Talk:Emily Beecham

Comments

I don't know how to do a proper link to Emily's IMDB page. Can anyone help me? Also, the link to the film The Calling links to some band instead. Not sure how to correct that.

VenomousConcept (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a template for IMDB links - just use {{imdb|X}}, replacing X with the person's IMDB profile number, which in Emily's case is 2387806. I've already made the change to the page, but now you know for future reference.

As for The Calling, someone has now removed the link - there is no page for The Calling (2009 film) yet, so currently there is nothing to link to. As you pointed out The Calling links to the band. Also, The Calling (film) is a different article, related to a movie from 2000.

AJCham2097 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link. Thanks for your help. :) VenomousConcept (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do references properly. Anybody help me? VenomousConcept (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I have been asked to explain the issue with an image of Miss.Beecham being posted on this page. I am more than happy to do so, and am glad someone actually is willingly to talk this through. Emily Beecham has personally requested the removal of the photo in question. It was taken during her allergy season, and thus she would not like this particular photo displayed on her wikipedia page, as (being an actress) her image is important to her career and livelihood. She made the request to the photo's original up-loader via twitter. This user and Miss.Beecham had an exchange on Twitter, followed by the intervention of Miss. Beecham's reps. Too my knowledge, they came to a resolution, and the photo was taken down. However, another user, Davey2010, has put it back up. I attempted to remove it again, citing in the edit notes Miss.Beecham's request. I also made several other edits such as updating her episode count for Into the Badlands. This user however reverted my edit, and put in his edit notes "tough bollocks". It also appears as though the up-loader of the original photo attempted to post a different one, approved of by Miss.Beecham, only to have this user delete it. I can have Emily Beecham verify her request regarding this photo via Twitter (I am the lead admin for her characters fan page for the AMC series Into the Badlands). I find it horrendously disrespectful, and unbecoming, of wikipedia to insist on posting a photo of someone who has expressly requested it be removed. I do not believe this is the position of wikipedia, but of a user who appears to have no respect for the actress who's page he is editing. I am requesting that this particular photo be left down, out of respect for Emily Beecham, and until a photo she does approve of can be placed here. I wish to avoid edit wars, and hope that you can help me in resolving this peacefully, and with respect for the very person who's page this comment is on. Thank You. 71.17.25.13 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging on the talk page, my experience is that these things can usually be sorted out this way. Give me a few minutes to have a look though the history of what you say, then I'll get bakc to you here. AntiVan (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"and until a photo she does approve of can be placed here" - Sorry that's not how it works - We use free images regardless of whether the subject "approves" of them or not - if we went by what they "approve" of no BLP articles here would have images, As explained below images here need to be free which at present there are none which is why I keep reverting - Ofcourse if it could be replaced then I would've gone that route however there's only one image at present and it's this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see the current image was uploaded to commons by de Kok, and that at some stage there has been an image used in the article named Emily_Beecham_shoot.jpg, but that image, which was uploaded to wikipedia is now deleted. I don't have the admin rights I'd need to see why it was deleted, but the usual reason is that there is a problem with the copyright. If, as you say, Vera de Kok has a better photo, and she wants to upload it to wikipedia commons that would be great. It would then be a matter of consensus to have it added to the article.

Please be more circumspect in your language about other editors. From my brief look, Davey2010, has been correctly pursuing the various Wikipeida policies. It's not our role to do things to please the subjects of Wikipedia articles, but only to create and maintain verifiable articles on notable subjects. Saying that you have special access to the subject of an article is not likely to sway other editors, making a case around wikipedia policy is.

I'm going to restore the current image for the time being. When you've organised for a new, hopefully better, image to be uploaded to commons, let me know and we'll have a look at it. Note that you should not make any further edits to this article, but rather request them on the talk page (or my talk page). This is the standard approach for editors that are too close to the subject on an article to have a completely WP:NPOV. Thanks AntiVan (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi AntiVan, The image that was deleted was this, I was asked by Ritchie333 to stop reverting however I thought it was best I removed the image in the hope someone would replace it and this whole edit warring would stop, Thanks for helping tho :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. We'll have a look when the new image is uploaded with the correct licence. Thanks also for undoing that last reversion to take some of the heat out. AntiVan (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I don't have much hopes in whatever image uploaded is there but as you say we'll have to wait and see, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick procedural note, I revision-deleted the IP's edit summary in this edit because it revealed a Twitter handle and email address. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Image

Right the back & fourth warring is stupid so let me explain,
Emily disliking their image is not our problem not should it be but that all aside at present there is no free alternative image which is why this image should remain,

Now the image can be replaced however the image needs to be the same as the one it's replacing (IE her at an event and it should be good quality), her posting images on Twitter isn't good enough - Also images shouldn't be promotional (ie like this)

Images can be uploaded to Commons with the following licences - CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) and Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0),
Please note tho these licences are irrevocable (IE you cannot change your mind and request them to be deleted - Once you upload them that's it anyone can use them for any purpose and you don't need to be notified first etc etc) so please bear this in mind, Also if you're the photographer of the images you upload then you would need to go to OTRS at Commons aswell,
But again just to reiterate these licenses are irrevocable - So if anyone wants to replace the image then fine however if not then the previous should stay (Also uploading images from the internet will be deleted),
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason you've given for reverting my edits is that 'the image isn't free', which is wrong. The image is free. It has exactly the same licence as the one that you keep reverting to. There is no valid reason not to replace one free image with a better free image. I'm trying to improve this page. You are just being disruptive. VenomousConcept (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself - Instead I would ask you read all of the above again (and focus on paragraph #2). –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject of a WP:BLP entry should not be made to feel insulted, humiliated or demeaned by the imposition of an unflattering photograph in the infobox, especially if a major component of subject's career is dependent on outward impression, with special emphasis on facial appearance. If a more appropriate image is freely available, there should be no impediment in the replacement of the current photograph with the proposed new one. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The current image is fine and does not need replacing - I appreciate Emily may not like the image however that's not our problem, I stated I would be more than happy for this to be replaced with a free image that looks identical to the one it's replacing which the proposed one doesn't - All images on this website can be replaced with newer images only if they're better than the previous which unfortunately isn't the case here, So we can either start an RFC or we can all move on and until someone photographs Emily at another event then the image can stay however as I said and I cannot stress this enough if someone wants to replace this image with one identical to the one now then I have no objections to that but as it currently stands the proposed image isn't better than the one it's replacing. –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." Davey2010 has fallen foul of that guideline. I would also suggest he has fallen foul of the Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers guideline. I made this point on my citation for edit warring page, but I would also like it recorded here that Davey2010 has provided no evidence whatsoever of his imaginary 'Wikipedia must feature subjects at an event' rule. Here are several examples that contradict that - here's one that features an image that Davey2010 would presumably regard as 'promotional' - Mark Harmon. Here are several that feature images of people not at events - Michael Weatherly, Sean Murray, Lauren Holly, Brian Dietzen. Here's one that features a picture no different to the one I tried to use - Muse Watson. VenomousConcept (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how I've been "unkind" or have "bitten any newbies" here - You were told umpteen times to go to the talkpage and yet you constantly ignored that so my edit warring report wasn't only warranted but it was justified,

Back on topic see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The majority of images on this project were taken in a natural way ... sure some aren't but again OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid one here,

As I've said numerous times you can upload an image (that is yours and not just taken off of a website) and then start an RFC so outside editors can choose,

I will say both myself, an admin and a few other editors above disagreed with the image provided and Ritchie knows alot more inregards to policy than I do!,

Without sounding rude I have no interest in continuing this further as it's getting us no where so as I said your next best option is to start an RFC and get opinions from outside editors,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Appending more amenable images of Emily Beecham

Those who would like to provide a greater variety of images for inclusion within the Emily Beecham article, but are uncertain as to the proper procedure, may use as example a number of popular film personalities such as, for instance, Jennifer Lawrence who has 89 images at Wikimedia Commons. Those images can be seen at Category:Jennifer Lawrence by year. The highest number of images within a single grouping, 45, may be seen at Jennifer Lawrence in 2015.

All 5 of the Wikimedia Commons images for Emily Beecham may be seen at Category:Emily Beecham. These photos are from the same event and, as a result, provide only minimal variety. Additional images of Emily Beecham at other events may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under Category:Emily Beecham by clicking Upload Wizard and, if further assistance is needed, Commons:Help desk and follow the instructions regarding copyright and other details. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

File:Emily_Beecham_Vienalle_Film_festival_2017.jpg Id like to add this picture to the page. It was taken at Vienalle Film Festival 2017. Can I request comment from other editors? Footsmudge (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Fine by me.VenomousConcept (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to add the photo or, even more to the point, please delete the photo which is currently in the infobox and replace it with the above-referenced photo. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Rather annoyingly I came here to support before even looking at the image .... however looking at the image unfortunately it's a lot worse than the other one .... I would strongly suggest setting this up as an actual WP:RFC to better get consensus instead of the same 4 people commenting. –Davey2010^Talk 14:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added an RFC link to this section. Is that enough? Re: Roman Spinner, every time I or anyone else has added an image to the page it has been removed, hence the RFC. Re: Davey2010 maybe u could elaborate on why u don't like the image? It was taken at an event... Also, I'd like to apologise if my language in this discussion hasn't always been as diplomatic as it could've been.VenomousConcept (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, if u think this image is bad, look at this one! Tairrie B VenomousConcept (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, My only criticism is that the image looks too orange and the angle doesn't look right either, if you compare both images the current looks much more better. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are actually two files (File:Emily Beecham Vienalle Film festival 2017.jpg and File:Emily Beecham at Vienalle Film Festival.jpg) both featuring the same photo and differing only in the degree of the orange shading. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, It appears likely that these are two separate photos taken within a second or two of each other. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The less-orange one looks great but both images still look odd in the infobox ... I cannot explain it but neither look right ... so I'll still have to stick with Oppose however the RFC continues for I believe 30 odd days so consensus may change, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Many articles contain more than one photo. If there is lack of unanimity regarding replacement of the infobox photo, one of the photos under discussion (possibly, the less-orange one) may be appended to the middle of the article. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks too orange? She is a redhead... ha ha Re: Roman Spinner, replacing the infobox pic is the sole objective.VenomousConcept (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per User:Davey2010 - Image not great. Looks orange. Not sure that would add anything of use to the page. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I also oppose replacing the existing image with the suggested alternative. The proposed image, as others have noted, is too orange. Perhaps it could be edited for improvement? Meatsgains (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe (Summoned by bot) At first I liked it but then I looked at what she looks like and agree it is too orange…for the infobox image. As many images can be present on an article and not all of them have to be studio perfect lighting and shade I don't see why it can't be used. Could be a way worse photo. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not BLUDGEONING but IMHO it seems silly to have 2 images in the article which were both taken in 2017 - If there was a 3, 4, 5 year gap then I wouldn't mind but adding the image isn't going to improve the readers knowledge of her and as nothing face-wise has changed in the 7 month gap between her images being taken it does seem kinda pointless to include it, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For once I agree with Davey2010 that there is no point in adding another pic, I'm only interested in replacing the infobox pic.VenomousConcept (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You can post your image to the imagelab and they will correct it, remove the orange tint, and then you can do a like for like comparison. I think either image would be ideal, although the first image is good. scope_creep (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Don't mean to again BLUDGEON - I appreciate images have to have contrast changes and minor touch-ups but the contrast was changed and the image still looked odd so personally I think no amount of adjusting will fix this image (and what ever this "imagelabs" would do might end up taking 4-5 or more goes until they get the right contrast and all that or failing that they might never get it), Without sounding disrespectful you may want to get a new laptop as 3-4 editors have complained about the orange image and as such I would say it's far from ideal. –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Send it to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop and they can fix it. Talk, I don't think you have any appreciation of the types and complexities of filter that can be used to manipulate an image, to remove and add. I think the orange tint can be easily removed with the right software, if need be. scope_creep (talk)

• I'd support adding File:Emily Beecham at Vienalle Film Festival.jpg, lower in the article, in addition to, not instead of, the infobox image. It's less orange, and looks noticeably different from the current infobox photo even though it was taken in a similar time. Since subject is an actress, displaying that she can have different appearances is important. --GRuban (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have to disagree - Many people like to see what people looked like before they were famous or how they looked when they where younger etc and so on that point having images taken in different years would in some respects give our readers some knowledge (of what she used to look like and how she's changed throughout the years) - Having 2 images taken in the same year doesn't really give our readers knowledge (the most they'd take away from it is "She's got a new hairstyle" or "she's wearing different clothes"..... there's not much to be gained from including the images at all IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Id like to add this pic to the page and I'd like to request comment from other editors. File:Emily_Beecham_BIFA_Awards_2017.jpg Footsmudge (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I don't see anything wrong with this image.VenomousConcept (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - For me the image is too black and pale yellow ..... I'm honestly not trying to find a reason to oppose but simply put images need to be better than what they're replacing which for me this isn't. –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)(original comment)
• Support per Footsmudge's explanation below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emily Beecham new image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is an unedited allergy free photograph of Emily taken at BIFA event. I'd like to add this pic to the page and I'd like to request comment from other editors. File:Emily_Beecham_at_The_British_Independent_Film_Awards_2017.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footsmudge (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explanation by Emily Beecham

I’m Emily Beecham and I have a few questions and would respectfully like an opportunity to speak for myself as the person in question. Apologies in advance for this long message but thought it important to explain my situation. After an exhausting long filming period my body got auto immune disease which meant I suddenly became sick and allergic to many things. The Rotterdam photo was taken as the sickness was starting. I spent 6 months unemployed because my face was swelling, became scabby with hives and rashes. It cost me a huge amount in medical bills and was traumatic as my career was impacted. The Rotterdam photo is also not my real hair color. It was a temporary dye. I have blonde/red hair so it does not depict how I look at all and for these 2 reasons I respectfully argue that the Rotterdam photo isn’t an accurate representation of me. Your argument is for that you feel readers need to see how I look but I also feel that Wikipedia isn’t where people search if they want to look at images. There is a wealth of Google images of an actor that anyone could search by year, place etc if they wish. I’d also like to point out that barely any actors have photographs on Wikipedia so I don’t understand why it is so important to you Davey2010 to keep it there. (My page hasn’t had a photo for 10 years prior to this) I respect that you are just trying to follow rules but arguably it doesn’t affect the grand scheme of things whether it’s up there or not. However it could affect my career, finances and future stability in an already difficult, fickle and incredibly superficial industry. My agent advised me to persist on this as she advised me that it’s important.

I’m very grateful to those editors who mentioned sensitivity and understanding and respect towards the person of whose page you are editing and relieved that there are also Wiki rules to protect people of whom you’re writing about. Being the person in question I found some of my interactions with certain editors upsetting. Vera, the editor who took the Rotterdam photo, messaged me on Twitter telling me she had uploaded the photo. I politely and apologetically responded, requesting if she could take it off as I was sick at the time of the photo and was suffering allergies. She responded ‘No’ and that she ‘didn’t have time for the vanity of actresses’. I explained it wasn’t about vanity but my career, to which she responded that she ‘couldn’t care less’. My agents requested the conversation get taken offline and they emailed her to explain. She responded with an angry abusive email about me. If you have never experienced this or have never read people writing about you on message boards I assure you it’s very anxiety inducing. Thank you also VenemousConcept for mentioning that an actresses career is largely affected by ones outward impression. You are right that the industry is so fickle that an employer or designer can decide not to work with you based on these (seemingly small) outward impressions. This can result in loss of employment and further expenses. I am facing award ceremonies and after 10 years of difficult graft this is a very important and precarious time for me. I respect very much Davey2010 that you are a dedicated volunteer who is editing this page but ask kindly for you to relate to my situation. If your career and future opportunities were impacted you also would feel the same. I would love my page to be like other actors’ pages on wikipedia to not have a photo but Davey2010 as you feel there should be a photo I am trying very hard to follow wiki regulations. The latest photo File:Emily_Beecham_at_The_British_Independent_Film_Awards_2017.jpg might have been rejected because it was slightly cropped. (Although i’m sure the Rotterdam image has been cropped.) There were other great quality images of me uploaded but it was rejected for reasons that it was 'promotional'. That seems like a double standard considering these pages here of Muse Watson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse_Watson and Mark Harmonany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Harmonany Arguably they are far more promotional. If any of you editors are photographers in London and would like to take a photo of me I’d be grateful. I have upcoming award ceremonies and could take the photo with you there. (I was told as a rule the photo has to be taken at an official event?) Thank you Emily x P.s. Does Wiki have a main board that overlooks and protects people when receiving abusive interactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footsmudge (talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emily, If I'm being absolutely honest yes If I were in your situation I too would be pissed off and would want it changed however as much as I would love to go with you in having the image deleted unfortunately it's never going to happen - Commons has different rules to us and in short they don't delete images no matter how bad they are or how much the subject wants it deleted,

I do understand where you're coming from and you that you want to be portrayed in a better way .... however us being a project we can;t change images just because someone doesn't like it (regardless of who it is),

Inregards to the image the best advice I can give is get a normal photographer and make sure the image looks similar to the current infobox image - If you're standing infront of some sort of board as if it was taken in a candid way then that would work (No colour changes, no bright orange etc etc ... just normal coloured images),

As for reporting editors - You can either go to WP:AN or WP:ANI however I will say if it's inregards to me then I will say as a normal human being that I've handled this the best way I can - I have to be a human but I also have to the "Wikipedia editor who follows rules" and FWIW I try and follow WP:IAR as much as possible ...,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say but if you're being harassed by an editor here then you may want to read Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment (and all of the sections underneath) but if you know who the editor is and you have diffs then I would suggest going to WP:ANI, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to be WP:BOLD here, take the user at their word that they are Emily Beecham, and use File:Emily Beecham at The British Independent Film Awards 2017.jpg as the infobox image. This isn't the usual thing, because, Ms. Beecham, unfortunately, as you may have heard, there are a lot more people on the internet claiming to be famous actors than actual famous actors. But in this case we have two important factors that weigh in your favor: one, that an OTRS user has confirmed that you have the right to release the image, and two, that it's a good image. That doesn't completely prove that you are Ms. Beecham (I'm asking the OTRS user to confirm; if you can send them an email, in the same email chain that you used to confirm that you have the right to release the image that would help), and even if it did, as Davey writes, that wouldn't mean you automatically got to choose the picture on your page, but it would be an important factor. Until the confirmation or lack thereof, that, plus the quality of the proposed image, it's enough for me. Davey, since the article subject says that the Rotterdam picture shows them in the throes of an actual disease (not that I can see it, frankly, it looks fine to me; but I'm not a professional) I'm going to claim WP:BLP here; in replacing it, please don't revert without a lot of discussion. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A few other things you may have misunderstood, Ms. Beecham:

1. We do have a few rules to protect article subjects: WP:BLP that I linked to just above is the main one. It doesn't mean that article subjects get to determine the contents of their article, but it does help; for example we're supposed to write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", which, displaying someone under a short term allergy when we don't absolutely have to, I would argue violates.
2. We do try to put the best images on all our articles. The main restriction is that the images have to be freely reusable and editable like the Wikipedia itself, which disqualifies most images which are copyrighted by default. We need the rights owner (usually the photographer, unless they sold the copyright to someone) to explicitly say the image is being released under a license that allows that, like the CC BY-SA 3.0 License that you will find on the bottom of all our pages, and that you put on the image you uploaded, or a few others.
3. Cropping or not cropped or promotional or being at an official event or even color changes are less important except that if we have multiple images to choose from we get to use those as factors when we argue over which is the best one or several images to put on the article. That's what we were doing here. They don't disqualify images outright. (In fact, I think I'm going to crop the image you uploaded - if you don't object? - as I personally think it shows too much background, and too little of the actual person - but that's just a matter of my personal opinion, it's not a WP:BLP issue; I won't make a federal case of it if someone thinks the uncropped version is better.)

Thank you for your understanding, and for releasing the good image(s). If you could prompt the OTRS (permissions@wikimedia.org or something similar) person you emailed to release the image to put a tag on your user page that confirms that you are, in fact, you, that would make further problems easier to solve. Thanks again. --GRuban (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted - As much as I have a heart and as much as I sympathize whole heartedly with Emily we cannot just changes images just because the subject doesn't like them, If the images wern't bad then fine I'd back down but replacing a perfectly fine image without one that isn't shouldn't be how it's done, The RFCs are a way of getting numerous editors involved (and if consensus is to use these images then fine but as it stands so far consensus has been not to use these images, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:BLP says no, we don't discuss while the contentious image is up, we remove the contentious image first, and discuss while it is removed. But let's see what admins think. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Image on Emily Beecham --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010 You are right that Commons are militant in keeping images, almost in spite of the subject wanting them deleted. You are wrong in saying we can't take action here based on a request from the subject. We can, and we absolutely should. Just because we can do something, and legally may do it, doesn't mean we should, still less must. Using a disliked image is a great way to upset people, speaking from my past experience as an OTRS agent. If you'e in doubt about this, ask Jimbo. I am confident he'll agree with me on this. In response to the ANI post I have removed the image for now. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay see I didn't think we could, I absolutely agree we shouldn't use an image that pisses that person off I absolutely agree but because there was a lot of issues this year with the image and copyvios I figured RFCs was the best way to go, As I said on the ANI thread I'm only trying to do best by the project but anyways thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)