File talk:Smoking Crack.jpg
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 17 March 2014 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
If there is reason to have a blurred version in addition to the original, it should be uploaded separately. If there is a need the original be completely replaced with a blurred version, it should be stated. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oversight, if it was such an action from odder; ignore otherwise. Hope odder can explain. Jee 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was asked to hide the first version of the file; the argument behind that was that the woman pictured might not have realized an image of her engaging in an illegal activity will be illustrating an article on cocaine and crack cocaine on the fifth most visited website in the world — and that it would be prudent not to cause her unnecessary legal trouble.
I did not use suppression because the file does not fall under any of the criteria listed in the oversight policy, and used revision deletion instead (an admin action rather than an oversighter's one). As you probably noticed, some people disagree with that, and because I'm not willing to engage in an edit war, I'll most probably just keep away from this file. odder (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks odder for the clarification. Jee 08:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's no indication the website had the permission of the depicted woman, I persuaded a Tenderloin resident to let me photograph her does not really sound like a permission. Sounds more like offering drugs to a junkie in exchange for images. --Denniss (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks odder for the clarification. Jee 08:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was asked to hide the first version of the file; the argument behind that was that the woman pictured might not have realized an image of her engaging in an illegal activity will be illustrating an article on cocaine and crack cocaine on the fifth most visited website in the world — and that it would be prudent not to cause her unnecessary legal trouble.
- Then better delete? I think the blurring is not very effective as far as we are maintaining a link to the source where more images of her available. Jee 07:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think image is fine. We blurred the image and we do not control the source website. If the source website publishes more identifying information than we are comfortable with at commons, that is out of our control. All we can do is not to republish it. --Jarekt (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Fashion in 2005?[edit]
Is "fashion in 2005" a relevant category just because the woman is wearing clothes and the photo was taken in 2005? - Tournesol (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
