User talk:Jerkface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

[edit] Rushnazi.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Rushnazi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Upskirt.jpg

Can you provide verification that Image:Upskirt.jpg is actually taken with the subject's permission? The norm for amateur sex-related pics is to take the same photograph with the subject holding a written statement like "Posting of this picture allowed on Wikipedia", or even simply "Wikipedia Ok". This would prove both copyright ownership and authorisation to post, and we could keep the 2nd picture as proof while posting the other original.

This is not the only means, but it might be the easiest.

Note that we need permission specificly to post this on Wikipedia. Proof that she is your girlfriend, or that this woman gave you permission to take the picture, is not adequate.

Not having this statement exposes Wikipedia to potential problems when the copyright owner or unwilling subject finds the image posted. It also potentially runs us afoul of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. — edgarde 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject, my girlfriend - age 24, is completely okay (mildly exhibitionist) with having her anonymous butt flashed on WP. She's absolutely not okay with her face or any clear identifying features or even of location of residence (I will say it's a U.S. city). And neither am I okay with that. Who knows? Perhaps her mother will stumble upon such identification. Jerkface 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take your photograph down? There are plenty of other sites exhibitionists can use for this kind of gratification, but for the abovementioned reasons Wikipedia needs to have the abovementioned issues addressed. — edgarde 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No. What is your problem with this? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored, this is legal content that is sufficiently sourced. The woman depicted in pudendal cleft or plenty of other exposed photos is not identified, nor should they be. They should be allowed to remain anonymous. If it offends you, change the channel or turn it off. Jerkface 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in, but I'm the one who re-wrote the article so I've been watching it. Jerkface, the photo looks nice, and you're right - Wikipedia is not censored. I agree with edgarde - my gut tells me that we can't just take your word for it that this photo is taken with the permission of the subject. NinaEliza 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerkface: your question doesn't make sense. My "problem" (as you call it) is explained clearly in the last paragraph of my first comment. Please re-read that if you replied without first doing so.

Am I correct in understanding that your answer is to refuse to take this image down? And that you have no intention of providing proof beyond your assertion that you have permission? — edgarde 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So okay. I'm just going to go ahead and take the picture down. I'm sorry - it is very nice and well-taken. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anyway we can have an upskirt photo on this page without the face of the woman, and and an additional photo/document to accompany it. I do appreciate the effort and hope that you consider contributing to Wikipedia in the future.

Sincerely,

NinaEliza 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)