User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:Vito Trause Army Photo.webp

File:Vito Trause Army Photo.webp has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Indy beetle (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Depths of Wikipedia logo.jpg

File:Depths of Wikipedia logo.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The crown (emoji) is owned by Apple, Inc.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

– Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

are you a dictator???

The image I uploaded is from twitter, from official group. I am not doing anything Illegal, the source is in it. The company will not message me as it doesn't message anyone. So how do I tell them to "send an e-mail" to the supreme court of VRT ???? bro just leave me alone is only a page for kpop group no one cares for it. DanielMBBR (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanielMBBR: I'm to take it that you did not create this photo, right? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When you upload the photo you have 2 choices, my own picture or NOT my own picture. of course its not my picture. but the english wikipedia editor of lapillus did this to this picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LapillusPNGlogo.png and i don't know why this inquisition in what i did upload (sorry my english is not perfect) DanielMBBR (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

if is impossible to say what i have to do just delete, or tell me how do i can upload in right way. I don't understand those licenses and really don't care about it, I just want to know how do I post it cause the guy I showed in the link did the same as me and did not got tagged like this... DanielMBBR (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

please if you can answer... i know you probably have more things to do, me too. You guys that do this probably feel like politicians with power really the world don't care about anything and you are just wasting my time creating barriers that really do not exist DanielMBBR (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really feel like a politician with power over the laws of copyright, no. As you admitted above, you've uploaded a copyrighted and non-free photograph, which is wholly incompatible with out license terms — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanielMBBR: If you look at File:LapillusPNGlogo.png, you will note that it is tagged with a notice that requests permission be sent to VRT. That previous image slipped through the cracks; South Korea has a relatively low threshold of originality, so I've requested that they send permission as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

well dictator you are. so just waste your time with this entire sh*t, you think you are the greatest right? excluding things from the others, maybe your life is a lot boring, anyway i really don't care. Just do your stupid things DanielMBBR (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible confusion on PD-Brazil-URAA

Hello, you have just nominated a few files I upoloaded to deletion. However, according to your own explanation on why they should be nominated, you seem to have misunderstood the licensing tag PD-Brazil-URAA, for you mentioned that it was not published before 1989. HOWEVER, the year set on the tag is 1998 AND NOT 1989. I suppose you might have flipped the digits when you read it fast. Best regards, Przelijpdahl (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

{{re|Przelijpdahl} No, the {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} template states that This work is in the public domain both in Brazil and in the United States because it was first published in Brazil (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (underline mine). There is also a reference to 1998, which occurs in the line Photographic works not considered to be "artistic creations" produced before 20 June 1998, but that's a different part of the tag altogether, and both need to be satisfied for this to be PD in the USA. I'll explain this more in-detail on the DR. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Garbage...

Thanks for dealing with it Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk Can i upload the following files:

Artisital The First Day (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk Can i upload the following files:

Artisital The First Day (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that many were deleted by deletion request as being out-of-scope and potentially copyright violations, I'm not of the opinion that summarily re-uploading them would be wise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Artisital The First Day Will you please stop bothering people? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk can you unblock User:Han Mi Nyeo please Red-tailed hawk User:Han Mi Nyeo can't learnt his lesson you tell him what User:AntiCompositeNumber blocked User:Han Mi Nyeo 292イジェク (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Fan Man-yee photo

-Please help me since i'm on my PC, the Hong Kong True Crime Community account is in my tablet. SethSports (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. What file would you like help with? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named `license+` and `license-`.

Hi Red-tailed hawk, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! --Taivo (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Red-tailed hawk!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Putin Feburary 2022 crop.jpg

File:Putin Feburary 2022 crop.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

File:IreneCara1983disco.png

Hi! Another file (IreneCara1983disco.png) not free in the US. With strange fakes when copied (copied not from an Argentine cover, but clearly from a cover from another country). Look into this discussion (Village pump/Copyright) to see if it (IreneCara1983disco.png) (and its copy (Irene_Cara.png)) should be removed as well? Ortegomin (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: What do you think of these files, delete? - Ortegomin (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
If the only thing known about these images is that they were published in Argentina in 1983 and not republished in the United States within thirty days of its publication abroad, then it would have been copyrighted in Argentina on the URAA date in 1996, and would therefore be presumed copyrighted in the United States under the URAA. That all being said, per COM:URAA, A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle, so it would require me to do a more in-depth evaluation on the history of the particular photo before I could definitely say that it is a copyright violation. But I don't think it would be wrong to send it to COM:DR if you think that it is non-free in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted my pictures

Hi I seen your message. I haven't uploaded pictures for more than a year and a half since I had a person who harassed me, unfortunately I see that it persists here. So thank you for delete all of my pictures, I won't put any more from now on. My request also concerns ALL the pictures of license plates from other countries (for example France) that I could have put. You can do this without sending a deletion request. Best regards 79.87.133.156 06:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That generally isn't how deletion works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted my pictures

Hi I seen your message. I haven't uploaded pictures for more than a year and a half since I had a person who harassed me, unfortunately I see that it persists here. So thank you for delete all of my pictures, I won't put any more from now on. My request also concerns ALL the pictures of license plates from other countries (for example France) that I could have put. You can do this without sending a deletion request. Best regards ~~Drake317 Drake317 (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm only attempting to delete the license plates that are copyrighted and not available under a free license. If the license plates are below France's threshold of originality, I would see no reason to delete it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Except that this subject of protected license plates was discussed last year and those some were removed while the others were not because they were not protected (especially MN plates). Today, when I haven't contributed for more than a year, you threaten to block me. I don't have the health or the morale to fight again : so, thank you for deleting ALL my photos otherwise I will make a deletion request. Drake317 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aiming to delete photos with a valid free license that were intentionally placed on Commons and have been available for a long time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your valuable and insightful assistance on the VRT! If you are a coffee-lover, please enjoy this cup of coffee with TheAafi. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

hello

you seems to have good knowledge about licenses and sources in commons wikimedia. i saw you in there. would you express your opinion about this please? Commons:Deletion requests/File:TFX Runway Tests 17 March 2023.jpg. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm a bit confused reading through the discussion: what is the argument in favor of the specific license on that page? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

All images I’ve uploaded are either public domain or given permission from the owner of a photo. I don’t understand why I’ve been flagged this many times. Please remove these violations. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll provide all of my evidence here, the photos were either from NWS pages (public domain, still given credit to either the DAT or photographer, and satellite imagery from other sites, or news agencies), or given permission from other photographers to include photos on a page. If you have any issues please let me know, and if there's anything else I could do to prevent these violations as it's soon going to block me even though I had no intentions of purposefully uploading these photos to create these violations, even though most are public domain or permission given, thanks!

Permission to use, "The Rolling Fork, MS EF4 Tornado.jpg" https://twitter.com/FreddyMcKinneyR/status/1639838935462424576?s=20

Public domain usage of, "EF2 tornado near Wrights, IL.jpg" https://www.weather.gov/lsx/Oct112021Tornado

Permission to use, "Large EF4 tornado near Clarksville.jpg"

Public domain usage of (News sources count too I believe), "File:Low-end EF4 damage in Powderly, Texas.jpg" Live look at storm damage in North Texas - YouTube

Public domain usage of, "File:Low-end EF4 damage to a home in Winterset, Iowa.png" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmP4_2G4fDQ&t=1s

Public domain usage of, "Twin tornadoes.jpg" https://www.weather.gov/oax/event_archive_20140616

Public domain usage of, "File:Satellite imagery of Rolling Fork.jpg" https://www.planet.com/

Public domain usage of, "File:Scar left by the Winona tornado.jpg" https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/missions/planetscope Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

One more pointer, most of the tornado or damage photos on Wikipedia would be taken down if given the same violations I was given for photos I used in PUBLIC DOMAIN, examples such as "File:April 27 2011 Philadelphia, MS Tornado Damage.jpg" or "File:Joplin tornado photo.jpg". Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe all tags were correctly placed: mere permission to use on Wikipedia is not a sufficiently free license for Commons, mere use in a news report or on a commercial website does not cast something into the public domain, images with copyright notices from third parties can't be presumed to be PD even if they're on a government site, and ESA images are not presumed in the public domain. If you would like to contest the deletion requests, please feel free to do so at the corresponding deletion request. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrator

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

Red-tailed hawk, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations...

I noticed it late since I was occupied at WikiConference India. Congratulations for adminship. I look forward to meeting you at Wikimania if you are attending. ;) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the congratulations! Unfortunately, I won't be at WikiMania this year, but I hope that you enjoy Singapore :)

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the photo of the steam locomotive of the State Railway of Thailand.

I accept Regarding the picture that I uploaded, it's against copyright. Please don't block me, I agree. GuJemoeder51 (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Reporting additional spam files

Hi I wanted to report additional files uploaded by User:Ozam-vms that fall under the sphere of Files created purely for spam:

[[File:Fdfs6d4fsd10xv1.png]]
[[File:RENEWIS HERE.png]]
[[File:Bromalinwhca.png]]

I hope you will be able to solve this problem and remove all spam as quickly as possible. :) -- « Ðømīnīk • Cåpuån » 15:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sidenote to the village pump discussion

Hi, Red-tailed hawk. I saw your comment at the Village Pump about obscenity and Commons' scope. I am wondering what you think of Commons hosting the Abu Ghraib torture images. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm somewhat unfamiliar with those images; would you be willing to provide a description of what they depict? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

During the Iraq War, soldiers at a U.S. military prison took photos of themselves abusing detainees. Some of the images show sexual violence: the soldiers stripped the prisoners naked, forced them to assume degrading poses or made them perform or simulate sexual acts, and then photographed them to humiliate them. Other images show torture, gory injuries, and corpses. This report includes written descriptions of some of the photographs (but does not display the images themselves).

If it were up to me, I would remove the explicit photographs of living Abu Ghraib victims from Commons. I think Commons should have zero tolerance for image-based sexual abuse. Someone might argue, though, that the pictures' notoriety and historical importance (and the fact that several of them are in use on other Wikimedia projects) put them within Commons' scope. Genericusername57 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: COM:NOTCENSORED, plus what you note, would override how you personally think Commons should handle them, with no offense (and, obviously, you could start a discussion to change relevant policies). Heavy Water (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

To respond briefly, I do have significant moral qualms about including those images that contain photos of identifiable people who were photographed or videotaped naked without their consent—and those qualms are much, much stronger for living people who can be identified in photographs in which they are being sexually abused. The images probably aren't obscene under the Miller test at this point as hosted on Commons due to their (post-creation) political value, though I have near-zero doubt if someone were to create like images at a domestic U.S. prison tomorrow that they would be justifiably charged with violating U.S. obscenity laws.

There are going to be some times where images of violent terrorism and other acts against human dignity are going to be proper on Commons (there is zero doubt that a photograph of a plane hitting the Twin Towers is in scope), but there are obviously images (like any CSAM) that we ought not host for reasons that go beyond mere adherence to U.S. law. We partly address this sort of thing with COM:Photographs of identifiable people, which states that [p]ublishing a photo of an identifiable person in a private place usually requires consent, that [c]ommon decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law, but also reminds us that [i]n the same way as quality newspapers may apply a "public interest" test to doubtful images, the degree to which an image meets our educational project scope may also be considered. In other words, when we're deciding to host a file, and if that file was taken in a means that burden someone's privacy, the current guidance is that harm caused ought be weighed against the educational value the image provides; we don't have an outright ban nor blanket endorsement regarding the uploading of photos that burden an individual's privacy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you... and more

Hi, thanks for deleting File:Pec posta elettronica certificata.png. I see the same use also uploaded File:Funzioni gmail.png, which is a screenshot of the Gmail toolbar. Now, I may be wrong since I've never been that active on Commons and I'm still learning all the guidelines, but I'm pretty sure that violates Commons:Screenshots as Google UIs should be copyrighted. Could you please check it? Thanks, have a nice weekend :) Zaminex (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The file is currently nominated for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023051910011105

Hi! I see you accepted permission for ticket:2023051910011105, but didn't close the ticket/reply. Could you please do so? Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Done — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Hello @Red-tailed hawk, I hope you're doing well. I came across your comment at LR. Would you mind explaining it to me, what you really meant?. Courtesy ping to @Krd As an admin I assume you both have researched about the deleted file, where did I go wrong. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

From what I'm able to gather, you're asking about of the part of the commend related to the am730-sourced file, right? The file itself came from a YouTube page of a major cantonese-language newspaper in HK that has its own photograph department. The screenshot comes from at some point between 0:43 and 0:47 in that YouTube video, so the only question is if am730's staff are actually the photographers of that photo. There are other photographs of that 204 wedding online (such as here), but all of the photos of the moment seem to be at different angles than the one that am730 used.

The phrasing I used in that comment (not so sure that the deletion request was wisely made was more negative than I had intended to convey; something more like was uploaded from the freely licensed official channel of a major news organization would have been better, and would not have (inaccurately) conveyed that there was something wrong with bringing it to DR. My apologies for this, and I will strike and modify the comment quickly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Yes I agree and my concern were also the same. So I opened a DR for the file which ended with no participation. Thanks. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion closing despite ongoing discussion

You closed the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of Uelzen train station despite there is an ongoing discussion on that question at Commons:Village pump/Proposals. All deletions in this field should be stalled until there is a decision. GPSLeo (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I was unaware of that discussion when closing the DR, as the discussion was not mentioned at the DR and no objection to the DR was stated. I reviewed COM:FOP Germany, which states that many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces, and the underlying law specifically states It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade.. In German (which bears the weight of official law), the bolded part comes out to Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht, with die äußere Ansicht being crystal clear that this refers to the view of the building from the outside. In the absence of a community consensus one way or the other on this, COM:PRP guides: where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. And, there is significant doubt about those files in light of the text of the underlying law as well as the present language at COM:FOP Germany.

If that discussion at the village pump ends in a consensus that these sorts of photographs are OK, then I will be happy to undelete the files. Alternatively, if there are specific photos in that bunch that you believe do not depict anything potentially subject to copyright protection (such as humans or utilitarian objects), then I would be happy to take a look and undelete that. But, until that discussion gains a consensus one way or the other, I think that COM:PRP guides deletion here — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Request from Mouad Benouzekri

Hello @Red-tailed hawk, I hope you're doing well. My work in the page " Tbourida Art, History And Tradition In Morocco " which featured an audio of 11minutes, was deleted because it was detected as not freely licensed content, while the reason was right, I need to explain, in fact i uploaded the audio in a youtube video privately which you detected, but it's still my own work, which i now deleted from youtube, and you can check from the link(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypviKKz9NgY) that doesn't exist anymore, i hope the wikimedia commons i created can be brought back, because i am participating in a local competition, and i submitted this link to the competition, so my question can the page been brought back? or should I uploaded again from zero? which wouldn't be ideal because the competiton dates closed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouad Benouzekri (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mouad Benouzekri and معاذ بنوزكري: Hello! I've read the request and looked at the file (and File:Tbourida- Art, History And Tradition In Morocco.webm, which appears to have the same or a very similar audio track). I'll undelete the file for now, but I am going to need you to send evidence of permission that the music in the background is freely licensed to the volunteer response team. Capisce? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey again, thanks for you're response, this video is also mine as you can check from the name, i used my audio on that video so they're the same audio indeed. Mouad Benouzekri (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

F10

Hi, you removed an F10 speedy RfD with the reason This does not appear to be a photograph, so it cannot be deleted under F10 ("Personal photos by non-contributors"). However, reason F10 explicitely mentions other personal images. I’ve also been given the impression that this is the correct SD reason for logos etc. and not Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10. Can I look up current policy on the matter somewhere or raise the question in another forum so I nominate files correctly in the future? --Emu (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the creation of that criterion is available here. My reading of the discussion is that the "images" in "other personal images" refers to non-selfie photographs. I suppose you're right in that a pure reading of the text of the policy could refer to other personal non-photograph images (such as their kid's watercolor from 2nd grade art class), but I don't think that this was the intent of the policy per se.

However, the discussion that led to that being created does not deal at all with non-notable corporate logos—those sorts of things are not eligible for F10 deletion as they are not personal images. If their upload was done for the purposes of advertising, and there are other contributions (on Commons or on other projects) that indicate that their intent was advertising/spam, then G!0 takes care of that. If the logo is above the relevant threshold of originality, then we might want to check for evidence of permission with a {{No permission}} tag (or a more direct {{Copyvio}} tag if the logo is almost certainly not own work/not released under a free license), but I don't see any other sorts of scope-based reasons to speedy delete the file that would apply here.

With respect to the specific file, I do actually think that it could reasonable be in-scope; it's a nice clipart of an Einstein-like college professor that could easily be used educationally by re-users to represent professors/scientists/Einstein, and speedy deletion should only be used in uncontroversial cases (which this is not). My only present concern with the file is the copyright situation, but there is already a {{No permission}} tag on the file, so I see no need to take action on a speedy until the seven day period is up. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Berchtesgaden Hbf Mattes 2013-08-02 (13) (cropped).JPG

Good Morning! Can you also delete this file? Thanks Lukas Beck (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Already done by Krd. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violations

all photos are of the same person, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleftherios_Papadimitriou , they are all from photojournalists so there is copyright. The photographer is not mentioned anywhere . the user has not followed the normal route of certifying that he owns the copyright to the photos.

keep in mind that the user is blocked in en. wikipedia https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ειδικό:CentralAuth/ModernTacitus — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.92.155.185 (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eleftherios_Papadimitriou_(age30).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eleftherios_Papadimitriou.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eleftherios_Papadimitriou_%26_George_-_Lena_Rally.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mikis_Theodorakis_%26_Eleftherios_Papadimitriou.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Papadimitriou_%26_Mitsotakis.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eleftherios_Papadimitriou_%26_Archbishop_Iacovos.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dukakis_%26_Papadimitriou_%26_Spirou_(middle).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Papadimitriou_%26_Karamanlis_2.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Παπαδημητρίου_Παπουλιας_Καραμανλης.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Πατριάρχης_Κωνσταντινούπολης_Δημήτριος.jpg

193.92.155.185 17:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk

See my tag on Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard ModernTacitus (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk

193.92.155.185 claim is baseless and without proof of facts. ModernTacitus (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

For posterity sake, another user has been the one answering Ticket:2023062610003626, and I am allowing them to handle the situation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:DEİK Beyaz logo.png

Hi, please see https://deik.org.tr/kurumsal-logolar. How else should I license a work from here. My bad if I have done so wrongly. It’s really been difficult for me on commons. I pray I am not banned. Kind regards. TEB001 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status absent and author unknown

Hi Red Tailed Hawk, I could not find the author and the source of this photo: File:Old pictorial reinterpretation of the current via Zurlo (formerly Via Pietro Badoglio).jpg, therefore you can proceed to delete it from the Wikipedia project, thank you of the notice you left me but it is better to follow the Wikipedia Commons rules than to go against the law. ([[hawk|Red-tailed hawk]]) GiovAngri (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hey, you have undeleted this file thanks to this undeletion request. I see now that it was deleted in 2021 due to not having any source. Funnily, it was marked by @A1Cafel, who apparently had some problems with the No source tool back then (I was not on Commons, so I am not totally sure about that). The uploader was @Carlosarias~commonswiki, who is not active on Commons for almost 14 years now.

I cannot guarantee, as I cannot see them, but I suppose most of his deleted files are works from Agência Brasil. (Luckily I was able to check the aforementioned image of Castro on Wayback Machine. For instance, File:Lula and Castro9852.jpeg is probably somewhere here, but I cannot confirm this.) Is there any possibility of you undeleting all those files marked as No source by A1Cafel? I am willing to provide sources to all of those files wherever it is possible. Should I open an undeletion request in order to formalize it? Sincerely, RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment Pinging @Andy Dingley. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Indeed, the specific photo that you've given as an example is the same as this photo, which can be reached from the 26 September 2003 page that you've linked above. If you could file an undeletion request for formality sake, it would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, as a quick note for posterity, the uploader was User:Carlosar~commonswiki. There's a list of images on their talk page that may well be verifiable from the agency, but I would need to take a look individually to see if they warrant undeletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Red-tailed hawk. A formal undeletion request would be useful, just as a placeholder to track the efforts.

This is a good example of the difference between deletion for some useful reason, and bulk deletions of old images, just because their metadata isn't in the same format we'd use today. Some editors see this as a need to fix the issue, maybe find their sources and record that, whilst others just see it as another exciting opportunity to do some serious admin bizniz and get more stuff deleted. We don't need the second group editing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Apsara Dance, Siem Reap, Cambodia, Oct. 2008.jpg

Hi RTH, I hope you are doing good. I was reviewing this file and it appears fine to me. The metadata on Commons matches with the metadata on Flickr but the account appears blacklisted and I see you have handled two DRs relevant to this. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm thinking that what to do with the photos from this account is probably best suited for COM:VPC to get broader feedback. The account very clearly has done flickrwashing, but it's also probably created some (if not most) of the images that it's posted, so it's not an easy case that a speedy deletion criterion is built for. There are also too many images for a DR to be able to be held for reasons of page size, so an abstract discussion at VPC about how to deal with this in general might help us chip away at the problem images while not disrupting other processes on Commons in the meantime. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been slowly working on these photographs, and I've worked on some to verify that the photographer took photographs with the camera listed in the EXIF or at least actually possessed the camera. I'm a bit stuck on File:Hindu temple at Grand Bassin Mauritius.jpg though, there is no camera EXIF. I've found a photograph of the photographer https://www.flickr.com/photos/shankaronline/7637239012/in/photostream/ that says Mauritius, March 2005 in the description (also missing camera EXIF) EDIT: This one also says Mauritius, March 2005 https://www.flickr.com/photos/shankaronline/7637240232/in/photostream/ Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

For something like that, it's likely that we've got a scan of a print; 2005 was still in the time where film cameras were in widespread use, so I wouldn't necessarily expect to see camera-specific EXIF data. Those two photos you gave direct off-wiki links to are pretty clearly of the account holder, so I don't see it unreasonable to say that the account holder is the photographer of the first one. That being said, if he's also uploading his wife's photographs and labeling them under a CC license, we may well have a broader problem... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be a problem if he were doing that. Thanks for the input on that particular photograph. And yes, VPC would also be a good forum to discuss how to deal with it in general. Abzeronow (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A clarification

On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruhathkayosaurus drawings.webp, I said that the file may be later uploaded on Wikipedia, NOT in Commons. TheNileRex (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ignore it, I misread the comment. TheNileRex (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

My comment, I refer. TheNileRex (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

File:PeriodPantiesBreasts.jpg

The source site for this file https://www.vulvani.com/en/vulvani-gallery-free-stock-photos-menstruation does state that pictures are under a Creative Commons license but doesn't state which license that is. It does also add "We only ask you to give us the credits – in the captions and in the alt text ‘Photo by Vulvani – www.www.vulvani.com’ with an active link." which could mean a simple CC-BY license. There is also the matter of the container depicted in the photograph, is that copyrightable? Just trying to figure out if I should do anything beyond the no license warning I had just given. Abzeronow (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: The problem is that it's something of a crayon license if they don't specify the version; CC-BY-ND is just as consistent with the terms of the website as would be CC-BY, and there isn't anything specific given as to whether or not derivative works are permitted from what I can tell.

What would be better is if we could somehow get in contact with the people who operate the website to understand which license they're talking about and to update the website accordingly. Alas, that takes a bit of time, and there's not a guarantee that we'd get a response. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just let it sit in the "no license since" category until it is deleted since as you say, the CC license could be a CC-BY-ND one. Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Readding of Flickrreview

Hello. I noticed you have readded {{Flickrreview}} to 4753 files but without removing the already present {{Flickrreview}} template so now it seems like there are 4753 files with the template doubled. How did you think there?🤔 Also why did you append the template at the end of the page instead of under the licensing header where it usually sits after the license template? Jonteemil (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

My intent when re-adding them was because the specific Flickr user had been added to the Flickr blacklist for flickrwashing. The account is the same one alluded to by The Aafi above. My understanding of this is that the bot would come along and update the second Flickrreview template and note this, as well as placing them in the Category:Flickr images from bad authors, which would allow them to be put into the proper queue to be manually reviewed by humans. I understand it's a bit nonstandard to have two templates, but my though process was that the result was fine in terms of the human-readable output and would allow reviewers manually going through them to make the manual adjustments after they confirm (or not) that the picture appears to have been taken by the owner of that Flickr account. Abzeronow (also in the discussion above regarding File:Apsara Dance, Siem Reap, Cambodia, Oct. 2008.jpg) is one such person.

I understand this solution of having both tags may not be ideal, but I think it's an improvement over the previous situation (where no notice was made on the page that the author was on the bad authors list and where there was no category that could be used to track this). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. I think I now have fixed all 4753 files so only the {{FlickreviewR}} template that was added now is left, thank God for VisualFileChange. Perhaps next time you can just use the custom replace mode on VisualFileChange and replace the old FlickreviewR template with the new one, so the template doesn't get duplicated. Jonteemil (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so much! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Btw, shouldn't Special:Search/"shankar s." -incategory:"Flickr images from bad authors" also be rereviewed? Jonteemil (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Good catch. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay,

Doing…. Jonteemil (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dragon Radio 2016.png

FYI that was yet another sockpuppet of m:user:Piermark. Vituzzu (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Noted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Blue Prime Bottle Meme Image.png

God will not spare you on the Day of Judgment for removing my image The man himself Hello Hello hi (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Com:TOO UK

Hello, I saw you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Yes (musical group) logos and Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Crimson Logo.png as delete as the files possibly/probably were copyrighted in the UK. I nominated another file for deletion with pretty much the same rationale, but this one was kept because closer thinks calligraphy can't be copyrighted. Is this true? If so, were does it say? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Everton FC 1972.svg and User talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Everton FC 1972.svg for more info. Jonteemil (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: In the U.K., sophisticated calligraphy can be subject to copyright protections (indeed, the logo of Edge Magazine, which is even simpler than most calligraphy, is subject to copyright protection there). I'm not sure that I would agree with the closer of that discussion, but I can't unilaterally undo the close. I would suggest opening a discussion at COM:VPC if there's broader concern about U.K. calligraphy, or to get more eyes, if you cannot resolve this with the closer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response. Jonteemil (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

License plates in USA

Hi, I came accross Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Minnesota and others. Don't they need a copyright notice to be under a copyright? I thought all license plates in USA are in the public domain for some reason. Yann (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Hi! My understanding is that license plate designs are not different than other state and local works for purposes of copyright law. Many license plate designs are simple ({{PD-ineligible}}), and almost every license plate design first published before 1 March 1989 is going to be PD for lack of notice (either {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-1989}}; it’s very rare for copyrights to have been registered). There are of course some exceptions where older plates are copyrighted due to having notice or being derivative of a non-government work (Commons:Deletion requests/File:California 1984 Olympics Motorcycle license plate.png, for example, is a case where the plate was published with notice and was a derivative work of a registered copyrighted design). But license plates aren’t special things (they aren’t edicts of government); as with all eligible works published in the U.S. after 1 March 1989, license plates above the threshold of originality are presumed subject to copyright protection unless the copyright holder waives it. There also isn’t FOP in the USA for works other than architecture,

I’ve tried to be selective with the nominations (i.e. I’ve tried to be sure the designs are first published after 1 March 1989 and are sufficiently complex to warrant protection before I nominated them). If you see particular nominations that are erroneous please let me know—I’m not perfect—but my understanding is that those license plates in the DR you’ve linked are almost certainly non-free. Red-tailed sock (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Change of license plate, relating to an Italian city

Hi, I ask you who are an administrator of Wikipedia Commons to change my license plate from this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ingresso_del_palazzo_Zurolo_o_Zurlo,_recante_un%E2%80%99insegna_indicante_il_suo_anno_di_fondazione_(1557),_in_via_Gelso_a_Giovinazzo_(LC) .png, from (LC) to (BA), the rest must be left the same because it is fine, in the title of the above photo. Thanks in advance. ([Red-tailed hawk]) GiovAngri (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm unsure what you mean; to clarify, are you merely asking for the page title to be changed from File:Ingresso del palazzo Zurolo o Zurlo, recante un’insegna indicante il suo anno di fondazione (1557), in via Gelso a Giovinazzo (LC).png to File:Ingresso del palazzo Zurolo o Zurlo, recante un’insegna indicante il suo anno di fondazione (1557), in via Gelso a Giovinazzo (BA).png? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

File:x

Hi, if I place NOINDEX on a page, that's not for nothing. Someone found my real name via Google and that file was almost on top of the results, while my 'real' name is not on that file page. It's hard to find, and I want to keep it that way. If you revert me, I will see that as a form of 'privacy violation'. So, please don't do that. Thanks in advance, and have a good one. - Regards - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. If you'd like for me to redact and revision delete something private, I would be open to doing that. However, I'm not seeing any personal information on that page, even in the metadata of the photograph of the building at Van Egmondstraat 2 in Katwijk. I am sympathetic with keeping privacy, but I'm having a very hard time understanding why that file, which does not contain your real name or any personal information in metadata, would be appearing in search results for your real name. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-campus.jpg

Hi, I suppose you mean seems to be above COM:TOO France. Yann (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've fixed that. Thank you for pointing out the typo. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Website of the President of Kyrgyzstan

Hello! Last week you received permission to use the official portrait of the President of Kyrgyzstan Sadyr Japarov under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and over the weekend you posted it on Wikimedia Commons. Do you plan to obtain permission for the entire Kyrgyz presidential website? In this case, it will become the first presidential website in Central Asia to receive a free license. At the same time, photographs of Kyrgyz politicians are taken mainly from the Russian presidential website Kremlin.ru, as well as a number of other sources. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It was just that photograph. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, I don't think that I'm qualified to get the entire Kyrgyz presidential website released; I speak neither Kyrgyz nor Russian, and I don't think I would be the right person for that job. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk If anything, you can discuss further questions via wiki-mail, since it concerns confidential information that is not subject to public disclosure. Send your version of the appeal there, and I will translate it into Russian for you. By the way, if you download images, their quality here is much higher than from the website of the President of Russia (since 2015, photographs on Kremlin.ru are published with a resolution of 1880x1160, while on its subsidiary sites it is 2-3 times larger). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

wording on "file overwriting not allowed" warning

Hi – there's a word missing in this edit you made to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-file-overwriting: "In doing so, please sure to upload" should say "be sure". Joriki (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 1

File:Vito Trause Army Photo.webp

File:Depths of Wikipedia logo.jpg

are you a dictator???

Possible confusion on PD-Brazil-URAA

Garbage...

Fan Man-yee photo

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

Welcome

File:Putin Feburary 2022 crop.jpg

File:IreneCara1983disco.png

Deleted my pictures

Deleted my pictures

A cup of coffee for you!

hello

Copyright Violations

Administrator

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

Congratulations...

I agree with the photo of the steam locomotive of the State Railway of Thailand.

Reporting additional spam files

Sidenote to the village pump discussion

Thank you... and more

ticket:2023051910011105

Comment

Deletion closing despite ongoing discussion

Request from Mouad Benouzekri

F10

File:Berchtesgaden Hbf Mattes 2013-08-02 (13) (cropped).JPG

Copyright violations

Copyright status: File:DEİK Beyaz logo.png

Copyright status absent and author unknown

Undeletion request

File:Apsara Dance, Siem Reap, Cambodia, Oct. 2008.jpg

A clarification

File:PeriodPantiesBreasts.jpg

Readding of Flickrreview

File:Dragon Radio 2016.png

File:Blue Prime Bottle Meme Image.png

Com:TOO UK

License plates in USA

Change of license plate, relating to an Italian city

File:x

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-campus.jpg

Website of the President of Kyrgyzstan

wording on "file overwriting not allowed" warning

Navigation menu

Search