Help desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 9

Series of Native American classes

Any ideas what the connection might be between these AfC submissions or how to identify the class? Stumbled on them in AfC but it's late and I'm headed offline. Hoping someone else can help connect the pieces. They're reasonably well written but not standalone articles. Star Mississippi 02:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: The Wiki Ed dashboard lists a course in Native American History at the University of California, Irvine. Could be that, though I have no idea how one would go about confirming it. Deor (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that lead @Deor. Wondering if @Ian (Wiki Ed) can lend any insight. Star Mississippi 14:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi It looks like they are students - they registered with the Dashboard, but never joined any class. (If they join a class, the Dashboard creates a userpage and talk page automatically.) I tracked down a likely class and emailed one of their instructors, so hopefully we'll known more soon. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ian (Wiki Ed)! Is there an easy how to on this? I don't work much with classes so never quite sure how to connect the dots. Star Mississippi 15:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi When a student enrolls in a class, the Dashboard makes three automated edits with their account, creating their userpage, talk page, and default /sandbox page, and makes an edit adding them to a course page on Wikipedia (which is designed to mirror information on the Dashboard itself). You can see this with the first four edits by this student. As part of the initial training modules, they're also encouraged to create the "/be bold", "/talk page tutorial" and "/citing sources" (but they aren't forced to, so it's not a sure sign). So anything that looks like that is a good hint that they're students in a class supported by Wiki Education.

Sometimes, though, the initial edits fail. And sometimes students sign up for the Dashboard but fail to join a course. These students will have a user profile on the Dashboard, (https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/UserName, so https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Franklde as an example). These pages don't have much information for people who aren't enrolled in classes, so they only let you know if a given editor has ever registered with the Dashboard. Admins can see the email address they entered, so I could guess at which class they're likely to have been a part of, but for privacy reasons, that isn't something we can share.

I'm sure this is more than most people on this page want to know, but I'm happy to discuss this further on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running for public office

I am running for public office. I add my name to the page '2025 New Jersey gubernatorial election' and it was removed for lack of citation needed. I am running as an independent. It seems it is too early to even file my intentions. I announced over two different medias today of my intentions. If I place the links to the announcements into the citations, will this be a good enough citation to keep my name from being removed? Every day these other candidates' names are out there without mine is hurting my chances. Please help JerryCed (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)JerryCed[reply]

That is not a source that you have announced that you are running. It says nothing about the election or who is running. It simply says that a broadcast outlet must give all candidates the same opportunity to use the station if they give it to any of the candidates. Meters (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've sent me an email asking whether a "public announcement of my intention to run for office on YouTube and Instagram" that "have views already" are good enough as sources. Unfortunately, candidacies usually need news coverage or candidate filings to be added, please see WP:COIPOLITICAL and WP:SPS. Also, considering the election is still more than three years away, let's stick to what can be verifiable in independent sources. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 03:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User is now indef blocked.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a source that’s blocked by a paywall considered a valid source?

I understand the notion “you get what you pay for,” but not when it comes to citing sources on the internet… at least in the terms of an “information freedom” type country such as North America. I mean this in a way that the way our Country(ies) utilize information as a weapon or a tool (whether or not it’s correct), it’s deemed a foundation of our “freedom”.

So when needing to verify a source, and it having a paywall… doesn’t that detract from the foundation Wikipedia was built upon? You don’t ask to view an article or search for financial gain… why do you allow other companies to do the same on your behalf?! I wanted to see a source from The NY Times, but I had to pay $ for information that would take me 2 more minutes to find FOR FREE on a different outlet.

I mention this because you should either negotiate a rate of commission based on subscription sales from your citations, or eliminate all of them. NO MERCY! I also mention this because this would solve ALL of your financial problems in a month if implemented properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1680:77EA:59B6:922:9102:26A1 (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Wikipedia's best articles are from the Arts and Sciences and are based on citing scholarly research. Such material is often behind a paywall because the journals in question have a very limited paying readership (often via university and commercial libraries) and have to fund themselves somehow. While there is a growing trend to open access, particularly for research funded by government money, it is unlikely that all sources will become free-to-access. Just be happy that Wikipedia is not short of cash and makes summaries of such research freely available thanks to the work of volunteers here. In many cases, Wikipedia provides a reliable summary of such material and means that most people don't need to pay anything — although donations to the WMF are welcome from those who can afford to make them. The rest of us can donate our time to make the encyclopaedia better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that many paywalled publishers do make their journals and archives freely available to Wikipedia editors via the Wikipedia library, which long-term editors here can join. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sources don't have to be on the internet, books can be very good sources, and in a sense they are also "paywalled." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasons that books that others haven't bought are valid sources —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Thus saith the policy Verifiability. Let they who wouldst gainsay it look to their Wikipedial soul. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great fan of sources with a WP:PAYWALL. I know of several articles that rely extensively on academic sources with a paywall, and it would require a considerable amount of $ to read them all. This leads to problems with WP:V, because you cannot read or check the source without paying. Same with books. While most people are acting in good faith when they cite a book, if it is a very old, obscure or expensive book, the same problem occurs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had someone trying to add incorrect information and cited an old obscure book. the information was left on the article for a while (~1-2 weeks) while AGF-ing on the sourcing. But I managed to fish the book from the archives at the national library, after which the incorrect information was removed. – robertsky (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a helpdesk question. It's a policy question. Please read WP:V. Please discuss proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Please be aware that Wikipedia has less than ten principles that rise to the level of "policy" (The rest are guidelines, etc.) The policies have been in existence for more than 20 years now, so your discussion may be lengthy. As for paying: No need. You can ask another editor to verify that the reference is being properly used. -Arch dude (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once I got into hot water by citing a memorial plaque which can be found in a northern German city. "Do I have to travel there to check your citation?". Uhm... yes. Personally I wish the Wikipedia - which supports free knowledge - would only cite publicly accessible sources. But as others have said, this is a policy decision. And there's the fact that Wikipedians working in academia have an advantage due to their institutional subscriptions. "I also mention this because this would solve ALL of your financial problems in a month if implemented properly." The Wikimedia Foundation has a literal metric shit-ton of money - 300 million US$, says a source.--Keimzelle (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or Useable Reference

Not a complicated question but rather one about self-publishing, third parties and when references can be used.

i) Person A records a conversation between Person A and Person B, with Person C interviewing them. ii) The recording is then uploaded to Person A's website. iii) The recording is transcripted by me hopefully to include facts and (short) quotes from in a Wiki article.

Can any of this be used as a reference or is it self-published and not available as such?

iv) If Person D and others have a conversation that is hosted by Person A's website, can that be used for facts or (short) quotes as a reference by me?

I am not clear as to whether a transcription of a converstion is a good reference.

Thanks :) Richard Nowell (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the transcriber from Adam. There is no way of knowing if they have transcribed accurately or, at the other extreme, just made things up. If the transcription were confirmed by a reliable source, then it would be acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original recording is there for all to hear with a transcription downloadable from the same site. The transcription would be through a legally-used website. I think the question is more about using a conversation between person A and person B that is then published by person A on his/her website. is that a reputable source? Richard Nowell (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nowell: The recording itself is the source, not the transcription. The transcription is a convenience, like a translation from a different language. The interview itself is not a general "reliable source" but is instead a "self source" and must be used with caution: see WP:SELFSOURCE. Arch dude (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone above seems to be ignoring the need to know what the article is about. Is the article about person A, B, or C? Or is it about something else? If it is about something else, is person A, B, or C a recognized expert on the something else? Whether or not something is a reliable source, an acceptable self-published source, or original research are all context-specific questions.

Some examples:

Albert and Bob have started a company. Charlie is part of the company's PR team. Charlie interviews Albert and Bob for the company's website. You want to include facts and quotes in a Wikipedia article about the company. - This reference would not contribute to establishing notability. Assuming notability is established by other sources, it would be acceptable under about self for limited use for uncontroversial facts.
Albert and Bob work for NASA are experts in planetary geology, with a focus on Mars. Charlie interviews them for his science podcast. Albert puts the podcast on his website. You want to include facts and quotes in the Wikipedia article about Mars. - As Albert and Bob are recognized experts in planetary geology, their statements concerning Martian geology would fall under self published sources and would be considered reliable expert opinions.
Albert and Bob work for NASA are experts in planetary geology, with a focus on Mars. Charlie interviews them for his science podcast. Albert puts the podcast on his website. You want to include facts and quotes in the Wikipedia article about Albert. - At this point it's back to being an about self issue. The interview does not contribute to establishing notability, but could be used to source uncontroversial facts about Albert.
Albert and Bob work for NASA are experts in planetary geology, with a focus on Mars. Charlie interviews them for his science podcast. Albert puts the podcast on his website. You want to include facts and quotes in the Wikipedia article about fish. - This would not be an acceptable use of this source, as Albert and Bob are not experts in fish, nor are they themselves fish.
Albert and Bob have started a company. You are Charlie. You interview them for the Wikipedia article. Albert puts the recording on his website. You want to include facts and quotes in the Wikipedia article about the company. - This is original research. You conducted the interview - the research. This is not usable on Wikipedia.

I hope this helps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, without verification, how is anyone to know the recording is genuine? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your replies. I agree that the transcription is just a convenience. This is how it is:

The article is about an arts cooperative that existed in London between 1975 - 92. Two of the founder members who helped set up the co-op in 1975 have kindly agreed to partake in an interview with a third person who was also there. This recording can also be known as an oral history. The interview is then placed on one of the founder's website. These are three elderly people remembering how it was in 1975-81. They would be unlikely to be lying - why bother? They are the only ones who would know the facts, which are crucial to finding out how it started. As for whether the recording is genuine, I think that will become clear when it can be heard by others. This isn't a PR exercise but a genuine attempt to take an oral history from nearly 50 years ago and lay out some of the facts. The three could say what they want, but as it is about a co-op that was turned into a charity that still operates today seems unlikely. Basically, there is no-one else that could provide this history. Other people will also be giving oral histories, which will be placed on the website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diorama_Arts_Cooperative Thanks Richard Nowell (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nowell "They would be unlikely to be lying", "...seems unlikely". Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. WP requires sources that are independent of the article's subject. If some facts are only known to certain people, then a WP article cannot contain those facts (unless a newspaper, magazine, or book decides to publish that info). It's great to preserve this history, but it may have to be preserved somewhere other than WP. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had concluded that after reading this. WP is primarily a scholarly publication and needs its facts to be from reliable sources. In this case, there are only 3 who can verify "the facts" from nearly 50 years ago and the charity/company is still in business, so any conversation then used as fact could end in litigation against WP. After 16 years, I finally understand 'self-source'! Thanks Richard Nowell (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from CKWiki1818

Every time I am trying to edit this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viber, the changes I make disappear. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKWiki1818 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CKWiki1818: You can check this yourself by looking at the page history. You made a single big edit. Your edit was reverted because it "broke citation formats". I suggest that you make a series of small edits instead and check your work using the "preview" feature. -Arch dude (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non Notability of an Article

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Vango Rosios/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vango Rosios (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also asked at the Teahouse, with more context. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Irishlaw

Hello. My employer would like to add additional factual statements to our branded Wikipedia pages. We have no intention of revising "controversial" content or what might be deemed negative. We simply want to add more facts about the business and business history. Further, we have noticed our right rail panels list out of date facts and would like to correct those. We have read the Wikipedia Paid Contribution and the Conflict of Interest articles. Although, it would be nice to have updated and factual information on our branded pages, we do not want to activate the COI warning. The COI page was not clear about when a page receives that warning. If we are merely adding facts does that automatically require the COI warning on our pages?

For example, what if our app is available on LG devices, but the right rail Facts Box under Platforms only lists Samsung and Sony. If we add LG is that considered a COI? Thank you so much for any insight! We absolutely do not want to disrupt Wikipedia. Irishlaw (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Irishlaw: COI is more about the editor than the page. Regardless of whether or not you edit the article, you have a conflict of interest here since you're editing on behalf of your employer. The best practise in this case is to make edit requests on the talk page of the article, with third-party sources to back up your edits. See WP:EDITREQ for how this works.

And for the record, "we want to add[...]facts" has a far worse connotation here than you think it does given your conflict of interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response! Irishlaw (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Irishlaw A note on terminology: You do not have branded Wikipedia pages. No one does. Wikipedia may have one or more encyclopedia articles related to your company or products. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, you admitted you were committing paid editing for something called Global Market Insight. I see no such disclosure on your userpage or anywhere else now. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not contributed to Wikipedia in nearly 16 years and no longer contribute. I worked with several editors for that page around 2006. They were very aware of what was going on. Irishlaw (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Irishlaw You "no longer contribute" but you want to "add additional factual statements" and " more facts about the business and business history" and make other changes. So, you want to contribute, right? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I have not been able to get userboxes to show up on the page. When I try copying the address, it just appears in text form rather than showing the userbox. How do I get the userbox to appear on my userpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus192 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are templates and are called as such ( {{template name}} ). You can also create them bespoke; see WP:Userboxes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarus192: On this edit, the userbox templates are surrounded with <nowiki> tags and so do not appear properly. I'm guessing you were in the visual editor. For adding userboxes, it's easier to be using the source editor.

Make sure you are editing in the source editor, and there are no [[ characters nor nowiki tags. Templates should be called exactly like this: {{Template:User enjoys D&D}}

I've gone ahead and edited your userpage to fix the erroneous tags. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Icarus192 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

(1) Some editor keeps "following me around" and reverting all the edits I make. What's the proper course of action?

(2) Related to Question 1. Said editor claims that we cannot italicize titles of Talk Pages. Something that I have been doing for 15 years now. What's the status of this "issue"?

Said editor is User:Randykitty. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That editor is an administrator. If you have questions about why they are reverting your edits, you should ask them directly. (2). {{Italic_title}} has some examples that include talk page names in italics. Again, you should ask that user directly why they are saying your shouldn't italizise the talk page name. Don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: fixing the ping. RudolfRed (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Question 2 ... they say "this is simply not done on Talk Pages" ...I say "I can show you hundreds of examples of similar Talk Pages" ... they say "well, OTHERCRAPEXISTS is really not a persuasive argument". And so forth. With regard to Question 1 ... every edit I make, they follow me around and revert or change it. One article that has been notable now for 15+ years is -- all of the sudden, just today -- "not notable". (What a coincidence!) Translation: I can tell that he/she is trouble. Not interested in dealing with trouble. And, in particular, an admin like this. Which is why I came here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's true that they are reverting every edit I make. Looking at your recent contribution history, this seems to be a dispute over the notability of the article about the Connecticut Law Review. I would agree that in its current state the notability is not indicated by the article's text (although this has just been indicated by a tag, not yet a formal proposal to discuss this at WP:AFD). Very little seems to be about the journal, per WP:NJOURNAL, and most of the citations no longer work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you missed my point. Let's not be literal. I didn't say that they revert every edit that I make. I said ... they follow me around ... and "inspect" every edit that I make ... whether or not a revert occurs. The point is ... he/she follows me around and "supervises" and "fixes" (reverts, changes, leaves alone, whatever) the edits that I make. Pretty consistent behavior. As far as the Journal ... it's been notable for 15 years. What happened yesterday that made it no longer notable? (Other than the fact that I made an edit in that article ... and that admin decided to follow me around.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's summarize. I edited four articles in the past day or 2. They've been around forever. Now, all of the sudden, three of the four articles that I edited/improved are put up for deletion / non-notability by that same admin. Seems like quite the coincidence. What are the statistical odds of that happening? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those odds are actually pretty good. I specialize in academic journals and regularly look for new articles on journals. That's how I got to the new article that you made on the Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. The stub only had a link to the journal's homepage, so I tagged it accordingly. Once I had looked at that, I also looked at the articles mentioned under "see also". One of them had a redlink in its "see also" section, which I removed (see manual of style). You created that article and reverted me with a snarky edit summary. That's it, I think. Since then, I've edited the Connecticut Law Review article, found some evidence of notability and added that, while removing the notability tag. I have now looked at Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal and cannot find anything indicating notability, so I've PRODded it. It should be obvious for somebody with almost 100,000 edits and many years of experience here that articles on less popular subjects such as academic journals may linger for years without anybody having a close look at them. The age of an article has nothing to do with it being notable or not. Finally, may I gingerly suggest that you have a look at WP:AGF? --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we both just described the same exact scenario. Which is ... You "following me around" and "supervising" every edit that I decide to make. Including, by the way, the very frivolous claim of yours that Talk Pages cannot possibly contain italics in them. Your (snarky) response was "this is simply not done on Talk Pages". As if that was dispositive. And I countered that "actually, it's done on hundreds of Talk Pages". And your (snarky) response was "well, even so, OTHER CRAP EXISTS is not particularly persuasive". (Which is an essay, not a policy.) So, yes, I should AGF, and you should also. Quite frankly, I didn't appreciate you following me around ... micro-managing every edit that I make ... and, lo and behold ... you decide that 3 or 4 of my articles of attention are no longer notable after 15-17 years. LOL. I could tell that you'd be "trouble". Hence, I came to this Help Desk. Since you are an Admin ... we all know how this will end. Nonetheless, I said my 2 cents. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{italic title}} is currently used in 676,104 articles [1] (usually via an infobox) and 1318 article talk pages [2]. That's 1 in 513. If you have been doing it for 15 years then I guess many of the 1318 were added by you. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a photo to a wikipedia page

I wish to add a photo to the page of "Tom mcGrath Producer"

I have been advised by Upload Wizard that I have been successful in uploading the photo and "To use this file in a wiki,copy this text into a page: ((File:(Tom mcGrath).jpg/thumb/))

I just seem to have a blind spot in woking out how to use the file.

Baile Atha Cliathach (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC) 10/06/2022[reply]

Hello, Baile Atha Cliathach. The article was using a "stripped down" infobox that did not have a parameter for an image. I changed to a longer format infobox and added the photo. I do have a concern about the licensing of the photo. Are you the photographer? If not, you do not have the legal right to upload the photo. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The photographer is forwarding the necessary (VRT)release. Helpdesk have confirmed that this must be done within seven days of publication of the photo. Baile Atha Cliathach 10 June 2022 Baile Atha Cliathach (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that the copyright holder has emailed VRT and I have added the template {{VRT pending}} to the file's page. Very many thanks again for your guidance. Baile Atha Cliathach 11th June 2022 Baile Atha Cliathach (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baile Atha Cliathach: Once you're sure that the copyright holder has emailed VRT, you can add the template {{VRT pending}} to the file's page. This will alert the administrator who reviews the file for speedy deletion that an email has been sent to VRT. Once VRT receives the email, the sender should get an automated reply containing a VRT tickect number. This is sort of like a reference number and it can be used by the sender to make reference to the file in any further email exchanges with VRT; so, let the sender know about this since sometimes VRT emails get mistaken for spam. Anyway, if the VRT member who reviews the email finds it to be in order, a {{PermissionTicket}} template will be added to the file's page. If, on the other hand, there's a problem with the email, a {{Permission received}} template will be added instead. If the file somehow ends up deleted before VRT reviews the email, don't worry; the file will only be hidden from view and it can be restored once VRT verifies the email. -- 06:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)