Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 34 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.ogg[edit]

Hi to all,

I have uploaded this video but it do not work and it's size is 1.5 GB. Yesterday, I have rebuild another identical version starting from the original MP4, but in WebM, and it's size is only 320 MB.

Is it possible upload a new file, with the name File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.webm and reuse the same VRTS ticket (2023011810005096) without send another ticket 'cause the file is the same and the only modification is the codec?

I ask it 'cause is difficult contact Francesca Volpini which have give me the singles video that I have mixed.

Thank you in advance, Giacomo Alessandroni ^{What's up!} 11:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Galessandroni: If the source remains same for the modified file, it is alright to use the same VRTS ticket number. No need to send another permission. Please let me know if you have any doubt. Best, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is so because File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.ogg is already released under CC BY SA 4.0. You just need to follow guidelines of this, and you are allowed to "to copy, distribute and transmit the work, to adapt the work" keeping in view that you "give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use" and "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.". I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi Thank you. It's true. I know but my request it's a bit different.

Now that I have re-codec the file, and the first one is only a weight for our servers is it possible delete the first file? It is impossible to use it and it is the same to this one. If the answer is no, can I insert (in the ogg file) a simple link to the webm file?

Thanks, Giacomo Alessandroni ^{What's up!} 12:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galessandroni: I just removed the VRT tag because it appeared unnecessary and instead inserted a manual text indicating that from where this file has come from. I don't think the file in ogg format is worthy to be deleted. However if you want to get it deleted given its redundant nature and that it won't be ever used, I'll drop a comment on the ticket that the file has been replaced by a webm version and will insert the ticket over there. The COM:DUPE mentions, Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates, but instead possibly redundant. You will need to explain why the webm version is much better than the ogg format and list the file for deletion via COM:DR. There's nothing much where VRT can offer you advises, but I hope this much is helpful. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Aafi you have completely answered all my questions and you have helped me to understand several details. Thank you very much for your courtesy. Eventually yes: the file in ogg format is unusable. This is the main reason 'cause I ask for its deletion, to avoid an user finding that file and cannot see the content. But this is another story, outside VRT section. Giacomo Alessandroni ^{What's up!} 13:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve, Giacomo, forse sarebbe utile inserire un {{Superseded}} (or/and {{Other versions}}) nella pagina di descrizione della versione ogg. Saluti, –– Renardo la vulpo (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with private Flickr images[edit]

An Instagram friend uploaded some nice pics and I requested that he share them on Wikipedia. He doesn't want to have to deal with signing up etcetera, so instead he uploaded them to Flickr (cc-by-sa-2.0). One is publicly accessible, but for the other three photos he gave me private links as he doesn't want to have four photos of the Ford P100 in a row in his curated stream. Therefore Flickrreviewer cannot find the image; I can share the private urls with whoever wants to review the license of the photos. See 1992 Ford P100 TD, rear right.jpg for instance. I asked at the Village Pump and someone suggested bringing it here. Thank you, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers: Have the photos been already uploaded? Please link. However the easiest way to overcome these issues would have been that: You upload all the images on their behalf, selecting this is not my own work, and then asking your Instagram friend to send a permissions release to VRT. It doesn't require any signing up. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi: Thank you. Shall I PM you the private links for verification? These are the photos:

1992 Ford P100 TD, rear right.jpg

1992 Ford P100 TD, front right side.jpg

1992 Ford P100 TD, right side profile.jpg

Based on previous experiences, I told Freggs it would be easier to just put them on Flickr since they are already active there. My last attempt at uploading someone else's photos ended with the photos being deleted as the (Romanian-speaking) photographer was unable to comprehend what was required of them. In general, it is hard to have to email someone over and over after they have been kind enough to donate a photo; I have noticed that most people (including my own mother) are reluctant to even write the initial mail. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers, Could you please ask your friend to use COM:RELGEN, it is pretty much easy to be used and does not require any signing up or login. It generates a release in a very simple manner. What they have to fill is the names of these files and click proceed. At the VRT, I'm subject to an agreement related to non-public information whilst PM'ing or someone else is not. That's not an advisable route. COM:RELGEN is the best way to sort out this issue in a confidential and trusted manner. A note on the images that you linked, even if the copyright holder sends a release today using our RELGEN, these files would be restored if the permission is found adequate. Best, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand, they have already been published under CC-BY-SA-2.0. Could I just contact a Flickr reviewer and have them look? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers, an email can be send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if using RELGEN seems difficult. I mean this is just to ensure the private-thing that you've mentioned in your earlier messages. Best, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers, just mention the ticket number here once you send over the links so that I can take a look. I feel private stuff should be kept private and perhaps this is why I was suggesting using RELGEN, but the email seems for easier than it, as apparent from your response above. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, will do. They are not really worried about the pics being kept private; as you can see photo #1 is public. They just have a self-imposed rule of no repeats in their Flickr stream. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi: ticket number: 2023030210014031 Thank you again, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. @Mr.choppers: ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Isn't it amazing that after so many years, new situations/problems can still crop up? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers, situations bring up solutions as well. One of the three files is publicly visible now and the other two should be very soon. This issue is completely resolved. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress confirmation[edit]

Please let me know the progress of the next two

二ノ瀬仁奈.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E4%BA%8C%E3%83%8E%E7%80%AC%E4%BB%81%E5%A5%88.jpg

二ノ瀬仁奈20230218.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E4%BA%8C%E3%83%8E%E7%80%AC%E4%BB%81%E5%A5%8820230218.jpg

～～～～我羅夢 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@我羅夢, the ticket is awaiting an agent's attention. The release is in Japanese language which I cannot read. Please be patient until an interested VRT agent picks that up. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about "extracted" or cropped images from VRT ticketed images.[edit]

File:Eva-Maria Liimets.jpg - Do extracted or cropped image files not need to have the VRT ticket as long as the VRT ticket is on the original file. Is that correct? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct. --Krd 04:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry... due to language problem I do not understand. Is mentioning of the ticket required on the cropped version? Ellywa (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ellywa, it is not necessary. However, it is necessary to mention from where the cropped version has been extracted. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for verifying that and for your prompt response. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks! Completely clear to me now. 10:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellywa (talk • contribs)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it mandatory for the original uploader of an image to contact the VRT?[edit]

MOVED from Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team because this was a question about a particular case, not about policy in general. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Keffals catgirl.jpg was deleted on November 20, 2022, even though as indicated here, the original uploader, Keffals, licensed it under a compatible free license. The reason given was that the file had no VRT ticket, which seems kind of goofy to me, since the uploader still licensed it under a free license and was okay with it being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Is it required that these image go to VRT, and if so, why? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

END MOVED Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281: I think the problem is that you did it two ways at once (through VRT and through permission on Twitter) and after User: Red-tailed hawk noted that the VRT ticket wasn't fully resolved (I don't have access to those, so I don't know anything further), User:Krd deleted. @Krd: unless you have reason to believe that the twitter screenshot is a forgery, this looks like an erroneous deletion. Are you willing jut to restore it, or should this go through an undeletion review? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and @Knightoftheswords281: Thanks for bringing the issue here. I am not able open the link mentioned above. Could you please link the VRT ticket number here? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. I got it. ticket:2022110110016188. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging concerned agents: @Elli, @Red-tailed hawk and @Ganímedes. All I can see is that the permissions received were not adequate. Telling that you are permitted to use the photo on Commons and Wikipedia article is not sufficient. The evidence needs to be adequate and well established that the file was indeed published by its author under a free license. Wo don't generally seek permissions of "uploaders" but of "copyright holders" whether that is the photographer or the subject itself. We don't have any good reason to undelete this file as of now. Twitter post has been deleted as indicated and I cannot honestly trust a thing which can be easily faked but at the same time I believe Elli because she is a well established and trusted user and she says she has seen the tweet herself. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Will confirm publicly for the record that I did see the Tweet myself. Didn't think to save it in the Internet Archive unfortunately. Elli (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My issue was that the ticket does not contain a release under a valid free license. I also cannot testify to seeing the alleged tweet while it was live. Whether other evidence is acceptable is up to a license reviewer, a capacity I was not acting in at the time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A detailed response was sent to from where the permissions came but unfortunately there is no response since 3/11/2022 and that makes Krd's deletion pretty much reasonable as well. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have undeleted it, on the basis that Elli is someone I would easily grant LR permissions to if they were to request it at COM:RFR. Therefore it has been validly LicenseReviewed IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks King of Hearts. ~~Happy to mark this as resolved.~~ I personally do not have any concerns with undeletion because I trust Elli the way you trust her. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'm questioning myself. Who is the photographer for this image? How are we so sure that the subject is allowed to license the image under CC BY SA 4.0? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: There isn't really a photographer here. This was taken from a pre-positioned camera during a livestream. While copyright law in this situation isn't exactly clear, if it is protected by copyright at all, Keffals would be the one to hold it. Elli (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Elli. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elli: I want to know how you get this info, since the file uploaded has no EXIF and I see no evidence in the ticket. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ganímedes: this is her typical streaming setup; for example see this video where the camera has almost the exact same perspective on her. It would make no sense for this photo to have been taken by someone else. Elli (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, actually we've got no evidence more than "it should be". What disturbs me in this case is that we us to request the original, unmodified file in most cases, but in this one, we need nothing, even an appropiate release form to agree. I don't think this is fair for the rest of customers. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be completely absurd for the photo to have been produced some other way. Someone would have had to have taken the photo from the same perspective her webcam is usually at (requiring moving all that equipment), and why?

This is obviously taken from her webcam. We do not need to disregard common sense here. Elli (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it's regard common sense it's treat people in different ways avoiding our own systems. If a permission it's needed, it is. If the file has not EXIF, an original, unmodified file is requested. That's common sense. Not to do it because it "is obvious" it's not. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case the VRT permission seems invalid (I don't have access to it). Unless that correspondence puts the permission in doubt, we should treat the file as if there were no VRT correspondence. We default to believing the uploader, unless there is significant doubt. Shouldn't the Twitter feed uploader be trusted in the the same way as a local uploader? For self-portraits, there often is significant doubt, as they (excluding smartphone selfies) seldom is taken by the subject, but I think Elli has made it evident that there should be no serious doubt. The photo might have been taken by somebody else, like some photo I uploaded might have been taken by some family member of mine. That is not the significant doubt of our standard. –LPfi (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course we treat different people different ways.

When an experienced contributor claims to be heir to their parent's work and uses an "heirs" license, we virtually never ask for further proof. When a brand new user does the same, we typically ask them to go through the VRT process.
When someone with license reviewer status reviews a license, we trust them. When some rando claims to have seen a license, we don't.

I could go on. In this case, someone who has the track record to easily get LR status, but who has not formally applied, says she saw the license. No, we haven't gone through the complete legalistic formality of the LR status here, but it is clear we are dealing with a trusted person asserting something in good faith. The purpose of setting up OTRS/VRT was to make sure that trusted people reviewed things like this, not to set up a Supreme Court. There is no reasonable doubt in this case. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope I can shed some light onto this photo of Sorrenti. It is a catgirl costume she wore on Halloween on stream, meaning she owns the copyright to the photo. She posted the tweet with the photo the same day, DM'd me on Twitter the next (she seems to prefer that over emailing) to ask if the photo, which was pinned on her profile, could be used on Commons. I responded that all she needs to do is reply to the tweet with "image licensed under CC-BY-4.0", which she did! I uploaded it, added a link to the permission tweet, and sent her a link to her Wikipedia page. There *was* the tweet that provided the license of her photo, but someone spooked her, telling her that it was a conflict of interest that I reached out to ask for a photo, and she deleted it: oh they took the photo down and said you broke the rules. so i got anxious and deleted all my tweets related to wanting to get the photo up cause i thought i got you in trouble. if there’s an email i’ll do that. The original link is here (snowflake) to the deleted license. Red, you might recall me asking back then about this kerfuffle. Thanks Knightoftheswords281 for bringing this up again. SWinxy (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the future:

Copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject, unless all copyrights have been transferred by law or contract. In that case, be sure we will request a copy to verify its status.
If you upload a photo without EXIF, be ready to be asked the CR to send the original, unmodified file it via VRT
- @Ganímedes: The line above is ungrammatical to the point where I cannot understand it, possibly exacerbated by the fact I have no idea what "CR" stands for here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, @Jmabel, you're right, i'm sorry. It should say CRH (copyright holder). If the file uploaded has not EXIF, we always request that the copyright holder email us the original, unmodified file for verification. Better now? --Ganímedes (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission should come from the copyright holder, signed by a person, not an aka or alias.
If the license it's added to a Twitter, Facebook, or similar account, we will probably request CR follows the VRT process, just because the threats can be deleted and no evidence remains of the free license, and to avoid license laundering. Yes, this is not the Supreme Court, but the Foundation has faced a couple of trials for Copyrights. We work under the principle of precaution.
Yes, we do a lot of questions; sorry. Be ready to answer them. As fast you do, as short the process, and more successful it will be. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your position on requiring VRT for photos posted to social media are wrong. We have a license reviewer check if the license is valid (and ideally save the page at archive.org or similar). It's not necessary to do VRT unless we suspect license laundering, but that's not always applicable! When a photo is obviously self-taken we have no need to require VRT and do not require it.

As for a picture like this, given that it's likely a screenshot from a livestream, there would not be much EXIF data to start with. Elli (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket includes no permission, just a "you can use my photo to my wikipage", which is not valid in any case.
Photo can be a screenshot or similar, but it should be a device involved (cellphone, camera, etc). There is no evidence of a device used in this case or the file uploaded is not the original.
Source was deleted, and it's not available even in archive.org, so no way to verify it now.
I do believe you've seen the tweet and verified the permission as you claimed, of course. However, you've made no comment in the ticket or anywhere till now. We can't guess.
At least, you should admit this case has not been properly handled. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Ganímedes: Not being a member of the VRT (at least not to my knowledge), how would User:Elli comment on the ticket other than here in the noticeboard? - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  @Jmabel, Elli is a member of the VRT. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? I commented on the ticket.
Of course the handling here was not ideal. This was a weird situation and should not have gone through VRT in the first place. The permission given on VRT would indeed not be sufficient, but that's not the main factor here; it's the previously-publicly-posted permission. Elli (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elli, That's the same thing I feel, it is pretty much irrelevant to drag VRT into issues where permission is already stated in public. But if there are doubts, then asking a VRT verification is always helpful. A similar thing happened with File:Aaqib Anjum Aafi.jpg, which was once DR'ed and kept per common sense, because this image was captured by the uploader and they themselves uploaded it, even though it lacking EXIF. I was weirdly asked to send permissions for this image where I explained the issue in detail, and the issue was also brought up into my recent failed RfA. Why on earth would you ask someone to send permissions for an image in which they have been photographed by someone and that someone has himself uploaded that image. I feel trust also plays a part in such cases as KoH noted above, that Elli is someone I would easily grant LR permissions to if they were to request it at COM:RFR but seeking of permissions in this case makes sense to me due to two reasons:
The file was not uploaded by the copyright holder

The file permission source had been deleted (and I feel once again it is weird to mistrust established users that that uploaded an image under a fake-screenshot release, no way). I would always give benefit of doubt to established users. Unfortunately, the file was uploaded by @SWinxy, whom no one would consider an established user here given their 292 edits on this project.
That's to say, this all has made this a mess and I don't feel there is any relevance of the VRT ticket here. VRT is not used in every second case. However the only question here has been, who is the photographer and if it is the subject herself (as Elli says), there's no need of VRT (I'd trust an established editor) and if it is otherwise, we need a proof and permission from the photographer. In the former case, I suggest seeking clarification from the subject that how did the image in discussion came into "existence", even if we trust Elli. That's the best and convenient solution to this problem in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what has been discussed here, it's pretty clear that there is no other photographer. That isn't something we need Keffals to confirm at this point, so I don't see there as still being a problem.

If they had replied to the VRT ticket again, this also would've been clarified, but given that they didn't do so within the past few months, kinda doubt they will now, unless SWinxy has a way to contact them personally. But that's not necessary. Elli (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe in this case it's all clear to you, but it was not clear to me from the beginning. Yes, you did comments in the ticket explaining that you've seen that Twitter, but after this threat and not before or when you've accepted the permission. I do believe the best solution here it's to request the copyright holder to follow VRT procedures: to send the permission template and the original, unmodified file for verification, as we do in other cases when there are doubts, no matter how useless you think it is. PS: a photo from a "pre-positioned camera during a livestream" also should have EXIF. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment that "However, you've made no comment in the ticket or anywhere till now." is just wrong. I explained the exact situation in the ticket on 11/04/22. Long before this thread was opened.

And no, screenshots don't usually have EXIF. At least not data that would be useful. Nor would having a file with EXIF actually assuage your expressed doubts here.

There is no "solution" necessary here because there is no problem! You're making this all about the process but ignoring that we do know that the photo was taken by her, was shared by her, and permission was given by her. Yes, the process we got to recognizing all of this was not ideal but you cannot seriously deny any of these things.

If you're super insistent on getting this deleted because you honestly think that there's a chance that this photo was taken by someone else, whatever, I'm not going to fight you more on this. But please consider whether that's actually productive or if you're just following some idea you have of "the rules" without considering whether it actually makes sense to follow them in this case. Elli (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't super insist "on getting this deleted because [I] honestly think that there's a chance that this photo was taken by someone else", I super insist because there is no valid permission, there was no way to verify the Twitter (it was verified on March, but the permission was added on November), there is no original file, the uploader is not the copyright holder and you've ignored all procedures just because "this is an exceptional case", and all exceptions I see here it's the poor way to manage the case. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't "ignored all procedures". I wasn't the one who brought this back up again even!

If you don't trust me, that's fine I guess, but other users here (including admins/LRs) do, so the permission issue is resolved. The uploader not being the copyright holder has no relevance at all to this. They never claimed to be and that has nothing to do with whether there is valid permission.

Your only valid contention here is that there's no original file (which does not matter unless you think the photo was taken by someone other than Keffals, which makes no sense) and that I didn't follow the proper procedures initially (which is not the same as "ignoring all procedures"). Whether the proper procedures with regards to tagging permission were followed initially does not change whether we have valid permission now. Your behavior here towards me is quite frustrating when I have made every effort to explain the situation and you have repeatedly misrepresented me, my actions, and this situation as a whole. Elli (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll email you to avoid public revelation of private information. However, I already told you that I do believe you've seen the Twitter, but the email itself and the whole situation are a mess that could be avoided. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]