`  == == Issue on images still unresolved == ==  I appreciate your inputs in Image talk:Monkey3.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 2-3 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 disagreement well. So perhaps you could recognise that and be more helpful than combative? I know it's hard. I find the establishment hard to deal with sometimes. They tend to say ``Wikipedia thinks this...`` when they mean ``My friends think this...`` They forget the diversity and multiplicity of opinion that exists here and live in an echo chamber because they know they are empowered and do not need to pay any attention to that diversity to get what they want.  fyi, 70% of her images are tagged as fair use without providing a single rationale (few of them fall under the subcategories like stamp, logo etc. where it's easy to understand).  Yes. But as I noted, plain common sense would direct you to understand that fair use is being made of the photos. They are the product of a not-for-profit organisation whose goal is to educate people about animal torture. Having their material illustrate an encyclopaedia article about animal torture would clearly suit their purpose, as Slim pointed out to you, I believe. Ignoring that makes your approach seem malicious. I think Slim is in part bewildered by your making such a huge, urgent issue out of it, when the chances of legal dispute are so very small. So perhaps we could agree that Slim should provide rationales in due course, and preferably have the photos released under a suitable licence, but in the meantime there's no particular urgency to re-tag them or to insist on rapid action? Surely a commitment to act would be sufficient.  She also keeps reverting to her tags, violating all admin rules.   That's another issue. I think Slim is one of many admins who would be better off not having the powers, because they lead her into disputes of this nature, where the issue all too rapidly becomes her and not her edits, which is unfortunate.  As it stands I'm erring on the side of caution, while Slim wants to stretch the boundry of ``fair use``. Tx 4 ur interest in this.    ''I agree that you're being very cautious, and I think caution is right, as I noted. However, I think in the case of the BUAV images in particular that they are clearly ``fairly used``. You have to ignore their provenance to think otherwise. I can see from your discussion with her that Slim was not very successful in communicating her point of view, because she interpreted legitimate concern over copyright for a personal attack, largely because, I think, you didn't take into account the source of the photos and their likely reaction to their being in WP. Still, I do agree that she should ask for confirmation from BUAV that they are cool with our using the photos; but I think you should lay off them (and her) so long as she has made the commitment to acquire that confirmation. (this message copied to Slim's talkpage for her notice.  `