halshugningen af Johannnes Døberen. Elisa Maria Boglino. Ødelagt under bombardement.Olie på træ.1930.jpg ( also destroyed) and this little painting: En Pige. Elisa Maria Boglino. Olie på lærred. ca 1926.jpg If you have the possibillity to find an save theese ones ..it would be nice. I have mentioned them in the releasemail. yours sincerelyCiopone. (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:OTRS/Release of big collections[edit]

Hi,

Per the question on the Noticeboard, I've translated the Dutch guideline for releasing big collection via OTRS and Commons. I've communicated it on the OTRS mailing list yesterday but did not yet receive input from other agents, so it is still first draft.

Feel free to use the talk page, discuss, and add to it, (and of course to correct my Dutch-English, I promise I will not be offended if you do).

Ciell (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Grace Wan.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ magyar ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ français ∙ македонски ∙ slovenščina ∙ русский ∙ suomi ∙ 日本語 ∙ +/−
File:Grace Wan.jpg which you uploaded has been tagged with {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the Volunteer Response Team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the Volunteer Response Team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org now. Please quote the file name ("File:Grace Wan.jpg") in your email. At the same time, please leave a message at the VRT noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up or contact a VRT member directly.

WorldWiki22 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I approve this image use for Wikimedia Common.
WorldWiki22 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Worldwiki2209:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WorldWiki22: That's not how it works.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WorldWiki22 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)WorldWiki22WorldWiki22 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the requirement to submit this image can you show me how it works?
WorldWiki22 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)WorldWiki22WorldWiki22 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WorldWiki22: Please have the copyright holder post permission or send it via VRT, and see COM:SIGN. I found and replied to Ticket:2022072310002678.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Blaize Rego: all photos in the article the creator already granted permission: [Ticket#2023050510002212[edit]

Moved to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. June 8th, 2023. Thanks for restoring photos of Rev. Rego, even for VRT verification. Again, the agent is asking the same questions about copyright and who the creator was, when already Fr. Fernandes had filled out and responded to the tickets. In two of the grp.png files, I had joined all the 3 photos so that it would take less space and for page alignment in the article of all the photos sent to me by the photographer creator, Fr. Fernandes. Do we need to fill out the same reply submitted already, again? Thanks Setwikirec0 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you desist and allow the VRT to correspond with the actual copyright holder without responding and bringing doubts in between. VRT has a standard procedure to verify ownership of images and we need to be extremely cautious with that. This is a matter of copyright. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=772303311"