Krdbot not using nowiki in "content was"

Hi again. I addressed this issue of not using nowiki in "content was" at User talk:Krd/archive/2025#Template:VRTrestore, but it has recurred with Special:Diff/1089702356 and similar edits, populating Category:Malformed deletion requests (and in this case Category:Collections of Musée Cernuschi). Please fix your bot and what it has done, and then purge Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2025/07/24.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I have the feeling we change this back and forth. I have now made a comment in the code for the next occurence. Krd 18:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Deletion log entries are not interpreted as wikitext, but they are so interpreted when Krdbot puts them on pages, so they should be sanitized. What possible opposing viewpoint would there be?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I don't remember. We'll see if it arises again. Krd 07:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Johnj1995 (who thankfully fixed the problem I noticed) may notice recurrence first, though. I was pleased to see a result of your change in special:diff/1090869201.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I noticed that you deleted the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Oloche_David_at_a_panel_discussion.jpg and several other files related to Peter Oloche David from Wikimedia Commons. These files have repeatedly faced “permission and copyright” concerns, despite the subject sending multiple emails to the VRT team granting permission for the use of the files, as well as other related media and research materials.

It still appears that the permissions provided have not been considered sufficient by some administrators to retain the files. Since the same images have also been uploaded to Flickr under a free Creative Commons CC0 license by the copyright holder, would it be acceptable to re-upload the files to Wikimedia Commons directly from Flickr as the source? NatHaddan (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd say No, If the subject was unable to show that and why there are copyright holder, they likely are not copyright holder, so uploding the images again likely is a copyright violation. Please discuss this with VRT by e-mail. Krd 06:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and clarification.

I would like to respectfully🙏 clarify that the subject, Peter Oloche David, states that he already sent multiple emails to the VRT team granting permission for user NatHaddan and the general public to use and upload the files under a CC0 license. According to him, no follow-up email requesting additional proof of copyright ownership or documentation was ever received from VRT or Wikimedia Commons after those submissions.

Because of this, the uploader and the subject believed that the matter was still under VRT review and not rejected for insufficient evidence. The files were also uploaded on Flickr under a free CC0 license by the same claimed copyright holder as an additional indication of consent and free release.

We fully understand and respect Wikimedia Commons copyright policy and do not wish to violate it in any way. However, this situation may have resulted from a communication gap rather than intentional failure to provide evidence. If additional verification or documentation is still required, could the files please be temporarily restored or the VRT ticket re-opened so that the subject can provide whatever further evidence is necessary directly to the VRT team?

The subject remains willing to cooperate fully and provide any identification, original image metadata, publication history, or written declaration needed to confirm authorship and copyright ownership.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. ✌️ NatHaddan (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

They are welcome to send the permission again, or to continue the existing conversation. I cannot follow how this can be unclear or problematic. Krd 12:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The subject said to have send an email to VRT on the ticket number Ticket#ticket:2026033010015061 with attached of copy biding agreement back in 2023 that authorized and grant permission to NatHaddan and exclusively official photographer and the transfer of copyright owner transfer agreement and consent to act. NatHaddan (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Last ticket answer is in a language I cannot read. It will take some time until another VRT user handles this. --Krd 08:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The response was in English with an attached evidents pdf documents file contain an agreement. I recieved an email since after the subject himself submitted the evidents to VRT as you instructed, I was inform that the photos have been clear of possible copyright violation that I should make a public Undeletion request for the files to be restored. I don't know technique to attach email message as evident of VRT clearance here for possible review. And I don't know the proper link to make public request for Undeletion of multiple deleted files. Thank you for the attention! NatHaddan (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

As said, if we speak of ticket:2026033010015061 you are mistaken, and another VRT user has already taken over. The ticket is still open. Krd 14:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright. That's fine! ✌️ NatHaddan (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalismus durch Administrator

Der Admin User:AnRo0002 randaliert im Bereich "Villages in" im Saarland. Er baut einen ganzen Kategoriebaum, der in den deutschen Bundesländern etabliert ist, ab. Er stüzt sich auf seine Meinung und keine im Konsens getroffenen Entscheidungen. Bitte diesen User stoppen. Ich denke er macht grundsätzlich gute Arbeit, nutzt seine Position hier aber aus. Danke! NeverDoING (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hast Du ihn schon darauf angesprochen? Krd 05:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

ja, bei den diversen Rücksetzungen. Hier hat er eine Diskussion aufgemacht: Category talk:Villages in Saarland NeverDoING (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wo denn z.B.? Richtig wäre ggf. die Benutzerdiskussionsseite, und danach ggf. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems Krd 18:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You nominated a file for speedy deletion...but there is no "challenge speedy deletion" button?

Hi @Krd you nominated some of my files for speedy deletion. I will work through them but I am at a loss as to where I am meant to challenge the deletion. Your message template refers to a "Challenge speedy deletion" button but no such button or link appears that I can see.

I am looking for the link because one of the files you have nominated File:John Walsh 1960s commissioned portrait Hocken Collections MS-5409 004 008.jpg has a link to the Hocken Collections where the image is sourced from, and where you can see on the left hand side that the image is licensed CC BY 4.0. Was this one nominated by mistake or is there some problem with that? DrThneed (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no obvious permission for the file. Who is by which reason the copyright holder? --Krd 04:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Under NZ law the commissioner is the copyright holder. I have spoken to the archivist at the Hocken Collections this afternoon. The commissioner was John Walsh, who passed the copyright to his daughter Elizabeth Hanan. After her death her archives, including this information, were passed by the family to the Hocken Collections. The archivist worked through all the images with the family to establish the provenance and copyright status of each item. The family decided, with the archivist, that this image could be released under a CC BY licence, which you can see on the Hocken Collections website.

Also you did not answer my question about the "Challenge this speedy deletion" button referred to in your template? DrThneed (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

DrThneed (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please provide the permission by the current copyright holder per COM:VRT. Please consider this for all of your uploaded where permission is missing.

The button is present in my view. If you don't see it, I don't know the reason for that. Krd 11:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The page you linked says "If the file was previously published without a free license on an external website, then the copyright holder will need to establish their identity, even if they are the uploader." This file is clearly marked CC BY 4.0 at the external website, Hocken Collections, who have professional archivists who have determined the license. I do not understand why there is some extra standard being applied here. Is it now policy to ask every museum to justify the decision of their curators as to what licence they have applied to content on their website through a direct email to VRT? DrThneed (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:RSNZ honours Christchurch 2025 251028 Research-259 Matiu Ratima (cropped).jpg

You have proposed this file for speedy deletion and I need to understand what the problem is in order to fix it. The license information is given on the photo the image is cropped from. Are you saying that the license information needs to be repeated in the file information for every cropped photo? Or are you not seeing the license information for the source file? If the second, please click on the link to the source (repeating it here for your convenience but it is in the file information https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMChnzeFrUfRvrgCG7kxKo4OipvPWkU6HukK6ljVhq9eoBWpXYxjd15FuLdL9zsBQ?key=Z2dyT3Mtckh4d0pMcUgyc1QwQzlBbzFrRmJBRENn), it leads to a Google photos set, where the license information for the entire set of images is given underneath the first row of images. The license given says "CC-BY 4.0 NZ (Credit to Royal Society Te Apārangi)".

If your next question was going to be "but what evidence do we have that the photos have been uploaded to Google Images by the Royal Society?" then you can see the link given on their website here: https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/news/researchers-honoured-at-2025-research-honours-aotearoa-events (search for "2025 Research Honours Aotearoa – Ōtautahi Christchurch, Tuesday 28 October" which is immediately followed by the link "View photographs from the evening" which leads to the Google Images page. DrThneed (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please specify the exact original source in the source field of the uncropped file, and please see COM:License review. --Krd 04:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The source was specified in the original (uncropped) file through a link to the Google Images page under "source", with a pipe to the name of the copyright holder, the Royal Society Te Apārangi. However it was specified in the structured data and then shown using the "Information" template - is that the problem here? (I have amended the source to include the information I specified above, but I would appreciate a fuller answer about the problem as at the moment I am not clear how to avoid this problem in the future). DrThneed (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

As said, please use license review. Is shall be obvious why the file has permission, without the need for an investigation. I still don't see where permission for the file is provided. Krd 06:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Typo in RFA close

Typo in oppose count at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Mothusi Sekhomba. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thx. --Krd 13:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 13:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)