2411:, but has yet to be fixed. This should all go without saying, but 1) the captions are necessary to evaluate the use of the image within the article, often providing commentary or at a minimum, identification; 2) relevant deletion procedure states that the tag should be added to the caption, not replace it; and more fundamentally, 3) there is certainly no valid reason to remove the captions while the images remain within the article, particularly when the removal is not constructive but rather accidental. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Until the bug is fixed, I see only two solutions: either refrain from using Twinkle to tag images, or go back and manually fix the captions in every image you tag with Twinkle.
1890:
cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject
Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --
2287:, too), or B) They are discussed for about a week, after which things kind of stall. There are certainly exceptions, but looking through the older nominations which are still open, it seems that most of those with comments were discussed within a week or so of nomination, and most comments after that aren't really significant. If a discussion doesn't seem to have reached a consensus, an admin can always relist it, and most admins should undelete an image on request to give its problems a chance to be fixed if the uploader (or someone else) didn't get a chance to fix it during the discussion. –
31:
1550:
2862:
2446:, this solution is not ideal. It is difficult to publicize and to regulate, and in addition it may seem to suggest exclusivity. I hope that generalizing clean-up will encourage other contributors as well as making it easier to publicize the investigation option at relevant policies and guidelines. (To substantiate the need for this, I need only point out the listings currently at
108:, for example), despite the fact that these images are used on pages in the Knowledge or Knowledge talk namespaces. Many of these are screenshots of Knowledge glitches, proposals for new layouts, or similar. Are we really claiming that these images are unfree simply because they happen to contain the Knowledge logo? We consider images such as
2714:
template is documented as part of the procedure for listing files here, but removing the template does not appear to be in the closing procedure. Is removing this template the responsibility of the closing admin? What is preventing this from happening? What would make it easier or more reliable? Would having categories such as
767:
responsiveness may result in being able to get a GFDL permission, whereas if two weeks pass by, if the uploader isn't a regular user, they may have given up by then. The "so what" of all this - please keep an eye out for nominations that have a reply so that if an uploader asks a question, we can give them a timely answer. --
787:
proof that the uploader was in fact in a position to release the image. I've emailed the webmaster of the site it appears on to confirm that he/she was the uploader and does indeed hold the copyright. If I get a reply to say "yes I do", what's the next step? Do I send it to the OTRS email address......?
2454:. Additionally, these come up routinely at ANI, where response is hit-and-miss, depending on who is reviewing ANI in a given day.) The processes proposed are based on existing policies and practices for handling copyright problems (I've worked with many of these); the board is inspired in large part by
2950:
with the same PD assertions in their images. Were these deletions carried out in a proper manner? Now, I could try DRV or re-upload the files myself but I do not know where they were used in WP. However, my greater concern is these deletions seem so thoughtless, careless and damaging and I am worried
961:
category (All Non-free media) but have a free license tag. The image either is free and somehow is is in the non-free category (FUR template, etc) or the image is non-free and yet has a free license tag. I except the numbers that meet this are going to be few. This seems like the best venue to be but
632:
Can we come up with some manner to consistently mark those images that are "cleared" or "resolved"? It's pretty clear with the redlinks that an image has been deleted, but for the others, it would be nice to be able to go to archive page and see that all of the bluelinks have been dealt with and not
229:
Hello, sorry if this is a FAQ. Could you please give me a list of all media that I uploaded that you think could be disputed? I have uploaded a bunch of images to
Knowledge since I started editing a little over one year ago. I will be happy to deal with them in a batch. I try very hard to ask for the
702:
says "EPA Order 1015.2A (December 27, 1978), provides directions for use of the seal as the Agency
Identifier, and prohibits reproduction and/or use of the symbol for commercial purposes.". Can they do that to a US Fed Gov work? The image is from the Commons but I am bringing it up here as I don't
2844:
adding dated pages to the holding pen, but actual editors removing them when all entries on a given dated-page are resolved. But then editors also re-adding dated pages "to allow bot to finish". What is the bot "finishing"? Could the bot be made to remove completed dated pages itself? Could someone
2246:
two weeks. Why do articles nominated here sit around longer than they do at FFD? I think that changing this to seven days would make it more inline with other deletion processes (therefore also preventing confusion), and then copyright violations also wouldn't sit around online any longer than they
3063:
is listed as CC-by-2.0 on the grounds that it was uploaded to Flickr under those terms, but the description specifically states that it was scanned from a magazine published in 1948. It is therefore still under copyright in both the US and UK and there is no indication on Flickr that the uploader
1756:
Perhaps rather than closing the discussion, the bot might just leave a message saying "this image is tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale (etc)... Otherwise, unless another reason is given for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept."
2713:
is not being consistently removed from articles when discussions here are closed. It is currently transcluded over 1200 times. It appears over 90% of these instances currently need to be removed. Many of these are from 2008 and 2009, but recent months are well represented as well. Adding this
1908:
just moved this page with the "move subpages" box checked. Which left a few hundred other subpages not moved, a bunch of transclusions broken, lost the edit notice, and broke at least one bot (mine). I've gone and moved the active subpages, fixed the transclusions I could find, requested the edit
786:
A user has queried an image which I didn't upload but which is in an article I've been working on. The image is tagged {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} but as it also appears on another website (which may well be the personal site of the original uploader) the user wants to see
1889:
It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and
1166:
Fair use review and PUI are definnitely two different things. If merging is on the table, I'm still for merging all of them into IfD. Make IfD "Images for discussion", including those cases where a binding administrative decision is needed not to delete an image but to restrict it to some of its
391:
the image, when kept I copy the discussion to the image talk page. I wouldn't go to IFD, that is just double process unless you want another or more opinions. CSD criteria shouldn't come up often since if an image is a blatant copyvio it doesn't belong on this page anyway but should already be
766:
Hey everyone - I've noticed when processing images listed here that frequently, the uploader responds within a day or two of the nomination, but then nobody looks at it for two weeks. In cases where the uploader is the copyright holder or has a contact with the copyright holder, better
1409:
The "puic" tag means that the caption of the image can no longer be seen. This will often be highly prejudicial to to the deletion discussion - few editors will bother to go into the history and see what it said. This should be changed if at all possible, or the tag not used.
1987:
Yeah, Twinkle should probably follow the redirect rather than append the nomination to the bottom of the redirect page. Or did you mean the part where MediaWiki doesn't display the nomination when you view the redirect page? Yes, that's the way MW handles that situation; see
137:. It's silly for us to not take images that Commons accepts. I personally suggest removing the category non-free media from such images, it would take them off the bot's watchlist. They're already in the copyright by wikimedia category, which is the right category for them. -
1831:
going on on
Commons regarding whether or not images of cosplayers are derivative works of the copyrighted animated source characters. Your opinion would be welcome, whether or not you have a Commons account. I'm also interested in whether there is precedent for this on En.
2664:
1936:
about
Zorglbot. Someone needs to contact the authors of any tools people use to nominate PUIs and have them update their code. Until the bot is fixed, someone will have to jump in (as close to 00:00 (UTC) as possible) and move the pages it will create each day.
573:
to note that speedy-able images can be deleted per criterion I9, rather than G12. I know that general criteria apply to all namespaces, but when you click on the wikilink to G12, the CSD page points you to I9. I eliminated the middle man. If that's a bit too
1288:
I've just put up a proposal that images that contain a source, a licence, but no evidence that the source has agreed to release the image under that licence be speedily deleted after seven days since the uploader was notified, as they are on
Commons. Please
2270:
Not sure. Blatant copyvio's are deleted as a speedy anyway. This is about images where there is some uncertsainty or where the uploader has failed to provide some information. To give good faith editors a week extra to provide information is not so bad.
718:
It's not copyrighted (since it's a U.S. government work), but it has trademark and similar protections. Thus, we try to avoid such logos (except possibly on the organization page) as much as possible, and they're definitely not appropriate for
Commons.
1810:. Also, I've added handling of image redirects: those created by moves during the nomination will have a note posted (and the section renamed to the new name), and other redirects will be closed as described above. Let me know if any errors occur.
936:
3083:(basically click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Toolbox and take it from there), there is no analogue to PUI on Commons, if it's not blatant enough to speedy delete you need to file a deletion request and raise the concern there. --
550:
has been on the list for over 14 days and the discussion has not been closed. I'm not very familiar with this wikifield, so I'm not sure if this is very common. The image is not free, however the fair use rationale for its placement in the
146:
While we could make the decision to delete them all just to spite the
Foundation for its silly decision to regard them as non-free content (which would be sure to create lots of drama), I agree with N, and think that we should remove
214:
Hello. I received a note from an IP address and no instructions. Is this a
Wikiproject? Who are the members and under what authority do you operate, like a list of guidelines you could point me to or something? Thanks for any clues.
2437:
Knowledge has several processes in place for dealing with limited copyright concerns--single articles or files, even a small grouping of these--but no workable process for dealing with massive multiple point infringement. While
2182:
Does anyone have any suggestions for where I should advertise this tool? I would like to see if it's useful to image patrollers, but I have not been able to find a "new images patrol" or "image copyright patrol" wikiproject.
1453:. Since Legobot is already handling the holding cell, there isn't any need for excess process here; all the bot would do is add a reason for deleted, non-local, or non-existent images. I can have the bot mark them using
366:
1883:
1828:
507:
295:
2098:
1922:
This is causing significant problems with the daily pages (per below) and needs to be resolved as soon as possible. I'd do it myself but I'm not familiar enough with the structure to know what needs changing.
3287:
I'm not experienced using either mechanism. Does filing a PUF preclude an FFD? I just filed a PUF, but then it occurred to me that an FFD may be more suitable, since there was a previous PUF on the same photo.
661:
638:
1709:
634:
2945:
were also tagged at the same time and have been deleted. I don't know enough to find out who deleted them. I can't be sure but I suspect that these two files may well be those embedded in exactly the same
487:", he asserts that images with free license tags can be unlisted regardless whether the propriety of the tags is disputed. In my view, this interpretation can't be correct, as the statement at the top of
2425:
2402:
For those of you who use
Twinkle to add image deletion tags to captions, there is a bug that causes the preexisting caption to be hidden, by the addition of a superfluous | mark. This has been reported
2496:
570:
1626:
No objection here, we need to make sure the relevant bots, userscrips (Twinkle and Howcheng's quick delete come to mind) and templates are all updated to match roughly at the same time thoguh. --
1327:
2283:
It seems to me that usually either A) Nobody comments on the discussions and they just wait for two weeks before deletion (in some cases these could have used the "di-" templates to be deleted
3177:
I would say no. This is a derivative of a copyrighted work and The IP for Yoda is still copyrighted. Also the in image watermarking contradicts the release terms on Flickr, which troubles me.
1867:
536:
2715:
1347:
383:
The way I do it. When I think it's unfree I delete it. When I don't think so I simply remove the tag from the image page. When there is a large discussion on the image page I say that I
2463:
2451:
1841:
843:
Probably because dealing with images causes all kinds of abuse to the deleting admin. One of the reasons why I haven't dealt with this page for a while. I will clear a few days though.
277:
2687:
1290:
974:
There are some images that legitimately have both a free and a non-free tag. The most common cases are free photos of copyrighted works, such as sculptures or copyrighted characters.
547:
1595:
2145:
2970:
and credit "Greg Goebel" and also say PD-author. This was unproven and so was ultimately deleted by Explicit. However I can confirm that the three rotor image is public domain.
2588:
1328:
796:
2942:
2525:
does not allow me to customize the section name, because it automatically includes the File: prefix and a link. It would be nice if pui2 allowed me to specify a section name.
461:
161:
101:
2420:
2392:
2737:
2128:
357:
an image are very detailed, but there are few instructions for dealing with the images in the holding cell. Of course, I have some idea (e.g. some can be deleted on various
3013:
there are 9 images covering a seventy year period at least of the life of the subject, and all of them are listed as public domain, "entirely own work", by the 19 year old
2397:
2371:
1174:
377:
2447:
2443:
1847:
1064:
234:
2930:
has text in it saying "PD". Now, maybe the tagging of this image was a minor lack of concentration and anyway the image has not been deleted maybe because the uploader
2515:
allows me to specify a section name that is not the same as the filename; this theoretically allows me to list multiple files in the same section. The problem is that
1357:
The holding cell is starting to get out of hand... its takes up more then a screen full on my computer. Any admins willing to take a shot and clearing some stuff up?--
781:
2829:
2690:
has been listed on here, but apart from the original listing and a few comments on it by me, no action has been taken. What am I supposed to do if nothing happens? --
1307:
499:
is to discuss images with dubious free licenses. Free license tags cannot insulate an image from scrutiny. Does anyone agree with him? Does anyone agree with me??
2938:
1125:. This page does not seem so busy for a discussion on the merge. Per Anetode, this is only for "possibly" unfree images, non-free content image are "always" unfree.
479:), an editor with a history of questionably self-tagged images, has come up with a novel theory to defend his images from deletion here. Relying on the language at
241:
175:
3248:
3219:
3201:
2993:
2979:
837:
2555:
2066:
426:
1635:
1264:
809:
3147:
3092:
2109:
2021:
1999:
1982:
1794:
1780:
1766:
1621:
1396:
1379:
2854:
2160:
264:
255:
204:
141:
3060:
2610:
2122:
1878:
559:
407:
3266:
2. I listed flourine cell on the 12th (got no responses btw) and have now confirmed status anyway and uploaded an OTRS. Please close as keep or whatever...
2549:
2342:
2316:
2304:
2278:
1522:
1506:
864:
850:
727:
677:
455:
1836:
1750:
1149:
348:
323:
2628:
1944:
1927:
1602:
1538:
1275:
1161:
1097:
753:
2656:
2644:
2192:
2176:
1434:
1302:
905:
302:
2877:
1956:
1730:
1132:
993:
982:
947:
1335:
1113:
3049:
2376:
2309:
True, in most cases it doesn't make a difference, I also don't have a strong objection to changing it to one week. I just don't see any benefit in it.
2055:
1894:
968:
224:
1817:
1671:
1249:
1209:
621:
2136:
was skipped in the "holding cell" list. Is it OK for someone to add this by hand? Or is this something that only the bot should be allowed to do?
1559:
654:
189:
3080:
2800:
2759:
890:
3073:
2529:
712:
230:
rules and follow them and don't have any idea what images you think should be disputed, or how to assemble that list, or I would do this myself. -
219:
2960:
2777:
2707:
2539:
2519:
2264:
2047:
2039:
881:
is one that I noticed that was taken by AP Photojournalist Thomas Kienzle and can be found listed in the AP Images Database under ID 8911100132.
815:
733:
523:
105:
3026:
2814:
2366:
2179:. It adds a "tineye" tab to the top of File: pages for performing quick TinEye searches on images, to identify potential copyright violations.
1719:
even though it didn't when it was originally listed. Would it be better to close these as "Marked non-free" or leave them for a human to decide?
438:
3037:
2869:
Let me know if anyone sees any problems. If for some reason a page needs to be kept despite the bot, you can also add a <!-- comment --: -->
2617:
2599:
1785:
If there are no objections to this I will ask Anomie to have AnomieBOT place a note in the wording above on all non-free images listed at PUI.
81:
69:
64:
59:
2477:
a contributor has widely violated copyright, we must have a streamlined process for handling it. The primary point for text copyright issues,
1916:
284:
121:
2133:
2090:
1366:
943:
before 1923 are definitely public domain; something could have been created a while before and not published and may still be copyrighted. --
693:
689:
3171:
2789:
1316:
mentioned on slashdot. I haven't used it myself (plugins and account needed just to read the FAQ). Anyone else tried it, is it any good? --
1269:
Regardless if the images are derivative works, they are clearly not made by the uploader. All of the user's images deleted and user warned.
2722:
1122:
925:
699:
says "We tightly limit the use of our logo and seal, and formal permission is required for organizations other than federal agencies." and
183:
3116:
2580:
has images that have been listed for over three months, while there are literally hundreds of articles and images still waiting review at
1043:
1020:
877:
What is Knowledge's stance on Associated Press images being used in articles? I occasionally find images here that are clearly AP images,
736:
clearly trumps any notice on a US government website. (Similarly, a state constitution clearly trumps any notice on a state website; see
3297:
2593:
2166:
1771:
If an image is PD in the UK and not in the US, it should be tagged as PD-UK and also with an appropriate non-free tag (and a rationale).
1075:
2694:
2325:
other non-speedy deletion methods are now 7 days), and prevent actual copyvio files from sitting around any longer than they need to. –
930:
517:
1646:
Someone has requested I have AnomieBOT auto-close discussions for any image that is already marked as non-free (e.g. it's a member of
1580:
1568:
1487:
1152:
which is valid in the FA article, but not on the team article. I dont know what the solution is, but the status quo is not acceptable
587:
2084:
1419:
776:
606:
418:
Shouldn't images that are "clearly" non-free but licensed as PD-self or similar, be tagged for speedy as opposed to be listed here?
2676:
1822:
308:
OTRS has a backlog of 40 days :( Anyway, I searched for you, and I cannot find anything with Bob Mould in it in permissions-en. --
2616:
I've added a few, but those are gold mines for site-navigational purposes. If you start a new day, please make sure to add these.
2060:
pointing to the pui versions, and Twinkle is already using those. I'm assuming you'll be wanting to move the templates though? --
529:
168:
825:
1527:
Personally I prefer the way I do it, but the IFD templates are clearer and give more information. Like the link and info about
541:
514:. BTW, Sfacets was just blocked for 72 by another admin, so any questions for him should be left on his talk page. Thanks! --
3277:
2780:
for example. I found most of them were copied from www.sun-tec.ch. The website does not allow free use. Thanks for the help.--
1680:
The image could be tagged with both a free license template AND a non-free template. For example, someone could have put both
1283:
1962:
612:
Nothing should be "delisted". If satisfactory copyright information isn't provided within two weeks, images are deleted. --
2408:
289:
47:
17:
2573:
2242:
non-speedy method of deletion gives 7 days for discussion, opposition, etc., including PROD and AFD. This is at an (IMO)
1641:
1425:
I think this is more a Twinkle fault than a fault of the template itself; if added properly both tags should be visible.
1171:
952:
245:
3104:
2931:
2891:
2560:
In an effort to try to come up with some solutions for massive and/or chronic backlogs on copyright issues (such as at
2172:
1585:
3031:
444:
Correct, if it is a clear copyvio it should be speedy deleted. If there is an assertion of permisson it should go to
1446:
821:
2404:
1493:
I'd second the request - doing a wonderful job at IFD & would make keeping up with changes here much easier!
2736:
has been uploading photos falsely under the GNU doccumentation license. For example, his most recent edition was
2727:
2469:
I think this is critically needed. Knowledge has chosen to address copyright concerns proactively, demonstrating
1684:
1591:
872:
627:
2660:
2773:
2334:
2296:
2256:
1168:
683:
2204:
491:
indicates that "This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have
2885:
2501:
476:
2837:
2482:
2230:
1872:
1232:
445:
397:
109:
92:
3103:
Sorry to do this, but I can't deal with the process right now, just wanted to draw someone's attention to
2212:
1704:-able, or not? If so, I'm not sure how to efficiently detect the situation as there isn't a corresponding
1321:
802:
Correct. Send the whole e-mail exchange and the link to the image to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.
2951:
this may be typical of speedy file deletion. Can anyone persuade me I am wrong? Thank you for your time.
1899:
1647:
413:
340:
209:
2764:
1909:
notice be copied over, and fixed my bot. There's probably a lot more cleanup that needs doing, though.
272:
38:
167:(because the former's transclusion list is what BetacommandBot goes off of), so I have gone ahead and
3122:
It's on Flickr as CC-BY-2.0, which is a free license. The watermark is concerning, but the <?: -->
3054:
2999:
2989:
2975:
2223:
2026:
Twinkle is changed to work with PUF now, thanks for the heads-up. Might need a browser cache refresh.
1528:
1085:
1068:
353:
As an administrator, I'm totally unclear on how this page should be processed. The instructions for
314:
3206:
Well, a work could be copyrighted but under certain CC terms, right? Given your rationale, I assume
134:
and b) the Foundation has promised to work on a policy incorporating the logo but hasn't done it yet
2898:
1932:
I've fixed the daily pages for March 19-23, and a few more templates. I've also dropped a note at
3239:
3192:
3138:
3098:
2794:
1800:
Ok, this is done: images with a non-free template will have a note appended, unless they contain
1790:
1776:
1762:
1705:
1617:
1430:
1039:
1025:
901:
483:
that states "Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or
151:
135:
1317:
916:
I don't understand the instructions to tag caption(s) if an image is in use. Please clarify. --
741:
248:. Anybody could go to the museum and take a picture. No need for a non-free content image here.
3153:
3069:
2825:
2810:
2655:
Not sure if i should bring this here so i will ask first. I recently crop a picture for use in
1989:
792:
761:
3123:
symbol could be just about anything, so it's not as bad as the situation below with the Yoda.
2634:
365:, etc.). But there's nothing on, for instance, when and how I should remove a log page (like
3107:
which is off Flickr, but I think it's not Creative Commons, I think it's all right reserved?
2747:
2699:
2576:. Please contribute, if you have any ideas. I think there's a critical need. At this moment,
2106:
1708:
added by all free license templates, or even a comprehensive list of free license templates (
1392:
1362:
1352:
911:
1473:, or I can just add a note after '-----' like Garion96 has done in some of the recent days.
1255:
Mostly fan art, which is definitely non-free, if the underlying characters are not free. --
3293:
3045:
3022:
2985:
2971:
2338:
2300:
2260:
2220:
2004:
The second one. I hadn't encountered that before. I thought I broke the internet. *phew* ▫
1500:
1157:
1093:
1001:
328:
309:
172:
3162:
of a replica really be released under a CC license or is the design copyrighted? Thanks.--
2383:. Please comment there, this notice is only to draw attention to the central discussion.
1260:
8:
3215:
3167:
2820:
Seriously, let's all pretend that I didn't say that. I'll be accepting trout all week. --
2585:
2493:
2439:
2156:
2141:
1891:
1740:
1467:
1440:
1298:
1015:
921:
724:
374:
97:
280:
I'm guessing its somebody whose new to copyright stuff and doesn't quite understand it.
3282:
3225:
3178:
3159:
3124:
2908:
2681:
2650:
2489:
2330:
2313:
2292:
2275:
2252:
2151:
Since no one spoke up, I went ahead and added the above to the list by hand just now.
2061:
2006:
1967:
1852:
1747:
1599:
1535:
1376:
1243:
1129:
860:
847:
833:
824:
there are over 1,000 active admins on Knowledge. Could one of you please take care of
806:
671:
648:
564:
452:
432:
404:
318:
252:
138:
3207:
3088:
3065:
3040:. It discusses a problem that affects both FFD and PUF, and needs to be addressed.
3010:
3000:
2956:
2821:
2806:
2755:
2416:
2388:
1677:
Hmmm... When I started to look into this, I discovered a few interesting edge cases.
1631:
1415:
1110:
886:
788:
737:
708:
583:
556:
511:
470:
1746:
tag, and sorting them into relevant categories so these can be easily bot-detected.
641:. Don't have much preference, but either way, a note on the "keep" would be handy!
296:
Knowledge:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_August_28#Image:Bob-Mould-press-photo-2005.jpg
3112:
3014:
2874:
2850:
2641:
2119:
2102:
1996:
1953:
1941:
1933:
1913:
1814:
1727:
1668:
1577:
1573:
The bot has been approved and is now running. Let me know if you see any problems.
1565:
1519:
1484:
1457:
1404:
1388:
1358:
1343:
987:
Noted, it will then only report non-free images that only have a free license tag.
592:
700:
3289:
3041:
3018:
2785:
1905:
1494:
1153:
1089:
749:
393:
336:
299:
261:
231:
216:
117:
1715:
The image page could have been edited since being listed, so it has a rationale
1256:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3258:
3211:
3163:
2733:
2719:
2672:
2152:
2137:
1804:
1694:
1554:
1477:
1294:
1238:
1204:
1141:
1010:
917:
720:
575:
370:
1712:
contains "unknown" and "disputed" templates in addition to "free" templates).
1372:
You need to set your monitor to a higer resolution. :) I am cleaning some up.
1190:
is. For example, I've just added a discussion about the use of song lyrics to
740:.) Logos, such as the FBI logo and the seal of POTUS are welcome on commons.
3273:
2927:
2691:
2581:
2577:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2546:
2526:
2470:
2459:
2455:
2431:
2380:
2326:
2310:
2288:
2272:
2248:
2235:
2188:
1924:
1833:
1701:
1661:
1532:
1450:
1373:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1145:
1126:
944:
856:
844:
829:
803:
665:
642:
552:
496:
488:
480:
449:
420:
401:
362:
358:
298:, when will I receive a reply from the Communications Committee? Thank you. -
249:
3006:
The main page for possibly unfree files is way to confusing to bother with.
2197:
1449:
that AnomieBOT "close" the discussion on deleted images here, as it does at
3084:
2952:
2841:
2769:
2751:
2509:
2478:
2412:
2384:
2363:
2031:
1654:
1627:
1411:
1270:
988:
963:
882:
704:
697:
598:
579:
466:
281:
201:
2665:
File:Iron Maiden in the Palais Omnisports of Paris-Bercy (France crop).jpg
3108:
2967:
2947:
2923:
2871:
2846:
2663:
is this ok?? I mean its clearly a logo see image in question here---: -->
2638:
2116:
1993:
1950:
1938:
1910:
1811:
1786:
1772:
1758:
1724:
1665:
1613:
1574:
1562:
1516:
1481:
1426:
1339:
1035:
897:
772:
617:
2915:
1736:
Well I'm steering you on a path, I'm trying to get mass adoption of the
633:
just simply overlooked. A couple of options would be like this example
369:). Some better direction would help remove the backlog, in my opinion.
2919:
2803:
isn't archiving, even though all the discussions are closed. Any ideas?
2781:
2742:
975:
745:
332:
113:
2845:
please point to where the workflow is given for handling these tasks?
1965:
normal behavior for a redirect? There is a nomination on that page. ▫
1949:
Twinkle is apparently one such tool; I've left a bug report for them.
1148:, this however leaves problems with media with multiple uses, such as
597:
How long should an image be listed here before it should be delisted?
3064:
was in any way authorised to release it under those terms........ --
2668:
1879:
Knowledge:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
1199:
1072:
2426:
A board & process to address multiple point copyright infringers
128:
3269:
2184:
1609:
1334:
Could someone look over the images on this page. Copyright of ie.
1531:. So I think they (or a to be created PUI equivalent) are better.
2984:
I have restored both as they are clearly labelled public domain.
2488:
Please help address this need. Your comments are much welcome at
112:
free even though they incidentally contain many non-free logos. —
1329:
User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions
1006:
The holding cell seems to be missing May 30 through June 7. --—
937:
Image:Old_Bicycle_Path_Railroad_Crossing_in_Medford_New_York.jpg
569:
This is a relatively small point, but I changed the text of the
3081:
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests#How to list deletion requests
3017:, whose idea of entirely own work seems to be using a scanner.
768:
613:
100:
has been active lately tagging a bunch of images bearing the {{
2926:(linked to from the cited page) with a similar banner and the
2772:
uploaded several imageas and put them all in several articles
1308:
Image search engine that can help figure out copyright status.
1088:
is barely functioning, and editors should be redirected here.
957:
I plan to have BJBot tag and file here images that are in the
2918:(scroll down and a banner appears at the top), the home page
1140:
The Fair use review is dead, most of the content which fails
200:, in the public domain. I'd appreciate any feedback there. –
260:
Nice of you, Garion96. I tagged it db-author. Best wishes. -
3263:
1. Do you have to be an admin to close these discussions?
3038:
Knowledge talk:Files for deletion#FFD log page date headers
2481:, cannot handle this specific situation: a listing such as
2448:
Knowledge:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys
2444:
Knowledge:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys
2115:
See the section above, I guess, and make it 2 bots broken.
1848:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images
1842:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images
1065:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review
2545:
doesn't seem to work with custom section headers either.
2836:
I'm gonna keep the trout in its holster a moment here...
2746:
magazine and I doubt that a young college student at the
935:
I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just wondering why
1515:
Which style of "closing" would you want the bot to use?
939:
was closed as keep. It's my understand that only images
510:, and most of the discussion between Sfacets and me is
3210:
would be a derivative of a copyrighted work as well?--
1121:- Missed this section when I posted a related message
2633:
Apparently Zorglbot isn't running at the moment. See
2321:
Benefit would primarily be to avoid confusion (since
1313:
2398:
Problem with using Twinkle to tag images in articles
2372:
Proposal to change PUF template and process slightly
1223:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
1057:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
692:
says on their web site that their logo (which is at
2238:'s discussions were just lengthened to 7 days. Now
1476:Is this something you would like done? I'll file a
782:What to do with confirmation from copyright holder
367:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 14
127:As I've pointed out before a) Commons accepts them
3059:What is the procedure with an image on Commons?
2358:with switching it to 7 days, but I don't see any
1884:User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
1560:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 18
1217:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
2556:Copyright backlogs; trying to generate solutions
1480:in a few days if the response here is positive.
508:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 25
2598:...at the top of the PUF date-specific boards?
2218:. If these are dealt with it can be deleted/.
1664:. Are there any objections to this being done?
1237:Question - where does stuff like everything on
1194:, which would not be appropriate to discuss at
2099:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images/2009 March 22
732:Note for posterity: Where there's a conflict,
694:Image:Environmental Protection Agency logo.svg
2091:Knowledge:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 22
690:United States Environmental Protection Agency
662:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 22
639:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 15
462:"licensed under an indisputably free license"
2740:. I believe this was taken from an issue of
2464:in the purpose statement at the process talk
2129:2009 March 11 skipped in "holding cell" list
1710:Category:Knowledge image copyright templates
637:. Another way to do this would be this way
635:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 7
240:I haven't gone through all your images, but
104:}} tag as orphaned non-free images (such as
828:? It goes back to the 18th of December. --
578:, someone feel free to revert it. Cheers!
485:licensed under an indisputably free license
1387::-) Thanks for taking on some of these.--
855:I understand. Thanks for your response.--
396:or listed (if assertion of permission) on
225:Request for list of images you may dispute
2870:to that line and the bot won't touch it.
2377:I have proposed a change to this template
2211:
2203:
1650:) with a note pointing the nominator to
493:disputed source or licensing information
816:why is there such an extensive backlog?
495:." Indeed, one of the primary uses of
14:
2968:http://www.vectorsite.net/ttcode5.html
1051:The following discussion is archived.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
192:about how to handle images which are
2442:has attempted to fill this gap with
664:, IMHO, is not a good way to do it.
184:Images probably in the public domain
25:
18:Knowledge talk:Possibly unfree files
2594:What happened to the navigation bar
2458:. More information is available at
2167:TinEye search gadget for Knowledge?
1590:Think we should move all of PUI to
349:How should administrators "process"
246:Knowledge:Non-free content criteria
23:
3105:File:Osama_bin_Laden_compound2.jpg
2904:tag on a file giving a source and
2716:Category:Pufc from 14 October 2010
2661:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France
1030:The result of the discussion was:
931:Over 100 years old = good license?
548:Image:Arafat & Yassin 1997.jpg
278:Image:Terminal medford airport.jpg
24:
3308:
2173:TinEye search gadget from Commons
2089:Step 2 currently gives a link to
2085:Edit link going to the wrong page
896:They're virtually never allowed.
2860:
1823:Commons discussion on cosplaying
1548:
506:The deletion discussions are at
29:
2572:), I've opened a discussion at
1596:Knowledge:Possibly unfree media
1592:Knowledge:Possibly unfree files
2774:Transparent LED embedded glass
2103:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
1071:be merged with this project.--
696:) is protected. Specifically
542:Yasser Arafat and Ahmad Yassin
324:18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
303:13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
285:06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
13:
1:
3298:06:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
3027:21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
2994:03:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
2980:03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
2943:File:Reciprocal-operation.png
2589:14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2550:12:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2530:12:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
1781:12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
1767:12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
1751:23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1581:01:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1569:03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
1539:21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
1523:17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
1507:16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
1488:04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
1420:04:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
1397:01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
1380:21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1367:22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1284:New speedy criterion proposal
1067:, it has been suggested that
926:20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
891:05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
810:11:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
797:11:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
777:21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
728:07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
713:10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
622:21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
607:10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
588:02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
560:20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
537:09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
456:20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
439:15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
265:01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
256:22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
110:Image:Day114ftimesquareef.JPG
2961:13:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
2922:. The image is now embedded
2878:03:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
2855:16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
2830:21:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
2815:21:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
2790:21:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
2760:08:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
2738:File:New york city opera.jpg
2723:06:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
2497:13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
2483:Knowledge:CCI/Singingdaisies
2421:04:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
2028:I created some redirects at
1731:03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
1672:00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
1636:21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
1622:16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
1603:15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1435:16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
1348:21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
1044:16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
906:16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
865:19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
851:17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
838:15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
678:07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
655:06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
446:Knowledge:Copyright problems
408:21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
398:Knowledge:Copyright problems
378:00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
290:When will I receive a reply?
7:
2635:User talk:Schutz#Zorglbot 2
2393:19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2227:, 23:03 24 May 2009 (UTC).
2175:for use on Knowledge here:
1648:Category:All non-free media
1642:Non-free images listed here
1385:Small text is hard to read!
953:BJBot automated nominations
235:04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
220:03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
205:14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
10:
3313:
3050:05:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
2645:23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
2629:19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
2611:17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
2485:would bring it to a halt.
2193:13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
2161:01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
2146:02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2123:13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
2110:11:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
2067:11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
2022:05:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
2000:05:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
1983:05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
1957:04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
1945:03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
1928:23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1917:11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
1895:12:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
1868:02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
1818:01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
1586:Since IFD got moved to FFD
1303:05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
948:03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
244:seems replaceable per the
3278:18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
3032:FFD log page date headers
2750:owns the copyright to it.
2450:and those few which have
2367:20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
1837:19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
1795:10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
1529:Knowledge:Deletion review
1276:10:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1265:10:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1250:06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1210:06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1175:05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1105:. Fair use review is for
1098:13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1086:Knowledge:Fair use review
1076:05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1069:Knowledge:Fair use review
1021:19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
994:13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
754:15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
188:I have raised a question
176:05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
142:03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
122:23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
3249:18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
3220:09:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
3202:08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
3172:07:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
3148:08:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
3117:04:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
3093:09:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
2695:20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
2677:17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
2343:13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2317:13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2305:13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2279:12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2265:02:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
1220:Please do not modify it.
1186:is not only for images,
1162:10:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
1133:00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1114:08:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1054:Please do not modify it.
983:13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
969:09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
242:Image:Restored-PDP-1.jpg
3074:10:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
2966:Those images came from
2939:File:Enigma-machine.jpg
2728:Serial copyright abuser
2718:(for example) help? --
2409:this earlier bug report
2407:, and seems related to
1706:Category:All free media
1144:is being dealt with at
879:Berlin-wall-dancing.jpg
873:Associated Press Images
703:have an account there.
628:Follow-up on processing
448:, for other cases PUI.
2916:confirms Public Domain
1685:non-free use rationale
684:US EPA seal protected?
361:grounds, others go to
2886:Speedy file deletions
2748:University at Buffalo
2502:Multiple file listing
2354:Meh, I don't see any
1829:mass deletion request
42:of past discussions.
3061:File:Frank swift.jpg
2920:states Public Domain
2914:tag. The page cited
2247:need to. Thoughts? –
2231:Reduction to 7 days?
1961:On that subject, is
1873:WikiProject proposal
1233:Sexy naked catroons?
1150:Image:Albania FA.gif
555:article is valid. --
162:CopyrightByWikimedia
102:CopyrightByWikimedia
93:CopyrightByWikimedia
2206:File:Fungknives.jpg
1900:Poorly-planned move
1314:TinEye image search
210:Instructions please
130:and they only take
2765:Several LED images
2657:Portal:Iron Maiden
2177:User:Twp/tineye.js
1336:Image:PICT4175.JPG
1063:Per discussion at
822:the list of admins
273:Questionable image
3246:
3218:
3199:
3170:
3145:
3055:Image on Commons?
3011:H. S. S. Lawrence
3001:H. S. S. Lawrence
2214:File:Eminem09.jpg
2198:Imagevio tempalte
1386:
1291:comment over here
1274:
1109:unfree images. ˉˉ
992:
967:
738:Template:PD-CAGov
660:Follow-up: This
344:
331:comment added by
321:
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3304:
3245:
3240:
3237:
3214:
3198:
3193:
3190:
3166:
3144:
3139:
3136:
3091:
3015:User:Prithvin 88
2913:
2907:
2903:
2897:
2868:
2864:
2863:
2712:
2706:
2688:one of my images
2659:- as per --: -->
2626:
2608:
2574:Areas for Reform
2544:
2538:
2524:
2518:
2514:
2508:
2460:the process page
2452:already archived
2217:
2215:
2209:
2207:
2064:
2059:
2051:
2043:
2035:
2018:
2015:
2012:
2009:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1934:User talk:Schutz
1864:
1861:
1858:
1855:
1809:
1803:
1745:
1739:
1699:
1693:
1689:
1683:
1659:
1653:
1634:
1552:
1551:
1503:
1497:
1472:
1466:
1462:
1456:
1384:
1273:
1246:
1222:
1056:
1013:
991:
980:
966:
742:example/evidence
734:US Copyright law
674:
668:
651:
645:
604:
602:
534:
532:
526:
520:
435:
429:
423:
326:
313:
169:commented it out
166:
160:
156:
150:
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3312:
3311:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3285:
3261:
3241:
3234:
3230:
3226:
3194:
3187:
3183:
3179:
3156:
3140:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3101:
3099:Helpless kitten
3087:
3057:
3034:
3009:In the article
3004:
2986:Graeme Bartlett
2972:Graeme Bartlett
2937:However, I see
2911:
2905:
2901:
2899:db-nopermission
2895:
2888:
2861:
2859:
2797:
2795:Archive problem
2767:
2732:I suspect that
2730:
2710:
2704:
2702:
2684:
2653:
2618:
2600:
2596:
2558:
2542:
2536:
2522:
2516:
2512:
2506:
2504:
2428:
2400:
2374:
2233:
2213:
2205:
2200:
2169:
2131:
2087:
2062:
2053:
2045:
2037:
2029:
2016:
2013:
2010:
2007:
1977:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1906:User:Od Mishehu
1902:
1875:
1862:
1859:
1856:
1853:
1844:
1825:
1807:
1801:
1743:
1737:
1697:
1691:
1687:
1681:
1657:
1651:
1644:
1630:
1588:
1549:
1501:
1495:
1470:
1464:
1460:
1454:
1443:
1407:
1355:
1338:looks dubious.
1332:
1310:
1286:
1259:(or Hrothulf) (
1244:
1235:
1227:
1218:
1052:
1028:
1026:Merger proposal
1011:
1004:
976:
955:
933:
914:
875:
818:
784:
764:
686:
672:
666:
649:
643:
630:
600:
599:
595:
567:
544:
530:
524:
518:
516:
464:
433:
427:
421:
416:
351:
292:
275:
227:
212:
186:
164:
158:
154:
148:
95:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3310:
3284:
3281:
3260:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3232:
3228:
3185:
3181:
3155:
3154:Quick question
3152:
3151:
3150:
3131:
3127:
3100:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3056:
3053:
3033:
3030:
3003:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2982:
2887:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2833:
2832:
2796:
2793:
2766:
2763:
2734:User:Qianxinyi
2729:
2726:
2701:
2698:
2683:
2680:
2652:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2631:
2595:
2592:
2586:Moonriddengirl
2557:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2503:
2500:
2494:Moonriddengirl
2473:, and when we
2435:
2434:
2427:
2424:
2399:
2396:
2373:
2370:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2232:
2229:
2199:
2196:
2171:I've ported a
2168:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2130:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2095:different page
2086:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2027:
1990:bugzilla:14323
1901:
1898:
1892:Moonriddengirl
1887:
1886:
1881:
1874:
1871:
1843:
1840:
1824:
1821:
1798:
1797:
1783:
1769:
1734:
1733:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1713:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1624:
1587:
1584:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1510:
1509:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1354:
1351:
1331:
1326:
1309:
1306:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1239:User:KingKon97
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1213:
1212:
1177:
1167:claimed uses.
1164:
1135:
1116:
1100:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1047:
1027:
1024:
1012:Gadget850 (Ed)
1003:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
962:I'm not sure.
954:
951:
932:
929:
913:
910:
909:
908:
874:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
817:
814:
813:
812:
783:
780:
763:
762:Responsiveness
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
685:
682:
681:
680:
629:
626:
625:
624:
594:
591:
566:
563:
543:
540:
504:
503:
463:
460:
459:
458:
415:
412:
411:
410:
350:
347:
346:
345:
294:Hi. Regarding
291:
288:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
226:
223:
211:
208:
185:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
152:Non-free media
106:Image:Edit.JPG
98:BetacommandBot
94:
91:
89:
85:
84:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3309:
3300:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3280:
3279:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3264:
3250:
3247:
3244:
3238:
3236:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3200:
3197:
3191:
3189:
3176:
3175:
3174:
3173:
3169:
3165:
3161:
3149:
3146:
3143:
3137:
3135:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3114:
3110:
3106:
3094:
3090:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3062:
3052:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3029:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3012:
3007:
3002:
2995:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2969:
2965:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2949:
2944:
2940:
2935:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2917:
2910:
2900:
2893:
2879:
2876:
2873:
2867:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2843:
2839:
2835:
2834:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2802:
2792:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2778:LED Headliner
2775:
2771:
2762:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2744:
2739:
2735:
2725:
2724:
2721:
2717:
2709:
2700:Pufc template
2697:
2696:
2693:
2689:
2679:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2646:
2643:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2630:
2627:
2625:
2623:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2609:
2607:
2605:
2591:
2590:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2551:
2548:
2541:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2528:
2521:
2511:
2499:
2498:
2495:
2491:
2486:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2471:due diligence
2467:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2433:
2430:
2429:
2423:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2395:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2369:
2368:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2277:
2274:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2228:
2226:
2225:
2222:
2216:
2208:
2202:Used only on
2195:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2180:
2178:
2174:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2134:2009 March 11
2124:
2121:
2118:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2093:- which is a
2092:
2068:
2065:
2057:
2049:
2041:
2033:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2020:
2019:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1998:
1995:
1991:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1964:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1955:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1943:
1940:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1926:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1915:
1912:
1907:
1897:
1896:
1893:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1865:
1849:
1839:
1838:
1835:
1830:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1813:
1806:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1749:
1748:ViperSnake151
1742:
1732:
1729:
1726:
1723:
1718:
1714:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1696:
1686:
1679:
1678:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1656:
1649:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1601:
1600:ViperSnake151
1597:
1593:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1576:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1508:
1504:
1498:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1474:
1469:
1459:
1452:
1448:
1447:has requested
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1353:Major backlog
1350:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1330:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1245:JohnnyMrNinja
1240:
1230:
1224:
1221:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1058:
1055:
1049:
1048:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1016:
1014:
995:
990:
986:
985:
984:
981:
979:
973:
972:
971:
970:
965:
960:
950:
949:
946:
942:
938:
928:
927:
923:
919:
912:Tag captions?
907:
903:
899:
895:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
880:
866:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
849:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:According to
811:
808:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
779:
778:
774:
770:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
730:
729:
726:
722:
717:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
701:
698:
695:
691:
679:
675:
669:
663:
659:
658:
657:
656:
652:
646:
640:
636:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
562:
561:
558:
554:
553:Yasser Arafat
549:
539:
538:
535:
533:
527:
521:
513:
509:
502:
501:
500:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
472:
468:
457:
454:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
440:
437:
436:
430:
425:
424:
409:
406:
403:
399:
395:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
342:
338:
334:
330:
325:
320:
316:
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
301:
297:
287:
286:
283:
279:
266:
263:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
222:
221:
218:
207:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
177:
174:
170:
163:
153:
145:
144:
143:
140:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
90:
83:
80:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3286:
3268:
3265:
3262:
3242:
3227:
3195:
3180:
3157:
3141:
3126:
3102:
3066:ChrisTheDude
3058:
3035:
3008:
3005:
2936:
2928:image itself
2889:
2865:
2842:User:Legobot
2799:
2798:
2770:User:Dshavit
2768:
2741:
2731:
2703:
2685:
2654:
2621:
2619:
2603:
2601:
2597:
2559:
2505:
2487:
2474:
2468:
2440:WP:COPYCLEAN
2436:
2401:
2381:Village Pump
2375:
2359:
2355:
2353:
2322:
2284:
2243:
2239:
2234:
2219:
2201:
2181:
2170:
2132:
2094:
2088:
2005:
1966:
1903:
1888:
1851:
1845:
1826:
1799:
1735:
1716:
1700:. Are these
1645:
1589:
1572:
1553:
1547:
1475:
1444:
1408:
1356:
1333:
1320:, 2008-08-23
1311:
1287:
1242:
1236:
1228:
1219:
1216:
1205:
1200:
1179:
1137:
1118:
1106:
1102:
1081:
1061:
1053:
1050:
1032:Do not merge
1031:
1029:
1008:
1007:
1005:
1002:Holding cell
977:
958:
956:
940:
934:
915:
878:
876:
819:
789:ChrisTheDude
785:
765:
705:Jason McHuff
687:
631:
596:
568:
557:Al Ameer son
545:
515:
505:
492:
484:
473:
465:
431:
419:
417:
392:deleted per
388:
384:
354:
352:
293:
282:Jason McHuff
276:
228:
213:
197:
193:
187:
131:
96:
88:
75:
43:
37:
3036:Please see
2838:PUF history
2801:December 27
1846:Heads up -
1608:Seems like
1441:Bot request
1389:Jordan 1972
1359:Jordan 1972
327:—Preceding
36:This is an
3290:ScottyBerg
3283:PUF vs FFD
3208:this image
3160:this image
3042:SchuminWeb
3019:Weakopedia
2743:Opera News
2682:Time limit
2651:Question ?
2362:either. –
2224:Farmbrough
2185:Tim Pierce
1827:There's a
1741:free media
1496:Skier Dude
1468:ifd bottom
1154:Fasach Nua
1107:definitely
1090:PhilKnight
565:G12 vs. I9
394:WP:CSD#G12
300:Susanlesch
262:Susanlesch
232:Susanlesch
217:Susanlesch
196:, but not
173:Iamunknown
132:free media
3212:NortyNort
3164:NortyNort
2934:the tag.
2909:PD-author
2894:placed a
2153:Richwales
2138:Richwales
1904:It seems
1295:Rlandmann
1169:Fut.Perf.
941:published
918:Una Smith
721:Superm401
525:seriously
414:"Clearly"
371:Superm401
198:certainly
82:Archive 5
76:Archive 4
70:Archive 3
65:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
2948:web page
2692:Kevin W.
2327:Drilnoth
2311:Garion96
2289:Drilnoth
2273:Garion96
2249:Drilnoth
2063:Amalthea
1834:Dcoetzee
1610:busywork
1533:Garion96
1445:Someone
1405:puic tag
1374:Garion96
1241:fall? ~
1127:Garion96
1084:merge -
959:non-free
857:Rockfang
845:Garion96
830:Rockfang
804:Garion96
667:SkierRMH
644:SkierRMH
593:Question
477:contribs
450:Garion96
402:Garion96
341:contribs
329:unsigned
250:Garion96
194:probably
3235:anguard
3216:(Holla)
3188:anguard
3168:(Holla)
3134:anguard
3085:Sherool
2953:Thincat
2932:removed
2752:4meter4
2622:BQZip01
2604:BQZip01
2492:. :) --
2413:Postdlf
2385:Protonk
2379:at the
2364:Quadell
2360:benefit
2356:problem
2101:. Wha?
2056:idw-puf
1628:Sherool
1458:ifd top
1412:Johnbod
1324:15:43z
1318:Jeandré
1257:Hroðulf
1142:WP:NFCC
1138:comment
1103:Umm, no
1082:Support
883:Alemily
580:Esrever
467:Sfacets
389:deleted
319:commons
202:Quadell
39:archive
3259:close?
3109:jengod
3089:(talk)
2890:I see
2872:Anomie
2847:DMacks
2822:Danger
2807:Danger
2720:Pascal
2639:Anomie
2582:WP:CCI
2578:WP:PUF
2570:WP:CCI
2566:WP:SCV
2562:WP:PUF
2547:Powers
2527:Powers
2490:WT:CCI
2456:WP:SPI
2432:WP:CCI
2314:(talk)
2285:faster
2276:(talk)
2236:WP:FFD
2117:Anomie
2008:Johnny
1994:Anomie
1969:Johnny
1951:Anomie
1939:Anomie
1925:Powers
1911:Anomie
1854:Johnny
1812:Anomie
1787:Stifle
1773:Stifle
1759:Stifle
1725:Anomie
1702:WP:PUI
1666:Anomie
1662:WP:NFR
1632:(talk)
1614:Stifle
1575:Anomie
1563:Anomie
1536:(talk)
1517:Anomie
1482:Anomie
1451:WP:IFD
1427:Stifle
1377:(talk)
1340:Taemyr
1196:WP:PUI
1192:WP:FUR
1188:WP:PUI
1184:WP:FUR
1180:Oppose
1146:WP:IFD
1130:(talk)
1036:Stifle
898:Stifle
848:(talk)
807:(talk)
603:facets
571:header
497:WP:PUI
489:WP:PUI
481:WP:PUI
453:(talk)
405:(talk)
363:WP:IFD
359:WP:CSD
355:adding
253:(talk)
3224:Yes.
2782:Stone
2535:Hmm,
2479:WP:CP
2244:crazy
2240:every
2097:from
1805:PD-UK
1695:PD-UK
1557:filed
1073:Doug.
978:Kelly
746:Elvey
531:folks
333:Bryan
310:Bryan
171:. --
157:from
114:Bkell
16:<
3294:talk
3274:talk
3243:Wha?
3231:ven
3196:Wha?
3184:ven
3158:Can
3142:Wha?
3130:ven
3113:talk
3079:See
3070:talk
3046:Talk
3023:talk
2990:talk
2976:talk
2957:talk
2941:and
2924:here
2892:this
2866:Done
2851:talk
2840:has
2826:talk
2811:talk
2786:talk
2776:or
2756:talk
2708:Pufc
2686:So,
2673:talk
2669:Moxy
2667:. ..
2584:. --
2568:and
2540:puic
2520:pui2
2475:know
2462:and
2417:talk
2405:here
2389:talk
2221:Rich
2210:and
2189:talk
2157:talk
2142:talk
2107:talk
2052:and
2048:pufc
2040:puf2
1963:this
1850:. ▫
1791:talk
1777:talk
1763:talk
1690:and
1618:talk
1555:BRFA
1502:talk
1478:BRFA
1431:talk
1416:talk
1393:talk
1363:talk
1344:talk
1312:Saw
1299:talk
1293:. --
1261:Talk
1158:talk
1123:here
1094:talk
1040:talk
922:talk
902:talk
887:talk
861:talk
834:talk
826:this
793:talk
773:talk
750:talk
725:Talk
709:talk
688:The
673:talk
650:talk
618:talk
584:talk
576:bold
546:The
512:here
471:talk
434:Love
422:Lara
385:kept
375:Talk
337:talk
315:talk
190:here
118:talk
3270:TCO
2510:pui
2323:all
2032:puf
2014:Nin
1975:Nin
1860:Nin
1717:now
1660:or
1655:dfu
1594:or
1198:. —
945:NE2
519:But
387:or
3296:)
3276:)
3115:)
3072:)
3048:)
3025:)
2992:)
2978:)
2959:)
2912:}}
2906:{{
2902:}}
2896:{{
2853:)
2828:)
2813:)
2805:--
2788:)
2758:)
2711:}}
2705:{{
2675:)
2637:.
2620:—
2602:—
2564:,
2543:}}
2537:{{
2523:}}
2517:{{
2513:}}
2507:{{
2466:.
2419:)
2391:)
2341:)
2337:•
2333:•
2303:)
2299:•
2295:•
2263:)
2259:•
2255:•
2191:)
2159:)
2144:)
2105:-
2058:}}
2054:{{
2050:}}
2046:{{
2044:,
2042:}}
2038:{{
2036:,
2034:}}
2030:{{
2017:ja
2011:Mr
1992:.
1978:ja
1972:Mr
1863:ja
1857:Mr
1808:}}
1802:{{
1793:)
1779:)
1765:)
1744:}}
1738:{{
1698:}}
1692:{{
1688:}}
1682:{{
1658:}}
1652:{{
1620:)
1612:.
1598:?
1505:)
1471:}}
1465:{{
1461:}}
1455:{{
1433:)
1418:)
1395:)
1365:)
1346:)
1301:)
1271:BJ
1263:)
1206:gr
1201:An
1182:.
1160:)
1119:No
1111:╦╩
1096:)
1042:)
1034:.
1018:-
1009:—
989:BJ
964:BJ
924:)
904:)
889:)
863:)
836:)
795:)
775:)
752:)
744:--
723:-
711:)
676:)
653:)
620:)
586:)
400:.
373:-
343:)
339:•
322:)
165:}}
159:{{
155:}}
149:{{
120:)
3292:(
3272:(
3233:M
3229:S
3186:M
3182:S
3132:M
3128:S
3111:(
3068:(
3044:(
3021:(
2988:(
2974:(
2955:(
2875:⚔
2849:(
2824:(
2809:(
2784:(
2754:(
2671:(
2642:⚔
2624:—
2606:—
2415:(
2387:(
2339:L
2335:C
2331:T
2329:(
2301:L
2297:C
2293:T
2291:(
2261:L
2257:C
2253:T
2251:(
2187:(
2155:(
2140:(
2120:⚔
1997:⚔
1954:⚔
1942:⚔
1914:⚔
1815:⚔
1789:(
1775:(
1761:(
1728:⚔
1669:⚔
1616:(
1578:⚔
1566:⚔
1520:⚔
1499:(
1485:⚔
1463:/
1429:(
1414:(
1391:(
1361:(
1342:(
1322:t
1297:(
1172:☼
1156:(
1092:(
1038:(
920:(
900:(
885:(
859:(
832:(
791:(
771:(
769:B
748:(
707:(
670:(
647:(
616:(
614:B
601:S
582:(
528:|
522:|
474:·
469:(
428:❤
335:(
317:|
312:(
215:-
139:N
116:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
