This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I'm having a difficult time finding the ticket that matches Talk:Alpha Psi Omega. The page may need deleted if I can't find the permission. NonvocalScream ( talk) 20:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Parizellina says they have confirmed permission for text from http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/about_en.htm for this article quoting OTRS ticket 2011062210004646, but there's no confirmation from an OTRS volunteer on the talk page - please could this ticket be checked? January ( talk) 10:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody check if https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4625120 gives permission for this file's licensing? It's the same ticket used for File:Kalana Greene Senior Day.JPG, which appears to have been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer. See also User talk:Drilnoth#File:Maya Moore 2009.jpg. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please verify the OTRS permission on this image? The uploader added the tag rather than an OTRS volunteer, so I'd like to be sure that it is accurate. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, from the same source, File:Image010 Infinity-CSVC.jpg and File:Image009InfinityLicense.jpg only have the ticket numbers added by the uploader. It's the same ticket, but just to be sure, could somebody check? Thanks. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, could somebody verify the ticket since it was added by the uploader. The history of this image makes it look suspiciously like the permission may not have been granted. Thanks, and sorry for flooding you all with requests; I'm just coming across a bunch while trying to empty Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 21:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at OTRS:2006052710002454? a user has stated this is a false ticket for images from this site, and wants to delete 100+ of them. Can an OTRS agent take a look and see if this ticket is "false" or not before any action is taken? Thanks, Avic ennasis @ 20:51, 8 Av 5771 / 8 August 2011 (UTC)
File:SarfarazNiazibokehexample.jpg was restored after a request at WP:REFUND quoting ticket 2011081910011426, please could the appropriate confirmation be added if all is in order? January ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been claimed on the talk page that the text of Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica, which was copied from various subpages of http://www.unem.edu/ including [1] has been licensed by OTRS ticket 2011083110000094. I would like to request verification. Monty 845 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
LaZingo ( talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple images of copyrighted modern artworks, with an OTRS note (ticket 2010110310005502). Apparently they were previously uploaded on it-wiki. They all have contradictory licensing statements (CC-BY-SA but also CC-BY-NC-ND). Can somebody verify please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Since such requests go through OTRS, the volunteers might be interested in this discussion at WP:REFUND. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Wngland ( talk · contribs) has uploaded this file to Commons. Wngland's previous edits were to blank the image from the Jodie Moore article and add unsourced info about her personal life. I'm asking that you confirm that there is in fact an OTRS ticket from Wngland filed and that the image is really theirs to upload. Dismas| (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:REFUND on the issue of articles being restored per OTRS clearance getting redeleted per CSD G11 or another speedy criterion. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone verify the licensing status of File:ASW Cornell Gradation 1954.jpg? It is currently tagged with both {{ PD-author}} and {{ self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. However, this combination of tags is contradictory—if it's been released into the public domain, then licenses like GFDL and CC don't make sense. So what does the OTRS ticket actually say? The GFDL and CC tags were added by an OTRS volunteer, so I'm guessing the PD tag is not supported by the OTRS ticket. Is that true? — Bkell ( talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone verify the licensing status of File:FlotinSiemReap.jpg? The description says, "The creator has granted permission for use in the wikimedia project," but Wikimedia-only permission is not free enough for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). — Bkell ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The SAP AG page contains two references to the name:
... SAP was founded in June 1972 as Systemanalyse und Programmentwicklung ("Systems Applications & Products in Data Processing")[3] by five former IBM engineers in Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (Dietmar Hopp, Klaus Tschira, Hans-Werner Hector, Hasso Plattner, and Claus Wellenreuther).[3] ... The acronym was later changed to stand for Systeme, Anwendungen und Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung ("Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing"). ...
The first of these is clearly at odds with the citation (listed as [3] above):
... 1972 Foundation: Five former IBM employees start a company they call SAP Systemanalyse und Programmentwicklung ("System Analysis and Program Development"). ... 1976 Legal transition: The limited-liability company SAP GmbH Systeme, Anwendungen und Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung ("Systems, Applications, and Products in Data Processing") is founded as a sales and support subsidiary. Five years later, the private partnership is dissolved and its rights are passed on to SAP GmbH. ...
The history shows people keep fixing the translation only to have it backed out (presumably by people who haven't visited the citation and discovered that SAP used to have a different name). Is there any mechanism to (a) correct this; and (b) prevent people from pasting the new name back in? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.189.175.250 (
talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some more eyes on DD172? The article has been the subject of both OTRS and Foundation contact, with regards to the accuracy and content of the second paragraph of the lead, and I need some more input on what exactly it should say. This morning, the article looked like this. I did some cleaning out of obviously unsuitable stuff using the existing sources, and came up with this. Further contact with a representative of the subject of the article pointed out another source that corrected an initial source, and I changed the lead to where it stands now, this. However, I could really, really use some more input on how to fairly interpret the content of the sources, and how to decide what belongs and doesn't belong in the article with regard to the police/summons dispute. I've done the best I could come up with, but this needs some crowdsourcing to reach the mean. Anyone want to help? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In a subsection above I wrote that I looked for the manual or guide that describes how OTRS team members conduct their duties -- and I wasn't about to find one.
The RISKS digest has had many discussions of a meme the security experts there mockingly call "security through obscurity". They assert that security should rely on procedures that are secure by design, that can survive peer review -- not through counting on keeping untested procedures secret.
Maybe I have failed in my searches, but it seems to me that the OTRS procedures are obscure. I could find no documentation as to how the OTRS team confirms the identity of an outsider. If the obscurity is by design, intended not to offer clues to vandals as to how to spoof the team, I think that would be a mistake.
I'll be frank, there have been a number of deletion discussions, mainly on the English language wikipedia, where I have been disappointed by the OTRS team. In several of those discussions some of the participants in the discussion kept repeating that the subjects of wikipedia articles had requested the deletion of those articles. But I could find no record, on the talk page, or in the discussion, of any messages that looked like they came from the subject of the article.
After participating in several of these discussion I came to the conclusion that all assertions that a real world individual had requested deletion should be ignored, unless an OTRS volunteer confirmed the bona fides of the individual making the assertion.
I'd really like to be able to trust that the OTRS procedures are robust enough to defeat being spoofed by casual vandals.
Candidly Geo Swan ( talk) 08:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree with a specific action, take it up privately with the OTRS agent in the first instance, and if you're not satisfied, email another OTRS agent you know or take it up with ArbCom and/or an OTRS admin (there's a list on Meta). OTRS agents are accountable to the OTRS admins for what they do on OTRS, and to ArbCom for OTRS-based actions they take on the english Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Your response above implies you thought I was asking for the kind of personal details OTRS is designed to protect to be revealed. Please understand that there is an enormous difference between saying that the general procedures OTRS team members use to confirm real world identities were made public from asking for unvieling of any particular outside correspondent's personal details.
As to whether OTRS team members are intelligent, and thus not easily fooled, James Randi, the highly respected professional magician who helped found the committee to scientifically investigate the claims of the paranormal (CSICOP), has written that it is easier for a magician or a con-man to fool an intelligent person, because they are more imaginative. So, if the OTRS team members are not specifically informed as to how to detect and escape being played by hackers employing "social engineering" and other fraudulent techniques, then my confidence in their intelligence offers me no confidence that their native intelligence will prevent them being hoaxed. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Could an editor with access to OTRS please comment on the discussion linked in the title? Yoenit ( talk) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not consider this acceptable, and I am reluctant to discuss this via email because although both team members have now had ample opportunity to reconsider things and own up to normal human error, neither have done so. If OTRS team members are accountable to the rest of the team, then I think it would be best for the project for this incident to be discussed in the open. To whatever extent OTRS team members are responsible to the rest of the WMF community I prefer to have this discussion in the open, so the wider WMF community can see how well the OTRS procedures work; do OTRS team members who err have other team members help them see where they erred?
I will repeat that I didn't see anything in the email from team member A that breached the privacy of the complainant and that couldn't be recorded on the article's talk page, or in other on-wiki fora. Although I don't see anything that requires protection I won't quote team member A's email on-wiki.
I am very sorry to say one interpretation of team member A's decision is that they used their OTRS authority to step in and take sides in a content matter in a non-neutral manner, when their concern could have and should have been discussed on the article's talk page. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't get a response on WP:BLPN (see section Herbert Mataré) so I ask here for the OTRS part.
According to User:Wikinaut ( talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor".
Kind Regards, SchreyP ( messages) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to use text from an online document is posted at Talk:Paul Shoup, ticket 2011100610000127. The document is being used with attribution (and copied verbatim at some points, if I remember rightly) at Paul Shoup House; could someone please check the ticket and then move it over to the house's talk page? I ask because I'd appreciate knowing whether (1) all of the online document is cc-by-sa-3.0, or (2) if only part of the document is cc-by-sa-3.0, and I think it might help if we had a comment about that at the house's talk page. Nyttend ( talk) 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Primary editor of this article has claimed the permission grant was made to permissions-en at the talk page. Please review and remove the copyright block tag if it's appropriate. No judgement on COI aspects of the author being involved with the organization. Hasteur ( talk) 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed several images with "OTRS pending" that have been there for quite some time (I've seen 3 months) - clearly I think that someone is pulling a fast one. Is there a defined time limit that one should apply before deletion? Ronhjones (Talk) 00:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this file on July 28th. Shortly thereafter confirmation was sent, and I just forwarded the original email from the owner with the file attachment as well this evening for extra clarification. A user on here has recently called the permission into question. Therefore, the location the permissions that have been sent (especially the original one sent quite a while ago and shortly after the file was uploaded) as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated to help settle this dispute. Booth088 ( talk) 02:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
At any point that usable permission is received, the file can be undeleted (if it is deleted first), but it would be best to lay out all our issues for his mother at one time to avoid having to go back repeatedly to get everything right. Even if the subject were an adult, we would not have been able to use his permission, as it does not assert copyright ownership and it does not assert a license. We generally recommend that copyright owners use the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. It isn't a given that he owns copyright, although it is plausible. Copyright in a photograph is owned by the photographer unless it is legally transferred. See [2]:
Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.
The photographer who took this image is evidently Rod Goodman, [3]. It would be awfully nice if Mr. Goodman had something on his website about license, but he doesn't, beyond the standard disclaimer that "No images may be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from the photographer." This doesn't mean that he did not transfer copyright of the photograph to River Alexander, but it does add yet another complication to the situation. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Sophievogt has uploaded a large number of artworks by Jeff Wassmann and Mary Schepisi. It seems like she has permission to do so, and several months ago she said she'd send an email verifying this, [4] but no OTRS tags have been added to her uploads. Could someone check and see where this stands? Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a note on the file that refers to an OTRS ticket. If it's correct could someone format it in the normal OTRS template? Ronhjones (Talk) 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Could an OTRS volunteer go through Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and delete/tag for deletion as appropriate? Note that any edit, even those not removing the tag, will reset the 30 days. Thanks! — Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Somebody at Wikipedia has to make this editorial decision. How can this major modern event be left off the main page, while some minor papal schism from 1400 years ago is included?
i apologize but got confused with all the links as to how to delete or who to contact this is what is posted under my name. (1st paragraph is correct but i believe you will agree this is funny but not factual and is not true) "...It should be noted that this time was and is fairly slow for international competition. It has been hypothesized that Reuss could have swam faster, but was prevented from doing so by a freak earthquake that launched thousands of sea urchins into the air as a result of a previous cataclysmic event occurring nearby in the Pacific (see: 1883 eruption of Krakatoa). Reuss, a longtime animal activist, was understandably concerned by this catastrophe and boarded a jet for Australia to provide what aid she could immediately before the semifinal of the women's 200 meter freestyle. The jet crashed at sea, killing all 96 people on board in an event that is now referred to as the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Because of her physical fitness and swimming skills, Ruess was able to make it back to Moscow in roughly an hour and 45 minutes, shattering the English Channel crossing world record. Ruess was consequently shcoked to find out that said disaster had in fact occurred 99 years earlier, but was able to recover from her surprise and win the Men's Olympic Bobsleigh race two years before, an event that garnered significant public relations coverage and widespread approval from mainstream media. Ruess is now a consultant for AIG, who she has advised on numerous successful mortgage tranch investments..." i would assume someone playing a joke let me know thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabel reuss ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a small but growing list of files at Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS, how long should we leave these alone, before requesting some action? I'm a little worried that this could be a bit of a loophole which allows images to stay that should not be here at all. Some of these images were tagged over a year ago! Ronhjones (Talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The information re The Krupp Foundation is incorrect---as is the origin of the Arndt Krupp Inheritance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.143.35 ( talk) 14:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I came across Template:UN map, and the text of it doesn't make any sense. Which is it?
I ask here in case the referenced ticket 2006090710013991 clarifies the matter. My main concern here is whether the link to the original is required or merely requested. Anomie ⚔ 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that File:Lucevela.jpg got an OTRS tag at upload time. Could this tag be verified, please? Eeekster ( talk) 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of the messages received and processed in the English Wikipedia's OTRS queues are things that don't affect life on-wiki outside their own individual scope: errors that need fixing, "why was my article deleted?", complaints about perennial topics... but some of them are different. Some of them are thank you notes to "Wikipedia's editors", some are articulate complaints of systemic bias, and some are written as if we had, and published, letters to the editor.
Would anyone be interested in an "OTRS feedback" board, where OTRS agents would cherry pick interesting messages of interest to the project as a whole, remove identifying information, and post them for the community to see and discuss among ourselves? I've asked OTRS administrators if this would be acceptable, so they might put the kibosh on this from their end, but I think it appropriate to ask the community in parallel... is this something we'd like to see? Jclemens ( talk) 04:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrong venue for attempting to grant permission.
|
---|
Hello. Copyright holder of the HTML edition of the scientific work of the world famous sexologists: Masters,Johnson, Colodny. The textbook: "Human Sexuality". Russian version of this work (official version) is the base for the creation of this HTML edition: HUMAN SEXUALITY OF MASTERS, JOHNSON, COLODNY IN HTML. This is the compilation, which consists of the selected best chapters. The HTML edition is multi-language. Also, this version uses the xxx video materials in some chapters, for the educational purposes only. Why? Such content was used in the scientific research for good of the science and education. Sexual scenes were filmed by Masters and Johnson. Many of the different private records were lost. They needs to be restored or replaced. Only the second option is available. About copyright: I am the one of the translaters of the book to Russian language (of the official version). The publishing house Mir now is in the disrepair. Not has of competence in every sense. Till this moment people from our group of the employees got task to create the HTML version of the textbook. Now is ready. As the one of the translaters, I act currently as the rights holder. Lawfully absolutely. By me were used the tools of the CC, to get such right in the best quality of all. About spam, if was this: one time was period, when the HTML edition not was under a control. Access to the studio of this website was opened to any person, when go preparatory work mostly. Because of such openess, possible, there were unpleasant incidents. This situation was in far past. These incidents not have of any relation to my person. I am respected man who has the full control in the relation of this website currently. I give the permission to use any materials of this educational resource for all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks! P.S. Copy of this permission was sent to: permissions@wikimedia.org. - 2.94.190.140 ( talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
Russian Editors: Wikipedia has it's servers based in the United States. The book is copyrighted and sold by a publisher in the United States. The (google) English translation reveals that indisputably that this is a digital reposting of a translated book (of which there is a US copyright). It is incumbent on Wikipedia to disallow such content to be posted on the EN wikipedia because it would either violate the US copyright in the context of the original book, or the copyright of the Russian version of the book (as it would be safe to assume that the Russian translation was granted under a specific copyright licence by the original publishing company). Wikipedia will not accept content of this natrue as it appears to be a copyright violation. Hasteur ( talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
|
I added a speedy delete template to this image due to incorrect licencing (painted 1928) and the copyright statement in the images Metadata. An OTRS pending template was then added and the speedy delete was removed. As it has been a week since this took place, can someone with OTRS privileges please confirm the validity/invalidity of the permission email. Thanks. memphisto 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe permission has been given for File:Hpqscan0002_=_The_Real_Estate_SpiderGraph_-_A_Home-Buying_Decision-Making_Aid.jpg via ticket 2011120210001086
Can the file be restored? Chzz ► 05:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What is going on with {{ Stella image}} and {{ Stella4D}}? While I understand that only 2D images are attribution and that 3D images are not allowed, why is this template transcluding OTRS pending on every image that uses this template? — Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Does the permission for this image also cover non-Wikipedia uses? The file page is unclear. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has taged a section of this article as a copypaste of http://poochcafe.com/?page_id=16 , which both it, and other section of the article, appear to be. According to the talk page we do, however, have permission to use the images in the article as this was apparently given in Ticket#: 2008103110012065. Given that the text was added by the same user as uploaded the images it seems likely to me that the release may also have included the text, especially given the discussion on the user's talk page. Could some one check the ticket and see if it released the text as well and if so undertake the appropiate actions (the original ticket handler is no longer active). If the ticket doesn't release the text I'll list at WP:CP and see if we can get permission. Dpmuk ( talk) 03:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to use one or more of the images listed here: 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the Hurricane Debra (1959) article, which is currently in one of my user sandboxes. It requests that I contact hpl.archivescityofhouston.net though admittedly I am not confident in this matter; can someone else contact them requesting permission to use the images/upload them to the English Wikipedia? Thanks, HurricaneFan 25 — 16:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I have right to give such permission: Freebase. Original to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks! - John Take ( talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC).
Does ticket # 2011022810016611 also cover the other untagged contributions by user:Rodion88? [6] Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Professor Roger Kirby.png was uploaded by Biggleswiki and taken through the OTRS system. However, the user later turned out to be involved in the recent Bell Pottinger problem, and therefore may have been misrepresentating themselves in the OTRS process. Someone may want to check to see who they claimed to be and where the they claimed the image came from, as they may or may not have been factual in who they are during that process. Miyagawa (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploader told that he would provide "all the shit" that was required. It is a nice pic so it would be nice if there was a permission somewhere. -- MGA73 ( talk) 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm writing an end of year piece for the Signpost, and I was hoping to cover the creation of this board. Could someone who remembers it better link me to the proposal that lead to this board's creation? Thanks in advance, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I sent copyright permissions via email for this images:
A quick search for that URLs in the OTRS system and you will find my emails. (This is not to rush you guys. Just to be sure that the emails arrived, and avoid deletion. If you can't find one of them, ask me and I will re-send it)
Also delete this one:
(After we couldn't get the copyright-permission the uploader made a free replacement)
I have been given email permission by an authority on toponymy to use text created specifically for an article I am working on. I have modified the text in my draft space, intending to incorporate the text into the Ely article. Before I do, I wish to email you the full text of our discussions, including my drawing the authority's attention to the Wikipedia terms of use and the authority's subsequent explicit donation and acceptance of those terms. As far as I am aware, the text being donated has not been previously published -- Senra ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
For completeness, I have just come off IRC where I was asking if an edit summary ( this one) could be changed as I had inadvertently typed AB instead of KB. They told me OTRS would sort that out, including whether or not I need permission anyway for this entire enquiry. Please take note that KB is not the Keith Bailey referenced in my draft space. This caused confusion at IRC -- Senra ( talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No. Beatles1.ru is never going to be accepted. Hasteur ( talk) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Introduction. I got message, which lower, yesterday. Re: [Ticket#2011111310001478] Permission of the copyright holder to use materials related to The Beatles От кого: Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org> Dear Evgeniy, Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message. 11/13/2011 05:42 - Evgeniy wrote: Here is located my permission from 13 November 2011. Permission was sanctioned by OTRS. I'm afraid I've been unable to find which of our articles you are writing about.
Wikipedia has over three million articles, many on very similar topics, and it is sometimes difficult to know which one of them someone is referring to. Could you please give us the exact name of the article that you wish to draw our attention to? The article name is given in large, bold characters just above the words "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Alternatively, you could give us the exact URL of the page. The URL is the web address, which most web browsers show in a long bar above the page display and below the browser menu. Thank you for your help on this, and I'm sorry for any inconvenience ....And so on. I give reply now: Wikimedia Foundation can use any materials of THE BEATLES DATABASE by any way and in any of articles, which related to The Beatles. The derivative work was created lawfully and now is in the public domain. All creative works, which located there, must be used only in the context of the adaptation, to be in accordance with diffrent laws. Only for implementation of the global purposes (can see after clicking link). Only via interactivity, which relates to: Wikimedia Foundation and all of projects (including, any users: contributers and visitors), to Creative Commons (heart of all system) and to Yandex (big number of codes HTML is there located). Important: all content was generated on the website and then was uploaded on Yandex video service. This is the official invitation, to give access to online multimedia on legal grounds, providing interactivity. Any user of Wikipedia, by default becomes member of this interactivity, when click to link from the website. All multimedia at the website belongs only to THE BEATLES DATABASE as new material with new title (addition: "educational version" - by default). Date of creation of any content of website, is the day of appearence of THE BEATLES DATABASE (can update in any moment). The most important: exists The Beatles (to make pockets of some companies more bigger because of money), and exists THE BEATLES DATABASE, to implement international conventions on cultural diversity, education, research (of creativity) and charity. This is not the same, including, because purposes and tasks are very different. This is official legal act, my signatures: beatles80@yandex.com and 176.15.141.192 ( talk) 05:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC). No: The site that is trying to be introduced is beatles1.ru. A previous discussion came down to the determination that the site was never going to be acceptable for usage in Wikipedia. Hasteur ( talk) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Permission to use materials related to The Beatles Ticket:2011110810018756; got it, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, later in the thread HJ Mitchell and several other administrators tell you that it's not appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
An OTRS ticket has just been added to the talk page ( TicketNumber=2012010910008586) confirming "permission for use of this work". However, this article has chunks of text from three separate web sources:
Does the ticket confirm permission to use all three of them? If not, which one(s) have permission? Note: I suspect the rest of the article also has individual sentences copypasted from other sources in addition to the three above.
- Voceditenore ( talk) 06:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I e-mailed info-en@wikimedia.org
five hours ago regarding a possible legal threat, and haven't received a response as of yet, is that normal? I wouldn't mind normally but I'm going away this weekend in 3 hours time and won't be back until Monday (UK time) so that could obviously hold up the investigation if they need more info/diffs/e-mail evidence from me.
Giant
Snowman 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I raised the Kyndra Rotunda ticket here about four months ago, which I saw then, still see, as an instance where our OTRS procedures didn't work properly.
The Kyndra Rotunda article was subjected to the same kind of bias that preceded this ticket. I think there are strong reasons to suspect, first, that a single individual keeps trying to introduce bias to the article; second, that the individual whose fight to bias the article also is the individual who contacted OTRS.
I initiated an SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allison Page. In the last paragraph of the SPI I mentioned I mentioned my frustration with the role OTRS has played in this article. Geo Swan ( talk) 05:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I will, however, give you my strictly editorial feedback here. While it may have been reasonable to add one or two sentences about the dispute between the subject and her former employer, prior to October 2010 almost half the article was about this dispute. The notability of this subject is centered on her professional work with the military and involving military personnel and policies. Her dispute with her former employer is not particularly notable. Thousands of people every year have similar disputes with their employers, and some of those disputes may be commented upon in newsletters and similar journals related to the specific profession, but that does not make them notable. The principle of maintaining the appropriate balance within an article and not granting undue weight to smaller issues unrelated to notability is true for all articles, and in particular for biographies of living persons. If I had coincidentally stumbled upon the article in this version, not only would I have removed most of the material about the labour dispute, I would have seriously questioned the notability of the subject in the first place. Even with considerable additional work since that time, I cannot help but think that her notability is pretty borderline, and that the article has some fairly hefty coatracks in it. Risker ( talk) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what website/source ticket 2011123110014795 is for? Ariel Agemian is up for G12. -- Guerillero | My Talk 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I urged a new editor to arrange for permission for images desired to be used in Compact Linear Collider. Those images have been (understandably) removed, lacking licensing information. The editor informs me (on my talk page that permission has been sent, but no response received. I realize all are volunteers, but I would guess that it is normal to respond within a week, so I promised to follow-up to see if it is in progress, or if something is wrong. I understand that it would be easier to track down if I had the name of the eprson sending the request, which I will get if necessary, but perhaps noting that it came from an official at the Compact Linear Collider about a week ago will narrow it down.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to, or if I can, edit this file page. The title contains an obvious typo. I'm sure Catherine had a 'Coat of Arms' but not a 'Coat of Amrs'. Can somebody change it or let me know how to do so myself, please?!
Is this the appropriate place to highlight an error such as this or is there a better way to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdunclebob ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request a confirmation for the OTRS ticket on File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg. The EXIF states that the author is "Jason Kirk/Dailyceleb.com [redacted]." Can we get confirmation that User:Jsantandrea has the authority to make a release on behalf of that professional photographer? The uploader stated that " I know Christian Keiber and he gave me his head shot to post...He owns the headshot and it is not necessary to credit the photographer." Sounds suspicious to me.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 13:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The owner of some text wants to email me his confirmation that the text is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. Is there a boilerplate format for that kind of email? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A permission has been sent by SOLS247 for this logo to verify a GFDL license. However, the logo is much too simple to be eligible for copyright and is clearly a case of {{ PD-textlogo}}. I have already notified the uploader but you might want to consider changing the license to public domain. De728631 ( talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This file was deleted by User:Fastily. See User talk:Fastily#File:Wesley A. Clark and LINC, 1962.png for discussion. I would like it restored, but I am afraid any WP:BOLD move on my part will be instantly reverted and I do not know what to do. David Spector ( user/ talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Sheetal Sheth Cover of CHI.jpg on 13 February 2012 (UTC) and tagged it as {{otrs pending}}. On Wed, February 15, 2012 8:37:07 AM (PST) the copyright holder emailed permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org granting the {{cc-by-3.0}} license. The email was apparently not processed, and File:Sheetal Sheth Cover of CHI.jpg was removed on 20 February 2012 by User:Fastily due to no evidence of permission. The copyright holder re-sent permission to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org on Tue, February 21, 2012 9:29:36 AM (PST). What's the status of that file? What do I need to do to get it restored and properly approved?
Thanks in advance for your help. JBChristy ( talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Question: Could someone help me with this please? I've done everything in accordance with Wikipedia policies and the license for this file was granted 12 days ago, and yet I can't use the image. Please help? JBChristy ( talk) 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Could an OTRS person please check TicketNumber 2012021110008071 (placed on the talk page) and verify that material from both
has now been released under a compatible free license. The article is now blanked and I don't want to restore any of the material until I know for sure that it has a compatible license. There have been past problems with the authors sending invalid permission letters, and I want to make sure they've got it right this time. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Folks, a message at the Help Desk has pointed out inconsistencies on File:Arnold Leibovit.jpg and File:PuppetoonMovie(2).jpg. The former is tagged with an OTRS template even though the permission is incompatible with Wikipedia requirements. Not quite sure what's going on with the latter - has OTRS template and a non-free use rationale. – ukexpat ( talk) 13:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not the owner but I uploaded this to en-wiki, added copyright info and requested permission. I did not get the permission myself because the owner is anonymous to me, so I asked them to send it in to wp. Recently I moved it to commons thinking the release was on file, but I got a warning that there was no evidence of the permission. I believe I've been thru the permission process. How would that be recorded? Did the permission e-mail get seperated from the image? Thanks for your help. Hugh ( talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
See File:JoelFanAtPiano.jpg (OTRS 2011111010022817). Free licence but with a FUR. Is the free licence valid?
CC-BY 3.0 requires attribution. Who should be attributed?
It says that "permission from photo owner for use on Wikipeda has been recieved by OTRS". Is the "photo owner" the same as the copyright holder? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago, I posted a photo collage of headshots of the members of Mirkwood (band) to complement the band's WP article. As you will see from the responses below, it was queried on the grounds that its copyright status was unclear and I was asked to provide the source for each headshot. I confirmed that the collage was made by me using Corel photobook from an original photograph taken on my camera at my request by a friend. As you'll also see from the comments reproduced below, I have now been recommended to contact you for further advice/assistance. I hope you will be able to help as I do not know what else I can do. I will be very grateful if you can tell me what I've done wrong and what I need to do now. Thank you.
Mainmiguel ( talk) 10:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Responses received A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mirkwood wiki photosmall.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Although you did the collage, you need to provide the source for each of the pictures therein. As the images appear to be professional headshots, you may wish to go through the WP:OTRS system to verify the (c) status. Skier Dude (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You'd be best to deal with the WP:OTRS people given the nature of the image(s). Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
File:RichardWernick.tif is listed as non-free but has an OTRS ticket (2012022510008311). Is the file really unfree, or does the ticket specify some free licence? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to the permission for 2012021010002176. Articles for creation/St Dominic's Parish Melton
Thanks Kate
In light of the threads above, I'd like to get someone with a toolserver account to do two runs for me.
First, I'd like a list of all files in both Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed and Category:All non-free media
Second, I'd like a list of all files that are in Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed where there is not a Commons file by the same name (I did a random spot check and found that most of them had KeepLocal templates, but that dosen't mean that we can't also transfer them over to Commons). I'm asking for this because with the exception of KeepLocal tagged files, there shouldn't be any OTRS files on this project in the first place.
I'm not sure how to get a hold of people with TS accounts. The only person I know of off the top of my head, Chzz, is retired. I'll be more active during the second half of the month, and if no one comes forward here I'll chase someone down then. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
(Apologies in advance if this is the wrong area to ask this particular question.)
I recently contacted the PA of opera singer
Angela Gheorghiu to verify that Miss Gheorghiu was the copyright holder of the image
File:Angela Gheorghiu.jpg. Miss Gheorghiu's PA confirmed that she was, so inquired whether she would be willing to release the photograph through the OTRS. The response I received was that they were not very comfortable with granting anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and wanted to know if there was a less permissive licence that could be used instead. I have checked both
WP:File copyright tags/Free licenses and
COM:Copyright tags, but the pages weren't particularly intuitive, and I wasn't sure which (if any) of the licences listed would fit their needs. Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks very much in advance.
A Thousand Doors (
talk |
contribs) 13:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey there. We've wrangled photosumbissions down to a reasonable response time, however of the 18 that are left, 8 are in Spanish, and some of them are really old (159, 156, 127, 104, 84, 78, 57, and 18 days). If someone could come along and knock those off, that'd be fantastic. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please translate http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response:En-Photosubmission-No_article,_not_notable into Spanish for us, and then set it up on a page in the OTRS Wiki? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The talk page doesn't say that a BCHR article can be used despite sending a declaration and receiving a ticket number (2012031710000511). Can someone annotate the talk page with the proper template? same applies for Prisons in Bahrain. Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Mr. Thomas Bell-Wright CEO & CTO.jpg has ticket:2012031310001562 and it says that it has been published under GFDL and CC-BY-SA and also released to the public domain. Is this correct? I'd assume that "public domain" makes GFDL and CC-BY-SA unnecessary, so the licensing section looks strange. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I flagged a possibly unfree file here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:Concept Rendering Of Polisseni Center.jpg which we later obtained OTRS permission for. I am not questioning the provenance of the permission; in fact, I'm confident that RIT actually does own the copyright on this image. My concern is with the attribution listed on the image description page; the image is attributed to the Institute rather than to the outside artist who created the concept rendering. I would like to know what, specifically, the OTRS permission says about attribution and whether the original artist needs to be explicitly credited on the image description page. Thanks! Powers T 14:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I have today had three files flagged up as possibly unfree, however I am the copyright holder, UK trade mark Rovington, publisher, the files flagged are:
File:Will of Elizabeth Shaw.pdf, File:Allvideo.jpg, File:15th-baron-willoughby-of-parham-shield.jpg
I uploaded all three some time ago and under creative commons share alike, CC-BY-SA, I am the copyright holder.
I am happy to answer any questions here or via email.
-- pl ( talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:Stefan2#Permission Sent, User talk:Stefan2#Permission Not Found and User talk:Stefan2#Files Deleted. Is there some problem with the user's OTRS message? I tagged the files as {{ di-no permission}} some time ago, but after that they got {{ OTRS pending}} and were eventually deleted. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I've received permission from the maker of the Pebble watch to upload all of the images in this press pack as CC-BY-SA. Is there someone around that can verify for me? I haven't used OTRS before so I'm not sure of the procedure. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Could someone head to User talk:Drwilliampepper#Hi Shearonink and see whether the stuff that was allegedly sent to OTRS actually arrived? Regards So Why 20:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the file mentioned in the title and sent permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on April 6. I added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the file so it does not get deleted while the permission process is being done, however an admin went ahead and deleted it anyway (what is the point of the tag??). I can't find a ticket number, not sure if I ever got one. The admin said I can contact OTRS and you guys can restore the file if you can find the permission. I can resend the permission letter if necessary. Thanks. TonyStarks ( talk) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I recommend waiting a month from the time OTRS pending is set to the time we delete a file. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Does ticket:2011050310012808 or ticket:2010061510048525 contain any general permission for User:Allack to upload images copyrighted by Niffler.co.uk? There are four such images in Special:ListFiles/Allack without OTRS, but his similar Commons files have OTRS permission. The uploader complained about my image tagging at User talk:Stefan2#Chuck's Challenge Images. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I should hope there is this is the third time I've done it over the last 2 years Allack ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
But those are both from me, why are they not link to my account? And If they are not how do I make that happen? Allack ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've already done that and they are still flagged. How do I make it so Allack = Barnabas Cleave Niffler so you stop flagging the our images? Allack ( talk) 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK how do I tag the images with {{ OTRS pending}}? And how do I stop having to do that by being able to always upload images? Allack ( talk) 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK so why did that not happen with the last images then, as I've been using the same account for years now? Allack ( talk) 15:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK what form do I have to fill in to cover all Chuck's Challenge & Niffler stuff? Allack ( talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume that is all work that is uploaded to Wiki, rather than everything we ever make? Allack ( talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Boy is this thread a mess. Alright, so the way that I would do it is this. Have an email sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that states that User:Allack has has the right as the [copyright holder/copyright holder's representative] to upload files to Wikimedia Commons related to [Chuck's Challenge and Niffler/whatever it is you have the right to upload], under free licenses, and that the copyright holder understands the terms and conditions associated with those licenses. What this does is that it allows you (and only you) to upload files in the future (and dosen't release anything but the files you upload). We'll give you what's called a ticket number (essentially a timestamp that allows OTRS members to find your email). If you run into trouble again, you can just point to the ticket number, and an OTRS member will be able to clear it up in seconds. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Sven Allack ( talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered {{ Text release}} for the first time, and I've applied it to User talk:Raman Sonkhla/Parvaresh-Vardy codes and list decoder. Did I use it rightly? If not, please let me know, and I'll send an email to OTRS simply confirming that the source page is presently cc-by-sa-3.0 FYI, I'm not associated with the permissions process directly; I'm simply working with a user who (1) is also operating the source page, and (2) is doing his best to release the text under an acceptable license. Nyttend ( talk) 03:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone look at the OTRS information for these files:
They are all part of a discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_April_25#File:Elevator_BriemAnita.jpg
I really believe that they are all copyvios. One photo by this uploader was already CSDed: File:Elevator Ratray CU.jpg for being a copyvio. Another one is an almost duplicate of the scene here: (see 00:51 second mark). There is absolutely no way these photos were taken in any other method than being on scene during production of that movie. That being the case, I would be hesitant to believe any claim that did not include something from the production company that these are not owned by them.
Thanks in advance, -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Troll protests quite unjustly about the suppresion of their rights. Yandex.ru has always been a hub for
User:Ron Halls who is indef banned for repeated attempts at copyright infringement and admited trolling
Hasteur (
talk) 12:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
Wikipedia can use all materials of the project on human rights with title: The Beatles For Cultural Diversity (in strict accordance with the rules, to be free of violation of copyright). Materials can be used for the relevant articles (related to the creative work of band The Beatles). Usage of the project means, that Wikipedia supports the policy by the UN and the British Council (on legal grounds). This is the invitation to the interactivity. Permission was sent also to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. From: [redacted]. Thank you for attention! - FreedomRome ( talk) 04:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
|
Is the permission for the high-resolution copy in the history or only for the current low-resolution one? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Declaration of consent was sent from the copyright holder of this project for permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Text see below. I hereby affirm that I, John White am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the project on human rights «The Beatles For Cultural Diversity»: http://thedatahub.org/dataset/the-beatles-for-cultural-diversity (permanent link). Copyright occur independently of registration in accordance with any copyright legislation (was made very large work in the creative and intellectual context). I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Copyright holder of the project «The Beatles For Cultural Diversity» (see link above): John White E-mail of copyright holder: [redacted again] Representative of the project in Wikipedia: user FreedomRome Powered by Creative Commons in MAIL.RU: http://my.mail.ru/community/linksruspower (international coalition). E-mail: [redacted] (administrator). P.S. Limitations in the project are fixed by default (any). Such limitations can be changed in conformity with a law (rule) of particular jurisdiction.
|
According to this note on my talk page, the permission for File:Derek Flores actor improvisor and comedian by Sarah Andrews.jpg was sent at least over a week ago, as well as a followup email on May 2, but received no response. I know there's a backlog at the moment, but is there a chance an OTRS volunteer can look for said email? — ξ xplicit 23:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to verify that File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg ( ticket) was released under a CC BY 3.0 license. Since this is an advertisement for a product, I question whether Group Force Capital was fully aware of the extent of the licensing or if they simply said "it's okay to use this on Wikipedia." Gobōnobo + c 00:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Free, unfree, multiple duplicative licence templates and OTRS permission. What is this supposed to mean? Is the OTRS permission valid? I see that the file information page never has been edited by anyone mentioned at m:OTRS/personnel. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A request to see the Ticket:2011080110010451, for a .png, uploaded by a now blocked user, to be remained unnamed for now, to see if the consent was in fact validly given. I thank you. — KC9TV 11:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This was uploaded by paid group account Expewikiwriter. I'm a bit worried about the permissions. 86.** IP ( talk) 09:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Though that ticket was handled by another volunteer (I was just fulfilling a request for an administrator to restore the file), I can verify that that request is ostensibly from the copyright holder and/or sole owner of the work, it covers that work only, and it is a proper declaration of consent for CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thanks, — madman 02:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restraining_orders_questions I asked this question more explicitly for a second time in a related discussion:
One editor who doesn't know the meaning either replaced "restraining order" with "legal issues", but maybe there's some legal reason restraining order is in there. Since people are asked to come to you, it would help if it is clear why they were coming to you and it would help us with a somewhat related issue we are debating. So if anyone knows the exact meaning of that sentence, please help us clarify WP:BLP policy page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Please help. Much love, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The page I created ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Helmholtz_Alliance_for_Astroparticle_Physics) displayed an OTRS banner with ticket number 2012041910008641. Is the permission in question about the content (like copyright & licence trouble) or this is linked with the main problem displayed on top of no third parties reference? Thanks for helping! Astrohap ( talk) 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have doubts about File:Hyderabad-attractions- Dilkusha-guest-house.jpg. The uploader, Rkiran t ( talk · contribs), claims he sent an OTRS permission. Could somebody kindly check if such a message (valid or not) has indeed been received? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right venue for this, but I just came across a user talk page in C:CSD with the rationale "my employer requires that this page be deleted". I replaced it with a courtesy blanking notice, obviously it's not eligible for G7 since multiple authors have edited it, would there be an exception here to the usual rule of not deleting talk pages? Has the user contacted anyone? - filelake shoe 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have forwarded a copy of permission obtained for use of text in the article NIDM to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 02 June,2012. Kindly check and please tell any irregularities. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 05:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, An e-mail from the the author of Visual_Collaborative.jpg was sent to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Can you please review the Declaration of consent request.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnanonymous ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 May 2012
The uploader claims on the description page to have forwarded permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, although this file is on Commons. Has any such e-mail been received? January ( talk) 10:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Would someone please confirm OTRS permission for File:Lsuaerial.jpg? Thanks,-- GrapedApe ( talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This image got OTRS permission. After that, the image was overwritten by another image. Does the OTRS permission also apply to the new image or only to the old image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know whether there is anything wrong with the following, so I am just going to put it out there and let someone else decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Joseph_A._Spadaro&diff=prev&oldid=498070661
(Also see User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Dispute resolution requested)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Folks, could one of your kind selves check out the OTRS for the image File:Manil Suri, author photo by Jose Villarrubia.jpg ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, an email with the copyright holder's permission was sent regarding File:800px-Cuc.Phuong.Primate.Rehab.center.jpg. Would anyone mind checking for it? Thanks in advance. — ξ xplicit 00:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, An image I uploaded entitled Richard_Bazley.jpg was deleted after 7 days due to lack of licensing info. I spoke with Richard Bazley, who owns the copyright on the image, and he was kind enough to email wikipedia releasing the image under a creative commons license, using one of the wikipedia templates for this purpose. He did this on 21st June. Are you able to check if the permission has been recieved and re-add the image to the page which bears his name? I raised this with the volunteer who removed the image and he explained he was unable to track this and I should contact you directly. Many thanks. Dave Dave.m.houghton ( talk) 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This has now been resolved and can be closed. Many thanks
Dave.m.houghton ( talk) 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The file File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg is up for deletion because of "fair use" reasons. I took the photo of the statue and uploaded it to Wikipedia three or four years ago. Yesterday I got permission from the sculptor via email to use the photo. At the page discussing deleting the file, they want the sculptor to fill out the permission form. But this doesn't seem right to me, since the sculptor isn't giving permission to use the statue - it is my photo of it that will be used.
Is is sufficient for me to forward the email to you? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Need to get some information on this ticket. This has to do with the WTBO page. An IP claimed the information had "several inaccuracies" and it was "edited at the request of WTBO". I sourced the section in question with many different media sources and can find others if need be. I am curious if the OTRS ticket is still open and if so, if the information I have provided makes the ticket null and void. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This file has a strange licence: it is in the public domain because it is a "family archive photo". Family archive photos are not necessarily in the public domain, so I'm not sure if the licence is valid. Does the OTRS ticket reveal anything better, such as {{ PD-release}}? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Something looks wrong: the image has {{ PermissionOTRS}} but no licence. Could you check if a licence is specified somewhere? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
See upload summary: "Uploaded a fully free file, since the previous file was mistakenly declared as free." Does this mean that the first version is unfree? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Compare File:Shankar Amrit Mahotsava Logo.jpg with File:Shankar Dayal Singh.jpg. Two copies of the same photo (but one has some extra decorations). One is attributed to "Shankar Amrit Mahotsava Samiti" while the other one is attributed to " Parijat.delhi". Both have licences which require that the author is attributed, so it is important that the attribution is correct. One of them is marked with ticket:2012062110000711 so I'm wondering if the OTRS ticket might contain something useful which can be used to sort out the attribution issue. Interestingly, the file with OTRS permission has an {{ OTRS pending}} template on the talk page. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I'm having a difficult time finding the ticket that matches Talk:Alpha Psi Omega. The page may need deleted if I can't find the permission. NonvocalScream ( talk) 20:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Parizellina says they have confirmed permission for text from http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/about_en.htm for this article quoting OTRS ticket 2011062210004646, but there's no confirmation from an OTRS volunteer on the talk page - please could this ticket be checked? January ( talk) 10:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody check if https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4625120 gives permission for this file's licensing? It's the same ticket used for File:Kalana Greene Senior Day.JPG, which appears to have been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer. See also User talk:Drilnoth#File:Maya Moore 2009.jpg. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please verify the OTRS permission on this image? The uploader added the tag rather than an OTRS volunteer, so I'd like to be sure that it is accurate. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, from the same source, File:Image010 Infinity-CSVC.jpg and File:Image009InfinityLicense.jpg only have the ticket numbers added by the uploader. It's the same ticket, but just to be sure, could somebody check? Thanks. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, could somebody verify the ticket since it was added by the uploader. The history of this image makes it look suspiciously like the permission may not have been granted. Thanks, and sorry for flooding you all with requests; I'm just coming across a bunch while trying to empty Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 21:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at OTRS:2006052710002454? a user has stated this is a false ticket for images from this site, and wants to delete 100+ of them. Can an OTRS agent take a look and see if this ticket is "false" or not before any action is taken? Thanks, Avic ennasis @ 20:51, 8 Av 5771 / 8 August 2011 (UTC)
File:SarfarazNiazibokehexample.jpg was restored after a request at WP:REFUND quoting ticket 2011081910011426, please could the appropriate confirmation be added if all is in order? January ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been claimed on the talk page that the text of Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica, which was copied from various subpages of http://www.unem.edu/ including [1] has been licensed by OTRS ticket 2011083110000094. I would like to request verification. Monty 845 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
LaZingo ( talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple images of copyrighted modern artworks, with an OTRS note (ticket 2010110310005502). Apparently they were previously uploaded on it-wiki. They all have contradictory licensing statements (CC-BY-SA but also CC-BY-NC-ND). Can somebody verify please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Since such requests go through OTRS, the volunteers might be interested in this discussion at WP:REFUND. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Wngland ( talk · contribs) has uploaded this file to Commons. Wngland's previous edits were to blank the image from the Jodie Moore article and add unsourced info about her personal life. I'm asking that you confirm that there is in fact an OTRS ticket from Wngland filed and that the image is really theirs to upload. Dismas| (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:REFUND on the issue of articles being restored per OTRS clearance getting redeleted per CSD G11 or another speedy criterion. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone verify the licensing status of File:ASW Cornell Gradation 1954.jpg? It is currently tagged with both {{ PD-author}} and {{ self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. However, this combination of tags is contradictory—if it's been released into the public domain, then licenses like GFDL and CC don't make sense. So what does the OTRS ticket actually say? The GFDL and CC tags were added by an OTRS volunteer, so I'm guessing the PD tag is not supported by the OTRS ticket. Is that true? — Bkell ( talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone verify the licensing status of File:FlotinSiemReap.jpg? The description says, "The creator has granted permission for use in the wikimedia project," but Wikimedia-only permission is not free enough for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). — Bkell ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The SAP AG page contains two references to the name:
... SAP was founded in June 1972 as Systemanalyse und Programmentwicklung ("Systems Applications & Products in Data Processing")[3] by five former IBM engineers in Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (Dietmar Hopp, Klaus Tschira, Hans-Werner Hector, Hasso Plattner, and Claus Wellenreuther).[3] ... The acronym was later changed to stand for Systeme, Anwendungen und Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung ("Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing"). ...
The first of these is clearly at odds with the citation (listed as [3] above):
... 1972 Foundation: Five former IBM employees start a company they call SAP Systemanalyse und Programmentwicklung ("System Analysis and Program Development"). ... 1976 Legal transition: The limited-liability company SAP GmbH Systeme, Anwendungen und Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung ("Systems, Applications, and Products in Data Processing") is founded as a sales and support subsidiary. Five years later, the private partnership is dissolved and its rights are passed on to SAP GmbH. ...
The history shows people keep fixing the translation only to have it backed out (presumably by people who haven't visited the citation and discovered that SAP used to have a different name). Is there any mechanism to (a) correct this; and (b) prevent people from pasting the new name back in? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.189.175.250 (
talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some more eyes on DD172? The article has been the subject of both OTRS and Foundation contact, with regards to the accuracy and content of the second paragraph of the lead, and I need some more input on what exactly it should say. This morning, the article looked like this. I did some cleaning out of obviously unsuitable stuff using the existing sources, and came up with this. Further contact with a representative of the subject of the article pointed out another source that corrected an initial source, and I changed the lead to where it stands now, this. However, I could really, really use some more input on how to fairly interpret the content of the sources, and how to decide what belongs and doesn't belong in the article with regard to the police/summons dispute. I've done the best I could come up with, but this needs some crowdsourcing to reach the mean. Anyone want to help? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In a subsection above I wrote that I looked for the manual or guide that describes how OTRS team members conduct their duties -- and I wasn't about to find one.
The RISKS digest has had many discussions of a meme the security experts there mockingly call "security through obscurity". They assert that security should rely on procedures that are secure by design, that can survive peer review -- not through counting on keeping untested procedures secret.
Maybe I have failed in my searches, but it seems to me that the OTRS procedures are obscure. I could find no documentation as to how the OTRS team confirms the identity of an outsider. If the obscurity is by design, intended not to offer clues to vandals as to how to spoof the team, I think that would be a mistake.
I'll be frank, there have been a number of deletion discussions, mainly on the English language wikipedia, where I have been disappointed by the OTRS team. In several of those discussions some of the participants in the discussion kept repeating that the subjects of wikipedia articles had requested the deletion of those articles. But I could find no record, on the talk page, or in the discussion, of any messages that looked like they came from the subject of the article.
After participating in several of these discussion I came to the conclusion that all assertions that a real world individual had requested deletion should be ignored, unless an OTRS volunteer confirmed the bona fides of the individual making the assertion.
I'd really like to be able to trust that the OTRS procedures are robust enough to defeat being spoofed by casual vandals.
Candidly Geo Swan ( talk) 08:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree with a specific action, take it up privately with the OTRS agent in the first instance, and if you're not satisfied, email another OTRS agent you know or take it up with ArbCom and/or an OTRS admin (there's a list on Meta). OTRS agents are accountable to the OTRS admins for what they do on OTRS, and to ArbCom for OTRS-based actions they take on the english Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Your response above implies you thought I was asking for the kind of personal details OTRS is designed to protect to be revealed. Please understand that there is an enormous difference between saying that the general procedures OTRS team members use to confirm real world identities were made public from asking for unvieling of any particular outside correspondent's personal details.
As to whether OTRS team members are intelligent, and thus not easily fooled, James Randi, the highly respected professional magician who helped found the committee to scientifically investigate the claims of the paranormal (CSICOP), has written that it is easier for a magician or a con-man to fool an intelligent person, because they are more imaginative. So, if the OTRS team members are not specifically informed as to how to detect and escape being played by hackers employing "social engineering" and other fraudulent techniques, then my confidence in their intelligence offers me no confidence that their native intelligence will prevent them being hoaxed. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Could an editor with access to OTRS please comment on the discussion linked in the title? Yoenit ( talk) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not consider this acceptable, and I am reluctant to discuss this via email because although both team members have now had ample opportunity to reconsider things and own up to normal human error, neither have done so. If OTRS team members are accountable to the rest of the team, then I think it would be best for the project for this incident to be discussed in the open. To whatever extent OTRS team members are responsible to the rest of the WMF community I prefer to have this discussion in the open, so the wider WMF community can see how well the OTRS procedures work; do OTRS team members who err have other team members help them see where they erred?
I will repeat that I didn't see anything in the email from team member A that breached the privacy of the complainant and that couldn't be recorded on the article's talk page, or in other on-wiki fora. Although I don't see anything that requires protection I won't quote team member A's email on-wiki.
I am very sorry to say one interpretation of team member A's decision is that they used their OTRS authority to step in and take sides in a content matter in a non-neutral manner, when their concern could have and should have been discussed on the article's talk page. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't get a response on WP:BLPN (see section Herbert Mataré) so I ask here for the OTRS part.
According to User:Wikinaut ( talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor".
Kind Regards, SchreyP ( messages) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to use text from an online document is posted at Talk:Paul Shoup, ticket 2011100610000127. The document is being used with attribution (and copied verbatim at some points, if I remember rightly) at Paul Shoup House; could someone please check the ticket and then move it over to the house's talk page? I ask because I'd appreciate knowing whether (1) all of the online document is cc-by-sa-3.0, or (2) if only part of the document is cc-by-sa-3.0, and I think it might help if we had a comment about that at the house's talk page. Nyttend ( talk) 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Primary editor of this article has claimed the permission grant was made to permissions-en at the talk page. Please review and remove the copyright block tag if it's appropriate. No judgement on COI aspects of the author being involved with the organization. Hasteur ( talk) 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed several images with "OTRS pending" that have been there for quite some time (I've seen 3 months) - clearly I think that someone is pulling a fast one. Is there a defined time limit that one should apply before deletion? Ronhjones (Talk) 00:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this file on July 28th. Shortly thereafter confirmation was sent, and I just forwarded the original email from the owner with the file attachment as well this evening for extra clarification. A user on here has recently called the permission into question. Therefore, the location the permissions that have been sent (especially the original one sent quite a while ago and shortly after the file was uploaded) as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated to help settle this dispute. Booth088 ( talk) 02:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
At any point that usable permission is received, the file can be undeleted (if it is deleted first), but it would be best to lay out all our issues for his mother at one time to avoid having to go back repeatedly to get everything right. Even if the subject were an adult, we would not have been able to use his permission, as it does not assert copyright ownership and it does not assert a license. We generally recommend that copyright owners use the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. It isn't a given that he owns copyright, although it is plausible. Copyright in a photograph is owned by the photographer unless it is legally transferred. See [2]:
Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.
The photographer who took this image is evidently Rod Goodman, [3]. It would be awfully nice if Mr. Goodman had something on his website about license, but he doesn't, beyond the standard disclaimer that "No images may be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from the photographer." This doesn't mean that he did not transfer copyright of the photograph to River Alexander, but it does add yet another complication to the situation. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Sophievogt has uploaded a large number of artworks by Jeff Wassmann and Mary Schepisi. It seems like she has permission to do so, and several months ago she said she'd send an email verifying this, [4] but no OTRS tags have been added to her uploads. Could someone check and see where this stands? Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a note on the file that refers to an OTRS ticket. If it's correct could someone format it in the normal OTRS template? Ronhjones (Talk) 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Could an OTRS volunteer go through Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and delete/tag for deletion as appropriate? Note that any edit, even those not removing the tag, will reset the 30 days. Thanks! — Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Somebody at Wikipedia has to make this editorial decision. How can this major modern event be left off the main page, while some minor papal schism from 1400 years ago is included?
i apologize but got confused with all the links as to how to delete or who to contact this is what is posted under my name. (1st paragraph is correct but i believe you will agree this is funny but not factual and is not true) "...It should be noted that this time was and is fairly slow for international competition. It has been hypothesized that Reuss could have swam faster, but was prevented from doing so by a freak earthquake that launched thousands of sea urchins into the air as a result of a previous cataclysmic event occurring nearby in the Pacific (see: 1883 eruption of Krakatoa). Reuss, a longtime animal activist, was understandably concerned by this catastrophe and boarded a jet for Australia to provide what aid she could immediately before the semifinal of the women's 200 meter freestyle. The jet crashed at sea, killing all 96 people on board in an event that is now referred to as the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Because of her physical fitness and swimming skills, Ruess was able to make it back to Moscow in roughly an hour and 45 minutes, shattering the English Channel crossing world record. Ruess was consequently shcoked to find out that said disaster had in fact occurred 99 years earlier, but was able to recover from her surprise and win the Men's Olympic Bobsleigh race two years before, an event that garnered significant public relations coverage and widespread approval from mainstream media. Ruess is now a consultant for AIG, who she has advised on numerous successful mortgage tranch investments..." i would assume someone playing a joke let me know thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabel reuss ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a small but growing list of files at Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS, how long should we leave these alone, before requesting some action? I'm a little worried that this could be a bit of a loophole which allows images to stay that should not be here at all. Some of these images were tagged over a year ago! Ronhjones (Talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The information re The Krupp Foundation is incorrect---as is the origin of the Arndt Krupp Inheritance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.143.35 ( talk) 14:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I came across Template:UN map, and the text of it doesn't make any sense. Which is it?
I ask here in case the referenced ticket 2006090710013991 clarifies the matter. My main concern here is whether the link to the original is required or merely requested. Anomie ⚔ 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that File:Lucevela.jpg got an OTRS tag at upload time. Could this tag be verified, please? Eeekster ( talk) 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of the messages received and processed in the English Wikipedia's OTRS queues are things that don't affect life on-wiki outside their own individual scope: errors that need fixing, "why was my article deleted?", complaints about perennial topics... but some of them are different. Some of them are thank you notes to "Wikipedia's editors", some are articulate complaints of systemic bias, and some are written as if we had, and published, letters to the editor.
Would anyone be interested in an "OTRS feedback" board, where OTRS agents would cherry pick interesting messages of interest to the project as a whole, remove identifying information, and post them for the community to see and discuss among ourselves? I've asked OTRS administrators if this would be acceptable, so they might put the kibosh on this from their end, but I think it appropriate to ask the community in parallel... is this something we'd like to see? Jclemens ( talk) 04:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrong venue for attempting to grant permission.
|
---|
Hello. Copyright holder of the HTML edition of the scientific work of the world famous sexologists: Masters,Johnson, Colodny. The textbook: "Human Sexuality". Russian version of this work (official version) is the base for the creation of this HTML edition: HUMAN SEXUALITY OF MASTERS, JOHNSON, COLODNY IN HTML. This is the compilation, which consists of the selected best chapters. The HTML edition is multi-language. Also, this version uses the xxx video materials in some chapters, for the educational purposes only. Why? Such content was used in the scientific research for good of the science and education. Sexual scenes were filmed by Masters and Johnson. Many of the different private records were lost. They needs to be restored or replaced. Only the second option is available. About copyright: I am the one of the translaters of the book to Russian language (of the official version). The publishing house Mir now is in the disrepair. Not has of competence in every sense. Till this moment people from our group of the employees got task to create the HTML version of the textbook. Now is ready. As the one of the translaters, I act currently as the rights holder. Lawfully absolutely. By me were used the tools of the CC, to get such right in the best quality of all. About spam, if was this: one time was period, when the HTML edition not was under a control. Access to the studio of this website was opened to any person, when go preparatory work mostly. Because of such openess, possible, there were unpleasant incidents. This situation was in far past. These incidents not have of any relation to my person. I am respected man who has the full control in the relation of this website currently. I give the permission to use any materials of this educational resource for all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks! P.S. Copy of this permission was sent to: permissions@wikimedia.org. - 2.94.190.140 ( talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
Russian Editors: Wikipedia has it's servers based in the United States. The book is copyrighted and sold by a publisher in the United States. The (google) English translation reveals that indisputably that this is a digital reposting of a translated book (of which there is a US copyright). It is incumbent on Wikipedia to disallow such content to be posted on the EN wikipedia because it would either violate the US copyright in the context of the original book, or the copyright of the Russian version of the book (as it would be safe to assume that the Russian translation was granted under a specific copyright licence by the original publishing company). Wikipedia will not accept content of this natrue as it appears to be a copyright violation. Hasteur ( talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
|
I added a speedy delete template to this image due to incorrect licencing (painted 1928) and the copyright statement in the images Metadata. An OTRS pending template was then added and the speedy delete was removed. As it has been a week since this took place, can someone with OTRS privileges please confirm the validity/invalidity of the permission email. Thanks. memphisto 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe permission has been given for File:Hpqscan0002_=_The_Real_Estate_SpiderGraph_-_A_Home-Buying_Decision-Making_Aid.jpg via ticket 2011120210001086
Can the file be restored? Chzz ► 05:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What is going on with {{ Stella image}} and {{ Stella4D}}? While I understand that only 2D images are attribution and that 3D images are not allowed, why is this template transcluding OTRS pending on every image that uses this template? — Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Does the permission for this image also cover non-Wikipedia uses? The file page is unclear. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has taged a section of this article as a copypaste of http://poochcafe.com/?page_id=16 , which both it, and other section of the article, appear to be. According to the talk page we do, however, have permission to use the images in the article as this was apparently given in Ticket#: 2008103110012065. Given that the text was added by the same user as uploaded the images it seems likely to me that the release may also have included the text, especially given the discussion on the user's talk page. Could some one check the ticket and see if it released the text as well and if so undertake the appropiate actions (the original ticket handler is no longer active). If the ticket doesn't release the text I'll list at WP:CP and see if we can get permission. Dpmuk ( talk) 03:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to use one or more of the images listed here: 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the Hurricane Debra (1959) article, which is currently in one of my user sandboxes. It requests that I contact hpl.archivescityofhouston.net though admittedly I am not confident in this matter; can someone else contact them requesting permission to use the images/upload them to the English Wikipedia? Thanks, HurricaneFan 25 — 16:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I have right to give such permission: Freebase. Original to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks! - John Take ( talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC).
Does ticket # 2011022810016611 also cover the other untagged contributions by user:Rodion88? [6] Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Professor Roger Kirby.png was uploaded by Biggleswiki and taken through the OTRS system. However, the user later turned out to be involved in the recent Bell Pottinger problem, and therefore may have been misrepresentating themselves in the OTRS process. Someone may want to check to see who they claimed to be and where the they claimed the image came from, as they may or may not have been factual in who they are during that process. Miyagawa (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploader told that he would provide "all the shit" that was required. It is a nice pic so it would be nice if there was a permission somewhere. -- MGA73 ( talk) 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm writing an end of year piece for the Signpost, and I was hoping to cover the creation of this board. Could someone who remembers it better link me to the proposal that lead to this board's creation? Thanks in advance, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I sent copyright permissions via email for this images:
A quick search for that URLs in the OTRS system and you will find my emails. (This is not to rush you guys. Just to be sure that the emails arrived, and avoid deletion. If you can't find one of them, ask me and I will re-send it)
Also delete this one:
(After we couldn't get the copyright-permission the uploader made a free replacement)
I have been given email permission by an authority on toponymy to use text created specifically for an article I am working on. I have modified the text in my draft space, intending to incorporate the text into the Ely article. Before I do, I wish to email you the full text of our discussions, including my drawing the authority's attention to the Wikipedia terms of use and the authority's subsequent explicit donation and acceptance of those terms. As far as I am aware, the text being donated has not been previously published -- Senra ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
For completeness, I have just come off IRC where I was asking if an edit summary ( this one) could be changed as I had inadvertently typed AB instead of KB. They told me OTRS would sort that out, including whether or not I need permission anyway for this entire enquiry. Please take note that KB is not the Keith Bailey referenced in my draft space. This caused confusion at IRC -- Senra ( talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No. Beatles1.ru is never going to be accepted. Hasteur ( talk) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Introduction. I got message, which lower, yesterday. Re: [Ticket#2011111310001478] Permission of the copyright holder to use materials related to The Beatles От кого: Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org> Dear Evgeniy, Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message. 11/13/2011 05:42 - Evgeniy wrote: Here is located my permission from 13 November 2011. Permission was sanctioned by OTRS. I'm afraid I've been unable to find which of our articles you are writing about.
Wikipedia has over three million articles, many on very similar topics, and it is sometimes difficult to know which one of them someone is referring to. Could you please give us the exact name of the article that you wish to draw our attention to? The article name is given in large, bold characters just above the words "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Alternatively, you could give us the exact URL of the page. The URL is the web address, which most web browsers show in a long bar above the page display and below the browser menu. Thank you for your help on this, and I'm sorry for any inconvenience ....And so on. I give reply now: Wikimedia Foundation can use any materials of THE BEATLES DATABASE by any way and in any of articles, which related to The Beatles. The derivative work was created lawfully and now is in the public domain. All creative works, which located there, must be used only in the context of the adaptation, to be in accordance with diffrent laws. Only for implementation of the global purposes (can see after clicking link). Only via interactivity, which relates to: Wikimedia Foundation and all of projects (including, any users: contributers and visitors), to Creative Commons (heart of all system) and to Yandex (big number of codes HTML is there located). Important: all content was generated on the website and then was uploaded on Yandex video service. This is the official invitation, to give access to online multimedia on legal grounds, providing interactivity. Any user of Wikipedia, by default becomes member of this interactivity, when click to link from the website. All multimedia at the website belongs only to THE BEATLES DATABASE as new material with new title (addition: "educational version" - by default). Date of creation of any content of website, is the day of appearence of THE BEATLES DATABASE (can update in any moment). The most important: exists The Beatles (to make pockets of some companies more bigger because of money), and exists THE BEATLES DATABASE, to implement international conventions on cultural diversity, education, research (of creativity) and charity. This is not the same, including, because purposes and tasks are very different. This is official legal act, my signatures: beatles80@yandex.com and 176.15.141.192 ( talk) 05:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC). No: The site that is trying to be introduced is beatles1.ru. A previous discussion came down to the determination that the site was never going to be acceptable for usage in Wikipedia. Hasteur ( talk) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Permission to use materials related to The Beatles Ticket:2011110810018756; got it, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, later in the thread HJ Mitchell and several other administrators tell you that it's not appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
An OTRS ticket has just been added to the talk page ( TicketNumber=2012010910008586) confirming "permission for use of this work". However, this article has chunks of text from three separate web sources:
Does the ticket confirm permission to use all three of them? If not, which one(s) have permission? Note: I suspect the rest of the article also has individual sentences copypasted from other sources in addition to the three above.
- Voceditenore ( talk) 06:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I e-mailed info-en@wikimedia.org
five hours ago regarding a possible legal threat, and haven't received a response as of yet, is that normal? I wouldn't mind normally but I'm going away this weekend in 3 hours time and won't be back until Monday (UK time) so that could obviously hold up the investigation if they need more info/diffs/e-mail evidence from me.
Giant
Snowman 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I raised the Kyndra Rotunda ticket here about four months ago, which I saw then, still see, as an instance where our OTRS procedures didn't work properly.
The Kyndra Rotunda article was subjected to the same kind of bias that preceded this ticket. I think there are strong reasons to suspect, first, that a single individual keeps trying to introduce bias to the article; second, that the individual whose fight to bias the article also is the individual who contacted OTRS.
I initiated an SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allison Page. In the last paragraph of the SPI I mentioned I mentioned my frustration with the role OTRS has played in this article. Geo Swan ( talk) 05:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I will, however, give you my strictly editorial feedback here. While it may have been reasonable to add one or two sentences about the dispute between the subject and her former employer, prior to October 2010 almost half the article was about this dispute. The notability of this subject is centered on her professional work with the military and involving military personnel and policies. Her dispute with her former employer is not particularly notable. Thousands of people every year have similar disputes with their employers, and some of those disputes may be commented upon in newsletters and similar journals related to the specific profession, but that does not make them notable. The principle of maintaining the appropriate balance within an article and not granting undue weight to smaller issues unrelated to notability is true for all articles, and in particular for biographies of living persons. If I had coincidentally stumbled upon the article in this version, not only would I have removed most of the material about the labour dispute, I would have seriously questioned the notability of the subject in the first place. Even with considerable additional work since that time, I cannot help but think that her notability is pretty borderline, and that the article has some fairly hefty coatracks in it. Risker ( talk) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what website/source ticket 2011123110014795 is for? Ariel Agemian is up for G12. -- Guerillero | My Talk 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I urged a new editor to arrange for permission for images desired to be used in Compact Linear Collider. Those images have been (understandably) removed, lacking licensing information. The editor informs me (on my talk page that permission has been sent, but no response received. I realize all are volunteers, but I would guess that it is normal to respond within a week, so I promised to follow-up to see if it is in progress, or if something is wrong. I understand that it would be easier to track down if I had the name of the eprson sending the request, which I will get if necessary, but perhaps noting that it came from an official at the Compact Linear Collider about a week ago will narrow it down.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to, or if I can, edit this file page. The title contains an obvious typo. I'm sure Catherine had a 'Coat of Arms' but not a 'Coat of Amrs'. Can somebody change it or let me know how to do so myself, please?!
Is this the appropriate place to highlight an error such as this or is there a better way to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdunclebob ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request a confirmation for the OTRS ticket on File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg. The EXIF states that the author is "Jason Kirk/Dailyceleb.com [redacted]." Can we get confirmation that User:Jsantandrea has the authority to make a release on behalf of that professional photographer? The uploader stated that " I know Christian Keiber and he gave me his head shot to post...He owns the headshot and it is not necessary to credit the photographer." Sounds suspicious to me.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 13:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The owner of some text wants to email me his confirmation that the text is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. Is there a boilerplate format for that kind of email? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A permission has been sent by SOLS247 for this logo to verify a GFDL license. However, the logo is much too simple to be eligible for copyright and is clearly a case of {{ PD-textlogo}}. I have already notified the uploader but you might want to consider changing the license to public domain. De728631 ( talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This file was deleted by User:Fastily. See User talk:Fastily#File:Wesley A. Clark and LINC, 1962.png for discussion. I would like it restored, but I am afraid any WP:BOLD move on my part will be instantly reverted and I do not know what to do. David Spector ( user/ talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Sheetal Sheth Cover of CHI.jpg on 13 February 2012 (UTC) and tagged it as {{otrs pending}}. On Wed, February 15, 2012 8:37:07 AM (PST) the copyright holder emailed permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org granting the {{cc-by-3.0}} license. The email was apparently not processed, and File:Sheetal Sheth Cover of CHI.jpg was removed on 20 February 2012 by User:Fastily due to no evidence of permission. The copyright holder re-sent permission to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org on Tue, February 21, 2012 9:29:36 AM (PST). What's the status of that file? What do I need to do to get it restored and properly approved?
Thanks in advance for your help. JBChristy ( talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Question: Could someone help me with this please? I've done everything in accordance with Wikipedia policies and the license for this file was granted 12 days ago, and yet I can't use the image. Please help? JBChristy ( talk) 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Could an OTRS person please check TicketNumber 2012021110008071 (placed on the talk page) and verify that material from both
has now been released under a compatible free license. The article is now blanked and I don't want to restore any of the material until I know for sure that it has a compatible license. There have been past problems with the authors sending invalid permission letters, and I want to make sure they've got it right this time. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Folks, a message at the Help Desk has pointed out inconsistencies on File:Arnold Leibovit.jpg and File:PuppetoonMovie(2).jpg. The former is tagged with an OTRS template even though the permission is incompatible with Wikipedia requirements. Not quite sure what's going on with the latter - has OTRS template and a non-free use rationale. – ukexpat ( talk) 13:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not the owner but I uploaded this to en-wiki, added copyright info and requested permission. I did not get the permission myself because the owner is anonymous to me, so I asked them to send it in to wp. Recently I moved it to commons thinking the release was on file, but I got a warning that there was no evidence of the permission. I believe I've been thru the permission process. How would that be recorded? Did the permission e-mail get seperated from the image? Thanks for your help. Hugh ( talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
See File:JoelFanAtPiano.jpg (OTRS 2011111010022817). Free licence but with a FUR. Is the free licence valid?
CC-BY 3.0 requires attribution. Who should be attributed?
It says that "permission from photo owner for use on Wikipeda has been recieved by OTRS". Is the "photo owner" the same as the copyright holder? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago, I posted a photo collage of headshots of the members of Mirkwood (band) to complement the band's WP article. As you will see from the responses below, it was queried on the grounds that its copyright status was unclear and I was asked to provide the source for each headshot. I confirmed that the collage was made by me using Corel photobook from an original photograph taken on my camera at my request by a friend. As you'll also see from the comments reproduced below, I have now been recommended to contact you for further advice/assistance. I hope you will be able to help as I do not know what else I can do. I will be very grateful if you can tell me what I've done wrong and what I need to do now. Thank you.
Mainmiguel ( talk) 10:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Responses received A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mirkwood wiki photosmall.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Although you did the collage, you need to provide the source for each of the pictures therein. As the images appear to be professional headshots, you may wish to go through the WP:OTRS system to verify the (c) status. Skier Dude (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You'd be best to deal with the WP:OTRS people given the nature of the image(s). Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
File:RichardWernick.tif is listed as non-free but has an OTRS ticket (2012022510008311). Is the file really unfree, or does the ticket specify some free licence? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to the permission for 2012021010002176. Articles for creation/St Dominic's Parish Melton
Thanks Kate
In light of the threads above, I'd like to get someone with a toolserver account to do two runs for me.
First, I'd like a list of all files in both Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed and Category:All non-free media
Second, I'd like a list of all files that are in Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed where there is not a Commons file by the same name (I did a random spot check and found that most of them had KeepLocal templates, but that dosen't mean that we can't also transfer them over to Commons). I'm asking for this because with the exception of KeepLocal tagged files, there shouldn't be any OTRS files on this project in the first place.
I'm not sure how to get a hold of people with TS accounts. The only person I know of off the top of my head, Chzz, is retired. I'll be more active during the second half of the month, and if no one comes forward here I'll chase someone down then. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
(Apologies in advance if this is the wrong area to ask this particular question.)
I recently contacted the PA of opera singer
Angela Gheorghiu to verify that Miss Gheorghiu was the copyright holder of the image
File:Angela Gheorghiu.jpg. Miss Gheorghiu's PA confirmed that she was, so inquired whether she would be willing to release the photograph through the OTRS. The response I received was that they were not very comfortable with granting anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and wanted to know if there was a less permissive licence that could be used instead. I have checked both
WP:File copyright tags/Free licenses and
COM:Copyright tags, but the pages weren't particularly intuitive, and I wasn't sure which (if any) of the licences listed would fit their needs. Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks very much in advance.
A Thousand Doors (
talk |
contribs) 13:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey there. We've wrangled photosumbissions down to a reasonable response time, however of the 18 that are left, 8 are in Spanish, and some of them are really old (159, 156, 127, 104, 84, 78, 57, and 18 days). If someone could come along and knock those off, that'd be fantastic. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please translate http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response:En-Photosubmission-No_article,_not_notable into Spanish for us, and then set it up on a page in the OTRS Wiki? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The talk page doesn't say that a BCHR article can be used despite sending a declaration and receiving a ticket number (2012031710000511). Can someone annotate the talk page with the proper template? same applies for Prisons in Bahrain. Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Mr. Thomas Bell-Wright CEO & CTO.jpg has ticket:2012031310001562 and it says that it has been published under GFDL and CC-BY-SA and also released to the public domain. Is this correct? I'd assume that "public domain" makes GFDL and CC-BY-SA unnecessary, so the licensing section looks strange. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I flagged a possibly unfree file here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:Concept Rendering Of Polisseni Center.jpg which we later obtained OTRS permission for. I am not questioning the provenance of the permission; in fact, I'm confident that RIT actually does own the copyright on this image. My concern is with the attribution listed on the image description page; the image is attributed to the Institute rather than to the outside artist who created the concept rendering. I would like to know what, specifically, the OTRS permission says about attribution and whether the original artist needs to be explicitly credited on the image description page. Thanks! Powers T 14:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I have today had three files flagged up as possibly unfree, however I am the copyright holder, UK trade mark Rovington, publisher, the files flagged are:
File:Will of Elizabeth Shaw.pdf, File:Allvideo.jpg, File:15th-baron-willoughby-of-parham-shield.jpg
I uploaded all three some time ago and under creative commons share alike, CC-BY-SA, I am the copyright holder.
I am happy to answer any questions here or via email.
-- pl ( talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:Stefan2#Permission Sent, User talk:Stefan2#Permission Not Found and User talk:Stefan2#Files Deleted. Is there some problem with the user's OTRS message? I tagged the files as {{ di-no permission}} some time ago, but after that they got {{ OTRS pending}} and were eventually deleted. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I've received permission from the maker of the Pebble watch to upload all of the images in this press pack as CC-BY-SA. Is there someone around that can verify for me? I haven't used OTRS before so I'm not sure of the procedure. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Could someone head to User talk:Drwilliampepper#Hi Shearonink and see whether the stuff that was allegedly sent to OTRS actually arrived? Regards So Why 20:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the file mentioned in the title and sent permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on April 6. I added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the file so it does not get deleted while the permission process is being done, however an admin went ahead and deleted it anyway (what is the point of the tag??). I can't find a ticket number, not sure if I ever got one. The admin said I can contact OTRS and you guys can restore the file if you can find the permission. I can resend the permission letter if necessary. Thanks. TonyStarks ( talk) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I recommend waiting a month from the time OTRS pending is set to the time we delete a file. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Does ticket:2011050310012808 or ticket:2010061510048525 contain any general permission for User:Allack to upload images copyrighted by Niffler.co.uk? There are four such images in Special:ListFiles/Allack without OTRS, but his similar Commons files have OTRS permission. The uploader complained about my image tagging at User talk:Stefan2#Chuck's Challenge Images. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I should hope there is this is the third time I've done it over the last 2 years Allack ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
But those are both from me, why are they not link to my account? And If they are not how do I make that happen? Allack ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've already done that and they are still flagged. How do I make it so Allack = Barnabas Cleave Niffler so you stop flagging the our images? Allack ( talk) 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK how do I tag the images with {{ OTRS pending}}? And how do I stop having to do that by being able to always upload images? Allack ( talk) 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK so why did that not happen with the last images then, as I've been using the same account for years now? Allack ( talk) 15:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK what form do I have to fill in to cover all Chuck's Challenge & Niffler stuff? Allack ( talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume that is all work that is uploaded to Wiki, rather than everything we ever make? Allack ( talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Boy is this thread a mess. Alright, so the way that I would do it is this. Have an email sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that states that User:Allack has has the right as the [copyright holder/copyright holder's representative] to upload files to Wikimedia Commons related to [Chuck's Challenge and Niffler/whatever it is you have the right to upload], under free licenses, and that the copyright holder understands the terms and conditions associated with those licenses. What this does is that it allows you (and only you) to upload files in the future (and dosen't release anything but the files you upload). We'll give you what's called a ticket number (essentially a timestamp that allows OTRS members to find your email). If you run into trouble again, you can just point to the ticket number, and an OTRS member will be able to clear it up in seconds. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Sven Allack ( talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered {{ Text release}} for the first time, and I've applied it to User talk:Raman Sonkhla/Parvaresh-Vardy codes and list decoder. Did I use it rightly? If not, please let me know, and I'll send an email to OTRS simply confirming that the source page is presently cc-by-sa-3.0 FYI, I'm not associated with the permissions process directly; I'm simply working with a user who (1) is also operating the source page, and (2) is doing his best to release the text under an acceptable license. Nyttend ( talk) 03:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone look at the OTRS information for these files:
They are all part of a discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_April_25#File:Elevator_BriemAnita.jpg
I really believe that they are all copyvios. One photo by this uploader was already CSDed: File:Elevator Ratray CU.jpg for being a copyvio. Another one is an almost duplicate of the scene here: (see 00:51 second mark). There is absolutely no way these photos were taken in any other method than being on scene during production of that movie. That being the case, I would be hesitant to believe any claim that did not include something from the production company that these are not owned by them.
Thanks in advance, -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Troll protests quite unjustly about the suppresion of their rights. Yandex.ru has always been a hub for
User:Ron Halls who is indef banned for repeated attempts at copyright infringement and admited trolling
Hasteur (
talk) 12:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
Wikipedia can use all materials of the project on human rights with title: The Beatles For Cultural Diversity (in strict accordance with the rules, to be free of violation of copyright). Materials can be used for the relevant articles (related to the creative work of band The Beatles). Usage of the project means, that Wikipedia supports the policy by the UN and the British Council (on legal grounds). This is the invitation to the interactivity. Permission was sent also to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. From: [redacted]. Thank you for attention! - FreedomRome ( talk) 04:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
|
Is the permission for the high-resolution copy in the history or only for the current low-resolution one? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Declaration of consent was sent from the copyright holder of this project for permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Text see below. I hereby affirm that I, John White am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the project on human rights «The Beatles For Cultural Diversity»: http://thedatahub.org/dataset/the-beatles-for-cultural-diversity (permanent link). Copyright occur independently of registration in accordance with any copyright legislation (was made very large work in the creative and intellectual context). I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Copyright holder of the project «The Beatles For Cultural Diversity» (see link above): John White E-mail of copyright holder: [redacted again] Representative of the project in Wikipedia: user FreedomRome Powered by Creative Commons in MAIL.RU: http://my.mail.ru/community/linksruspower (international coalition). E-mail: [redacted] (administrator). P.S. Limitations in the project are fixed by default (any). Such limitations can be changed in conformity with a law (rule) of particular jurisdiction.
|
According to this note on my talk page, the permission for File:Derek Flores actor improvisor and comedian by Sarah Andrews.jpg was sent at least over a week ago, as well as a followup email on May 2, but received no response. I know there's a backlog at the moment, but is there a chance an OTRS volunteer can look for said email? — ξ xplicit 23:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to verify that File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg ( ticket) was released under a CC BY 3.0 license. Since this is an advertisement for a product, I question whether Group Force Capital was fully aware of the extent of the licensing or if they simply said "it's okay to use this on Wikipedia." Gobōnobo + c 00:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Free, unfree, multiple duplicative licence templates and OTRS permission. What is this supposed to mean? Is the OTRS permission valid? I see that the file information page never has been edited by anyone mentioned at m:OTRS/personnel. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A request to see the Ticket:2011080110010451, for a .png, uploaded by a now blocked user, to be remained unnamed for now, to see if the consent was in fact validly given. I thank you. — KC9TV 11:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This was uploaded by paid group account Expewikiwriter. I'm a bit worried about the permissions. 86.** IP ( talk) 09:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Though that ticket was handled by another volunteer (I was just fulfilling a request for an administrator to restore the file), I can verify that that request is ostensibly from the copyright holder and/or sole owner of the work, it covers that work only, and it is a proper declaration of consent for CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thanks, — madman 02:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restraining_orders_questions I asked this question more explicitly for a second time in a related discussion:
One editor who doesn't know the meaning either replaced "restraining order" with "legal issues", but maybe there's some legal reason restraining order is in there. Since people are asked to come to you, it would help if it is clear why they were coming to you and it would help us with a somewhat related issue we are debating. So if anyone knows the exact meaning of that sentence, please help us clarify WP:BLP policy page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Please help. Much love, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The page I created ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Helmholtz_Alliance_for_Astroparticle_Physics) displayed an OTRS banner with ticket number 2012041910008641. Is the permission in question about the content (like copyright & licence trouble) or this is linked with the main problem displayed on top of no third parties reference? Thanks for helping! Astrohap ( talk) 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have doubts about File:Hyderabad-attractions- Dilkusha-guest-house.jpg. The uploader, Rkiran t ( talk · contribs), claims he sent an OTRS permission. Could somebody kindly check if such a message (valid or not) has indeed been received? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right venue for this, but I just came across a user talk page in C:CSD with the rationale "my employer requires that this page be deleted". I replaced it with a courtesy blanking notice, obviously it's not eligible for G7 since multiple authors have edited it, would there be an exception here to the usual rule of not deleting talk pages? Has the user contacted anyone? - filelake shoe 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have forwarded a copy of permission obtained for use of text in the article NIDM to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 02 June,2012. Kindly check and please tell any irregularities. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 05:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, An e-mail from the the author of Visual_Collaborative.jpg was sent to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Can you please review the Declaration of consent request.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnanonymous ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 May 2012
The uploader claims on the description page to have forwarded permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, although this file is on Commons. Has any such e-mail been received? January ( talk) 10:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Would someone please confirm OTRS permission for File:Lsuaerial.jpg? Thanks,-- GrapedApe ( talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This image got OTRS permission. After that, the image was overwritten by another image. Does the OTRS permission also apply to the new image or only to the old image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know whether there is anything wrong with the following, so I am just going to put it out there and let someone else decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Joseph_A._Spadaro&diff=prev&oldid=498070661
(Also see User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Dispute resolution requested)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Folks, could one of your kind selves check out the OTRS for the image File:Manil Suri, author photo by Jose Villarrubia.jpg ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, an email with the copyright holder's permission was sent regarding File:800px-Cuc.Phuong.Primate.Rehab.center.jpg. Would anyone mind checking for it? Thanks in advance. — ξ xplicit 00:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, An image I uploaded entitled Richard_Bazley.jpg was deleted after 7 days due to lack of licensing info. I spoke with Richard Bazley, who owns the copyright on the image, and he was kind enough to email wikipedia releasing the image under a creative commons license, using one of the wikipedia templates for this purpose. He did this on 21st June. Are you able to check if the permission has been recieved and re-add the image to the page which bears his name? I raised this with the volunteer who removed the image and he explained he was unable to track this and I should contact you directly. Many thanks. Dave Dave.m.houghton ( talk) 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This has now been resolved and can be closed. Many thanks
Dave.m.houghton ( talk) 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The file File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg is up for deletion because of "fair use" reasons. I took the photo of the statue and uploaded it to Wikipedia three or four years ago. Yesterday I got permission from the sculptor via email to use the photo. At the page discussing deleting the file, they want the sculptor to fill out the permission form. But this doesn't seem right to me, since the sculptor isn't giving permission to use the statue - it is my photo of it that will be used.
Is is sufficient for me to forward the email to you? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Need to get some information on this ticket. This has to do with the WTBO page. An IP claimed the information had "several inaccuracies" and it was "edited at the request of WTBO". I sourced the section in question with many different media sources and can find others if need be. I am curious if the OTRS ticket is still open and if so, if the information I have provided makes the ticket null and void. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This file has a strange licence: it is in the public domain because it is a "family archive photo". Family archive photos are not necessarily in the public domain, so I'm not sure if the licence is valid. Does the OTRS ticket reveal anything better, such as {{ PD-release}}? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Something looks wrong: the image has {{ PermissionOTRS}} but no licence. Could you check if a licence is specified somewhere? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
See upload summary: "Uploaded a fully free file, since the previous file was mistakenly declared as free." Does this mean that the first version is unfree? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Compare File:Shankar Amrit Mahotsava Logo.jpg with File:Shankar Dayal Singh.jpg. Two copies of the same photo (but one has some extra decorations). One is attributed to "Shankar Amrit Mahotsava Samiti" while the other one is attributed to " Parijat.delhi". Both have licences which require that the author is attributed, so it is important that the attribution is correct. One of them is marked with ticket:2012062110000711 so I'm wondering if the OTRS ticket might contain something useful which can be used to sort out the attribution issue. Interestingly, the file with OTRS permission has an {{ OTRS pending}} template on the talk page. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)