2158:. Many arrests are unimportant, Carlin's had a historic significance, it deserves to be documented. Perhaps not to the extent that the Iwo Jima flag raising deserved to be documented, but the mugshot has a definite historic value. You see, this is the locus of our dispute. The interpretation of NFCC#8 that leads you to want to delete this image is logically flawed, as it depends on undue weight to the image reviewer's judgment. If you look on the framework of the ten NFC criteria as a whole, you will see that they attempt to balance US fair use standards with editorial necessity. Fair use images have to be previously published - this is an objective standard for determining editorial value. Fair use images must be irreplacable - this is a standard used to determine the necessity of a fair use claim. Fair use claims must respect the commercial prospects of any photo as a piece of intellectual property - this standard determines whether a fair use claim has any standing given US copyright law. Your choice of NFCC#8 is rather obvious, as it is the only one where editorial judgment must be applied. Note that the NFCC do not require sourced discussion of an image, this appears to be a tangential criterion used by "fair use inquisitors" as something to fall back on. Again, previous publication is evidence of editorial value. Your IfD nomination of this image didn't even specify any NFC criterion, it was a haphazard attempt to get rid of an image you, personally, did not see the value of. Everything that has followed has been a sad sort of game where you attempt to nitpick Knowledge (XXG) policy to establish a set of rules skewed towards a biased and ultimately myopic interpretation of our mission to create an encyclopedia. This isn't about editors striving to suppress free content (wonder why I've been going on about replaceability?), this is indeed about the encyclopedic purpose of using a copyrighted image. And it is that very purpose that you insist on denying without any acknowledgment the importance of the arrest or its public record. Note that I am not objecting to your nomination of
2114:
captured in the public record. There seems to be a higher standard on
Knowledge (XXG) for fair use claims on visual intellectual property, but it is exactly the sort of information that cannot be conveyed by a free alternative. No Wikipedian is in a position to provide a free alternative to 70's booking photo. Your approach is certainly valid when applied to visual works of art and controversial photographs, but I think that it is mistaken when it comes to irreplacable visual media which documents notable events. Again I would like to assert that it is my opinion that the omission of this image would be to the reader's detriment. Again I would like to assert that it appears that I am not alone in that judgment. Again I would like to point out that the apparent fetishizing of NFCC#8 has a flawed basis if it is used to automatically dismiss the valid editorial opinions of other contributors. I don't have a low opinion of our readers, I respect that they realize and appreciate the superior coverage provided by our use of visual media to document a historic event. ˉˉ
487:
the original founders of Dash
Signature, have been involved at some level or another with this computer-based music instrument industry since its inception. They both still remain active and prolific developers in the independent VST industry (although they no longer work together). Several of their products were landmarks, pre-empting ideas that were later picked up on by larger, mainstream companies. For example, their TubiLeSax, a saxophone VST instrument, got further developed and commercialized by LinPlug. EMMKnagalis was the first ever dedicated ethnic instrument sound module in VST format, paving the way for other products. DaAlpha 2K was one of the earliest VST emulations of a hardware synth, followed by their cult classic DaHornet.
1575:?). To address your other point, I believe that there is a clear basis for using this image. It contributes significantly to the article - an editorial stance corroborated by journalists using it for exactly the same purpose. You will be hard pressed to find a discussion of the majesty of this booking photo as it's not an artistic piece. It wasn't exactly like the police department published it in a "best-of" calendar or that this mugshot made it into photography magazines. Nevertheless it does document a very notable event, one studied by first amendment scholars as well as cultural historians. Public records of notable events hold a historic value. ˉˉ
1034:
time of his arrest. As this photograph documents an important development, its editorial value is self-evident. If you had written the article, I could understand an objection based on editorial grounds. However, seeing as you are a self-professed fair-use inquisitor, you start of with a conservative set of presuppositions and proceed to cherry-pick random copyrighted images without much concern for actual encyclopedic coverage. This is a criticism of your method, the same thought process that led to your biased (and, IMO, deeply flawed) IfD nomination. So no, I don't agree with the assertion that this mugshot violates NFCC#8, or any other criterion. ˉˉ
1827:, etc., Not one that is specially convenient to decorate a a discussion topic. An image's iconic status must be established outside of Knowledge (XXG). Who, other than wikipedia editors, have considered this image notable? It's surely "useful", as shown by the news articles using them. But there's a long way from "useful" to "notable". This image had no impact on the history, not even in the history of the person depicted. The
783:– Deletion overturned. Although the WP:NFCC are not negotiable, their case-by-case interpretation as to whether a particular image fits them remains an issue of community consensus--particularly for criteria with a degree of subjectivity (i.e. #8). It seems from my reading of this discussion that there is general agreement to the significance of the image. Therefore I will not relist. –
2439:. I did consider just recreating it, but since I don't know the original author, I preferred to get the history restored so he would get proper credit. If someone wants to move it to my userspace, that's fine. As for the assumption that her movies are non-notable because they don't have articles, that's apparently not a battle I have to fight today. Userfy and close. --
1783:"I've been convinced by the nominator's arguments" is a perfectly fine statement, and important, lets the closer judge consensus. Convincing people is the goal of the discussion, right? It's not just presenting arguments, and the side with the most different ones wins, but rather the side with the most convincing arguments wins. --
1014:? Non-free material is not used unless it's absence compromises the understanding of the text. It must convey (noteworthy) information that words alone can not. That image was only being used to illustrate the fact that that man was arrested, but this is the kind of information that doesn't need an image to be understood. --
1431:. His second argument about a journalist is also irrelevant. Uses that may be allowed under "fair use" in the U.S. are routinely disallowed here because they are not compatible with the goal of free content. As for its "iconic" status -- cite some reliable sources that discuss it and work them into the article.
2183:
Endorse deletion. The closer followed correct procedure. NFCC #8 requires that a non-free photograph be used only when it conveys important, encyclopedic information that words alone cannot. The use of this mugshot does not aid the readers understanding of the incident more than the statement that he
1855:
Remember that the "iconic" thing is meant to apply to press images. This is different, because no one stands to profit from this image in any way. So, since it is an important, non-repeatable historic event, for which no free alternative can be created, and for which omission would harm the article
1252:
but IFD, unlike AFD, is more a question of policy than of consensus. If the !votes for keeping a replaceable fair use image are 10-1 in favor of keeping it, we still delete it. Consensus only matters when it is an editorial question (ie, should a low quality photo or drawing be deleted) rather than a
565:
and please note that I did read the "What about article x?" in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but it fails as it reads: "The nature of
Knowledge (XXG) means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article"
1439:
the image such that if it were missing, the reader would have a hard time understanding what the article is trying to say. This really is more of a procedural nomination, despite all claims to the contrary. I could have !voted after which it probably would have been deleted by someone else, citing a
2069:
This photograph accompanies critical commentary of the event it documents, it provides a visual context. No, of course it is not as significant as "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima", few photographs have ever reached that level of renown. You can't write an article entirely on Carlin's mugshot, but the
658:
a famous instrument, etc.)". I wonder if you are familiar with VST? I see no reason that what I actually wrote is more sketchy than the 'Nine Inch Nails' reference, which you write is of genuine importance. In fact, these comments that you claim as fluff are MORE relevant to the development of VST,
2113:
Here's how it works: Carlin was arrested, this is documented by public records, of which this mugshot is definitive proof. Just as our editorial policies allow us to exercise fair use by quoting sources to verify biographies, they allow us the freedom to illustrate and identify important events as
2011:
Now you've shown your failure to understand the difference between "using an image to illustrate an event" and "using an image to illustrate a discussion about the image itself". Understanding this difference is a pre-requisite for understanding the concept of Fair use as well as for understanding
1390:
It is disputed whether booking photographs constitute copyrightable subject matter. Authorities provide access to them as public records, they don't publish them as intellectual property. If they are copyrighted, the copyright is held by local governments, i.e. non-commercial entities, thus easing
1063:
Um... any decision that has any bearing on article content is an editorial decision. You assert that a mugshot does not contain noteworthy information, I disagree. So do several other editors. You appear to agree that not every photograph can be replaced by a text description, but then say that as
591:
a famous instrument, etc.) but there is one genuine claim of importance in what was deleted: "DaHornet (now freeware), which has been widely used in the hip hop musuc scene, and by a number of commercial artists including Nine Inch Nails". Then there does actually seem to be some coverage of this,
486:
The content on the Dash
Signature page was an article about the history and development of an audio software company, Dash Signature. The content is worthy of inclusion on the following grounds: 1) the "Virtual Studio Technology" industry is relatively small and young - Luigi Felici and WilliamK,
176:
reader. I am requesting that the deletion be reviewed. The information in the article is intellectual relevant and historically accurate. It has been verified by a number of credible sources. If the page was too short, I can add more information to it. I think that it was deleted too quickly.
1329:
vote failed to explain why this image is necessary for the understanding of the text, and that this alone is ground for deletion, what benefit would a relist do? I see we having like 19 votes saying keep while still not explaining why is this image necessary for the understanding of the text. The
1124:
By the same token, I could claim that you failed to explain why this image was "non-notable" in spite of overwhelming evidence or "unnecessary" despite multiple contradictory opinions. Alternately, I could point out that it is ludicrous to demand a sourced discussion of every copyrighted image on
1033:
to visualize JFK sitting in the back of a convertible? It is preposterous to claim that media associated with notable developments must be somehow *proven* to be significant. There are no alternative free-license photographs of Carlin that could adequately portray the artist as he appeared at the
1051:
You're completely mistaken if you believe that the use of non-free material is an editorial decision. We have a (very strict) policy that can't be ignored. Deciding among a non-free image and a piece of free text that conveys the same information is not an editorial decision! Our policy dictates
2153:
By that I mean public records are sources in and of themselves, it is a unique property which adds greatly to their usefulness. The
Milwaukee Police Department released a booking photo of George Carlin, booking photos are used to verify identity and arrest. This quality pertains directly to the
1142:
it. Every non-free image must contain a fair use rationale explaining, among other things, what is the image used for and why can't free text (or images) be used for that purpose. This image failed to do so, this was pointed out in the ifd nomination, but the problem wasn't fixed during the ifd
1043:
I never said or implied "iconic" was a legal term. But if you plan to keep this image based on the fact that it's iconic (what I believed was your argument above), then you'll have to provide sources for the claim that the image is iconic. It's not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to establish the
490:
2)The idea of the page is NOT to advertise, but to note some important contributers to a new technology for musicians. By only focusing on "mainstream" developers (several mainstream developers have wiki articles that are not contested, and contain blantant advertising- for instance, the Native
2341:
meet A7, since it doesn't explicitly assert that she is a popular or significant actress. However, despite the lack of notability boilerplate, the evidence suggests that she is very popular in
Malaysia. She won the Anugerah Bintang Popular Award for "Most Popular TV Actress" in 2000, 2001, and
175:
Pobladores, the deletion of this page by initiated by
Android79 (talk · contribs), another Knowledge (XXG) user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pobladores is very short providing little or no context to the
991:" bit led to a Supreme Court case and notable changes in FCC policy. The mugshot of a comedian detained for "public indecency" is iconic and would serve a valuable purpose in Carlin's article. It is not, as Abu badali claims, an "Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor". ˉˉ
2426:
appearing in non-notable movies (they don't have articles) is not a claim of importance, and that's all the deleted article claimed. Feel free to recreate with sources and a claim of importance... I will userfy the content if you really need it but there was just one sentence of prose.
2091:#8 -- in order to keep the image, its omission would have to be detrimental to the reader's comprehension. Do you honestly believe that by not having the mugshot, people would not be able to get that Carlin was arrested? I certainly don't have such a low opinion of our readers.
1084:
The debate itself had no consensus to delete, nor is this a clear case of policy trumping consensus/lack there of, the fair use claim is justified in that the arrest associated with the mug shot has historical value. I have heard of that picture before I saw it here today.
2395:- you are making arguments that would be more appropriate in an AFD. As far as I can tell, the process was followed here and if you wish to recreate the article with a more specific assertion of notability, then at least it won't be speedied (maybe AFD'ed to be fair).
1717:. 1) Are mugshots produced in the US really nonfree? I was under the impression that they were uncopyrightable and public record, like trial transcripts. 2) I seem to recall there even being a licensing template for mugshots. 3) Did I miss a discussion somewhere?
1197:
There was CLEARLY no consensus to delete at IFD as 1 delete and 1 keep does not a consensus make, the only user pushing for this deletion is Abu Badali who has been stalking my contributions for months. Image had a very strong fair use rationale, and met all 10 of the
743:, has not yet offered a single reliable source. What he has stated above about unwritten history suggests to me that he doesn't fully grasp our sourcing needs. If he can come up with any reliable sources before the close of the DRV, I'll consider changing my vote.
1566:
Otherstuffexists wasn't an argument for using this particular image, I mentioned it to define the context of prior editorial decisions. That is to say that there are numerous occasions when consensus determined the necessity of using a mugshot in a biography (e.g.
1358:
Please note that the copyright status was never an issue in the ifd nomination. Unless this image comes out to be free (in each case it's use would be an editorial decision), it shouldn't be used because it doesn't helps in the article's comprehension.
2142:" in the context of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy. It's the encyclopedic purpose of the image that should be taken into account. If a 70's booking photo in only used to convey the information that someone was arrested, it's replaceable... by free text. --
1064:
long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. I think that it is naive to ignore any possible overlap, or to assume a definite line separating the two extremes. In short: this picture is worth a thousand words. ˉˉ
663:
About sources to site: there is an issue here- with writing unwritten histories sources are few and far between, in fact source might be, for instance, the collective archive of the KvR forum - how do you propose to reference that?
1959:
satisfies the most anal interpretations. That article cannot exist without that photo. That photo has had books written about it, a monument designed after it, and a film made about it. Where is the commentary about this mugshot?
1510:
respectively are complete without those photographs. The Bath school disaster, I'm not so sure. The Hitler image is definitely not necessary to the article; there are plenty of free Hitler images there to decorate that article.
1025:
Iconic is not a legal term, it is instead a wonderfully descriptive word used to add emphasis. Your appeal to reliable sources would only be relevant if I was proposing to add the word "iconic" to Carlin's article or mugshot
1799:
per
Anetode. I don't approve of relisting, most IfDs don't get enough traffic for a debate. Anetode's explanation as to why this image is needed is a good one, indeed, the label "iconic" does not seem incorrect to me.
1265:
who will be in jail for the rest of his life and a mug shot is the only photo we will ever have, I don't see a reason for it. A mug shot just to illustrate the fact that the guy was arrested isn't that big of a deal.
1257:, paraphrasing Kat Walsh, says that we use non-free images for subjects "that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself." We could not, for example, discuss the
719:
whether or not its a valid article should be discussed at AfD not here. A11 requires that the article not be readily capable of improvement. if the eds. involved think they can improve it they should be allowed to
1003:: An inconic image is not one that has been produced during an iconic event. An iconic image is one that have been discussed by other sources. Do you know of any discussion (by reliable sources) about this image?
1180:
vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. Unless some new information arrives (as some claim that this image is notable), the deletion must be endorsed.
1047:
I completely disagree that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description. A lot of images contain noteworthy information that can't be conveyed by text. But a mugshot is hardly one of those
598:. I think this should go to AFD, but it will take a bit to overcome the conflict of interest... get ready to cite sources in the article rather than just make arguments about how unfair we are. --
632:
I'm happy that the discussion has moved onto sources to cite and fluff removing. So I call myself off as I'm obviously too biased and I let the actual author of the article to speak on. Thanks --
1334:" wasn't followed. Please, read the ifd achieves from the last months. If it wasn't for Alkivar breach of admin tools, this ifd wasn't different at all from dozen of others closed daily. --
1029:
I am aware of criterion #8, but it is not wholly aligned to your interpretation. I suppose that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description; after all, do you really need
987:- I think that the IfD nomination was largely baseless. George Carlin was a free-speech pioneer following in the footsteps of Lenny Bruce ('cept the obsessive indignant streak) and his "
1236:
Umm ... I have no idea how he came to be aware of your undeletion, but right after you undeleted the image, you edited it to remove the IFD notice. That would trigger a watchlist. --
1125:
Knowledge (XXG). Some images are notable or controversial in and of themselves while others are notable for documenting a controversy. It is important to recognize the difference. ˉˉ
891:
1946:
satisfies even the most anal interpretation of our fair use guidelines and needs to remain. It isn't here for decoration like most other images we happen to host (the other 99%).
1572:
2355:
strikes me as pretty good considering that a) Malaysia is a less wired country with a smaller population, and b) her peak of popularity seems to have been around 2000-2002.
923:
940:). Note that in IfD closings policy often trumps consensus, or lack thereof. Note also that the image was not a blatant copyright violation and there are many instances of
1604:
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding
1856:(the mugshot has a unique visual impact that cannot be replaced by words), and on top of that, it has no market use, this image is, in my interpretation, compliant with
1109:
If you could point to sources discussing that picture, maybe it could be kept. But besides that, it was a clear case of policy being applied. Both the rationale and the
477:
2083:? Was it the target of parody? Were future works inspired because of the mugshot? If you can cite references that state these sorts of things, then the image becomes
1202:
criterion. Abu Badali's immediate run over to ANI to object to my undeletion clearly shows he's following my actions, as undeletions do not trigger on watchlists.
1820:
1538:
1499:
1466:
849:
2328:
48:
34:
1658:
This only shows that the image is useful. Do you understand that, for non-free material be used on
Knowledge (XXG), it must be far more than simply useful? --
2079:
No, but can you see the difference between the importance of the photograph itself vs. what is depicted in the photograph? Was the mugshot of any importance
612:
I'm the deleting administrator. After several rounds of discussion with
Paulrwalsh and Luigi, I suggested the matter be brought here for review. Note that
681:
ok, so if I can cite some sources for such claims, the article may be considered for inclusion? I will collect some sources over the new few days. Thanks.
1626:
not only the most extremely notable images are important. In the context of his life and activities, this is sufficiently significant to justify itself.
1286:
objection, but that's a judgment call anyway, not a clear matter of policy. When it's relisted, I do think the copyright holder should be clarified per
863:
2411:
notability in the article got me. I'm taking this as a lesson to research stuff a little better before tagging. I say re-create an article if you want.
43:
1846:
Could you please consolidate your disputes, as it is you are adding the same argument to nearly every comment that doesn't agree with your position. ˉˉ
2337:
This article on a Malaysian actress got tagged for A7 at the start of an AfD, and was deleted while I was typing up my keep !vote. Arguably, it might
596:
593:
491:
Instruments page), Knowledge (XXG) would simply be recreating a balance of power where commercialism and capital outway innovation and independance.
1472:
1313:
937:
1391:
the standards for a fair use claim. In this case, Carlin's booking photo has been published by the media and holds a unique historic value. ˉˉ
346:
I wasnt around to respond to the prod but this isnt a vanety page, William Bain is quite a noted accademic in International Relations theory.
950:
use in biographies. The copyright status of mugshots varies based on jurisdiction and local laws, so the tag defaults to a fair use claim. ˉˉ
1983:
1726:
Yes, to all questions. I'll number yours for easy reference. :-) 1) It's debatable, see the discussion at answer 3. 2) Why yes, there is,
39:
2459:
If this is recreated with a clear claim of notability, I'll be happy to undelete the history. If no one here objects, I'll userfy it for
2162:, a photograph that has no particular historical or editorial significance, where Knowledge (XXG) use clearly infringes on copyright. ˉˉ
337:
659:
and can be backed up through a historical overview of VST development (A huge job which I am not seeking to undertake comprehensively).
1044:
image's "iconicness". We in this case, we would be using the image to talk about its notability, and not as a convenient illustration.
434:
429:
166:
1154:
As I just said: you simply ignore any reasons put forth for using this image. On a side note, it did include a detailed rationale. ˉˉ
2450:
2370:
1992:
so by policy that image should be deleted... but wait your implying we should keep it... how about applying some consistency here!
1507:
1469:
1379:
I have checked the websites of the authorities that arrested him and they said nothing about the copyright status of their images.
438:
684:
But, I must, say, as a user, Knowledge (XXG) is definitely not a database of "articles are just summaries of published sources".
1989:
1868:
1804:
919:
294:
289:
21:
463:
421:
298:
2043:. This last example is a perfect analogy and maybe it's more obvious because of the different media (painting vs photograph).
1942:
or dismantle the existence of fair use all-together on Knowledge (XXG). If we're not going to do the latter, then this image
2285:
2280:
887:
824:
123:
118:
1134:
You can't use the same token because the onus is on the one wanting to use the non-free material. We need strong reasons to
671:
Well Knowledge (XXG) articles are just summaries of published sources... if none exist, an article is usually precluded. --
2289:
905:
832:
323:
281:
127:
1428:
2154:
necessity of the image. While you can convey the information that someone was arrested by text, you can do the same for
2024:
1956:
815:
2513:
2251:
2199:
798:
758:
400:
360:
260:
216:
89:
17:
2314:
2272:
931:
152:
110:
2159:
1091:
779:
2493:
2225:
1986:
1330:
image would have to be deleted anyway and a new horde of policy-unsavvy users would come to argue about how the "
1503:
1542:
1225:. Also, as an admin, you should already understand that consensus has nothing to do with counting votes. --
1030:
2359:
speedy; I'm indifferent to whether the article is relisted on AfD, if anyone still doubts her notability.
927:
2383:
If the cache is accurate of the state of the article at the time of deletion, why not just recreate it?
1864:. You may disagree, but I don't think there's much point in either of us trying to convince the other.
425:
2446:
2366:
1731:
1534:
1495:
1463:
2428:
692:
672:
647:
599:
246:
193:
2502:
2487:
2469:
2454:
2431:
2418:
2399:
2387:
2374:
2240:
2188:
2166:
2148:
2133:
2118:
2108:
2074:
2060:
2018:
2006:
1977:
1950:
1926:
1875:
1850:
1841:
1811:
1787:
1774:
1763:
1747:
1738:
1721:
1703:
1673:
1664:
1653:
1637:
1614:
1579:
1559:
1528:
1489:
1457:
1395:
1385:
1374:
1365:
1353:
1340:
1320:
1272:
1242:
1231:
1216:
1187:
1158:
1149:
1129:
1119:
1104:
1086:
1068:
1058:
1038:
1020:
995:
975:
966:
954:
787:
747:
731:
711:
695:
675:
636:
622:
602:
574:
533:
519:
498:
389:
350:
347:
249:
205:
196:
180:
78:
1258:
913:
740:
691:
If you find content that can't be sourced, remove it... we're not perfect but that's our standard. --
685:
665:
495:
114:
417:
381:
2412:
2040:
2036:
1584:
The ifd nomination and deletion was never about an editorial decision. It's about the policy. The "
1307:
1282:. I don't see consensus to delete or any policy that trumps consensus. I'm on the fence on Abu's
1113:
vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. --
2500:
2467:
2238:
2232:
2102:
2054:
1971:
1903:
that are hard discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself.
1697:
1522:
1451:
881:
633:
613:
571:
530:
106:
70:
2484:
2163:
2115:
2071:
2000:
1847:
1824:
1670:
1576:
1546:
1483:
1475:... your interpretation is absolutely 100% without a doubt impossible to pass for any image.
1392:
1371:
1350:
1301:
1210:
1155:
1126:
1065:
1035:
992:
988:
972:
951:
899:
784:
386:
285:
2088:
1679:
1597:
1432:
1295:
1287:
1283:
1254:
1199:
1052:
that, as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. --
1011:
650:
wrote "Well, the article is full of fluff and sketchy namedropping (they developed ensembles
242:
2480:
2460:
2440:
2360:
1727:
1421:
944:
709:
2350:
1982:
Ahh but you see, there are SEVERAL NON-RESTRICTED FREE LICENSED equivalents of that image:
1861:
1222:
551:
512:
508:
2276:
2184:
was arrested. I don't see any way to read NFCC#8 that would allow us to use this image. –
2144:
2129:
2032:
2014:
1947:
1922:
1865:
1837:
1801:
1784:
1770:
1735:
1660:
1650:
1610:
1555:
1361:
1336:
1227:
1183:
1145:
1115:
1054:
1016:
962:
909:
744:
705:
per the logic of W.marsh, though without improvement I doubt that it will survive AfD. --
2321:
856:
470:
330:
159:
1253:
policy one. Personally, I don't see how a mugshot can add significantly to the article.
583:. Well, the article is full of fluff and sketchy namedropping (they developed ensembles
1380:
1649:
That's strong evidence that specific photograph is important enough to be fair use. --
2497:
2464:
2235:
2229:
2094:
2046:
2023:
Exactly. This is a very subtle point that many people simply do not get. The article
1963:
1832:
1689:
1646:
1633:
1514:
1443:
1346:
1345:
Mugshots are neither published nor leaked, they are a matter of public record. FWIW,
1262:
877:
873:
727:
74:– deletion automatically endorsed, proven copyright violations are never undeleted –
1440:
consensus, or I figured I'd just save that other person the trouble and just do it.
2353:
2185:
1993:
1760:
1744:
1718:
1476:
1414:
1203:
895:
516:
511:. Article contained no assertion of notability and almost certainly suffered from
277:
237:
75:
2306:
455:
315:
201:
Just write a new, better article using your own words. We never restore copyvios.
144:
2396:
1291:
706:
617:
177:
2384:
2268:
2220:
1568:
202:
1910:
I don't think there's much point in either of us trying to convince the other
1645:. Here is an example of a story on that incident. It uses that photograph.
1890:...the mugshot has a unique visual impact that cannot be replaced by words
1370:
Strange, I figure the journalist must have had some reason to use it... ˉˉ
908:) with the claim that "debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete".
494:
I hope the deletion will be reviewed in favor of the page being returned.
1831:
it illustrates (the arrest) had a lot of impact, but not all pictures of
1628:
722:
616:
is the Luigi Felici discussed in the article and in the review summary.
1541:
were widely commented about by reliable sources. Other examples include
554:
if were there for Dash Signature, they are the just same for pages like
2343:
559:
1267:
1237:
2407:. I admit I was a bit hasty in speedy-tagging this, but the lack of
1261:
without the famous photo. But a mug shot? Unless it's someone like
2228:. If anyone seriously objects to this clsoe, feel free to revert.
1882:
Remember that the "iconic" thing is meant to apply to press images
1298:(unless there's some exception for this sort of public record). --
190:
1473:
Image:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg
1462:
Following your interpretation of NFCC #8 the following all fail
2349:, and its spinoff feature films. She's got 50 News Archive hits
1912:" - That the whole point of a discussion! We would be having a
1768:
This is not a vote. Do you have some new information to add? --
1678:
Your sarcasm is not particularly helpful. The standard set in
1349:
an example of this mugshot's use in published journalism. ˉˉ
555:
2302:
2298:
2294:
1588:" are not committed to free content. In their case, it
840:
836:
828:
820:
451:
447:
443:
311:
307:
303:
140:
136:
132:
1592:
only an editorial decision. We can only see this as "
1143:
discussion. The deletion was the correct decision! --
1435:#8 is supposed to be pretty clear: The article must
1647:http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=626471
1010:"... are you sure you're familiar with item #8 of
1586:journalists using it for exactly the same purpose
1502:are both absolutely necessary. No discussions of
2031:, not the act of placing of the flag, just like
1885:I don't know where this restriction comes from.
1539:Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg
1500:Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg
1470:Image:Aftermath_of_the_Bath_School_Disaster.png
1467:Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg
2345:She has a major role on a popular TV series,
2138:Please, do not misunderstand the meaning of "
1290:, and I think we need to confirm that it was
8:
2070:section on his arrest should be expanded. ˉˉ
1325:Considering that both the rationale and the
926:, whereupon this image was again deleted by
2250:The following is an archived debate of the
797:The following is an archived debate of the
399:The following is an archived debate of the
259:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
2213:
1549:. That's what it means for an image to be
1427:use in biographies", all I have to say is
772:
560:http://en.wikipedia.org/Native_Instruments
374:
230:
63:
1417:'s argument "there are many instances of
894:. It was undeleted a short time later by
2125:...quoting sources to verify biographies
1916:and counting votes if we didn't believe
1819:- An iconic image is one that have been
189:as this seems to have been a copyvio of
2512:The above is an archived debate of the
2198:The above is an archived debate of the
1669:It must, in fact, cure world hunger. ˉˉ
1294:(as opposed to just leaked) to satisfy
757:The above is an archived debate of the
566:Wrong! Someone stopped the creation of
359:The above is an archived debate of the
215:The above is an archived debate of the
2352:, and her raw Ghit count of about 20K
1984:Image:First_Iwo_Jima_Flag_Raising.jpg
7:
872:Mugshot of counter-culture comedian
2039:is about the painting, and not the
2012:our policy on non-free content. --
1821:discussed by many reliable sources
816:File:Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg
28:
1990:Image:USMC_War_Memorial_Night.jpg
1508:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
556:http://en.wikipedia.org/Fxpansion
2160:Image:George carlin headshot.jpg
1901:". We use it to discuss topics "
1897:use non-free images to cause a "
1594:clear basis for using this image
960:Is this a procedural listing? --
654:famous synthesizers, emulations
587:famous synthesizers, emulations
2087:to understanding the text. See
1730:. 3) Yes, the discussion is at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2035:is about that photograph, and
1596:" if we choose to ignore what
1138:non-free material, and not to
1012:our policy on non-free content
385:– Overturn and list at AfD. –
1:
1682:#8 is that the image must be
1176:- Both the rationale and the
780:Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg
550:,assertion of notability and
2234:18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) –
2025:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
1957:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
1006:About the nomination being "
192:, straight cut and paste. --
2494:User:Groggy Dice/Abby Abadi
2226:User:Groggy Dice/Abby Abadi
2224:– Restored and userfied to
876:. This file was deleted by
2539:
1987:Image:IwoJimaWikipedia.jpg
1686:for reader comprehension.
922:) brought the issue up at
739:The nominator of the DRV,
245:, will restore article. –
2503:18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2492:Restored and userfied to
2488:16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2470:07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2455:04:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2432:04:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2419:03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2400:03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2388:03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2375:03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2241:18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2189:17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
2167:01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2149:00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2134:00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2119:00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2109:16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
2075:03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
2061:16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
2019:13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
2007:01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1978:22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1951:21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1927:14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1876:00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1851:23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1842:23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1812:20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1788:23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1775:23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1764:22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1748:23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1739:22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1722:22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1704:16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1674:23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1665:23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1654:21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1638:20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1615:23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1580:21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1560:19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1529:18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1490:17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1458:16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1396:08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1386:07:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1375:07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1366:06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1354:06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1341:05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1321:05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1273:05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1243:05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1232:05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1217:05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1188:05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1159:07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1150:06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1130:06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1120:05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1105:05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1069:07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1059:06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1039:06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1021:05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
996:04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
976:05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
967:04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
955:04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
788:02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
748:05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
732:17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
712:23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
696:14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
676:03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
637:03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
623:00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
603:00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
575:23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
534:23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
520:22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
499:20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
390:03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
351:23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
250:23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
206:12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
197:00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
181:00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
79:13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
2519:Please do not modify it.
2257:Please do not modify it.
2205:Please do not modify it.
1860:one of the 10 points at
1569:Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse
1543:Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg
804:Please do not modify it.
764:Please do not modify it.
542:Knowledge (XXG) must be
406:Please do not modify it.
366:Please do not modify it.
266:Please do not modify it.
222:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2516:of the article above.
2483:per discussion above.
2254:of the article above.
2202:of the article above.
1835:are notable images. --
1031:Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg
801:of the article above.
761:of the article above.
403:of the article above.
363:of the article above.
263:of the article above.
219:of the article above.
92:of the article above.
2123:What do you mean by "
1940:Overturn and undelete
1732:Template_talk:Mugshot
2156:absolutely any event
1757:Overturn and restore
1573:why keep them around
1259:Kent State shootings
2041:Bombing of Guernica
2037:Guernica (painting)
1920:to be important. --
1535:Image:TrangBang.jpg
1496:Image:TrangBang.jpg
1464:Image:TrangBang.jpg
1429:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1411:Comment from closer
1280:Overturn and relist
1547:Image:Inselian.jpg
2526:
2525:
2212:
2211:
2106:
2058:
1975:
1955:I beg to differ.
1743:Thanks greatly!
1701:
1526:
1504:Phan Thị Kim Phúc
1455:
1384:
1250:Don't really care
989:Seven dirty words
971:No, see below. ˉˉ
928:Butseriouslyfolks
890:) pursuant to an
771:
770:
373:
372:
229:
228:
2530:
2521:
2453:
2443:
2424:Endorse deletion
2415:
2414:Ten Pound Hammer
2393:Endorse deletion
2373:
2363:
2324:
2310:
2292:
2259:
2214:
2207:
2107:
2100:
2097:
2081:in and of itself
2059:
2052:
2049:
2005:
1998:
1976:
1969:
1966:
1873:
1809:
1728:Template:Mugshot
1702:
1695:
1692:
1527:
1520:
1517:
1488:
1481:
1456:
1449:
1446:
1426:
1420:
1413:: To respond to
1383:
1318:
1316:
1310:
1304:
1270:
1240:
1223:personal attacks
1215:
1208:
1102:
1100:
1098:
1089:
949:
943:
859:
845:
844:
806:
773:
766:
620:
505:Endorse deletion
473:
459:
441:
408:
375:
368:
333:
319:
301:
268:
231:
224:
162:
148:
130:
97:
64:
53:
33:
2538:
2537:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2517:
2514:deletion review
2445:
2441:
2413:
2365:
2361:
2333:
2327:
2320:
2319:
2313:
2283:
2267:
2255:
2252:deletion review
2203:
2200:deletion review
2095:
2092:
2047:
2044:
2033:The Falling Man
2003:
1994:
1964:
1961:
1869:
1805:
1690:
1687:
1515:
1512:
1486:
1477:
1444:
1441:
1424:
1418:
1314:
1308:
1302:
1300:
1268:
1238:
1213:
1204:
1096:
1094:
1092:
1087:
947:
941:
868:
862:
855:
854:
848:
818:
814:
802:
799:deletion review
762:
759:deletion review
741:User:Paulrwalsh
618:
537:-Comment below-
482:
476:
469:
468:
462:
432:
416:
404:
401:deletion review
364:
361:deletion review
342:
336:
329:
328:
322:
292:
276:
264:
261:deletion review
220:
217:deletion review
171:
165:
158:
157:
151:
121:
105:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2536:
2534:
2524:
2523:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2490:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2434:
2421:
2402:
2390:
2335:
2334:
2331:
2325:
2317:
2311:
2262:
2261:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2210:
2209:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2136:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1906:
1893:We absolutely
1886:
1825:won some award
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1778:
1777:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1640:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1531:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1381:User:Zscout370
1343:
1332:19x1 consensus
1276:
1275:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1234:
1221:Please, avoid
1191:
1190:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1049:
1045:
1027:
1004:
981:
980:
979:
978:
892:ifd nomination
870:
869:
866:
860:
852:
846:
809:
808:
793:
792:
791:
790:
769:
768:
753:
752:
751:
750:
734:
714:
699:
698:
679:
678:
661:
660:
640:
639:
626:
625:
606:
605:
568:Dash Signature
540:
539:
523:
522:
484:
483:
480:
474:
466:
460:
418:Dash Signature
411:
410:
395:
394:
393:
392:
382:Dash Signature
371:
370:
355:
354:
344:
343:
340:
334:
326:
320:
271:
270:
255:
254:
253:
252:
227:
226:
211:
210:
209:
208:
199:
173:
172:
169:
163:
155:
149:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2535:
2522:
2520:
2515:
2510:
2509:
2504:
2501:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2489:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2475:
2471:
2468:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2438:
2435:
2433:
2430:
2425:
2422:
2420:
2416:
2410:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2358:
2354:
2351:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2330:
2323:
2316:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2291:
2287:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2260:
2258:
2253:
2248:
2247:
2242:
2239:
2237:
2233:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2222:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2208:
2206:
2201:
2196:
2195:
2190:
2187:
2182:
2168:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2147:
2146:
2141:
2137:
2135:
2132:
2131:
2126:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2117:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2104:
2099:
2098:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2073:
2068:
2062:
2056:
2051:
2050:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2027:is about the
2026:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2017:
2016:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1991:
1988:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1973:
1968:
1967:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1938:
1928:
1925:
1924:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1899:visual impact
1896:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1808:
1803:
1798:
1795:
1789:
1786:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1762:
1758:
1755:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1705:
1699:
1694:
1693:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1607:
1605:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1571:; otherwise,
1570:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1530:
1524:
1519:
1518:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1474:
1471:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1423:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1397:
1394:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1311:
1305:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1264:
1263:William Morva
1260:
1256:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1235:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1201:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1090:
1083:
1080:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
999:
998:
997:
994:
990:
986:
983:
982:
977:
974:
970:
969:
968:
965:
964:
959:
958:
957:
956:
953:
946:
939:
936:
933:
929:
925:
921:
918:
915:
911:
907:
904:
901:
897:
893:
889:
886:
883:
879:
875:
874:George Carlin
865:
858:
851:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
813:
812:
811:
810:
807:
805:
800:
795:
794:
789:
786:
782:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
767:
765:
760:
755:
754:
749:
746:
742:
738:
735:
733:
729:
725:
724:
718:
715:
713:
710:
708:
704:
701:
700:
697:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
682:
677:
674:
670:
669:
668:
667:
657:
653:
649:
645:
642:
641:
638:
635:
631:
628:
627:
624:
621:
615:
611:
608:
607:
604:
601:
597:
594:
590:
586:
582:
579:
578:
577:
576:
573:
569:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
538:
535:
532:
528:
525:
524:
521:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
502:
501:
500:
497:
492:
488:
479:
472:
465:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
436:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
407:
402:
397:
396:
391:
388:
384:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
369:
367:
362:
357:
356:
353:
352:
349:
339:
332:
325:
317:
313:
309:
305:
300:
296:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
267:
262:
257:
256:
251:
248:
244:
240:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
225:
223:
218:
213:
212:
207:
204:
200:
198:
195:
191:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
168:
161:
154:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2518:
2511:
2485:Bridgeplayer
2476:
2436:
2423:
2408:
2404:
2392:
2380:
2356:
2346:
2338:
2336:
2256:
2249:
2219:
2204:
2197:
2155:
2143:
2139:
2128:
2124:
2093:
2084:
2080:
2045:
2028:
2013:
1995:
1962:
1943:
1939:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1881:
1870:
1857:
1836:
1828:
1816:
1806:
1796:
1769:
1756:
1714:
1688:
1683:
1659:
1642:
1627:
1623:
1609:
1603:
1601:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1554:
1550:
1533:Images like
1513:
1494:Yes and no.
1478:
1442:
1436:
1415:User:Anetode
1410:
1360:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1299:
1279:
1249:
1226:
1205:
1194:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1114:
1110:
1081:
1053:
1015:
1007:
1000:
984:
961:
934:
916:
902:
884:
871:
803:
796:
785:IronGargoyle
778:
763:
756:
736:
721:
716:
702:
683:
680:
662:
655:
651:
643:
629:
609:
588:
584:
580:
567:
564:
547:
546:rather than
543:
541:
536:
526:
504:
493:
489:
485:
405:
398:
387:IronGargoyle
380:
365:
358:
345:
278:William Bain
265:
258:
241:– Contested
238:William Bain
236:
221:
214:
187:Keep deleted
186:
174:
94:
87:
69:
59:24 July 2007
58:
49:2007 July 25
35:2007 July 23
2481:Groggy Dice
2461:Groggy Dice
2442:Groggy Dice
2362:Groggy Dice
2339:technically
2140:replaceable
1918:discussions
570:article. --
348:Talkshowbob
2347:Gerak Khas
2269:Abby Abadi
2221:Abby Abadi
2145:Abu badali
2130:Abu badali
2029:photograph
2015:Abu badali
1948:Burntsauce
1923:Abu badali
1838:Abu badali
1785:AnonEMouse
1771:Abu badali
1736:AnonEMouse
1661:Abu badali
1651:AnonEMouse
1611:Abu badali
1556:Abu badali
1362:Abu badali
1337:Abu badali
1288:WP:NFCC#10
1228:Abu badali
1184:Abu badali
1146:Abu badali
1116:Abu badali
1055:Abu badali
1017:Abu badali
963:Abu badali
910:Abu badali
745:EdJohnston
686:Paulrwalsh
666:Paulrwalsh
614:User:Liqih
544:consistent
496:Paulrwalsh
107:Pobladores
71:Pobladores
1759:per nom.
1598:WP:NFCC#8
1309:seriously
1296:WP:NFCC#4
1292:published
1284:WP:NFCC#8
515:issues.
44:2007 July
2357:Overturn
2096:howcheng
2085:required
2048:howcheng
1965:howcheng
1892:" -: -->
1884:" -: -->
1797:Overturn
1691:howcheng
1684:required
1643:Overturn
1624:overturn
1516:howcheng
1445:howcheng
1195:Overturn
1082:Overturn
1026:caption.
1008:baseless
985:Overturn
938:contribs
920:contribs
906:contribs
888:contribs
878:Howcheng
737:Endorse.
717:Overturn
703:Overturn
581:overturn
507:; valid
20: |
2437:Comment
2429:W.marsh
2409:claimed
2405:Comment
2381:Comment
2315:restore
2286:protect
2281:history
2186:Quadell
2089:WP:NFCC
1996:ALKIVAR
1944:clearly
1817:Dispute
1761:Golfcam
1745:Heather
1719:Heather
1715:Comment
1680:WP:NFCC
1479:ALKIVAR
1433:WP:NFCC
1422:mugshot
1255:WP:FAIR
1206:ALKIVAR
1200:WP:NFCC
1174:Endorse
1140:not-use
1048:images.
1001:Dispute
945:mugshot
896:Alkivar
850:restore
829:history
693:W.marsh
673:W.marsh
648:W.marsh
644:Comment
630:Comment
610:Comment
600:W.marsh
517:Heather
464:restore
435:protect
430:history
324:restore
295:protect
290:history
247:W.marsh
243:WP:PROD
194:W.marsh
153:restore
124:protect
119:history
76:GRBerry
2477:Userfy
2397:ugen64
2290:delete
1895:do not
1862:WP:NFC
1600:says:
1551:iconic
1347:here's
707:DS1953
619:Keegan
552:WP:COI
548:unfair
513:WP:COI
439:delete
299:delete
178:Gonder
128:delete
2385:Corpx
2342:2002.
2322:cache
2307:views
2299:watch
2295:links
2127:"? --
1871:juice
1866:Mango
1858:every
1833:Elvis
1829:event
1807:juice
1802:Mango
1315:folks
1088:Until
857:cache
837:watch
833:links
652:using
634:Luigi
585:using
572:Luigi
531:Luigi
471:cache
456:views
448:watch
444:links
331:cache
316:views
308:watch
304:links
203:MER-C
160:cache
145:views
137:watch
133:links
52:: -->
16:<
2303:logs
2277:talk
2273:edit
2103:chat
2055:chat
1972:chat
1914:poll
1734:. --
1698:chat
1634:talk
1608:. --
1553:. --
1545:and
1537:and
1523:chat
1506:and
1498:and
1452:chat
1437:need
1327:keep
1178:keep
1111:keep
932:talk
924:AN/I
914:talk
900:talk
882:talk
841:logs
825:talk
821:edit
728:talk
720:try.
558:and
529:: --
527:Keep
452:logs
426:talk
422:edit
312:logs
286:talk
282:edit
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
32:<
2498:DES
2479:to
2465:DES
2417:•
2329:AfD
2236:DES
2230:DES
1629:DGG
1303:But
1136:use
864:AfD
723:DGG
478:AfD
338:AfD
167:AfD
22:Log
2496:.
2463:.
2449:|
2427:--
2369:|
2305:|
2301:|
2297:|
2293:|
2288:|
2284:|
2279:|
2275:|
2164:╦╩
2116:╦╩
2072:╦╩
1848:╦╩
1823:,
1671:╦╩
1636:)
1590:is
1577:╦╩
1425:}}
1419:{{
1393:╦╩
1372:╦╩
1359:--
1351:╦╩
1266:--
1181:--
1156:╦╩
1127:╦╩
1097:==
1095:1
1066:╦╩
1036:╦╩
993:╦╩
973:╦╩
952:╦╩
948:}}
942:{{
839:|
835:|
831:|
827:|
823:|
730:)
656:of
646:.
595:,
589:of
562:,
509:A7
454:|
450:|
446:|
442:|
437:|
433:|
428:|
424:|
314:|
310:|
306:|
302:|
297:|
293:|
288:|
284:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
42::
2451:C
2447:T
2371:C
2367:T
2332:)
2326:|
2318:|
2312:(
2309:)
2271:(
2105:}
2101:{
2057:}
2053:{
2004:☢
2001:™
1974:}
1970:{
1908:"
1905:"
1888:"
1880:"
1700:}
1696:{
1632:(
1606:"
1602:"
1525:}
1521:{
1487:☢
1484:™
1454:}
1450:{
1312:|
1306:|
1269:B
1239:B
1214:☢
1211:™
1101:)
1099:2
1093:(
935:·
930:(
917:·
912:(
903:·
898:(
885:·
880:(
867:)
861:|
853:|
847:(
843:)
819:(
726:(
481:)
475:|
467:|
461:(
458:)
420:(
341:)
335:|
327:|
321:(
318:)
280:(
170:)
164:|
156:|
150:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.