User talk:Quadell/Archive 20

979:

happened, yet there are many pictures within the 'pedia that meet fair use criteria and could be recreated for "free" but it would be difficult to do so. The *spirit* of a guideline is exactly that: it's a guideline not a matter of rule or law. While we should do our best to use only free and unencumbered works, fair use rules exist for exactly what we're using them for. If an image *could* be replaced, its best to label it as such, as you are doing, but using speedy deletion denies our readers useful visual examples of many topics for weeks, months, or perhaps even years, simply because a free image wasn't readily available. --

719:, is unchallengable, than I will have to get such photos of Japanese celebrity removed, though until now I have added a series of pictures released on the official websites of various celebrities for publicity purposes; the kind of pictures that are also used on television (generally on programs created by a company directly related to the publisher) for giving talent profiles and such. I figured that they would be the easiest sort of picture to justify under fair use, because other than that there doesn't seem to be any other way. 2280:

without Person X's permission (or without making a fair use claim.) You see, your photo is both an original work (which makes it copyrightable by you), and a derivative work (which is why you can't reproduce it freely). If you were to, say, take a photo of each page of the latest Harry Potter book and try to publish them as a bunch of your own photographs, you would get sued. You would own the copyright to the photos, but that wouldn't matter; you would still be publishing derivative works of copyrighted material.

1367:

Quadell's talk page here, you can see several cases where a free picture was created almost immediately after a fair use one had been removed. I have seen a number of others mentioned; in some cases, we have fair use photos of common cars, or easily available items of food, which is just silly. We want free images of these things, and removing unfree images of them increases the likelihood that free images will be created. (Some of the discussions linked below contain further elaboration on this topic.)

31: 2287:) could presumably defend the use of the copyrighted wrapper as a fair use. That would be SCEhardt making a fair use claim, not Knowledge. The photo itself is public domain, since the author released it as such. Knowledge only needs to be concerned with the copyright status of the photo itself (which is PD), and not the status of the material in the photograph, unless there's reason to suspect that the photographer's fair use claim would fail. 2584:

celebrity without stalking them (which is a violation of several laws, just not copyright laws). If this is being discussed elsewhere, can you please direct me to the conversation? I have sent an email to Jamie's web crew in hopes that they can provide images with applicable permissions, but I still argue that it's a detriment to the articles not to have an image until permission can be granted or a celebrity hunted down. Thanks,

346:.) The Toyota Aurion images were "non-free", meaning they were copyrighted, and reproduction was only allowed with the permission of the copyright-holder. We can't use these sorts of images on Knowledge, except under a narrow set of circumstances. The best way to have images of the Aurion on Knowledge would be to take a photo of an Aurion yourself and upload it to Knowledge. Hope this helps, – 2115: 1469: 2291:

trademark. (That's one way that trademark law differs from copyright law.) Even though you would hold the copyright to an image you create that reused a logo, and even though typefaces (such as enes) are not copyrightable at all, it's still important for their legal position for them to do everything possible to discourage violation of their trademarks.

706:

would be possible (and they run after you if they see you carrying). Notice that on the Japanese Knowledge that that are no celebrity photos at all, except in very rare cases where the publisher has explicitly given permission to Wikifoundation. I don't even think Japanese laws allow the photographers to release their own work as public domain.

448:. According to that criterion, any non-free image which is "replaceable" may not be used on Knowledge. What that means is, if it would be possible for a person to photograph Mr. Lunney and release that photo under a free license, then we cannot use a non-free image to show what he looks like. (See also counter-example #8 on that same page.) 2446:

would be preferable), but (I think) the objector is instead stating that as long as the "subject" is alive, any image will do in any context; it seems like he's completely reading the relevance of the image's informational content out of the RFU policy. I'd appreciate it if you could pop by and move

988:

I'm afraid that even if it is difficult to produce a replacement, that doesn't prevent an image from being "replaceable". Our guidelines are what we are expected to follow. According to Jimbo Wales, the founder and president of the board, any non-free images should be deleted unless they can be shown

769:

Yes, I imagine it doesn't apply to copyright laws, especially within US's domain. The reason why it could possibly deem them "irreplacable" is because there simply are no pictures available, and/or they are impossible to get a hold of, because doing so would involve an illegal act of some form. Since

743:

In Japan, and in several other countries, there are privacy laws against taking photos of some people. (In Canada, it's restricted to the Royal Family, for instance.) But these are not copyright restrictions. These are separate. Does that prevent these images from being replaceable? I'm not sure. You

416:

article. Although no reason was given for its deletion, I presume that the image was a copyright violation. I thought I would try and track down what info there was about the source of the image to see if I could get the necessary permission but the deletion of the image seems to delete all history

2461:

The position you take seems to indicate that as long as someone is alive, there is a possibility someone could take their picture and license it under GFDL - is that correct? That's absurd for starters as a blanket policy...are you suggesting Knowledge GFDL papparazzi be formed? And what about the

2290:

Now, why does the Wikimedia Foundation claim copyright on derivative images of its logo? Well, legally, this is just a good idea on their part, even if it isn't necessarily accurate. If someone could show, in court, that Wikimedia was not aggressively defending their trademark, they could lose their

2026:

Unfortunately, having permission to use the image on Knowledge isn't enough. Because Knowledge is free and open content, we try to only use images which are also "free", in the sense that anyone can use them for any reason. If the copyright-holder will allow anyone to use the photo for any reason --

1843:

tag added, and a fair use rationale. However, if the image would obviously not pass our fair-use policy (like a map or a drawing that could be remade), then there's no point in making a fair use claim. In general, a mistagged image shouldn't be deleted (but retagged instead) if it could pass under a

978:

This is a specious argument, at best. Just because a photo *can* be recreated within the free realm does not mean it is easy or practical to do so. One could argue that *any* photo can be recreated in the free realm so long as it does not capture something of historical significance that has already

843:

Regardless of whether we have their permission or not, if the images are "non-free" then we can't use them to identify what a living person looks like. If a photo of the person could be taken of the person and released under a free license, then our policy says we cannot use a non-free image of that

651:

How can an image be created of a person? You mean someone has to take a picture for themselves? As far as I know, Japanese laws applying to talent agencies such as the one that Fukawa is part of don't allow for free publicity photos taken by non-professionals. The photos have to be directly released

1366:

encyclopedia. Thus, we want to have as many, and as good, free images as possible. The reason we don't want to allow replaceable unfree images is that by putting them in an article we remove the incentive for a contributor to go out and take or otherwise create a new free picture. If you look at

1008:

OK, it's quite clear now that your deletions are a personal attack directed at another editor. The thing is, please understand how it feels for a productive, positive editor to have one's enormous time and efforts undermined by such an apparently personally motivated, targeted campaign that really

953:

If you claim that free image is available you should offer a proof or a convincing argument like a reference to a published source not protected by copyright. In the absence of such you can say what you want but removing the images will definitely violate WP guidelines. Thus I believe it's time

1941:

forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this

1797:

Yup, i know what was said, but since I'm not an admin i couldn't look at the deleted image. Now, since my last posting I contacted Ray Suarez and asked about the use of the image. I have the emails from the Newshour discussing the use of this image and giving permission for Knowledge to use it. I

1048:

In the past, I have uploaded several replaceable, non-free images, under the false impression that these were acceptable on Knowledge. After the policy was clarified to me, I had to delete them all. So I understand how you feel. We welcome free content, but we cannot accept non-free content except

870:

I'm afraid that our Knowledge guidelines prevent us from using any non-free image to illustrate a subject that could be illustrated with a free image. In this case, someone could take a photo of the device and license that photo under the GFDL. Therefore the non-free image is "replaceable", and we

365:

Can you somehow conjure the text back up for me to work on -- perhaps just paste the wiki-markup straight into an e-mail and I'll adapt it to something compliant. This is a notable school and many editors had worked on it over time as you probably noticed. I have no idea how it fell into copyright

1396:

tag to create a dedicated system for dealing with these cases. I think this was a good idea; it extended the discussion period before deletion to seven days, which is a good idea for a tag where it would be quite possible for something like a concept car to be mistakenly tagged, and it's best to

1349:

is the version of that page from a year ago, with the criterion present; the problem is that enforcement was nonexistent. This was bad not only because we built up a great number of unacceptable-under-policy images, but because it allowed a great number of contributors to reasonably get the idea

1246: 179:

for details). This means that for us to use a photograph on Knowledge, the photo has to be released under a free license. It isn't enough for the copyright-holder to say "Yeah, Knowledge can use it." He has to say "Anyone can use the photo." Otherwise, Knowledge wouldn't all be released under the

2583:

Additionally, I'm responding to the removal of my "fair use disputed" tag without comment on the Jamie Oliver page for similar reasons. Yes, I've read the links from your page, but still don't understand how you can argue that a member of the public could reasonably take a clear photograph of a

2279:

So lets say there is some copyrighted material whose copyright is held by Person X. And let's say you take a photo of a scene that includes this material. You hold the copyright to that photo, not Person X; but since Person X holds the copyright to the material, you can't reproduce your own work

2275:

Good question, and one I have an answer for. There are two issues here. One is that logos generally aren't copyrightable; they are trademarked instead, and trademark law is a separate bit of law than copyright law. (Some logos are copyrighted as well, but most aren't.) Anyway, Knowledge seems to

705:

wouldn't get chased by the publisher, but in Japan they have a lot of rediculous and unchallengable privacy laws, that really only exist to benefit the publishers. It's almost impossible to get pictures in the first place, because cameras are always banned from premises where taking proper shots

453:

So what can we do? It would be great to have a free photograph of Mr. Lunney. One possibility would be for a Wikipedian to photograph him at a public appearance. Another possibility would be to write to Mr. Lunney's office and request a free photograph. Frequently, campaigns will assist in this,

1079:

Publicity photos are only considered fair use on Knowledge if they are non-replaceable; that is, if it would be impossible to take a replacement photo and release it under a free license. What would I have you do? You could upload free images to Knowledge. You could try to contact wrestlers or

1821:

Now, a question. On the speedy delete page for graphics, I'm finding some graphics that are in non-replace fair use but are tagged for speedy deletion because their license is Knowledge-only. Yet if they were just straight-out copyrighted and used without permission (for fair use, and if

2568:

in your reply there, when I noticed that you just posted the same message on several image talk pages without reference to the individual issues. Could you maybe explain to me why that image violates WP:FUC #1 in your opinion (with regard to the arguments I presented on said talk page)?

2382:

from Spanish to English. A lot of personal things have happened since August, and when I checked back today to work on it again, I noticed you had nominated it for Spanish Translation of the Week. I'll contribute to the translation as best I can the rest of this week. Thanks. —

1663:, and crop it to only show Mr. Friedman. We can only use "free" images, which means if you agree, it has to be usable and editable by anyone, even for commercial purposes. But if we can use the image, we'll certainly link back to your Flickr page. What do you say? Do you agree? 1867:

have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Knowledge Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. (Maybe you could be in chage of Munich-related photos)?

1146:

for over seven days. It would be possible to find the person in question and take her photo, and then release the photo under a free license. (Alternatively, someone could write to her and ask if she has a photo she would be willing to license under the GFDL.) According to our

2447:

things along somehow. I think I've given a pretty good explanation of my side, but as he persists I'm getting more and more pissed by his repetitive and conclusory stubbornness and condescension, and complete failure to respond to my explanations. (deep breath...) Cheers,

787:

I've been trying to peruse through documents of these laws, mostly those outlined (in relatively simplified, though still frustratingly criptic Japanese) in jaWiki's (not incredibly conclusive) policies. I'll bring it up at FA when I've gotten a better grasp of things.

2441:

over whether an in-character publicity shot is "replaceable" just because the actress is alive. I'd be amenable to a reasoned argument that the information the publicity shot provides that would be different from a candid shot would be minimal (a screenshot from the

1125:

Hi--I see you removed the photo of the most recent Princess Kay of the Milky Way. The photo was a publicity photo, used with proper copyright documentation, and is relevant to the article. I don't want to just rv your article without checking with you, so here I am.

1023:

I have not issued a personal attack against you. This is not a targeted campaign against you. I have deleted thousands of images (all in-process) within the last few weeks, and a very small percentage have been yours. Please assume good faith. No one is out to get

1708:

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded the now-free photo of Milton Friedman, which is great. My question is whether you used the large version of the original photo to crop Friedman? As, otherwise, we could easily obtain a higher quality pic from the higher res photo

964:

I'm afraid you misunderstand Knowledge's guidelines. If it would be possible to create a free photo that would replace a non-free one, then the non-free one is "replaceable" and can not be used on Knowledge. Even if a free replacement image has not been created

2360:

Quadell, I don't remember interracting with you in the past but please do not allow yourself to be misled by the complaint of the disgruntled editor. I would welcome anyone's contributions at the RfC but please study the issue carefully before acting. Thanks,

541:

Actually, have you noticed that he's uploaded new versions of all those photos. They are from his personal collection. I would clear your cache. The new versions are his, and are not from the Baha'i media bank, and he can put them in the public domain. --

289:. This had been tagged replacable fair use. This tag was then disputed. There was discussion on the Talk page between 3 people (all admins I think?) and the decision was to leave the image in place. Please don't delete such images in the future. Thanks, 859:

Hello Quadell, thank you for advising on the fair use tag. I have followed your suggestion and tagged as well as writing in the discussion section why this is a fair use image. I hope this is satisfactory but if there is anything else i need to do just ask.

989:

to be irreplaceable. He has said it would be better for an article to have no image, than to have a non-free image, if there is a chance that a free image could be found within the next ten years. If you disagree with this policy, take it up with him. –

260:

It was removed from the page because the image had been deleted. It was deleted because it was deemed "replaceable". What that means is, someone could take his photo and release it under a free license. Because a free replacement would be possible, our

2499:

tag, you'll see that it too requires that the image be non-replaceable. This policy has been around forever, although it has only been consistently enforced in the past few months. The Wikimedia Board, and Jimbo himself, have endorsed the policy. –

1318:. Chowbok is tagging images like crazy. This will affect many many articles and will require lots of edits and deletions and I want to know why. I guess I missed the discussion, and want to know why all these have to go before we have replacements. 2202:, fair use disputed, the uploader is claiming pretty vociferously that the images are allowable. Partly to placate him, give him his day in court so to speak, and partly to make sure I'm doing the right thing, I opened an RfC on the matter, here: 265:

don't allow us to use a non-free image to show the person. This is true for all living persons, whether they are wrestlers, politicians, or whatever. See "criterion #1" and "counter-example #8" in our fair-use guidelines for more information. –

1832:

Good question. A Knowledge-only license (or a non-commercial license, for that matter) should be treated exactly the same as a fair use claim. Images should not be speedied if a good "fair use" claim could be made. Instead they should have a

1586:, and wondering just what to do with images that have no source information but do list a GFDL-self license. While AGF would be cause for leaving such images I have seen GFDL-self abused. Any advice you could give me would be appreciated. -- 816:

Hi Quadell. Does this mean that any FU picture of a living person can be considered to be theoretically replaceable because the subject is still alive, and eg, they are not in hiding, in jail, missing, etc? I think you might want to go to

150:

Though I am new here, I think I understand, generally, about image copyright. Perhaps not enough information was listed about the image you so kindly deleted. ;) I requested and received permission from the photgrapher of this photo

309:

I've only been on Knowledge for less than 6 months, and the Toyota Aurion article is just about the only article I have edited. I do not know the Knowledge terminology so I don't really get what you want me to do about the images.

825:

and try to download a photo - a prompt will come up asking you to comply to their "license of use" - which seems to imply that Knowledge usage is OK with them - In that case do we have an implicit permission to use their pictures?

478:

How could you delete this image? It's not replaceable and I added the fair use justification. Further, I contested it so deletion without the discussion being complete is not okay. Please un-delete so the discussion can continue.

1281:

I have uploaded pictures of the Toyota Aurion I took at the Sydney International Motor Show, 2006. However, some of these pictures are blurry and their quality is less than that of the press release photos. Is this alright?

283: 1431:

And a suggestion, it might be a good idea to have posted beforehand on the AN or VP so that many people know what is going on. Something like, 'we want to delete thousands of images, here's why....' Maybe you did though.

2054:. I feel I was tricked by an underhand move and I'm not happy with the behavious of Abu Badali in the slightest. I know that comment borders on a breach of AGF but I'm very unhappy with what he is insinuating. -- 2000:

I'm sorry, it's confusing how you pick and set the right copyright flags/tags. I obtained the written permission of the copyright owner to put the image on wikipedia. I don't know how to set that from the options.

1955:

You mean someone should dig up the Shah's skeleton and take a digital photo of it? That might be difficult, though not impossible. Perhaps it could make for an interesting project for this year's group of

1798:

haven't written about this prior because their seems to be no response to my last posting. I was waiting for a response, but there was none. This is why I found the deletion of the image to be surprising.--

1382:, those who discussed and inserted that language seem to have regarded it as a clarification of existing policy, not a change--and it was, in fact, bringing that page in line with the intent evident in the 2398:

You didn't let me down at all. There are tons of edits I wish I had the time and motivation to make, and I certainly can't hold a lack of work against anyone! I'm just glad it's the STotW. All the best, –

2462:

Knowledge guideline for the use of publicity photos generally allowing their use? - persons such as yourself would seem to posit that guideline has been completely trashed. Am I missing something here?

159:

article. Should I paste the e-mail correspondence into the picture's discussion page? I just want to make sure that this photo is not deleted again and is documented properly. What else do you suggest?

844:

person, even if the copyright-holder gives us permission. This is because we want Knowledge to be as free as possible, limiting the non-free portions to what could never be replaced by a free image. –

770:

the privacy laws apply within Japan, it doesn't make sense for an amateur Japanese photographer to waste their time collecting such pictures, unless they are specifically hoping to send them overseas.

2531:

Thanks very much for your help with the image for David Hermance. I have gotten lost too often in trying to understand the proper tags to put in images. Your assertion is very clear and succinct!

2595: 2027:

including modifying it and using it for commercial purposes -- then we can use it. But if not, then we can't use it, even if we have permission to use it specifically on Knowledge. All the best, –

1400:

Anyway, I hope this helps. I had to go digging around for a fair amount of this stuff just now myself, and I don't think that most people have seen the whole thing pieced together. Cheers, --

889:

I'm sorry to see the note on your userpage; you will be missed while you're away (and your substantial contributions will be too), and I hope all is well with you in real life. Best wishes, --

417:

of it so I can't do that. Is there a way to track back that information? Is it possible that you might have a record of what licence claims were made or which user uploaded the image? Cheers.

2096: 1332:

If there has been no consensus for the drastic changes in the image policy (and there seems to have been none), Chowbok's behaviour should be classed as disruption of the Knowledge process. --

652:

by his company or they're not legal at all within Japanese borders, and the talents have no control over this (I am not well versed in the rules, but this is what I have come to understand).

1418:

so I might ask him about this. I'm of the mind that these things that require so many edits (especially deletions) really need to be discussed thoroughly, so thanks for your explanation.

1297:

Yes, that's wonderful! Thanks for uploading free images. If someone creates better free images, they might replace yours. But until then, it's good that your are there. All the best, –

1924:

with the reason: "Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 5 November 2006." However, the image was properly tagged as publicity photograph and no free image can be found right now.

1906:

Thank you very much! I will proceed with care when using these tools, and hopefully will not disappoint fellow editors and administrators with the decisions I take. Thanks again! --

2438: 356: 2412: 1722:

Unfortunately, I did use the highest-resolution photo available on Flickr. It is pretty low res, though. I'll e-mail the photographer and ask her if she has a higher res copy. –

2252: 2074: 1915: 1815: 1450: 2509:

And I see you are now following me and removing my tags unless I add additional material to the talk page without bothering to inform me you were doing so - more harassment.

2594:

The "disputed" tag needs to go on the image page, not the article page. That's why Quadell removed it. I've added it to the image page for you; however, you'll need to go to

2043: 2565: 2241: 1187:

It sure is. He appears to have stopped, for now, and he already had a warning. I'll keep an eye on the situation, and if he keeps doing this, the IP will be blocked. –

2339:, unhappy with the replaceable fair use policy, have decided to go on a revenge kick and make life as difficult for me as possible. I hope you can weigh in on the new 1100: 909: 1009:

serves no purpose. Your assertions are a misreading of the guidelines and your time (and mine) would be better served enriching, not depleting, our encylopedia. No

2155: 1540:

has been uploading dozens of copyrighted photos, and knowingly and maliciously tagging them as his "own work." Could you please see to it that this user is blocked?

2047: 1921: 1064:

I cannot create a free image of Austin nichols. There are no free images of him available, and publicity hotos are considered fair use. What would you have me do?

1103:

page. I will make every effort to replace it in the next few weeks but, in the meantime, please leave the image alone as it is the only one we have for both the

376: 1397:

ensure that the uploader has time to respond. It also creates a dedicated system to handle the very large volume of images that are being processed in this way.

473: 2570: 1514: 1228: 918: 645: 2598:

and make your argument there why it can't be replaced, or the disputed tag will be removed. Please leave a note on my talk page if you need any more help. —

1931: 1649:

1822:

non-replacable) they would not be speedied. This seems odd. What's one to do in a case like this - delete it nonetheless, change the tag, or what? Thanks,

1510: 1356:

Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.

1231: 1178: 1166: 833: 1181: 2233: 2221: 1762:

Having looked at the case, I endorse this deletion. No serious case for non-replaceability was raised, and Quadell's action was entirely appropriate. --

1069: 251: 1752:. You had your facts wrong on that one, but since you unilaterally went ahead and deleted it ... well ... too bad you didn't open it up for comment. -- 1161: 633: 606: 493: 235: 489: 1713: 1345:

I'll try to field this one for Quadell, since it's a general question. Fair use criterion number 1 (non-replaceability) has been around forever--

1155: 2090: 1869: 915: 828: 1191: 899:

Let me second that. I hope these unexpected changes in your life are of a positive nature, and that you and your family are fine. All the best,

864: 1301: 1130: 270: 225: 2318: 2298: 1848: 1726: 1677: 1340: 1326: 636: 627: 2553: 2504: 1291: 799: 752: 730: 688: 605:

Hi, thanks for notifying me, though I'm not exactly sure how a free alternative to this particular image can be created as it's copyrighted.

2403: 1964: 1659:

Hi, I'm an editor with Knowledge. We have a good article on Milton Friedman, but no free image. I was wondering if we could use your image,

1404: 1386:. Its result of course, has been a substantial increase in enforcement of things like FUC #1. As part of that process, Quadell created the 1053: 993: 983: 875: 467: 191: 2609: 2480: 2220:

You appear to be an image copyright guru (or at least an image copyright guru-in-training), so I thought I would ask you my question about

2187: 1826: 1307: 942: 854: 848: 572: 555: 546: 536: 1985: 1690: 1204: 164: 1088: 1033:

which are our fundamental core principles. When we use non-free images in place of free ones, we violate that principle. If you read the

480: 2513: 2365: 1440: 1426: 399: 386: 1313: 973: 701:

publicly display pictures of celebrities without the publisher's permission. If a foreigner took some shots and left the country, they

507: 425: 1802: 1790: 1777: 1766: 1544: 2177: 2031: 1946: 1081: 903: 609: 455: 350: 2578: 187:

If the photographer is willing to do that, then great! No problems. But if not, it will (sadly) have to be deleted. All the best, –

1981:, who is alive and visible without the assistance of shovels. Please check your facts before making pithy comments of this sort. -- 1738: 1702: 1643: 1630: 219: 1782:

I suspect you were fully aware of the discussion's contents, given that you were involved throughout it, but I have undeleted the

2466: 670: 526: 2543: 2210: 1115: 837: 2340: 1756: 1276: 202:

I wam planning to upload some stills of the new Stamford employees of the Office. Do you mind if I use your fair-use rational?

145: 2588: 1910: 893: 680:

take a photograph of a celebrity without the publisher's permission. It happens all the time. Note that counter-example #8 on

1872: 1808: 1522: 1120: 818: 1414: 1379: 2392: 2140: 2080: 2068: 1686:

Ironic update: Mr. Friedman died today. As such, the photo now passes all our fair use requirements. I have restored it. –

1494: 338:

Since Knowledge strives to be a completely 💕, we use "free" images as much as possible. ("Free" images are images in the

254: 2451: 2269: 2124: 1995: 1592: 1583: 1478: 1151:, we can not use a non-free image, even a promotional one, if a free replacement image could be created. All the best, – 407: 301: 2051: 1896: 1639:. How can I tell if it is free? If it is, can I crop friedman out of it, and how? Hope you can help with the questions. 1612: 1013:

order has yet been received for the use of the images I have uploaded and they are permitted via the "promophoto" tag.

2160: 1136:

The image wasn't just removed from the article -- it was deleted. The reason it was deleted is that it had been tagged

1073: 329: 197: 1017: 684:

says that a non-free image of a living person is not allowed if it is used to merely show what a person looks like. –

2456: 1371: 1351: 1218: 2203: 1743: 598: 592: 1572: 881: 513: 296: 2354: 1174: 1837: 1617: 1416: 1390: 1140: 958: 928: 811: 1410: 821:

and tell all of us because we have been using the USOC publicity photos en masse. In any case, if you go to

1860: 1094: 644: 138: 133: 128: 123: 118: 113: 108: 103: 93: 88: 83: 78: 73: 68: 2426: 1749: 1316: 659:

to mean that "created" applied to diagrams and logos, and "found" applied to photos of real-life objects.

2559: 2523: 2137: 1901: 1491: 519: 1346: 2193: 1854: 231:

I don't mind, so long as you change it from saying "Quadell believes" to say that you believe it. :) –

38: 2232:

By the way, not to have copyright paranoia, but does having copyrighted logos on the car pictured in

2017: 1350:

that such images were allowed. They were not, of course, and were subject to rather rapid deletion;

2276:

treat trademarked images the same as copyrighted images, so let's pretend the logos are copyrighted.

1818:

Thanks for the links and clear explanation! Very useful and appreciated, and I will be helping out.

2574: 2384: 2062: 1887: 1783: 1673:

If she agrees, then it's a free image. If not, we'll have to keep searching. Thanks for looking! –

1312:

Ok, Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh added replaceable fair use to the criteria for speedy deletion

2432: 2371: 1610: 1577: 886:

Thanks for the note; the result was indeed gratifying, especially given the strong field we had.

745: 209: 1358:". So replaceable images could have been deleted like that; a fair number also came through the 180:

GFDL. It's complicated, but the bottom line is, the copyright holder has to give permission for

1362:

page. The logic behind the criterion is as follows: our primary goal here is to create a good

1059: 1030: 599: 522:

and other recent contribs made by the uploader. Fair use images are suddenly becoming his own.

325: 2170: 1561: 1338: 954:

for you to remove the warnings you placed on the images you "replaceable fair use" labeled.

369:

Either that, or give me access to the article history so I can pull up a compliant article?

2005: 1877: 1127: 794: 725: 665: 317: 1554:

Thank you for the congrats. :-) I'll use the mop/flamethrower responsibly. Best regards.--

1200:

He (or someone else using that IP) now seems to be contributing usefully. Well I'll be. –

8: 2225: 2215: 2055: 1892: 1170: 422: 241: 214: 176: 1080:

federations and request free (GFDL) images from them -- this sometimes works. Check out

2037: 1978: 1938: 1626:. Just curious, what was wrong with it? You can answer here, I'll watch your talk page 1603: 1363: 1003: 681: 500: 445: 205: 2604: 2349: 2166: 1587: 1437: 1423: 1323: 1288: 1261: 582: 358: 321: 47: 17: 1660: 1636: 2309: 2260: 2207: 1823: 1735: 1710: 1699: 1640: 1627: 1597: 1566: 1370:

What I assume people are talking about when they refer to recent policy changes is

1333: 632:

No worries, I'll see about adjusting licences to avoid any more confusion. Cheers.

432: 152: 2540: 2477: 2418:

Did you bother to read the image description page. 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2379: 2372: 2183:

I don't have anything to add to the comments made already. Rebecca is Rebecca. –

1957: 1623: 935: 789: 720: 660: 439:. It was Mr. Lunney's official parliament photograph, held under Crown copyright. 1236: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2493: 2388: 2199: 1961: 1884: 1773:

it's too bad the rest of us can't look at the page to evaluate the argument. --

1549: 1148: 1112: 1037: 1014: 980: 948: 861: 431:

The deleted image was named Jameslunney.jpg, and it was originally uploaded by

418: 161: 2244:, that are billed as free to use. But it appears any image with so much as an 454:

especially if it will increase their exposure. You can find sample letters at

2585: 2284: 2174: 2132: 2102: 2098: 2013: 1907: 1456: 1383: 552: 543: 523: 339: 303: 276: 2343:

they've filed, their latest move in a series of petty harrasments. Thanks! —

1582:

Greetings. Thank you for the message on my talk page. I was just looking at

2599: 2550: 2501: 2486: 2448: 2423: 2400: 2344: 2332: 2326: 2295: 2184: 2087: 2028: 1943: 1928: 1845: 1723: 1687: 1674: 1635:

OK, I (think I) got it. In the meantime I found out about Flickr and found

1537: 1533: 1527: 1523: 1433: 1419: 1375: 1359: 1319: 1298: 1201: 1188: 1152: 1085: 1050: 990: 970: 939: 872: 845: 749: 685: 624: 569: 533: 504: 503:. See counter-example #8. No amount of discussion will change that fact. – 464: 413: 383: 347: 290: 285:

File:Colt McCoy quarterback Texas Longhorns college football team-small.jpg

267: 262: 232: 188: 171:

This is actually a tricky subject. All of Knowledge is released under the

2152: 1556: 1541: 1506: 1267: 1260:

The Original Barnstar is hereby awarded for achievements relating to the

1065: 657:... a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created 247: 697:

OK, thanks for pointing that out. But still note that in Japan, you can

2510: 2463: 2362: 2336: 1982: 1799: 1787: 1774: 1763: 1753: 1401: 1043:

tag closely, you'll see that it requires the images be non-replaceable.

890: 589: 396: 373: 2564:

I was just wondering why you didn't respond to any of my arguments on

2283:

In the case of the Snickers photo, for instance, however, the author (

2236:

invalidate its public domain designation added by the photo creator?

1173:

article. I reverted his/her edits but the person would not stop. see

955: 900: 444:

The reason for its deletion was that it did not pass criterion #1 at

1245: 2409: 2198:

There are a whole bunch of replaceable fair use images uploaded by

2009: 1602:

Hi Quadell, thanks for the nice looking advice on my talk page. --

281:

I believe you may have deleted an image by mistake. The image was

156: 2240:

Perhaps it is not a problem, as I see there are many images, like

499:

I'm sorry, but the image violated our first fair use criterion at

1925: 717:

An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like

1010: 1354:

from back in September contains, as part of CSD I7, the line "

1099:

This image is not "easily" replacable, as I have noted on the

822: 2378:

Hey, Quadell, I'm sorry I let you down on the translation of

1814: 1486: 1452: 1108: 2411: 1786:

on the off chance that anyone wants to examine the case. --

1104: 343: 172: 2245: 2114: 1734:

Probably not :-(. However, this is good enough in the end

1468: 748:. It would help if you had a link to the relevant laws. – 1413:, and noticed that JYolkowski seems to have wrote FUC #1 436: 57: 53: 52:

This archive page covers comments 951-1000, from roughly

568:

Hm. This calls for close examination. Developing. . . –

1916:

You deleted an image that does not have an alternative.

676:

A photograph would be creating an image, and a person

588:

Free image has now been posted. Thanks for your help.

969:, we still can't use a replaceable non-free image. – 2474:

Knowledge guideline for the use of publicity photos

412:I notice the deletion of the image that was on the 2437:I'm getting far too frustrated by a discussion at 910:Image:250385 BIGPORTRAIT.jpg (Clemens Fritz photo) 2042:Can you please take a look at the situation with 1661:http://www.flickr.com/photos/littlebebe/28883327/ 1698:More like a tragic update. May he rest in peace 342:, or available under a free license such as the 184:to use it, not just us, before we can accept it. 2307:Yes; it was very helpful. That makes sense. -- 1622:Hi! Just noticed that you deleted the photo on 474:Deletion of Image:Bobby Johnson-Vanderbilt.jpg 2052:User_talk:PageantUpdater#Vanessa_Marie_Semrow 1177:Is it possible to block his/her IP address? 2294:I hope this rambling answer was helpful. – 914:Do you know who nominated it for deletion? 1162:IP 24.57.201.171 keeps vandalising article 1859:Would you be interested in helping out at 1844:different tag. Thanks for helping out! – 1243: 1217:Looks like that IP is vandalising again. 1082:Knowledge:Example requests for permission 456:Knowledge:Example requests for permission 282: 2596:Image talk:JamieOliver-SchoolDinners.jpg 2258:template. So, I'm not entirely sure. -- 1049:under very restrictive circumstances. – 655:I was merely interpreting the sentence 14: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1411:WP:VPP#Deletion_of_promotional_photos 819:Knowledge:WikiProject Sports Olympics 551:Yeah, it was quite confusing. Sorry. 1652: 1308:Deleting replaceable fair use images 855:Acoustic cleaner 2 .jpg and fair use 25: 1584:Category:Images with unknown source 619:. I thought it was an image of the 23: 2165:You previously posted concerns on 2122:Thank you for your support of the 2113: 1476:Thank you for your support of the 1467: 24: 2621: 1409:Well, I found a little more here 1084:for samples letters and ideas. – 2485:This is true. There is only our 2439:Image talk:Katherine Moennig.jpg 2410: 2169:. You may wish to post them at 1813: 1244: 518:Hi, you might want to check out 29: 2204:User talk:Herostratus/Image RfC 2136:was selected to be improved to 1490:was selected to be improved to 744:might want to bring this up at 382:No problem. I'll e-mail you. – 2109: 1463: 1277:About Toyota Aurion page again 623:. I take back my objection. – 155:and it's curently back in the 146:fair use at Image:Jessicka.jpg 13: 1: 2610:21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 2589:21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 2579:18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2554:18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2544:17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2514:22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2505:16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2481:16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2467:16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2452:00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2427:13:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2404:15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2393:01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2366:20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 2355:07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 2319:05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 2299:05:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 2270:02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 2248:of the Knowledge logo gets a 2211:05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 2188:23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 2178:22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 2156:16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 2091:21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC) 2081:19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) 2032:18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) 1986:23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1977:The image in question was of 1965:22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1947:12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1932:05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1911:23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1897:23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1873:23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1849:23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1827:19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1809:re grahics for deletion links 1803:16:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1791:15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1778:15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1767:04:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1757:21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 1739:16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1727:15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1714:13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1703:00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 1691:21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1678:02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1644:23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 1631:23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 1613:12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 1593:21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 1573:20:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 1545:05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 1515:15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 1441:19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1427:19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1405:15:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1341:10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1327:09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1302:06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1292:05:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1232:01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1205:23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1192:15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1182:06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1121:Princess Kay of the Milky Way 313:Waiting for a reply, thanks. 2472:There's no such thing as a " 2044:Image talk:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg 1156:23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1131:22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1116:19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1089:20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1074:19:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1054:20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1018:19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 994:20:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 984:19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 974:18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 959:18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 943:15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 919:15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 904:08:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 894:02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 876:15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 865:09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 849:15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 838:02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 800:04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 753:15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 731:06:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 689:00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 671:23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 637:18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 628:18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 610:18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 593:18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 573:14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 556:14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 547:14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 537:13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 527:13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 520:Image:10-haparsim-street.jpg 508:13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 494:13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 468:03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 426:02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 400:22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 387:22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 377:21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 351:14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC) 297:04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC) 271:23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 255:23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 236:23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 226:22:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 192:21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 165:18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 7: 2566:Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg 1996:Re: Image:Bogoakathame2.jpg 1315:? You created the template 1029:Free content is one of the 823:http://www.usocpressbox.org 408:James Lunney image deletion 10: 2626: 2242:Image:Snickers wrapped.jpg 2171:User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns 2161:User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns 198:Office Characters Fair Use 2457:Marsalis Oval Image, etc. 2125:Article Improvement Drive 1937:This is not correct. Our 1479:Article Improvement Drive 1250: 1031:five pillars of Knowledge 615:Oh. It's an image of the 435:. It's listed source was 1942:time is not relevant. – 2048:Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg 1922:Image:RezaPahlaviII.jpg 1744:Deletion without reason 746:Knowledge talk:fair use 600:Image:F355-jpnflyer.jpg 2238: 2118: 1472: 1169:keeps vandalising the 882:Thanks and best wishes 715:If counterexample #8, 514:10-haparsim-street.jpg 437:http://www.parl.gc.ca/ 361:for copyright problems 2230: 2117: 2086:I'll look over it. – 1920:You recently deleted 1618:Milton Friedman photo 1471: 1254:The Original Barnstar 812:Replaceable fair use? 532:I'm on it, thanks. – 246:Why was the image on 42:of past discussions. 2253:CopyrightByWikimedia 1838:Non-free fair use in 1391:Replaceable fair use 1376:fair use policy page 1352:this revision of CSD 1141:Replaceable fair use 1095:Image:DA40-G1000.jpg 929:Replaceable fair use 646:Image:Ryo_Fukawa.jpg 250:'s article removed? 2560:Image replacability 2524:Dave Hermance Image 2226:User talk:Wknight94 2145:Hope you can help. 1902:Re: Your new powers 1499:Hope you can help. 1237:Award of a Barnstar 1171:McMaster University 924:Yes, it was tagged 263:fair use guidelines 177:Knowledge:Copyright 2549:You're welcome. – 2489:. If you read the 2234:Image:IMG 0887.jpg 2222:Image:IMG 0887.jpg 2194:fair use image RfC 2119: 2097:You helped choose 1979:Reza Cyrus Pahlavi 1895: 1861:WikiProject Munich 1855:WikiProject Munich 1571: 1473: 1451:You helped choose 1360:copyright problems 1167:User:24.57.201.171 1149:fair use guideline 682:Knowledge:Fair use 501:Knowledge:Fair use 446:Knowledge:Fair use 2167:User_talk:Rebecca 2149: 2148: 2079: 2022: 2008:comment added by 1883: 1670: 1669: 1555: 1511:Mind voting here? 1503: 1502: 1384:fair use criteria 1274: 1273: 938:on October 31. – 871:cannot use it. – 492: 359:Darlington School 357:Your deletion of 334: 320:comment added by 64: 63: 58:November 29, 2006 48:current talk page 18:User talk:Quadell 2617: 2607: 2602: 2498: 2492: 2414: 2391: 2352: 2347: 2315: 2312: 2266: 2263: 2257: 2251: 2138:featured article 2110: 2077: 2071: 2065: 2061: 2058: 2021: 2002: 1890: 1842: 1836: 1817: 1653: 1608: 1569: 1564: 1559: 1492:featured article 1464: 1395: 1389: 1378:. As explained 1336: 1262:Missing Articles 1248: 1241: 1240: 1175:history of edits 1145: 1139: 1107:cockpit and the 1070:Please vote here 1042: 1036: 933: 927: 797: 792: 728: 723: 668: 663: 488: 485: 463:All the best, – 433:User:Earl Andrew 366:non-compliance. 333: 314: 288: 286: 222: 217: 212: 153:Christian Hejnal 59: 55: 54:November 4, 2006 33: 32: 26: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2605: 2600: 2562: 2526: 2496: 2490: 2487:fair use policy 2459: 2435: 2433:Input requested 2416: 2387: 2380:threshing-board 2376: 2373:Threshing-board 2350: 2345: 2329: 2313: 2310: 2264: 2261: 2255: 2249: 2218: 2196: 2163: 2150: 2107: 2101:as this week's 2075: 2069: 2063: 2056: 2040: 2003: 1998: 1958:Skull and Bones 1939:fair use policy 1918: 1904: 1888: 1880: 1857: 1840: 1834: 1811: 1748:I just noticed 1746: 1624:Milton Friedman 1620: 1604: 1600: 1580: 1578:Deleting images 1567: 1562: 1557: 1552: 1531: 1504: 1461: 1455:as this week's 1393: 1387: 1334: 1310: 1279: 1239: 1164: 1143: 1137: 1123: 1097: 1062: 1040: 1034: 1006: 951: 936:User:Abu badali 931: 925: 912: 884: 857: 814: 795: 790: 726: 721: 666: 661: 649: 603: 585: 516: 481: 476: 410: 363: 315: 307: 284: 279: 244: 220: 215: 210: 200: 148: 143: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2623: 2613: 2612: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2525: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2458: 2455: 2434: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2415: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2302: 2301: 2292: 2288: 2281: 2277: 2217: 2214: 2195: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2162: 2159: 2147: 2146: 2144: 2129: 2120: 2108: 2106: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2057:PageantUpdater 2039: 2036: 2035: 2034: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1950: 1949: 1917: 1914: 1903: 1900: 1879: 1876: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1810: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1770: 1769: 1745: 1742: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1717: 1716: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1681: 1680: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1657: 1651: 1650: 1619: 1616: 1599: 1596: 1579: 1576: 1551: 1548: 1530: 1521: 1519: 1501: 1500: 1498: 1483: 1474: 1462: 1460: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1429: 1398: 1368: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1249: 1238: 1235: 1229:219.77.171.161 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1195: 1194: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1122: 1119: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1061: 1060:Austin nichols 1058: 1057: 1056: 1045: 1044: 1026: 1025: 1005: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 950: 947: 946: 945: 911: 908: 907: 906: 883: 880: 879: 878: 856: 853: 852: 851: 813: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 791:freshofftheufo 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 736: 735: 734: 733: 722:freshofftheufo 710: 709: 708: 707: 692: 691: 662:freshofftheufo 648: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 602: 597: 596: 595: 584: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 561: 560: 559: 558: 549: 515: 512: 511: 510: 475: 472: 471: 470: 460: 459: 450: 449: 441: 440: 409: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 390: 389: 362: 355: 354: 353: 306: 302:Images of the 300: 278: 275: 274: 273: 243: 240: 239: 238: 199: 196: 195: 194: 185: 147: 144: 142: 141: 136: 131: 126: 121: 116: 111: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 81: 76: 71: 65: 62: 61: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2622: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2567: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2529: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2495: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2465: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2445: 2440: 2428: 2425: 2422:Yes I did. – 2421: 2420: 2419: 2413: 2405: 2402: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2374: 2367: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2348: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2285:User:SCEhardt 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2254: 2247: 2243: 2237: 2235: 2229: 2227: 2223: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133:Rosetta Stone 2127: 2126: 2121: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2104: 2100: 2099:Rosetta Stone 2092: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2072: 2066: 2059: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2033: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1945: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1886: 1875: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1850: 1847: 1839: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1819: 1816: 1804: 1801: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1750:this deletion 1741: 1740: 1737: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1655: 1654: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1633: 1632: 1629: 1625: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1609: 1607: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1589:Donald Albury 1585: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1560: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1496: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1481: 1480: 1475: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1458: 1454: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1392: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1337: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1283: 1270: 1269: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1255: 1252: 1247: 1242: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1206: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1179:219.77.171.24 1176: 1172: 1168: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1142: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1055: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1039: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1012: 995: 992: 987: 986: 985: 982: 977: 976: 975: 972: 968: 963: 962: 961: 960: 957: 944: 941: 937: 930: 923: 922: 921: 920: 917: 905: 902: 898: 897: 896: 895: 892: 887: 877: 874: 869: 868: 867: 866: 863: 850: 847: 842: 841: 840: 839: 835: 831: 830: 824: 820: 801: 798: 793: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 754: 751: 747: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 732: 729: 724: 718: 714: 713: 712: 711: 704: 700: 696: 695: 694: 693: 690: 687: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 672: 669: 664: 658: 653: 647: 638: 635: 631: 630: 629: 626: 622: 618: 614: 613: 612: 611: 608: 601: 594: 591: 587: 586: 574: 571: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 557: 554: 550: 548: 545: 540: 539: 538: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 525: 521: 509: 506: 502: 498: 497: 496: 495: 491: 486: 484: 469: 466: 462: 461: 457: 452: 451: 447: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 427: 424: 420: 415: 401: 398: 394: 393: 392: 391: 388: 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 375: 370: 367: 360: 352: 349: 345: 341: 340:public domain 337: 336: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 311: 305: 304:Toyota Aurion 299: 298: 294: 293: 287: 272: 269: 264: 259: 258: 257: 256: 253: 249: 237: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 224: 223: 218: 213: 208: 207: 193: 190: 186: 183: 178: 174: 170: 169: 168: 166: 163: 158: 154: 140: 137: 135: 132: 130: 127: 125: 122: 120: 117: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 66: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2582: 2563: 2539: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2528:Hi Quadell, 2527: 2473: 2460: 2443: 2436: 2417: 2377: 2330: 2308: 2259: 2239: 2231: 2219: 2197: 2164: 2151: 2131: 2123: 2041: 1999: 1960:initiates. 1919: 1905: 1881: 1878:Re: Congrats 1864: 1858: 1820: 1812: 1747: 1733: 1697: 1634: 1621: 1605: 1601: 1588: 1581: 1553: 1538:User:Joepane 1534:User:JoePane 1532: 1528:User:Joepane 1524:User:JoePane 1518: 1505: 1485: 1477: 1374:edit to the 1355: 1311: 1289:Alphabeta777 1287: 1284: 1280: 1266:Awarded by 1265: 1253: 1227: 1165: 1124: 1098: 1063: 1007: 966: 952: 913: 888: 885: 858: 834:bananabucket 827: 815: 716: 702: 698: 677: 656: 654: 650: 620: 616: 604: 517: 482: 477: 414:James Lunney 411: 371: 368: 364: 322:Alphabeta777 312: 308: 291: 280: 245: 204: 203: 201: 181: 149: 98: 43: 37: 2534:Take care, 2216:Copyright Q 2208:Herostratus 2004:—Preceding 1824:Herostratus 1736:AdamSmithee 1711:AdamSmithee 1700:AdamSmithee 1641:AdamSmithee 1628:AdamSmithee 634:Combination 607:Combination 316:—Preceding 248:Chris Sabin 242:Chris Sabin 36:This is an 2541:Lmcelhiney 2478:Abu Badali 2130:This week 2038:Abu Badali 1882:Thanks :) 1863:? And you 1484:This week 1004:Your edits 395:Thanks! -- 372:Thanks, -- 99:Archive 20 2389:Webdinger 2200:Badagnani 2076:esperanza 1962:Badagnani 1784:talk page 1264:project. 1219:Vandalism 1128:mitcho/芳貴 1113:ChadScott 1015:Badagnani 981:ChadScott 862:Collieman 583:Vermilion 419:KenWalker 162:Artcookie 2586:Jmdustin 2571:Fritz S. 2175:Jreferee 2070:contribs 2018:contribs 2006:unsigned 1908:ReyBrujo 1870:Kingjeff 1285:Thanks. 916:Kingjeff 829:Blnguyen 703:probably 553:ccwaters 544:Jeff3000 524:ccwaters 330:contribs 318:unsigned 157:Jessicka 2601:Chowbok 2551:Quadell 2502:Quadell 2449:Postdlf 2424:Quadell 2401:Quadell 2346:Chowbok 2333:Sebbeng 2296:Quadell 2224:. From 2185:Quadell 2088:Quadell 2029:Quadell 1944:Quadell 1893:rtinp23 1846:Quadell 1724:Quadell 1688:Quadell 1675:Quadell 1299:Quadell 1202:Quadell 1189:Quadell 1153:Quadell 1086:Quadell 1051:Quadell 1011:C&D 991:Quadell 971:Quadell 940:Quadell 873:Quadell 846:Quadell 750:Quadell 686:Quadell 625:Quadell 570:Quadell 534:Quadell 505:Quadell 465:Quadell 384:Quadell 348:Quadell 292:Johntex 268:Quadell 233:Quadell 206:Nautica 189:Quadell 39:archive 2537:Larry 2444:L Word 2331:Users 2314:abjotu 2265:abjotu 2153:AzaBot 2141:status 2105:winner 2103:WP:AID 1598:Thanks 1550:Thanks 1542:Jagvar 1507:Dev920 1495:status 1459:winner 1457:WP:AID 1335:Ghirla 1268:Addhoc 1066:Dev920 949:Images 182:anyone 2511:Tvccs 2494:Promo 2476:". -- 2464:Tvccs 2363:Irpen 2337:Irpen 2311:tariq 2262:tariq 2173:. -- 1983:Robth 1929:→Talk 1865:don't 1800:evrik 1788:Robth 1775:evrik 1764:Robth 1754:evrik 1487:Islam 1453:Islam 1402:Robth 1111:. -- 1109:G1000 1038:promo 891:Robth 796:ΓΛĿЌ 727:ΓΛĿЌ 678:could 667:ΓΛĿЌ 590:Pepso 397:A. B. 374:A. B. 277:Image 175:(see 16:< 2575:Talk 2335:and 2327:Help 2064:talk 2050:and 2014:talk 1926:♠ SG 1637:this 1606:Lost 1536:aka 1526:aka 1380:here 1372:this 1364:free 1347:here 1105:DA40 1101:talk 1024:you. 956:Mhym 901:Lupo 617:game 490:talk 483:MECU 423:Talk 344:GFDL 326:talk 252:vDub 211:Shad 173:GFDL 2341:RfC 2246:eñe 2010:Ojl 1558:Hús 1438:R/W 1434:DVD 1424:R/W 1420:DVD 1324:R/W 1320:DVD 967:yet 934:by 699:not 621:car 167:); 56:to 2577:) 2569:-- 2497:}} 2491:{{ 2361:-- 2256:}} 2250:{{ 2228:: 2206:. 2073:| 2067:| 2060:• 2046:, 2020:) 2016:• 1841:}} 1835:{{ 1666:” 1656:“ 1568:nd 1513:) 1394:}} 1388:{{ 1144:}} 1138:{{ 1072:) 1041:}} 1035:{{ 932:}} 926:{{ 836:) 479:-- 421:| 332:) 328:• 295:\ 139:50 134:40 129:30 124:25 119:24 114:23 109:22 104:21 94:19 89:18 84:17 79:16 74:15 69:10 2606:☠ 2573:( 2385:† 2351:☠ 2143:. 2128:. 2012:( 1889:a 1885:M 1563:ö 1509:( 1497:. 1482:. 1436:+ 1422:+ 1322:+ 1068:( 832:( 487:≈ 458:. 324:( 221:s 216:e 160:( 60:. 50:.

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

Index