User talk:Quadell/Archive 21

2725:

support of making sure sourced articles are the rule on Knowledge, you never adequately sourced these statements. But a reading of the 9/11 commission report finds absolutely no such information to back up these statements you've added to the UA 93 canon on Knowledge. Not even a sentence of conjecture that maybe it was true, and certainly not a single statement which even remotely suggested that Homer rather than Dahl or any other "pilot" was alive in the cabin based on that one cryptic line from one of the terrorists (there isn't even conjecture whether the voice was talking about Ziad Jarrah -- perhaps he'd left the cockpit briefly and another terrorist was at the controls? maybe it was a nervous, joking statement because of nerves, or some unseeable frustration with the control panel? there is no way to know with the evidence at hand). There isn't even a minor consensus among published experts and analysts about one or both of the pilots not being dead - certainly none that names Homer specifically. If I'm wrong, please show us the source material, and if I am wrong I must be completely blind. I'm just alerting you to this, I've already edited the ones I found - but then stopped when I saw you'd added it on LeRoy Homer's personal article as well, and just decided it would be better to just bring it up directly with you rather than continue myself - it was getting me pretty agitated, and I'm sorry if I am not using the respectful tone you deserve, or if you might feel I crossed a line in tone - I apologize in advance. 9/11 is a sensitive subject.

1710:'s talk page, and will combine my reply here, rather than cluttering his page. As far as "hard work" goes, the only hard work involved is that done by the hundreds of Knowledge editors who have in good faith posted proper fair use images, spending many hours doing so, only to see them obliterated by you in a fraction of the time. You have obviously pissed off many, many people as the lead "enforcer" in this action, and you take obvious pride in repeatedly affiliating yourself with Jimbo Wales, who you believe apparently has some sort of super-authority on this issue - many, many others disagree with him, and your entire premise in repeatedly referencing his thoughts on the subject. As far as your mass deletions, the numbers (3 saved, 29 deleted) speak for themselves, as does your user log, and your single-minded pursuit of "policy". And as far as your supposed clean-up of the pages you altered goes, if you check again, you'll find your statements that you fixed them all are untrue. I'll offer the same courtesy as you offered me, and let you find your mistakes. Your pseudo-politeness does nothing to mask the reality of what you're actually doing. With all due respect. 1739:, you couldn't object, so your earlier comment rings as hollow as most has everything else in reality on these matters. There are other ways of spending time on this issue, if I so choose to devote the energy - I'm not wasting it on another round of spending hours defending my actions to have my arguments again totally ignored, or continue to spend much time contributing to what are becoming the extended pissing contests on this issue that are having zero effect on how Knowledge is being enforced no matter how many users see their work destroyed by you. I hope your time finds you organizing the Knowledge Papparazzi you and your subordinates believe exists, or needs to, rather than repeating your current approach to mass deletions of fair use images. Somehow, however, I think you won't. Because you'll be too busy with your "hard work" destroying the work of dozens of others. 2747:

experts or even leading theorists (conspiracy or otherwise). Also - I wasn't the one who posted as apparently incontrovertible truth that LeRoy Homer was not killed, as you did. In fact, in one posting you flatly said that his death has been speculated, but that "it was not true" based on the 9/11 commission report. That itself wasn't sourced, nor was it a true assertion (the report said no such thing). Also, if I'm not mistaken, the transcript was not even in the 9/11 report - it was released as evidence in the Moussaoui trial. So - I didn't include statements about LeRoy Homer in Knowledge- you did. I objected to them because they were not factual, either in their paraphrased sourcing or in what they said about the events. I am as emotional as the next guy, but it really does concern me when people try to rewrite history - especially concerning that day.

31: 1033:

all than to have a non-free image, if the image could be replaced in the future. This has been our policy for a long time, but it was not consistently enforced until recently. Many people, in the meantime, got the mistaken impression that we could upload any promotional photo, but that's not the case. We can, however, use non-free photos if they are non-replaceable: good examples would be a person who is no longer living, or an event that can't be repeated. Hope this helps, –

2736:

Knowledge article should state that something is incontrovertibly true if there is significant doubt. Since you are emotionally involved in the issue, it might be best if you mentioned your concerns on the talk page and less dispassionate editors choose the best wording -- but that's just my suggestion. Either way, I hold no ownership over the article, and I'm not attached to one particular interpretation of the facts. All the best, –

473:

note from you on one of them in a discussion apge, so I just wanted to make sure you knew the current status on the photographs which I worked on after Chowbok notified me of the problem regarding the license. Thankfully I had time to fix up everything before anything was completely deleted. I'll try to look in more frequently now and also i am going to work on maintaining my previous work soon, especially regarding images.

1338: 2774: 2434: 2192:

people including their username. The only problem is it will break backwards compatibility for any people who actually checked the generated link and used the template as designed. On the other hand, I suspect uses of this template are transitory and any broken instances will expire in a week or so once the copyright issue is resolved. Your thoughts? --

691:, and both singer/pianist McMahon and guitarist Partington have recording contracts with other bands now (Jack's Mannequin and Firescape, respectively). I don't know... maybe one of the images should stay, maybe they should be deleted, maybe it would be best to wait for the whole fair use promo picture thing to settle down a bit. Your call. Take it easy, 2109: 1450: 645:), as far as identifying the band's members goes. While WP policies aren't always a black and white matter, in this instance it is evident that no fair use criterion was violated and that the images are by no means replacable (RFU tags should also be removed, once the images are restored). Have a great day, 2613:, a site which does not indicate that the text is freely licensed, but merely states "© Fresh Expressions 2006". We cannot use text copied from other websites, I'm afraid, unless those sites explicitly license their content under the GFDL or release their content into the public domain. All the best, – 1199:, no, I don't think it's REASONABLE to think that someone in Finland could get him to put on his hockey uniform and pose for a studio portrait. He's already done that once before... for a photo that was distributed to the media to be used, and re-used, in just the manner as was being done on his page. 2516:

is more relevant, and is trickier. (The fact that there were casualties is significant in the article, whereas the fact that there was blood in an alley is not.) I personally would argue that the image's primary function is decorative, not informative, so it should be removed, but others may disagree

1639:

kind to Knowledge, and will encourage others to do the same as long as the current "policy" regarding fair use images remains enforced as you see it. You are a complete waste of time, and refused to provide a single example of your so-called reasonableness as I requested on the discussion page of an

1498:

I'm talking to someone who has a pretty big internet archive of photographs of store signs. I wanted to use a couple of them on articles I work on. I asked her if I could use some of her images and pointed her to the GFDL page on Knowledge and she said I could use them and also mentioned that she was

937:

The disputation tag does not necessarily prevent an image from being deleted. The tag simply lets the processing admin know that you think it's replaceable, and he or she should read your reasoning on the talk page. (I did.) If the discussion convinces the admin that the image could not reasonably be

762:

You do seem like a reasonable person and it's very heartening that you seem willing to review each deletion case indiviudally based on its merits, at least to the best of your ability. Apologies that I was insulting to you on the Abu badali RfC talk page. We will probably continue to disagree on some

1997:

Thanks for your help.. I'm just going to say that I'm still not happy with the way it came about, but it is a lot easier to get the flickr people to license the pictures GNU than I expected. Surprisingly, I've gotten three in one day! Perhaps adding a link on your talk page about where to find the

1748:

Hey, come on, man. A lot of us have had photos deleted due to the change, but it's not Quadell's fault. That's just the way things go. It would be one thing if you had climbed Mount Everest and snapped a photo of the view from the summit, but that's not the case. All you did was sit at your computer

1667:

I agree 100% with Tvccs, and I, like many others your leadership has inspired, have stopped finding and loading images to Knowledge. Your work seems directed toward diminishing the encyclopedia, and toward providing negative experiences for as many conscientious editors as possible (always following

1187:

issue I keep talking about.) Which is why you HAVE to use a "fair use" claim for this kind of material. You're NEVER going to get a celebrity to sign away the rights to an image of them, in perpetuity, for all Knowledge reusers, forever. Not only is fair use a solution to this, it's a responsible

1081:

I should have been more specific: it's pointless to dispute a tag placed on a photo of a single living person (which was the case here). I'm not too worried about it, because most of the photos I upload are either GFDL self-made or public domain. I uploaded this one a long time ago and had forgotten

992:

So, does all this mean you found a free version, or someone who can supply one? Otherwise, I still don't get it. Every fair use image is, theoretically, replaceable. Given enough time and a limitless supply of money and resources, anything that exists in the universe can be photographed and released

659:

within the band, and any photo of McMahon would have served the purpose just as well. The other photo was not used to identify a specific line-up, but only to identify the band in general. If the band is on hiatus, that's something else -- do you have a source that says they are not together at this

2746:

I agree with almost all you wrote. "The terrorist line you mentioned above has led many to conclude that the pilot was still alive, as I'm sure you are aware." Who? Do you have sources? I haven't found much besides some list-serv discussions and some very obscure blogs, and none were considered

1043:

I didn't post my rationale on the talk page; I used the other option and included it along with the template. I've never had an image tagged for that before, so I don't think I could have done it on the wrong one; I clicked the link in the message Chowbok posted on my talk page. Could be I'm losing

1020:

page history, and it shows you uploaded it on Sept 27, adding the following description: "From Wes' casting photos. {{promophoto}}". Then on November 22, Chowbok added {{Replaceable fair use|month=November|day=22|year=2006}}. Then I deleted it today. There were no other edits listed. The talk page,

636:

article during a notable phase of their career (members have left the band after the picture was taken). Hence, getting these five individuals together in one place to take a picture is impossible. The band (in its current formation) hasn't toured in two years and is on somewhat of a hiatus, thus a

150:

Since when did a movement start to kick all otherwise properly attributed and credited, so-called "non-free" images - especially promotional photos circulated for the primary purpose of press/publicity use (including Knowledge, since technically it's an online publication)? I'm starting to see this

2549:

Perhaps you could weigh in since you have a succint and clear understanding of the relevant policy and you wouldn't be considered partisan. At the very minimum, your action on the more clearcut images would be most helpful. While there may be political considerations coming into play, I cannot see

2191:

which suggest using {{cv-unsure|~~~|OLDID}}. This is incompatible with the template as written, because the template includes . Therefore either the template or the documentation should be changed. I would like to change the template to simply include {{{1}}} because it automates the process of

1032:

requires that an image be non-replaceable, meaning that it would be impossible for someone to create a new image and release it under a free license. If that would be possible, even if it would be difficult, we can't use a non-free image. Jimbo Wales has said it would be better to have no image at

951:

I've said this before, although I forget where. I think when deleting disputed RFU images, the talk page should be left up for a few days and a note left by the deleting admin saying why he/she was unconvinced by the argument. Otherwise people just feel they were ignored. Of course, it's easy for

472:

for info about how I finally deleted the tagged images on Tav Falco and reuploaded them with a more appropriate file name after discovering other problems besides the "fair use" issue, such as the photographer name clarification. I was looking up the image to make sure it was deleted and found a

1634:

Well...I see as an admin you have simply deleted nearly everything that was marked, except for three images that could not be "replaced", as opposed to 29 deleted. So much for wasting my time writing all those justifications - as an admin, you simply do what you wish. Please be aware that as a

1420:

Thanks again. Your suggestion was helpful. I plan to follow up in a few days, hopefully giving Angr some more time to look at my claims and respond. One question, though: When is a discussion formally "closed"? In looking at the tag I would use to notify the admin editor of the dispute, it makes

1294:

Knowledge is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Knowledge:Spam. (Would this

2735:

Greetings. 9/11 certainly is a sensitive subject, and understandably so. The terrorist line you mentioned above has led many to conclude that the pilot was still alive, as I'm sure you are aware. Like so many details about that horrible day, there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. No

1057:

You should put the disputed tag on the image page, but your actual dispute on the talk page. It's definitely not pointless to dispute it if you have a good case; I've withdrawn several nominations based on points raised on disputes, and Quadell has decided not to delete several nominated images

926:

was tagged for deletion as replaceable. I put a disputed tag on it, as I haven't found any photos of him that are more fair use than a promotional head shot (which that image was) and it seemed imprudent to fly to Oklahoma and stalk him with a camera. But today the image was deleted without any

490:

IMHO, you are diminishing Knowledge by being fussy about copyrights of sixty-year-old advertising pictures from companies that have been out of business since 1975. Then when someone follows the instructions on your tag, (which doesn't mention posting something on the talk page), and includes a

2724:

Hi there. I just wanted to alert you that you're completely wrong in posting in numerous places regarding United Flight 93 on 9/11 that there is some kind of decisive proof that co-pilot LeRoy Homer was not murdered in the takeover of the plane by the hijackers. In fact, despite your claimed

1762:

Thanks for your comment. I'm glad the many people I personally contacted and the dozens of hours of work I spent doing same are so totally meaningless. Unless I'm missing something, it seems "sitting at your computer" is the only way content is added to Knowledge. I see you've done plenty of

1576:

with the no-rationale tag again. The rationale needs to identify which specific article the rationale is for, which that rationale does not do. This is because otherwise, people may think it appropriate to add the image to any article they feel like, even though this would be in violation of

1182:

Having worked in TV for many years, and having worked with lawyers to legally "clear" promotional photos, I know that in the U.S., the subject of a photo, especially if the subject is a "public" personality or celebrity, will almost ALWAYS retain some rights. They MUST be a part of the

773:

Wow! Thank you so much! The Abu thing is so contentious that it's easy to get heated; I found myself being more abrasive than I usually am when discussing it. This "rfu" issue is legitimately difficult, and calls for sensitivity on all parts. I'll try to do my part. Thanks again. –

907:

Oh, wow. I'd missed that reference. So my school's mascot is a David Wilcox song (which I didn't know about) and a new slang term for a guy who's into hairy guys. Makes me chuckle, thinking about all the shirtless fratboys on the backs of pickup-trucks yelling "Go bearcats!" –

491:

dispute tag, you remove the dispute tag because he didn't post to the talk page. This is pretty sad. It not only diminishes the encyclopedia, but it drives away editors who act in good faith and use good judgment. Please consider doing something more worthwhile with your time.

535:

So you like the policy, but you don't want to see it enforced? The policy doesn't say "We can keep a replaceable, non-free image if we really like it and can't find a replacement in 5 minutes with a Google image search". It says "We can't use replaceable, non-free images

1398:

looks like. The image that has been deleted serves to show the actor's appearance at the beginning of his career, something that is commented on in the article. I do not believe that a free-use image could be found to replace it. I have left a similar query on this on

993:

into the public domain. Fair use is meant to fill that gap, because even governments understand that it's unreasonable not to have a middle ground somewhere. Fair use exists, and we might as well use it while we can. We shouldn't be deleting photos just because there

1898:

You're right that it wasn't pornographic. I deleted it because it was what's called a "replaceable non-free image". That means that it's not a free image, but someone could (hypothetically) photograph her and release the photo under a free license. According to our

2538:

You also asked me to predict whether they would ultimately be kept. That is a much harder question. Since partisans are much more interested in the debate than non-partisans, it may come down to which side is the most persistent, unfortunately. All the best, –

2648:

Hi, just to let you know the article was kept when the nomination was withdrawn. I've closed the nom and removed the AfD template from the page. Thanks for providing the necessary sources to prove notability, you've likely saved the article from deletion.

1283:

I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my

1143:

Yeah, I just read about that. I should have checked that out before I sent the emails. I didn't mention anything about the GNU license. I may just give up the ghost on this one for now. But I've learned something. So I have that. Thanks for your help.

1845: 599: 1858:

Hi. I had re-created it after some of it's earlier image had been undeleted (after the great purge). If it's empty now you can delete it. You can also assume the same for any other such category I may have re-created. Best regards,

1499:

looking into licensing all of her images under Creative Commons (not necessarily for us, but in general). Do you know where I can find out how to get all this processed for her so we can use her images here under Creative Commons?

1047:

Anyway, essentially this all just boils down to what I figured in the first place: disputing the speedy deletion is pointless. I just wanted to know for future reference, in case I see those tags on other photos. Cool. Thanks!

554:

User states that the policy is applied foolishly which is the same as misaplied. This is not the same as to state that user does not want the policy enforced. Please no strawman arguments. This is a very serious issue.

2019:, although it isn't exactly prominent. I think I'll move it up. I'm very glad you've been asking permission for these - far too few people do that. If there's anything I can do for you by way of thanks, let me know. – 2632:, for replacing fair use book covers. Lupo and I and a couple of others have been working on it while it was in my user space, and made significant progress, and I'm hoping to attract some more volunteers. Thanks. 1242: 2499:

Greetings. The four images in question are highly emotionally charged, and there are parties on both sides wishing to promote or suppress the images for political reasons. This make a fair determination difficult.

1394:. I believe that a very solid fair-use rationale has been crafted and there are very good reasons for using the image on the page, especially now that a free image has been provided that serves the purpose of what 1403:, but have not yet received a reply. I would like to have a definitive resolution to this, if possible. If you can share some of your experience with me as to how these cases go, I would appreciate it. Thanks. — 2202:

P.S. I think it might also make sense to change the template to not take an OLDID, but rather a URL for the old version because people are more comfortable copy/pasting URLs than parsing them for CGI variables.

304: 2550:

the encyclopaedia benefiting from these pictures being accepted, and then having all the suicide bombings etc. getting their own sets of graphic pictures, which undoubtedly the other side will do. Let me know,

2317:

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

283:

2352:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on

318:

611:

Hi, please undelete these two images I uploaded where deleted. They had been undeleted two hours before you deleted them again, and I had made my case why they shouldn't be on their respective talk pages

289: 271: 183:

Actually, that has been our policy for over a year. It has been explicitly endorsed by the Wikimedia board. Please read Chowbok's link for an excellent summary that should answer all your questions. –

1000:

I know this is a really contentious issue right now, and I don't think it's made any better by deleting disputed photos without discussion. It's not the end of the world, just something to consider.

2123:

For contributing to the effort of distinguishing the fair use images which can be replaced from those which cannot be replaced (and in the process making Knowledge as much of a 💕 as is possible).

613: 2083:

So, how do you feel about this? It seems like the point is to make it as difficult as possible to get replaceable images removed. I also don't like how this was kinda snuck in with no consensus. —

2831:

is viewed by Knowledge editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Knowledge articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata.

2694: 1248:

I appreciate the fact that you are a serious and valuable contributor to Knowledge. I will take any positive suggestions from you on how I can improve my contributions to Knowledge to heart.

1650:

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope this negative experience will not dissuade you from contributing to Knowledge. My actions are always up for review -- if you'd like to take the matter to

1984:

tells how to forward the e-mail to get it verified by the Wikimedia Communications Committee (just to make sure someone doesn't delete the image as a suspected violation). All the best, –

649: 601: 617: 980:

Actually, looking back through it, this image didn't seem to have a disputed tag or a talk page. Perhaps you tagged a different image as disputed, Kafziel, thinking it was this one? –

1753:

took. Yeah, they got deleted. Yeah, it sucks. But have some perspective. There's no need to take it out on the people who are stuck doing the dirty work. They didn't make the rules.

1949:

You are welcome to use my picture of Gordon Ramsay for his entry on Knowledge. I am happy for them to be published under the GNU Free Documentation License. Thank you for asking.

413:

This was tagged as RFU disputed, with a fair-use rationale, and it was a promo picture. Why did you delete it? I'm sorry if I sound a little pissed but this just got deleted in

388: 1319: 673:

You might be right about that... :) Anyway, I didn't find any sources citing the hiatus of the band per se, it is more of an unspoken thing, that was never officially announced.

858: 813: 518:

I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with its foolish application to the detriment of the encyclopedia. And I take it up with those who are engaging in the foolishness.

229: 2756: 2416: 571:

I am willing to delete this image at your call. I find credibility in your arguments. Looks like the rules have been tightened since long, and I did not notice. Best wishes. —

2152: 1668:

the rules, of course). On the positive side, there are many improperly licensed images in Norway-related topics. Your considerable talents could be used to good effect there.

605: 1202:

Thanks for taking a second look at those images. I hope further discussion can lead to their re-inclusion. Who knows? The "log rolled" once, maybe it'll roll again... ;)

2509: 2048: 1391: 2288:

No problem, y'all. I'm a Cincinnatian, but I'm a fan of quality teas, and I'm not a fan of over-deletion. The article has become quite good, and I enjoyed improving it. –

938:

replaced, then the image won't be deleted. But if someone could replace the image (even if you, personally, aren't able to), the the admin will still delete the image. –

2501: 428: 379: 417:'s reckless deletion of 1500 images, disregarding any tagging, and I got him to restore it, and here you go and delete it seemingly without any consideration either. -- 1763:

positive contributing via your page, and keep up the good work in that regard. And in this case, they are most definitely helping make the rules. In sum - See above.

1113:

into English. You previously expressed interest in working on this translation. If you are still interested, please consider joining the translation taking place at

151:

B.S. crop up and things are really starting to get asanine, especially for those editors like myself who endeavor to properly attribute sources and copyright info? --

2589: 2338: 1126: 501:

I didn't create the policy that says replaceable, non-free images should be deleted. If you disagree with the policy, you might want to take it up with it's author,

2517:

in good faith. Is it appropriate in the article? Hard to say. The best articles on battles or massacres usually do not have photos of unidentified casualties (e.g.

2513: 2059: 1529:("share-alike license", which also requires that any derivative work be also licensed under a creative commons license). The ones we can't use, unfortunately, are 1384: 1022: 593: 199: 1981: 2505: 2038:

Hi, I've noticed you have a lot of tags layed out on your page. What do you think of this new tag I made/modified? {{LEAD}}. Plz write back on my talk page. Ta,

1786: 445:

is extremely rare -- only one of them is in existence -- but a non-free image of the Parthenon would not be acceptable. You can find Vectrix 3D imagers for sale

441:

since Nov 17, and I deemed the image was replaceable. You had argued that the product is rare, and that's true -- but it isn't unavailable. One could argue that

1936:

got permission for them. Here's what I got via email, please help me out with a) whether this is enough or b) what else I need to get from him... Thank you!

2813: 2508:

are not, in my opinion, important enough to the event to warrant inclusion in the article. I stated this before, citing FUC#8, and I feel the same way about

2473: 1378: 1307: 485: 359: 2359:. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 1903:, we can't use photos like these. (We can't use a non-free to depict a subject if someone might reasonably be able to photograph the subject in the future.) 325:. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 2323: 2305: 1908:

This rule has been around forever, but it didn't used to be enforced very consistently. So people uploaded a lot of promotional photos of celebrities. But

709: 565: 358:

Thanks, but I didn't upload this image. I took the existing image and shrank it, in order to better conform to our fair use policy. The original uploader,

2628:

Hello, Quadell, I hope you're well. Since you're a veteran copyrights guy, I hope you don't mind if I call your attention to the wikiproject I've set up

495: 1439: 989:

There was definitely a tag on it; I placed it several days ago and checked it yesterday just to make sure it was still there since there were no replies.

819: 2533:. These are usually tasteful, and are evidently not being used to suggest barbarity on the part of one party or the other, as seems to be the case here. 2564: 264: 583: 1470:

Thank you for all of your help getting me to fully understand the correct image licensing that I should be using. Not everyone is as patient as you.

1078:

to): {{Replaceable fair use disputed |Your explanation here}}. The second choice on the template page linked to in your message. Oh, well. No biggie.

559: 2707: 784: 463: 155: 1609: 337: 2617: 2404:

Wow. I don't even remember uploading this. (It was over 2 years ago.) Yes, it's certainly replaceable. Maybe I can find a pd replacement. . . –

789:

Hehe this time I WANT one to be deleted! Problem is, I can't figure out which tag to use... thought I'd ask you to do the honours :) Image is

480: 2292: 1921: 1870: 864: 833: 2360: 326: 187: 176: 2682: 1863: 1689: 1672: 544: 522: 509: 145: 1432: 695: 664: 235: 2023: 2002: 1988: 1484: 751: 2751: 2729: 2408: 2395: 1561: 1177:

There is no legal reason why someone couldn't photograph the people listed, and release those images under a free license (like the GFDL).

1086: 1069: 1052: 1004: 984: 967: 942: 912: 778: 2740: 2698: 2543: 1912:

decided it was time to start enforcing it, so now we're deleting all non-free images that could at some point be replaced with free ones.

1234: 2711: 2226: 2217: 2127: 1833: 1767: 1757: 1714: 1658: 1619: 457: 2073: 572: 366: 1743: 1603: 2719: 2688: 2346: 2099: 2016: 1289:

I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…

1102: 312: 203: 2247: 2094: 1158:

Sure, sounds like a good idea. I should have some time tomorrow morning to read through and share my thoughts. Have a good weekend!

901: 351: 2575:

I wondered what the copyright problems are regarding the Fresh Expressions entry I posted which led to its deletion by you. Thanks

2062:

has begun, and because you archived the talk page and were involved in discussions about it, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. —

2824: 1414: 1082:

all about it. No big loss. Maybe one of our Oklahoma editors can accost him in the dairy section of a Piggly Wiggly or something.

421: 2593: 2581: 1640:

image you eventually deleted. Even one-time press kit images that could never be duplicated were deleted. What a non-surprise.

1593: 1823: 1162: 1148: 2629: 293: 2849: 2378: 2355: 2261: 1554: 1474: 321: 162: 1970:

That's wonderful! Thanks for asking for permission. Yes, that's all you need. You can safely upload the images and tag them

1270:

or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $ 100 via

2799: 2459: 2159: 2047: 1892: 1503: 1363: 852: 807: 223: 161:

I'm sure this won't convince you that this is a good policy, but at least you'll be able to see the reasoning and history

2783: 2636: 2585: 2443: 2364: 2055: 2042: 1347: 1133: 330: 193: 1096: 767: 2672: 2282: 2236: 2078: 1886: 872: 372: 1961: 741: 2196: 1567: 1243:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden

2345:

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject,

1852: 1644: 450: 311:

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject,

2666: 256: 1037: 931: 1383: 1255: 1216: 1829:

I have unprotected. It was on the main page a year ago, and no one remembered to unprotect it when it left. --

1785: 1153: 735: 674: 578: 2560: 2493: 1193: 637:

free live picture can currently also not be created. Besides that, a live picture would certainly not contain

2276: 1806: 793:... I just uploaded a free image of her from Commons and didn't realise the WP image had the same name... -- 435: 404: 2818: 2606: 2188: 2135: 138: 133: 128: 123: 118: 113: 108: 103: 93: 88: 83: 78: 73: 68: 2796: 2456: 2314: 2298: 2252: 1792:

Hey, can you take a look at this? It's protected and I'm not sure why. I'm trying to take the deprecated

1360: 1114: 1106: 683: 621: 564: 344: 280: 1188:

solution -- I've been told Knowledge has stricter-than-U.S.-law-requires fair use guidelines already.

469: 2697:

and provide comments. I believe speedy should be faster than an IFD and 24 hours is enough CSD time. --

1438: 38: 392: 2570: 2242: 2241:

Since you're an impartial person, I thought you might be interested in commenting or voting on this.

1493: 2832: 2525:), although such images exist and could have been used. There are a few exceptions, though, such as 2222:

OK, made the change and updated documentation. Bracing myself for complaints I broke talk pages. --

1172:

First off, thanks for being reasonable. Many editors here seem not to be. It is much appreciated!

446: 400: 1573: 846: 801: 790: 384: 217: 2842: 2522: 1120: 2518: 1883: 1245:. As you are one of the users mentioned in my comment I would value your input in this matter. 1138: 757: 1802:

tag out of everything, but this one I can't edit. Can you either unprotect it of change it to

1608:

I think I fixed the rationale...but I am not sure that I did it in exactly the right way... --

2164: 1848:. It doesn't currently have any images in it. Do you still need it, or can I re-delete it? – 1523: 152: 2660: 2526: 2347:

requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license

2257:

Thanks for the help! It looks much better now. (I'm not great with Wiki reference styles).

2039: 1869: 1629: 1145: 431:"without any consideration", and resent the accusation. I deleted it because it was tagged 313:

requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license

1952:

I also have a few of Gary Rhodes which you are welcome to use if you edit that entry too.

396: 8: 2623: 2530: 1927: 839: 794: 703: 633: 210: 2837: 2641: 2610: 2310: 2181: 2168: 2069: 1839: 1513: 1471: 1428: 1410: 1267: 1184: 1179:

THIS is where we hit an irrevocable fork -- because I believe there IS a reason! :)

727: 677:

is an interview where McMahon speaks about the band's intention to take some time off,

276: 362:, hasn't edited in about a year though. In my opinion, the image should be deleted. – 2602: 2390: 2373: 2279: 2089: 1878: 1818: 1543: 1533: 1221: 1210: 1064: 1017: 962: 923: 713: 251: 240: 171: 47: 17: 2633: 2558: 2491: 2266: 1909: 1796: 1313: 918: 628:

cannot be created as the images are used to identify the band's members within the

502: 414: 1876:

Why did you remove her picture? It wasn't pornographic; it was a publicity photo.

2828: 2654: 2033: 1860: 1669: 1586: 519: 492: 2108: 1599:(I know you did not upload this image but I think the rationale is yours...) -- 46:

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

2275:. I am not sure if you are a Chicagoan, but we would welcome your manpower at 1519:("attribution license", which requires only that the author be attributed), or 1400: 1395: 1167: 890: 692: 678: 656: 646: 629: 2483:

Hi Quadell, I was wondering if you got my email regarding the images. Cheers,

1998:

ask for permission templates and a how-to would make you more endearing? LOL

1946:

I hadn't sent a response... but you have just reminded me I was going to :-).

2762: 2478: 2422: 2148: 2064: 1999: 1974: 1958: 1900: 1578: 1549:("no derivatives", which doesn't allow modifications). There's a lot of info 1423: 1405: 1325: 1275: 1230: 1029: 881:

is; I had neither the sports mascot (which I didn't even know about) nor the

717: 642: 442: 1557:

has a list of all the free licenses that Knowledge accepts. All the best, –

1550: 202:

has been deleted and I am at the end of my tether. I have opened an RFC...

2846: 2737: 2679: 2614: 2540: 2405: 2385: 2368: 2289: 2258: 2244: 2214: 2213:

I think you're right. Those are good ideas. Feel free to implement them. –

2084: 2020: 1985: 1918: 1849: 1813: 1754: 1736: 1686: 1655: 1651: 1616: 1558: 1500: 1481: 1205: 1159: 1130: 1083: 1059: 1049: 1034: 1001: 981: 957: 939: 928: 909: 898: 882: 775: 764: 748: 661: 590: 541: 506: 454: 363: 246: 184: 166: 1917:

And hey, if you get a chance to meet Kim Eternity, take her picture! :) –

2810: 2748: 2726: 2552: 2485: 2470: 2309:. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under 1707: 889:

aiming, with my eternally warped excuse for a sense of humour, for this:

275:. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under 1449: 1260: 2223: 2204: 2193: 2144: 2137: 1830: 1764: 1740: 1711: 1641: 1600: 1590: 1375: 1238: 830: 763:

policy-related things but I respect you and your honesty and fairness.

556: 477: 418: 2156: 2124: 1252: 1110: 829:

someone with this page on his watchlist, I have deleted the image. --

348: 334: 2642: 2272: 1585:, though this may well be the case. It is obviously fair-use for 878: 1390:

I am seeking advice on how to proceed with the issues raised on

1421:

reference to this. But what if the discussion is not closed? —

1355: 1321: 1271: 927:

further discussion. So what was the point of the disputed tag?

1932:

So, I finally actually found two images that I want to upload

1539:("non-commercial", which only allows non-commercial use), and 2791: 2758: 2451: 2418: 1300: 2695:

Knowledge talk:Possibly unfree images#Speedy slower than IFD

2341:, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. 343:

Note: It is also missing a detailed fair use rationale. See

307:, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. 2609:

since October 17. Most of the website had been copied from

2332:

without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template

1044:

my mind, though. Maybe it was just a really vivid dream. :)

298:

without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template

2773: 2433: 1846:

Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 9 November 2006

1337: 1175:

Secondly, I really want you to consider this: You wrote:

52:

This archive page covers comments 1001-1050, from roughly

1582: 894: 57: 53: 1635:

result of your actions, I will no longer load images of

1129:, or is this really as absurd as I've seen it? Cheers, 655:

I disagree. One of the images was only used to identify

1316:

for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...

2578:

Pete Pillinger pete.pillinger@freshexpressions.org.uk

2015:

Thanks again. Actually, there is a link on my page to

2611:

http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/section.asp?id=46

2363:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 329:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 1266:I am wondering of this site could be considered an 579: 2605:page on October 25, because it had been listed at 1581:. It's not clear to me that this is fair-use for 2271:I too would like to thank you for your help with 1735:Let me add that whether I would choose to open a 626:"that would adequately give the same information" 2384:Heh. Going over the "P"s now, ran across this. — 1025:, has no history, meaning it was never created. 206:. Feel free to comment or feel free not to... 2313:, but its use in Knowledge articles fails our 279:, but its use in Knowledge articles fails our 245:I appreciate very much your note of support. — 1229:I have been warned by another administrator ( 885:song in mind. But for what it's worth, I was 624:#1 does not apply here as a free alternative 620:, which nobody contested. It is certain that 486:Image:Hallicrafters SX-28A Super Skyrider.jpg 712:and the shifting of the image on the page, 589:Indeed they have. Thanks for your note. – 272:Image:HRH-Prince-Carl-Philip-of-Sweden.jpg 265:Image:HRH-Prince-Carl-Philip-of-Sweden.jpg 2567:should also be party to this discussion) 2349:, or by taking a picture of it yourself. 2106: 2017:Knowledge:Example requests for permission 1447: 1274:to the individual who leaves him he best 1192: 877:(*laugh*) Actually I do know what a real 315:, or by taking a picture of it yourself. 204:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Abu badali 2650: 997:be a free one floating around somewhere. 785:Could you please delete an image for me? 464:regarding Tav Falco images Panther Burns 2835:can be found on the Persondata page. -- 1183:rights-clearance process. (That's the 1109:. This week's project is to translate 1097:Spanish Translation of the Week: Trillo 956:to prescribe extra work for admins... — 14: 2155:). Feel free to comment. Sincerely, -- 1615:I think you did just great. Thanks. – 1117:.Fagles 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1480:Wow. Thank so much! I'm blushing. – 25: 602:Image:Something Corporate Promo.jpg 23: 2781:Thank you for your support of the 2772: 2441:Thank you for your support of the 2432: 2143:I have started a thread regarding 1509:Hey, that's good news! We can use 1345:Thank you for your support of the 1336: 1312:P.S. I posted the same message on 1058:because of the disputes as well. — 24: 2860: 2720:LeRoy Homer - you are not correct 2689:CSD Images slower than IFD Images 2328:{{Replaceable fair use disputed}} 2187:according to the instructions at 2117:The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 2100:The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 1074:I used this tag (or, at least, I 2107: 1448: 29: 2795:was selected to be improved to 2455:was selected to be improved to 1844:Greetings. I see you recreated 1749:and upload a bunch of pictures 1359:was selected to be improved to 1103:Spanish Translation of the Week 641:as a promotional one (see e.g. 2699: 2365:Media copyright questions page 1332: 331:Media copyright questions page 13: 1: 2850:01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 2814:03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 2752:01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 2741:01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 2730:18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 2712:13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2683:12:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2673:02:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2637:21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2618:18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2594:15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2561:18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 2544:19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2494:03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2474:01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2409:21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2396:20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2379:20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2293:17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2283:17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2277:Knowledge:WikiProject Chicago 2262:15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2248:02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2227:03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2218:21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 2197:16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 1464:Thanks for all of your help! 1087:22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 1070:21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 1053:21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 1038:20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 1005:20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 985:20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 968:20:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 943:20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 932:20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 913:20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 902:19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 865:08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 834:08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 820:07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 779:13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 768:04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 752:21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 742:21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 718: 665:14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 650:13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 606:Image:Something Corporate.jpg 594:14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 584:12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 573: 560:19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 545:13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 523:13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 510:14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 496:09:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 481:05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 458:14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 422:05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 367:13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 352:05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 338:05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 294:Replaceable fair use disputed 257:05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 236:02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 188:14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 177:05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 156:02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 2607:Knowledge:Copyright problems 2510:Image:Rocketed ambulance.jpg 2361:criteria for speedy deletion 2189:Knowledge:Copyright problems 2160:21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 2128:18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 2095:19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 2074:17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 2049:Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg 2043:04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 2024:17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 2003:03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1989:02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1962:22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1922:21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1893:20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1864:19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1853:18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1834:07:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1824:05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1768:03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1758:02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1744:02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1715:01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1706:I reviewed your comments on 1690:14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1673:13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1659:12:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1645:05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 1620:02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1604:22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 1594:22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 1562:21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 1504:21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 1485:21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 1475:19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 1433:18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 1415:14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 1392:Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg 1379:03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 1256:12:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 1241:has also posted a notice on 1217:22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 1206: 1163:21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 1149:20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 1134:15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 736: 728: 696:20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 689:"their most recent endeavor" 427:Greetings. I did not delete 327:criteria for speedy deletion 7: 1211: 1115:Threshing-board/Translation 1107:Threshing-board/Translation 684:Live at the Ventura Theater 345:Knowledge:Fair use criteria 194:Abu badali again... now RFC 146:So-called "non-free" images 10: 2865: 2833:More specific instructions 2502:Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg 2324:the image description page 2237:AfD on Argo Tea in Chicago 2079:Change to the RFU template 1301:http://www.removedspamlink 873:The mysteries of usernames 708:Thanks for your help with 429:Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg 373:Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg 290:the image description page 2784:Article Improvement Drive 2444:Article Improvement Drive 2339:the image discussion page 2113: 1574:Image:Naugthy or nice.jpg 1568:Image:Naugthy or nice.jpg 1458:The Barnstar of Diligence 1454: 1348:Article Improvement Drive 1278:message on his voicemail. 827:one of Quadell's stalkers 791:Image:ChristyFichtner.jpg 380:File:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg 305:the image discussion page 2315:first fair use criterion 1901:first fair use criterion 1030:first fair use criterion 1028:Regarding fair use, our 1016:I'm looking through the 281:first fair use criterion 2523:Battle of Dien Bien Phu 2514:Image:Qana massacre.jpg 2177:I recently tried using 2060:Image:SombatMetanee.jpg 1654:, I wouldn't object. – 1612:23:00, 5 December 2006 1385:Image:SombatMetanee.jpg 1125:Am I missing something 1023:Image talk:WesStudi.jpg 200:Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg 2777: 2519:attack on Pearl Harbor 2506:Image:Gaza morgue .jpg 2437: 1787:Image:2UK soldiers.jpg 1341: 1191:And for an image like 1154:Free images discussion 639:"the same information" 2776: 2584:comment was added by 2436: 2303:Thanks for uploading 1340: 679:their PureVolume page 292:and edit it to add {{ 269:Thanks for uploading 42:of past discussions. 2819:Change to Common.css 2527:Battle of Gettysburg 1807:Non-free fair use in 574:Nearly Headless Nick 436:replaceable fair use 2827:, the way in which 2804:Hope you can help. 2531:Battle of the Bulge 2464:Hope you can help. 2326:and edit it to add 2306:Image:P zelikow.jpg 2299:Image:P zelikow.jpg 2253:Cleanup on Argo Tea 1368:Hope you can help. 1195:File:Mikko eloranta 838:Merci beaucoup! -- 710:Image:Wisitbear.jpg 681:lists the 2004 DVD 634:Something Corporate 566:Image:Yanagupta.jpg 360:User:Timtonruben359 2825:recent discussions 2778: 2757:You helped choose 2438: 2417:You helped choose 1440:Image:Coreylat.jpg 1342: 1320:You helped choose 1268:internet phenomena 1185:personality rights 1018:Image:WesStudi.jpg 924:Image:WesStudi.jpg 747:You're welcome. – 622:fair use criterion 600:Image deletion of 453:. All the best, – 2844: 2808: 2807: 2710: 2603:Fresh Expressions 2597: 2571:Fresh Expressions 2565:Image:Qana 38.jpg 2468: 2467: 2133: 2132: 1553:, of course, and 1494:Creative commons? 1468: 1467: 1372: 1371: 863: 818: 740: 732: 714:Wisit Sasanatieng 468:See my chat with 234: 64: 63: 58:December 25, 2006 54:November 29, 2006 48:current talk page 18:User talk:Quadell 2856: 2840: 2836: 2797:featured article 2769: 2768: 2706: 2703: 2671: 2579: 2555: 2488: 2457:featured article 2429: 2428: 2393: 2388: 2376: 2371: 2358: 2329: 2186: 2180: 2173: 2167: 2111: 2104: 2103: 2092: 2087: 1979: 1973: 1910:User:Jimbo Wales 1889: 1881: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1795: 1548: 1542: 1538: 1532: 1528: 1522: 1518: 1512: 1452: 1445: 1444: 1361:featured article 1333: 1314:User_talk:Wavy_G 1214: 1208: 1198: 1196: 1067: 1062: 965: 960: 861: 855: 849: 845: 842: 816: 810: 804: 800: 797: 738: 734: 730: 726: 723: 582: 580: 575: 503:User:Jimbo Wales 440: 434: 415:User:Betacommand 409: 408: 324: 254: 249: 232: 226: 220: 216: 213: 174: 169: 59: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2838: 2821: 2767: 2761:as this week's 2722: 2691: 2652:Kind Regards - 2646: 2626: 2580:—The preceding 2573: 2553: 2486: 2481: 2427: 2421:as this week's 2391: 2386: 2374: 2369: 2354: 2327: 2301: 2269: 2255: 2239: 2184: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2165: 2141: 2102: 2090: 2085: 2081: 2056:Deletion review 2052: 2040:FrummerThanThou 2036: 1977: 1971: 1930: 1887: 1879: 1874: 1842: 1819: 1814: 1809: 1803: 1799: 1793: 1790: 1632: 1587:Naughty or Nice 1570: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1530: 1526: 1520: 1516: 1510: 1496: 1443: 1388: 1373: 1330: 1324:as this week's 1317: 1263: 1261:Thedrunkendiale 1224: 1194: 1170: 1156: 1146:Doctor Sunshine 1141: 1123: 1121:Input requested 1099: 1065: 1060: 963: 958: 921: 875: 859: 853: 847: 840: 814: 808: 802: 795: 787: 760: 706: 609: 577: 569: 488: 466: 438: 432: 382: 378: 375: 347:. Sincerely, -- 320: 267: 252: 247: 243: 230: 224: 218: 211: 196: 172: 167: 148: 143: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2862: 2820: 2817: 2806: 2805: 2803: 2788: 2779: 2766: 2755: 2744: 2743: 2721: 2718: 2716: 2690: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2645: 2640: 2625: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2601:I deleted the 2572: 2569: 2547: 2546: 2535: 2534: 2480: 2477: 2466: 2465: 2463: 2448: 2439: 2426: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2399: 2398: 2343: 2342: 2335: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2268: 2265: 2254: 2251: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2208: 2207: 2174: 2163: 2140: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2120: 2119: 2114: 2112: 2101: 2098: 2080: 2077: 2051: 2046: 2035: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1992: 1991: 1966: 1944: 1943: 1929: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1914: 1913: 1905: 1904: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1662: 1661: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1495: 1492: 1490: 1488: 1487: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1455: 1453: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1401:User talk:Angr 1396:Sombat Metanee 1387: 1382: 1370: 1369: 1367: 1352: 1343: 1331: 1329: 1318: 1311: 1308:69.167.102.181 1304: 1303: 1297: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1262: 1259: 1233:) for posting 1223: 1220: 1169: 1166: 1155: 1152: 1140: 1139:Kurosawa again 1137: 1122: 1119: 1105:is located at 1098: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1079: 1045: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 998: 990: 973: 972: 971: 970: 946: 945: 920: 917: 916: 915: 891:Bear community 874: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 841:PageantUpdater 796:PageantUpdater 786: 783: 782: 781: 759: 758:For the record 756: 755: 754: 705: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 668: 667: 657:Andrew McMahon 630:Andrew McMahon 608: 598: 597: 596: 568: 563: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 528: 527: 526: 525: 513: 512: 487: 484: 465: 462: 461: 460: 411: 410: 374: 371: 370: 369: 355: 354: 309: 308: 301: 266: 263: 261: 242: 239: 212:PageantUpdater 198:Hi Quadell... 195: 192: 191: 190: 180: 179: 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: 2861: 2852: 2851: 2848: 2845:on behalf of 2843: 2841: 2839:ShakingSpirit 2834: 2830: 2826: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2793: 2786: 2785: 2780: 2775: 2771: 2770: 2764: 2760: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2742: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2728: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2702: 2696: 2684: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2669: 2664: 2663: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2635: 2631: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586:81.103.191.71 2583: 2576: 2568: 2566: 2563:(postscript: 2562: 2559: 2557: 2556: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2490: 2489: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2461: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2445: 2440: 2435: 2431: 2430: 2424: 2420: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2397: 2394: 2389: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2377: 2372: 2367:. Thank you. 2366: 2362: 2357: 2350: 2348: 2340: 2336: 2333: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2294: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2274: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2250: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2228: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2195: 2190: 2183: 2170: 2162: 2161: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2139: 2129: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2110: 2105: 2097: 2096: 2093: 2088: 2076: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2057: 2050: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2004: 2001: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1976: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1957: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1935: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1890: 1884: 1882: 1872: 1865: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1847: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1817: 1812:? Thanks... — 1808: 1798: 1788: 1769: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1751:somebody else 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1691: 1688: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1674: 1671: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1545: 1535: 1525: 1515: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1502: 1491: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1425: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1393: 1386: 1381: 1380: 1377: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1350: 1349: 1344: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1327: 1323: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1276:Drunk dialing 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1251:Sincerely, -- 1249: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231:User:Khoikhoi 1227: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1213: 1209: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1189: 1186: 1180: 1178: 1173: 1165: 1164: 1161: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1118: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1088: 1085: 1080: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1031: 1026: 1024: 1019: 1006: 1003: 999: 996: 991: 988: 987: 986: 983: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 969: 966: 961: 955: 950: 949: 948: 947: 944: 941: 936: 935: 934: 933: 930: 925: 914: 911: 906: 905: 904: 903: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 866: 862: 856: 850: 843: 837: 836: 835: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 817: 811: 805: 798: 792: 780: 777: 772: 771: 770: 769: 766: 753: 750: 746: 745: 744: 743: 739: 731: 724: 722: 715: 711: 697: 694: 690: 686: 685: 680: 676: 672: 671: 670: 669: 666: 663: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 648: 644: 643:R.E.M. (band) 640: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 607: 603: 595: 592: 588: 587: 586: 585: 581: 576: 567: 562: 561: 558: 546: 543: 539: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 524: 521: 517: 516: 515: 514: 511: 508: 504: 500: 499: 498: 497: 494: 483: 482: 479: 474: 471: 459: 456: 452: 448: 444: 443:the Parthenon 437: 430: 426: 425: 424: 423: 420: 416: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 381: 377: 376: 368: 365: 361: 357: 356: 353: 350: 346: 342: 341: 340: 339: 336: 333:. Thank you. 332: 328: 323: 316: 314: 306: 302: 299: 295: 291: 287: 286: 285: 282: 278: 274: 273: 262: 259: 258: 255: 250: 238: 237: 233: 227: 221: 214: 207: 205: 201: 189: 186: 182: 181: 178: 175: 170: 164: 160: 159: 158: 157: 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: 2822: 2809: 2790: 2782: 2745: 2723: 2715: 2700: 2692: 2667: 2661: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2627: 2577: 2574: 2551: 2548: 2484: 2482: 2469: 2450: 2442: 2351: 2344: 2331: 2304: 2302: 2280:TonyTheTiger 2270: 2256: 2240: 2176: 2142: 2116: 2082: 2068: 2063: 2053: 2037: 1965: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1945: 1941:Hi Jennifer, 1940: 1933: 1931: 1877: 1875: 1871:Kim Eternity 1843: 1791: 1750: 1636: 1633: 1630:Your actions 1572:I've marked 1571: 1524:cc-by-sa-2.5 1497: 1489: 1469: 1457: 1427: 1422: 1409: 1404: 1389: 1374: 1354: 1346: 1305: 1250: 1247: 1235:this comment 1228: 1225: 1212: 1204: 1201: 1190: 1181: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1157: 1142: 1124: 1101:The current 1100: 1075: 1027: 1015: 994: 953: 922: 886: 883:David Wilcox 876: 826: 788: 761: 720: 707: 688: 682: 638: 625: 610: 570: 553: 537: 489: 475: 467: 412: 317: 310: 297: 270: 268: 260: 244: 208: 197: 153:CJ Marsicano 149: 98: 43: 37: 2693:Please see 2656:Heligoland 2634:Chick Bowen 2624:Book covers 1928:Help please 36:This is an 2829:Persondata 2789:This week 2449:This week 2259:TheQuandry 2245:TheQuandry 2145:User:Irpen 2138:User:Irpen 2136:Regarding 1861:Abu Badali 1840:November 9 1685:Norway? – 1670:Lou Sander 1501:TheQuandry 1353:This week 1239:User:Irpen 1160:TheQuandry 765:TheQuandry 520:Lou Sander 493:Lou Sander 99:Archive 21 2356:this link 2182:Cv-unsure 2169:Cv-unsure 1982:this page 1514:cc-by-2.5 1222:Block log 1111:es:Trillo 860:esperanza 815:esperanza 704:Thank you 693:HarryCane 647:HarryCane 322:this link 241:Thank you 231:esperanza 2668:Contribs 2643:Argo Tea 2582:unsigned 2311:fair use 2273:Argo Tea 2267:Argo Tea 2000:Jmdustin 1980:. Also, 1959:Jmdustin 1610:Ta-ni-ni 1544:cc-by-nd 1534:cc-by-nc 1472:Ta-ni-ni 1306:Thanks, 919:Question 887:actually 854:contribs 809:contribs 737:Contribs 660:time? – 277:fair use 225:contribs 2847:Kaldari 2738:Quadell 2680:Quadell 2678:Yay! – 2615:Quadell 2541:Quadell 2521:or the 2406:Quadell 2387:Chowbok 2370:Chowbok 2290:Quadell 2215:Quadell 2086:Chowbok 2034:New Tag 2021:Quadell 1986:Quadell 1919:Quadell 1850:Quadell 1815:Chowbok 1797:fairuse 1755:Kafziel 1687:Quadell 1656:Quadell 1617:Quadell 1559:Quadell 1482:Quadell 1295:apply?) 1226:Hello! 1207:Jenolen 1131:Postdlf 1084:Kafziel 1061:Chowbok 1050:Kafziel 1035:Quadell 1002:Kafziel 982:Quadell 959:Chowbok 940:Quadell 929:Kafziel 910:Quadell 899:Bearcat 879:bearcat 776:Quadell 749:Quadell 662:Quadell 591:Quadell 542:Quadell 507:Quadell 455:Quadell 393:history 364:Quadell 248:Chowbok 185:Quadell 168:Chowbok 39:archive 2811:AzaBot 2800:status 2765:winner 2763:WP:AID 2749:NYDCSP 2727:NYDCSP 2554:Tewfik 2512:. But 2487:Tewfik 2471:AzaBot 2460:status 2425:winner 2423:WP:AID 2322:Go to 2149:WP:ANI 1955:Dave. 1708:Friday 1579:WP:FUC 1364:status 1356:Cactus 1328:winner 1326:WP:AID 1322:Cactus 1272:PayPal 1168:Thanks 538:at all 288:Go to 2792:Yeast 2759:Yeast 2479:Image 2452:Death 2419:Death 2224:Dgies 2205:Dgies 2194:Dgies 1888:60645 1831:Robth 1765:Tvccs 1741:Tvccs 1737:WP:AN 1712:Tvccs 1652:WP:AN 1642:Tvccs 1601:Yamla 1591:Yamla 1589:. -- 1376:MER-C 1284:area. 1076:meant 995:might 831:Robth 557:Irpen 540:." – 478:Bebop 470:Robth 419:Dgies 401:watch 397:links 16:< 2823:Per 2708:talk 2701:MECU 2662:Talk 2630:here 2590:talk 2529:and 2504:and 2157:Oden 2153:here 2125:Oden 2070:Kwai 2065:Wise 2058:for 2054:The 1975:GFDL 1555:this 1551:here 1429:Kwai 1424:Wise 1411:Kwai 1406:Wise 1253:Oden 1127:here 848:talk 803:talk 729:Talk 721:Kwai 719:Wise 716:. – 675:Here 632:and 618:here 616:and 614:here 604:and 505:. – 451:here 449:and 447:here 405:logs 389:talk 385:edit 349:Oden 335:Oden 296:}}, 219:talk 163:here 2665:| 2659:| 2337:On 2147:at 1934:and 1880:Don 1637:any 1583:3LW 895:cat 825:As 687:as 303:On 209:-- 165:. — 56:to 2592:) 2330:, 2203:-- 2185:}} 2179:{{ 2172:}} 2166:{{ 1978:}} 1972:{{ 1859:-- 1810:}} 1804:{{ 1800:}} 1794:{{ 1547:}} 1541:{{ 1537:}} 1531:{{ 1527:}} 1521:{{ 1517:}} 1511:{{ 1237:. 954:me 897:. 893:, 857:| 851:| 844:• 812:| 806:| 799:• 733:| 725:| 555:-- 476:– 439:}} 433:{{ 403:| 399:| 395:| 391:| 387:| 228:| 222:| 215:• 139:50 134:40 129:30 124:26 119:25 114:24 109:23 104:22 94:20 89:19 84:18 79:17 74:16 69:10 2802:. 2787:. 2705:≈ 2596:. 2588:( 2462:. 2447:. 2392:☠ 2375:☠ 2334:. 2151:( 2091:☠ 1885:| 1820:☠ 1366:. 1351:. 1066:☠ 964:☠ 407:) 383:( 300:. 253:☠ 173:☠ 60:. 50:.

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

Index