266:. The images clarify the entry, add visual interest, are accurate in portrayal of the dialog, and have been approved by the license holders or owners of the images. Yet you cite a "lack of critical commentary." --Exactly how does one provide critical commentary in this case of a photo of a building? Ex: I provided a picture of Phi Sig's Alpha chapter taken shortly after its 100th anniversary remodel, noting this fact. The building owners and photo owners approve of my low resolution usage of the photo, and have distributed such photo similarly on their own website. I have been to see the building, and have personally been inside it. There is no critical dissent that this building is not what I report it to be. In the case of jewelry, there is confusion between greek letter organizations because the letters themselves are not readily intelligible to the non-affiliated user, and therefore it is helpful to provide a visual depiction of such symbols.
981:
Alexander one I'll give you, but not the others. I'll do some work on the images at file level, and return them to the article. If you still have problems, I suggest you raise your concerns in the appropriate place. This is a difference of opinion, and yours doesn't supersede anyone else's. And I fail to see what difference the age of the play makes to discussing how, for example, a modern director has used focus shifting to convey a thematic point, and then showing that in an image. Also: "Given at this play was written before 1600 there is a zero need for any non-free files as any example is possible to be replaced with a freely licensed replacement image". That is completely inaccurate and quite a bizarre statement to make. You're saying that no article on any play by
Shakespeare (or Marlowe, or Webster, or Kidd, or Peele, or Greene or Fletcher) can justify any non-free images under any circumstances no matter what the content of the article??
727:"Minor mention?" This is where the photo was taken. It is the results stand of the race in question. Perhaps the prose is inadequate, I have personally written more prose for event articles than just about any other WP editor. But with the minimalist history of such articles, 50% of the prose is rightfully dedicated to the incident on the medal stand. If a person were to look for the story of this incident, this photo, this article would be one of the logical places to start. I'm withholding doing a second revert on this. You are completely wrong and should revert it yourself. If you have a problem with it, start discussing this in public and I'll be right there fighting for the opposite side. I'll copy from right here.
966:
non-free files as any example is possible to be replaced with a freely licensed replacement image. Also just referencing an issue isnt enough to justify a non-free image. If the adaptions are notable, and such a position is established by neutral third parties, it should be split off into its own article (where an example image may be justifiable depending on context). But as a whole an article about a play written over 400 years ago cannot justify 5+ non-free files. If you want a realistic portrayal, or a stylised portrayal getting an image of that is possible and reasonable. (either have someone with existing images release them under a free license, or take your own images during the production of the play).
945:
ask you, respectfully, to simply outline what your problem is as I completely disagree with you about their failure. Where are the free images that can be used instead? How do they not help the reader understand the text? If it's a case that the image pages themselves need to be embellished, that's no problem. I mean, it should be obvious to anyone why the two images from the live productions are necessary - they clearly illustrate what is meant by a "realistic" production and a "stylised" production, something which can't be conveyed in text alone. Similarly, the BBC one and the
1636:
use extraneous content. Let's not quibble over what "minimal extent" has to mean exactly -- we're talking about single pages and thirds of pages judiciously selected from a body of tens of thousands of pages. I am changing "typographic design" to "typographic and page design" in hopes we can compromise there. I also apologize for the title of this section; clearly you understand NFCC, but there is always room to have a discussion with subject matter experts before having too much confidence in how to apply them.
1578:
replaced by something free or disembedded from the context of the book series that the article is about. This section of the article addresses an aspect of the series' history: "what Greek texts look like on the page of these hundreds of volumes." To do so, it presents pagescan from some public-domain volumes, and, where the subject extends to volumes not in the public domain, uses a minuscule (NFCC#3) quantity of visual excerpting to show the phenomenon under discussion.
805:. If your flimsy excuse for the former "inadequate content" which I tried to address, were to be true, then it does not hold water with the later. An entire section, 2 paragraphs and two quotes--the most significant thing this guy did in HIS life, is now not supported with the picture? You are just pulling out whatever argument suits your purpose. I am telling you, you are wrong. You've got a long history, I've got a long history too, of trying to protect content.
31:
1960:
153:
1005:
article, and all of them are under free licenses. I did not say that non-free media is never acceptable, just that it is almost never acceptable, especially given the ability to create free replacements and the lack of specific critical commentary. You are just using them as examples of how the play is being interpenetrated, not any contextual significance with the example chosen just that it is an example.
1150:
690:
was carried on somewhere else improperly. I did think that this is a settled issue that you are now meddling in ex post facto. If there is ever a case for a fair use of a photo, this would be it. Absolutely you have no business just randomly removing it from an article without proper discussion. If you initiate the discussion, do it at the photo and place a link to each use of the photo.
85:
1025:. I simply challenged your ridiculous blanket statement. You would also do well to remember that you have no authority to order anybody to do anything. You have an opinion, which you obviously think is infallible. Considering two of these images have already been adjudged to not fail fail NFCC#8 or NFCC#3, you're clearly wrong about that. You're also very rude. But I shall file an
1000:, but until it is closed do not re-add non-free media to that article. Given the fact that older plays are outside of copyright getting a free image is 100% possible, with the recent plays due to copyright getting an image may not be possible. Given that it is possible to create and or use free media for illustration there is zero need for non-free media. See
797:
established and that is in dispute, you discuss. I'm disputing. All you do is parrot yourself and the policy quote. I'm disputing that. I've read the policy. This clearly fits into the exceptions in the policy. You obviously disagree. We need more opinions involved before you go further and remove more content. Not only have you damaged the
172:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
1621:. I think the points I made are still valid, but this is already bending over backwards for "minimal extent." Consider that, even for purely typographic illustration, we're interested in how all the letters combine, etc. One could be really obsessive and come up with a list of all kinds of typographic features that are
2168:
No, rather that article is an easy target for those wanting to promote their non-notable product. I am stopping short of calling this a Paid
Editing incident, but Knowledge is not the place to promote your product or service. I find dislike those who attempt to use wikipedia as a marketing tool. I am
1577:
They illustrate the presentation of the text in those typefaces in the series, in different ways at different times (some years now in public domain, some not). I can bring in other subject-matter expert editors to vouch for the explanatory value these illustrations possess, and for how they can't be
1103:
As far as I can tell, the images you nominated for deletion that I checked have rationale, it is your opinion that there is a violation. As shown by
Bertaut, the images you removed have already been judged to be fine by others, so here it is entirely your opinion, no clear violation has taken place.
965:
Honestly none of the files meet NFCC#8. The article isnt about one particular adaptation of the play. You can completely understand the play especially given the large number of free images that we have to illustrate the subject. Given at this play was written before 1600 there is a zero need for any
1175:
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit
944:
page, what do you suggest? Two of the files were nominated for deletion when I initially uploaded them, and the results on both was to keep them because they were important for the undertstanding of the article. That was about three years ago. You keep citing policy about what they fail, but I would
913:
Essentially, I'm bringing forth the discussion you should have initiated first, since it is your opinion that is causing this problem after 9 years. And I may use harsh words, but removal of appropriate content from
Knowledge damages the overall look of the Knowledge project by its absence far more
689:
As I said in my notes, if you have a copyright or free use issue with this photo, it should be dealt with at the file level. I just looked at talk for that file, there is one similar comment (unsigned from over a year ago, not you). I haven't found the discussion of this particular photo, maybe it
2117:
in a completely acceptable way. Grapevine
Solutions is one of the leaders in enterprise survey products, and is comparable to many other products listed on this page. I am in the process of adding an entry for their product, supported with both primary and secondary sources. Unless you would prefer
1051:
There is a problem with a user like
Werieth who removed the images from a page on poor reason, and then immediately nominate those for deletion (which he hasn't done yet for these, but he did for many others). It looks to me he is playing both judge and jury here, removing images on his own whims.
741:
I added an additional line to the prose. If necessary, probably more can be supplemented. There certainly is enough literature out there to cull sources and quotes from. That in addition to the article about the incident alone. Good grief, there is even a volume of material on Peter Norman, the
241:
is approved you can use the file in that article. I havent spent much time reviewing the article, but it needs a fairly major re-write, better sourcing and a more neutral tone. Right now it reads like a press release. I would also suggest using an infobox to make the article more uniform to similar
1635:
relates to the text, etc., are pretty basic issues of the subject -- at least for people interested in this somewhat nerdy topic about books that print
Ancient Greek texts. Please also consider that, in some cases, these images ARE cropped down to small portions of a page. I certainly tried not to
1118:
I didnt remove it for rationale issues, I removed it due to being replaceable, minimal usage, and the second clause of #8. Whomever did the previous review did not know the non-free content policy well. These images especially how they are being used can be replaced. All you need is to take a free
823:
we dont include the file anywhere the subject is referenced, in fact it is by far a more notable image and is only used in two articles, verses the four that I left for this image. It is used in the article about the image and the person who photographed it (as a example of his visual work). There
126:
This file is unlicensed for use on
Knowledge and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Knowledge:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 1 October 2013. Please remove this template if a reason for
1979:
Sorry, I don't know what else to do, because if you keep on reverting the images will be speedy deleted, so obviously things can't be left as they are. In addition, you've said that you'll return to remove the others. Again, I ask that you instead nominate them for deletion if you believe they're
1820:
You only get to use 1 non-free file in that article, not 5. The article isnt about a single event, but rather a series. If the indivual events where notable and had their own article the file would be acceptable there, however in a list (or list like article) like this one it is not acceptable to
1528:
about the applicability of these three subjective criteria, I recommend you discuss it, specifically and at length, and with informed reference to the article's subject matter. It is certainly not appropriate to threaten to block an editor who is making a good-faith application of these criteria.
1527:
you cite "WP:NFCC #1,3,8." However, these are precisely the non-free content criteria that apply to the images you are insisting on removing. The images have (1) no free equivalent, (3) are minimal in number and extent, and (8) are important to readers' understanding of the topic. If you disagree
1004:
for example, it is a featured article on one of
Shakespeare's most notable works. How many non-free files does it have? If you said 0 you would be correct. It is in the top 0.09% of articles on wikipedia (via quality ratings) and uses no non-free media. The article has 32 images to illustrate the
1733:
copyrighted, so the copyright threshold is beside the point. You are not responding to (1) my claims of the encyclopedic value of page design elements that go beyond 2-4 words, (2) the inapplicability of the "look-up the font used" method (it's neither possible, nor does it illustrate the use of
980:
Well, when they were up for deletion before, they were seen as passing NFCC#8. It was specifically mentioned (so was NFCC#1). And the illustrations aren't there is depict specific productions - they are there to depict specific choices made by multiple directors in multiple productions. The Bill
1659:
Actually its not grey at all. You can use single words and/or limited extracts (what is below the copyright threshold for text) as examples of the typography, or look-up the font used and apply that to non-copyrighted text. It is possible to use font examples from copyrighted work and have them
2152:
I understand your concern so I'll back off, but I'm quite taken aback by your application of the conflict of interest policy. Adding to an incomplete list seems pretty reasonable and non self promotional (there's absolutely no room for bias, or other problems related to COI). This gives me the
1641:
I understand the impulse to trim everything to the minimum, but here we're dealing with images that have already been trimmed with that intention/criterion. If you don't see that, I hope you will at least see a grey area and restore the images pending further discussion with other editors to
796:
You obviously are not used to having your opinions questioned. And what we are talking about here are YOUR OPINION. That's one of you. Why are you afraid to get more people involved? We have a process for discussing things around here. If you have a problem with something that is well
949:
one both explicity depict something described in the text (the boy walking towards the rising sun in TItus and the thematic use of focus in BBC). The poster from the Bill
Alexander production is an exception, that one can go, but the others are important to the article. So, suggestions?
1757:
given that the usage right now is limited to showing examples and compare/contrasting the typeface being used we can replace the large blocks of text with limited examples of the typeface (removing the non-free issue) and still not harm the understanding of the primary work.
756:
You need to stop. I am moving as fast as I can to undo the DAMAGE you are doing to wikipedia. I was going to take you to ANI if YOU DON'T STOP your persistent attack on this image. The proper thing is to discuss, and I don't see you doing anything but deleting content.
995:
Given your response there is even less grounds for keeping the files. Do NOT add them back, since you are referring to generic examples of directorial discretion, the grounds for using non-free material is even less. If you want the removals reviewed please file a
1677:
Also, it seems that you are misunderstanding's Wareh's point: the illustration is not simply of a particular typeface, but of the type design. I can confirm that the visual relationship between elements of a Greek text are of great interest to classics nerds....
2193:
has been removed as being an "external link". It is not an external link, and the website in the reference was recently whitelisted at my request as shown below. After the effort to get the website whitelisted, I was sad to see this vital reference removed.
457:
Knowledge restricts the usage of non-free files (Like that of the sculpture) and usage of those files is only allowed under narrow rules. In this case because it has its own article we can just reference that article without having to include the file.
1558:
Actually if you are just trying to illustrate the typefaces (something that isnt copyrightable) making extracts of single words and using those as examples would make the non-free files you are using completely replaceable, and a clear violation of
890:
After your insults and shouting you wont get friendly discussion, you will just get civil discussion. Accusations of intent to intentionally damage Knowledge, based of your lack of understanding of a complex policy is borderline violation of
2169:
not an admin, nor is this being bureaucratic, rather its the actions of a regular user disliking the attempts of companies to market via Knowledge. P.S. One can be promotional without it being obvious (targeting lists and similar pages)
2043:
The image I added to Mookie Wilson's article was taken from Bill Buckner's. I would think it has equal justification to both articles, and if it should be removed from Mookie's, it should also be removed from Buckner's. --J.S.
2014:
I have closed the discussion and marked it as editor warned. When you have time, please review the comments I left in the section. If you have any questions about what I meant, or how to go about things, let me know. Thanks.
1660:
licensed freely thus the examples you want to use can be created and thus fail #1. We dont need to show every possible part of a font, using small samples which are below the copyright threshold will serve the same purpose.
1543:
As a first step towards avoiding bureaucratic dispute resolution, may I kindly ask you to expand fully on how and why you are so sure my interpretation of #1 #3 #8 is wrong (and yours right) on the article's talk page?
709:#1,3,8 in the article where you are using it. Other usages may be acceptable, however how you are using the file isnt. I am just removing it from one article where there is just a minor mention of the subject. See also
1596:. It might be prettier/easier to just use full page scans, but they are replaceable using a few words (below the copyright threshold). It is possible to use free images only, you may not like it, but thats policy.
1902:
because the discussion has been isolated to this page so far. SlimVirgin's actions go against NFC and a warning was issued as needed. Sometimes warnings to block are the only thing that gets peoples attention.
1630:
The article is illustrating the book design and presentation of the text. I can augment the rationale beyond reference to "typographic design" if necessary. How a page comes together, how the appearance of the
1642:
adjudicate whether these images are defensible under minimal extent (NFCC#3). NFCC#1 is really a no-brainer: there is no free source for Teubner's typographic/page design in its non-PD publications.
825:
798:
127:
keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. Administrators: delete this file after confirming it is not in use (be sure to check redirects to the file). Usage:
542:
Oh no; I'm sorry! Somehow I got you confused with User:Blurred Lines. On top of that, I misunderstood what was going on with the Phi Sigma Kappa image, and I've now re-deleted it.
1774:
Given the fact that the article is completely unsourced, and lacks any sourced critical commentary, usage of any non-free media besides the cover cannot be justified at this point.
1801:#14 in regards to the posters, which states "A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event.
396:
Hello, please do not delete Fortitude, it is the official symbol of Delta Sigma Theta, and does not violate any sharing provisions for Knowledge, as I got it from another page
1993:
1964:
895:
that I am ignoring. I support correct usage of non-free media, in this case it isnt correct, and thus removal is the correct procedure. I would suggest re-reading NFC.
1805:." I don't undestand how this fits to the article in question or how one could use it to justify the removal of the posters. Each event clearly has a different poster.
528:
Please dont take this the wrong way, but I think you are hallucinating. I havent edited any of the files you listed, and I dont think Ive made an F7 tag in months.
1883:
policy and disagrees with you about its application in this situation. Spending a bit more time explaining yourself will go a long way towards reducing conflict.
498:, for example, are periodical covers that we include for the same reasons that we include newspaper images on their articles. Attempting to have logos such as
1357:
1222:
Please note I have told you how to proceed and note that NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. So please read the section above and wait the outcome of a
1917:
A post on the talk page also gets people's attention, and has the added feature of not making you look like a jerk. Please consider it in the future.
284:
Non-free images of buildings that are currently standing are replaceable. Instead of using non-free files you should be focusing on using free files.
1328:
is a mess, there are a lot of images miss-licensed and there are way too many non-free in the article (once the licensing issues have been fixed.)
184:
1290:
Hi, Werieth! If I remember right, you are an expert on fair use, whereas I know nothing about that. Could I perhaps ask you to take a look at
93:
Message added 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can
1706:
As for the threshold, typically 2-4 words cannot be copyrighted, but as you get closer to a full sentence it gets easier to claim copyright.
2026:
2073:
2051:
1836:
238:
1244:
No. It has not been shown to be NFCC. As was said, it was nominated for deletion and found to be fine. Note what the 3RR says about
820:
354:
1625:
illustrated by the images (justifying a bigger excerpt) -- certain letters, letter combinations, word and line juxtapositions, etc.
1388:
910:
446:
1365:
1347:
1307:
262:
You have removed a number of Fair Use, accurately cited and referenced images that improve the article I have been working on,
2118:
this page being made first, I really don't understand your objection to adding them to this comparison list. Care to explain?
335:
2241:
2137:
and your only purpose on wiki is to promote that product. That type of behavior is against policy, and I find it disturbing.
2114:
832:? Also how is NFCC#3 (minimal usage) met when you are including this file in just about every article that references it?
141:
131:
1899:
1873:
1200:
490:
tagging? I've found tons of images in the last couple of days that you tagged as F7 completely wrongly: images such as
334:
You have correctly noted that this image is not being used anywhere. I have added a reasoning for this on the image's
1996:. If you had discussed your removal of the images on the articles' talk pages, I'm sure we wouldn't be at this point.
1204:
503:
499:
495:
168:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
1864:
Werieth, I'm sure you're acting with the best of intentions, but the way you're going about things is a bit brusque.
1876:, and very little in your edit summaries, borders on the abusive. Your use of a template on SlimVirgin's talk page (
1361:
1343:
1303:
173:
38:
2237:
1992:
Like SlimVirgin, I think the way you've been dealing with images is problematic, and I have added to her post at
1844:
1810:
780:
311:, watermark says otherwise . Please note that Sessine is a family name, I believe this image shouldn't be here. -
164:
103:
824:
are a dozens different places the image is referenced but it is only used in one article. How is the subject of
2020:
269:
Mr. or Ms. Werieth, why did you take these actions, and make these and similar edits? Are my citations flawed?
1674:
Werieth, can you please clarify exactly what the copyright threshold for text is? Is there a specific number?
1317:
1291:
308:
2077:
2055:
1735:
1524:
1342:
Thank you, you confirm my inexpert opinions. Can you deal with this, or should I do something? If so, what?
415:
I have re-removed the file, it is acceptable to use the file in the article about the statue but not in the
1489:
They copyright holder would need to release them under a free license, something that they really dont do.
829:
1968:
1196:
350:
1298:, but not apparently the subject of that article; and perhaps also at various non-free images in use at
502:
deleted (when they're being used as logos) is unhelpful and not in line with NFCC, while imagse such as
370:
208:
200:
192:
1266:
if you think the files are non-replaceable and their removal is detrimental to understanding the play.
567:
might be taken as borderline canvasing, given all three of us you mentioned are known NFC enforcers. --
1963:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
204:
196:
188:
2069:
2047:
1840:
1806:
662:
628:
620:
442:
434:
405:
342:
2199:
2154:
2119:
2016:
2001:
1922:
1888:
1683:
1592:
You are illustrating the typeface. You do not need to use page scans to do that. Doing so violates
1479:
1442:
1400:
1188:
919:
881:
810:
762:
747:
732:
695:
672:
649:
318:
304:
69:
2158:
2123:
2066:
If you don't answer me, I'll just assume you've seen the light, and have come to agree with me.
1632:
1295:
605:
491:
781:
obviously havent spent any time reviewing my actions as I have uploaded over 200 non-free files
2260:
2214:
2174:
2142:
2096:
1936:
1908:
1826:
1779:
1763:
1711:
1697:
1665:
1601:
1568:
1494:
1461:
1420:
1333:
1271:
1231:
1157:
1124:
1078:
1034:
1010:
986:
971:
955:
900:
867:
837:
819:
In regards to Roby, he is not in the picture, we have a full article on the subject. See also
787:
718:
547:
533:
511:
463:
424:
381:
346:
289:
247:
223:
47:
17:
1172:
1001:
274:
2233:
2087:
Actually I dont agree, and have requested the deletion of the file in question for failing
1470:
So there is no any way to keep the logos? Even if the copyright holder gave me permission?
596:
If yes, is there a way to find which article of a certain category has no {{DEFAULTSORT:}}?
212:
123:
I need help with the article I am trying to write. I added the Company Logo and they said:
2113:
Hi, I appreciate that you don't want biased promotional material, however, I added to the
1981:
1743:
1647:
1583:
1549:
1533:
1163:
624:
575:
438:
401:
263:
218:
I am about to head out for a bit, it should be less than 2 but I will give you some help.
2195:
2088:
1997:
1918:
1884:
1880:
1754:
1679:
1593:
1560:
1517:
1472:
1435:
1393:
1321:
1263:
1223:
1184:
1070:
1026:
997:
915:
877:
859:
806:
758:
743:
728:
706:
691:
667:
644:
484:
313:
65:
2134:
1798:
1453:
1430:
1412:
1253:
1212:
1192:
1168:
1109:
1066:
1057:
892:
772:
710:
601:
1073:
so that others can repeat what Im saying and hopefully it will sink into your head.
2256:
2210:
2170:
2138:
2092:
1932:
1904:
1822:
1775:
1759:
1707:
1693:
1661:
1597:
1564:
1490:
1457:
1416:
1329:
1325:
1299:
1267:
1227:
1120:
1074:
1030:
1006:
982:
967:
951:
896:
863:
833:
783:
714:
543:
529:
523:
507:
459:
420:
377:
285:
243:
219:
169:
113:
147:
Notify the uploader with: ==Orphaned non-free image File:Cuenca Cigars Logo.png==
1183:
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
1180:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
1738:, which only a photo of that series' pages (trimmed to whatever extent) can do.
270:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1391:
article, please tell me what should I do for the logos to stay on the article?
1149:
2264:
2245:
2218:
2203:
2178:
2162:
2153:
feeling that wikipedia not very open, and is run by quite bureaucratic admins.
2146:
2127:
2100:
2081:
2059:
2030:
2005:
1986:
1940:
1926:
1912:
1892:
1869:
1848:
1830:
1814:
1783:
1767:
1747:
1739:
1715:
1701:
1687:
1669:
1651:
1643:
1605:
1587:
1579:
1572:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1529:
1498:
1484:
1465:
1447:
1424:
1405:
1369:
1351:
1337:
1311:
1275:
1257:
1235:
1216:
1128:
1113:
1082:
1061:
1038:
1014:
990:
975:
959:
923:
904:
885:
871:
841:
814:
791:
766:
751:
736:
722:
699:
678:
655:
632:
609:
579:
568:
551:
537:
515:
467:
450:
409:
385:
358:
324:
293:
278:
251:
227:
73:
802:
862:, but the file stays out until others re-explain what I am saying to you.
1617:
I wrote the following (killed by edit conflict) but then I realized that
1249:
1208:
1105:
1053:
60:
Re: Orphaned non-free media (File:633 Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.jpg)
1803:
If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable
1156:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an
776:
400:
so please refrain from deleting it from the Delta page in the future.
2190:
338:, regarding why I haven't been able to attach it to an article yet.
1195:
for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant
1974:
This is in relation to the posts of mine that you removed earlier.
1692:
Might be of interest, but not critical to understanding the topic.
742:"other guy" on the podium and his significance to the whole thing.
397:
1729:
The whole point is that we are justifying the use of content that
430:
it's a SORORITY!!! and your "rationale" doesn't make any sense.
376:
for someone to take a look. The file wont be deleted for 7 days.
1171:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
1119:
photo of a production, since the work is outside of copyright.
828:(which is the results of the races) not understandable without
1619:
all the images you removed are already small portions of pages
593:
Is there a way to find which article has no {{DEFAULTSORT:}}?
25:
1872:, after you had done nothing to explain the image removal on
1148:
151:
83:
1358:
Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Blackbow17
1021:
You don't like being challenged do you? I never mentioned
506:
should be tagged with one of the time-delayed processes.
90:
Hello, Werieth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
1967:
regarding a possible violation of Knowledge's policy on
826:
Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres
799:
Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres
1977:
1975:
1877:
1865:
1162:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
564:
95:
183:
will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
1879:) seems insulting to me, since she clearly knows the
1203:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
195:) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) what do i need to do?
1456:. Knowledge restricts the usage of non-free media.
1320:is fairly easy, image should be deleted as failing
642:
I tried to help, he's not cooperating, I give up. -
623:, which seems like it was done in error. Thanks. --
1994:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
1965:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
239:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Cuenca Cigars
2255:He died in 1999. I can't take a photo of him.
1187:to work toward making a version that represents
911:WP:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
1178:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
779:of wikipedia. As for just deleting content you
619:Could you comment about your image deletion at
1069:isnt a whim. Stop violating policy and file a
801:article, you further deleted the content from
179:Note that any non-free images not used in any
1954:Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
1931:I have considered it, but its not effective.
705:Im not randomly removing it. The usage fails
8:
1860:Surely we could do this a bit more amicably.
1248:(and highlighted). Please don't prejudge.
2189:Dear Werieth, a reference in the article
398:https://en.wikipedia.org/Fortitude_(King)
1753:You are ignoring the fairly high bar of
1433:? And why the current ones don't meet
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
615:Removal of image from Stanley Kubrick
7:
1516:Concerned you may misunderstand the
1029:. Actually, I'll file four of them!
940:So as regards your deletions on the
621:Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Steadicam_photo
480:What are you doing with the rampant
94:
1980:violating the policy. Many thanks.
1837:Knowledge:Media copyright questions
2232:I have put an Error Message photo
2133:Its quite obvious that you have a
858:PS feel free to file a request at
821:File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg
775:what I am doing is supporting the
24:
2209:Sorry I missed the whitelisting.
1389:Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation
1383:Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation
1958:
500:File:Cavitysearchrecordslogo.png
330:Cheadle Hulme School Crest image
29:
1411:Nothing, the files do not meet
1167:—especially if you violate the
203:) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
1387:Hello, regarding the logos on
876:That's not too friendly . . .
773:Our policy on non-free content
392:Please do not delete Fortitude
1:
2115:comparison of survey software
1429:And how can I make them meet
174:our policy for non-free media
2265:21:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
2246:13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
2219:16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2204:16:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2179:15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2163:15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2147:14:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2128:14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2101:09:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2082:09:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2060:23:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
2031:20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
2006:19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1987:18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1941:18:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1927:18:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1913:17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1900:Talk:Bibliotheca Teubneriana
1893:17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1874:Talk:Bibliotheca Teubneriana
1849:16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1831:16:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1815:15:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1784:16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1768:16:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1748:16:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1716:16:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1702:16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1688:16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1670:16:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1652:16:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1606:15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1588:15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1573:15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1554:15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1538:15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1499:15:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1485:15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1466:14:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1448:14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1425:13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1406:13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1370:02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
1352:02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
1338:22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
1312:22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
1302:? I'd be grateful. Regards,
1276:12:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1258:11:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1236:11:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1217:11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1129:12:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1114:11:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1083:11:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1062:11:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1039:02:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
1015:02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
991:02:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
976:01:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
960:21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
924:22:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
905:21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
886:21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
872:21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
842:21:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
815:21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
792:20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
767:20:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
752:20:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
737:20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
723:19:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
700:19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
185:criteria for speedy deletion
99:at any time by removing the
1841:リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)
1807:リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)
679:10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
656:16:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
633:06:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
610:23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
580:13:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
552:01:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
538:01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
516:22:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
504:File:JERICHO - SAISON 1.jpg
496:File:Diplomatic History.jpg
468:01:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
451:01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
410:21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
386:15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
359:14:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
325:06:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
294:16:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
279:16:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
252:23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
228:20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
213:20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
165:File:Cuenca Cigars Logo.png
74:18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
64:That image can be deleted.
2280:
2039:Mookie Wilson/Bill Buckner
1452:You cannot make them meet
914:than a theoretical fear.
307:claims he's the author of
78:
152:
137:For non-replaced images:
1797:You pointed me towards
1736:Bibliotheca Teubneriana
1525:Bibliotheca Teubneriana
1356:You might like to note
1318:File:Avant Premiere.jpg
1292:File:Avant Premiere.jpg
1286:Would like your opinion
1898:I havent commented at
1153:
157:
88:
1362:Justlettersandnumbers
1344:Justlettersandnumbers
1304:Justlettersandnumbers
1152:
830:File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
258:Phi Sigma Kappa edits
162:Thanks for uploading
155:
87:
42:of past discussions.
2251:Clifford Bartholomew
2236:. Thank you alot, --
2135:Conflict of Interest
2109:Non promotional edit
1415:and cannot be kept.
1164:blocked from editing
142:di-orphaned fair use
132:di-orphaned fair use
1191:among editors. See
1821:have all of them.
1734:typography in the
1633:apparatus criticus
1296:Art Plural Gallery
1201:dispute resolution
1154:
492:File:IJMScover.jpg
419:sorority article.
158:
96:remove this notice
89:
2225:Bot Error Message
2185:Reference removed
2072:comment added by
2050:comment added by
2025:
1985:
1637:
1169:three-revert rule
454:
437:comment added by
362:
345:comment added by
170:claim of fair use
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:User talk:Werieth
2271:
2084:
2062:
2023:
1984:
1971:. Thank you.
1962:
1961:
1629:
1482:
1475:
1445:
1438:
1403:
1396:
1360:and subsequent.
1023:Romeo and Juliet
1002:Romeo and Juliet
942:Titus Andronicus
936:Titus Andronicus
685:Carlos-Smith.jpg
677:
675:
670:
654:
652:
647:
585:{{DEFAULTSORT:}}
572:
527:
489:
483:
453:
431:
375:
369:
361:
339:
323:
321:
316:
160:
154:
146:
140:
136:
130:
120:
118:
112:
108:
102:
98:
86:
79:You've got mail!
33:
32:
26:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2253:
2229:Good Evening,
2227:
2187:
2111:
2067:
2045:
2041:
1959:
1956:
1862:
1835:I took this to
1795:
1521:
1480:
1473:
1443:
1436:
1401:
1394:
1385:
1288:
1205:page protection
1147:
938:
687:
673:
668:
666:
661:take a look at
650:
645:
643:
640:
617:
587:
570:
562:
560:Word of caution
521:
487:
481:
478:
432:
394:
373:
367:
340:
332:
319:
314:
312:
302:
264:Phi Sigma Kappa
260:
149:
144:
138:
134:
128:
121:
116:
110:
106:
104:You've got mail
100:
92:
84:
81:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2277:
2275:
2252:
2249:
2226:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2186:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2150:
2149:
2110:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2017:Magog the Ogre
2009:
2008:
1955:
1952:
1950:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1861:
1858:
1856:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1794:
1791:
1789:
1787:
1786:
1771:
1770:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1675:
1639:
1638:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1520:
1514:
1512:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1262:Please file a
1246:unquestionably
1239:
1238:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1019:
1018:
1017:
937:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
771:Please review
686:
683:
682:
681:
639:
638:MyVoiceIsHeard
636:
616:
613:
598:
597:
594:
586:
583:
561:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
477:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
428:
393:
390:
389:
388:
331:
328:
301:
298:
297:
296:
259:
256:
255:
254:
233:
231:
230:
91:
82:
80:
77:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2276:
2267:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2250:
2248:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2230:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2192:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2116:
2108:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2085:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2074:71.54.243.121
2071:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2052:71.54.243.121
2049:
2038:
2032:
2028:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1976:
1972:
1970:
1966:
1953:
1951:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1859:
1857:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1793:NJPW Dominion
1792:
1790:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1732:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1634:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1526:
1519:
1515:
1513:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1477:
1476:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1446:
1440:
1439:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1382:
1380:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1285:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1159:
1151:
1144:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
999:
994:
993:
992:
988:
984:
979:
978:
977:
973:
969:
964:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
943:
935:
925:
921:
917:
912:
909:I took it to
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
793:
789:
785:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
684:
680:
676:
671:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
653:
648:
637:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
614:
612:
611:
607:
603:
595:
592:
591:
590:
584:
582:
581:
577:
573:
566:
559:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
486:
476:Image tagging
475:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
391:
387:
383:
379:
372:
366:Ive added an
365:
364:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
337:
329:
327:
326:
322:
317:
310:
306:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
267:
265:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
236:
235:
234:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:. Thank you.
186:
182:
177:
175:
171:
167:
166:
159:
148:
143:
133:
124:
115:
105:
97:
76:
75:
71:
67:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2254:
2231:
2228:
2188:
2151:
2112:
2068:— Preceding
2046:— Preceding
2042:
1973:
1969:edit warring
1957:
1949:
1863:
1855:
1802:
1796:
1788:
1730:
1728:
1640:
1622:
1618:
1616:
1522:
1511:
1471:
1434:
1392:
1386:
1378:
1326:Sarah Morris
1300:Sarah Morris
1294:, in use at
1289:
1245:
1182:
1177:
1161:
1155:
1145:October 2013
1022:
946:
941:
939:
688:
641:
618:
599:
588:
563:
479:
433:— Preceding
416:
395:
371:Edit request
347:Timhudsonchs
341:— Preceding
333:
303:
268:
261:
232:
180:
178:
163:
161:
150:
125:
122:
63:
55:
43:
37:
1998:--Akhilleus
1919:--Akhilleus
1885:--Akhilleus
1866:This threat
1680:--Akhilleus
1481:Talk to me!
1444:Talk to me!
1402:Talk to me!
1197:noticeboard
205:Mcuenca2410
197:Mcuenca2410
189:Mcuenca2410
36:This is an
1982:SlimVirgin
1870:User:Wareh
1799:WP:NFC#UUI
711:WP:NFC#UUI
625:Light show
439:Immigratty
417:fraternity
402:Immigratty
309:this image
300:free image
242:articles.
2196:Karrattul
1868:to block
1561:WP:NFCC#1
1474:A.h. king
1437:A.h. king
1395:A.h. king
1189:consensus
1185:talk page
916:Trackinfo
878:Trackinfo
807:Trackinfo
803:Doug Roby
777:m:Mission
759:Trackinfo
744:Trackinfo
729:Trackinfo
692:Trackinfo
336:Talk Page
119:template.
66:Zonafan39
2155:Russemes
2120:Russemes
2070:unsigned
2048:unsigned
1199:or seek
1176:warring—
1158:edit war
602:Xaris333
589:Hello.
447:contribs
435:unsigned
355:contribs
343:unsigned
305:Jsessine
181:articles
2257:Bwmoll3
2238:العراقي
2211:Werieth
2171:Werieth
2139:Werieth
2093:Werieth
2089:WP:NFCC
1933:Werieth
1905:Werieth
1881:WP:NFCC
1823:Werieth
1776:Werieth
1760:Werieth
1755:WP:NFCC
1708:Werieth
1694:Werieth
1662:Werieth
1598:Werieth
1594:WP:NFCC
1565:Werieth
1518:WP:NFCC
1491:Werieth
1458:Werieth
1417:Werieth
1330:Werieth
1322:WP:NFCC
1268:Werieth
1264:WP:NFCR
1228:Werieth
1224:WP:NFCR
1173:reverts
1121:Werieth
1075:Werieth
1071:WP:NFCR
1031:Bertaut
1027:WP:NFCR
1007:Werieth
998:WP:NFCR
983:Bertaut
968:Werieth
952:Bertaut
897:Werieth
864:Werieth
860:WP:NFCR
834:Werieth
784:Werieth
715:Werieth
707:WP:NFCC
544:Nyttend
530:Werieth
524:Nyttend
508:Nyttend
460:Werieth
421:Werieth
378:Werieth
286:Werieth
244:Werieth
220:Werieth
39:archive
2191:Mohani
1454:WP:NFC
1431:WP:NFC
1413:WP:NFC
1067:Policy
893:WP:NPA
271:Jax MN
2234:THERE
1740:Wareh
1644:Wareh
1580:Wareh
1546:Wareh
1530:Wareh
947:Titus
674:Ziade
669:Elias
651:Ziade
646:Elias
485:db-f7
320:Ziade
315:Elias
237:Once
16:<
2261:talk
2242:talk
2215:talk
2200:talk
2175:talk
2159:talk
2143:talk
2124:talk
2097:talk
2078:talk
2056:talk
2002:talk
1937:talk
1923:talk
1909:talk
1889:talk
1845:talk
1827:talk
1811:talk
1780:talk
1764:talk
1744:talk
1712:talk
1698:talk
1684:talk
1666:talk
1648:talk
1602:talk
1584:talk
1569:talk
1550:talk
1534:talk
1495:talk
1462:talk
1421:talk
1366:talk
1348:talk
1334:talk
1308:talk
1272:talk
1254:talk
1232:talk
1213:talk
1125:talk
1110:talk
1079:talk
1058:talk
1035:talk
1011:talk
987:talk
972:talk
956:talk
920:talk
901:talk
882:talk
868:talk
838:talk
811:talk
788:talk
763:talk
748:talk
733:talk
719:talk
713:#6.
696:talk
663:this
629:talk
606:talk
600:Thx!
571:ASEM
565:This
548:talk
534:talk
512:talk
494:and
464:talk
443:talk
425:talk
406:talk
382:talk
351:talk
290:talk
275:talk
248:talk
224:talk
209:talk
201:talk
193:talk
70:talk
1623:not
1523:At
1250:Hzh
1209:Hzh
1207:.
1193:BRD
1106:Hzh
1054:Hzh
176:).
114:ygm
109:or
2263:)
2244:)
2217:)
2202:)
2177:)
2161:)
2145:)
2126:)
2099:)
2091:.
2080:)
2058:)
2029:)
2024:•
2004:)
1939:)
1925:)
1911:)
1891:)
1847:)
1829:)
1813:)
1782:)
1766:)
1746:)
1731:is
1714:)
1700:)
1686:)
1668:)
1650:)
1604:)
1586:)
1571:)
1563:.
1552:)
1536:)
1497:)
1478:•
1464:)
1441:•
1423:)
1399:•
1368:)
1350:)
1336:)
1324:.
1310:)
1274:)
1256:)
1234:)
1226:.
1215:)
1160:.
1127:)
1112:)
1081:)
1060:)
1037:)
1013:)
989:)
974:)
958:)
922:)
903:)
884:)
870:)
840:)
813:)
790:)
765:)
750:)
735:)
721:)
698:)
631:)
608:)
578:)
550:)
536:)
514:)
488:}}
482:{{
466:)
449:)
445:•
408:)
384:)
374:}}
368:{{
357:)
353:•
292:)
277:)
250:)
226:)
211:)
145:}}
139:{{
135:}}
129:{{
117:}}
111:{{
107:}}
101:{{
72:)
2259:(
2240:(
2213:(
2198:(
2173:(
2157:(
2141:(
2122:(
2095:(
2076:(
2054:(
2027:c
2021:t
2019:(
2000:(
1935:(
1921:(
1907:(
1887:(
1843:(
1839:.
1825:(
1809:(
1778:(
1762:(
1742:(
1710:(
1696:(
1682:(
1664:(
1646:(
1600:(
1582:(
1567:(
1548:(
1532:(
1493:(
1460:(
1419:(
1364:(
1346:(
1332:(
1306:(
1270:(
1252:(
1230:(
1211:(
1123:(
1108:(
1077:(
1056:(
1033:(
1009:(
985:(
970:(
954:(
918:(
899:(
880:(
866:(
836:(
809:(
786:(
761:(
746:(
731:(
717:(
694:(
665:-
627:(
604:(
576:t
574:(
569:M
546:(
532:(
526::
522:@
510:(
462:(
441:(
427:)
423:(
404:(
380:(
349:(
288:(
273:(
246:(
222:(
207:(
199:(
191:(
156:⚠
68:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.