User:Brianjd/Old
 | This is a subpage of my user page, containing my disorganized old material. Specifically, it contains material that was on my user page before 25 October 2022, 11:56:25, as well as some disorganized newer material. |
Tasks
[edit]Up to and including revision 698993441, this section listed discussions I was monitoring. Following that revision, this section lists only discussions I want to make special notes about (as well as discussions from the cited revision that have not been removed yet).
- Follow up on ongoing discussions:
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nipple slip, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Semprebom3.jpg and Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Nipple slip
- Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/11#Intimate images without subject's consent and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matt Bio Research
- 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)
- Commons:Village pump/Copyright#French lighting displays
- 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
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:John H Trevena mugshot.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selfie Robbe en Genoffel.jpg
- Commons:Village pump/Copyright:
- Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Files from Photogman Shares Flickr stream
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:PCHS Students 1.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vedika Khemani at International Centre for Theoretical Physics.jpg
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Anonymous people
- Ensure that links to discussions are kept current:
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.
- The lower part of Márcia Imperator’s body in 2005. From these angles, parts of her buttocks are visible. (full description)
-
Nominated for deletion. -
Suggested to be added to the deletion request.
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:
- The subject seems to have consented to other photos being taken in the same situation, particularly the photo of her smiling shown here.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 at the Wayback Machine), 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.
Also see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Micropenis.
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.
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).
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.
- VPL Visible Panty Line 1.jpg (deletion request)
- VPL Visible Panty Line 2.jpg (deletion request)
- VPL Visible Panty Line 3.jpg (deletion request)
- VPL Visible Panty Line 4.jpg (deletion request)
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
There is a template called {{Consent}}, for recording the consent status of ‘identifiable’ subjects. This template’s documentation makes it clear that it should be used only on visual media (photos and videos) that includes ‘identifiable’ people. This is despite it also saying:
This template is for indicating compliance with the photographs of identifiable people guidelines.
The linked page, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, says (emphasis added):
Certain legal and ethical issues may remain if the person is dead or if they cannot be identified.
At the template’s talk page, on 23 November 2021, I asked why there was such a focus on ‘identifiability’. But, as of 22 October 2022, there has been no response.
Courtesy deletions: Nominator’s identity
[edit]
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.
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.
These two examples contradict each other:
- 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.
- 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”.
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.
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:
- Identifiability > Breasts.jpg: Deleted despite being in use. Compare with Stydká rýha.jpg: not deleted because it was in use, but other files in same nomination deleted because they were not in use.
- Which external rules to obey:
- Clearly, Commons must obey the rules of the jurisdiction(s) it operates in. It may impose additional rules on itself, but for rules designed to protect other entities (as opposed to rules designed to keep the project itself running smoothly), it should not do so (if such rules are good enough for Commons, they should be good enough for everyone else in the same jurisdiction, so that jurisdiction should adopt them and save Commons from having to impose them as additional rules). So, for rules designed to protect other entities, Commons should simply match the rules of the jurisdiction(s) it operates in.
- But which jurisdiction(s) are those? If Commons serves a user in a particular country, Commons is bound by the laws of that country: that’s why it obeys those laws when determining whether consent of the subject is necessary. But is Commons really bound by the laws of that country? By that logic, Commons should also obey the most restrictive laws of all countries on issues like copyright and (fictional) child abuse material, and Commons does not seem to do so.
- Even once the jurisdiction(s) are determined, the rules of those jurisdiction(s) must be determined. Such rules are too complex to document formally, so Commons contributors must discuss them to come to a reasonable interpretation.
- These rules include rules about when to obey rules of other jurisdictions, where Commons’ activity affects entities in those other jurisdictions (for example, when Commons includes a photo of a person in another jurisdiction). Here it gets weird. For example, with photography prohibitions, Commons generally obeys other countries’ laws but not rules imposed on private property. Even though either type of photography prohibition might lead people to think that photos of them can’t be taken/published without their consent.
- Generally, Commons does not care about non-copyright restrictions (including photography prohibitions) (but there are supposed to be some exceptions for photographs of identifiable people) (Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/19#File:Nude couples 3.jpg)
- The Burning Man question was apparently settled at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/04/25#File:Nude cycling females at Burning man 2009.jpg
- But older DR Commons:Deletion requests/Dancer dressed only in butterfly wings seems to contradict this
- And there’s Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning man 2.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning man 5.jpg: the latter is based on the former, but the latter does not mention a deletion request from the subject. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Belly-chain-and-necklaces.JPG.
- Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/08/02#Burning Man’s policy regarding Copyright conflicts with Wikimedia’s policy
- Also see #Consent (of the subject) section on ‘nipple slip’ images, where images were treated differently depending on whether visible female nipples were unusual in the situation they depicted
- Also review other examples on this page, particularly Maki Murakami.jpg
- Laws are a different matter: Commons:Country specific consent requirements
- Copyright is different to personality rights
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:IZIBA2004 102 (1924810).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Romania-2480 - Really............... I didn't know... (7811453976).jpg
- Nude children: Images used in Tanner scale: Male genitalia five Tanner stages.png and Female breasts five Tanner stages.jpg
- One of the arguments for deleting Zoe Saldaña’s signature is that it was just one of nine in a letter, and that’s different to the signature being shown full-size by itself. So add it to the ‘drawing attention’ section as well.
- 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
- 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
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg: Courtesy requests (etc?). (also see User talk:Rubin16/2021#Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg)
- Various issues with the consent guideline (“Country specific consent requirements”):
- Do the words “guideline” and “requirements” contradict each other?
- Talk page sections:
- 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?)
- Wikilegal/Removal of photos uploaded by minors (particularly courtesy towards axillary hair image subject)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "GEPA pictures"
- 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)
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| Person receiving COVID-19 vaccination.jpg | Person receiving a vaccination for COVID-19 in 2021. Apparently, this image has been used by multiple third parties, but the subject may not have consented. (deletion request) |
| Oliver Liebowitz.jpg | Navel fetishism in 2021. The original version of this image, which showed the subject’s face, was speedily deleted as an unused recent upload where the uploader requested deletion, then uploaded again, apparently by the same user. After this, the uploader requested deletion again, then overwrote this image with an apparently cropped version that does not show the subject’s face. (deletion request) |
| An Uncircumcised Human Penis.jpg | Multiple views of an uncircumcised human penis, with labels and additional information. This edited image is dated 2017. The uploader requested deletion, apparently as a courtesy; their other reasons do not seem to be valid. (deletion request) |
| Sleeping on the train.jpg | Woman sleeping on a train in the Netherlands in 2010. Commons has an entire category for people sleeping on trains, yet only this one was nominated for deletion. (deletion request) |
| Migrants in Hungary 2015 Aug 018.jpg | Migrants climbing under barbed wire in Hungary, near the border with Serbia, in 2015. This image was nominated for deletion as a privacy violation, but was kept. After discussion with the closing administrator, the nominator opened a second deletion request. (Wayback Machine archive) (deletion requests) (also see User talk:Rubin16/2021#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Migrants in Hungary 2015 Aug 018.jpg) |
| Good bye my love 1 (Stuttgart).jpg | Funeral in Stuttgart-Nord in 2019. This image was nominated for deletion because it depicts identifiable people who may not have consented. (deletion request) |
| Oops - Mud Fest 2008.jpg | People covered in mud at the 2008 Boryeong Mud Festival. This includes a prominent woman whose right nipple is clearly visible. This image was nominated for deletion because of the (possibly accidental) nipple exposure, although this reason may not be valid. (deletion request) (also discussed in #Consent (of the subject) ‘nipple slip’ section?) |
| The gogo-dancers red G-String.jpg | A female go-go dancer from below, showing her red thong and buttocks under her red and white striped skirt, in 2006. This image was nominated for deletion as a privacy violation, noting that attitudes towards “unidentifiable” people have changed since the previous privacy-related deletion nomination. (deletion request) |
| Girls peeing in urinal.jpg | Two women standing at male urinals, from behind, in 2010. They are apparently urinating, but the actual act of urination is not visible; nor are their faces. This image was nominated for deletion as a violation of the subjects’ reasonable expectation of privacy. (deletion request) |
Media
[edit]- More images in the category Human obesity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well-described, but not reviewed
[edit]College cheerleaders with loose skirts
[edit]- College cheerleaders with loose skirts in 2014. The left cheerleader’s skirt is flying up, directly exposing the clothing underneath.
-
Left cheerleader from the front. -
Left cheerleader from the back.
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.
- Women at the 2006 Christopher Street Day.
-
A woman, from behind, with her thong clearly visible. -
A woman, from behind, wearing a microskirt that exposes part of her buttocks. -
Two women. One woman is shown from behind, with her thong clearly visible between her lower garment and her garter belt; the other woman is shown from the side, with half her face visible. -
A closer view of the woman with a garter belt, as she bends over. She is still shown from behind. -
A woman wearing a BDSM collar.
- Other women.
-
A view under a woman’s skirt, showing her blue knickers with a cameltoe, in 2007. -
A woman wearing a G-string, from behind, in 2005. -
A woman wearing a bikini at a 2006 Florida bikini contest.
Files kept at deletion requests, or deemed acceptable for initial upload, because the subjects are not identifiable
[edit]-
Two topless women sunbathing on a Tibau do Sul beach in 2007. The women are lying side-by-side, and shown from the side, so one of them is mostly hidden, except for her raised bare legs. The woman who is closer to the camera has her right breast, including nipple, clearly visible. -
Topless couple on an Ajaccio beach, from above. The woman is lying down, but has her head and legs raised, so her face is not clearly visible. Her chest and thighs, including her nipples, are clearly visible. The man is sitting and reading a book; his face is not visible at all.
Two images of a female torso
[edit]- Two images of a female torso at the 2012 Fremont Solstice Parade.
-
Original version, showing the entire bodies of two women, from the front. -
Cropped version, drawing attention to the torso.
A selection of images included in the category Human obesity
[edit]- A selection of images included (directly or indirectly) in the category Human obesity, possibly in violation of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Examples (The following examples typically require consent: … An identifiable child, entitled “An obese girl” (potentially derogatory or demeaning)).
-
A woman sitting at a table in front of a sitting crowd in Kenya in 2021. The woman in front and one crowd member are wearing protective masks, which have been pulled down below their mouths. This image is apparently related to education and to “health and wellness”; no other information is given. This image has been nominated for deletion as a possible copyright violation.
-
Women sitting around two tables pushed together, eating fufu, in 2015. Each table has a large bowl on it. Each woman is holding a piece of fufu, which the women are eating from the bowls. This image has been nominated for deletion as a possible copyright violation.
-
Two young children sit between two women on a park bench in Campeche City in 2006. The children are drinking beverages through straws that they hold. The children are looking away from the beverage containers, which the women are holding for them. -
A couple sitting, as they take a break during a walk, from behind, in 2014. -
A woman and a man at an unidentified location in New York City in 2008. Their faces are clearly visible. -
A group of people, all facing the viewer, sitting around a conference room table, in Brisbane in 2013. The table has portable devices, stationery and a wallet on it.
Deleted images:
Sleeping people
[edit]- Sleeping people.
-
Two women, who are not together, sleeping on towels on sand at a beach, in 2015. The women’s bare feet hang over the ends of their towels. One of their faces is clearly visible. -
A woman sleeping on the street Rua do Carmo as performance art in 2009. -
A sleeping, sunbathing woman at an Oahu beach in 2007. Her face is clearly visible. -
A woman sleeping on her back, on a towel on grass, at Nation of Gondwana in 2006. Her bare feet hang over the end of her towel. Her face is clearly visible, but she is wearing sunglasses.
Whip Nip.jpg
[edit]
Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg
[edit]
InêsPortoCovo2006-1.jpg
[edit]
Topless woman at beach of Saint-Barthélemy 2006 1.jpg
[edit]
Woman sunbathing topless.jpg
[edit]
Media
[edit]Server-kitty.jpg
[edit]
Used in this section: Copyright
Semprebom3.jpg
[edit]Used in this section: Consent (of the subject)
Marcia Imperator 2.jpg
[edit]Used in this section: Consent (of the subject)
Márcia Imperator upskirt gallery
[edit]- The lower part of Márcia Imperator’s body in 2005, with parts of her buttocks visible under her skirt.
-
Marcia Impersonator legs.jpg, which was nominated for deletion.
-
Marcia Imperator back.jpg, which a user suggested adding to the deletion request.
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]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]Used in this section: Drawing attention
Gisella Marengo - 66th Venice International Film Festival, 2009.jpg
[edit]Used in this section: Drawing attention
Caroline Garcia - Roland-Garros 2013 - 005.jpg
[edit]Used in this section: Drawing attention
Young tourist wearing a face mask in Bruges, 2020.jpeg
[edit]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]Used in this sections: Drawing attention, Identifiability
Bicyclist crossing De Hogesluis Amsterdam 2016-09-15-6775.jpg
[edit]Used in this section: Drawing attention
Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg
[edit]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]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
Zoe Saldana signature.svg
[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]Stydká rýha.jpg
[edit]
- A nude male torso in 2021. These images were nominated for deletion as redundant to existing penis images, but they are not redundant to existing torso images. (deletion request)
-
Semi-erect penis. -
Flaccid penis, from left. -
Flaccid penis, from right.
A human penis with an interesting foreskin
[edit]- A human penis in 2016 and 2017. The subject requested deletion.
Plunge gs.jpg
[edit]
Maki Murakami.jpg
[edit]
Black & White Lucas Tooth Family photo c1890.jpg
[edit]
Kernig's sign cerebrospinal meningitis.jpg
[edit]
Lily Allen, V Festival 2014, Chelmsford (14972155071).jpg
[edit]
Popivoda-markovic-underdox-2021.jpg
[edit]
Tytti Viinikainen 2018 (cropped).jpg
[edit]Files nominated for speedy deletion as recent, unused uploads where the uploader requests deletion
[edit]-
An erect human penis in 2021. (deletion request)
Other media I find interesting, but not used elsewhere on this page
[edit]Images of the model Rosie Robinson that look like upskirts
[edit]- Images of this model that look like upskirts, though an anonymous user thinks otherwise, and none of them seem to be categorised as upskirts.
-
-
-
-
-
Categorised as wearing a white t-shirt.
- Other images of the same model, for comparison.
-
-
2012. День металлурга в Донецке 273.jpg
[edit]
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]-
Not wearing a skirt. -
Wearing a skirt.
Evelyn Walsh and Trennt Michaud wearing the same two outfits at 2018 Skate America and 2018 Skate Canada
[edit]-
At 2018 Skate America, not wearing a skirt. -
At 2018 Skate America, wearing a skirt. -
At 2018 Skate Canada, not wearing a skirt. -
At 2018 Skate Canada, wearing a skirt.
Anna Cherniavska and Oleg Muratov at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics Ice Dance Rhythm Dance
[edit]- Cherniavska is wearing an interesting kind of skirt, with a slit all the way up to the waist, and her ponytail and skirt are flying up.
-
-
-
-
-
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
