Talk:Gillian Keegan/Archive 1

1958:, which she chaired until recently. It is also the one that I've seen in at least a couple of newspapers - although, in fairness, that was some time ago, I've not seen the pink used anywhere yet. Nothing in BLP says we have to pander to someone's vanity, although we do have to consider reputational damage and suchlike. While there was a Twitter message saying that she didn't like the green one, nothing subsequently has appeared other than a bunch of socks claiming to be a constituent and a mysterious contact that Andy has with Parliament, which isn't her. Since the sock accounts were definitely lying about some stuff beyond simply their identity, (a) I wouldn't put much faith in them and (b) I don't see why we should roll over and open the floodgates to potential further external pressure from that source. All that aside, the green photo, especially the cropped third version I link to above, is clearer because the pink one has a 2079:, etc., that went on over this image is quite unfortunate, but those accounts have been blocked accordingly and all that nonsense actually reflects much more badly on Keegan (assuming either she or those connected to her were behind it) than the green photo ever did or could. Moreover, while I understand the concerns some may have about any future COI editing problems if Knowledge (XXG) "gives in" in this particular case, any further disruption can be dealt with in the same way. FWIW, if Keegan or those connected to her are following this discussion, they will hopefully opt to follow 1789: 1805: 1797: 2066:, so it's not really a question of skill or lack thereof. Personally, I think the pink one is slightly better since Keegan is more or less facing the camera as opposed to facing left and turning her head to look back at the camera; I also don't think that the shadowing others have pointed makes the encyclopedic identification of the subject any more difficult. Furthermore, simply wanting to use the green photo because Keegan does not want it to be used does not seem to be a good reason in and of itself. 1706:'s RFC suggestion is probably the best way to resolve this once and for all. I do not agree that the posts on this talk page are clearly in favor of one image, so getting more feedback from the community at large would be better. Both images seem equally acceptable to me in that neither particularly disparages or glamorizes Keegan in a manner which requires immediate removal. This should not really be about one side 358:, which does have EXIF data, but which shouldn't be licensed as "own work" since the EXIF data clearly credits the copyright to someone else. Techinically, these could've been flagged as a copyvios on Commons, but I felt giving the upoloader a chance to send in a permissions was a better thing to try instead. If the licensing is not verified in a week the files will be deleted. 1397:

one over the other - we are required to take their concerns into consideration but that does not mean we are required to agree with them. I would suggest a formal RFC to settle it, but until then, the status quo picture is both compliant with policy and of a high enough quality to not merit being removed. This is not difficult, we have two pictures, we can pick one.

1413:

objected to the old (green?) photo, and several editors told her that if she doesn't like it, she can have a different photo taken, and release it under a free license. Well, she's done that now (the pink photo?). It's perverse for us not to use it. I also don't see the "its a lesser quality photo" grounds. It's a fine photo. It "

1417:"? What now? Is there vaseline on the lens and is she lying on a piano in a cocktail dress? No, she's in a perfectly appropriate state for an MP, which is what we are writing about her as, her face is visible and identifiable, and it's appropriately licensed; that's pretty much all we can require. As Jimbo says 1044:. It would be better from a discussion stand point if everyone involved could stick to discussing the merits of the images in question and try to avoid commenting on other editors/personalizing the discussion. The latter will just create more tension and make it harder to find a resolution acceptable to all. -- 1532:

It hasn't been replaced - you're looking at a different website to the one that was referred to earlier. I agree that her twitter account said she didn't like it. I don't agree that this means we have to change it, nor that any comments here from newly registered accounts are necessarily her. Indeed,

1328:

official photo, neither of which are correct. You may have fallen for some of that. The pink photo is awful, the green one had consensus. What you and your contacts get up to is your business but your relationship with them, and perhaps via past paid work sponsored by the WMF etc, can't be allowed to

1005:

So you agree that your rationale was wrong, Govindaharihari? PAID applies here, even if not at Commons, socking applies here and I'm blowed if we should pander to vanity. They're had enough warnings and explanations, and we do not even know whether they are actually the article subject/relation/agent

299:

This makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting that the UK Parliament took a covert photograph of you and then disseminated it for use worldwide without copyright restrictions. Regardless, if you are the article subject then you should not change the image here but instead should ask for contributors

831:

for choosing one over the other, then fine. However, it does seem from other threads discussing this that green photo is being preferred simply because Keegan seems to want to use the pink one instead; there also seem to be concerns that allowing the pink photo might encourage further COI editing by

613:

The pic I have just restored to the page was properly licensed at the time it was uploaded, and was the official parliamentary photo of her. Her nonsense claims above (if it was her, and I believe it was) really don't hold water. If we allow her or her meatpuppets to continue to treat this page as a

353:

My concern is more about the licensing than about which photo looks better. We have someone claiming to be a currently standing polictician, whose account has not been OTRS verified, uploading images to Commons as "own work" without any OTRS verification of license. This also appears to be a crop of

1396:

After the 2nd post trying to draw attention to this at BLPN, moved my comment from there to here: Its not an equally suitable picture (pink). Its equally policy compliant with commons and Knowledge (XXG), but its a lesser quality photo. There is no actual BLP issue other than the subject preferring

1220:

Specious. It is no more her official photo than several others. Whoever told you that it is, it sure ain't the parliamentary website people and there has been a lot of socking and lying going on here. There's nothing wrong with the image as it was and your connections mean little. If it really does

836:

is followed it can be monitored and dealt with as needed. Trying to prevent possible future COI edits doesn't seem (at least to be me) to be a very good reason for choosing one image over another. The discussion should be about which of the two photos best complies with relevant guidelines/policies

576:

There was a valid link at the time it was uploaded. Nothing says that it has to stay valid. That you do not understand my insistence reflects your lack of understanding of consensus and, probably, your conflict of interest. I am reverting you for the latter reason - feel free to continue discussion

132:

both seem to have been created simply to remove this image. Assuming the accounts were created by Keegan herself and her husband Michael, there might be a reason they would prefer not to use the image which has nothing to do with the file's copyright status. Of course, I'm not suggesting we have to

1412:

I agree with Marchjuly and Govindaharihari and Pigsonthewing. "The article subject doesn't like it" isn't the be all and end all, but it is important. In a case where the two photos are so similar, we should certainly take the one she prefers. If you read the discussion above, you'll see where she

704:

While it was the case that we mentioned she could change her official photo, nowhere do I think it was said that we are obliged to use it. She uses different photos on different "official" website anyway. When an MP and/or people connected with her spend so long wrangling about a vanity issue, one

639:

was that the other option(s) was not an official portrait; it was even suggested that if Keegan didn't like her official photo, then she should get it changed. Well that appears to be what she did, so I am curious as to know what the remaining issues with the pink photo are. Is this simply to show

181:

Not sure what is nonsense about trying to engage these two editors to see what their concerns are. Again, I'm not suggesting that image needs to be removed, but only that images are like textual content in that they may need to be discussed when there are disagreements about whether they should be

2027:

Better composition, subject's face is more prominent, better quality and likeness overall. The "green" portrait has more "attitude", but attitude doesn't serve the encyclopedic interests of illustrating the subject in the most straightforward and informative way possible. The "pink" portrait does

1435:

And that's a perfectly reasonable argument to make in an RFC. The main benefit of an actual RFC over a free-flowing discussion like the above is that it stops the ridiculous back and forth edit-warring on the article while it goes on (which given the editors who have commented so far, they should

1173:

In addition, (a) I couldn't care less what the parliamentary data team says, even though Wikidata might; (b) the parliamentary web team needs to get its own house (sic) in order, as you would know if you had actually read this page instead of storming in to impose your preference. I think you may

960:

until things are resolved. There are no outstanding licensing issues with the green photo, so it does not need to be immediately removed. Let the discussion play out and see if a resolution can be reached. One thing to consider might be figuring out if there's a way to incoporate both photos. Not

955:

You should really stop messing around with the infobox image until we can at least decide which way to move on this. It's not helpful, is likely only going to lead to more reverting and it's only going to make further discussion difficult. The uncropped green photo should be left in place for the

1450:

Marchjuly hasn't expressed a preference. Please note yet again that we have nothing here to verify which one she prefers other than the actions of various sock accounts that might be impersonators + Andy's contact, who effectively contradicts their own record and isn't the subject anyway. As for

983:

doesn't really apply to Commons. If the file's licensing is not an issue, then it will not likely be deleted from Commons regardless of who uploaded it. So, we can use it on Knowledge (XXG) if the consensus is to do so. As for glamorizing Keegan, there's no policy/guideline that says unglamorous

74:

The photograph is a high-quality, free-use, official portrait of a public figure and should certainly be included in this article, which has no other images of its subject – unless there is a better image which is available to be used (and even then, the official portrait would probably be worth

724:

so now there are two ongoing threads basically discussing the same issue which is not going to be conducive to proper discussion. If a new thread is not needed, then maybe moving some of the comments from this thread to the "Official photo" thread could be done and the discussion could continue

82:

is an account owned by the subject of this article. As the account has only been created recently, and has no other activity beyond these reverts, it's likely they are not aware of Knowledge (XXG)'s various rules – but: the subject of an article editing that article is strongly discouraged as a

2062:- I also feel that either image can be used, but since the licensing of each file is no longer an issue and unless there is compelling technical reason for preferring one over the other, I guess it comes down to local consensus. Both photos were taken by the same professional photographer 1714:. An RfC may bring up points which those involved in this discussion so far have failed to notice, and it will create a stronger consensus. Another benefit is that it might have an impact beyond this article and provide some clarification to infobox photo use for other MP articles. -- 133:

acquiesce to their wishes and not use the file, but only that we don't the reasons why it was being removed and that simply re-adding it might lead to edit warring. These are new accounts who are probably not familiar with Knowledge (XXG)'s various policies and guidelines, especially

524:

I am still utterly confused with this. We have consensus to use the original image, which is still shown as a PD license at Commons. So why are we seeing it being replaced by an alternate image with claims that the original is a copyright infringement? I'm also pretty sure that

1323:

No, I am not accusing you of socking. I'm saying that there as been a lot of misinformation spread about by people who claim to be her, her husband or a constituent, all now blocked as socks. Eg: that the green photo was the "exclusive property of Dods" and that pink photo is

743:

talk page, here and DRN, all involving the illegitimate accounts, and Govindaharihari has started threads at my talk page and BLPN. How many more threads? It is becoming silly and since the green photo is not a copyright problem etc, we should just drop the entire issue. -

109:

Assuming it isn't some sort of official cock-up whereby the photo has been labelled as her when in fact it is not, there are no legitimate grounds for removing a public domain image of her. She is a public figure and her photographic image will appear all over the place. -

182:

used. Unless you going to claim that the repeated removal of the image was just vandalism, it seems good faith to assume that there might be a reason behind the edits. Anyway, they've both been pinged, so perhaps one of them will notice this discussion and respond. --

373:

until OTRS can verify the account; I previously advised the user of this on their user talk, and it wouldn't have been a big deal if they simply stopped editing. If they are going to keep reappearing every now and then, they should get their account verified. --

229:

Well, there is one alternative: she supplies a suitably licensed photo for use in the article (and thus eventually many other places). However, we're not here to massage egos etc, so I don't actually see a pressing need to change it to a preferred alternative. -

671:

The main reasons for wanting to use the older photo seem to have been that it was the official photo used by the British government and the licensing of the proposed alternatives were iffy. Those reasons no longer apply, so I am wondering if there are any other

1889:

Of FFS, this was clearly resolved, above. The subject finds the 'green' image upsetting; the 'pink' image is preferred by her, has replaced the earlier image on the Parliament website, and is perfectly good for our purposes. Use the latter; and drop the stick.

961:

sure if that's feasible, but it might be worth discussing. Also, starting new threads about this on multiple noticeboards is only going to fragment the discussion and make it that much harder to reach a consensus. If you feel the need to inform others, follow

272:

I am the official Gillian Keegan and I do not like this photo. No one else has used this photo for this purpose and I was not asked permission for the photo to be taken. I am in the process of having a new photo taken in September and will change it then.

984:

photos need to be used and I don't see the pink photo as being all that different from other photos of people smiling. The third photo you've linked to above also seems possible. Would that be an acceptable compromise if it's licensing is acceptable? --

1343:

So are accusing me of lying? The misinformation is now clarified (as I have explained, I have "fallen for" nothing); and we know the subject's preference. There is no reason not to take that into account, especially given the clause quoted from BLP.

826:

I am not totally in favor of the green photo. My only concern about the pink one had to do with its licensing, but since that has been resolved I am not sure why the green photo should automatically be preferred over the pink one. If there's a good

719:

Just a suggestion, but it might be better to start a new thread discussing this now that the licensing of the "pink photo" (I'm calling in that for the lack of a better term at the moment) has been resolved. A new post about this was just added to

869:

I have to disagree, the pink one is not glamorous, it is simply a better portrait of her, I agree with that but it is not glamorous, it is her current parlimentary profile photois is a quality square on portrait as per infobox requirements

480:

found seems correct to me. So, the Commons file can be just changed as needed. As for which photo is used, I personally have no preference, so whatever the local consensus turns out to be is fine with me, but Keegan and her husband

365:) to do this on her behalf. I think we have to go back the original photo simply because it's licensing can be verified without a doubt. The other COI type issues are also problematic, but these can be cleaned up or discussed at 462:, which is almost an encyclopedia of things parliamentary. The other main parliamentary resources are Hansard and Erskine May - the former is the official record of speeches/proceedings and the latter is akin to a rule book. - 388:

There is no problem with the licencing of the new photo at all it is totally commons compatable. Try to ignore the COI and single purpose, vanity concerns and just ask yoursself, which is the best photo of this living person?

485:) appear to have a strong dislike for the other photo, so assuming they are who they claim to be (the "GillianKeegan" account is currently soft-blocked), maybe using the second photo should be given strong consideration. -- 2005:

It has often been said that I observe more than most people because of being born profoundly deaf - sensory compensation. Perhaps this is one of those occasions! Regardless, it is a lot more than the corner of her mouth. -

214:

It may be nice to play happy-clappy but it won't make any difference. If she doesn't like it, get the official photo changed. The existing one will already be out in newspapers etc. It's a waste of our time and hers. -

1607:

I prefer the "pink photo" because I sincerely believe that it is a better portrait, and both are freely licensed. I lack a personal opinion about the woman, and am expressing an opinion only about the photographs.

1239:(e/c + e/c) Harm hasn't been demonstrated. "I don't like it" is not harm. Putting the poorer picture back, you know, the pink one with the shadows across the left side of the pic as viewed, is not justified. - 1421:. We need a good deal more than "there is a small shadow down the side of the subject's nose" than to choose a photo that the subject doesn't like, and has said so emphatically, over one that she does. -- 420:- this pic is ok to use but has been uploaded to commons under the wrong licence and may well be deleted in a few days. It needs re-uploading or correcting at commons. The commons compatable released 2163:- Well originally I was gonna say green however looking at both images in the infobox the pink one looks a lot better - I can't physically explain it but it doesn't look right in the infobox ... – 640:

the subject of articles that they can never have their way when it comes to article content or are there other technical reasons why the pink photo shouldn't be preferred over the older photo. --

934:

it was and it still a good photo for the infobox - if the new one is better lets upload it - I object to editors insisting and edit warring a worse photo just because of coi and sock issues.

167:. If she doesn't like it then get another official photo taken because she sure as hell isn't going to be able to stop newspapers etc from using it. Edit warring can be sorted out anyway. - 1742: 1291:

I have made no claim about relative "officialness"; so that's a straw man. I know for a fact that my contacts work in Parliament, and I have known them for some time. Are you accusing

1983:, per the subject's Twitter message that she doesn't like the green one, and the fact the pink one has replaced it on the parliament site. Since the two are, frankly, comparable (the 124:

I agree, but at the same time there is no requirement that an image has to be included in this or any article regardless of whether it's in the public domain. As pointed out above,

1684:

No you won't. You can open an RfC and do it properly. You are forgetting comments made at the BLPN thread that you opened, which included people who have yet to comment here. -

773: 361:

Assuming in good faith that this is really Keegan, we have no way of knowing whether she is doing the editing herself, or instructing her staff (which would be a violation of

1856: 1114:

I have restored the subject's preferred picture (I am in contact with the parliamentary data and web teams, who have confirmed this preference), now correctly licensed, per

1645:

You seem to be suggesting that some others here may have a "personal opinion about the woman". I certainly don't: I've never even voted, in a UK election for example. -

676:

reasons as to why the former official photo should be preferred over the current official photo. Consensus is fine, but if it is simply a consensus based upon a desire

654:

Is there some policy which says that we are obliged to use UK Parliamentary official pics of MPs, which is what the pink pic now is, or do we do things by consensus? -

1468:

other than a statement from Parliament that Keegan herself prefers the newer image; and a tweet from her about the older image that she regards the earler image as a

837:

and is the best for Knowledge (XXG) purpose. The COI stuff can be dealt with if and when it happens, just like the socking/meat puppetry is being dealt with at

832:

Keegan or people associated with her. For reference, COI editing is not expressly prohibitted by Knowledge (XXG); it's only highly discourage, but as long as

417: 2045:- Personally, I think either one could be used however, I prefer the pink since the photo was taken straight on as opposed to her shoulders being turned. 1451:

Govindahari, their argument was not actually based on the subject's preference but on their own preference, as is evident from their own talk page. -

631:

I agree with the comments about meat puppetry, but at the same time the licensing of the pink photo has been sorted out and it does seem to be the

1504:. This is exactly what has happened; the older photo is no longer on the Parliamentary website; and the newer one has been uploaded in its place: 1418: 2141: 2127: 1369:

Stop it, Andy. You know I haven't accused you of lying and are just using your common tactic of ramping it up with irrelevant questions. -

690:

templates at the relevant WikiProject's to see if we can get more feedback which would help establish a stronger consensus either way. --

1906: 1585: 1523: 1487: 1360: 1314: 1295:

of "socking and lying"? I'm sure TWfY will also update their image, sooner rather than later. The "pink" image is used by Parliament at

1280: 1211: 1134: 318:, particularly as Gillian, against all the guidelines, has changed the pic. I'd love to see the UK press do a number on a UK policician 288: 1627:

Yes, me too - I much prefer the "pink photo" because I simply believe that it is a better portrait for the infobox. I don't see a

1950:(for want of a better phrase) shows a third "white" photo. She doesn't appear to use either herself either, but green is used at 2123: 680:

with the actual image being used only a secondary concern, then I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. Anyway, I've posted

459: 2202:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2189:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1955: 1768:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

61:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1788: 2063: 855:

The pink one glamorises her. COI is an issue and I wouldn't completely rule out paid editing at some point, either. -

1544: 536: 355: 1804: 1796: 1839: 1636: 1174:

have been conned, Andy, as various socks operating on this article and elsewhere have been lying about things. -

1065: 1029: 939: 875: 799: 763: 562: 513: 428: 394: 99: 67:

My addition of the official parliamentary portrait of Gillian Keegan in the inbox has now been reverted twice by

599:

is BS. Take a look at the official profile in External Links or the one on the cited local council website. -

1569:

the disputed image on Parliament's website. There is now no parliamentary web page using the disputed image.

1902: 1581: 1519: 1483: 1441: 1402: 1356: 1310: 1276: 1221:

trouble her then she won't last long as an MP. The green image is used, for example, at theyworkforyou and '

1207: 1130: 284: 276: 1929: 1821: 1677:

There is now a clear consensus here for the pink photo and I will replace it. 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

1668: 1246: 1163: 677: 661: 621: 449: 329: 251: 2096: 2092: 1189:"the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" 957: 833: 809: 362: 2033: 1878: 1631:

for keeping the current photo now, I am seeing mutiple good faith objections to its continued insertion

812:. And now you're suggesting an RfC, which strikes me as still more "forum shopping" style behaviour. - 370: 2050: 1835: 1632: 1061: 1025: 950: 935: 871: 795: 759: 558: 509: 477: 424: 390: 95: 2080: 1951: 1947: 962: 916: 2108: 1719: 1614: 1496:...and the fact that the image has been replaced on the Parliamentary website. Above, Sitush wrote 1414: 1049: 989: 966: 846: 730: 695: 684: 645: 565:) shows the second image, this had been sorted, I am unsure why you are insistent on old photo? - 490: 379: 205: 187: 142: 17: 2091:(if applicable) from here on and refrain from directly editing the article except as explained in 1041: 314:

I don't like the new portrait of Gillian, I suggest we go back to the old official portrait, it's

137:. So, at least now, they can discuss their reasons here and give others the chance to respond. -- 1893: 1748: 1703: 1572: 1510: 1474: 1437: 1398: 1347: 1301: 1267: 1198: 1145: 1121: 1000: 758:

There is no copyright problem with both photos at all, they are both totally commons compatable.

614:

vanity thing, then the door has been opened for future involvement, which we should discourage. -

280: 125: 79: 68: 41: 1225:

are used at the parliament website. Now self-revert and wait for consensus to change, please. -

1923: 1817: 1664: 1240: 1157: 655: 615: 443: 323: 245: 197: 2088: 2076: 2072: 1852: 1711: 1663:

I also prefer the more recent (pink) photo (as Cullen), and understand the subject's wish. --

980: 366: 88: 2029: 2011: 1992: 1971: 1874: 1864: 1779: 1752: 1689: 1650: 1552: 1456: 1426: 1374: 1334: 1230: 1179: 1083: 1011: 924: 860: 817: 781: 749: 710: 604: 586: 557:) Photos have to have a source link, the link used to the official image as added kindly by 554: 544: 482: 467: 344: 305: 235: 220: 172: 129: 115: 45: 2100: 2084: 1707: 1149: 1115: 1075: 1021: 838: 828: 791: 673: 578: 134: 2046: 1942:. At the time that this issue first arose, the choice was green or nothing. Since then, a 508:

has done the good work at commons, so it seems this is all cleared up now. Thanks to all.

1851:

there is also a second version of the "green" image, cropped per someone's suggestion at

1060:

This is not a case of cry blp , it is a simple which is the more policy compliant photo.

84: 87:. Issues regarding articles about yourself are best resolved via this talk page, or via 2164: 2150: 2104: 1834:, loud and proud, it is clearly the better portrait, face on and square to the camera. 1715: 1609: 1538: 1045: 1040:

BLP does not necessarily override everything at all times and you should be careful of

985: 842: 726: 691: 641: 570: 530: 505: 486: 375: 201: 183: 138: 1191:

If the subject finds it troubling to have a specific image here, for whatever reason,

1987:

covers, what, the corner of her mouth?), the subject's wishes make the difference. --

776:. (The DRN thread that MichaelKeegan opened has now been closed as inappropriate.) - 71:. I've made this section to explain why I've re-reverted, and re-included the photo. 2176: 2155: 2131: 2112: 2054: 2037: 2015: 1996: 1975: 1934: 1910: 1882: 1868: 1843: 1825: 1783: 1723: 1693: 1672: 1654: 1640: 1621: 1589: 1556: 1527: 1491: 1460: 1445: 1430: 1406: 1378: 1364: 1338: 1318: 1284: 1251: 1234: 1215: 1183: 1168: 1138: 1087: 1069: 1053: 1033: 1015: 993: 943: 928: 879: 864: 850: 821: 803: 785: 767: 753: 734: 714: 699: 666: 649: 626: 608: 590: 548: 517: 494: 471: 454: 432: 398: 383: 348: 334: 309: 292: 256: 239: 224: 209: 191: 176: 146: 119: 103: 2007: 1988: 1967: 1860: 1775: 1685: 1646: 1548: 1452: 1422: 1370: 1330: 1226: 1175: 1079: 1007: 974: 920: 856: 813: 777: 745: 740: 706: 600: 582: 540: 463: 340: 301: 231: 216: 168: 111: 2147: 1943: 1534: 1505: 1296: 632: 566: 526: 421: 1470:"Terrible photo of me...think I will peek from behind a fan next time.....! 1006:

or just someone impersonating etc. There is no need to compromise. -

969:

instead. If others want to comment, they can comment in this thread.

772:

Indeed, but one had consensus and the other is supported by you and

635:

used by the British government. The main objection raised above in

1803: 1795: 1787: 1256:

BLP does not require "harm to demonstrated"; the quote refers to

1774:

Should we use the "pink" or the "green" image in this article? -

1118:. There is absolutely no reason not to comply with this request. 1547:) claimed to be a constituent before being blocked as a sock. - 1152:

says that the subject of a BLP can choose a photograph to use,

1024:

do you Sitush. Look into my eyes .... BLP overides everything.

1710:, but rather both sides coming together to try and figure out 1502:"If she doesn't like it then get another official photo taken" 790:

There is no strong clear consensus here at all. Lets open a

2064:

who was specifically hired to do this job for all the MPs

1946:

of the parliament website shows the pink photo while the

1743:

File: Official portrait of Gillian Keegan - v2 crop 2.jpg

1498:"If she doesn't like it, get the official photo changed" 596: 319: 35: 1195:, then we should consider their feelings and wishes. 438:

Can anybody tell me what 'Dods' is? (Nice to see the

1962:

on her face. Despite what Govindaharihari says, her

1857:

File:Official_portrait_of_Gillian_Keegan_crop_3.jpg

705:has to wonder what the press would make of it. - 369:. I also think a softblock might be in order per 1915:Green - Far better, and Prime Minister approved 1419:"Knowledge (XXG) is not here to make people sad" 1739: 32: 1466:"nothing here to verify which one she prefers" 8: 1193:and we have another that is equally suitable 917:not her current parliamentary profile photo 200:may explain why they removed the photo. -- 2146:I feel the pink one is composed better. z' 678:to prevent any possible future COI editing 300:to consider your proposal for a change. - 274: 1506:https://beta.parliament.uk/media/hNwrafgD 1297:https://beta.parliament.uk/media/hNwrafgD 1148:) please could you clarify which part of 1741:The consensus is to use the pink image, 1873:I've added it to the images at right. — 1501: 1497: 1469: 1465: 1257: 1188: 636: 1966:seems to me to be full-on in both. - 1074:Sigh. They're both policy-compliant. 539:) has a conflict of interest here. - 7: 1762:The following discussion is closed. 979:Paid editing might be an issue, but 413:Photo under wrong licence at commons 55:The following discussion is closed. 721: 418:Gillian_Keegan_MP_Official_Portrait 2099:does have limits when it comes to 1734:Request for comment - image to use 919:. You are falling for the lies. - 581:(now there's a link to follow). - 442:approved photo of Gillian back.) - 24: 2198:The discussion above is closed. 2185:The discussion above is closed. 1712:what is best for the encyclopedia 322:their own Wiki BLP. . Opinions? - 1755:) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 78:Beyond this, I'm guessing that 48:) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 1917:and not clearly resolved above 591:19:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC) 549:12:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC) 518:08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC) 495:00:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC) 472:17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC) 455:16:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC) 433:12:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC) 384:23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 349:16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 335:16:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 1: 1329:influence us here. Surely? - 460:Dod's Parliamentary Companion 94:Hope that all makes sense :) 83:conflict of interest, as per 2177:14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 2156:13:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 2132:12:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC) 2113:06:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC) 2055:18:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC) 2038:21:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 2016:19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1997:19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1976:16:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1935:15:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1911:14:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1883:21:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1869:07:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1844:06:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1826:06:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1784:06:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1724:07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1694:06:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1673:07:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC) 1655:06:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1641:06:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC) 1622:06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) 1590:15:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1557:06:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 1528:17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1492:16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1461:16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1446:16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1431:15:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1407:15:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1379:16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1365:15:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1339:15:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1319:15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1285:15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1252:15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1235:15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1216:15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1184:11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1169:11:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1139:10:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 1088:15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 1070:15:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 1054:14:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 1034:14:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 1016:14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 994:14:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 944:14:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 929:14:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 880:14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 865:14:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 851:14:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 822:13:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 804:13:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 786:13:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 768:13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 754:13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 735:13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 715:12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 700:03:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 667:02:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 650:00:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 627:18:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC) 609:17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC) 399:12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 2122:Pretty much per MarchJuly. 1438:Only in death does duty end 1436:really have known better). 1399:Only in death does duty end 1020:You just do not understand 808:Then you do not understand 310:15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC) 293:15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC) 2219: 356:File:Gillian Keegan MP.jpg 257:14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 240:14:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 225:14:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 210:14:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 192:14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 177:13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 147:13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 120:12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC) 104:15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC) 2200:Please do not modify it. 2187:Please do not modify it. 1765:Please do not modify it. 58:Please do not modify it. 1948:"live" official version 1816:, per comment above. -- 1809: 1801: 1793: 1757: 577:here, however, as per 50: 1807: 1799: 1791: 739:We've got threads at 595:And the edit summary 159:Nonsense, sorry. She 2101:assuming good faith 967:Template:Please see 18:Talk:Gillian Keegan 2124:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1810: 1802: 1794: 637:#Official portrait 244:I'm with Sitush. - 161:is a public figure 80:User:GillianKeegan 69:User:GillianKeegan 34:See the RfC close 2153: 2145: 1264:(emphasis mine). 1154:against consensus 1004: 295: 279:comment added by 165:an official photo 27:Official portrait 2210: 2174: 2169: 2151: 2139: 1909: 1900: 1896: 1767: 1619: 1617:Let's discuss it 1588: 1579: 1575: 1526: 1517: 1513: 1490: 1481: 1477: 1363: 1354: 1350: 1317: 1308: 1304: 1283: 1274: 1270: 1214: 1205: 1201: 1137: 1128: 1124: 998: 978: 954: 689: 683: 196:It appears that 60: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2193: 2170: 2165: 2152:(distænt write) 2142:Summoned by bot 1898: 1892: 1891: 1836:Govindaharihari 1763: 1758: 1736: 1633:Govindaharihari 1615: 1577: 1571: 1570: 1515: 1509: 1508: 1479: 1473: 1472: 1352: 1346: 1345: 1306: 1300: 1299: 1272: 1266: 1265: 1203: 1197: 1196: 1126: 1120: 1119: 1112: 1062:Govindaharihari 1026:Govindaharihari 972: 956:time being per 951:Govindaharihari 948: 936:Govindaharihari 872:Govindaharihari 796:Govindaharihari 760:Govindaharihari 722:#Official photo 687: 681: 559:Govindaharihari 510:Govindaharihari 478:Govindaharihari 425:Govindaharihari 415: 391:Govindaharihari 56: 51: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2216: 2214: 2205: 2204: 2194: 2192: 2191: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2158: 2134: 2116: 2115: 2068: 2067: 2057: 2040: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2000: 1999: 1985:massive shadow 1978: 1960:massive shadow 1952:TheyWorkforYou 1937: 1913: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1846: 1828: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1738: 1737: 1735: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1697: 1696: 1679: 1678: 1675: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1415:glamorises her 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1186: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 970: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 774:probable socks 633:official photo 593: 551: 521: 520: 506:User:Marchjuly 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 476:The licensing 440:Prime Minister 414: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 359: 316:so much better 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 227: 194: 152: 151: 150: 149: 65: 64: 63: 31: 30: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2215: 2203: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2190: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2168: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2149: 2143: 2138: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077:meat puppetry 2074: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2058: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2026: 2023: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1926: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1899:Pigsonthewing 1895: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1806: 1798: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1769: 1766: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1744: 1733: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704:Only in death 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578:Pigsonthewing 1574: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1516:Pigsonthewing 1512: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1480:Pigsonthewing 1476: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1353:Pigsonthewing 1349: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1307:Pigsonthewing 1303: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1273:Pigsonthewing 1269: 1263: 1261: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1204:Pigsonthewing 1200: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1160: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1127:Pigsonthewing 1123: 1117: 1109: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1002: 1001:edit conflict 997: 996: 995: 991: 987: 982: 976: 971: 968: 964: 959: 952: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 930: 926: 922: 918: 881: 877: 873: 868: 867: 866: 862: 858: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 840: 835: 830: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 806: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 765: 761: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 742: 738: 737: 736: 732: 728: 723: 718: 717: 716: 712: 708: 703: 702: 701: 697: 693: 686: 679: 675: 670: 669: 668: 665: 664: 660: 658: 653: 652: 651: 647: 643: 638: 634: 630: 629: 628: 625: 624: 620: 618: 612: 611: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 592: 588: 584: 580: 575: 574: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 550: 546: 542: 538: 535: 532: 528: 523: 522: 519: 515: 511: 507: 504: 503: 496: 492: 488: 484: 479: 475: 474: 473: 469: 465: 461: 458: 457: 456: 453: 452: 448: 446: 441: 437: 436: 435: 434: 430: 426: 423: 422:image is here 419: 412: 400: 396: 392: 387: 386: 385: 381: 377: 372: 368: 364: 360: 357: 352: 351: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 333: 332: 328: 326: 321: 317: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 298: 297: 296: 294: 290: 286: 282: 281:GillianKeegan 278: 258: 255: 254: 250: 248: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 228: 226: 222: 218: 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 193: 189: 185: 180: 179: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 153: 148: 144: 140: 136: 131: 127: 126:GillianKeegan 123: 122: 121: 117: 113: 108: 107: 106: 105: 101: 97: 92: 90: 86: 81: 76: 72: 70: 62: 59: 53: 52: 49: 47: 43: 39: 37: 26: 19: 2199: 2197: 2186: 2184: 2171: 2166: 2160: 2136: 2119: 2095:because the 2093:WP:COIADVICE 2059: 2042: 2024: 1984: 1980: 1963: 1959: 1944:beta version 1939: 1930: 1924: 1919: 1916: 1907:Andy's edits 1903:Talk to Andy 1894:Andy Mabbett 1848: 1831: 1818:Gerda Arendt 1813: 1773: 1764: 1761: 1747: 1740: 1665:Gerda Arendt 1628: 1616: 1610: 1606: 1586:Andy's edits 1582:Talk to Andy 1573:Andy Mabbett 1566: 1562: 1541: 1524:Andy's edits 1520:Talk to Andy 1511:Andy Mabbett 1488:Andy's edits 1484:Talk to Andy 1475:Andy Mabbett 1395: 1361:Andy's edits 1357:Talk to Andy 1348:Andy Mabbett 1325: 1315:Andy's edits 1311:Talk to Andy 1302:Andy Mabbett 1292: 1281:Andy's edits 1277:Talk to Andy 1268:Andy Mabbett 1259: 1247: 1241: 1222: 1212:Andy's edits 1208:Talk to Andy 1199:Andy Mabbett 1192: 1164: 1158: 1153: 1146:Andy Mabbett 1135:Andy's edits 1131:Talk to Andy 1122:Andy Mabbett 1113: 958:WP:STATUSQUO 914: 834:WP:COIADVICE 810:WP:CONSENSUS 662: 656: 622: 616: 533: 450: 444: 439: 416: 363:WP:NOSHARING 330: 324: 315: 275:— Preceding 271: 252: 246: 164: 163:and this is 160: 93: 77: 75:including). 73: 66: 57: 54: 40: 33: 2030:Sangdeboeuf 1875:Sangdeboeuf 1260:possibility 483:MG Keegan 1 371:WP:REALNAME 130:MG Keegan 1 2081:WP:BIOSELF 2047:Meatsgains 1565:image has 963:WP:CANVASS 915:No, it is 725:there. -- 685:Please see 198:this Tweet 96:Charlie A. 2105:Marchjuly 2097:community 2087:and even 1956:Women2win 1716:Marchjuly 1629:consensus 1561:The new, 1046:Marchjuly 1042:WP:CRYBLP 986:Marchjuly 843:Marchjuly 727:Marchjuly 692:Marchjuly 642:Marchjuly 487:Marchjuly 376:Marchjuly 339:Agree. - 202:Marchjuly 184:Marchjuly 139:Marchjuly 1927:the dog. 1702:I think 1567:replaced 1563:official 1545:contribs 1262:of harm" 1244:the dog. 1161:the dog. 965:and use 659:the dog. 619:the dog. 537:contribs 447:the dog. 327:the dog. 289:contribs 277:unsigned 249:the dog. 2089:WP:PAID 2073:socking 2028:that. — 1853:WP:BLPN 1849:Comment 1808:Green B 1800:Green A 1708:winning 1223:neither 1144:Andy, ( 981:WP:PAID 367:WP:COIN 320:editing 89:WP:BLPN 2085:WP:COI 2008:Sitush 1989:GRuban 1968:Sitush 1861:Sitush 1855:- see 1776:Sitush 1749:Cunard 1686:Sitush 1647:Sitush 1611:Cullen 1549:Sitush 1453:Sitush 1423:GRuban 1371:Sitush 1331:Sitush 1227:Sitush 1176:Sitush 1150:WP:BLP 1116:WP:BLP 1080:Sitush 1076:WP:CIR 1022:wp:blp 1008:Sitush 975:Sitush 921:Sitush 857:Sitush 839:WP:SPI 829:WP:IUP 814:Sitush 792:WP:RFC 778:Sitush 746:Sitush 741:Drmies 707:Sitush 674:WP:IUP 601:Sitush 583:Sitush 579:WP:COI 541:Sitush 464:Sitush 341:Sitush 302:Sitush 232:Sitush 217:Sitush 169:Sitush 135:WP:OWN 112:Sitush 42:Cunard 2167:Davey 2103:. -- 2025:Pink. 1940:Green 1830:Also 1258:"the 1110:Redux 841:. -- 85:WP:AB 36:below 16:< 2172:2010 2161:Pink 2148:L3X1 2137:Pink 2128:talk 2120:Pink 2109:talk 2071:The 2060:Pink 2051:talk 2043:Pink 2034:talk 2012:talk 1993:talk 1981:Pink 1972:talk 1964:face 1954:and 1931:bark 1925:Roxy 1879:talk 1865:talk 1859:. - 1840:talk 1832:Pink 1822:talk 1814:Pink 1792:Pink 1780:talk 1753:talk 1720:talk 1690:talk 1669:talk 1651:talk 1637:talk 1553:talk 1539:talk 1535:Lvta 1500:and 1457:talk 1442:talk 1427:talk 1403:talk 1375:talk 1335:talk 1248:bark 1242:Roxy 1231:talk 1180:talk 1165:bark 1159:Roxy 1084:talk 1078:. - 1066:talk 1050:talk 1030:talk 1012:talk 990:talk 940:talk 925:talk 876:talk 861:talk 847:talk 818:talk 800:talk 782:talk 764:talk 750:talk 731:talk 711:talk 696:talk 663:bark 657:Roxy 646:talk 623:bark 617:Roxy 605:talk 597:here 587:talk 571:talk 567:lvta 563:talk 555:talk 545:talk 531:talk 527:Lvta 514:talk 491:talk 468:talk 451:bark 445:Roxy 429:talk 395:talk 380:talk 345:talk 331:bark 325:Roxy 306:talk 285:talk 253:bark 247:Roxy 236:talk 221:talk 206:talk 188:talk 173:talk 143:talk 128:and 116:talk 100:talk 46:talk 1922:. - 1920:FFS 1901:); 1580:); 1518:); 1482:); 1355:); 1326:the 1309:); 1275:); 1206:); 1156:? - 1129:); 2130:) 2111:) 2083:, 2075:, 2053:) 2036:) 2014:) 1995:) 1974:) 1905:; 1881:) 1867:) 1842:) 1824:) 1782:) 1722:) 1692:) 1671:) 1653:) 1639:) 1584:; 1555:) 1522:; 1486:; 1459:) 1444:) 1429:) 1405:) 1377:) 1359:; 1337:) 1313:; 1293:me 1279:; 1233:) 1210:; 1182:) 1133:; 1086:) 1068:) 1052:) 1032:) 1014:) 992:) 942:) 927:) 878:) 863:) 849:) 820:) 802:) 794:- 784:) 766:) 752:) 733:) 713:) 698:) 688:}} 682:{{ 648:) 607:) 589:) 573:) 547:) 516:) 493:) 470:) 431:) 397:) 382:) 347:) 308:) 291:) 287:• 238:) 223:) 208:) 190:) 175:) 145:) 118:) 102:) 91:. 2144:) 2140:( 2126:( 2107:( 2049:( 2032:( 2010:( 1991:( 1970:( 1897:( 1877:( 1863:( 1838:( 1820:( 1778:( 1751:( 1745:. 1718:( 1688:( 1667:( 1649:( 1635:( 1576:( 1551:( 1542:· 1537:( 1514:( 1478:( 1455:( 1440:( 1425:( 1401:( 1373:( 1351:( 1333:( 1305:( 1271:( 1229:( 1202:( 1178:( 1125:( 1082:( 1064:( 1048:( 1028:( 1010:( 1003:) 999:( 988:( 977:: 973:@ 953:: 949:@ 938:( 923:( 874:( 859:( 845:( 816:( 798:( 780:( 762:( 748:( 729:( 709:( 694:( 644:( 603:( 585:( 569:( 561:( 553:( 543:( 534:· 529:( 512:( 489:( 481:( 466:( 427:( 393:( 378:( 343:( 304:( 283:( 234:( 219:( 204:( 186:( 171:( 141:( 114:( 98:( 44:( 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index