Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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 Permissions verification and inquiries for text and files (hosted on the English Wikipedia) said to have been granted permission via VRTS. Requests for VRT member review of matters that have been described as VRT comments or actions. 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 For disputes over VRT actions on English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team § Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Sensitive issues and functionary actions. Useful VRT email addresses Removal of private or defamatory information Requests for oversight or oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org Submission of photos to be used in a Wikipedia article photosubmissionwikimedia.org Follow the instructions here Confirmation of copyright permission permissions-enwikimedia.org Follow the format given here Reports of threatened harm to self or others emergencywikimedia.org Guidance: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Reports of child pornography legal-reportswikimedia.org See Wikimedia Legal Policies Issues with an article about you or your organization info-en-qwikimedia.org Guidance: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help Any other inquiries involving private information info-enwikimedia.org

Noticeboard archives

Files outstaying their welcome?

There is a small but growing list of files at Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS, how long should we leave these alone, before requesting some action? I'm a little worried that this could be a bit of a loophole which allows images to stay that should not be here at all. Some of these images were tagged over a year ago!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, anything older than a month should be deleted under F11, and then restored if an OTRS agent is satisfied that the ticket (now) contains sufficient information to keep the file under the specified license. Ideally, it's best for an OTRS agent to check the ticket before deletion (I'll go through later today and see if I can clean out the category a bit), but if the uploader alter complains, point them here so someone can check the ticket. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The en queue is at 27 days, so anything older than that is probably safe. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - I'll tag the old ones.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

39 out of 51 tagged as over one month old, some went back to May 2009. Now wait for talk page explosion... At the very least it should prompt some users back into action. The F11 tag can easily be removed if they are willing to get it sorted out.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:UN map

I came across Template:UN map, and the text of it doesn't make any sense. Which is it?

1. The image may be used without any restrictions ("Modified UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide.").
2. The image may be used for any purpose, as long as it is renamed and a link to the original is provided.

I ask here in case the referenced ticket 2006090710013991 clarifies the matter. My main concern here is whether the link to the original is required or merely requested. Anomie⚔ 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

From the email, it looks like we can use the map to make derivatives, as long as we don't suggest in any way that the derivatives are official maps of the UN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So it would be correct to say "Modified versions of UNCS maps may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution, provided that the UN name and reference number does not appear on any modified version. A link to the original map is requested but not required."? (wording cribbed from Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link) Anomie⚔ 22:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be my interpretation, certainly; "provided that the UN name and reference number does not appear on any modified version" is the important bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lucevela.jpg

I see that File:Lucevela.jpg got an OTRS tag at upload time. Could this tag be verified, please? Eeekster (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The ticket doesn't mention that particular image, but there is a suggestion that all images from a collection are public domain. I'll email the sender for clarification, so if you could hold off on any action for a few days, I'd appreciate it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

arndt krupp reference "arms of krupp "---WILLIAM MANCHESTER

The information re The Krupp Foundation is incorrect---as is the origin of the Arndt Krupp Inheritance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.143.35 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Idea: OTRS feedback board

Most of the messages received and processed in the English Wikipedia's OTRS queues are things that don't affect life on-wiki outside their own individual scope: errors that need fixing, "why was my article deleted?", complaints about perennial topics... but some of them are different. Some of them are thank you notes to "Wikipedia's editors", some are articulate complaints of systemic bias, and some are written as if we had, and published, letters to the editor.

Would anyone be interested in an "OTRS feedback" board, where OTRS agents would cherry pick interesting messages of interest to the project as a whole, remove identifying information, and post them for the community to see and discuss among ourselves? I've asked OTRS administrators if this would be acceptable, so they might put the kibosh on this from their end, but I think it appropriate to ask the community in parallel... is this something we'd like to see? Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to comment on the merits, but would the legal/WMF policy issues across umpteen different jurisdictions not make this rather tricky to pull off? Skomorokh 04:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea, and I'm all for transparency. However, even with all the PII and surrounding information, I can't find the real value in this one. Correspondents email us with confidence that we will not repost those messages, most especially to discuss in a round table style. I don't object to OTRS agents taking suggestions and reposting it to the project, if they take responsibility for those suggestions. They way it is currently suggested as above, I don't feel is workable. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 06:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)