Hi Ryan,
Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs
of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place,
consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place,
consent is not required (with exceptions
Note that there have been two recent Buzzfeed articles about Commons and
Wikipedia, by Jack Stuef, who is a writer for The Onion:
1. The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page
In the underbelly of Wikipedia is an exhibitionist subculture dedicated to
one thing: Ensuring that their penis
Mr Gerard, could you please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere? For
the record, what you're saying is totally off the wall.
Andreas
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
Indeed. This
http://dottmakeup.intuitwebsites.com/
Da: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
A: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia
Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Inviato: Domenica 8 Aprile 2012 17:45
Oggetto: Re:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. This is the link I received by mail:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images
Those people are identifiable and in a private place. If the
photographer showed up and
maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put
more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it
from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion
requires the photographer to
