User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not interested in discussing the history here. I'll assume it's all true. It shouldn't have any bearing on whether we accept a valid portrait photograph for an article that we're not planning to delete. Either he took this portrait with a remote shutter release or a friend took it for him (the copyright declaration is still sufficient for a casual portrait). In either case, we have a validly licensed portrait to illustrate an article. Put aside the sockpuppetry and the block on his account. What valid copyright reason is there to delete this photo? You can reply here.--Chaser (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. It's obviously not taken with a self timer. I have no idea if a "friend took it for him." We don't know, we're not going to get the truth from him, and we have no obligation to assume good faith or to come up with an alternate explanation when the one he gives is obviously a lie. It looks to me like a professional photograph; I've seen book jacket photos that aren't as good. Given that this photo was uploaded in defiance of a permablock, this is really a moot issue and, as is typical when this particular sock is involved, a big waste of time and energy for all concerned. This really needs to be discussed in the PUF entry, and I've duplicated some of this answer there. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)