User talk:Sphilbrick

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 3 days. For the archive overview, see /Archive.

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, SPhilbrick!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Uncategorized[edit]

Image:National highway 2.svg is uncategorized since 3 June 2009. DONE
Image:Taiwan Highway 1.svg is uncategorized since 6 June 2009. DONE
Image:Tiffany Hayes UConn.jpg was uncategorized on 27 September 2009. DONE
Image:LaPlace pdf excerpt.jpg was uncategorized on 19 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Petra Cetkovska serving.jpg was uncategorized on 2 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC) DONE[reply]
Image:Caroline Wozniacki New Haven Open Finals.jpg was uncategorized on 2 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC) DONE[reply]
Image:Caroline Wozniacki New Haven Open Finals Champion.jpg was uncategorized on 2 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC) DONE[reply]
Image:Breanna Stewart at UConn Stanford game.jpg was uncategorized on 22 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC) DONE[reply]
Image:Giuseppe Penone The Hidden Life Within.jpg was uncategorized on 23 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC) DONE[reply]
Image:Stephanie Dolson Blocking Nneka Ogwumike.jpg was uncategorized on 24 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC) DONE[reply]
Image:Stewart MOP plaque.jpg was uncategorized on 14 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I added a cat 5 minutes after uploading, almost a day before this message was delivered.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing map[edit]

	Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Munion's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

TUSC token df95512a6a39383908e28c202127b237[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Comment[edit]

When you upload an image from flickr, you MUST correct give the right flickr link to the picture. If not, the flickr review bot will say your image has "no source" and it could be deleted within 7 days. So, in your case, you gave the link after the flickrbot marked it and said this image has no source, but you didn't order a new {{Flickrreview}} so that the flickrreview bot will mark it. (by removing the failed flickr review mark) That was what I did here . I even said "order a new flickrreview."

On cropping images, its Not a problem at all to upload cropped images from flickr to Commons. I've done it many times. If you crop an image, the cropped image file you uploaded will just fall into the "flickr images needing human review" category. So, an Admin or a trusted license reviewer will mark it later. You just must make sure that the flickr license is acceptable for Commons with no "non-Commercial" or "no-Derivative" use restrictions on the CC license. Your image above was CC BY SA Generic which is acceptable and I could have marked it....but I prefer if another reviewer marks the photo. The important license is the one at the flickr source. Here is one cropped image I uploaded...but as you can see from the original flickr source, I cropped the image and Admin Turelio marked it later. Mr. Twolan agreed to change the license from 'All Rights Reserved' to "CC BY SA Generic" for an article on this former Star Trek Voyager actor.

File:Robert Duncan McNeill by David Twolan.jpg

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complete answers, that's helpful.--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No problem. I should add that another common flickr license that is acceptable to Commons is "CC BY Generic" (called 'Attribution Creative Commons' on flickr) like this flickr Source I uploaded the image below with Mr. Campana's permission after he changed the license from "All Rights Reserved":
File:Tutankhamun’s chest by John Campana.jpg

Now you know the two main acceptable and popular flickr licenses. There is a third one below--"no known copyright restrictions"--but its mainly given out by educational, government and state institutions. See this flickr source What it means is that the institution believes the image is out of copyright protection.

File:John t scopes.jpg & File:Johnny Bench circa 1980.jpg

Good Luck uploading images from flickr, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional points. I just made arrangements last night with the photographer for additional photos, so do plan to add a few more. I see the two acceptable licenses, will probably be using the CC BY SA Generic in these cases. I will add a direct link to the Flickr image. I trust that the bot finds its way to the image by itself (or triggered by the upload) the first time, and the time to use {{Flickrreview}} is if I make a mistake and need to have it show up again.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. The flickrreview is triggered at upload but if you make a mistake and it says "image not found" (likely because you didn't give a flickr link to the source image), then you have to type in a new {{Flickrreview}} But if the bot says "human review needed" for cropped images then someone will come along and mark the image...as someone did for my uploaded photo of Robert Duncan McNeill. All you have to do is just wait in the second case. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Morning Sunshine's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exa-fae-05-1.jpg[edit]

Hey SP, I saw you added an OTRS insufficient tag to File:Exa-fae-05-1.jpg. I took a look at the OTRS filing, and it seemed clear enough that the image was being released under CC-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. Just wondering what you felt was insufficient about the filing. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 01:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file name for which permission was supplied did not match the file name that had been uploaded. I sent back a query to tie down the loose ends. I see now they have followed up with confirmation, so I will change the tag.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, gotcha, thanks for the action. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:IBEI Logo.jpg[edit]

I, could you pls add the license according the OTRS-ticket to the image. thx. --Ju Ta 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I missed that. Now done.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you took credit for my Image[edit]

MILITARY SURPLUS.JPG Is my work it took a year to get the catologe alone. I have all the photos from that shot... Do you have any. NO caused may work. That's very sad

Andy2159 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

===PLAGIARIZED or STOLEN===

This is my work I can prove it because I have the originals and many photographs from that shoot.

I can prove this and I can also prove that the image you took it from is my image called Cw1850.pdf.

Please explain how you can get away with removing other peoples name from their work and changing the copyrights to include false and misleading information.

Can you explain why you did this? Are you ready to tell the truth about this?

AndyAndy2159 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever this is, it is discussed at Commons:Help_desk#staff_member_taking_credit_for_work_belonging_to_a_contributor. Please stay there. --Saibo (Δ ∇) 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS help[edit]

Thanks Sphilbrick! I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sphilbrick, I got a question for you. Can you figure out where File:Maradona at 2012 GCC Champions League final.JPG might come from? It's quite a stretch to assume that the photo was in fact taken by a user from Abu Dhabi who likes Nazi Germany. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found it, but I did find something that lends credence to the possibility is is legitimate. I believe the photo at this site was taken the same day. (same cross, same empblems on shirt). That article discusses his departure from the Al Wasl club which is a UAE club, so he was in Abu Dhabi at the time of the photo on Commons.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more data points, in opposite directions. Some recent additions from the editor are File:Abu Dhabi Municipality BAD HABITS FINES POSTER.JPG and File:Phone Booth UAE.JPG, both taken with an iPhone. In contrast, the Maradona photo was taken by a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which is a popular, but not cheap camera, running close to 2 grand. Would someone with access to such a fine camera be using an iPhone to submit pictures? Well perhaps, because File:2012 GCC Champions League Final.JPG and File:Wooden Bucket of a well.JPG are both sourced to the same person, and both taken by a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. The first of those is taken at the same event that Maradonna attended, so I'm thinking it is quite plausible.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Cory White Angle New.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cory White Angle New.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarkMysoe[edit]

User:MarkMysoe is not the author of these photos: File:Kwasi Danquah III (autographs).jpg and File:Kwasi Danquah III (performing).jpg. He stole them from two differents facebook accounts just like he did many times in the past. There you go a recent example from English wikipedia:en:File:Tinchy Stryder & Javier (Chicharito) Hernandez.jpg. He was blocked in May 2012[1] on English wikipedia for persistent copyvio photo uploading under false self claim, now is doing the same on commons. Please look how he started his contribuion on commons[2], he disgustingly lied about the authorship of three photos, but I found out that these photos were a screencaps from a youtube vidoes and nominated them for speedy deletion. Please recheck all his contributions, I wouldn't be surprised if he created several e-mail accounts to send a permission to OTRS for photos he uploaded.--Oleola (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these permissions which were sent for the photos he uploaded suspicious for you? Just look at Ruff_Sqwad_Photo log. I found a real source of this file(myspace profile which is inactive from about three years[3]), and nominated this file for speedy on 28 May, but just a day later a permission came on OTRS, so quickly. As I said the profile is inactive since 2009, so he couldn't speak with a person who published this photo on myspace, therefore there is a question who sent this permission? The only answer that comes to mind is that User:MarkMysoe impersonated the author of a photo.--Oleola (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't claim to be the author of the photos, he claimed to be a representative of the owners. I'll contact him, and if the answers aren't satisfactory, will start looking at prior submissions as there are quite a few, and none have triggered issues until now.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

I placed an OTRS template on your userpage to avoid confusion. For a second, I wasn't sure if you were a member of the OTRS team. Keep up the good work. I saw you OTRS an image of Rajiv Gandhi. That was an excellent color photo as Commons has no real good colour photos of this late Indian PM. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the ticket doesn't apply to these 2 images, however:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the template to my user page. I probably should have known to do that myself. I will look at those two images shortly.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid that I can't help here as I don't know anything about this museum. I live in Western Canada, and have never heard of this gallery in Zimbabwe. Sorry. --Leoboudv (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lieros Hellen, The last six Days, mixed media on paper, 1985.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Sphilbrick (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permission Forwarded[edit]

Hi,

We have sent the permission for the following images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Holden_and_Chandran_Rutnam_while_shooting_The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Lucas_and_Chandran_Rutnam.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chandran_Rutnam_with_John_and_Bo_Derek.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anton_Wickremasinghe,_Chandran_Rutnam_and_Alfred_Hitchcock_at_the_Academy_Awards_in_Los_Angeles.jpeg

Regards.AsianFLS (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to address later today.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you posted about the time you sent in the permission, but I don't see them in the Commons queue in the last 24 hours. I'll keep looking.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found them.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the permission templates.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.AsianFLS (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIG logo[edit]

	Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Fma12's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

File:FreeFly Astronaut Project Logo and Space Patch.jpg[edit]

Please leave a comment at the deletion request you removed from the file page or the image may be accidentally deleted. --Denniss (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Harris Tweed image permissions[edit]

File:Stamping of Harris Tweed cloth.jpg doesn't currently have a licensing tag, was this one also {{Cc-by-sa 3.0}}? January (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I fixed 2 of the three but missed this one. Now done.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PJ Connecticut team photo 2008 cropped.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket question[edit]

I received an email from User:Davefoc about File:Chucko38crop.jpg. Is this covered by the same OTRS ticket as File:Chucko35.JPG? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 09:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that permission statement covers both. My apologies if I missed adding the permission tag to the second image. If you can undelete it, I'll rectify it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. INeverCry 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the permission tag, and changed the license to match that specified in the email.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Gandy with Mercedes Gullwing.jpg[edit]

I restored this and added the OTRS ticket. Can you check and make sure this image is covered by that ticket? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I sent an email to the editor here. --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with this. I sent the OTRS permission form to David Gandy on 11 Dec 2012; there were 2 images attached to my original message. He immediately forwarded the permission back to me with both images still attached. I forwarded all of the above to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" on 11 Dec 2012. If you are unable to locate these in your Inbox, please let me know if I need to re-send or start over. Thanks,LauraLeeT (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the email created by you, sent to Conor Clinch and forwarded to us. It has two attachments, one of which is a jpg, the other of which is an html attachment, which is just the email content itself. If the gullwing image was attached, it was not by the time it reached us.

It is not critical that the image be attached, however, the permissions statement referred to the two attached photos. If it had referred to the images by name, I could process it without the attachment, but I cannot process it without some indication that the permission relates to the gullwing image.

I have a suggestion, but I'll send it via email.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just responded to your email but think I should have responded here instead. Thank you for sending the permission form, however, it refers to the wrong image. Here's an abbreviated review of the three photos of David Gandy in question... On 11 Dec 2012, David Gandy provided permission to use his two photos: (a) Mercedes Gullwing and (b) Jaguar. On 18 Jan 2013, Conor Clinch provided permission to use his photo of David Gandy from London Fashion Week. Conor has no connection to the two photos of David with cars. Does that help? LauraLeeT (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted it out. The correct permissions for the two images with vehicles is Template:OTRS ticket--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been so helpful, I need your assistance on setting up a gallery. I've seen them for other wiki pages, but not sure who "approves" the set-up--or what the "next step" should be. Here is the link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/David_Gandy

I am not familiar with how galleries work, or even what the purpose is in Commons. I see the gallery option used in Wikipedia articles on may occasions. I'm not the biggest fan, I think an article ought to have a fair number of images, but I think it works best when they are interleaved into the article and the images are supportive of paragraphs of text.

That said, I can imagine their use would be appropriate in some cases, for example,t he literal case of a gallery. If we have an article about some gallery, it ought to follow the model I just described, but if we literally have dozens or hundreds of high quality images from a gallery, after using the best to complement the text, I can imagine that a number might be placed in a gallery below the main article. Similarly for an article about a beautiful location, or a concept such as sunsets, it might make sense to include a large handful of nice photos in a gallery at the bottom.

I use Commons extensively, but only as a repository for images that are to be used in Wikipedia articles.

In the case of the Gandy images, I think they would be best used one at a time in a well-written article.

I may not be the best person to ask, you could try at the Village Pump:

Commons:Village_pump

where you are more apt to find editors who work at Commons more regularly.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. I've fixed up the David Gandy gallery and created the needed main category, Category:David Gandy. I've told Laura I'm available to help with this. INeverCry 01:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Glad we got this sorted out.--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Federal flag West Indies Federation.jpg[edit]

File:Federal flag West Indies Federation.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fry1989 ^eh? 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jo Becker at Harvard.jpg[edit]

You added the template to this file that says insufficient explicit permissions had been obtained from the image author (Martha Stewart, although probably not THE Martha Stewart) for its use on Wikipedia. I was the editor who uploaded it, after obtaining what I thought were adequate permissions from Ms. Stewart and Harvard for its use, and I was carbon-copied on a e-mail affadvavit that Wikimedia sent to Ms. Stewart, but if she has replied to that e-mail, I was not copied on her response. There are some questions of journalistic integrity (my own) that I I would like to see resolved by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Thanks for your attention. - No intel here (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in my response that the permission statement didn't meet our requirements, and I filled out a statement that would meet our requirements. I haven't yet received a response, as far as I know.

In a subsequent email on 1 March, you confirmed the name you were using for correspondence, and a cc went to that name.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lineated Woodpecker RWD2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for letting me know this is really a Crimson-crested Woodpecker. I have corrected this, other similar photos I submitted, and the related files that linked to these files. DickDaniels (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image version confusion of File:Pandit Ram Kishore Shukla and Motilal Vora inaugurating a beam bridge on river son in Madhya Pradesh in 1986.JPG[edit]

Good morning, please guide regarding my upload of recent cropped version of File:Pandit Ram Kishore Shukla and Motilal Vora inaugurating a beam bridge on river son in Madhya Pradesh in 1986.JPG, in order to omit scanning errors at top right corner but still it is noticeable at right top corner, how is this ???? Please guide how to have the recent cropped file in use. Thank you

Nothing needs to be done. There was concern about whether it was yours to license, but it has been accepted.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David M Rosenthal on location in New York City.jpg[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, I've corrected the author entry for this image, as the uploader, who also seems to be the depicted, stated that — contrary to his entry at upload — the image had been shot by Joe Gallacher, which is in accordance to the image credit at http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3910959360/nm1270033. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your correction. I've noticed that the field "author" is potentially confusing. I guess we choose it because not everything is a photograph, but I wonder if we would be better served to have an information photo template, and information other template, where the first would use "photographer" and the second would use "artist" or "author".--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be worth a consideration. --Túrelio (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florin Gardos.jpg[edit]

File:Florin Gardos.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Oleola (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott Allie.jpg[edit]

Hey Sphilbrick. I was wondering if you would object to me photshopping the image a tad to brighten it just a bit. If not, no problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started to say that I needed permission from the copyright holder, but I realize the licensing means that isn't true. In fact you don't need my permission, but I appreciate you asking. Go for it, and I will inform Scott.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NCAA Women's basketball Tournament invitations by state 2011.svg[edit]

This image needs to be corrected because it was based on an erroneous table in the underlying Wikipedia article. Until my edit there today, the underlying table incorrectly counted Saint Francis (PA) in New York instead of Pennsylvania, and UALR (Arkansas-Little Rock) in Alabama instead of Arkansas. NY & AL each need to be reduced by one; PA & AR each need to be increased by one. I'd do it myself, but I don't have an SVG editor. --RBBrittain (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will fix it shortly.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it[edit]

File:Another Celia Sawyer 2013 Cool 10 Project.jpg I got an email from Ms. Sawyer's people and we are going to replace the image with one that is easier to licence. We will probably just overwrite and then have the first one deleted. That way we can use the same ticket number and file page. I hope this is ok.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, No. Will expand.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting an old image with a new image should be done only for minor changes. For example, in the message just above this one, an editor noted that four of the state colors needed to be updated.

If you look at the history of the image File:NCAA Women's basketball Tournament invitations by state 2011.svg, you can see that it is essentially the same image, with some minor tweaks. In the case of changes such as cropping, or fixing the colors, or other similar minor changes, it is fine to upload a new version. However, if the picture is a different picture, it should be uploaded as a new image. It needs a new permission statement, which is a pain, but not hard. The old permission statement referred to a specific photo, taken by a specific photographer, on a specific day. It cannot be used for another image.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Either I or her people will upload a new one then. Should I post the file name to your talk page and/or the OTRS notice board? I don't know the easiest way for the system to handle it. A new image should be available within a day or so. I did mention that they can create an account but will assume that any pre-published images would still need OTRS. Perhaps a ticket number or template to cover all of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The noticeboard is for investigations of problems. Upload the image, make sure to use the standard language:

Here is a link to a sample permissions form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

and send in to the address. We have a backlog, but well-formed statements get processed fairly quickly.

I uploaded File:Celia Sawyer 2012.jpg and replaced it in the article so the other one can be deleted any time. I sent an email with links and instructions. I also left notes on the file page in case the rights holder wants to fumble with it. They may create an account and upload more images we hope.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now they have decided to go with the original File:Another Celia Sawyer 2013 Cool 10 Project.jpg An email should be in the works from the rights holder of that image. It has a ticket number so I will forward that as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The File:Another Celia Sawyer 2013 Cool 10 Project.jpg was deleted. I recieved an email from her people and they are still trying to get the correct licence through OTRS. I emailed links to Commons:Email templates/Consent, OTRS ticket number 2013031610006685, and a url to the deleted file. ~~I do have a copy of the image and can upload it again if that is easier. I will also see if the deleting admin is willing to undelete it until we get OTRS sorted~~.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been undeleted. I added back the OTRS template that was on it. I hope that is ok as that number may still be valid and is the one I used in the email to her people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the permission template.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will let her people know and see if they wish to correct the date, place, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image undeletion request[edit]

Can you take a quick look at User talk:INeverCry#Image undeletion request and let me know if the additional images listed by this user are ok to be restored? Thanks. INeverCry 18:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:P.Sheshadri.jpg[edit]

Hello! As you handled this OTRS, can you please go ahead and ask them to submit the OTRS for other images too? All images uploaded by this user are tagged for missing permission by me as they were previously published elsewhere. I guess they would give permission. I could go and write to them, but now that you have handled it already, its better to keep just one contact person. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you think I can do that you cannot do. I would suggest leaving a note on the uploader's talk page, but you can do that. At OTRS, we rarely initiate emails, and this isn't one of those rare examples, plus, I do not have any evidence that the email address associated with the one image I handled is the same as for the others. It may well be, but I do not wish to make that assumption. So if I were to handle it, I would leave a note on the talk page of the uploader, however, because there are 752 open requests, I'd prefer to spend my time processing requests we have, rather than chasing someone who hasn't sent one in. Sorry, that sounds cold, but some people have sent in request and have been waiting over a month, so that is my first priority.--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that sounds about right. Sorry for disturbing you. Have a nice day. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo names--ready to use?[edit]

Hi Stephen, regarding these two photos, they appear to still have their "pending permission" file names. I'm afraid if I use them now, the names will get changed and the links will stop working. Are they ready to be used?

Thanks for your help. LauraLeeT (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and use them. While I agree that the file name doesn't match our best practices, I don't think the issues are serious enough that someone is likely to change them. More importantly, and I'm 99% certain, if you use one of those file names, and someone does change it, the system will update your link. It may be as a redirect, and there is a tiny chance the editor doing the rename will chose not to do a redirect, but that would be an error. --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ID check[edit]

An IP at en:wp BLPN says that File:Kamie Ethridge Associate Head womens basketball Coach Kansas State.jpg is actually "ksu assistant head coach Kelly Moylan, not of Kami". Can you check the ID in any way? https://ksuhoops.com/women/staff.php --Canoe1967 (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arggh, I think you are right. This is very disappointing. I did a little work on the Kamie Ethridge article, and had attempted to get a photo of her from the school. That failed, and by happenstance, I was going to be at an arena where KSU was playing. I didn't know what she looked like, so I approached a very vocal KSU fan, who turned out to be the mother of one of the assistants, and asked her. She pointed me to Kelly, and told me it was kamie. Who knows, maybe she mis-heard me. In any event, I agree it is incorrect. I've requested a rename.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Should we phone her mother to find out which arena it was and add geodata?

It was Bridgeport arena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_Arena_at_Harbor_Yard

Coord|41.17320|-73.1870|type:landmark_region:US|display=inline,title

I'm not sure how to add coords to commons, I guess I should learn.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal are easy. Degrees need 6 numbers + 2 letters, samples below. Template:Location dec and Template:Location --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera location	41° 10′ 23.52″ N, 73° 11′ 13.2″ W	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

Camera location	41° 10′ 24″ N, 73° 11′ 13″ W	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

Thanks--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013 Bridgeport regional final cropped.jpg[edit]

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Sphilbrick, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:2013 Bridgeport regional final cropped.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

See Commons:Derivative works. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Sphilbrick, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Reviewer[edit]

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named `license+` and `license-`

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR

importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons!
--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AS JK SRK.jpg[edit]

File:AS JK SRK.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Andre Engels (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suriya_new-pics-3.jpg[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suriya_new-pics-3.jpg

I saw this only now. You say, you haven't found the permission? Should I resend it, and in which format will you most probably find the mail? Please answer me at Wikipedia. Thanks! --Dravidianhero (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it on 22.04.2013 02:17 CET. Thanks :) --Dravidianhero (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We received almost 200 tickets that day. I reviewed them, and possibly missed it, but did not find it. Can you resend? --Sphilbrick (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reply should have contained a tracking-number. That will be a big help in allowing OTRS folks to find it (and eventually link from the restored image to that specific OTRS ticket to allow it to be found later in the future if anyone questions it). DMacks (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not know that.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've resent the mail: subject= WG: Wikipedia request for copyright permission Date: Mo 06.05.2013 11:10 CET --Dravidianhero (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, I didn't upload this photo (just modified). But there are other photos which got deleted: File:Indian actress Bhama.jpg and File:Indian actress Lekha Washington.jpg --Dravidianhero (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry again, these pictures were from a different website. Actually everything seems to be alright as it is.--Dravidianhero (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do see it now. I will address it shortly.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed, although I'm having second thoughts.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For contacting an original NASA author and saving an image from deletion.[4] --GRuban (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, I really do appreciate it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for adding OTRS permission to some files. Eliedion (t) 22:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it and I appreciate that you made it easy.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behindwoods.com[edit]

Could you check the permission I've sent right now ? Thanks!--Dravidianhero (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chilliwack museum[edit]

Hi, thanks for handling OTRS for images in Category:James Cleland Richardson statue, Chilliwack. Did they state which license they wish or is that still in the process? I want to crop one for an article and need a license type for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've been away from OTRS for a few days, and apparently rusty. Checking that the image license matches the permission statement is pretty basic, and normally part of the process. I was focusing on whether permission for a category, as opposed to a specific list of items was an issue, and blanked on checking the license. The permission statement was clear, and I have added it to all three.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vladislav Kurasov1.jpg[edit]

Hi, you added OTRS permission here, but forgot to add a license. Can you have a look pls. --Ju Ta 15:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citadis dublin.jpg and File:Ireland - Dublin - Tram.jpg[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy notice about a deletion discussion regarding a file you have had some association with. If you have an opinion about the deletion proposal, it would be welcomed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steve Kovacs 2012, Miami Jacobs Career College.jpg[edit]

Hi, can you have a look at this image. You added OTRS permission, but the {{PD-because}} looks bogus. Pls. check and correct the license. thx. --Ju Ta 22:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original permission looked adequate, but it did not use the standard language, and as I look closer, I see some wiggle room. The pd statement also raises serious questions.

I've written to the person providing the permission, and asked for clarification. If it is not satisfactory, or if I do not get an answer in a few days, I'll pull the OTRS. I hope there is a good explanation.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1986 natl champ tower s001.jpg[edit]

Hi. Could you clarify please, is photo File:1986 natl champ tower s001.jpg from 1986 or from 2011? Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely 1986. I just looked at the metadata, and see

Date and time of digitizing 06:49, 19 January 2011

so presumably it was shot with film originally and digitized in 2011. That isn't a very informative entry for the date field, so I changed it to 1986. I do not know the exact day, but the event happened in April 1986, and they took the picture shortly thereafter, so it was some time in 1986. Thanks for the eagle eye, I hadn't noticed that when I uploaded it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt and clear reply! Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stef hits foul line jumper against Penn State.ogg[edit]

File:Stef hits foul line jumper against Penn State.ogg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

McZusatz (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Mike Thibault coach of the Washington Mystics.jpg[edit]

15:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilda Radner photo[edit]

Hello!

I have noticed that you have uploaded many photos of celebrities by using OTRS-permissions.

Maybe it is also possible to get a color photograph of en:Gilda Radner?

Kindest regards, Dorian

Most of the images I've uploaded, other than ones I've taken or arranged to get, are sent to Wikimedia unsolicited. I am simply processing them. I have no idea how to get a photo of Gilda Radner, although I suspect if you could reach her publicist, and ask nicely, they might provide one.

For example, I uploaded a photo of Mike Thibault today by writing to the PR department and asking.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Needle Galaxy 4565.jpeg[edit]

Did you notice that a user uploaded a higher-resolution copy seven minutes before you added the OTRS tag? Considering that this was such a short period of time, it seems unlikely that the OTRS e-mail was sent before this version was uploaded. Does the permission apply to both resolutions or just to one of them? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that. I will follow up and ask.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I received a commitment for a followup email. Have not yet received it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan4 I received a follow up permission statement explicitly referencing the updated version. I merged the two emails so the new one is also found at the existing OTRS link.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much[edit]

Very kind of you Sphilbrick. I am VERY grateful for all the work you have done re OTRS tickets, as suggested by Eugene Zelenko. Do I have to ask for a OTRS ticket everytime I upload the image of my artwork, even if I am the author both of the painting and of the photo ? Grazie mille, sie stato molto gentile :)--Aeron10 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibilities, one for certain and the other should work.

You do not need a separate email for each item. It is actually easier for us and you, to "bundle". If you upload a number at one time, you can list all in a single email. That aspect is for certain.

The second possibility is a bit less certain. I've inquired about what I call "blanket permission". For example, a permission statement that covers anything uploaded from a specific site owned by a photographer. I've gotten some feedback that such a process should work, but it hasn't been committed to policy, so I cannot say as firmly that it will work. I'm mulling over exactly how such a statement would read; while I have arranged one, those circumstances don't fit your situation.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balance[edit]

Hi, I'm thinking of asking about your commitments to en.wp as an admin vs. your potential role as an admin here. I don't want to over-think it, so apologies in advance if it comes over as negative, I certainly have no criticism of you (though please do remind me if we have worked with each other or been in some debate before; especially if there may be some sort of COI!). If you want to informally talk about it, I'm hanging out on the Commons IRC channel today and would not personally consider open discussion there canvassing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heading to IRC shortly.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adminstrator[edit]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

Sphilbrick, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for the support I received, and now plan to make sure I repay that trust. (I have an appointment to run to shortly, but will follow up on the requests when I return).--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your new right. Alan ^(talk) 16:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You may find Commons_notes_for_administrators useful. --McZusatz (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation[edit]

I've sent you a email via Wikimedia so you'll be able to reply to give me yours. Check your mail, I'll send you the file.

Have a nice day! Letartean (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded, thank-you so much.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:GOP-Hannover füher.jpg[edit]

I restored the image desription page, please verify the license is the same as on the OTRS ticket. --Denniss (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I wondered why there was no description, and mentioned it to the uploader/permission provider, but looks like you took care of it for them.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tickets[edit]

I have an OTRS ticket that is in conflict with a ticket that you worked on over a year ago. I was hoping that you might help me sort this out. The first ticket (yours: #2012081610003591) asserts its from the musician and is a photo of the musician. The second ticket (mine: #2014041710014447) asserts that the original photo is fake and that we should have permission for a different photo (which I cannot find). Can you take a look? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help sort it out but it looks like a mess. I'll add a note to your ticket. For obvious confidentiality reasons, I won't copy the text here, except to add my final line "Sorry, more questions than answers".--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what to do with it. I have even more questions than you asked now. Somethings just don't add up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider obvious warning signs when processing permissions[edit]

National Names 2000 is probably a sockpuppet of this user. (Source: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-05#File:Colby.27s_Clubhouse_Cast_Members.jpg found by googling the email address)
There are a lot of contradictory statements in the ticket and file description page:
1. License: PD vs. Creative Commons
2. Author: Iraqi state television vs. STF, Khalid Mohammed
3. Source: own work vs. taken from the internet
Low resolution, missing exif

After you see one or more of the above warning signs, have a look at the other contributions of this user. --McZusatz (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. I'm not sure whether I am happy or sad to report that some warnings signs were in the back of my head, but I did not listen.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the permission, and followed up with some pointed questions. I haven't woken up yet, but that's no excuse--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for some images[edit]

Hello, I saw that you changed some licenses of a OTRS ticket by "Nicolò Riccardi" (such as File:Alessia Leolini 2013.jpg) from CC-BY-SA3.0 to CC-BY 3.0, but from what we were writing, I think they should be CC-BY-SA.... Could you check it on OTRS?

And could you also check if there is an OTRS email from Silvia Vatteroni, sent on August 12...? I uploaded some images but they have been deleted even if there was an OTRS pending by her.

Thank you. --Gambo7 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gambo7: The OTRS email specifically requested the (CC BY-SA 3.0 IT) license, which is the one I changed to if not specified. Why do you say CC-BY 3.0? I do not see that in File:Alessia Leolini 2013.jpg.

Yes, there is an email on 12 August. That's only 3 days ago. Editors are not supposed to be deleting images until at least 7 days have elapsed, and traditionally allow more time when an OTRS pending tag is included. I looked at the first in the list File:Vanessa Ferrari.jpg and it does not have the pending tag.

~~Which ones have been deleted?~~ I can restore them.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking clearly, the email was 3 days ago, but I see some were uploaded a couple weeks ago, and some did not have OTRS pending. No need to identify deleted ones, I can find them.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I processed all the images in the 12 August list. That included the following which were deleted, and now restored.

I assume that the deleted images had been used in articles, can I leave it to you to restore them to the original articles?--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having restored them.

About the licenses, I see that you have changed some from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY. Not a big deal, because the author left me free to advice him for the best licence for them, but I see that you set their licences different than what we stated.

Kind regards --Gambo7 (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: File:Bulimar 2014.jpg was not restored by you, but it should be mentioned in the email too, and restored. --Gambo7 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gambo7: I see what happened. The first group had a different license than listed in the email, so I went to search for the right template, and picked up the wrong one. I think I have fixed them all.

Regarding File:Bulimar 2014.jpg, it is not in the email because it was extracted from File:Bulimar Iordache Izbasa.jpg. In theory, no OTRS ticket is needed, as someone reviewing permissions should check the original, but just in case someone is careless, I decided to add the tag.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket addition[edit]

This is Shishir, probably the file File:Mumbai 125 KM 3D A light and shadow films Official Poster recieved OTRS ticket. But as for now i felt better to contact an OTRS agent to review and verify the Ticket url. Although the work is light and shadow productions who let me to use this work. Albeit i worked at Pritish Nandy Com before. Shis hir 06:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the person providing the permission? I see that a permission statement was supplied, but there are some questions which have not been resolved. For confidentiality reasons, I cannot be more explicit. The person who sent in the permission needs to follow up and respond to the open issue. If someone believes the agent is not handling it properly, let me know and I'll ask an admin to get involved.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bronisław Komorowski i Anna Komorowska.jpg[edit]

Hi, the author of the photo resend to permissions-commonswikimedia.org another message, this one containts an explicit release. Please, check it. Thank you. --ThePolish 11:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done That's odd. I'm supposed to get an email in such situations. I just checked and I never got the email. However I've now handled it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew Demeter.jpg[edit]

Hello. I notice that you have restored this file but please could you delete the first two versions? I think they are almost certainly copyright violations because the original uploader, User:Robertjones1, admitted that the image was derived from a FOX News interview - see ticket:2014082910000735. However, I am not sure who is who because that email is from a different email address and the name used is not Robert Jones. Also Andrew Demeter's YouTube channel lists a different email address altogether from the one used most recently in your ticket. Very confusing. Green Giant (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the other versions and left an email for the contributor to ask for clarification about the email addresses.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Received a response, which did not fully answer the question, so have followed up.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fasana.jpg[edit]

You added an OTRS tag but removed the license. Please add the license back if it matches the ticket. Is there an error in the OTRS script/gadget you used? --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what happened. Someone placed the template for the license in the permission field. When I used the tool on the sidebar to add the permission, it removed the license.

I know there were a number of similar images so I am worried that this may not be an isolated case.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example File:Italia 2012.jpg had the same problem, but @JuTa: fixed it. I don't know how to identify who wrote the script for the "PermissionOTRS" tool in the sidebar. While it was an error for the uploader to add the license to the permission field, it would be nice if the script for adding the permission either failed if the field has an entry, or, better yet, lets you know.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on Category:Media without a license: needs history check. User:YiFeiBot operated by User:Zhuyifei1999 is filling it up. Maybe you could ask him for help. --Ju Ta 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, is it not MediaWiki:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js, possibly by Bryan? Green Giant (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you are correct. --Sphilbrick (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No License" templates[edit]

Sphilbrick, I noticed you removing {{No license}} tags without actually adding any license templates here. Please do not do that as OTRS templates are no substitution for license templates. In case of that file you need both. --Jarekt (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS communication had a clear license. I thought it was there, but it wasn't. It is now. Are there other examples?--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing this. I quickly read through the OTRS ticket but did not noticed the license. I do not have more examples at the moment, but in the last year I run into several removals of {{No license}} tags by OTRS team after adding one of the OTRS templates to files. Usually I just go to the ticket, look up the license and add it to the file, but lately I decided to be alerting users removing {{No license}} tags without adding a license that that is a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I just became aware that one script we use can remove a license (see post immediately above) but that isn't what happened in this case. There's no question I made a mistake, while I cannot recall exactly what I did, I know I received a permission statement, with a small open question, so added the permission received template, may have noticed the no license template and decided to remove it, but that would have been OK only if I added the licence indicated in the email, which I did not do at the same time. Thanks for your diligence.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:EISAWheel3.jpg is another example to fix. --Denniss (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one had a license although the email refers to 4.0 not 3.0, so I updated to the one specified.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about the permission[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,

I'm hapyy that the permission is good! Now I must clear 2 other matters:

1. I already have more than 4600 pictures uploaded here; I must request for ich one a permission or a bot will put it automatically on every of my pictures?

2. In the future I want to upload more pictures. How should I proceed? If I put that permission on all the newly uploaded pictures; than is that ok?

Excuse my english; I don't write well; I now.

Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to do some checking.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DenesFeri: I've contacted someone who may be able to help with the first task. I don't have bot skills, so I am checking with someone who does. I notice some of your uploads are PD images, which of course are not covered by your permission. Is there an easy way to identify which of your uploads would be covered by the permission? (I've also asked the bot expert to see if there is a way for the bot to figure it out.) Regarding the second question, I recently learned of a way to do this, but I have never done it myself, so I need to review how it is done. I'll be back to you soon on that issue.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you! Onestly I don't know what is/means PD. What is it? Sorry I'm a caveman in this matter. cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, PD is public domain. For example File:Thaptomys nigrita 7 (21).png--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I send to my sister your message; probably today the Commons will receive from her the permission. So PD is public domain; thanks for the info! Yann already told me to change the licence of Thaptomys nigrita 7 (21).png and the other pictures like this; and I changed it on monday. The new licence on those are not good? DenesFeri (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does Commons received the new permission from my sister? DenesFeri (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, received and processed--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OAU! That's good! What now? What holds the future and what about my other pictures? Or this matter could wait? cheers and thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Look what happened: File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg

It didn't past 30 days, from the warning. DenesFeri (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You supplied permission for

File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-1.jpg

which is not deleted.

The one deleted is:

File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg

We are working on solutions for other images.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit over-committed at the moment, will try to look into next steps tomorrow.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok; I'm not in a hurry, others are. :) DenesFeri (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I had a computer crash, some access, but need to do re-install tomorrow. --Sphilbrick (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK than; good luck! DenesFeri (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sphilbrick,

Please announce me on my usertalkpage if there is any movement/change/resolvation. OK? Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:History Room, Alexander Classrooms, King Alfred School, Plön.jpg[edit]

Hi, you confirmed OTRS permission for this image. But there is any license template missing on the description page. Could you please recheck an correct this? thx. PS: Pls. remove the Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed but no license afterwards. --Ju Ta 20:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to File:Norwegian Bridge, King Alfred School, Plön.jpg, File:Quarterdeck, King Alfred School.jpg, File:Raising for Effective Giving logo.png, File:St George's Chapel, King Alfred School, Plön.jpg and File:Raising for Effective Giving launch dinner.png. --Ju Ta 13:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JuTa: Those are two of four uploaded at the same time with the same OTRS permssion. I added the correct license for all 4, and removed the cat.

about my problem[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,

What's the news? Is there any resolvation? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Gateway to the Pearl.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, BrightRaven (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's me again[edit]

Hi,

Happy New Year!

What's going on with my picture/permission problem? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Thanks so much for processing the declaration of consent associated with this image: File:The Gothard Sisters with their instruments and wearing traditional outfits.jpg. The Wikipedia article looks so much better now! I nominate many pictures for deletion, but you do tons more work than that, and I really appreciate it! Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and glad I could help!--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, sorry for my English and thanks God that processing is finally done, there are like 40 photos on the Category:Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires category uploaded that way, I can add the ticket myself if you please tell me if the correct permission is: {{PermissionOTRS|id=2015050110016926}} or another one. Or that is something an administrator should make? If is that so I can make a list of the files here. --RoRo (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RoRo: I believe you need to be an OTRS agent to add the tag.

The easiest option(for me) if it you could create a category for those 40 items. There is a batch process for adding tags; I have never used it, but I would like to learn, and I believe it will work on a category.

The second best option is for you to create a list of the relevant items. If you do that, I'll manually add the tags to each one.

Sorry about the delay, the OTRS agents are overwhelmed. The Commons permission queue had 850 open items a couple days ago, I have it down to 763, but that's still horrendous.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Category:Photographs by Tomás Bernardo, I wasn't aware I uploaded so many items, there are 128 files in there. All of them are uploaded by User:RoRo. I would like to know how I have to do it in the future, ¿should I put the ticket number myself on the permission field, or there is another tag for OTRS checking, or should I inform an OTRS agent I have uploaded a file with a permission on a ticket? Sorry I ask so many questions. --RoRo (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RoRo: OK, I learned how to do the batch permission adding. A couple minor glitches, but I learned something useful.

Unless you are an OTRS agent, you are not supposed to be adding the tag (I think it might be physically possible, but there is also a bot that checks for tags added by non-agents, which will just generate work.)

One option is to notify me, simply because I am familiar with the backstory. However, I occasionally get burnt out on OTRS and step away for a time, so if that doesn't get a response in a couple days, leave a notice at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard

No need to apologize for the numebr of questions, the process is a bit murky so it is quite understandable that even veteran editors aren't sure of the best process.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot. --RoRo (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korie at the Walter Kerr Theater.jpg[edit]

Hi, you forgot to add the license template of the copyright holders choice - see here. Could you please have another look. thx. --Ju Ta 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I glanced at it, saw " Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported " and moved on. Now fixed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS files[edit]

Sphilbrick, it is my understanding that part of the process of adding {{PermissionOTRS}} template to files is verification that the license in the image matches the license in the permission. Today I added licenses to 6 files (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) to which you added {{PermissionOTRS}} without verifying that the license is correct. In some cases your edit removed the license. I usually just fix the problems and keep on going, but since you seem to handle a lot of OTRS, it would be very helpful if you also check the license. --Jarekt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to make sure the license on the image matches the permission.

I am surprised how often it is not the case that the permission in the OTRS email matches the permission on the uploaded file.

As you can see here and here, I've made two such corrections in the last few minutes.

If you take a glance at my contributions, you will see the edit summary "match license to OTRS email" in many cases.

However, I am not perfect, and I am distressed that I have missed that many.

In partial defense, I don't know what happened to our OTRS permissions volunteers, but something seems to have happened. I stepped away from OTRS for a few months, and when I returned, I saw a backlog of over 800 Commons permissions. In the last week, 244 Commons permissions tickets have been processed, 196 by me. That doesn't excuse errors, and I will try to be more diligent, I may have been moving too fast trying to whittle down the backlog.

I do note a different issue with the removal you identified. I use the tool on the left sidebar of an image "Permission OTRS" which invokes PermissionOTRS.js. I haven't looked at the code, but I believe it looks for "|Permission=" and places the permission tag after the equals sign. In the case you identified, someone added the license to the permission field, which is wrong, so the tool replaced it. We can debate whether the code is wrong, or the initial uploader was wrong (both true). However, I can be more diligent about checking to make sure that the license is there. In this specific case, I wonder if I saw it originally, then failed to realize that the tool would remove it.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, especially that the OTRS permission tag tool actually strips out information, that I did not know.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also occasionally use PermissionOTRS.js and I had problems with it (one issue I remember was striping of {{No license}} tags) and now I double-check it's edits. License in permission field is very common, especially with older uploads, and we can not fight it. I will check the code to see if I can see the issue. It would be nice if PermissionOTRS.js gave a warning when license is missing (file page not transcluding {{License template tag}}), but that would be beyond my minimal java script skills. As for not being perfect, according to q:en:Mistakes: "The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything. " Processing 196 OTRS tickets explains why some would have issues. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, and thanks for looking at the code. I have very limited coding skills, not enough to justify even looking at it. I agree with you that it would be nice if it could warn you that the license is missing, though that sounds like a bit of work. I would also love it if I got a warning that the addition was going to remove some text; that sounds more doable. Yes, I guess I get that some people might mistakenly think that the license belongs in the permission field. I'll change my personal process to make sure I check for the license AFTER I add the permission, to avoid the possibility that I verify the existence, and then it gets removed when I add the OTRS tag.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:National highway 2.svg[edit]

File:National highway 2.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Imzadi 1979 → 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015050610011351[edit]

Hi,

Could you please take a look at ticket:2015050610011351? I find it hard to believe that a journalist is the copyright owner of the logo of a NGO. Please take a look at the clients linkedin. He is a volunteer at this NGO and I doubt that being a volunteer is enough weight to release their logo. Natuur12 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I send that person an email, asking for confirmation from someone officially connected to the organization.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12: I received a response, indicating that the entire organization is a volunteer organization. He not only is a volunteer, but volunteers as the PR & Communications Coordinator. More importantly, in that capacity, he actually created the logo, so he isn't simply providing a license for something created by someone else.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx! Sounds good. Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donaldvnroberts1.jpg[edit]

Hi, you confirmed OTRS permission for this image but forgot to set a license template. Can you have another look pls. Thx. --Ju Ta 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:Valerie Deacon NYMAS.jpg reports that the author has licensed the picture under a Creative Commons licence, but it doesn't say which one. Please be more specific. There is a big difference between cc-zero and cc-by-nc-nd. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JuTa: , @Stefan4: Following are addressed:

That last one puzzles me, because it is one more in a long series of photos, see, for example

so I worried that I had missed them all, but it appears that the uploader got most and missed one, which I then missed because it looked like one more in the series.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More: File:Lucie Beppler, Bleistift, Gravurnadel, Tusche auf grundiertem Karton, 2014, 55x60cm.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More: File:Mayank Chhaya.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More: File:Rescue Games.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done,

Done, and

Done--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the problems related to this image: File:The Redhead Express performing onstage at the Chasco Fiesta event in Florida, in 2015.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I saw your message on Jim's talk page (please read my reply there). I'm very sorry that I did such a poor job with both my email that I sent to Commons and with the declaration of consent that I customized for Sean Walker (the owner of the picture - or at least that's what his mother told me). I really should have provided some key information to make your job easier. I don't know what happened to me. For example, the official website of the Redhead Express band is http://redheadexpress.com/ Also, I should have indicated that at the bottom of that page, there's a Facebook logo which takes you to their official Facebook fan page: https://www.facebook.com/RedheadExpress I assume that the Facebook image you found which is identical to the file here on Commons is in the photo gallery of that Facebook page. I did include the specific Facebook link in the Source field on the file page, but since you deal with tons of files, declarations of consent, etc., I really should have included that link in either my letter or in the declaration of consent that I customized for Sean Walker. I have certainly done MUCH better with other declarations of consent that I have customized and with other emails that I've sent after uploading pictures. After all, OTRS volunteers have to be as sure as possible that copyright infringements are not taking place. As you said on Jim's page, many people grab pictures they like from the Internet and they upload them as "own work", for example. I have requested the deletion of probably nearly 200 images. It's impossible to just assume good faith.

Since this image lacks EXIF data, I would have asked follow-up questions, too. In fact, the two pictures that I uploaded of the Harp Twins caused OTRS volunteers to ask questions, and they were totally logical questions. The difference was that the Harp Twins wrote back immediately to explain the situation, both times. I deeply regret that Sean didn't reply to you soon. I told Sean, look, please politely tell the OTRS volunteer this and that, to clarify the situation, but time went by and clearly he had not responded. So, since I have written to Jim a few times before, and since I had no idea who the OTRS volunteer was who wrote to Sean, I wrote to Jim on his talk page. I would have written to you instead, but as I said, I had no clue who the OTRS volunteer was.

Here's some more information (I should have included at least part of it in my email to Commons): Sean Walker is a brother of the Redhead Express girls; he doesn't run anything but he does provide many pictures that appear on their Facebook fan page (he's become quite good, and can produce photo shoot-quality pictures, which saves money since real photo shoots are expensive, of course). First I contacted his mother, Apryll Walker, who is a co-manager of the band, as you can see here: https://www.facebook.com/RedheadExpress/info?tab=page_info I asked her if she or Sean could release a picture that showed the girls performing onstage, to better illustrate their Wikipedia article. Eventually she sent me the picture that I proceeded to upload (I wish it had been from the front instead of from the back, but I digress). She said Sean had taken that picture, and that I should contact him, so that's what I did. If you think it might be helpful, you can of course contact Apryll Walker (her email address ending in @redheadexpress.com is at the end of that Facebook info page that I provided above, but she always replies from a Gmail address).

Again, I'm very sorry for the trouble that my mistakes and Sean's delay have caused. I will certainly provide more information the next time I upload a picture, if there's a next time. The Harp Twins really cooperated with me wonderfully, but the other artists (or the people in charge of releasing their pictures, to be more precise) have caused me a lot of stress, as if they are playing games with me, vacillating, etc. One would think that they would be glad to have their Wikipedia articles illustrated, but instead they typically think I have sinister ulterior motives, I guess.

Anyway, I hope you have a nice weekend, and I'm very grateful for the help you've given me in the past. Dontreader (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Many hours have passed since I wrote to you. It was indeed wise of you to have written back to Sean Walker. His mother promised me that he would take care of this situation this morning, and this afternoon she promised he would address the issues tonight, but as I said, some people act as if they are playing games with me. If you haven't heard back from Sean by Sunday when you return, please let me know. It's quite possible that you caught a potential copyright infringement if there's no reply by then. Hopefully I'm wrong, and you'll hear from him by Sunday, but if not, please let me know if it's okay for me to add a speedy deletion request tag to the image. Thanks for all your excellent work here on Commons. I hope to help out soon a bit again by finding pictures that are copyright violations, and nominating them for deletion. Dontreader (Dontreader}} talk) 05:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dontreader: Please don't agonize over this. As you well know, some permission statements are straightforward, some are not. This one raised some questions, which were complicated by the fact that I know nothing about this group, and did not know who Sean Walker is. I had transferred the ticket to an agent who seemed to be satisfied, but that person took no action.

I have received a subsequent email from Sean, which satisfies me, so I have processed the permission.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Sphilbrick, for your reply and for processing the permission. I'm very glad that Sean eventually did write back to you, and that I will be able to add the image to the Wikipedia article. I promise that in the future I will always provide sufficient context in my own letters to make things easier for the OTRS agents. The problem, of course, is that the managers of some non-famous artists with articles on Wikipedia do not cooperate at all when I ask for a picture, but I like the challenge because if I succeed then Wikipedia articles are significantly improved. But obviously none of this would be possible without the OTRS agents, so once again, thank you very much for your admirable work, and I wish you a great day! Dontreader (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Hi. You may want to handle this ticket. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission statement from Ted Ingham[edit]

I received a permission statement from Ted Ingham regarding images you may have uploaded. However, he did not specify which images were covered by the permission. Can you provide a list? I’m providing a link to the ticket below which won’t help you but will remind me when it is time to process the request.

ticket:2015040410012917 --Sphilbrick (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Thank you to check the OTRS authorizations. The photos of Ted Ingham are these ones:
* "Neptune" - Dover, 2005.jpg
* Raising of the "European Gateway" - 1983.jpg
I believe the ticket 2015052310008019 is correct, if you can check it (i believe it's this photo of the China Sea Discovery at Kaoshiung.
Thank you in advance for your answer. Good evening. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I processed the two from Ted Ingham.

However, 2015052310008019 is from someone named Greg. It does not contain the desired language (the one from Ted was fine).

If you are asking people to send in a permission statement, either urge them to use the wording in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates, or, soething I do is fill it out for them, and ask them to return it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Sorry for the ticket, it was the first mail Greg had sent. He had sent another (with the desired language) on June 1 at 3:34 a.m. (in France). I don't now the new nulber of the ticket.
I remember i'd upload some weeks ago few hotos of a people called Peter J. Fitzpatrick, but i don't know if he had make the OTRS request because when i asked him, he answered me "Hi Anthony
You can send the authorization yourself as I give you permission to publish those photos you require
Kind regards
Peter". Do you think i can make screenshots of the request to reuse his photos and his answers to justify the OTRS or i need to re ask him for the OTRS request?
Thank you in advance for your answer. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just processed China Sea Discovery at Kaoshiung (someone else started it, I took it over.)
I know some of my fellow agents are very leery of screenshots. Another option is that you persuade him to transfer the copyright to you (this can be oral, and you are probably welcome to accept that email as such a transfer, then file a permission statement with you as copyright holder. I'd still like to credit the original photographer in the "author" field.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket questions[edit]

I have raised a few questions about tickets you placed from OTRS a couple of months ago. This is coincidence, you just were active during the period I'm checking. I review images that are noticeable on a contact sheet of images, not because of the OTRS volunteer or other people involved in the file history. It seems worth doing as there is no peer review process for OTRS. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a rant:

I am not surprised that you have found my name attached to items you’ve reviewed. I have been an OTRS agent for some time. At times I enjoy it, at times it can be exhausting. I found that I tried to do too much, burn-out, and then step back and do nothing for a time. I know I need to find a better way to even out my work load but I haven’t yet managed to do that. Around last year end, I had a burnout, and stepped away for about three months. I saw an email asking for people to help with the English info queue and decided to jump in. That queue was backlogged with over 50 open requests. However while working on that queue I glanced at the Commons permission queue and to my horror, saw that there were 853 open requests. Some were complicated but many were straightforward which meant that no one was looking at some large sections of the queue. I decided to attack the Commons queue. I spent several hours each day working on whittling down the queue. After a few weeks, I got it down to about 500. I have a report I created which lists all the comments permissions tickets handled in a week. One week I ran it there were approximately 150 tickets handled. I had handled 125 all other Commons agents combined handled the other 25. I mention this for two reasons, first in partial response to your comment; the odds are very high that if you looked at a Commons permission ticket lately I was involved. Second, and more important it is an unacceptable state of affairs to have these kinds of numbers. I should not be handling this many, the remaining agents should not be handling that few. Due to a recent personal issue I haven’t been active in the last week or so and I see the queue is back up to 573. It is unacceptable that the level of the queue should be dependent on the involvement or lack of involvement of a single agent.

I’ve spent some time thinking about what needs to be done and don’t have complete answers but will offer some thoughts. I’ll start by emphasizing that I cannot return to the levels of activity that I was doing in the month of May. I was spending several hours a day doing nothing but processing requests and that isn’t going to continue for long stretches, if for no other reason than I realize when I try to work fast I can get a little sloppy. That isn’t helpful as it creates work for you and others. One obvious problem is that we are all volunteers, doing something that can become tedious at times and has few rewards. However, I do think there are things that can be done. To oversimplify permissions requests come in two categories, one, easy and two, not so easy. If a person sends in a permission request using our standard wording and including a link to the image, has made sure they are uploading an actual photo rather than a scan of the photo and send in the permission from an email address associated with an organization when the image is associated with an organization, it literally takes seconds to process. The bad news is that perhaps one in 10 requests falls into this category. The additional bad news is that when I whittled the permissions queue down from 853 I did so partially by looking for low hanging fruit and processing them. The tickets remaining are generally harder to process.

The complication is most permission requests come from people who are only going to send one in their life. We do have some regular contributors and we are able to teach them how to send in permissions requests in an ideal format so they can be processed quickly. But it is not so easy for the person who is only going to send in one request ever. They send in a request, attach an image which is a good thing but then write a permission statement that refers to the attached image. The image they actually uploaded sometimes has a different name requiring the agent to play detective. That’s just one example there half dozen other things that commonly happen require extensive detective work and/or back and forth with the person submitting the request. We now have a new procedure that we send back a canned response to everyone submitting a request letting them know that it has been received and it may take some time to process. I am mulling the idea of creating a page with the top 10 mistakes in permissions requests that we might link in that canned response. If the request takes more than a day or two to handle they might look at the page, realize they didn’t follow ideal practices and resubmit in a way that’s easier to handle.

I’d also like to organize some sessions where two agents work together while connected via phone. On the surface this sounds counterproductive asking two agents to look at the same ticket, but in cases where the ticket is complicated, two people working together can track down the information needed. This would also be helpful for new agents working with experienced agents.

I also support the idea of peer review. Most of our agents have a good knowledge of the issues, but I occasionally look at a ticket from someone else and think it should be handled differently. I have no illusions that I have the perfect set of knowledge and I could use review as well.

As I said this is a rant and a bit of a stream of consciousness diatribe. I hope to pull my thoughts together in a more coherent way at some time.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in going for low-hanging fruit. Keep in mind that as unpaid volunteers, we should be expected to dip in to the backlog and enjoy doing as much as we find rewarding. As an experienced OTRS volunteer, a tactic I used was knock off several simpler tickets, but then to look at the older complex requests where there were BLP implications or someone feeling hard-done-by (sometimes justifiably) and just do the one ticket; often this involved a week or longer correspondence. It is those odd cases where you can help a distressed and frustrated individual that stick in the mind and give you the feeling that it was worth investing your volunteer time.

As it appears that there will never be minimum criteria for OTRS volunteers (such as having a basic training course or test), and we have talked about peer review for a few years without anything changing, I confess to being sceptical that the current system will improve unless the WMF has a major disaster (i.e. major security breach or damaging legal action), in which case the most likely outcome would be that all volunteers would be kicked out of OTRS and the community would find an alternative. --Fæ (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've largely summarized how I like to work. Knock off a few easy tickets, then jump into the old the backlog and take on one of the more challenging ones. I try not to take on too many challenging ones at one time. It can be quite discouraging to wake up in the morning to half a dozen responses to challenging issues, each one more complicated than the one before.

On the subject of training we are on the same page. I was surprised that when I was appointed an agent, the main introduction was a set of slides explaining the technical aspects of software. There is very limited information on how actually to respond to a ticket. While good common sense and a decent understanding of copyright issues (which are decidedly not always common sense) will cover quite a few situations, there is still too many tickets where this basic knowledge isn't enough. I was poised to accept one ticket last evening until I saw a reference to Flickr washing, did some homework and decided to ask some questions.

I'm supportive of more training. I helped with such an event at a Wikimedia New York conference, although that would've been better with more advance preparation. I had hoped to do something at Wikimedia Mexico but it conflicts with the Pan Am games so I'll be there. I do see plans for an OTRS session there. More is needed I have volunteered to help.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kina Wiki portrait Dec2014.jpg[edit]

Hi, you confirmed OTRS permission for this image, but forgot to add a license. Can you have another look please. --Ju Ta 21:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to File:Portrait Lucie Beppler.jpg and File:Signing an agreement with Microsoft at Emirates Palace - Abu Dhabi.JPG. --Ju Ta 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was easy I simply overlooked it (there were some complications with this and related issues I finally thought I resolved them regarding this image and added the permission tag). The second one is slightly more complicated but I have sent an email which will almost certainly resolve the issue as soon as it is received.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder: File:Kina Wiki portrait Dec2014.jpg still has no license tag. --Ju Ta 10:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that a license was not specified originally. I have recommended the Creative Commons 4.0 license, added to it, and sent a confirming email to the copyright holder. (You guys are good :) --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015052610019896[edit]

Hi,

I just took a look at ticket:2015052610019896 and it seems that you forgot to reply. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Ironic actually, there are OTRS tickets many weeks old that haven’t been touched but I managed to handle that one within a day. Unfortunately, I moved on to the next one before properly closing that one out. It is now done. Thanks again.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great :). I really appreciate the work you do. Without you the back log would be way bigger. Plus you are one of the few that deals with the non clear to the cut cases. Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015033110029351[edit]

Hi,

You have a reply :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks a bunch. That one makes my head hurt. I don't think I can deal with it tonight, maybe in the morning.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ballad of a Soldier - Memories.jpg[edit]

You added an OTRS template. Can you also add a copyright tag? The words 'the Creative Commons license' are not specific enough as it isn't specified which CC licence it refers to. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

I know I've missed some and I'm trying to do better. What I have noticed recently is in straightforward requests, I do a decent job of checking to make sure that the licenses on the file. However, as in this case, there are occasionally some side issues that need to be sorted out and when I get them sorted out I'm so relieved I add the permission tag thinking that's the last step. Which it is but I miss that I also have to double check for the license as well as sort out the side issue. I'm writing this mainly as a reminder to myself to make sure that when I deal with complicated tickets I don't forget to overlook the simple things.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you forget to add a copyright tag, the file will at least be spotted at some point as a bot will add it to Category:Media without a license: needs history check. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed[edit]

Would you mind reblocking WilliamJE at en:wp for bad-faith editing and stalking me over a period of years? Asking you directly because it will be simpler for everyone involved than an ANI request would be, and here at Commons because stalking is the core problem. Following his promise of January 2014 to do his best to get rid of me, he's continued to stalk me all over the place, editing on the most random topics (pages that he's never before edited, or only passingly edited years before) with no connection between them, aside from the fact that I had edited the page within the past day. I gave him warning to stop in April of last year, proving what he was doing with [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] (none of those pages has he edited before or since), but since that time he's kept it up with edits such as [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (again, all of those were first-time edits to those pages), and those are just a few examples of edits that he made within a few hours. If you check the interaction tool, you see tons more pages to which he followed me within a day. He's even gone to WP:ANI to chastise me, unless it's a coincidence that this edit objecting to one of my actions was his first edit to the page since last November.

I just noticed [15] and [16] and gave him a final warning to stop stalking me, since this is clearly the WP:Harassment definition of "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", especially given his January 2014 promise to do exactly this. In response, he dismisses my claims, calls me paranoic, and totally ignores my warning: is there any better evidence of someone treating Wikipedia as a battleground? It would help if you personally would block him as a way of demonstrating that his actions are wildly inappropriate, because he's continually depending on something you said as an encouragement to keep going. This, in particular, is why I'm asking you directly, because he needs to be shown that your words weren't somehow permission to ignore the harassment policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I'm puttering around various pages and hope to do so over the next few hours, while simultaneously getting ready for a social event we are hosting at our house. I take a request for blocking very seriously. I can't either do it or reject it without doing some homework, and that's inconsistent with puttering around on minor edits. I believe I can find a block of time to look into it in the morning, but not in the next few hours. I'm explaining myself partly because you might see edits by me over the next few hours and I don't want you to think I've ignored your request.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short response: I don't see his actions as blockable

First, a small digression, although it is relevant. Some people have silly goals. I have some silly goals. One of my silly goals is to never be blocked. Why is it silly? Because, while it is in my power to avoid doing anything that deserves a block, I don't have the power to keep someone from misreading an exchange and mistakenly blocking me. I have been in support of a process to expunge the block record in cases where the community determines that a block was inappropriately placed. If I am ever blocked incorrectly, I know it shouldn't bother me but it will. Why is this relevant? Because your link demonstrates that a block of William left him quite upset. While I think he should let it go, and I'd like to think I would do so if I were in the same circumstances, I am very sympathetic with the desire not to let it go.

I haven't revisited the exchanges involving you, William, and Orlady at this time. I have a vague recollection, but I'll limit my comments here to comments on the diffs you provided.

Thank you for excerpting the harassment policy, I'll repeat the quoted section here:

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor

You've demonstrated that the first part of this statement is true. There is no question that William is not randomly choosing articles to edit which occasionally include articles you have edited. We don't even have to invoke statistical evidence; he said he was going to watch your edits and he has. But the policy doesn't simply say it is inappropriate to follow someone else around. As I noted earlier and can explain again if necessary, there are many legitimate reasons one might identify a particular editor and choose to examine all or a significant portion of their edits. However, we have to look at the second part of the quotation. Are these actions done (mainly) "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work"?

I think the diffs failed to support that aspect.

Let's examine: In Courtland, Alabama William added a section for notable people and added an entry. This did not undo or affect the edit you made shortly before. You may recall that William has expressed special interest in the notable persons sections of articles. While he may have been looking at your specific edit and hope to find something to complain about, it appears obvious he looked at the article about a location, noticed that it had no notable people section, found someone who qualified, and then added this section in the entry. In short, it improved the article. I don't see how that could possibly be construed as confronting or inhibiting your work.

In Monticello, Arkansas William change the heading from "notable residents" to "notable people". He has stated elsewhere that he believes this is the better choice. I concur. His edit did not affect your edit, modify or in any way challenge or inhibit your edit. It was an improvement to the article. No rational person could possibly see an edit by you making some improvements of the article, followed by an edit by William making different improvements of the article and think to themselves that William was confronting or inhibiting you.

In Toulon, Illinois you made some edits improving the article. William, again demonstrating his interest in "notable people" sections, noticed an entry in that section which did not belong. The entry had been added by an IP, not you, so the removal in no way was a confrontation or an inhibition of your edit. It was an improvement to the article.

In Bedford, Virginia William also added an "notable people" section and an entry.

A theme seems to be emerging. But the theme is improvement to articles particularly as relates to "notable people" sections, not challenges or reversions or corrections or disagreements with your edits.

I stopped looking at diffs at this point. If the best argument you can make is that William likes to improve articles where you've contributed, we should be debating which barnstar to award not talking about a block.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pietro skranke.JPG[edit]

Hello! What is the procedure with the file from now on, as I believe it would be highly inconvenient to ask about the license of the file after the end of the conversation between me and the federation? Could we apply, let's put it that way, a "stricter" licence, one that does not allow transformation of the image? I still have got a permission if the name of the photographer is credited. I am really concerned about this issue and would be thankful if given a hand. --Явор~bgwiki (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Явор~bgwiki The harsh, but honest answer is that the file cannot be used based on the permission that was supplied. If we cannot get the correct permission it will have to be deleted. I would be happy to have the discussion with the Federation, as I think it will be fairly simple, and I was prepared to write to them directly, but I did not find their email address in the correspondence. If you can share their email address (and you should not do it here, respond to the email at OTRS, I will be happy to explain to them what we need and why we need it. I think they are willing to provide the license they simply did not know what was required.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Philbrick, I just sent an e-mail message. Thank you for the collaboration! --Явор~bgwiki (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, and have sent them an email trying to explain the situation I am hopeful they will respond positively. (I did get an out of office message so it may be a few days).--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just saw what had happened with my "case". I have always been struggling with uploding images found on the net... Whatever. I will continue contributing to Commons by uploading my works and am really happy that there are conscientious people like you. Thank you once again! --Явор~bgwiki (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry they were not willing to accept the terms. I hope this will not discourage you from continuing to contribute.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barry Klarberg.jpg[edit]

Sphilbrick, you added a {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to File:Barry Klarberg.jpg, but left the file without a license. Presumably the OTRS communication indicates what license was chosen by the copyright owner. Would you mind adding the license to the file? —RP88 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RP88 Sorry about that. There were some issues to sort out, which did get sorted out, but I was thinking I was done and forgot to check the license. I've included the license which was included in the original permission statement.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —RP88 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TicketNumber=2015081910004187[edit]

Could you please let me know what is needed to remedy the issue with the permission for this image? (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Natalia_Fedner_Attends_2015_LA_Film_Fest.jpg) I used Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license and had the image owner email the permission. Thanks. 71.30.240.87 11:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you are. I'm not at liberty to disclose the details of the email exchange at OTRS. I did receive a permission statement; it didn't quite meet our needs, so I responded via email with what we need. If I receive a satisfactory response I will be able to add the permission tag.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. DarrenDorsey (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holly Van Hart photo Silicon Valley.jpg[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick... you removed the {{Delete}} template from this image. According to the uploader's note on my talk page, the original photo is probably incorrectly licensed, but the new version is fine. Given that the deletion discussion is still open, but the file page is no longer categorized through the {{Delete}} template, would you mind COM:REVDELing the earlier photo and then closing the discussion, please? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I have rev-deled the prior version. (Sorry I missed your original request for rev-del)--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All the best, Storkk (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

Hello. I've uploaded some files OTRS permissions. Just so you know. : Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Munion Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharon Afek.jpg[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, I have noticed you had changed the OTRS template regarding this file. I have personally checked the rights regarding this image and provided to the copyright holder the sufficient wording for his OTRS notification and license release. Please let me know what exactly caused your concern, and I am sure it can be properly handled. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: if you prefer to address the copyright holder by email, it would not be necessarily helpful, unless done in Hebrew. Naturally, I would happily assist in any required communication. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pointed out to me the existence of the image

here

I want to make sure that the copyright wasn't transferred to that publication. I have to leave for a plane in 15 minutes so apologies if my response isn't part prompt.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, understandable. I am more than sensitive to the copyright protection issues, therefore, I have thoroughly checked this issue with the copyright holder in advance. Previously, he informally allowed the occasional use of the low-resolution version of the image by the IDF Spokesman Unit (without formally granting any license or other rights to the IDF Spokesman or the media channels using the image), who requested his informal permission to allow some media sources the publication of the image with a "credit" to the IDF Spokesman. Naturally, such occasional use is not capable of depriving the copyright holder of his rights and may not constitute an irrevocable transfer, assignment of or exclusive license to any IP rights. It is easy to see that the image I have uploaded is an original full-resolution image provided directly by the copyright holder, who has agreed to grant the license to Wikimedia (as previously sent through OTRS channels) following communications and clarifications on this issue. If you have any further questions or comments, I will be happy to assist. -- 16:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is satisfactory.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uploads by Fanwen619[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,
you have added an OTRS ticket[17] to some uploads of Fanwen619 (talk · contribs). However, most (or all) of his remaining uploads have the same problem, as they are sourced to flowersview.com which is per se not a free website. Does the existing permission at OTRS include all uploads from flowersview.com? --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the existing permission at OTRs include all uploads from flowersview.com

When I get a permission for an image that is available online, I normally check to make sure the upload or has provided the actual photo as opposed to a copy. I did not do that in this case and will follow up with the uploader. I see that the upload or has responded here, however, I reviewed the permission statement and agree additional questions must be asked.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the uploader.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: the uploader also left a statement at User_talk:Túrelio#Fanwen619_your_uploads which might be helpful. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's very relevant.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: The person who provided the permission just made an edit to the website including the uploader's name, confirming that the person providing the permission has control of the website. I am now satisfied that the person who provided the permission statement is the copyright holder. See the welcome note although it may change soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Spicer.jpg[edit]

Hi, you ust confirmed OTRS permission forthis file. But there is no license at all on the decription page. Can you have another look pls. --Ju Ta 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to File:TNFF.jpg and File:Colin McKeown.jpg. --Ju Ta 17:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my spouse interrupted me while in progress. Please note that, even with the interruption, I completed it 3 minutes after starting.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaloklum photos[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, I'm yet uploading the authorized Chaloklum pictures. Thanks. --Josuevg (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josuevg: Can you drop me a note when you are done so I can add all the OTRS tag's? Thanks. --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off course, Sphilbrick, in the next page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Josuevg&ilshowall=1, from the (12:49 28 oct 2015) Acropora-florida-close.jpg file, to the top of the page, all this pictures belong to the "Chaloklum photos" group. When i've completed to upload the "Chaloklum photos" group, i will drop you a notice. Thanks. --Josuevg (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I processed the next 13. Let me know when done, or next batch.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sphilbrick, I've just finish to upload the total of Chaloklum photos, you will can find them here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Josuevg . Thanks. --Josuevg (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jennifer Thomas (pianist).jpg[edit]

Which licence did the OTRS ticket confirm for this? It was uploaded as {{PD-reason}} with a comment implying that it was for Wikipedia use only. January (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@January: Good catch. The original permission statement was for a PD license with no limitation to Wikipedia. As you know, that's not the normal case; most people pick a creative Commons license. I did glance at the file page, saw the PD logo and didn't look closer. There was a problem with the original permission which I discussed with the people involved and resolved but it did not change the nature of the permission, which does not have any restriction to Wikipedia. The edit comment doesn't really say that but I can certainly understand why it would raise the question.

In theory, once something is public domain one cannot change it to a more restrictive license, but we do have to make a change here. The template is intended to state that it is in the public domain for some reason. One simple solution is to say that the reason is the copyright owner released it to the public domain. However, given that we do have to tidy up, I'm tempted to recommend to the copyright holder that they release it under a CC 4.0 license. Would you have any objection if I made that recommendation?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection but we could simply change the template to {{PD-author}} or {{PD-copyright holder}} as appropriate and remove the statement about permission for Wikipedia use. I'm not certain a Creative Commons licence would be valid on a work that has already been released into the public domain either. January (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my concern. I changed it to {{PD-author}} which is consistent with the OTRS email. Thanks again for your diligence.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015102910009793[edit]

Hi,

Good to see that you are busy doing OTRS-work. You seem to have forgotten to reply. Natuur12 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a curious observation because I actually decided to abandon OTRS permission work a month or so ago. I looked at that ticket and didn't see how it involve me what am I missing?--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with compression[edit]

Hey Sphilbrick, I was hoping you could help me figure out a small issue I'm having with my recent uploads. I'm not terribly familiar with what kind of compression algorithm Commons uses for uploads, but it seems to have noticeably color shifted a number of photos. (File:Montebello Vincentino Atelier.jpg, File:La Scuola dei maestri pellettieri di Bottega Veneta.jpg, File:Intrecciato construction.jpg, File:Collaboration Juergen Teller.jpg, and File:Bottega Veneta Boutique.jpg) Is there any way to color correct them via Commons, or perhaps reupload them without the color shift? Thanks for the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: I'm sorry, but I don't have the technical skills to answer your question. I can tell you where to ask though.If you pose a question at the village pump, someone should be able to answer your question. I will provide the link to the main page but please look down and see that either the graphics village pump or the graphics lab photography workshop might be better places to ask. The second might be better if you are simply looking for someone to help fix the photos the first might be better if you're looking to talk more in general about the process. Commons:Village_pump--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! I'll be checking out both resources you suggested.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another question[edit]

Hello again! I have another question for you. I was wondering if you could help me understand the guidelines for submitting others' work through OTRS. I do some paid COI work, and often upload images through OTRS, along with the requisite permissions from the rights holder. In the past, when I've uploaded images on behalf of corporate clients, their permissions letter has been sufficient, even if the image was taken by a commercial photographer. Recently, I was asked to provide the document transferring the rights from the photographer to the company (in reference to ticket #2015072210023983). I'm in the process of trying to acquire it, but I was curious if you could provide some insight into whether or not this will be standard practice going forward? The images I asked about you last time, for Bottega Veneta, are credited to their respective photographers, despite the rights being held by BV. Should I be getting the same kind of documentation there?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert L. Johnson (3) (5x7) photo credit Melissa Golden.jpg[edit]

File:Robert L. Johnson (3) (5x7) photo credit Melissa Golden.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

2602:306:CE44:C20:51AC:13F4:E84:F642 19:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Sphilbrick, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2016 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main admin work has been associated with OTRS permissions activities. While I am still active at OTRS I've concentrated on info requests for the past few months. I'll make sure to process enough permissions request to use the tools.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help request[edit]

Dear Sphilbrick
I am writing to inform you that the request email has been already sent to ask for the authorities of Hamidreza Payman's photos and genrously the ticket code is sent to us .here:[Ticket#: 2016081010016009]
since the photos have been deleted, I would be gratful if you take Appropriate action.
Thanks in advance
Your faithfuly --👦 Farhangnameh · 💬

@Farhangname1395: One was straightforward. The other has a small question which should be easy but needs to be asked. I sent an email minutes ago and hope to resolve it soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License needed[edit]

You added an OTRS ticket to File:AbsitzenBlackhawk.jpg, but no license. lNeverCry 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: Sorry about that. Now fixed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same for File:宋楚瑜主席2016.jpg. --Didym (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Didym: Sorry about that. While not a great excuse, this took eleven emails back and forth (not all in English). I was so relieved when the final one was received, I missed that the license hadn't been added (although it had been agreed to). Thanks for your diligence.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Strange High House in the Mist by Gabriele Bagnoli.jpg[edit]

Hello, Stephen !

Regarding this file (Ticket# 2016100210008931), the permission mail was sent by the author to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, Monday, October 10, 2016 at 5:46 p.m. (Paris time).

Hope this helps. :)

Thanks again for all your OTRS work !

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guise: I checked all of the permissions emails sent to permissions Commons on October 10 and did not see it. Did they get a ticket Number? It is easy to search for ticket number, not so easy to search by date.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: , I'm forwarding you the permission mail with the ticket number) related to the file, I hope it might help !

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colour out of Space by Paul Flanders.jpg[edit]

Hello again, Sphilbrick !

I'm really sorry to bother you (I know you're very busy) but I don't understand what is the problem with this file ?

First, the author's permission mail was reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in the permission archive, but then it was moved ? Could you explain me what happened ?

I don't mean to question your work, of course ! :-) I just don't understand.

Best regards, --Guise (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made a mistake. There were a large number of images that needed handling, and a variety of issues with several of them. In some cases the URL was truncated and I was able to figure it out or guess at the right name, and some other cases the URL in the link didn't match the URL of the underlying image. I thought I had them all sorted out but I indicated that I had received a permission statement for This image, but after investigation I realized I did not. I sent an email to the uploader letting them know that I did not have it and they were going to follow up to make sure one was sent.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Sphilbrick![edit]

Happy New Year!

Sphilbrick, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Thank-you!--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:UConn Team At White House 2009.jpg[edit]

File:UConn Team At White House 2009.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ytoyoda (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please process OTRS[edit]

Hello, I uploaded some photos and got permission from the owner. She already release the copyright and receive the OTRS tickets. Please process [Ticket#: 2017022110004153] [Ticket#: 2017022110005509] Thank you in advance Puchicatos (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Ramu Tokashiki at 2 August 2015 game.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ramu Tokashiki at 2 August 2015 game.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Ramu Tokashiki at 2 August 2015 game cropped.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ramu Tokashiki at 2 August 2015 game cropped.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Hello, There are a number of invalid tickets in Category:Items with ticket OTRS permission confirmed tagged by you. Such as this. Please check. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: I can't fully explain the exact sequence of events related to the specific item you identified, but looking at the ticket I can see that someone attempted to provide us with an image and attempted to provide us with permission. It was my position that the permission statement as expressed didn't match up with our best practices, so I proposed wording that would be acceptable and asked for concurrence. My intention was to include the OTRS received template but I appear to have copied and pasted some language related to some other issue into the OTRS permission template.

I have corrected that. I see that the copyright owner still has not followed up so I will prompt them again. (Followup, the copyright holder has now responded, so I changed the status from received to accepted.)

Regarding the category, I looked at the first entry in the category:

File:19 Willen Church.JPG

But I don't see any involvement by myself. Was it your intention to share the general category and asked me to look for instances where I might have been involved, or did you think I was involved in all of them?--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to fill them all myself, a number of files (not all ofc) are tagged by you. :-). Cinsider the above notice just as a FYI. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, But I have now looked at the first three, and found no evidence of involvement by myself. I'll keep looking, but I wish there were a more efficient way to review.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, as soon as I write that I see that I am involved with the fourth image which I will look at now.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of File:Adeyemi Ajao.jpg there are some still open issues. I intended to tag the photo with the "received" tag but apparently tag it on the assumption that it was complete. I fixed that, and sent a note to the person who sent us the photo indicating that the open issues must be resolved.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Klapheck by Lothar Wolleh.jpg[edit]

I'm not fully sure what's going on with respect to this image File:Konrad Klapheck by Lothar Wolleh.jpg

I'll cover the highlights as I see them

In February, 2009 an image was uploaded without any indiction of permission
In June, 2009 OTRS ticket:2009062310023021 was processed, indicating a successful submission of permision. The OTRS agent added a permssion tag, although not in the format I generally use.
In July 2014, I modified the permission (I don't know how it came to my attention). Unless, I'm missing something, it was properly formatted at that time link
In October 2015, an editor uploaded a new version of the image. Per the edit summary, the only chnage was minor cropping
Two days later, OgreBot 2 made a change to the permission tag. I don't understand the rationale for this edit. That bot is managed by @Magog the Ogre:

As an important aside, I don't fully understand this category. It has the name "Items with ticket OTRS permission confirmed", but it seems to be used by you to indicate that it is a category of problem images. --Sphilbrick (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: the bot was actually combining the two PermissionOTRS templates, you'll notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ախալցխայի և Ախլքալաքի գավառների 1918-ի ինքնապաշտպանությունը.djvu[edit]

I have no recollection of my involvement in File:Ախալցխայի և Ախլքալաքի գավառների 1918-ի ինքնապաշտպանությունը.djvu. I do know that my goals to help depopulate the backlog have, in the past, lead to editing too quickly, and it is clear that I accidentally added a comment intended for some other place to the OTRS permission field. I removed it, and I have slowed down my editing.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done?[edit]

Steinsplitter I identified involvement in 4 of the 79 images in the category. Two still need a response from the copyright holder, update, now only one and I have both corrected the tag, and sent out the reminder. In one case, the error arose from a edit to the wrong field, and I have corrected it. In the fourth case, we need to hear from Magog, I think, as I think the image was fine prior to the bot edit.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your VFC installation method is deprecated[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2014041110013735[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. I mentioned you in a discussion on COM:OTRSN about the above ticket but I didn't hear from you so I am just posting here in case you didn't see it. seb26 (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missed it, responded there.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tajama Abraham at George Washington.jpg[edit]

Hi, I think that you forgot to close the ticket (I did it) on OTRS. Generally, we prefer that another agent closes a ticket, to have a certain sense of independence in the judgement. The result would have been the same. --Ruthven (msg) 13:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Yes, I used to close my own tickets, but I decided that this was not a best practice, so I plan to let an independent agent close it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inc. 5000 Event 2013.jpg[edit]

Hi! You uploaded File:Inc. 5000 Event 2013.jpg in 2013 with unclear source info. Does "Photosubmissions 2013112210009539" refer to an OTRS ticket? Also, if Drew Bartkiewicz is in the picture, he probably is not the creator. Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: Yes, that is an OTRS ticket, but that isn't the right way to do it so I fixed it. I did follow up, noting that the copyright holder in the subject had the same name, and he responded that he handed his own iPhone to a friend. A minor missing step is that we need an assertion that the friend orally transfer the copyright to him. I took it as implicit.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear {{subst:PAGENAME}}. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you --B dash (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:University of the Virgin Islands view from campus.jpg[edit]

File:University of the Virgin Islands view from campus.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Anadessma (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anadessma: Thanks for notification but I believe it is an error. I think you meant to say that the image should be removed from the St. Croix article (which I have done) not deleted from Commons which would make it unavailable for anyone, anywhere.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boston Fire Department, Engine 5 Firehouse (1).jpg[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. You hid the history of the file description page, which doesn't need to be hidden, instead of the first file in the history. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind Sphihbrick, but I made the change JJMC89 requested — I've unhidden the description revisions and hidden just the file contents for the first revision in the file history. —RP88 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RP88: Thanks, and sorry I overdid it. Duh, I just realized what I did wrong. I do a lot of text revdel, and just realized this is different. No excuse, as I have done a lot of image revdel, but was in auto mode.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sirlanz)[edit]

Hi. I'm contacting you about a decision made on 30 December 2018 to confirm deletion of AsNTM participant photos (File:Maureen Wroblewitz 2016.png and File:Cindy Bishop 2016.jpg) which I had uploaded in conjunction with my work on Wikipedia on their respective articles there. Regrettably, I was unaware of the debate going on in Commons (as I do not visit frequently and had no Talk page at all) and that's my fault for not establishing a user page here. I am a very active WP editor but not experienced (or particularly interested) in this Commons side of things. I am certainly inexpert over here but upload when something comes up related to my article editing and I think I can enhance things there. What I regret is that a decision was made without my offer to upload files with the EXIF data in them so as to establish provenance. The reason the uploaded ones did not have that data comes down to my inexperience: firstly, I did not even know what EXIF meant (you giggle!); secondly, the software I used to crop the original images apparently strips all the EXIF off them when that process is performed. I simply had no clue that was happening. The result I can now see is that that gave rise to all sorts of suspicions. Interestingly, an observation in the discussion about me being a Hongkonger as some sort of justification for suspicion has not led to any challenge to my Haba Snow Mountain shot and I simply don't see the logic of the idea as some sort of justification (to the extent it might have been relied upon in the decision-making process). I am approaching you as a randomly selected admin as another user has very kindly informed me that this is the means by which I may have the matter looked at, i.e. specifically, that I wish to attempt to provide the images with EXIF, if that is required in order to have them stand as legitimate images on Commons, or whatever other requirements there may be. Thank you for your time and I apologise again for messing this up. sirlanz 10:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning (Feb 2019)[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Sphilbrick. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for your service to the Wikimedia Commons community! 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Christen Williams.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Christen Williams.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duff Beer in Pisa, Italy.jpg[edit]

File:Duff Beer in Pisa, Italy.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Tomer T (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing[edit]

Assuming your question is open to anyone, the answer is simple. What you are missing is years of the same type of editing. The new Mad Men episode articles are all very lightly edited cut and pastes from IMDB.

WP: Cutler and Chaough prepare to make changes to the ad agency while Don Draper and Roger Sterling visit a client in Los Angeles. Joan's decision to go after a new account leaves Pete furious.

IMDB: Cutler and Chaough prepare to make radical changes to the firm while Sterling and Draper are visiting a client in Los Angeles. Joan's decision to go after a new account on her own leaves Pete furious and frustrated.

Add to that the many uploads of non-free images with false fair use claims, the socking, and the suspected paid editing. Cap it off with the article on the movie he produced (created, recreated, and re-recreated). That's what you're missing. Just FYI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faisal Shahzad sentencing 001.jpg[edit]

Hey Sphilbrick. While doing some random article patrolling, I came across File:Faisal Shahzad sentencing 001.jpg. You uploaded this almost six years ago, and perhaps it's been too long to remember the details. But, can you tell me how this image comes to be cc-by-sa-3.0? I know it's Elizabeth Williams' work, and was copyrighted, non-free on initial creation by default. There's nothing in the metadata that confirms the license. Searching for "Photosubmissions 2014080110021514" as a source, I come up with nothing appropriate to the image. Can you help me here? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall if you are an OTRS agent. If yes, see ticket:2014080110021514. If not, let's figure out next steps.Sphilbrick (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is as simple as that the copyright holder supplied a license, and I failed to add it to the image (which I just did).Sphilbrick (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not an OTRS agent. Thanks for updating the file with the OTRS ticket! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation Blocked[edit]

Dear Sphilbrick, I'm so sorry! This is last time, An apology is a good way to have the last word. Please unblock my account. @Mithila Madawa From — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithila Madawa (talk • contribs) 09:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked on English Wikipedia. Please post your unblock request there, using the instructions on your talk page.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support Diannaa's advice--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eye hospital Sri Lanka[edit]

Dear Sphilbrick, I'm so sorry! This is last time, Please apology to me. Please give me one chance. Mithila Madawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithila Madawa (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are asking. If it's about the unblock see the message above.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Ify Ibekwe.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ify Ibekwe.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Ify Ibekwe.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Shawntinice Polk.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wade Trophy.jpg[edit]

File:Wade Trophy.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

219.77.176.112 03:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naismith Trophy.jpg[edit]

File:Naismith Trophy.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

219.77.176.112 03:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:CCI Chrome.jpg[edit]

File:CCI Chrome.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ske (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:CCI Mozilla.jpg[edit]

File:CCI Mozilla.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ske (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Nebraska Women’s Basketball 2023-24.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Nebraska Women’s Basketball 2023-24.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Krd.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Cindy Daws v78O442H.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cindy Daws v78O442H.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Cindy Daws v78O442H.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]