issue on images still unresolved slim i'm copying this message and my reply to your page for your notice i appreciate your inputs in image talk monkey jpg and i agree once in a while i might sound rude purely unintentional since i put facts blantly but slimvirgin is abusing his admin power to overrule anyone slim is not a he given that she named herself after a javanese princess perhaps you could take the hint and note that she's a woman also i don't think you were simply blunt i think you were rude to slim i recognise it's a fine line but given that i've mentioned it to you perhaps you'll take more care to stay on the right side of it she has suggested in an email to me that she is in talks with another editor now i don't know who this other editor and i certainly don't like this secrecy instead of having a discussion on this she wants to finish the matter begind closed doors she could've atleast told me who this reputed editor was to let me have a word with him her perhaps she is seeking guidance on how she should approach you and wants that to be untainted by your input i think that would be reasonable i have a high regard for slim and i don't think she would have a nefarious purpose in speaking to a third party inso far as the images are concerned i had stated to her a couple of images on one issue animal rights is ok but she insists she needs to showcase the entire album provided by peta and its assocites so you have a dispute you need to recognise that you are not necessarily right you disagree about how many images are necessary i feel that you have to allow that your disagreement might be fuelled by your political differences as much as how you interpret the image policy this should could easily achieve by providing an external link to the images provided by a controversial organization the buav is not a controversial organisation it is a highly respected body whose voice is listened to in all circles of british society a viewpoint doesn't become controversial just because you don't share it wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not have extreme viewpoints but you expect it to reflect your viewpoint thus i requested her to limit her fair use policy in this regard to images which can be used across similar articles this she refuses i don't see how it is any fairer to use one two or ten images in this instance while i agree that slim could have taken more care to provide a rationale for using the images i simply don't feel that your argument about how many she should have used has much weight one factor in deciding fair use is how much of a thing you use that's true but it's only one factor and obviously each picture is a separate case to be considered as well as part of a whole as far as the other images some are on personalities she claims have agreed to use their photos here unless she gets a written consent and a permission how can i believe first of all you can believe slim because you assume good faith perhaps you're not aware of that policy yes you can ask slim to provide evidence of that but your assumption should be that she has in fact acquired that agreement harassing another editor to provide evidence to your satisfaction and insisting you won't believe them until they have do not show an assumption of good faith once i pointed out that permission photos would be deleted anyway she backed off and argued that it be kept on the grounds of fair use asking me to trust her yes okay trust her and ask for proof both of us are editing in good faith but one of us has power and a circle of friends to back her while the other me relies on the hope that ppl like you will help me out in this i'd urge you to rely on the issues rather than the personalities yes slim does have powerful friends who will back her regardless but you should still do your best to make it about the issue in question and not about her if she gets away with this and sets a precedence then i'm afraid there are hordes of copyviolaters straining at the leashes to bomb wikipedia with copyrighted information ''i think that's a bit dramatic but i agree that she has to obey the rules which exist for good reason and shouldn't be given a pass just because she is friends with the arbcom however she is not a copyviolater trying to destroy wikipedia partly i think she simply didn't understand your problem and that was in part a failure of your communication and partly she has become too used to having her views echoed by her friends and doesn't handle disagreem