Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

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

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: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Main VRT-related pages

• Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Commons:Email templates
• {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

The permission from the person who created the cover art is at ticket:2025052010011304. However, since this might be a work for hire, I wonder if I also need to seek permission from Andy Baio to address the possibility that he owns the copyright. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The permission letter must come from the copyright owner. Nemoralis (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some significant additional context here that Baio was threatened with a lawsuit over this cover at the time, it being a derivative work of the original Miles Davis album cover: https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ Belbury (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to the one at the bottom of that blog post; accordingly, I have uploaded that as File:Kind of Bloop comparison images.png. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd I wonder what problems the ticket has that I assume caused you to delete both of the images. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prospectprospekt, no response to VRT's question. Nemoralis (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What was the question? prospectprospekt (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We cannot disclose what was privately discussed with the permission sender. If possible pease encourage them to reply or to send the permission again. Krd 06:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd, @Nemoralis: Can I least know what vital information the ticket is missing that made you ask the question? This is because I fear that you might be asking for information that is already known. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prospectprospekt, file's name or URL on Wikimedia Commons. Nemoralis (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis: That information is useless because they can't see what the files depict. At least for File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png, the given information should be sufficient; in my initial email to them, I included a link to an archived version of the original cover art on the Kind of Bloop website, and in their reply, they make it clear that they know what they are granting permission for—the original cover art is what was subject to the fair use controversy. You should be able to verify this information by looking at the ticket, which should contain both my email to them and their reply. prospectprospekt (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis Can you check if the permission sender has sent a second ticket to permissions-commons? prospectprospekt (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for late reply @Prospectprospekt. No, there is no second ticket. I will request for undeletion of the file and ask related questions in ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis If the ticket contains what I think it contains, then the file does not need to be undeleted per my previous comment. If that is the case, then, instead of asking what the filename on commons is Regardless of if you think a filename or commons url is needed, you should also ask 1) if the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to that depicted at https://waxy.org/random/images/weblog/kindofbloop_draw_the_line.png, 2) if they created the set of comparison images, and 3) if they signed any sort of agreement or exclusive license concerning the original Kind of Bloop album art or the set of comparison images. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC) edited 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC) edited 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I have forwarded the email I sent them and their response to VRT. These are at ticket:2025071210042515 and ticket:2025071210042499. prospectprospekt (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is alleged that Commons images and x.com images share some features (subjects, event names, angles, captions, etc), that they must have been taken by the same person, and that we need to follow COM:VRT and confirm the identity via email. This concerns hundreds of pictures tagged and linked at User talk:Bject now, including File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg.

I looked into the allegation, asked some questions at User_talk:Bject#File:Trend_Girls_Photo_Session_(May_4,_2025)IMG_4472.jpg, and left with confusion and disagreement over what I think as simple facts. Or perhaps I might be missing something obvious. I hope to get a fresh perspective that will hopefully guide us to a resolution. Here is my summary of what the disagreement is:

The uploader User:Bject claims

• that they are not the same pictures, although there might be similarities if they were taken from the same angle
• that the uploader is not the person behind the x.com account

The tagger User:Alachuckthebuck claims

• that some of them are the same pictures, and/or have exact matches
• that captions match and it adds to the suspicion (that images might have been stolen)
• that the x.com account and the uploader here are likely to be the same person

My opinion is that the tagger's claim is not well substantiated, at least not to the level where VRT can start working on from. I have not seen any previous publication that have pixel-level matches to Commons files listed at the talk page. Similarities in captions are very weak evidence to claim the associated images might have been stolen. I asked for links, and got only one, which didn't show an exact match in my opinion. What do you think? whym (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

At least the example of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg that was apparently matched to https://x.com/stonefree_part6/status/1921401301625196914/photo/2 is a false positive. This is easily visible on the hair patterns and the finger positions (the hair falls differently, the fingers are closer together in our upload). Stemming from my experiences as hobby photographer, I would say that these images, assuming that they were taken sequentially, were shot with maybe less than one to a few seconds in between. It's also possible that the model is proficient enough to get into the same position within a few millimetres when resuming her pose, but the wrinkles on the bikini, IMHO virtually unchanged, make a serial exposure more likely. We could discuss concise Twitter-Commons image pairs, maybe on COM:VPC, but the circumstances do not really point towards pure NETCOPYVIOs. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

When looking for NETCOPYVIOs or duplicates, it's always sensible to look for intricate details while making comparisons: hairs, scales (in animals), pavement and vegetation patterns, the form and quantity of reflections (like in eyes or windows); in short everything that is easily moved out of position by even slight movements of or in the motif or where minute angle changes of the camera change the perception of e.g. the perspective on a pavement. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The claim that the uploader is not the person behind the X account seems weird. Has anyone asked them straight out, "Is the X account using photos you took?" It's not just that it looks like an image taken seconds later (at most), but that it looks like it's taken by someone the same height and with the exact same lens, the same exposure settings, the same aperture, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I may have operated under a misunderstanding, looking for whether images are identical and nothing else. I think that it is quite obvious that the owner of the Wikimedia account "Bject" is also owner of the Twitter account "@stonefree_part6". But that is IMHO mostly irrelevant - as long as any relevant image was not published first on Twitter. Only that was my point: the Twitter image is different from the Commons upload. Furthermore, by the fact that there are quite complete EXIF available here points toward a legitimate upload (Twitter removes them, as far as I'm aware). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments. Can I conclude that while there is some doubt on the uploader's claims, there is nothing VRT should do about it for now, unless true duplicated publication outside of Commons is found?

I notified the two users using user talk page. It looks like they don't have further comment to add so far. whym (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It appears ticket:2025051610000477 is related to this discussion. Krd 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

私が投稿した画像を削除したことに不服を申し立てます。似ているだけの画像が削除され、加えてなぜ全く違う場所や投稿日のものも巻き添えなのでしょうか。I am complaining about the deletion of the image I posted. Why are images that are merely similar being deleted, and why are images from completely different locations and posting dates also being deleted?--Bject (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd Do you have any response? whym (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sadly not, but I don't even understand the question. Can you help? Krd 06:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think Bject wants you to explain the deletion of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg and other similarly-named files you speedy-deleted along with it on June 16 (and presumably, what it takes to undelete them). This is about more than 100 files deleted practically at the same time, if I recall it correctly. whym (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is ticket:2025051610000217 about this, but it's in Japanese, which I cannot read. Please assist is possible. Krd 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd If it's up to me, I would keep the files without a VRT tag. I already said that much on 30 May 2025 above. I believe COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary applies, so the content of email is irrelevant, in Japanese or otherwise. Publicly available information including discussion here should be enough basis to decide. What do you think? whym (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree. Though I don't see any list of the affected files. Do you have any? Krd 08:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the files are listed in [1], although they are mixed with other deletions. Alternatively you might want to try this: files with the "File:Enako" prefix at User_talk:Bject/Archive_5, and files with the "File:Trend Girls" prefix at [2]] whym (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you want to double-check, the file links are also in ticket:2025061610008557, ticket:2025061610008539, ticket:2025061610008495, ticket:2025061610008422, ticket:2025061610008315. whym (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This concerns Template:GoO-donation. There is a also a previous thread of the same thing at COM:VPC. That too was started by me. I thought that it would be resolved after that. But I came across the template today only to see that its still the same. Naveen Patnaik demitted office in June 2024. We need to remove his personal accounts from the OTRS permission as he longer is a part of the govt. There is also a need of proper clarification that works released only till the time he was in office can be uploaded or kept. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "his personal accounts"? Nemoralis (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis by "his personal accounts", I mean his personal accounts i.e. the Naveen.Odisha on Facebook and Naveen_Odisha on X and Instagram. These three aren't Government office accounts but Former CM Naveen Patnaik's personal accounts that he handles by himself of his own team even after he has demitted office. The office of Chief Minister has CMO accounts and other departments have their own. Please let me know if any more clarification is needed. Also a ping would be appreciated. Anyways I've now subscribed to the topic that I missed earlier. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Shaan Sengupta, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Permission cannot be revoked for files already released, but if the person wants to specify a different license for new files, they must note it. Nemoralis (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis I know all of this. What I want to be done here is that specify in the license/permission that works released only when the person was in office are allowed. By no means I am saying that works released while him being in office should be removed. The day Naveen Patnaik demitted office, the works released on his personal handles cease to be a part of Govt. of Odisha, therefore are no longer covered under the permission. Bcoz the permission was specifically for Works of Govt. of Odisha, which he no longer is a part of like he once was as the Chief Minister. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis a reminder for you to address this. Or maybe anyone else if interested. Maybe, @Krd or @Pigsonthewing or anyone else. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also cannot follow. Please say in simple language what exactly shall be done. Krd 04:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd Look this permission was sent by the state govt of Odisha allowing the works released by a list of accounts to be used here. Among them was the personal Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts of the then incumbent Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik who has now demitted office and is part of the opposition. So he is no longer the part of the govt and therefore any thing released on his personal accounts after date of leaving office (11 June 2024) are no longer the works of the govt of Odisha and therefore can't be used. We can continue to use the works released from his personal accounts till the time he was in office and also continue to use the works released by other (official departmental accounts listed) even now. That's all that needs to mentioned and fixed there. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly does it need to be mentioned? Template:GoO-donation says "this file" which is crap in any case. Please edit the template accordingly and make is a strict as possible. If your was request was for something different, I still don't understand what exactly needs to be changed. Krd 12:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The sources listed in the OTRS permission. The list carries Naveen Patnaik's personal account and some official govt department accounts. So we need to clarify in the OTRS permission that works released after he demitted office are no longer part of the work of Govt of Odisha and hence can't be published under this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please elaborate that in Template:GoO-donation. Krd 12:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You mean like a note or something?

For ex-  Info The works that have been released on Naveen Patnaik's personal Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (now X) handles till June 11, 2024 are to be licensed wrt this OTRS permission. Anything released on those handles after Naveen Patnaik demitted office aren't considered Odisha govt works and hence cannot be considered donated under this ticket.

This is just a sample of what I think would be good. I came here only bcoz I am not good with perfect wordings. I would prefer you or someone more worthy and experienced to do this. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience but this is necessary. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, as I said below, we can't assume that photos on his social media accounts are no longer released under free license (reminder: I am not saying government works) just because he left his job. Nemoralis (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Who was the donor? Govt of Odisha.
• Why was a person's personal account listed? Bcoz he was a part of the govt.
• Who chose the license? The Govt not just him. (Its not a one man show.)
• Who chose the accounts? The govt, not just him.
• What is the permission for? Works of Odisha govt.
• Is Naveen still a part of the govt? No. So his accounts cease to a part of it bcoz the Odisha govt no longer has authority to decide over his works or account. So now its all Naveen and its a personal account and donation made by govt arent binding on him. That's how I see it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Good. It's a wiki. Please make a start, and then we will see. Krd 13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @Krd thank you for the opportunity and faith and guidance. I've done my part and would request you to kindly review and make changes, if any needed. I've also added this discussion as a reference in the template as well as the edit summary if needed in future. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why have you pinged me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just saw you in the Boom XB-1 thread below and thought you are active on this page. And the amount of experience you've, you just like many others would've been of great help. That's why. Sorry to bother you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We cannot just revoke the license just because he left the job. The permission letter sent specifically includes his social media accounts. If he no longer wants to publish photos on his social media accounts under a free license, he should indicate this. Nemoralis (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The permission was for the works donated by Government of Odisha which he once headed and is no longer a part of. When he no longer is part of the Odisha govt, then how can things uploaded from his accounts be considered as such. This should be self understood. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think Shaan makes sense here. Someone releasing stuff under a role is very different than releasing stuff as a person. It is as simple as that. The images were licensed by Government of Odisha (not by a person), so a person hasn't any direct control over it, and the Government doesn't have any rights to release an individual person's stuff (unless work for hire/or government work or so). Post-that Individual stuff would merit an individual permission release. This is not a difficult or complex issue. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 15:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much @Aafi. This is a place where I lack sometimes. Finding the correct words to explain. I also need a help from you, or maybe @Jmabel bczo he corrected my wordings in the template. Krd gave an advice in the edit summary which says Please put into the template what exactly it applies to, instead of saying what it not applies to. I believe my explanation above makes it clear what it applies to and what it doesnt. But I am unable to write it on a level that has no mistakes and am also confused as to what exactly needs to be replaced bcoz the last line of the para already clarifies whats allowed. So, Plz help! Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suspect a complete list of what it applies to would be too long for the template itself, but would be useful to have on the template talk page. It would say what accounts (or, if applicable, simply domains) it covers, and for what dates (if relevant). - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel in that case I think it would be better if we get'em verified by LRs just like every GODL-India upload has to be verified. Bcoz the terms on the template talk page won't have that scale of visibility as on the main page. Regarding the list being long, the list of sources is listed in the OTRS permission that's included in the template (that's also a place where dates need to be mentioned. Regarding the wordings that Krd proposed to be fixed in the template, I would propose you guys or some experienced Template editor to do it, bcoz its way out of my league to fix in a way it would've no flaws. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The issue is not yet resolved. The template still says "This file is licensed under…" while not specifying which files it applies to, so anybody can use it with any file. Please change the template wording so that it's clear which files it applies to. --Krd 09:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just raising a query about 127 files sourced from www.treeoftheyear.org, an annual tree competition in Europe. With the exception of a single logo image, these images have different authors, and mostly (but not all) have the comment "with kind permission by https://www.treeoftheyear.org - 2021-02-17". Just 32 of these files have a link to the above VRT ticket. First question: should all the rest of the files be linked to the same ticket? Second: given that all the files have different authors, is it in the gift of the Tree of the Year website to allow these images to be published as CC-SA-4.0 on Commons? Presumably the authors had to licence as CC-SA-4.0 in order to have their image published on the website, and that information is in the ticket. But I wanted to verify in any case.

Pinging @Cookroach: as uploader.

Thanks, Dogfennydd (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Dogfennydd for your enquiry. I can't tell you exactly what is included in the ticket. But you are right, normally all these pictures should have the VRT with the ticket. I can only tell you in which process the pictures i uploaded.

In 2020/2021, I was in close contact with the person responsible for the competition in the EU. This person authorised me to use/upload the images by means of an approval email, which led to the creation of the VRT ticket and this include into. After that, there was another process in which I was not fully involved. This included the questioning of each individual image for approval, as the national organisations had to be consulted! There was an online list where the requested authorisations were entered. That was the status at the end of 2021, but by the time of the 2022 competition (February/March), but this contact had already been lost!

Despite repeated efforts to maintain contact, I have been unable to obtain further information about the status of the requested authorisations or the upload of further images from the competitions from 2022 onwards. I think this is an extreme pity, as these pictures are not only of great symbolic value but also of documentary value beyond the competition include and I would have liked to continue the project. It frustrates me not only that the organisation of the competition does not get back to me, but also because of the integration into other international articles on the topic and the individual objects.

I can only see the reason for this in the fact that the competences in and around the competition have changed. Where in 2021 the EU was still in charge of patronage and organisation, the Czech national organisation now seems to have taken over again. I have tried to write to them for information, but have not received a reply. I can't say which of the admins on Commons is now responsible for these tickets, which may not have been fully processed. I would find it very annoying if the images were to lose their status on Commons because of this. Do you have a solution for the situation or how would you like to proceed again?--Cookroach (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Cookroach for the detailed response (and also for uploading this set of high-quality images!). It seems like my question 2 is answered, and the authors have (in principle) been approached for permission for upload. As long as everything is included in the VRT ticket (and that is appropriately linked to all the files) I don’t think there should be an issue, but I’ll defer to somebody who has access to the ticket to check that and confirm either way. Dogfennydd (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The ticket contains 76 entries. Without having read everything I'd assume that the file which contain the ticket permission are good, while other files in the category are still missing permission. Krd 14:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

The artist who owns the following works and photos wants to publish them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

The files have now been deleted, but the artist grants permission to publish the works under the above license.

If proof is needed, I can provide it. I'd be happy to discuss the details via email.

Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tell him to email the VRT permissions queue, this page is not for releasing files. Nemoralis (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bilirəm, demişəm və ediblər. Amma bütün fayllar silinib. Əlavə sübut istəyirlərsə, onun üçün yazmışam. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please be patient, there is some backlog currently. --Krd 11:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this file has ticket:2015022310015758 from 2015. Other files of the same user are being discussed in a very long discussion elsewhere. It would probably help enormously, and possibly resolve the issue entirely, if you can tell as much as you can about this ticket. Even if the ticket is about this file only, it will still help to know if the communication comes from the photographer and if it confirms that the uploader is the photographer (or someone else authorized by the photographer). If the ticket confirms that the uploader is the photographer, then this information answers the question about the other uploads. Thank you in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Asclepias, this ticket only mentions File:Troisi.jpg. It comes from the photographer ("creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright"), which has same name with uploader, Gorup de Besanez. Nemoralis (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I was attempting to file a ticket, but the ticket's login page is confusing to me? Is the "2 factor token" part where I put a token from another source, or my Email, to get a token? If the former, where do I go to get a token? Guerreroast (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Guerreroast: the site is accessible to only VRT agents, other Wikimedians don't have access to it. What do you mean by "filing a ticket". Are you trying to send an email to the VRT? _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

for 2FA tokens anywhere, see en:Multi-factor authentication. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm trying to send an Email to get an image in their queue. Guerreroast (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Then just send the email. Someone on the VRT will create the ticket. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Guerreroast, if your email is related to permissions, send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, from your regular email address. It automatically creates a ticket in the VRT system. You should receive an automatic response, which also includes the ticket number. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 03:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The file I posted was marked for deletion. This was preceded by the following. I sent a letter asking for permission to use it and received [Ticket#2025061410000273]. After that, user @Johnj1995 removed the information about sending this letter from the file description. I believe that it was the information about my letter to Commons:VRT (for your information, I am the author of this work) that greatly interfered with the deletion, so Johnj1995 simply deleted this important text. He also ignored my question about this strange deletion. Please evaluate the current situation and take measures against user Johnj1995. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 05:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is because that template should be on file's description, not its talk page. I added the ticket number to both file description and deletion request now. Nemoralis (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 13:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Guten Tag,

ich bin neu auf Commons und habe am 5. Mai 2025 das erste Mal Bilder hochgeladen, die nicht von mir stammen, sondern von einem Urheber, der mir die Erlaubnis dazu erteilt hat. Ich habe dies beim Hochladen angegeben und ich kam zu einem Email-Vordruck mit Einverständniserklärung und Angabe zur Lizenz. Es hieß dieser müsse innerhalb von 30 Tagen vom Urheber eingesendet werden, sonst erfolgt eine Löschung.

Es handelt sich um die Dateien: File:MB-trac 1300 bei der Aussaat (4).jpg bis File:MB-trac 1300 bei der Aussaat (9).jpg

Bereits nach einer Woche (am 13. Mai 2025) wurden die Bilder gelöscht. Am 12. Mai hatte der Urheber (laut eigenen Angaben) die Mail mit Freigabe und Lizenzinformationen gemäß Vordruck an die angegebene Mailadresse versendet. Auf Nachfrage auf der Diskussionsseite des Löschenden (@Krd) hat er mir freundlicherweise geantwortet, dass ich wohl versäumt habe beim Hochladen eine Lizenz anzugeben und es daher schon nach 7 Tagen gelöscht wurde unabhängig von dem fehlenden Einverständnis des Urhebers. Ich solle einfach warten bis die Dateien wiederhergestellt werden [Die Mail vom Urheber enthält ja Informationen zur Lizenz]. Nun ist dies schon Wochen her und ich frage mich, woran es liegt, dass keine Wiederherstellung erfolgt.

Vielen Dank im Voraus!

Felix Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Der Einsender der Freigabe müsste bitte noch auf die Rückfrage des Support-Teams antworten. Krd 06:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hallo @Krd,

vielen Dank für die schnelle Rückmeldung. Ich werde den Einsender darauf hinweisen. Wann wurde die Rückfrage an ihn gesendet? Dann teile ich ihm das mit, damit er die Mail findet, falls sie im Posteingang untergegangen ist.

Gruß Felix Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hat sich erledigt.

Der Einsender hat die Email gefunden und wird sie umgehend beantworten. Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)