Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
Latest comment: 5 days ago by Nemoralis in topic VRT and anonymity
 |
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
Permissions
[edit]Hello! I'm trying to get permissions for use of this in a museum exhibit and would like to have something written in terms of correspondence and am curious what you all found in your review to be able to mark this as public domain. I've emailed and tried reaching out to the artist a few times with no reply. Thank you!
It's for this: ticket #2016041710010483
File:Cuadro por españa y por el rey, Galvez en America.jpg ZslaughSL (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is very long correspondence in Spanish (which is merged into ticket:2013032610005631). What information are you looking for? Nemoralis (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @ZslaughSL, ping. Nemoralis (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC) Uploads without licence
[edit]About 3/4 of the permissions we receive from France and Spain refer to images without licence tag. This means considerable extra work for VRT, because we need to remove the complaint from the User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense and add the appropriate licence each time after having checked and approved the permission.
This has been going on for months now. Is there really nothing that can be done about it? It should be prevented that files get uploaded without licence tag. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that we have so many accepted licenses that having a filter to prevent this is not really possible. If we decide that new users are only allowed to use the regular cc licenses we could easily create a filter. GPSLeo (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- How about a filter that forbids to leave the licence empty? This would eliminite 80% of the problem cases, since most users decide for cc-by-sa anyway. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest not to solve this by edit filter but by changing the upload interface. But it has to be found out at first which of the dozen ways for uploading creates this problem. Krd 12:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to be the upload wizard. See e.g. File:Laura Urbina.jpg and File:Jorge León Gustà.jpg. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue comes from the Upload Wizard. I mentioned that a few months back, and I am surprised that it has not been fixed yet. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the bug that selecting the permission option removes the license is still present. Just tested here File:Testfile2.png. @Sannita (WMF) could you have a look why this is still not resolved? GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, on April 13 of this year, I edited Commons:Uploading works by a third party to describe the necessary workaround for this on uploads, because Sannita let me know he did not expect the fix to occur promptly. I still have no idea why a fix to this would be difficult. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo Unfortunately, the Structured Content team is no longer active, and it is still unclear who owns UploadWizard in the latest re-organization. I'll keep pushing for a solution, if you would be so kind to send me the Phab ticket, I can try to find someone to work on it. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- The ticket should be phab:T391600. And the WMF did drop the maintenance of a core tool again? Is there an official statement why this happened? This is exactly what was the main criticism by the community in the open letters and also in the community call series. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo AFAIK an announcement on Commons is in the making, but I have no news on when it will be published. About the ticket, I reached out to the devs, and they have it on their rader, but it's going to take at least another couple of weeks before it gets addressed, due to other priorities at the moment. I'll keep you posted, but please feel free to ping me here or in private about it, just to be sure it doesn't slip off my mind. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- is there any update on the announcement, can be more public than here Gnangarra 10:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Gnangarra no update, I pinged already in private the people behind it Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- is there any update on the announcement, can be more public than here Gnangarra 10:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo AFAIK an announcement on Commons is in the making, but I have no news on when it will be published. About the ticket, I reached out to the devs, and they have it on their rader, but it's going to take at least another couple of weeks before it gets addressed, due to other priorities at the moment. I'll keep you posted, but please feel free to ping me here or in private about it, just to be sure it doesn't slip off my mind. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- The ticket should be phab:T391600. And the WMF did drop the maintenance of a core tool again? Is there an official statement why this happened? This is exactly what was the main criticism by the community in the open letters and also in the community call series. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the bug that selecting the permission option removes the license is still present. Just tested here File:Testfile2.png. @Sannita (WMF) could you have a look why this is still not resolved? GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue comes from the Upload Wizard. I mentioned that a few months back, and I am surprised that it has not been fixed yet. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to be the upload wizard. See e.g. File:Laura Urbina.jpg and File:Jorge León Gustà.jpg. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest not to solve this by edit filter but by changing the upload interface. But it has to be found out at first which of the dozen ways for uploading creates this problem. Krd 12:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- How about a filter that forbids to leave the licence empty? This would eliminite 80% of the problem cases, since most users decide for cc-by-sa anyway. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
"You must provide exact URL link(s) to the content or attach the content to the email message"
[edit]If someone sends me a link to his Dropbox folder does that still count as providing the exact URL links to the content? The Dropbox folder in question have almost 100 images and videos so adding the URL for each of them would make the email very long Trade (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Trade, if possible upload all of them here and give us a link (maybe list of image URLs or category name?) Nemoralis (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- All images related to the VRT that i have uploaded is in Category:BattlerGC Pro along with an URL to the source Trade (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Please send this to the VRT ticket also. Nemoralis (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think i might have uploaded the images too early. Would you mind deleting them? We can just undelete them if the VRT works out Trade (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Trade, is this section resolved? Also, what was the ticket number? Nemoralis (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I got ghosted before we got that far. I will try to contact them again.
- I used the "Email message template for release of rights to a file" and changed "of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work]" to "of the the exclusive copyright of the media published in the following Dropbox folder: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0cic2cqkao3a4fpoowuhr/AMcgZf3tS48ItOuA2iaAkHA?rlkey=7qaf7mgmv5ge7cdsecnxvukp5&e=1&st=kzfk677v&dl=0" Trade (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Trade, is this section resolved? Also, what was the ticket number? Nemoralis (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think i might have uploaded the images too early. Would you mind deleting them? We can just undelete them if the VRT works out Trade (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Please send this to the VRT ticket also. Nemoralis (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- All images related to the VRT that i have uploaded is in Category:BattlerGC Pro along with an URL to the source Trade (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Nemoralis, i would really much prefer to have the VRT in order before uploading the photos. Hope you understand--Trade (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I understand but it will probably take longer when you ask the VRT to upload files with permission ticket. Please upload files yourself with {{PP}} and add file names to your permission email. Nemoralis (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC) PD-text logo with VRT permission attached
[edit]Shouldn't we have a rule against attaching VRT permissions to files that are too simplistic to be eligible for copyright protection in the first place? It's feels misleading to tell Commons users that literal colored text and a circle is protected somehow by copyright in the US Trade (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- File in question is File:New MANTECH Logo - 2025.png--Trade (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- VRT agents only confirm that the claimed rights holder has issued a valid free license. They do not assess whether the file is actually copyrightable or whether a PD-tag might be more accurate. That second part is always up to the Commons community. VRT agents are, of course, also part of the community, but any such re-tagging would be done as normal community editing and not as a VRT action. It is also worth noting that in some cases it may later be judged that a file is not actually in the public domain (for example, if the threshold of originality is found to be met). In such situations, having a confirmed free license through VRT provides a useful fall-back. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- How are we (the community) supposed to indicate that the "cc-by-sa-4.0" only applies in cases where the PD-tag is considered invalid? Right now there is just two conflicting licenses with no indication of which one actually takes precedence Trade (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- When two license tags are offered, a reuser can choose which license to use.
- There might be countries where this is above TOO; in those countries, a reuser can use the offered license.
- Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Except you can't expect the reuser to simply choose which license they wanna use because there is nothing on the page to indicate they should do that in the first place nor is there anything to indicate to them that the reuser should use the offered license in a country with a higher TOO
- You can't expect reusers to do something that Commons makes no effort to tell them is even an option
- That's the issue. No indicators or anything. Just two licenses whose text directly contradicts each other with no explanation at to why Trade (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- If there is more than one license, it's obvious that any of them can apply. IMHO you are describing a non-issue. Krd 08:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like a template that said "the author/presumed copyright owner has provided this free license FOO, but the Commons community has determinate that it may fall under license BAR", but that's not a VRT issue. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a limit as to how simplistic a image will have to be before VRT will not longer accept the permission as being valid? Or does anything just go no matter what as long as the author says yes? Trade (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that an image is considered below the threshold of originality and therefore in the public domain is ultimately a presumption of fact that we ask reusers to trust. A release under a free license, however, provides a concrete assurance that is not based on that presumption. If the file later turns out to be copyright-ineligible in some jurisdictions, reusers can still rely on the granted license until such a determination has been done by e.g. courts or USCO. This makes VRT permissions useful and not contradictory, but rather complementary to PD assessments.
- As an aside, English Wikipedia uses explanatory templates in somewhat related cases (for example en:Template:Non-free with permission), which clarifies that there is both a non-free use claim and a granted permission. While that situation is not identical, it shows that we sometimes need to document how permissions and licensing interact, so it may be worth considering a Commons template that clarifies when both PD and a VRT license apply. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a limit as to how simplistic a image will have to be before VRT will not longer accept the permission as being valid? Or does anything just go no matter what as long as the author says yes? Trade (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- "If there is more than one license, it's obvious that any of them can apply." When one license explicitly says that the image is protected by copyright and the other explicitly says that it's not that's called an oxymoron
- "IMHO you are describing a non-issue." No, you just dont care about it. That's a completely different thing.
- There's plenty of copyright violations on Commons that nobody have cared enough to nominate. That doesn't make it an argument to keep them once someone does nominate them Trade (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever you think it is, it appears that consensus is that the answer to your original question is No. Krd 19:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless i removed the license since it was obviously not invalid for such a simple logo--Trade (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Trade: are you basically unilaterally getting rid of multi-licensing? Or what? - Jmabel ! talk 13:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- To be less snarky: why didn't you simply add {{Multi-license}}? - Jmabel ! talk 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- {{Multi-license}} require both licenses to be valid to be used. This doesnt really work when you wanna claim that a logo is both too simple to be copyrighted and too complex to be devoid of copyright (which is the claim that the page made previously). Even Jonatan Svensson Glad have stated that it's not the job of VRT to check whether or not a file is even eligible for copyright in the first place. Meaning the fact that VRT added a license to the file cannot be used as evidence for the license being valid.--Trade (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- It may be free in one country but not in another, regardless of the place of publication - so having dual-licensing may be good in some cases though, regardless of your thoughts on the copyrightability in one country (the US). The license is valid in any country where the threshold of originality is super-low or non-existent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which means the PD license should take precedence unless it's deemed to be invalid by local law Trade (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Trade: What is your special interest in this very file? Or is this a general approach, i.e. we have to expect more third party license changes from you in similar cases? Krd 18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which means the PD license should take precedence unless it's deemed to be invalid by local law Trade (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- It may be free in one country but not in another, regardless of the place of publication - so having dual-licensing may be good in some cases though, regardless of your thoughts on the copyrightability in one country (the US). The license is valid in any country where the threshold of originality is super-low or non-existent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- {{Multi-license}} require both licenses to be valid to be used. This doesnt really work when you wanna claim that a logo is both too simple to be copyrighted and too complex to be devoid of copyright (which is the claim that the page made previously). Even Jonatan Svensson Glad have stated that it's not the job of VRT to check whether or not a file is even eligible for copyright in the first place. Meaning the fact that VRT added a license to the file cannot be used as evidence for the license being valid.--Trade (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless i removed the license since it was obviously not invalid for such a simple logo--Trade (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever you think it is, it appears that consensus is that the answer to your original question is No. Krd 19:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like a template that said "the author/presumed copyright owner has provided this free license FOO, but the Commons community has determinate that it may fall under license BAR", but that's not a VRT issue. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- If there is more than one license, it's obvious that any of them can apply. IMHO you are describing a non-issue. Krd 08:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- How are we (the community) supposed to indicate that the "cc-by-sa-4.0" only applies in cases where the PD-tag is considered invalid? Right now there is just two conflicting licenses with no indication of which one actually takes precedence Trade (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- VRT agents only confirm that the claimed rights holder has issued a valid free license. They do not assess whether the file is actually copyrightable or whether a PD-tag might be more accurate. That second part is always up to the Commons community. VRT agents are, of course, also part of the community, but any such re-tagging would be done as normal community editing and not as a VRT action. It is also worth noting that in some cases it may later be judged that a file is not actually in the public domain (for example, if the threshold of originality is found to be met). In such situations, having a confirmed free license through VRT provides a useful fall-back. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) Need a French-speaking agent to reach out to a rights holder
[edit]Hi. Can a French-speaking agent please reach out to the rights holder in ticket:2021032110004214 and ask them to confirm that they intend to release the rights to the images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations under a free license? The IP that commented there claims to be said rights holder, but we need a VRT confirmation.
If they do confirm, please let me know so I can get those files undeleted and restored to their articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy: and VRT people, Hi,
- For the present situation, please see also the authorization at File:Droits d'auteur de Nicolas Théobald.pdf, by the rights holder Mireille Théobald, by which she confirms that she authorizes her helper Philippe Rogez to upload the works of her father Nicolas Théobald, from whom she inherited the rights. This authorization is published here by her account User:Mireille Théobald. I don't know if a copy of it is also archived at VRT. It seems clear that her intention is to authorize Philippe Rogez to upload the files, although the wording may or may not be considered sufficient by VRT. If it is already sufficient for VRT, good. If not, please suggest to her what wording would work for VRT and would not require her to go through the process again for future uploads. Please take into consideration that she is an octogenarian, so, VRT people, if possible, please try to be understanding and helpful and not too rude.
- Previous episodes: Mireille Théobald herself uploaded files in 2021, 2022, 2023. After trying to obtain help from Commons with various degrees of success or insuccess (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), her first uploads from February and March 2021 were validated by VRT member Mussklprozz with tickets #2021032110004214 (3 files) and #2021032810003659 (1 file). Most of her other files, from April 2021 and later, do not have ticket information attached to them, but they do not seem to have been challenged either. Hopefully, the confirmation of her identity in the existing tickets (she even sent to VRT a copy of her birth certificate) was sufficient to consider all her uploads as validated. If so, it might be useful to add something to that effect either on the description pages or on her user page. But if the information in possession of VRT is not sufficient for that, now may be a good time to settle that also, at the same time as the auhorization for Philippe Rogez, so that deletion requests on her uploads will not be started in some years when she might not be available to reply.
- -- Asclepias (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll work to get the files undeleted and restored to their articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Asclepias and @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Won't this present case be an archetypical example of following Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations and using {{Verified account}}? The PDF "Droits d'auteur", the birth certificate(!!) and the account name in combination would IMHO amount to ample evidence for that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Bonjour @Asclepias and @The Squirrel Conspiracy: 1) j'ai mis à jour les tags images des photos de 1937 (et 1935-1940) du dernier paquet non encore supprimé avec un pointeur vers le fichier d'autorisation de User:Mireille Théobald : File:Droits d'auteur de Nicolas Théobald.pdf. 2) Pouvez vous validez cette autorisation (enregistrer sous VRT avec ticket) ? ou NOUS dire ce qu'il manque dans cette autorisation qu'elle devrait réécrire ? 3) En attendant, est-ce que tous ces efforts de mise en conformité, sont suffisants ?a) pour que ce dernier paquet reste non supprimé ? b) et que les paquets précédents soient restaurés, pour pouvoir aussi mettre à jour les tags (et si possible restaurer les liens divers wikispecies, wikidata, fr.wiki et autres) ? En vous remerciant encore de votre disponibilité et de vos égards envers nous (débutants maladroits en scan d'archives ! PS : NOUS sommes néanmoins aussi créateurs nets d'images !...) --Philippe rogez (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Asclepias and @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Won't this present case be an archetypical example of following Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations and using {{Verified account}}? The PDF "Droits d'auteur", the birth certificate(!!) and the account name in combination would IMHO amount to ample evidence for that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll work to get the files undeleted and restored to their articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I undeleted some files. Please fix the author, etc. Yann (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)- @Philippe rogez: J'ai restauré les fichiers. Pourriez-vous corriger l'auteur, la date, la source, etc. Yann (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- bonjour Merci pour tout ce travail.
- 1) J'ai normalement mis à jour les tags dans les deux gallery : Category:User:Philippe rogez/galerie/2023 Category:User:Philippe rogez/galerie/2022.
- 2) Bizarremment, il me manque 26 planches sur les 29 de la galerie User:Philippe rogez/galerie/1937/thèse Nicolas Théobald sans que je vois l'avertissement de suppression ?!
- 3) il manque aussi dans User talk:Philippe rogez
- File:Cydnus archaicus F. Meunier 1937 N. Théobald éch R909 x3 p.250 Pl III Insectes du Sannoisien de Kleinkembs.jpg et ses quatre autres fichiers.
- 4) Qui doit remettre les category commons, les liens wikidata, wikispecies, fr.wiki ?
- 5) quelle est la suite prévue ?
- en vous remerciant d'avance de votre retour Philippe rogez (⧼Tcalkpagelinktext⧽) 07:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Alessandro Sartori status
[edit]Hi, may I have an update on Alessandro Sartori.jpg ticket status? many thanks Preppo456 (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I guess it is ticket:2025091210002788. Please answer to the question asked in the ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC) Commons:Permission requests is now open and in need of volunteer contributors.
[edit]After a successful proposal, Commons:Permission requests has been launched. This is a desk where users can request experienced contributors reach out to rightsholders to secure the release of specific media works via the VRT process. It's a great new way to make information on the web more open, and will help less-experienced contributors navigate releases without having to make contact, explain WMC licensing, and execute the VRT process.
This desk could use VRT-literate volunteers to respond to requests! Zanahary (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC) VRT and anonymity
[edit]Is there any issues if someone wants to release their work to Commons yet also wants to stay anonymous? Trade (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, It can certainly be done. Ask them to create an account with a pseudonym, and then send a permission to VRT with the necessary information. The works will be credited to the pseudonym with a permission with the real name which can only be seen by VRT agents. Yann (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Their country have blocked all Wikimedia projects nationwide so they cannot make an account for obvious reasons. My idea was that i would use my account to upload their works and they would email the permission to VRT Trade (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is possible. It is okay for us as long as files are uploaded and there is permission for them. It does not matter who the uploader is. Nemoralis (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Their country have blocked all Wikimedia projects nationwide so they cannot make an account for obvious reasons. My idea was that i would use my account to upload their works and they would email the permission to VRT Trade (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)