Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peyronie's disease shown in flaccid penis.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Peyronie's_disease_shown_in_flaccid_penis.jpg[edit]

the person in this pic want this Tuxdiary (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't think you understand how things work or what "deletion" means. Otherwise, we wouldn't delete anything. Merely releasing something does not mean we have to host it or that something cannot be removed from existence. Licensing is not a suicide pact and the idea that the WMF projects all have respected self nom deletions show a legal precedence that we respect such requests and therefore makes the "irrevocably agree" non-applicable. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ever donated anything before? Yes? What do you think would most likely happen if you asked for that donation back two months later? And don't forget that when an image is released under a free copyright then anyone can pretty much do as they like with the image... including maintaining a publicly accessible version of it on Commons. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "What do you think would most likely happen if you asked for that donation back two months later?" In the US, you have a legal right to get your donation back if you can demonstrate any kind of fraud or that the charity did not use the funds as was intended. Furthermore, we already donate plenty of pages and posts that were "donated" via clicking. Your comments are silly when looking at the reality of what goes on here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Silly? Yeah right. Most people wouldn't think of asking for a donation back, likewise this guy gives away a picture of his dick, then a month later changes his mind? Tough, he should have thought of that before uploading it, likewise anyone else who does the same. In any case I would be quite within my rights to re-upload it after editing it in some way, attributing the original image to him, but me re-licensing it under my name and there's bugger all the guy could do. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Tough, he should have thought of that before uploading it" - that isn't how the WMF operates. We allow people to delete content. It seems like your personal opinion and not policy are why you are suggesting the above, which is not how DR works. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Total rubbish, the WMF doesn't operate on the principle that people can upload files then delete them later purely because the want to. The images are a donation, along with a statement that basically says anybody can now do as they like with them. This means that for all intents and purposes that image is no longer theirs, and as it is no longer theirs they no longer have the right to expect its deletion on a whim. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sounds to me like this is something you are lobbying to achieve, not something that is already a de facto standard, which of course it isn't. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Hate to disappoint, but I already put up cases verifying my statement. You however, have only put up a proposed policy and didn't recognize what our actual policies and standards are. Competence is required. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Nope, sorry wrong again. You haven't backed up any of your statements/demands with policy, in fact you even demonstrated yourself in the wrong when you said there is nothing specific in the speedy policy. The simple matter is that your demand for a speedy is based on nothing more than your wish that it were true. Oh, and going back to your "you people arriving" faux pas, I've been here longer than you sunshine. As for my competency, well I'm not the one demanding something that isn't backed up by policy then pleading that the lack of policy is why it should be handled this way. Duh! Ottava, your usual mental meanderings aren't getting any better with age you know. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outdent - "You haven't backed up any of your statements/demands with policy" You are quite mistaken in your view of what policy means. Policies are a limitation on activity. They are not an allowance on activity. If there is not a policy limiting it, then there is no stop to the matter. Admin have in the past speedy deleted these images. That goes against everything you have claimed. You continue to go on and on, but you have nothing. That is why you are in the minority here and your opinion wont matter. And you can claim to have been here longer than me, but on the above name and with a couple of the socks I know of yours, I have been around far longer. Furthermore, you already proved that you couldn't differentiate between proposed policy and policy, so you have failed to establish any reason for even reading what you have to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, not counting IP accesses my first account was WebHamster (talk · contribs) which started in 2007, whereas yours started in 2008. Now that's cleared up, onto policy. Policies are not a "limitation", they are a written down list of what is and what isn't acceptable. There is nothing written down anywhere that says an uploader request is a valid reason for a speedy. Therefore, in a similar way to the way copyright works, ie it doesn't have to be stated, it's automatic, anything which is stated to be a reason is a reason, anything else is accepted not to be a reason ergo you still cannot back up your demand with anything written down. However what is written down is that the uploader's declared license is irrevocable. This means that he cannot control, or insist, that anyone do anything with it that he doesn't like, e.g. delete it. Commons is quite legally entitle to keep the image on its server and host it to whomever wants it. As I said before, I could edit the file, eg crop it, alter the histogram etc and re-upload it thereby making this discussion moot. As the license states, I am (or anyone else is, including Commons) free "to copy, distribute and transmit the work". The uploader gave away his right to insist that the file no longer be distributed by Commons, which is in essence what is being asked. Now all that is written down, both in policy and in licensing. So barring the image being a copyvio or some other legal violation, which speedys were designed for, then a user request should go to a consensus decision such as this DR, not to the decision making skills of one admin. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "whereas yours started in 2008" Actually, this account started in 2007 but it was not my first Commons account but merely my first SUL account. And if you think policies are what is and isn't acceptable then you are sorely mistaken. Otherwise, there would be a policy that gives you the right to edit. You've obviously never been at Meta and helped create new projects. But we've already pointed out that you couldn't distinguish between policy and proposed policy, and your refusal to accept that disqualifies all other statements you could make. You have to overcome this major error before you can proceed. You are like someone trying to drive on four flat tires. Push down on the gas all you want - you aren't going anywhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do like to make things up to support your position dontchya? The WebHamster account started on 12-Sep-2007, not 2008. "We've"? You tried make to make out that I couldn't distinguish the difference. When there's a dirty great banner at the top of the page it's rather difficult to not notice the fact. The fact that codicil was written into the proposed policy shows that I am not on my own in this. Likewise the fact that the proposed policy adjustment is directly linked to from the official policy page also shows that someone 'upstairs' is unofficially supporting it. As for tyres, well at least I know how to spell them correctly. As for Meta, why would I want to go there? It's full of bullshit and lies and people like you. I have enough problems holding my nose when I take part in DRs like this. I don't do politics, primarily because it's full of people who think they can do politics and want to get something out of it, usually power of some sort. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I assume your inability to recognize your own quote about 2008 as from you and not me is the same as you being unable to recognize "proposed policy" as being different from "policy". It may also be related to you thinking that using two accounts at the same time is acceptable. You have a strange way of going against our policies and traditions. You don't have any ground for making any claims here and you have already lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, you make things up to support your position. Your current account started 29-Aug-2008, not "2007". I don't use 2 accounts at the same time. The WH account hasn't been used since Jan 2011, whereas FtO has been active quite a lot since then. In any case 1) having two accounts is not against the rules when they aren't being used abusively 2) what does it have to do with a picture of a bendy cock? So I see even more BS from OR, who seems to have unilaterally declared this to be a competition. "Our" policies and traditions? Since when did they belong to 'us'? See there you go with the tradition thing again, but why can't you realise that it was you who has gone all traditional? You do seem to confuse things between Commons and en.wiki. Now you can bluster and lie as much as you like, but the fact remains that your demands are not supported by policy, it's as simple as that. So can we get back to the DR instead of all this bullshit that has no reason in being here. Unless you'd like to type out some more falsehoods that can be shown to be what they are. Oh, whilst I remember, you mentioned earlier about the reason why there's no policy that supports my right to type here. Well I think you'll find that is covered by the Wikimedia mission statement. On another note, regarding my two accounts. To add hypocrisy to your seemingly ever-growing list of, errr, 'problems', you've also stated that you have more than one account here. Care to mention which one it is? After all I've been quite open about the names of my accounts. I invite you to do the same. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Your current account started 29-Aug-2008" No. My account started 30 September 2007 and many of my images were transferred over here. "I don't use 2 accounts at the same time." Already proven wrong - you had a solid few months of overlap and that automatically disqualifies you from making claims about acceptable actions. As for me, I had one previous account in undergrad, which lasted until 2005. There was a solid 2 years between that account and Ottava Rima and it was a well known situation of me not remembering my password nor having access to the email address because it was connected to the undergrad (and different from the alumni one). You are just digging your hole deeper now. The killer was claiming that the mission statement was some how policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thank you for providing the link that shows how mistaken you are and how correct I can be. Go back to your SUL Info page, scroll down to the commonswiki entry under "Local wikis" and you will see "commonswiki.......29 August 2008.......1357.........autopatrolled". As you should know, your SUL is only activated per wiki when you first login to a particular wiki, not at the date of when you went over to SUL. And now whose competency is in doubt when a so-called educated man cannot either remember a password and/or write it down somewhere in something like, errr, I don't know, how about a password database app, or even a spreadsheet? In any case, I didn't ask you why you chose to no longer use it, I asked you its name. I apologise for asking questions that obviously confuse you, but enquiring minds wish to know these things. The Mission statement is a policy from which all the others commenced. It doesn't have to have "policy" emblazoned at the top of the page to be a policy you know. This is getting mentally tiring for an old fart like me to keep having to teach your things. Maybe if you tone down the BS it'll take a load off me? If I'm digging, it can only be your grave sunshine, and I suspect that can never be deep enough. So what are the chances of getting back on topic now? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I find it interesting how you think my account began on Commons, especially when the SUL page shows that it began on en.wiki. And you do know that you haven't been on topic in a long time. It makes sense - you botched the claim about policy, evidence was shown that practice accepts such deletions as speedies, and now you are filling the page with off topic stuff. Well, I guess that is how you decide to get your way with things. It doesn't really work like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I didn't say your SUL account began on Commons. The date I gave was the first time you logged into Commons after you created your SUL, ie the date your activity as OR started on Commons. You do get confused easily dontchya? We are both filling the page with off topic stuff which is why I suggested a mutual cessation, but I see that won't happen. BTW please don't think I'm dumb enough to think that I can change your mind, you aren't the one my words are aimed at. Anyway, you may now have whatever last words you feel are necessary. I'm finished with toying with you, the amusement has now waned and I'm bored. Perhaps someone should put all this sub-thread bollocks into a collapsible box? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • As I pointed out, I had files transferred to Commons (this one is from 7 days before you claimed I started, and here is another if you think it was just a fluke. A huge portion of my uploads to Commons were transfers from Wikipedia). If you know anything about SUL at the time, you were quite able to look at Commons without having to log in. I find it a little odd how you feel that any of this helps your cause. I guess you like off topic rambles. But thank you for admitting that your whole reason here was to "toy with people" and that we no longer have to assume good faith about any of your contributions. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • User:Fae had an image speedy deleted by user request. Hundreds of others have also. We delete both text and images. Just because someone puts forth a release does not mean that we are permanent host or that the material has to be hosted anywhere. I don't think you understand how Commons operates. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is not acceptable to make random DRs a forum for you to lobby against me. Your comment is highly inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Lobby against you? At no time did I say the speedy deletion was incorrect. You are making false claims about my comments yet again. Are you really looking to be blocked? Because you don't seem to get that you can't just make up things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Quoting my name here on a sex related deletion request that has nothing to do with me, I have not even commented on and with regard to an unrelated deletion that I have made no comment about on Commons is not appropriate. This appears to be deliberate and personal harassment. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Sex related discussion? According to your other posts, these are just educational images. Odd how you create some sort of double standard. You were a recent case of a speedy deletion by user request. If you don't like that, why request it? It was your action and it is a public action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self request, this should be speedied. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when has a "self request" been a part of the speedy rationale? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much forever. You have been around long enough to know that answer and it is disappointing that you would act in this way. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you should re-read Commons:SPEEDY again, #7, bearing in mind that this image was originally uploaded in October of this year. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no "#7" when regarding "Speedy Deletion" in our official speedy criteria, which is Commons:Deletion policy. Nor are there any numbers regarding Speedy Deletions. Now, we do allow for users to speedy delete their own work, which is "irrevocably agreed to", so allowing it in one area sets the legal precedence of an expectation of self nominated deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is indeed a #7 under General Reasons, to whit: "7. Author or uploader request deletion.
            • Original uploader or author requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused page or file. Author/uploader requests for deletion of content that are in use should be filed at the Deletion Requests page. Older content (>7 days) may not be speedily deleted per author/uploader requests, as they may be used by external websites and would thus not show up in Special:GlobalUsage. Such content would also require a Deletion Request." --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is not policy. That is from another page that was a proposal that failed. That was pointed out. DR requires you to understand our policies. Please reread how we operate and our policies before trying to make claims in the future. Otherwise, you are making claims of things that are patently not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You do talk bollocks sunshine. There is absolutely nothing in the deletion policy to support your assertion that this file should be speedied simply because the uploader asked. If there were you'd have pointed me at it the first time you mentioned it. And yes what I quoted is indeed a proposal, but I see nothing on that page that says it was a failed proposal merely that it is still a work in progress and strangely it is still linked to from the deletion policy page. So the upshot is that you've made comments that you haven't backed up with evidence. You use the term "we" a lot when referring to various elements of WMF, and that you've got a pretty good handle on how to be patronising. But other than that you've got nothing but opinion yourself. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "be speedied simply because the uploader asked" - Actually, it is the opposite. There is nothing preventing it. Right now, speedies do not have a clear limit, and the notion that we specifically allow for in practice these speedies in the past suggests a clear precedent, especially when combined with speedies of user pages and the rest. The only reason this is suddenly controversial is that there is nudity involved. Face pictures and the rest were cleared off without a problem. That shows a majorly inappropriate difference in standards which isn't acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What is preventing it is the lack of official policy that says it should be speedied allied with the license it was released under. There is no official policy, so you asking for it (demanding it even) to be speedied has no backing of policy. Additionally just because other files may have been deleted does not automatically become a precedent, in fact it's always been accepted that "other stuff etc" is an argument that shouldn't be brought to deletion requests. This is an individual case, as all deletion reviews should be. So ultimately you have no official backing to support your demand, simples. So do you have any reasons why this image should be deleted other than the request by the uploader? Incidentally, deleting a user page on request is a totally different matter to deleting an image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • A speedy policy would limit the use of speedy deletions, not increase it. Right now, there is nothing to prevent a user request. Most DRs are pointless and there should be far more speedies. The only problem is when people like you arrive and make statements about tradition and policy that are not grounded in the actuality. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • "People like me arrive"? What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't invoked tradition, that was your response with regard to precedents etc. I have been referring to actual policy, it's you that can't come up with anything to support your demands. And yes a more defined speedy deletion policy would decrease the amount of speedies handed out, which, IMHO, can only be a good thing as a lot of speedys in the sexual arena are done as a knee jerk reaction rather than based on any policy backing. A bit like your demands above in fact. A deletion review is the proper arena for this, not one admin's take on an ill-defined policy. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[content redacted Rd232 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Kept: Per Fred the Oyster. Leyo 00:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Peyronie's disease shown in flaccid penis.jpg[edit]

The uploader asked kindly to get this file deleted c. five weeks after it was uploaded. Even if the free license is unrevokable we should be more lenient to our contributors in case of second thoughts after such a short time period. This is also true if the uploader cannot be identified as we can never be sure who else knows about this upload and to which extent the nickname of the uploader is known to his personal environment. This picture is still unused and I think that we shall delete it out of courtesy. We have handled it in other cases similarly. AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why do you bring it up now, over half a year after the original DR? The more time elapsed the more it is likely that third parties are using the image (and with that comes commons obligation to keep it as a proof of its copyright status). Also, there is no substitute available (Peyronie's disease shown in flaccid penis).

    On the other hand I can understand the uploader's wish (personal environment).

    I guess I would have voted "delete" in the original DR, but now, I go with neutral due to the time passed. Also we don't know if the deletion still matters to the uploader. --Isderion (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We should never host images of this type without the consent of the person depicted, whether their face is shown or not. There are many other ways to be recognisable: through an account name, or simply due to gossip about the image. --JN466 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are here to provide educational resources. People who write medical textbooks outwith Wikimedia are, too. They are subject to ethical standards regarding the identification of patients. See, for example Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Privacy and Confidentiality by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (There is much discussion of the ethics of medical publications in the literature, including things such as doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460200100043.) Such standards include informed consent given in writing, and the elimination of names and other forms of identification.

    We, who are supporting textbooks at Wikibooks, an encyclopaedia at Wikipedia, a dictionary at Wiktionary, and providing educational resources in our own right, should have no lower an ethical standard, when it comes to images of people's medical problems. We should pay particular attention to the facts that our mechanisms for enforcing free content copyright licencing require identifiable sources and thus in part force identification, that the upload histories publicly link user accounts to images, and that the act of uploading does not necessarily denote informed consent upon the part of the potentially naïve uploader.

    If someone requests that an image of his penis and his medical problems not be splashed all over the World Wide Web by Wikimedia projects, then we should accede to that request, and not try to weasel out of it with all sorts of hair-splitting arguments about how user accounts might lend unidentifiability and about how there are "no backsies". We should aim for no lower a standard of professionalism than that of those professionals who write the non-free-content textbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopaedias. That includes respect for medical confidentiality, acknowledgement of when consent might not have been informed, and no forcing people to be public about their medical problems against their will.

    Delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The ethical problems of wikis and images of genitalia and medical conditions will take longer to solve, but this one is easy as it falls into the simple scenario of uploader requesting deletion of all their images, essentially asking for the meta:Right to vanish. I think we should follow the decisions made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jhgthghj.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbating by gripping and sliding the back and forth 1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbating by gripping and sliding the back and forth 2.jpg, which were all delete for various reasons. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpreting the "right to vanish" in this way is too harsh. Do you really expect Commons to retroactively delete everything someone uploads if (when) they get voted off the island and banned from the project? (Mbz1, for example?) Wnt (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because something has been validly licensed doesn't mean we have to keep it. If we can't ethically use it then is it truly still in scope? WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise - Flickr-wash this thing. Delete this image, but upload a perhaps slightly more cropped version to Flickr under a new account there, use a brand new Commons account to upload it after some delay, and certify it is CC-licensed image by this means. Use, of course, a new filename, and don't attribute it to the original author (CC licensing permits this when the author so chooses, AFAIR). Ordinarily Flickr-washing is a no-no, but in this case the purpose would only be to make sure that the image would be impossible to track back to the original Commons account. I think that should be permitted, under these special circumstances, and I think it would at least nominally satisfy the ethics requirements described above (presuming that informed consent was originally given, in written form, when the image was uploaded). Wnt (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wnt, I know you are aware of other images that have been deleted from Commons because the uploader found them embarassing. Do you think that it would be ok to re-upload those images to Commons via Flickr as you suggest for this image? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of this exercise is to ensure that the image is not personally identifiable. This could be done in other situations where the image is not personally identifiable, provided that the uploader has chosen to repudiate association with the image beforehand so that it can be distributed without attribution to him in accordance with the CC license. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst this should be a perfectly valid route for an uploader to choose to take, I think we've gone past the point where one could reasonably suggest this to this uploader in this instance. Also they are as you are aware still vulnerable to being tracked down by certain websites..... WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone is that determined to track down the image, they can simply use the copy they already have or find of this one. We're not losing anything if someone does this. In fact, I suppose that consensus is not needed for this - any one person can upload the image to Flickr without attribution, as the uploader has repudiated it, and anyone finding that image can upload it here. (Though yes, stripping the EXIF data and recropping might generally be good precautions) Wnt (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may be missing something here, but I don't see asking for something to be deleted as quite the same as releasing an image as PD. I agree that if someone did want an image to still be available, just not associated with them then your route could work, though I'd have thought that we would need an OTRS ticket to confirm the PD release. But I wouldn't want to pressurise someone into doing that when they've told us they want it deleted. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wnt, your suggestion would not be possible under the terms of the CC licence, as the copyright holder needs to be attributed. russavia (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CC license is anything but clear [1]. Note 4(a):" If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested." and 4(c): "You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing..." To me, this sounds like the Licensor has requested not to be credited in our Collection (Commons), and so we must not credit him, but still have a CC-license to reproduce the material, as does anyone else downloading. True, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet (like anything) a court would say OK to that 50% of the time... Wnt (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per request of subject/uploader. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is typically done for wikimedia insiders when they request deletion of distressing pictures.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, 1. Use: The file was not in use; an alternative image illustrating the disease was preferred in Wikipedias. Yes, it was substantially different from the existing image, but apparently not so different that editors felt the need to use it in addition. 2. Legal: This image was surely taken in a private place. Per Commons:BLP#Consent_and_personality_rights, there are various countries where subject consent may be needed to publish a photo taken in a private place. Assuming it was ever given, the uploader's deletion request should be read as withdrawal of it, absent more information (COM:PRP). 3. Moral: whilst Commons:BLP#Moral_issues doesn't specifically address the medical ethics issues raised by Uncle G, this is surely an area that requires extra benefit-of-the-doubt given to uploader and/or subject wishes. Hence, deleted. Rd232 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Peyronie%27s_disease_shown_in_flaccid_penis.jpg&oldid=698398077"