User talk:Red-tailed hawk

Administrator[edit]

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 ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

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)Reply[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Congratulations...[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thank you... and more[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

Reporting additional spam files[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Sidenote to the village pump discussion[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Comment[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023051910011105[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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