User:Brianjd

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
Users by language

Information about me (which is probably very outdated) may be found via my user page on Meta-Wiki. Also see the lists of my contributions and uploads (which currently consist mainly of crops made using CropTool, though I intend to upload more media of my own). The remainder of this page is not about me, but rather about this project, Wikimedia Commons (also known around here as just “Commons”). All references to articles are to the English Wikipedia.

Commons is a media repository, from which media may be directly embedded into pages on Commons and other wikis, such as the various Wikipedias in different languages. Some of this media is also embedded below. This embedding does not create additional copies of the media: it simply embeds the original copy, and if this is deleted, it will be removed everywhere it is used, including this page. Looking at it the other way, if media still appears below, it is also still available on Commons for normal use.

Media may be deleted because it is considered outside Commons’ scope, or because it has legal or ethical issues.

Some sections describe remarkable inconsistencies in how people, particularly Commons users, handle certain situations. Even worse, in some cases, these people fail to acknowledge these inconsistencies.

Tasks[edit]

  1. Follow up on User talk:Perfektsionist#Please categorise image.
  2. Follow up on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg and the discussion for the category “Upskirt in sports” and related categories (including the new upskirt categories).
  3. Follow up on now-completed discussions:
    1. The Village pump discussion about cropping images that depict artworks (and related discussion on uploader’s talk page).
    2. User talk:Rubin16#Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg.
  4. Follow up on ongoing discussions:
    1. File talk:Garcia RG21 (26) (51377149320).jpg#Category Upskirt in tennis.
    2. User talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Screenshot of permission given by Vanillasky.png.
    3. File talk:(1)Train crossing Sydney Harbour Bridge.jpg#Consent.
    4. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nipple slip, Commons:Deletion requests/ and Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Nipple slip.
    5. Template talk:Consent#Identifiability.
    6. Commons:Village pump#Intimate images without subject's consent and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matt Bio Research.
    7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Windows 95 Version 4.00.1111 command.com MS-DOS Prompt 492x259.png (file had an apparently incorrect licence tag added, but removing it could create an edit war – discuss here).
    8. Commons:Village pump/Copyright#French lighting displays.
    9. Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Advice on Australian copyright and URAA and Commons:Deletion requests/File:StateLibQld 1 118980 Sir Raphael and Lady Phyllis Cilento, January 1949.jpg.
    10. Commons:Village pump#Responsibility towards other projects.
    11. Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Micropenis.
    12. User talk:Túrelio#Deletion request.
    13. Commons:Deletion requests/File:John H Trevena mugshot.jpg.
    14. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selfie Robbe en Genoffel.jpg.
    15. Commons:Village pump/Copyright:
      1. Advice on Australian copyright and URAA.
      2. Structured Data Bots.
    16. Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Files from Photogman Shares Flickr stream.
    17. Commons:Deletion requests/File:PCHS Students 1.jpg.
    18. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vedika Khemani at International Centre for Theoretical Physics.jpg.
    19. Commons:Village pump#COM:UDR instructions (or lack of).
    20. Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Anonymous people.
    21. Commons:Deletion requests/File:+Sebnitz in Sachsen - Form und Farbe - Bilderreise eines Fotografen - DRK -Impfbus COVID - 19 - Nationalpark Bahnhof - Sebnitz - Bild 001.jpg: drawing the line on excessive user page images.
  5. Ensure that links to discussions are kept current:
    1. w:Talk:Upskirt#image is she OK with it?.

Copyright[edit]

Copyright (never mind other issues, like personality rights) makes it too hard to reuse material legally.

Just see Commons:Help desk/Archive/2021/11#How do I cite an image on Wikimedia commons outside of wikimedia projects?. That discussion links to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia (although it might be easier to hire a lawyer than read all that) and to an attribution generator (which looks good at first glance, but asks several annoying questions).

This is why I release all my material into the public domain.

Internet meme consisting of a cat captioned: “Every time you use meta-templates, Brion kills a server kitty. Please, think of the server kitties.”
Every time someone adds a stupid licencing tag, Brian kills a kitty. (full description)

To me, this “server kitty” meme perfectly illustrates everything that is wrong with copyright (even with free licencing). It has this crazy triple licence scheme:

  • CC BY 2.0, a permissive licence.
  • GFDL 1.2+, a copyleft licence.
  • CC BY-SA 3.0, added as part of the GFDL migration.

This issue was the subject of a Village pump discussion that did not go anywhere.

“Consent”[edit]

The term “consent” can refer to two very different things:

  1. Consent of the subject, as in Commons:Country specific consent requirements.
  2. Consent of the copyright owner, as in Commons:CONSENT (which redirects to Commons:Email templates/Consent).

These are very different things because the subject is usually not the copyright owner and privacy issues are handled differently to copyright issues.

Despite the shortcut mentioned in the second definition above, it seems like, when the term “consent” is used without qualification, it usually refers to the first item above.

Consent (of the subject)[edit]

Sometimes, a certain type of media requires the consent of the subject, but there is doubt about whether the subject consented. Other times, consent is not required, but is desired. This seems to depend not only on what the media depicts, but also in what situation it is depicted.


This image of Fabiana Semprebom was nominated for deletion per other discussions about “nipple slip” media. In response, the administrator Infrogmation added this comment to the Flickr version of this file: “Was this accidental, or are bare nipples unremarkable at such event?”.

In an earlier mass deletion request for assorted “nipple slip” images:

  • Rhododendrites wrote: “I’m leaving out the pornography industry event photos at this time to avoid the argument that because nudity is typical there, it may not have actually been accidental.”
  • Infrogmation wrote (links added): “Keep File:Rainbow Folsom Street Fair.jpg, photo taken at the Folsom Street Fair, an event where toplessness and nudity are common.”
  • Infrogmation also wrote (links added): “I don’t know what’s considered proper or improper at the Boryeong Mud Festival, but do note that the ‘Oops’ is not the not in the original Flickr photographer’s description, but rather is editorializing retitling by the Commons uploader. As to the young girl in Uganda, is there any reason to think that her appearance is in any way considered improper or remarkable in her place and culture? If not, I see no reason to delete.”
  • Infrogmation closed the discussion with the following results:
    • A street dancer at a Sochi auto festival in 2017: Delete (“consensus that that was an actual example of accidental showing of nipple in a context where that is not likely to be generally accepted as normal”).
    • Other images (linked above): Keep (without prejudice to individual renominations of these images), as they did not really have anything in common other than the category Nipple slip, which was by that time subject to a separate discussion.

These discussions show that the assumption of nipple exposure being an accident, and its acceptability more generally, depend on the situation in which it occurs. Extending this reasoning, we may suppose that assumptions about consent also depend on the situation.

Márcia Imperator looking back at the camera and smiling in 2005. (full description)

The deletion request for the first image in this gallery contains a lengthy discussion about consent, concluding that it is reasonable to assume the subject did consent. Here, the rationale is:

  1. The subject seems to have consented to other photos being taken in the same situation, particularly the photo of her smiling shown here.
  2. The subject has shown more of her body in other situations than she did in this situation.

Clearly, the first argument is not sufficient. If it was, we could say that all images are acceptable (until proven otherwise), provided that some other image (possibly of a different nature) of the same subject in the same situation was taken with consent. This is an absurd conclusion.

Maybe the two arguments taken together are sufficient. But what would be even better would be to establish that taking this kind of image was accepted practice at this event, and there is no evidence of this.

The image nominated for deletion was previously used by the article Upskirt. A discussion for this article also contains mixed views on whether the subject consented, with one user using the second argument from above and another user claiming this argument is invalid. The image was removed from the article in revision 973905971.

Young woman lifting her shirt to expose her bare breasts at New Orleans Mardi Gras 2008. (full description)

A lengthy discussion acknowledged that this Mardi Gras scene was not only clearly visible to the public, but at an event attracting a lot of attention from photographers. Yet the discussion also suggested that it might be a good idea to obtain the subject’s consent before using this image in a project like this. The administrator who closed the discussion concluded that lack of consent was not a strong enough reason to delete this image.

Drawing attention[edit]

Sometimes, something is clearly visible to the public, yet it might be better to not draw attention to it.

Woman cleaning a shower in Chile in 2007, with her underwear clearly visible above her pants. (full description)

Sometimes, drawing attention to things is not a problem. This image of a woman cleaning a shower is in the categories Women's knickers and Whale tail, drawing attention to her underwear.

Gisella Marengo at the 66th Venice Film Festival, with her nipples and areolas clearly visible through transparent clothing. (full description)

This image of Gisella Marengo is in the category Female nipples through transparent clothing, which explicitly draws attention to her nipples. It is also the lead image for the article Bralessness and one of the lead images for the article See-through clothing; this also draws attention to her nipples.

Caroline Garcia at the 2013 French Open, with her left nipple clearly visible through her outer clothing. (full description)
Female tourist on a public street in July 2020, with her nipples visible through her tank top. (full description)

The category Female nipples through transparent clothing is in the category Female nipples through clothing, which contains even more images that draw attention to people’s nipples. This includes the images of Caroline Garcia and a tourist shown here.

There are other such categories, including Nipple slip.

But sometimes drawing attention to things is a problem. The image Jewish-girl-from-ukraine-with-very-large-breasts.jpg was uploaded from [1] (archive copy), according to its log. The image on that page is an ordinary frontal photo of a woman, with the outline of her breasts clearly visible. In the deletion request for this image, multiple users said that drawing attention to her breasts in the filename might not be OK. No one disputed this and the uploader accepted this. But instead of the file being renamed, it was deleted as being out of scope.

A man and woman sitting at the same table in 2007, with the man’s face and woman’s thong clearly visible. (full description)

Sometimes people can’t seem to agree. This image of a man and a woman at a table is in the categories Women's thongs and Whale tail, drawing attention to her underwear. It was also the subject of a Wikipedia discussion in October 2008, where one user wanted to use it in the article Whale tail, but another user suggested that the man might not want to be in this article (but apparently it is still fine to have the woman in this article). In fact, in August 2008, there was an edit war over the inclusion of this image in this article. After this discussion, a cropped version was created and included in the article.

Female cyclist in public in 2016. (full description)

This image of a cyclist was initially included in a mass deletion request for files showing panty lines; it was removed from the request after another user pointed out that the panty lines were merely incidental. But this image was only removed from the category Panty lines 11 days later, after the deletion request had been closed, by a user not involved in the deletion request. The category had been added more than 4 years earlier, by yet another user, who was also not involved in the deletion request.

In an earlier mass deletion request (in 2008) for images showing things like panty lines and cameltoes, there were strong views on both sides. The argument that it is OK to draw attention to these things was: the subjects chose a “very sexy clothing style”, with the intention of it being visible to the public, at a public event.

Identifiability[edit]

Where an image’s subject has not given their consent, this subject’s identifiability may affect whether it is legal or ethical to record or distribute the image.

Sometimes, identifiability does not matter. According to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Moral issues:

"The provenance of an image may taint its use irredeemably. A ‘downblouse’ or ‘creepshot’ photograph is not made ethically acceptable just because the subject’s face is cropped out. A paparazzi telephoto shot of a naked sunbather does not become acceptable merely by pixelating the face."

In a courtesy deletion request for a file called “Breasts.jpg”, made by the subject, the subject was unidentifiable, yet the file was deleted.

Indeed, these views have been expressed as far back as 2008. Back then, the file “CSD 2006 Cologne VPL4.jpg” was subject to a deletion request. It showed an unidentifiable subject, but was deleted by an administrator after two other users voted to delete the file (and one voted to keep it, on the basis that the subject was unidentifiable).

Axillary hair in 2019. (full description)

But sometimes identifiability does matter. The subject of this axillary hair image requested that this image be deleted, but an administrator decided to keep it and defended that decision in a subsequent discussion, partly because the subject was unidentifiable.

Sometimes, people can’t seem to agree. The deletion requests (all in 2016) for each of the following images were rejected because the subjects were unidentifiable.

In each case, this view was supported by at least two administrators.

But then all four images were deleted by the administrator Jon Kolbert for this reason:

"Wikimedia is no place for creep shots."

This deletion was out of process, as discussed in a subsequent undeletion request, which resulted in the images being undeleted but subject to yet another deletion request. This undeletion request should have been solely about the process, but an anonymous user using the IP address 2600:6C64:4F3F:D66A:588D:2A65:5C78:CE56 added this comment:

"Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i dont care if they were kept in the past, lewd creep shots from admins shouldnt be on the website, this is the same ip who started the discussion at an btw"

Here, “an” refers to the Administrators’ noticeboard, and the discussion was “Concerning images from User:Raymond”. In this discussion and the new deletion request, there were strong views on both sides, but the deletion request’s conclusion was to delete the images.

And in a later mass deletion request on the same page (but for a different set of images), every participant agreed with deletion and the administrator Nick wrote:

"Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as per my reasoning for the previous batch of files. I also find the argument that these people being photographed cannot be recognised absolutely preposterous - they’re going to be recognisable to themselves and a great many are likely to be recognisable to many others, such as family and close friends."

The four images listed above were also included, along with other images showing things like panty lines and cameltoes, in an earlier mass deletion request (in 2008), where were also strong views on both sides.

A man and woman sitting at the same table in 2007, with the man’s face and woman’s thong clearly visible. For the woman, there are no obvious identifying features visible. (full description)

This image of a man and a woman at a table was the subject of a Wikipedia discussion in October 2008, where one user wanted to use it in the article Whale tail, but another user suggested that the identifiable man might not want to be in this article (but apparently it is still fine to have the unidentifiable woman in this article). In fact, in August 2008, there was an edit war over the inclusion of this image in this article. After this discussion, a cropped version was created and included in the article.

Young woman lifting her shirt to expose her bare breasts at New Orleans Mardi Gras 2008. (full description)

This Mardi Gras image also has an unidentifiable version (with the face obscured). However, the unidentifiable version is not used anywhere, while the version shown here is used on 15 Wikipedias, as well as other Wikimedia projects, as of this writing.

Courtesy deletions: Nominator’s identity[edit]

Nude woman hugging a topless man at Burning Man 2009. (full description)

The undeletion request for this Burning Man image (which was originally deleted after an anonymous claim that it harmed one of the subjects) discussed, among other things, how to handle courtesy deletion requests. With such requests, the nominator’s identity should be verified via the Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Typically, we want to verify that the nominator is the subject. Ankry made a suggestion that was endorsed by Jameslwoodward and Pandakekok9: simply ask the nominator to send an unpublished selfie.


Sometimes, a slightly different approach is appropriate. In the first deletion request for this image of Zoe Saldaña’s signature, the nominator’s only verified identity was an IP address, but they also provided an e-mail address. This user also participated in the second deletion request (on the same page), where an administrator verified that these addresses were related by sending a message to this e-mail address from VRT.

Axillary hair in 2019. (full description)

Finally, in the deletion request for this axillary hair image, the closing administrator initially rejected the request, in part, because the nominator was anonymous (this turned out to be incorrect, but still demonstrates the importance of verifying the nominator’s identity).

Courtesy deletions: Change of mind[edit]

Some subjects might regret their behaviour, whether that is behaving in a certain way when in sight of a camera, or consenting to the resulting media being distributed. Such regret might lead to the subject requesting a courtesy deletion, or the possibility of such regret might lead to other users requesting a courtesy deletion. Some examples of this are discussed below.

Axillary hair during puberty in 2019. (full description)

These two examples contradict each other:

  1. In the deletion request for this axillary hair image, made by the subject, the file was in use and the subject was considered unidentifiable. The subject was a minor, yet an administrator decided to keep the file because there was “no valid reason for deletion”. This administrator defended this decision in a subsequent discussion.
  2. In one deletion request for a file called “Breasts.jpg”, also made by the subject, the file was also in use and the subject was also considered unidentifiable. This time, the subject was (presumably) an adult, yet the file was deleted. The closing administrator, mattbuck, said “if someone regrets their choices to upload their naked body, we should be willing to accommodate a takedown request”. This is despite them also saying “it is not our place to make editorial judgments for other projects”.
Young woman lifting her shirt to expose her bare breasts at New Orleans Mardi Gras 2008. (full description)

A deletion request (in 2013) for this Mardi Gras image discussed concerns that the subject might regret their behaviour; there were strong arguments on both sides. Yet the discussion was closed, with a decision to keep the file, after a mere 30 hours (well short of the 7 days deletion nominations are supposed to remain open).

Other[edit]

Here are some comments that either do not fit in the sections above or do not have examples or sources.

Axillary hair during puberty in 2019. (full description)

This axillary hair image also has consent issues because the subject was a minor who appeared to be in a private place and there is no evidence of guardian consent. It is not clear how significant these issues are, but they were mentioned in a page discussion legal issues on Meta-Wiki.

In a Help desk discussion, a user asked how they could remove their user talk page from Google search results. In response, Jeff G. said:

"I instructed our systems not to allow indexing of that page ..."

This is not entirely accurate, as I explained:

"Google is not the only search engine, and nothing (except perhaps privacy laws like the GDPR) can stop external sites from doing whatever they like with your talk page, including indexing it. The instruction added by Jeff G. is merely a recommendation, although major sites like Google should obey it."

There was a Village pump discussion about cropping images that depict artworks. Specifically, MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-overwriting-artwork says overwriting artworks with crops, when done by users other than the uploader, is unacceptable. But in this case, the proposed crop affects an area that is not actually part of the artwork, so should this rule still apply? The administrator Yann said it would be best to upload a cropped version and request deletion of the original version as a duplicate.

Notes[edit]

Here are some other things to document:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:IZIBA2004 102 (1924810).jpg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Panty lines: just the origin of COM:NOCREEPSHOTS and the issue of drawing attention, both in the comment by Rhododendrites, everything else done already
  3. More on “creepshots”: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teen girls hanging out.jpg - not clear what justifies deletion when the image is in use, also incorrect use of “candid”, also identifiability matters and we want consent for identifiable minors
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg: Courtesy requests (etc?).
  5. Various issues with the consent guideline (“Country specific consent requirements”):
    1. Do the words “guideline” and “requirements” contradict each other?
    2. Talk page sections:
      1. Does Country Apply To Where Image Taken or Where Image Published?
      2. Australia
      3. Italy
  6. meta:Grants talk:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video, particularly the sections Existing photos and Examples in Wikimedia projects where model release is used or requested (contains a broken link, archived here: Commons:Help desk/Archive/2018/06#Why is it OK to have a picture of a nude woman on the home page?)
  7. Wikilegal/Removal of photos uploaded by minors (particularly courtesy towards axillary hair image subject)
  8. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "GEPA pictures"
  9. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Windows 95 Version 4.00.1111 command.com MS-DOS Prompt 492x259.png (revision 610145884): should not overwrite files if it would break uses (but I made this argument elsewhere and was ignored)

Media[edit]


Bernard Cerquiglini, who happens to have missing teeth visible in this image. This was considered an insult by one user, and discussed at a deletion request, but deemed to be not a valid reason for deletion.
Future Model (10807783053).jpg.
Woodstock redmond hair.JPG. A version with the faces obscured is also available. What is the point?
Previously nominated for deletion, but since kept.
Courtesy request, and maybe other issues, at the deletion request.
See deletion request. Also see talk page, which has suggestion to create a new deletion request.

Well-described, but not reviewed[edit]

College cheerleaders with loose skirts[edit]

These files are in the category Upskirt in cheerleading; this is an example of drawing attention to the fact that what is under a skirt is visible.

Files nominated in a mass deletion request, but still available[edit]

This section consists of files nominated in a mass deletion request (in 2008) for images showing things like panty lines and cameltoes, but still available as of 5 December 2021.

Files kept at deletion requests, or deemed acceptable for initial upload, because the subjects are not identifiable[edit]
Two images of a female torso[edit]
A selection of images included in the category Human obesity[edit]
Sleeping people[edit]
Whip Nip.jpg[edit]
Close up image of the chest of a woman holding a whip, with her left nipple clearly visible, at the 2007 Folsom Street Fair. Her clothing is just small enough to expose the nipple.
Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg[edit]
An image of two women and their children sitting around a table, recorded without their knowledge or consent to “get as natural a picture as possible”, in 2014. One woman’s face and half of the other woman’s face are clearly visible; half of one child’s face is visible but partly obscured by another child’s hair; the other children’s faces are not visible. A deletion request for this image led to a long discussion, which concluded that it should be kept.
InêsPortoCovo2006-1.jpg[edit]
A girl walking along a beach in Portugal in 2006. According to the Commons consent guideline, publishing images of people in Portugal generally requires consent. Multiple comments in the deletion request for the file “Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg” also raise the issue of consent with this image. But the initial description of this image in 2007 actually said that the subject is the author and uploader’s daughter, implying consent. This information was removed by the uploader about 5 months after the upload.
Topless woman at beach of Saint-Barthélemy 2006 1.jpg[edit]
Topless woman wearing a bikini bottom, sunbathing at a beach in France in 2006. She is viewed from a direction between her right and the direction her head is pointing in. She is lying on a towel, but her bare feet and right hand are on the sand; her left hand is not visible. Her breasts and right nipple are clearly visible. Her face is obscured by her sunglasses and hat.
Woman sunbathing topless.jpg[edit]
Topless woman sunbathing at a beach in Ukraine, with her face and left breast (including nipple) clearly visible, in 2007. Her entire body, down to her bare feet, is lying on a towel.

Media[edit]

Server-kitty.jpg[edit]

Internet meme consisting of a cat captioned: “Every time you use meta-templates, Brion kills a server kitty. Please, think of the server kitties.”

Used in this section: Copyright

==[edit]

Used in this section: Consent (of the subject)

Marcia Imperator 2.jpg[edit]

Márcia Imperator looking back at the camera and smiling in 2005.

Used in this section: Consent (of the subject)

Márcia Imperator upskirt gallery[edit]

The subject is wearing a miniskirt that falls below her buttocks, yet, from these angles, exposes parts of them. This does not make it a “microskirt”; I moved these files from a “microskirt” category to the corresponding “miniskirt” category.

The more important point is this: a lengthy discussion in a deletion request concluded that she consented to a photo of what was under her skirt being published.

Used in this section: Consent (of the subject)

Mardi Gras Flashing - Color.jpg[edit]

Young woman lifting her shirt to expose her bare breasts at New Orleans Mardi Gras 2008.

A lengthy discussion acknowledged that this scene was clearly visible to the public, but still raised privacy concerns; this discussion concluded that it was reasonable to keep this file.

Used in these sections: Consent (of the subject), Identifiability, Courtesy deletions: Change of mind

DSJC IVB07.jpg[edit]

Woman cleaning a shower in Chile in 2007, with her underwear clearly visible above her pants.

Used in this section: Drawing attention

Gisella Marengo - 66th Venice International Film Festival, 2009.jpg[edit]

Gisella Marengo at the 66th Venice Film Festival, with her nipples and areolas clearly visible through transparent clothing.

Used in this section: Drawing attention

Caroline Garcia - Roland-Garros 2013 - 005.jpg[edit]

Caroline Garcia at the second round of the 2013 French Open women’s singles, with her left nipple clearly visible through her outer clothing.

Used in this section: Drawing attention

Young tourist wearing a face mask in Bruges, 2020.jpeg[edit]

Female tourist wearing a protective mask on a public Bruges street in July 2020, with her nipples visible through her tank top.

The mask was likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also had the nice side effect of making her “unidentifiable”.

Used in this section: Drawing attention

Whale tail display.jpg[edit]

A man and woman sitting at the same table in 2007, with the man’s face clearly visible and the woman’s thong clearly visible above her low rise jeans. For the woman, there are no obvious identifying features visible.

Used in this sections: Drawing attention, Identifiability

Bicyclist crossing De Hogesluis Amsterdam 2016-09-15-6775.jpg[edit]

Female cyclist crossing the bridge De Hogesluis in Amsterdam in 2016.

Used in this section: Drawing attention

Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg[edit]

Axillary hair during puberty in 2019.

This subject was a minor and requested that this image be deleted, but an administrator decided to keep it and defended that decision in a subsequent discussion.

Used in these sections: Identifiability, Courtesy deletions: Nominator’s identity, Courtesy deletions: Change of mind, Other

Nude woman at Burning man 2009 3.jpg[edit]

Nude woman hugging a topless man from behind at Burning Man 2009.

After an anonymous deletion request, claiming that this image harmed one of the subjects, it was deleted. Then a lengthy discussion in an undeletion request concluded that the nominator’s identity should be verified, and the image was undeleted.

Used in this section: Courtesy deletions: Nominator’s identity

==[edit]

This image was reproduced from a letter that the subject published on her Instagram profile on 30 July 2018. After an unverified deletion request led to some discussion, an administrator decided to keep the file. Then a second deletion request claimed that decision did not respect the consensus formed in that discussion; this second request has been open since 28 October 2021 (14 days ago, as of this writing).

Used in this section: Courtesy deletions: Nominator’s identity

Other media with open deletion requests[edit]

==[edit]

==[edit]

==[edit]

==[edit]

Stydká rýha.jpg[edit]

Human vulva in 2020. The uploader removed this image’s description, in an apparent attempt to request deletion. (deletion request)

A nude male torso, by Cincy83[edit]

A human penis with an interesting foreskin[edit]

Plunge gs.jpg[edit]

Plungė train station in 2010. This image was nominated for deletion because it depicts identifiable people who did not consent, but these people are hardly prominent. (deletion request)

Maki Murakami.jpg[edit]

Maki Murakami in 2010. This image was apparently nominated for deletion because it was taken at an event where photography was forbidden and the subject does not like it, but the value of this image apparently outweighs these arguments. (deletion request)

Black & White Lucas Tooth Family photo c1890.jpg[edit]

Family photo from circa 1890. The deletion request is discussing copyright issues. (deletion request)

Kernig's sign cerebrospinal meningitis.jpg[edit]

Kernig’s sign in a meningitis case, published in 1909. This image was nominated for deletion because it is (allegedly) inaccurate and depicts a child’s genitals, although neither reason seems to be valid. (deletion request)

==[edit]

Lily Allen, V Festival 2014, Chelmsford (14972155071).jpg[edit]

Lily Allen at the 2014 V Festival, with her right nipple clearly visible. This image was nominated for deletion because of the (possibly accidental) nipple exposure, although this reason may not be valid. (deletion request)

==[edit]

==[edit]

==[edit]

==[edit]

Popivoda-markovic-underdox-2021.jpg[edit]

Marta Popivoda at the Underdox film festival in 2021. This image’s deletion request was actually a crop request, for another person that was included in the original version of this image. The request is still open, requesting deletion of the original version. (deletion request)

Tytti Viinikainen 2018 (cropped).jpg[edit]

File:Tytti Viinikainen 2018 (cropped).jpg
Tytti Viinikainen in 2018. This image is a crop of Lauren Beukes and Tytti Viinikainen 02.jpg, whose uploader requested deletion of the crop on behalf of the subject. (deletion request)

Files nominated for speedy deletion as recent, unused uploads where the uploader requests deletion[edit]

Other media I find interesting, but not used elsewhere on this page[edit]

Images of the model Rosie Robinson that look like upskirts[edit]

2012. День металлурга в Донецке 273.jpg[edit]

A female performer, apparently from the dance ensemble "Le Grand", with her nipples clearly visible, in 2012.

This image was previously in the category Upskirt; it looks like a bit of the left part of her buttocks is visible. But this is not clear, and the image was removed from this category without explanation.

Zhang Mingyang at the 2017 Cup of China Pairs[edit]

Evelyn Walsh and Trennt Michaud wearing the same two outfits at 2018 Skate America and 2018 Skate Canada[edit]

Anna Cherniavska and Oleg Muratov at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics Ice Dance Rhythm Dance[edit]