Jump to content

Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trungpa6 (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 22 March 2016 (→‎i've already sent permission years ago...?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the VRT noticeboard
    Shortcut

    Wikimedia's volunteer response team (VRT) handles copyright permissions, email inquiries from the public, reuse inquiries, article errors, and a wide range of non-public inquiries. The email service is operated and managed by a cross-project team of volunteers at the Meta-Wiki level and not by the English Wikipedia community. Actions by VRT members on English Wikipedia are ultimately subject to review by the Arbitration Committee.

    Please be aware that there is sometimes a backlog in processing tickets sent to the permissions-en queue. This backlog is currently 0 days.

    This noticeboard is primarily for
    1. Permissions verification and inquiries for text and files (hosted on the English Wikipedia) said to have been granted permission via VRTS.
    2. Requests for VRT member review of matters that have been described as VRT comments or actions.
    3. Other inquiries to VRT members that do not involve, disclose or reference private material.
    Do not post
    • Private information or links to private information (including but not limited to emails, phone numbers, physical addresses).
    • Fishing requests (asking for all details of a ticket or generally probing ticket information). You should make a specific request and clearly state the reason for your request.
    • Additional questions on a point, once a VRT member has indicated they cannot answer due to privacy issues. (Further inquiries and any complaints should be made via email.)
    • Requests for VRTS access (use meta:VRT/Volunteering instead).
    • Questions regarding media hosted on Wikimedia Commons (use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead).
    • Media questions unrelated to VRT (use Wikipedia:Media copyright questions instead).
    Disputes
    Useful VRT email addresses
    Removal of private or defamatory information Requests for oversight or oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org
    Submission of photos to be used in a Wikipedia article photosubmission@wikimedia.org
    Follow the instructions here
    Confirmation of copyright permission permissions-en@wikimedia.org
    Follow the format given here
    Reports of threatened harm to self or others emergency@wikimedia.org
    Guidance: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm
    Reports of child pornography legal-reports@wikimedia.org
    See Wikimedia Legal Policies
    Issues with an article about you or your organization info-en-q@wikimedia.org
    Guidance: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help
    Any other inquiries involving private information info-en@wikimedia.org

    Noticeboard archives

    Template:Archiveline


    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game)

    The deletion logs of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) say that the page was "OTRS courtesy blanked"—wouldn't the proper procedure be to blank the text and keep the page history? Because now it's as if that discussion never happened. czar 14:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant ticket is VRTS ticket # 2009011310004015 but as I was neither an OTRS agent nor an en:wp admin I can't comment on what practice then was or should have been. Nthep (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nthep, how about what it should be now? I'd like to have the text in the public record (though courtesy blanked and only in the page history is fine) if possible. czar 18:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin in question, Zscout370, is no longer active. I do think this could have been blanked and noindex'ed, not deleted altogether. However, the AfD's closure was immediately overturned at DRV and followed up immediately by another AfD which resulted in a "keep" consensus, which does demonstrate that the first AfD was unlikely to be of very high quality or relevance. Any admin can still read it, if needed, in order to analyze the arguments made therein. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something in the ticket that would require that we don't undelete it and hide it in page history? The article will likely be back at AfD soon, and I'd like the page history to be accessible for those who want it (unless there is some reason otherwise). czar 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Without disclosing the actual content of the OTRS ticket, I do not believe there was anything to warrant a deletion of the AFD discussion. WP:CBLANK only recommends deletion in more serious cases. It should be noted that the other AFD and DRV were not even blanked in comparison. Mkdwtalk 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Would someone please undelete and just courtesy blank it then? czar 18:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seicer closed the AFD and presumably would be familiar with the discussion. They're still "active" having last edited on 25 February 2016. I've only skimmed the very lengthy discussion so I think it would be within our due diligence to ask them their thoughts on the matter before this were to occur. Mkdwtalk 20:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My closing rationale from 2009: The result was '''delete'''. Regarding [[Threshold (online game)]], there is a of [[WP:RS|reliable]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources. In addition, there seems to be little [[WP:N|notability]] to this particular game, and no major notability was established. The article also suffers from overuse of [[WP:APT|peacock terms]] which has the effect of promoting the game without parting with any useful information. As such, the article is [[WP:NPOV|not written from a neutral standpoint]]. Regarding [[Frogdice]], it is entirely [[WP:CITE|unsourced]] sans one magazine mention -- which has not been [[WP:V|verified]]. There is not much else content on this article to really make it [[WP:CORP|notable]]. In addition, excessive [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] from various Internet forums has muddled the AFD process. After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional [[WP:RS|reliable]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seicer, I think Mkdw wanted your input on whether you would have any opposition to undeleting (and courtesy blanking) this page. I'm not seeing any opposition other than that everyone wants to be careful. czar 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seicer: I had already reviewed your original closing statement in the deleted versions. We're not here to review the deletion rationale; this is an OTRS noticeboard not DRV. This discussion is about overturning an admin action to undelete the discussion. I thought it would be wise to check with someone familiar with the discussion if they foresaw any problems in undeleting it. You're the next obvious choice since the deleting admin is inactive. Mkdwtalk 15:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    i've already sent permission years ago...?

    what's the deal here, i had the photographers send permission in 2014... why is this coming up now?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_Live,_Crystal_Ballroom,_Dec_2014.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_2010.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    what do i need to do then? i had the photographers who took the photos send permission... that's all it says to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_2010.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mackintosh_Braun_Live,_Crystal_Ballroom,_Dec_2014.jpg --Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    both photographers sent the template filled out with permission to the email you listed. should be good now, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Did this get corrected?? both photographers sent in what you asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can i get an update here please??? both photographers sent in approval in your approved template. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trungpa6: We have received your emails, and they have not been answered yet. Please be patient, as the permissions queue is quite backlogged. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 16:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to make sure the images won't be deleted tomorrow as the warning listed originally. permission was sent last week for both photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trungpa6 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone respond letting me know these images will not be deleted after today? permissions were sent last week...

    File:Omar Espinosa by Ryan Mitchell.jpg

    I just deleted this image, which was tagged as a copyvio, but I then undeleted it after noticing a talk comment about OTRS permission. Could you check to see whether ticket 2016030510003292 really does grant an acceptable permission, as is claimed on the file's description page? Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyttend: The ticket does not give significant permissions. I've sent a mail requesting a more specific (consent form) release. Reference:VRTS ticket # 2016030510003292 Mlpearc (open channel) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Nyttend: It would appear the editor did indeed contact the copyright holder, but the information and steps involved would not satisfy Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. The image should be deleted until the editor can ensure the correct information is properly communicated to the copyright holder and they consent to the requirements of free use. Mkdwtalk 23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Thanks for the input! Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    File:LS40075.jpg

    Confirmation of the receipt of the permission was received in September 2015. I have sent the confirmation number again. VRTS ticket # 2015092510023554 JMcC (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Files : Over Hill + Smaug

    Hello,

    I would like to check the permission for these files :

    I believe that the emails containing details of the permissions had been sent. Thanks ! Guise (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VRT_noticeboard&oldid=711394194"