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. |
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.
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
|
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
This may have a ticket, but it's a professional promo photo and certainly not a selfie. Sven Teuber cannot be the author / copyright holder on this. --~2026-19750-08 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Same thing goes for this image, ticket:2021011210008231. --~2026-19750-08 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Although it is not mentioned in the permission letter (nor was it asked in the ticket), they are usually able to take such pictures themselves with a remote controlled tripod. Both ticket is in German, so I will leave this to our German VRT members. Nemoralis (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- The person shown in the image of the second ticket has acquired the integrity of rights. In the ticket it was written that the photographer's name can be mentioned, but does doesn't necessarily have to. To settle all doubts, I now added the photographer's name to the file description. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- However, there are in deed doubts about the first ticket. I have written to the client again, asking for clarification. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Multiple issues with VRT volunteer
[edit]Dear all, I want to ask for help on how to handle this issue.
One of the projects I working on as a member of the Basque Wikimedians User Group is called "History of the Basque Country in 100 objects". In this project we are working with various GLAM institutions, most often museums, trying to have them contribute with images of historical objects from their collections. The project is succesful, and most museums are kindly donating images. Building trust with these institutions takes time, sometimes months, explaining why we need thoses images, how are going to be used and what are the license needs for the project. Not easy, but after long conversations, we are getting good results.
However, even if we are doing everything correctly, many times we are finding an issue with the same VRT volunteer (User:Krd). The main issue is that they ask for things that shouldn't be asking for, like copyright status and authorship of Roman artifacts or working permits of museum staff, which are not responsability of VRT volunteers.
Here are some examples of recent interactions with them:
- Ticket:2025070110004112: where they asked to list files that were already listed and then asked for copyright status of Iron Age artifacts. Never closed nor resolved it.
- Ticket:2025011510005463: where they asked for copyright status of ancient objects and to show the contracts of the photographers with the institution. (closed by User:TaronjaSatsuma))
- Ticket:2025061710007823: where they asked how is that the author of an image, sending an image from his official e-mail account, signing a document with his own name is the copyright holder of the photographs themselves, and how is that the author have the right to photograph a Middle Ages sculpture. (Closed by User:Nemoralis)
- Ticket:2025060310007662: Where they ask to list photos that are already listed (closed by User:TaronjaSatsuma)
- Ticket:2026042810003577: the last one, where they ask again to a Museum how is that they own their own images.
We have reports from these partners telling us that they are not willing to continue with this kind of contributions if they are going to ask for things that are out of scope. Some of our collaborations are at risk, and I really don't know how to proceed.
Best. -Theklan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please refer also to COM:ANU § How to handle a problematic VRT volunteer. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Theklan: , I can not see the actual discussions you are referring to; however, some of those questions might be appropriate. The issue with 3D historical objects from CLAM collections is that although the objects themselves are in public domain, the photographs are assumed to be copyrighted by the photographers that took them. If the VRT permission is from the photographers than the case is simple, but if the permission is signed by the GLAM institution than one should ask for the explanation about how they acquired those copyrights. The answer could be for example that the photographer is employed by the institution, under agreement that their photograph's copyrights belong to the institution. It is a little like with wedding photographers, who sell you the wedding photographs, but might or might not sell you copyrights to them. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Inded, that's why all of the institutions who own the photographs are attesting that they own those photographs. Some of the questions asked by Krd are about the authorship and copyright status of the objects themselves, which are in some cases Paleolithic. This kind of questions make the institution think that they are treating with non serious people, and create tension between the GLAM institution which is doing the things correctly and the User Group, which has been working for months with those institutions on how the licenses should be handled. Theklan (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, perhaps a bit of an aside: Commons tends to be stricter about laws governing effective transfers of copyright than is the actual practice in the real world. No doubt that there are times someone does work on behalf of an institution and not all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted. I think we sometimes can become focused on that in ways that do not really matter. No professional photographer hired by a museum to photograph its collections for its own use is going to turn around and sue a reuser for trusting a license issued by the museum based on the museum's claim of copyright, even though the latter might not be seen as perfect in a court of law. They would never get museum work like that again if they did so. Yes, technically this is a bit looser than our precautionary principle, but at a certain point commons sense needs to come into play. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket:2025061710007823 is a paradigmatic case of asking for things out of scope. The responsible of a cathedral sent some photos taken by himself, inside the institution where he is responsible, from an official e-mail from that institution. He filled exactly what the VRT template says and the one that we have been using in this project without problems except when Krd takes them. After a long conversation where he insisted that he wanted to know who the photographer was (even if this was stated in the permission), he then turned to ask, quote "please say the copyright status of the depicted artwork.". After that, he asked again "For the depicted artwork, which in general is itself copyright protected, we need to hear what is the exact story. Who is the creator? Do they give permisison? When did they die? When was the work created? Etc., as the case may be."
- The images are from a sculpture from the Middle Ages. It's inside a church, and it's publicly accessible. I could have taken the photos myself and upload them, but we decided to collaborate with the church itself, so they felt part of the project.
- The attitude of Krd asking for completely out-of scope things made me have another conversation with the church, a quite bitter one, explaining how this was completely strange, and apologizing about the burden. I don't know if they would collaborate again with us, or they would tell other colleagues that we ask for wild strange things.
- The purpose of the VRT process for GLAMs is not that, and I think that it should be noted.
- Also, for closing purposes, there are two VRT petitions (Ticket:2025070110004112 and Ticket:2026042810003577 that have been abbandoned mid conversation and should be closed. Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hola @Theklan, as I have seen that @Krd has returned the tickets to the group, I have spoken with him. I can cope with the tickets and take care of the permissions, but I have a technical problem which I would like to address on your discussion page.
- For the future: can you please ask the museums to name their photographers in their file descriptions? Both in the sense of the precautionary principle, and out of courtesy to the photographers.
- Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Theklan: I have now processed the abandoned tickets, added permissions and written to the client. So everything should be fine. But, please check.
- Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- thanks! Theklan (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, perhaps a bit of an aside: Commons tends to be stricter about laws governing effective transfers of copyright than is the actual practice in the real world. No doubt that there are times someone does work on behalf of an institution and not all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted. I think we sometimes can become focused on that in ways that do not really matter. No professional photographer hired by a museum to photograph its collections for its own use is going to turn around and sue a reuser for trusting a license issued by the museum based on the museum's claim of copyright, even though the latter might not be seen as perfect in a court of law. They would never get museum work like that again if they did so. Yes, technically this is a bit looser than our precautionary principle, but at a certain point commons sense needs to come into play. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Inded, that's why all of the institutions who own the photographs are attesting that they own those photographs. Some of the questions asked by Krd are about the authorship and copyright status of the objects themselves, which are in some cases Paleolithic. This kind of questions make the institution think that they are treating with non serious people, and create tension between the GLAM institution which is doing the things correctly and the User Group, which has been working for months with those institutions on how the licenses should be handled. Theklan (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Theklan: , I can not see the actual discussions you are referring to; however, some of those questions might be appropriate. The issue with 3D historical objects from CLAM collections is that although the objects themselves are in public domain, the photographs are assumed to be copyrighted by the photographers that took them. If the VRT permission is from the photographers than the case is simple, but if the permission is signed by the GLAM institution than one should ask for the explanation about how they acquired those copyrights. The answer could be for example that the photographer is employed by the institution, under agreement that their photograph's copyrights belong to the institution. It is a little like with wedding photographers, who sell you the wedding photographs, but might or might not sell you copyrights to them. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi,
FYI, Despite the VRT permission, I re-proposed File:La Fouine in a gym with boxing gloves and four other people.jpg to deletion (as it's quite clearly a fake AI file). There is other files with the same permission id, they may need to be double-checked (and other files without this permission by this user or its sock-puppets as well).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Over-bureaucracy and escalation request for ticket:2026052910009077
[edit]{{subst:Required}}
- **File(s):** All 3 files currently tracked under ticket:2026052910009077 (Portraits of the subject in Dubai, Iraq, and Vienna)
- **Ticket:** 2026052910009077
- **Description:** We are requesting an urgent secondary review by an independent senior VRT agent for all three uploaded portraits of the Professor. The subject of the photos, Prof. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, sent a direct verification email from his official Hotmail address explicitly confirming his copyright ownership. He stated that the photographs were taken using his own camera equipment, under his direct guidance, and for his personal use, satisfying COM:Licensing criteria for original ownership.
Despite this legally binding verification, agent Alfred Neumann is practicing extreme over-bureaucracy. He ignored our formal email request for a ticket escalation and continues to textually harass the Professor by demanding the specific identity of whoever physically pushed the camera shutter button. The Professor's academic time is valuable and his ownership authority is already established on record. We kindly request another senior VRT agent to review ticket:2026052910009077 and finalize the verification for all three affected files to override this obstruction. Thank you. Wolne Wybory (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- 1. Don't use AI to write comments for you
2. There are no such thing as "senior VRT agent"
3. It is not harassing if VRT members asks for further information related to the permission. As far as I can see, you have listed the author (the person who took the photo) in the photos as the professor himself, but this is not possible, because the professor himself is depicted in those photos. The names of the photographers and their permissions (unless the copyright has been legally transferred to the professor) must be provided for permission to be accepted. Nemoralis (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for your feedback, Nemoralis. Regarding your points, we would like to clarify the copyright framework applicable here:
- Under well-established copyright principles, the legal author and rights holder of a photograph is the person who conceives the creative execution, sets up the camera equipment, controls the lighting/composition, and directs the scene COM:Licensing. Prof. Korab-Karpowicz has explicitly confirmed that these photographs were taken using his personal camera equipment and under his direct guidance, supervision, and instruction for his own personal and publicity use. The person physically pressing the shutter button acted merely as a technical assistant executing the Professor's explicit creative direction. Therefore, the copyright originates with the Professor COM:Licensing.
- The Professor has already sent a direct, official confirmation from his personal email address to verify this ownership and authorize the free license release.
- We kindly ask that an independent VRT administrator or reviewer who understands the distinction between physical shutter operation and creative authorship/ownership review the correspondence under ticket:2026052910009077 to finalize the verification COM:VRT. Thank you. Wolne Wybory (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Does "we" here refer to some organization? If so, what organization? If not, could you explain the use of plural here? - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wolne Wybory is association (Stowarzyszenie). wolnewybory.org ~2026-32729-09 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, Nemoralis. Regarding your points, we would like to clarify the copyright framework applicable here:
Need confirmation that uploader had permission of author
[edit]I want to use image File:Japan, construction of a dam.jpg in English WP article Dam. The image uploader is User:Mr.Nostalgic. The image page says the photo author is "Marie-Sophie Mejan" (no Commons account). I want to make sure this image will pass the WP Featured Article process... but I'm not sure the image data demonstrates that the author gave permission. I posted a query on the uplaoder's Talk page here: User_talk:Mr.Nostalgic#Licensing_of_image_from_Japan? But the uploader is not very active and they have not replied. In 2022 the uploader uploaded about 100 images by author "Marie-Sophie Mejan", many of them listed in Category:Photographs by Marie-Sophie Mejan. It appears that the uploader and the author are friends or partners.
Some of the images in that category, for example, File:Child_at_festival_2.jpg, contain a note about VRT validating the permission: "The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2022062210006392." That image references "PermissionTicket|id=2022062210006392|user=Daniuu" from August 2022 file diff here.
Question: Can someone in the VRT determine if File:Japan, construction of a dam.jpg has appropriate permission? In other words, does the VRT validation that was provided in 2022 applies to all the images that User:Mr.Nostalgic uploaded in 2022 that were created by author "Marie-Sophie Mejan"? Thanks in advance for any help. Noleander (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Noleander: have you tried emailing Mr.Nostalgic? - Jmabel ! talk 14:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- I posted a note on the uploader's Talk page: Nothing. I posed a request on Commons Help page: they told me to go to VRT. I post a note on VRT: They tell me to email the uploader. You guys (VRT) have the full email conversation with the author ... I don't have access to that. Screw it, I'll just use another image. Thanks for all the help. Noleander (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Noleander According to a note on the ticket, all uploads in Category:Photographs by Marie-Sophie Mejan are covered by ticket:2022062210006392. Nthep (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nthep - Thank you. For the specific image I want to use File:Japan, construction of a dam.jpg, how do we get a VRT validation message ("The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page....") inserted into that image page? During an English Wikipedia Featured Article review, the image reviewers are very strict, and they won't take my word for it. Can I insert a "received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder..." note into that image page myself? Or does a VRT team member need to insert it? Noleander (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Noleander I'd say no problem but the upload is from 2024 so well after the original ticket. I can see a resolution but as the ticket is in Dutch, it needs a Dutch-speaking agent. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nthep - Well, anything the VRT people can do to help with the File:Japan, construction of a dam.jpg image would be appreciated.
- From an outsiders point of view: it seems odd that User:Mr.Nostalgic is uploading many 100s of photos that were apparently taken by his friends and family. The uploader includes a CC free-to-use license, for all these images ... but without any proof that the author is agreeing or even involved in the upload. Many of the uploaded images have been deleted for lack of proof that the author provided a license. Doesn't Commons have some sort of policy on this? Should someone with authority tell the uploader to stop uploading images without some kind of document from the author? It just wastes everyone's time to deal with these images with bogus licenses.
- Also, I'm curious: When the 2022 ticket was created for the File:Child_at_festival_2.jpg image (and the author send email to commons providing a license for scores of images) why didnt the VRT team run a tool to apply that license/documentation to all the images? Or did they? Noleander (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Noleander I'd say no problem but the upload is from 2024 so well after the original ticket. I can see a resolution but as the ticket is in Dutch, it needs a Dutch-speaking agent. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nthep - Thank you. For the specific image I want to use File:Japan, construction of a dam.jpg, how do we get a VRT validation message ("The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page....") inserted into that image page? During an English Wikipedia Featured Article review, the image reviewers are very strict, and they won't take my word for it. Can I insert a "received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder..." note into that image page myself? Or does a VRT team member need to insert it? Noleander (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Noleander According to a note on the ticket, all uploads in Category:Photographs by Marie-Sophie Mejan are covered by ticket:2022062210006392. Nthep (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- I posted a note on the uploader's Talk page: Nothing. I posed a request on Commons Help page: they told me to go to VRT. I post a note on VRT: They tell me to email the uploader. You guys (VRT) have the full email conversation with the author ... I don't have access to that. Screw it, I'll just use another image. Thanks for all the help. Noleander (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Documents deleted while having permission
[edit]Whereas the documents mentioned in this screenshot were produced by an anarchist organization;
Whereas the anarchist ideology is founded on the idea that "property is theft" and that property must be abolished;
Whereas the property mentioned in the preceding paragraph is expansive and encompasses intellectual property;
Whereas the CNT-F subscribes to this vision of property, as evidenced by its own publications, which not only quote "Property is theft", but also expand upon the underlying philosophy of this stance;
Whereas during the demonstration that we attended together, this orientation was defended to me by several members of the CNT-F, who advised me to contact the general secretariat of the CNT-F;
Whereas this request was followed up on, and an email exchange between myself and the CNT-F clearly establishes that the organization agrees to the publication of its documents posted on its Instagram, on the condition that the faces of the activists are blurred;
Whereas my upload of stickers from the CNT-Constructions was based on a discussion held at the organization's headquarters with its secretary, during the week preceding the organization of a joint activist event between the CNT-Constructions and myself;
Whereby I invested effort into blurring images and removing EXIF data in the case of demonstration photos, as well as categorizing dozens of stickers;
Whereas this email exchange was forwarded to the VRT on 3 May 2026, at 9:24 PM, precisely one month ago;
Whereas the email exchange clearly stated their position regarding both the publication of documents and their archiving on Commons, through a clear and explicit phrasing on my part during the request, and through an equally explicit response from them dated 3 May 2026, at 5:06 PM;
Whereas I was asked to waste more time on this matter by requesting a boilerplate message for each individual document, which is both pointless since their response covered "All documents published on Instagram", and because doing so would cause me to lose a tremendous amount of time that I do not have;
Whereas the VRT section of this website did not make this effort on my behalf, and the bureaucratic procedure served no purpose from the moment the organization agreed in response to my forwarded message, which clearly stated that an upload implied the document was free of copyright;
Whereby the legalistic procedures of the VRT are quite difficult to apply to a corpus such as anarchist documentation, which is often clandestine and non-legalistic; this is evident in the censorship of several documents in recent years, including the anarchist fanzine La Marmite, of which we are the authors ourselves, or the tags by the graffiti artist Ades, whom I went to meet even though it could have placed me in the crosshairs of the French authorities;
But which has no bearing here as authorization was explicitly granted by one of the few anarchist organizations in France with a legal existence;
Whereas none of my thousands of uploads concerning anarchism have ever resulted in a complaint or a deletion request to any legal authority that could penalize Commons;
Whereas these documents clearly hold historical, archival, and artistic value for preservation on Commons;
Considers that these documents should be restored. Aristoxène (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- ticket:2026050310010765 was ansered 4 days after it was received, doesn't contain a valid permission, and the sender didn't react further. Krd 06:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- (1) Aristoxène (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- If you don't have time to answer our questions, then you shouldn't complain here. Nemoralis (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- Which questions? I have already addressed this point in my message above, so I am highlighting it precisely because that person failed to read it. It took me longer to write it than it takes to read it, so it is already done. Furthermore, if you are not going to consider requests altogether, do not pretend there is a chance they might work. That is just useless bureaucracy if you are not even going to read the message and then claim, 'you are not answering the questions'. Aristoxène (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should show a little more respect for the people working to improve your collection and your website, who probably spend just as many hours on it, if not more, than many others. That is what respect means: respect for my work in gathering sources and taking time, and respect for the time of an organization that has better things to do in the real world than deal with these issues. Aristoxène (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- And respect for the risks I am taking at the level of the French state to provide part of Commons, and even if the CNT is clearly not involved in that, it is still part of it to a lesser extent. But this is general exasperation because you also pulled that stunt on me with Ades and your cop-like tactics regarding them. Aristoxène (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Asking a guy wanted by the French police to send you an identifying email just to confirm the tags were his. x) Aristoxène (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- So after your * with Ades, I went to the CNT because at least them they were legal. I have an email exchange where I complain about your cop tactics and explicitly state that if I upload their images, they will be copyright-free. They replied that they are completely fine with everything on Instagram, as long as I blur the faces. I waste time re-blurring everything on top of it and removing all the EXIF data, and even that isn't enough, now I have to send them your specific form for each document. Seriously, just open your eyes for a second and look at what we are actually talking about here -_- Aristoxène (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I like Commons because I can use it to archive a whole bunch of documents on the past and present history of the anarchist movement, and generally speaking, I deal with way less hassle there than on the French and English Wikipedias, where I spend all my time arguing with a bunch of people over my research topics. But honestly, it's pretty unbearable to waste hours of my time only to have everything deleted, even though I did the legwork of contacting, convincing, and getting the authorization. Aristoxène (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Especially since Commons is 100% for posterity, nobody really reads or looks at this stuff today. I just hope it survives for decades and can be useful to future historians, which is precisely why recent documents on anarchism matter: to document the movement as it currently exists. We’ll see how it goes, but my bet was to gather and upload whatever documents possible regarding this to Commons, hoping it would stand the test of time and gradually become a central database. We’ll see, but yeah, sorry, it’s just getting annoying. It’s obvious the CNT agrees, based on what they said in their email, what they told me IRL, and what anarchism actually is. Do you really think an organization like them is going to change their mind and sue you after giving their authorization? Seriously, it's quite the opposite: they're glad a historian is archiving all of this and they are anarchist so once the safety of the org is maintained (as they told me), they are more than happy to share their pics, on the contrary, it's cool for them, it archives their life... (1) Aristoxène (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- You know what they told me for the stickers ? They were surprised I even ask and they told me 'Yk we probably stole some parts of the visuals ourselves' like... x) Aristoxène (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Especially since Commons is 100% for posterity, nobody really reads or looks at this stuff today. I just hope it survives for decades and can be useful to future historians, which is precisely why recent documents on anarchism matter: to document the movement as it currently exists. We’ll see how it goes, but my bet was to gather and upload whatever documents possible regarding this to Commons, hoping it would stand the test of time and gradually become a central database. We’ll see, but yeah, sorry, it’s just getting annoying. It’s obvious the CNT agrees, based on what they said in their email, what they told me IRL, and what anarchism actually is. Do you really think an organization like them is going to change their mind and sue you after giving their authorization? Seriously, it's quite the opposite: they're glad a historian is archiving all of this and they are anarchist so once the safety of the org is maintained (as they told me), they are more than happy to share their pics, on the contrary, it's cool for them, it archives their life... (1) Aristoxène (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I like Commons because I can use it to archive a whole bunch of documents on the past and present history of the anarchist movement, and generally speaking, I deal with way less hassle there than on the French and English Wikipedias, where I spend all my time arguing with a bunch of people over my research topics. But honestly, it's pretty unbearable to waste hours of my time only to have everything deleted, even though I did the legwork of contacting, convincing, and getting the authorization. Aristoxène (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- So after your * with Ades, I went to the CNT because at least them they were legal. I have an email exchange where I complain about your cop tactics and explicitly state that if I upload their images, they will be copyright-free. They replied that they are completely fine with everything on Instagram, as long as I blur the faces. I waste time re-blurring everything on top of it and removing all the EXIF data, and even that isn't enough, now I have to send them your specific form for each document. Seriously, just open your eyes for a second and look at what we are actually talking about here -_- Aristoxène (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Asking a guy wanted by the French police to send you an identifying email just to confirm the tags were his. x) Aristoxène (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- And respect for the risks I am taking at the level of the French state to provide part of Commons, and even if the CNT is clearly not involved in that, it is still part of it to a lesser extent. But this is general exasperation because you also pulled that stunt on me with Ades and your cop-like tactics regarding them. Aristoxène (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should show a little more respect for the people working to improve your collection and your website, who probably spend just as many hours on it, if not more, than many others. That is what respect means: respect for my work in gathering sources and taking time, and respect for the time of an organization that has better things to do in the real world than deal with these issues. Aristoxène (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Which questions? I have already addressed this point in my message above, so I am highlighting it precisely because that person failed to read it. It took me longer to write it than it takes to read it, so it is already done. Furthermore, if you are not going to consider requests altogether, do not pretend there is a chance they might work. That is just useless bureaucracy if you are not even going to read the message and then claim, 'you are not answering the questions'. Aristoxène (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- If you don't have time to answer our questions, then you shouldn't complain here. Nemoralis (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- (1) Aristoxène (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- All said. --Krd 06:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [Ticket#: 2026060310012092] Follow-up – permission for Commons file
[edit]Hello,
I am writing again regarding my permission request sent on June 3, 2026, for this Wikimedia Commons file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Fouine_in_a_gym_with_boxing_gloves_and_four_other_people_in_Paris_Region_France.jpg
Ticket number: 2026060310012092
I simply wanted to confirm that my email has been received and if any additional information is required to approve the file.
Please let me know if you need the original file in full resolution or the EXIF metadata.
Sincerely, Léo Frey ~2026-33297-67 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [Ticket#2026051910012831] and [Ticket#2026051910012841] Follow-up – permission for Commons file
[edit]Hello,
I sent a consent statement for two Commons files on May 19, 2026 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but have not yet received validation.
I received the following automatic receipts: ticket:2026051910012831 and ticket:2026051910012841.
Affected files:
Thank you in advance for your help. ~2026-33300-81 (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket is still open, please be patient or please consider to re-send in English. --Krd 10:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Understanding the work you do
[edit]I noticed this picture - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nayanthara_in_2023.jpg. This picture even though from 2023 is not used as the lead picture for the actress and a very old picture is used instead. I think there are newer more relevant pictures here - https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/parties-and-events/photos-nayanthara-9-skin-x-tira-beauty-launch/photos-nayanthara-for-9-skin-x-tira-beauty-launch-5/ which meets all the criteria outlined for Bollywood Hungama pictures (the criteria are outlined in the Wikimedia page of the already uploaded picture). I would like to understand if to upload a newer picture from Bollywood Hungama, do we have to get a permission email from them (looks like a permission email was received and reviewed for the first picture). Or do I just have to upload the picture and the Volunteer Response team will be the one verifying if this can be allowed by emailing them. Thanks Jupitus Smart (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
