Thanks all for your opinions, suggestions and advice. I was away due to a
personal emergency; just back home today. I read all the responses above,
including Pierre-selim's advise on how to handle such cases in future. I
agree, and my intention was not to ignore in Commons discussions and make a
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odderoldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?
Regards,
Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get the
right one ? How nice of you.
Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com a écrit :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odderoldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity
Is this the way
What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are afraid
to discuss matters outside of Commons.
The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally allow
concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If concerns are
not of a general nature, please at
I can see a least 5 pages on Commons where this kind of matter can and
should be raised. But Jee chose to send a mail on this mailing list. Jee is
a seasoned contributor to Commons, and he has found those pages in the
past. He knows our policies and this email was (in my opinion) an attempt
to
Hi all,
As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When encountering a
privacy matter that you believe falls under the oversight policy
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Use you should probably
contact directly oversight-comm...@lists.wikimedia.org rather than linking
the
I do not understand why anyone would assume that the woman has agreed to
this, without her actually, personally, saying that she has agreed to this.
Risker
On 20 May 2014 15:22, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote:
Hi all,
As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When
@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of
said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
@Pierre-Selim: After
2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com:
@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of
said photos on
On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote:
2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com:
@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
assume that the person
2014-05-20 22:03 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote:
2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com:
@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the
Who said that there were images uploaded to Commons? There is a link to
images offered as a free sample. What I am disputing is one person's
ability to claim authority to release photos of another person when the
photos are taken in a non-public place. Given how common it is for women
to find
@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of
said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
I don't think
Though in this case it does seem that Commons has given sound advice that
any photos submitted should be accompanied by a model release.
If only more photos on Commons had model releases!
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote:
@Risker: I was thinking
14 matches
Mail list logo
