Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) 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: 5 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

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

An accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system? - (ticket:2020112910005534)

[edit]

Is the text located under this file license an accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system?

  • Ticket Number = 2020112910005534

Is this quotation in French accurate (see below):

  • « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. »

(name of client removed --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Translation to English (see below):

  • "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now owned by the Ministry of Culture, kept by an entity called Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine and disseminated by the photographic agency RMN-Grand Palais. This photographic collection is not subject to a property right so anyone who has a portrait of the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet. ”

Thank you for verifying this possible VRT text, -- Ooligan (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: as the original VRT agent who can probably translate the French text more accurately than me. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Matrix for pinging @Mussklprozz related to this French VRT Ticket question. Best Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix, @Ooligan: IMO the translation is correct. Mussklprozz (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the phrasing vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet is ambiguous, as well as its English translation above. Literally, it could mean: You can reuse a portrait which you found on the internet, which is obvious nonsense. the only sensible interpretation is you can reuse on the internet any portrait which you found (in the collection). Mussklprozz (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mussklprozz: What is the conclusion? Are you going to reopen the ticket? --Krd 02:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mussklprozz, @Krd and @Matrix- If reopening the ticket helps to clarify as Mussklprozz wrote, "the only sensible interpretation is you can reuse on the internet any portrait which you found (in the collection)." This fresh interpretation of the French translation may have some bearing on the disscussion here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992). Pinging @Tisourcier Par courtoisie s'il vous plaît. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd, @Matrix, @Ooligan: If you think that my faith towards the client was inappropriate, I can write them again. Allow me for two weeks do so, since I am away the next two weeks (in France in deed). I have re-opened the ticket and put it on hold until Sept. 29. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mussklprozz: I'm not sure if the ticket should be reopened, but in any case I think we should have a decision here. Please advise. Krd 12:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd I thought it over. The first interpretation of the client's quote is only grammatically possible, but so obviously absurd that we can trust upon the client's intelligence and AGF. I suggest we close the case. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, isn't the quoted part supposed to be confidential, if it was originally sent in an email, not published somewhere before? whym (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the name of the client. To quote the text is acceptable IMO. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wdwd (discusión) 12:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

MOVED from Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team, clearly the wrong place. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
por favor reintegrar mis fotos borradas, sonde mi autoría. mi dispositivo multiplexor y su sistema de grabado de imágenes por medio de 5 cámaras especiales desarrolladas en mi laboratorio son de alta velocidad. solo graban videos. por eso tome una captura en momentos específicos que pueden graficar estados reales de la composición de la luz. puedo poner a disposición un enlace a mi OneDrive para que comprueben que esas imágenes son mías - https://1drv.ms/v/c/0394aa8157382055/EauaGYkt00NMtKC3iOtF5_8Bmp61FFx8SqsuYi9PYGJP-A Akayser1 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
END MOVED Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not a VRT member, I'm a admin trying to help sort this out. I'm not certain this is a VRT issue at all, but I wanted it to be in a place where someone relevant might see it.
Quick translation of the above into English; his style is a bit telegraphic, but I'm pretty sure I've understood correctly: "Please restore my erased photos, they are [sonde => son de] of my authorship. My multiplexer device and its image recording system by means of five special cameras, developed in my laboratory, are high-velocity. They only record videos. Because of this, one takes a screenshot in specific moments that can graph real states of light composition. I can put at [your] disposition a link to my OneDrive to prove the images are mine."
Offhand, it sounds to me like this isn't about any existing ticket. Perhaps what needs to happen is for him to send confidential email to the usual VRT address for Spanish, containing that link to his OneDrive? Or does this need something else to happen? It looks like the deleted files were:
I didn't look at all the histories, so some might be different, but typically Omphalographer marked as possible copyright violation because "These are all obviously screenshots of a video, not own work," and WdWd deleted. It does look likely to me that these could be legitimate, and that the uploader could be the videographer.
Please feel free to ping me if help is needed from a general admin rather than a VRT member. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exacto! Muchas Gracias Akayser1 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entiendo que las fotos son de tu autoría, y que son capturas de videos. Lo que no me queda claro es qué es Kayser-Cuantum C ni quién creó las imágenes del video. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kayser cuantum C en el nombre de fantasía que he hecho para rotular el trabajo de investigacion generando imágenes reales. No son resultados de simulación por ordenador. En estas imagenes a mi parecer el foton copia ell recorido entre las dos orbitas del electron que lo genera. Asi su forma es algo similar a una C mayúscula. Por eso en vez de llamar quantum lo llamo Cuantum C. El experimento que realizó con el multiplexor me deja ver a mi parecer que los fotones no son ondas. Sino lo que dijo planck paquetes individuales de energía. Una especie de partícula individual de energía. Que tiene segun mi parecer al ver los videos, de ensamblarce unas a otras cercanas y en determinados momentos hacer cadenas que han confundido a muchos a creer que es una onda. El patron mal llamado de interferencias. No lo provoca cancelación por enfrentamiento de Fase. El patron observado es un espectro de intermodulacion. Que si pudiera subir un video se podría comprender mejor mi teoría.
gracias 88.4.27.130 10:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Luis A Kayser: Please, given that this is a question of identity, log in when posting. May we presume that last paragraph came from you?
  • Por favor, dado que esto es un asunto de identidad, inicia una sesión antes de escribir aquí. ¿Podemos presumir que el último párrafo fue escrito por usted? - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hola, perdón por los errores. si, el ultimo párrafo lo escribí yo, pero desde el smartphone. en lo sucesivo tratare de usar el ordenador. ῀῀῀῀ Akayser1 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omphalographer and WdWd: Not sure if either of you read Spanish; if not, and if Google Translate isn't enough, I can translate more. It sure sounds to me like this really is the person who created these, even though a video was involved as an intermediate step in his process from his lab equipment to still images. Would you be willing to simply undelete, and if not what sort of evidence would you want? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luis A Kayser: es posible subir un video. Véase Commons:Video/es. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buenos días Jmabel. gracias por el dato de donde subir videos! he subido varios. por ejemplo este:
Flujo de Fotones alternando uniones.
Akayser1 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no ticket mentioned in this section, Is there any? If not, please provide permission via ticket. --Krd 12:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Storm passing through Moore, Oklahoma May 3, 1999.png & File:Storm passing through Bridge Creek, Oklahoma May 3, 1999.png

[edit]

Can a VRT member remove the ticket/attribution tags on this image? It should be tagged with {{PD-NEXRAD}}, as U.S. weather radar images do not meet the threshold of originality (see this Village Pump/Copyright discussion for further info). Every U.S. weather radar image has been tagged under that PD-NEXRAD template, as the entire background data is 100% public domain (owned/created by the U.S. government), and a human does not interact with it, as the data becomes instantly available to the public / instantly placed in archives to be accessed. File:Tornadic classic supercell radar.gif is the exact same storm also seen from that same radar. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As further proof, File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg was kept following a deletion request, as the data is PD and the only human interaction is the taking of the screenshot. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If pd-nexrad applies, you are of course free to add it or to replace the current license and permission by it. --Krd 12:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

F-35C Deletion Request ticket:2016052110008897

[edit]

Hi, the file File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg has VRT ticket ticket:2016052110008897. I suspect the file is not free/PD so submitted a DR (COM:Deletion requests/File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg#File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg 2). Can a VRT member please check the ticket and validate whether appropriate permission from the photographer Andy Wolfe of Lockheed Martin was provided? Thanks, Consigned (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Consigned, I can't see anything such in this specific ticket. I can see this specific file is marked as PD on the source. The ticket includes a set of forwards including the emails that you been linked on the DR but I can't seem to find any permissions from the photographer. I guess it is been dealt with "courtesy" and "courtesy stuff on the website is also PD" per " all content - even those listed as 'Courtesy' are public domain and available for anyone to use." I don't think there is anything else that I can help with from the archives. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: Thanks for checking, I figured as much. I'll continue with the DR. Consigned (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi and Consigned: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:An F-35 Lightning II completes a flyover of USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (29774535153).jpg/VRT ticket:2016101910017989 Elisfkc (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc, thanks. I'll take a look on this ticket in the morning. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Consigned, the ticket that @Elisfkc has mentioned is beneficial here. It supports keeping all of the F-35 files, per " All F-35 Lightning II photography and videography taken by contract photographers (Lockheed Martin, KBRwyle, etc.) in support of F-35 Lightning II flight test are official DoD imagery and in the public domain." as stated in the linked DR as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, which license tag should be applied to the files? The variants of {{PD-USGov}} do not apply since the files were not created by an employee of the US Government (contractors are excluded). Consigned (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2022072810010392 (Japanese)

[edit]

It turned out the permission statement in ticket:2022072810010392 was incomplete - it didn't mention a license name. I asked for it about a week ago, after more than one year we (mistakenly) said it was all set, and have not received a response. Does the file need to be speedy-deleted soon? Is after 30 days too early considering the situation? whym (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whym: I can only find a link to File:葵ローズ インスタグラム画像 2021-10-12.jpg. The other link is broken? Are we discussing this file? Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given "I grant anyone the right to use the work and modify it to their needs, even in commercial products or otherwise, provided that I comply with the terms of the license and any other applicable law" (in the ticket) - the file doesn't meet speedy deletion. This is a clear cut permission that makes the file compatible with our requirements. However, I am leaning towards a change in the permissions template. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the file. I considered {{Copyrighted free use}}, but I'm not really sure. The permission was granted conditionally, like "anyone can use this work as long as they satisfy conditions given in the license below", which might look superficially good, until you learn that the conditions are unspecified because "below" is blank. If they respond and clarify on that, things will be fine, until then the file's status seems shaky. As far as I know, I am the only non-dormant VRT agent for permissions-ja for 1-2 years or longer. If anyone else is hesitant to comment here because of the language, please don't be. whym (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which files are affected by this? --Krd 12:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:葵ローズ インスタグラム画像 2021-10-12.jpg whym (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2023071810009312

[edit]

Requesting a double-check on this one, as it seems surprising: did Paramount really release a single frame of South Park, a frame which includes one of the show's main characters, under a CC licence?

It was uploaded as part of some light promotional editing of the Ron Perry enwiki article in 2023 (Perry being depicted in the image), so I'm wondering if the permission email came from Ron Perry rather than the copyright owner. Belbury (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Belbury: The ticket is about File:422 87476250 South Park 1810 - Ron Perry Clip QNN9VAS1.png. Permissions come from a Representative of Paramount, with a signed No Objection Letter from Paramount stating, This will confirm that Paramount Media Networks, a division of Viacom International Inc. ("VII" or “Licensor”) has no objection to Ron Perry’s use of his guest appearance photo on Comedy Central’s “South Park” S18, Episode 10 (the “Material”) in connection with Ron Perry’s Wikipedia’s page. VII’s waiver of objection to your use is given only insofar as VII is concerned. You shall be responsible for any and all further clearances and permissions that may be necessary - " is perhaps the reason that the representative sent a relase under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. But I can confirm the email didn't come from Ron Perry. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is the unquoted permission from the representative broad enough that we're free to ignore the strict "in connection with Ron Perry's Wikipedia's page" limitation from Paramount? Belbury (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury: I don't really have an explicit opinion on this but I feel "in connection with Ron Perry's Wikipedia's page" can be easily ignored here. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2008012810015433 (Italian)

[edit]

The ticket is mentioned at n:it:File:Francesco cirillo.jpg and it was once moved to Commons as File:Francesco cirillo.jpg with the permission lost. The file was then deleted without a clear notice if the permission was checked or not. Perhaps an Italian speaking user can check the permission and make a comment at the file if it is acceptable or not? --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73 For today standards, the VRT permission was insufficient. We need the photograph's permission usually in these cases. Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Thank you. Todays standard are probably higher than back then. But hard to tell if we would have accepted it back then now its som many years ago (2008?). --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Now we would have asked a direct email, and from the photographer, not from who claims to hold the copyright. This was a forwarded email. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Yes we would today. But usually we do not challenge tickets if they were accepted years ago. Per {{Grandfathered old file}} we accept old things even if they do not meet the requirements we have today :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Yes, but you're probing for an undeletion today on yesterday's criteria :) So I answer you by today standard.
Actually, I don't know. If it's a selfie, the permission should be valid, given that Cirillo also gave an interview to Wikinews. If it's not, we don't have a permission from the photographer. Ruthven (msg) 20:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Hmmm. Yeah because the file is in use in Italian Wikinews and per n:it:Discussione:Francesco Cirillo: i programmatori agili, una nuova filosofia dello sviluppo software it seems the permission was accepted and the reason the file was deleted on Commons in the first place is because someone messed up the permission during transfer. If anything its probably more a bystander selfie than an actual selfie. So guess it can't go to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 I reckon that the permission wasn't valid in 2008 either. No license and no author are mentioned. The assumption was that Cirillo was the copyright holder and was giving permission to publish under a free license just because he accepted to be interviewed. Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Thank you. In that case I'm sure it was not enough to be accepted on Commons back then. --MGA73 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPFL / VRT ticket:2017040310008493

[edit]

Is there a permission statement in the email for the files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mediacom EPFL? The deleting admin didn't check [1]. FYI @Mediacom EPF and Krd: .
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to view this specific ticket: 2017040310008493. Regards, Aafi (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ping Thibaut120094 added the verified account several years ago. It means the uploader's identity is verified. I believe this fact should be considered whilst reviewing this DR. @Gbawden says that all files are attributed to EFPL and yet we have a VRTS-verified Mediacom EPFL account, which makes it apparent that the files are indeed coming from an EFPL representative. Regards, Aafi (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is from 2017, in info-fr, and is an invalid permission for unspecified files, which has been wrongly turned into a useless user verification. Krd 13:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Could you clarify what’s wrong with this permission?

[…] Je confirme par la présente que l'EPFL est le titulaire unique et exclusif des œuvres qui sont publiées par le compte "Mediacom EPFL"; celles-ci sont des créations d'employés ou mandataires de l'EPFL dont les droits appartiennent à l'EPFL en tant qu'en employeur.
Je donne mon autorisation pour que ces œuvres soient publiées sous la licence CC BY-SA 4.0 (ou toute autre version de la licence CC BY-SA). Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. […]

And please refrain from using words such as “useless”, we’re all volunteers here trying to do our best.
Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answered by e-mail.
The "useless" is related to the fact that user verifications are of no use at Commons, and not at all meant offensive. If this sounded wrong, I apologize. Krd 14:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krd and thank you for your email, for some reason I thought {{Verified account}} was enough since their identity was confirmed (and the standard consent statement sent to permissions).
I'll write an email to them asking to send a proper permission for each file and from each photographer. Thibaut (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we fix this? e.g. I can request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests for all files uploaded by the account and deleted since including the ones listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mediacom EPFL and then a competent VRT participant can add the ticked to the files?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Thibaut120094 has been pinged, and I have provided additional information to them in private, can we just give them a minute to make a decision? Krd 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you might not want to undelete them yourself. If so, please state it clearly.
The deletion concerned the portraits of a series of fairly well known scientists and engineers and shouldn't be left uncorrected for long.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to restore them if we have sufficient permission. Currently I think we have not. Let's see what Thibaut120094 thinks. And I'd be happy if we could be patient and not escalate everything immediately. Krd 22:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered Thibaut's question here and I'd be interested in a response too.
As it's really up to French speaking VRT members to determine, I don't really see what you are trying to achieve here. Already you ignored the concerns raised in the DR and haven't really provided a satisfactory answer when contacted directly, I think the files should be restored and left for a VRT member to add permissions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Würzburg, St. Bruno (24).jpg

[edit]

Ticketnr. habe ich gerade nicht, kann trotzdem jemand nach diesen Dateien schauen wo das Problem liegt? Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die Genehmigung vom Fotografen gesendet. Ungefähr 10 Dateien mit aufsteigender Ordnungsnr.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W%C3%BCrzburg,_St._Bruno_(24).jpg --Subbass1 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

transfer of verification

[edit]

Dear team, as pointed out by Achim55, please transfer the verification ticket:2024111410003941 of de:User:CCC-LMU to the Commons project here as well. Many thanks and have a good start to the week! Alex CCC-LMU (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Krd 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gegenfrage: Wofür gibt es {{Verified account}}? --Achim55 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Für ganz seltene umstrittene Konfliktfälle. Nicht zur routinemäßigen Dekoration und nicht als Freigabeersatz. Krd 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Und woher kommt die Weisheit? Von Use of the names of organizations is allowed on Commons only if you verify your account, proving that you are or represent the respective organization. wohl nicht. Ich bin ja trotz meines Alters noch lernfähig. --Achim55 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Village pump/Proposals#username verification at Commons Krd 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2017062610009347

[edit]

Hi, FYI, this ticket (in French) is contested by Isabelle-ANDI. Please see her talk page, and her deletion requests. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: @Yann the client (of the ticket) has been contacted. Ruthven (msg) 14:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=963665849"