Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
VRT Noticeboard
VRT Noticeboard
Main VRT-related pages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

The remainder of Category:Photographs by Stevan Kragujević not yet uploaded to Commons[edit]

Hello VRT, Serbian Wikipedia over at sr:Kategorija:Stevan Kragujević contains many files not yet transferred over to Commons. Some of them locally uploaded there have OTRS tags, but not all, despite all having the claim to have been uploaded "with the approval of [Stevan's] daughter Tanja Kragujević" ("po odobrenju kćerke Tanje Kragujević"), just like the rest of files VRT verified on Commons. Are all OTRS tagged files ready to be moved to Commons? What about the rest? There are many non-tagged files, so I worry we could be left without these if not resolved on time. I asked on the linked Serbian Wikipedia category's talk page but haven't received a relevant answer to my question. –Vipz (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It will need a Serbian language user to determine, but my impression with Google translate is that "No" is the answer. --Krd 12:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of pictures of Jacques Aeschlimann, Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure[edit]

Hello, I added pictures to the Wikipedia pages of Jacques Aeschlimann, Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure that were deleted. How could this deletion be canceled ? The pictures of Jacques Aeschlimann, Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure were sent to me by the owners of the rights on the pictures. Thank you for your help. Best regards Vialdrou (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket regarding these files is ticket:2023072010005839. Could someone check please? Yann (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Mussklprozz for help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure, the authorship is unclear, sender of the ticket is not the rights holder. In the case of Jacques Aeschlimann, we can possibly get a heirs' licence. Sorry, following the client's last answer, I had expected further message from her, leaving both sides in mutual waiting. I will write her again now, trying to clarify at least the authorship of the Jacques Aeschlimann photos. Mussklprozz (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mussklprozz
Jean-Philippe Faure wrote me that he has sent you or will send you very soon the information that he took the picture and accepts that it is put freely on Wikimedia commons.
The heir of Willy Aeschlimann and Jacques Aeschlimann, Caroline Aeschlimann, wrote me that she will send very soon more informations concerning who took the pictures of them (mostly different members of their family) and the identity of their heirs. Their heirs all accepted that the pictures were put on Wikimedia commons. Transmission of their acceptance can be organized. That's something to check with her. Vialdrou (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci @Vialdrou, I am looking forward to the further communication with them. As soon as authorships, heritage and permissions are claryfied, the images can be restored. – J'attends avec intérêt la suite de la communication avec eux. Dès que les droits d'auteur, le patrimoine et les autorisations seront clarifiés, les images pourront être restaurées. Amitiés, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour @Mussklprozz,
Caroline Aeschlimann m'a informé que les discussions continuaient sur certaines photos mais que d'autres avaient d'ores et déjà été validées. Est-ce correct ?
Merci pour votre travail.
Amitiés, Vialdrou (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023122710007663[edit]

Добрый вечер! Прошу обработать данное разрешение для дочерних сайтов Росавтодора для шаблона {{Rosavtodor.ru}}. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MasterRus21thCentury Thanks for asking. The ticket awaits action from an agent who knows Russian language. I don't know it and cannot act. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: This appears to concern the 573 files in Category:Files from Rosavtodor.ru tagged with {{Rosavtodor.ru}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Copyright status of) page x missing from Dictionary of the Vilamovan language[edit]

Hi, I was redirected to post my inquiry here, which concerns ticket number ticket:2014061910007868. As the title describes, page x (i.e. after ix, before xi) is missing from the file series Dictionary of the Vilamovan language. The category, created almost a decade ago, has a label indicating that the rights holder has given written permission to license the work here. The missing page is also available online from the Polish national library, which labels the file as being in the public domain (in Poland, evidently). However, as a presumably posthumous (author died 1919) work published in 1930-1936 (page x would appear to be part of Vol. 1, so from 1930), I'm not confident on what the status would be for our purposes (i.e. according to the US situation, where it doesn't seem to have ever been published) and I'm also not confident that the written permission applies to the whole work or only the files so far uploaded (thus inadvertently excluding the missing page). Basically I'd like to know, what are the chances of adding the missing page (or having it added by a trusted volunteer) without inadvertently violating copyright? Helrasincke (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heinrich Anders died in 1941 and Adam Kleczkowski in 1949. So, the works by Kleczkowski are copyrighted in US 95 years since publication (till 1.1.2026 in this case) per URAA. Kleczkowski seems to be the author of the preface. If the ticket contains a permission valid for the preface, you can upload the missing page (or the whole book) and ask a VRT agent to mark it appropriately. The rest seems to be PD already, Both: in Poland and in US. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg[edit]

This file nominated for deletion has ticket:2009012510001013 attached to it. Can a VRT agent please weigh in? Thanks. —holly {chat} 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the delay: the ticket says that "all materials released under the Next Left Notes masthead, also known as NLN, are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) unless otherwise indicated." Nothing else. The DR was closed, but the center of the dispute was another, INMO, so this ticket is not useful I think. They can't release an image if they're not the copyright holders. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2024011910006135[edit]

The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation has given its consent in principle to the use of its materials on Flickr under a CC BY 4.0 license (not updated since January 2023), while all its materials have been transferred to photo.senatinform.ru (copyright rules). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Permissions-ru has a 25 days backlog. I don't know if we have actives agents in that language. I may proceed in English if that helps. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checking[edit]

Since User:Alina Poliakova was blocked for long-term abuse, revise please permission for File:Hryhoriy Malenko.jpg -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For convenience: A DR about this file was closed as invalid by @Андрей Романенко in July 2023. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the photo of the notable person with the name of the uploader in EXIF. I even don't understand why it needs VRT ticket at all. The user is banned, okay, but there is no policy to delete all the previous contribution. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your assessment @Андрей Романенко. I rather find it a messy thing to ask for permissions where EXIF doesn't suggest otherwise. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But metadata can be edited, and I suppose you can do nothing about that but trust. But with this abuser (Bodiadub, Wikibusiness) we have a pattern, that's why I asked for a closer look. These files also contained free license and name in EXIF:
and this one was accepted again:
Will try to bring more later Anntinomy (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files that happen to have EXIF mentioning author and license (!), some with permissions and brought by the same abuser

--Anntinomy (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is my belief the names of the uploaders are bogus. We know the real names of the Wikibusines spammers, and it is not equal to the claimed authors of those images. A simple Google search will suffice. MER-C 12:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MER-C, thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at these files and tickets once I am on the system. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fabrizio Romano[edit]

Hello. I am writing about ticket:2024012510000398. I am in communication with Fabrizio Romano to help him get the photo back up. Fabrizio Romano asserts that he is the sole owner of the photograph, even though he is also the subject of the photograph. The subject and photographer/owner are both him- what I understood is that he used the delayed photograph thing. How are you going to deny that? He sent me the screenshot of the email he received from Valería Domínguez. Fabrizio is a busy man, so I'm writing this to get the permission accepted. Please respond ASAP. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please ping. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul Vaurie: I see that this in reference to Ticket:2024012510000398, but what (deleted) filename is this in reference to?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: Thanks! Using that information and the two linked DRs, you or any Admin should be able to examine the metadata of the deleted file for timer usage with an external tool, as Commons still doesn't show metadata about timer usage. Note: my favorite such tool, Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, "is unavailable at the moment", but Windows Explorer's "Properties / Details" or Jimpl (scrolled down to the "Full metadata") can substitute.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. thanks. I believe it is not needed here. I have been feeling unwell but a cursory look on the ticket shows that Fabrizio has had some agreement with Globe Soccer about this very image, and they failed to produce the agreement when asked. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: Are you sure we're talking about the same image? The image that was deleted is the one on his Twitter profile. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul Vaurie, yes of course. Reiterating once again that the permissions are inadequate and won't be accepted until the photographer releases it, or until Fabrizio shares the agreement they claimed to have had with Globe Soccer. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: And what makes you think that the image was owned by GlobeSoccer? Are you just making an assumption? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No and why should I make assumptions? This is what the permissions-sender (Fabrizio) has claimed in the ticket mentioned by you (ticket:2024012510000398). You are free to ask any other VRT agent for re-assessment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ganímedes: In case, you would want to add anything to this thread. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I didn't accept permission for File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg because we never received permission from the photographer, and the subject of the file didn't show us the contract to prove that full copyrights were transferred to him. So, the subject requested the deletion of the file. Instead, he requested to upload a new self-photo, but I didn't have access to VRT today (I'm on holidays with slow connection) and I didn't see the request until now. He didn't attach the file to upload it myself either, so... --Ganímedes (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi: I understand now! It was a misunderstanding. Fabrizio Romano does not seem to have much experience in this, and when he spoke about GlobeSoccer, he was referring to another image he wanted to upload. He got two different tickets tangled up when they should be kept separate. I can send you screenshots of our conversation if you'd like proof. Essentially, the image that he was talking about originally (the one on his Twitter profile/that was uploaded on Commons) is NOT GlobeSoccer's. How do we proceed from now on? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the GlobeSoccer image he mentioned. This is not the image that was originally uploaded and that he is giving permission for. He mentioned the GlobeSoccer image to me before, but I didn't think he'd get the two things mixed up. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GlobeSoccer, Facebook, Instagram, whatever; it doesn't matter. VRT needs permission directly from the photographer. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ganímedes: Yeah, understood. But the image he's trying to recover-- he's the photographer too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless Fabrizio is not telling me everything -- the image he is trying to recover is the one that was originally uploaded, and that image, he owns the photo, as I understand he took it himself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already explained this; please read upper. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ganímedes: Should I ask him to send a new, more precise ticket? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul Vaurie, Whoever is the copyrights holder/photographer, tell them to send us a precise release. If it involves agreements, share them as well. Since it is confidential, it remains confidential. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: Is that not what was done in the first place? He must have sent something different than what I showed him through the VRT template. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me summarize to clarify: Fabrizio Romano sent ticket:2024012510000398 with permission for file File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg. As he's not the photographer and he didn't show us the contract stipulating that 100% of the copyrights were transferred from the photographer to Fabrizio, that permission was rejected. Instead, he told me to upload a new, selfy photo. I've asked him to send the file by email as an attachment to upload it myself on his behalf, but apparently, he doesn't know how to do it because I still haven't received it. I strongly don't recommend to send a new email and create a new ticket so we can continue the process. Paul Vaurie: you can follow the thread by sending an email to permissions-commons[@]wikimedia.org and adding "Re: [Ticket#2024012510000398]" in the subject line of the email. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Paul Vaurie: You could have avoided much of this by asking Fabrizio to carbon copy you on correspondence with VRT in the first place. He still can.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2012010710010595[edit]

Hello, regarding ticket:2012010710010595, I see it is used for File:BMI Airbus A320-232 by Osipov Dmitry.jpg and File:Vityaz-Aero Mil Mi-8T RA-24744 Nikolaevka.jpg. Does the ticket grant permission for all work by Osipov Dmitry on airliners.net, or only specific images? I ask because he has a photo of the recently crashed Russian Il-76 available there, which could be beneficial to the various Wikipedia projects covering the incident, if it is in fact covered by the permission given in the ticket. – Recoil16 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only those photos. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. – Recoil16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. – Recoil16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Request undeletion of concert poster[edit]

See

where the undeletion board referred me to here.

The general situation is that user:Fabebk is a poster designer who has already verified themselves as copyright holder with two VRT tickets, and now has a third file up for deletion.

What advice does anyone have for clearly communicating that posters attributed to this user come with their open copyright license, and that they designed the things? Bluerasberry (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry: The file was uploaded by some other user and attributed to Fabian Garcia. No source to validate the permission was included. For each such instance, a VRT permission-release is necessary. I don't see any problem with the uploads that directly come from User:Fabebk, and are tagged as {{Own}}. However, the file in in reference above, needs a VRT permissions release from Fabian Garcia, and once received, it will be undeleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we already know that user:Fabebk is Fabian Garcia, couldn't they just weigh in on-wiki rather than go through VRT? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if User:Fabebk is Fabian Garcia and haven't really read each and every line of the VRT conversations. I shared my analysis pertaining to a specific file which was attributed to Fabian Garcia. Nor do I feel it necessary of having their identity confirmed. There are two cases: #1: Files uploaded by others and attributed to Fabian, a VRT release/or any such proof of release from Fabian is necessary. #2: Files uploaded by User:Fabebk as entirely own, VRT release is too much to ask.
The file in question was uploaded not by User:Fabebk but by someone else. As such, it does need a permission release. I'd perhaps dig the tickets to check with if Fabebk = Fabian Garcia, maybe tomorrow later in the night. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Fabebk states on their user page that they've verified their identity with ticket:2023091010005532 and ticket:2023113010007391. It would seem to me that part of the point of doing that is that they can then weigh in on-wiki from that account, rather than having to go through VRT each time. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Sending an email to VRT doesn't mean that the user has verified their identity. I skimmed over both the tickets and nowhere I see any claim that the email sender claims to be same as User:Fabebk on the Wikimedia Commons. This is the reason, I said we should treat the files in two different ways, already explained above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An easy alternative I could offer is receiving an email at VRT stating "I am same as User:Fabebk on the Wikimedia Commons". ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: I just want to make sure: you are saying that the claim of verified identity at meta:User:Fabebk is false? - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Yes, and likely, because I do not see any claim on the tickets in which Fabian has mentioned that they are exactly the same person as User:Fabebk here. Perhaps, either they misunderstand what VRT identity verification means? Sending an email to VRT doesn't mean that one has verified identity. User:Fabebk could be Fabian Garcia and User:Fabebk could have sent permissions to the VRT, but the point I am making is that I don't see in both of the tickets an explicit statement from Fabian Garcia mentioning "they are same as User:Fabebk on Wikimedia Commons". Telling the VRT that "Just information for the future. All images I upload to Wikimedia comments are all my work." and merely mentioning Fabebk in the ticket doesn't amount to a full identity verification. Both tickets fail in this. Moreover, I would really want the verification come as guided on {{Verified account}}. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: can you have a look at ticket:2024013110012801, more specifically response #4 in the thread, and see if this is sufficient for you? I have now internally in VRT linked all the permission tickets we have received from this contact. Ciell (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ciell, this looks perfectly fine. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your assistance has been helpful. ticket:2023121210001722 also appears to be fine. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi great, happy to be of help. To be clear: does this mean you will undelete the image and tag the vrt-permission received? Ciell (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ciell, I believe no. This should be undeleted perhaps only when the ticket:2023121210001722 receives an answer to the question at #6. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry: taking a different angle here - does the artist/creator of the poster have a personal website? Ciell (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ciell: and yet another angle: does what you've seen in the various tickets add up to being able to call this a verified account, or is there something specific we still need? - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: What the other tickets have helped is that Fabebk = Fabian Garcia. However, concerning File:Chinchilla Café presents 2023-08-17.png, VRT has sent a question to the email sender on 18/12/2023, and there appears no response, so far. The file should be undeleted once that question receives an answer. I'm uncertain if I'm being too strict but the question I see is a legitimate one. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree: the confirmation of this is already in the opening statement of the 20231218 email, and this is not their first time contacting us. I don't think you need to be this strict, but if you would really like the confirmation one more time, please followup in the ticket and kindly remind them of this pending question. Ciell (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ciell: Too many tickets create confusions. I just had a look at ticket:2024013110012801 and I find it adequate. The 02/02/2024 response is perfectly okay and answers the issues raised on ticket:2023121210001722. I have undeleted the file and updated the permissions. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the undeletion Aafi!
I can agree that it's sometimes confusing - linking together multiple tickets from the same contact in VRT can help create a better overview of the case.
Just fyi: merging emails sometimes also helps, but a) once merged, tickets are very hard (impossible) to unmerge, and b) though from the same contact they are about different images. I only merge when a second email comes in on exactly the same topic, for instance when a contact follows up with the requested permission statement in a new thread. So in cases like this one, I rather link all tickets together which creates the small list of ticket numbers you see next to the email body now. Ciell (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I personally see no need to verify this account. We in general only do this with celebrities, well known photographers, etc. We don't do this to simply verify an image, there are other ways to do that. In case of request for verification the information in VRT is not enough: earlier today I left some additional information about this on the template talkpage. Ciell (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kulka Frigyes szoborportréja.jpg[edit]

The photo nominated in this DR has ticket:2013011010004405 attached to it. Can a VRT agent please weigh in? Thanks. —holly {chat} 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Holly Cheng: The ticket is too old, from 2013, and was handled and approved by Hungarikusz Firkász who appears to have CSDed it recently for copyvio. Since, it is Hungarian, I'm uncertain if I can offer any more insights. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: what is "CSD"? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, ah, sorry, it should mean COM:CSD'ed? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I've consistently seen "speedied", "CSDed" is a new one to me. I will add it to Commons:Glossary (it was definitely not there). - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't sure. This term is very common on en-wiki. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket number 2016111910006337[edit]

Can the ticket below be used as "permission" for this same Jaan Poska statue in other properly licensed photographs?

Ticket=[1] on this file here:File:Jaan Poska monument Kadriorus, skulptor Elo Liiv, 2016.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooligan: I can see the following files mentioned in the ticket.
The ticket isn't too detailed for me to offer any other advice. But fwiw, it shouldn't apply anywhere else. I'd really want to hear for from Kruusamägi as the agent who handled this ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, "it shouldn't apply anywhere else" means that other photos containing this same Jaan Poska statue would not be covered by this VRTS ticket (pending any additional information from Kruusamagi). Thanks for looking at the ticket. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=848994221"