Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 8

848:

hasn't been deleted already for lacking a source. The basis of confusion here seems to be the idea that "The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous)". This is bogus. Some person, somewhere created this image. It has a copyright and we cannot reproduce it freely. No one is making PD claims here. We do not host unfree images unless we identify the copyright holder on the image description page. Plain and simple. Anonymous (the group) does not hold copyright to the image, the copyright is held by the person who created the image. It's unclear that it's even possible for a nebulous group of people to hold the copyright of image at all; even still, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the copyright to the image is owned by its creator, who cannot possibibly be identified. This is like trying to find the copyright owner of "mustard man" or "special olympics kid running" type images. It's just some crap that someone posted to a forum somewhere, and unless you yourself made the image and can prove it, you shouldn't be uploading it to Knowledge. The

1586:

the original group. That is why this image is so closely associated with Anonymous, both by outsiders and within the group itself. This image is used by members of Anonymous to identify the group in a wide variety of settings including posters, fliers, picket signs, forums, and so forth. While the "officialness" of the logo is intentionally unknowable, it is their de facto flag/banner/logo, as judged by how much it is used, and the way in which it is used. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to see how an article could accurately represent Anonymous

1695:: I'm detecting a bit of cherry picking in terms of how you describe the group. I have also referred to Anonymous as a cultural phenomenon, but I also recognize that is partially that and partially a subculture, a tactic, and a group, depending on context. In the case of who could be a source and copyright holder for this logo, it is clearly referring to Anonymous as a group. You have yourself long referred to them as a group (of "17 year old virgins", was it?) so why are you changing your tune now?-- 101:

good sleep, and move on. Decision is overturn/keep. An editor asked that the closing decision include whether the image may be retagged for speedy deletion: I do not know that as closing administrator of a DRV that I can make such a preemptive decision, but it seems to me that an image that has received such discussion and process consideration, that it would be an unlikely condidate for speedy, and it's speedy deletion would likely land us back here, so I am inclined to say "no". –

1257:: This shows the massive gaping flaw in Knowledge policy. This is an image produced by a loose group that falls under the vague ideology of anonymous. Anything produced by this community will and indeed is expected to be edited, changed, saved and redistributed. To me, this is obviously the same as having no copyright license attached. Of course, to the blinkered view fostered by WP Policy 'it *must* have a copyright. Which it doesn't. So we end up here. Again and again and again. 84:(it has already been restored by others). Although an impassioned debate with well-intentioned editors on both sides clearly arguing for what they think is the best interests of the encyclopedia, this one does come down to numbers. I know, I know... it's not a vote. Okay, but having said that, we have to acknowledge that there are valid points on both sides of this discussion, and there is a clear supermajority in favor of keep. Some editors have used arguments akin to 2279:. I would submit that the majority of images on Knowledge which list a copyright holder and permission to use it have never been scrutinized. Only in the case of a copyright holder stepping up and claiming violation would eyes turn to it. Therefore could not any anonymous person, such as myself, step up and state, "I created this. I give full permission to do so." As for the claim that the image is not related to understanding the story, that's near patent nonsense. 710:. There is no copyright source given, plain and simple. "It can be obtained from Anonymous" does not a copyright source make. I can "obtain" pictures from Flikr, but that doesn't make Flikr the copyright holder. It is impossible to identify the copyright holder for this image. Administrators should familiarize themselves with our most basic image use guidelines before closing discussions at IfD. ➪ 1408:

posters there are anonymous. If you can show the precise post where the author says "I created this image to represent us" (not any upload, but the first one - the "fucking peppers" and "longcat fight" ones normally get a few uploads per week), then that's enough for the "copyright holder" portion of 10a. That's the problem with memes - it's very hard to see where they started.

405:. Without commenting on the image, I am, quite frankly, disappointed by Xaoflux's conduct orphaning and immediately deleting the image after an XFD just concluded on it. It certainly didn't fall under any criteria for CSD. CSD does not trump XFD. If an XFD takes place and it is kept, then a discussion must take place to delete the image, not judgement by a single user. — 1436:. There is at least 50,000,000 posts to sort through to find that image. If you checked two images per second, with no breaks, it would take a person eleven months to find the source. That's without factoring in bandwidth costs, electricity costs, and the possibility it was originally posted on 7chan. I'm pretty sure that falls in the region of "never". 682:

are beeing quoted. The Non-Free image rules are created to keep from stealing someones work without giving them credit. If it is imposable to find a spicific individual, and no one will be able to validly claim that it is her/his work, no one has any actual claim on the image (orgonizational or otherwise)...?!?

625:

such. The discussion was languishing for days. I wonder if it was such an open-and-shut case why no one speedy-closed it as delete before me. If there emerges a consensus that the policy points are irrefutable, then delete the image. But there needs to be a clarification in the NFCC for cases where an

1158:

criteria 1 (if it illustrates a concept related to the group and not a logo, a free equivelent may be produced), criteria 8 (the image does not add significanty to the article, promotional material of this sort doesn't really help the reader understand the group), criteria 10a (no source is given and

792:

Yep, I know perfectly well who he was addressing it to. But if hasty comments with mistakes illustrate that the commenters have failed to examine all the facts and discussion in the case (including my expanded reasoning above), well then that says something about the arguments. I read and re-read the

681:

against the Anonymous/Project C (I really can't spell it) that has occured since the wiki creation...Involving editors whos interests in the project are apperant disruption of the articles themselves and a complete contempt of consesus. it also is in direct conflict with the spirit of the rules that

1576:

The fair use status of the image is a complicated issue since this is such an unusual situation. However, the importance to the article is straightforward. Anonymous underwent considerable demographic changes during Project Chanology - a substantial portion of the Chanology Anonymous protesters were

1447:

You're right. Most of the stuff on 4chan falls under the "we don't know" type of anonymity. The present case, however, is the more deliberate type of "we were meant not to know" anonymity. Common sense says that it was made by a deliberately anonymous member of the group. Akin to the stage name that

490:

NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as well (although this is not

2147:

If the author chooses to contribute the image under a free licensee, but does not wish to identify themselves, they are able to do so. We've been doing this for text contributions for years. However, my point was that a Wikipedian could make the image, since a good number of us are also "anonymous"

2114:

On second thought, I'll just change to neutral for now. Policy is pretty clear about having a source and about stating who owns the copyright. Then again, it's likely that we will have (and might already have) images from unknown sources that are notable in themselves, that would justify a fair-use

1726:

have it both ways, and given the nature of the group/culture/social phenomenon, you should. Anonymous is a lot more nuanced than you're giving it credit. A website created by Anonymous has recently been made, in which is noted a description of what Anonymous is, listing at least two of several of

1585:

article. To use images of Chanology protesters in place of this image would severely misrepresent the group. Specifically, Anonymous has a history and culture of black humor, and those who have watched Anonymous evolve over the years agree that this image nearly perfectly represents the "spirit" of

1562:

Some of both, the group does not appear to be organized in such a manner as to have selected any logo, if the logo is the work of the group and/or licensed to the group then they should be able to assert the copyright status of it. You can't just take someone else's copyrighted work, use it as the

624:

on that point would be excellent. There's a difference between "we don't know" and "it was deliberate that we not know". If there is to be further discussion on this point, fine. I welcome it. There was no consensus in the discussion, and no irrefutable policy points, and that's why I closed it as

100:

image. And a rather unimportant one at that. If we delete this image, the encyclopedia will not collapse-in on itself. If we keep it and some rights-holder someday contests it, we can just oversight it out; we will not all spontaneously combust. Everyone should just take a deep breath, get some

1509:

I've been trying to stay away from this, not wanting drama, but here's my $ 0.02 on it. I ran in to this on CSD for the first time ever, and agreed that it should be speedily deleted. Not wanting to leave a redlink, I cleaned it out of the article, with editorial comments that I didn't think it

847:

First off, I did not say anything about an "inexperienced admin" that people keep brandishing about in quotation marks, so please don't misquote me. I said the closers involved to date were "unfamiliar with our image copyright policies", which a statement I can stand behind given that this image

2087:

and list at XfD. I believe it is replaceable, since the anon suit symbol isn't actually standardized, it's just a general concept. However, since so many people feel that it isn't replaceable, while I disagree with them, that's a situation that should be handled in an XfD. We do so because there

1407:

I never said we needed the real name of the creator, we need to be able to identify the creator. For example, if I uploaded a wholly new picture, and released it under the GFDL, "Sceptre on en.wikipedia.org" would be enough for attribution. But you can't say "Anonymous on 4chan", because 99% of

643:

The point is, with Knowledge, we can know who uploaded it (example, we can differentiate between you and I with uploads). With 4chan, you can't. Nearly everyone, especially on /b/, posts as "Anonymous". We don't know which "Anonymous" uploaded it, whether it was 123.45.67.89 or 98.76.124.3.

2293:

The fact that someone isn't going to call us out on their copyright violation doesn't make something ok. Furthermore, the point of our strict copyright policy isn't due to concern about copyright infringements as much as it is because we want the end result to be as free-use as possible.

2128:

Any free-license replica created by a /b/tard would quite likely be posted anonymously, leaving us in the same situation. "Policy is pretty clear about having a source and about stating who owns the copyright": Do you mean that works intentionally posted anonymously can never be used?

1794:

is my vote; this image is quite famous, I suppose, it's been widely used on the web in reference to Anonymous and their recent anti-CoS protests; so, whether or not the author is known, I believe it falls in the range of fair use, since it is used for informative purposes only. --

2183:

A good thing I didn't suggest that. Obviously, the image would be different, but contain the typical suit/mannequin/no-image-available theme. This particular suit is no more an icon/logo for anonymous than the thousands of other suit icons that have been posted in the past. --

432:

a !vote of endorsement to keep the image, but simply an overturn !vote because I believe the process which it was deleted was improper. I have no opinion on the image itself and that is why my above comment also reflects to continue discussing it until a consensus is formed. —

1741:

Note the added emphasis. Anonymous itself recognizes the multiple aspects of its existence. Yes, this is a group, yes, this is a logo for this group, and yes, this is also a cultural phenomenon on the internet which has created its own subculture within a greater internet

1577:

not associated with Anonymous before Chanology started, and probably won't be involved after Chanology ends. They only joined to protest Scientology and don't represent the general Anonymous group. This is one of the main reasons why a separate article was created for

2197:

I don't think that is true. The current suit is pretty distinctive and widely used in its particular form. Also, if one of us made it, then it would be inauthentic. It would be just something that a random wikipedian made up, as opposed to the actual logo being used.

1350:; from what I've been reading on this whole situation the deletion was out-of-process. Note that I am not going to say anything about the picture's viability as 4chan and I are antagonistic towards each other on Knowledge (largely due to SIHULM). At the very least 1061:, at least some fair use images are acceptable, the proper response to a disagreement with all fair use images would be to discuss an amendment to the policy, not to seek to delete any fair use image which lacks "clear, unambiguous information on the... license". 1959:. Fair Use must not be erroded. Someone owns the copyright, but that doesn't matter. Fair use exists, and this is CLEARLY an example of fair use. Pro-Copyright Extremists would have us believe that anything copyrighted is unusable. This simply isn't true. 615:

are any better or worse than any of the many pseudonymous editors of Knowledge). It's not that we don't know the provenance of the image (cf. some random picture without source on the internet). It was quite obviously created by a member of Anonymous. A little

1492:

Excellent point. If we delete this because the exact author cannot be found, we would be obliged to delete a lot of important material released under art names, pen names, etc. Such a massive project of deletion would damage WP considerably.

1332:

This image is irreplacable and fair use, as per John254, IronGargoyle's comments in the previous DRV closure, and my comments in the IfD and previous DRV. The community has spoken - twice - and this bureaucratic silliness needs to stop here.

611:), works that are explicitly created anonymously are copyrighted--this is clear to most parties I'm sure. As such, for explicitly anonymous works, that anonymous individual (or group) is explicitly the copyright holder (and we don't know who 1510:

really belonged there at all. After that, I deleted it, noting that it was an orphan because I cleaned it up; the CSD I used was fair-use vio. I did notice that there was a talk page, and noted the deletion reason on it at that time

856:(who owns the copyright to the image) are sometimes different things, which is why we have different CSD templates to identify the problems. Until someone identifies the copyright source of this image it cannot be used under our 491:

relevant as a source was found that could be linked to...again, the undercurrent and implication of where the first source for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous).

1283:

No it's according to the law that work has automatic copyright protection, without the need for copyright notices or such like. Perhaps you'd like to get copyright law changed to suit your view of the way the world should be.

966:

The problem, of course, with the unilateral deletion of this image is not so much that it was procedurally bad, as that it was done in blatant disregard for consensus. After the image was retained as a result of

1984:

Did it occur to you that the group is named "Anonymous" for a reason? There are compelling arguments to believe that the creator intentionally made it impossible for himself/herself to be ever identified.

822: 2438: 1548:

Clarification requested: You mention the lack of "officialness" as a reason for deletion. Are you saying this in terms of fair use considerations, or in terms of importance to the article? Thanks.

1384:

are perfectly acceptable for identifying copyright holders. In fact, many artists use them precisely because they do not want their real name identified or associated with the work in question.

518: 968: 216: 1053:

is the source of the image. While the image is not freely licensed, the argument that the image must therefore be deleted to protect Knowledge's status as a free-content encyclopedia

1261:

The online world plays by a different set of rules to the real one, and if Knowledge doesn't realise this soon then it might as well give up covering online communities and websites.

1535:

doesn't appear to have an official organization, much less an official logo, and if they do then the group should be asserting the copyright status of their work (the logo).) —

904:

violation as well, because it depicts copyrighted posters created by unidentifiable protesters -- indeed the policy violation would be made even more egregious by the fact that

2013:

does not demand the original post, only the copyright holder. The original post, even if found, would serve no purpose in identifying the copyright holder since posts are made

909: 706:

What? Apparently some administrator unfamiliar with our image copyright policies closed an IfD for this image as no consensus, making it ineligible for speedy. In that case,

1709:

That's the point I'm trying to make. "Not a group" was used to get the article kept, but the opposite is being used to get the image kept. You can only have one of the other.

897: 2395: 2390: 2399: 603:. As I clarified on my page (to which Sceptre has decided to conspicuously ignore, uncivilly shout down opposition, and use blatantly misleading speedy deletion tags to 561:(the group) or anonymous (undisclosed). Given the nature of the group, it is more than likely that such would also be the "copyright holder" for any alternative logos. 943:

should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit,

2424: 2382: 192: 1057:: the deletion of any fair use image could be justified on these grounds, as fair use images are, by definition, not licensed for Knowledge's use. Since, per 1973:

Who's the "someone", then? The NFCC makes it clear s/he needs to be identified (as I've said, a link to the original post in 4chan's archives will suffice)

972: 480: 280: 224: 51: 37: 1523:

tag on the talk page, would have delisted the CSD and referred the nominator to other channels, or more likely skipped it. As far as a DRV !vote goes,

1031:

unless clear, unambiguous information on the source and license can be found, which I seriously doubt it will be. This is a free-content encyclopedia.

1824: 896:

If the claim that we must identify the copyright holder of all fair use images by his/her real name were actually true, then we would need to delete

1269:. It is a fairly used image with NO copyright conditions reasonably attatched to it, reasonably used for the illustration of the group in question. 206: 46: 1202:

Any free alternative produced by Knowledge contributors in an attempt to represent this phenomenon would necessarily be inauthentic. Furthermore,

1854:

I'm not sure how reliable that information can be when taking into considerion that their main page symbol is a copyrighted pokemon character.

343:

was wrong. I restored the image per the Mar. 1 deletion review. If the discussion needs to be taken further, it needs to go through the proper

253: 248: 257: 2280: 1270: 947:, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should 465: 2216:

It's one of many images used. None of them are official or really a "logo" for anonymous. All that is important is the basic theme. --

1285: 240: 2463:, trailer/one sheet available on homepage - www.workingclassrockstar.com clearly prove existence - release date pending, but in 2008 42: 2452: 2088:

might be things we haven't considered, or heck, I might be wrong in my own evaluation completely (thought I highly doubt it). --

1159:

the source is not likely to be found), criteria 4 (no evidence that the image has been legally published outside of Knowledge).

1311:

isn't randomly optional for some images, and as the creator of the image cannot be identified, it doesn't matter what it's of.

929: 2499: 1354:

on the slim chance that someone can trace the creator, then delete it after those criterion if a source has not been found. -

2035:

Exactly... If you go by the logic of needing to find the "original" post to satisfy NFCC 10a, you'd need to find the first

21: 2386: 2101:

And a free-license replica would be "authentic", too. There's more /b/tards around Knowledge than you might think ;) --

1772: 760: 344: 924:

is likely to lead to highly objectionable fair use enforcement that many contributors will find worthy of the shortcut

940: 464:

know who holds the copyright. I seriously can't believe people want to keep images that are blatant violations of our

2378: 2337: 2162: 1058: 948: 921: 901: 589: 148: 76: 2531: 2361: 2316: 131: 17: 1816: 1357: 1860: 807:

Well if people are calling IG an inexperienced admin... I mean, just wow. I don't know what to say about that.

2284: 1274: 1130: 1087: 944: 917: 2448: 2346: 2048: 1453: 1398: 1289: 913: 798: 735: 687: 634: 621: 385: 328: 244: 2464: 1827:

on Knowledge. However, since the image is explicitly marked as a logo, it would qualify as fair use per

1720:

Except it's obvious that's the point your making, and I was myself pointing out the fallacy of it. You

2115:

claim. I wouldn't call this close incorrect, in that case, but I would still recommend another IfD. --

528:. The issue, as has been correctly observed by several editors above, is that the system should not be 2520: 2504: 2350: 2303: 2288: 2271: 2255: 2220: 2207: 2188: 2174: 2152: 2138: 2119: 2105: 2092: 2079: 2052: 2030: 2005: 1994: 1979: 1968: 1949: 1945: 1924: 1897: 1862: 1844: 1804: 1784: 1751: 1715: 1704: 1681: 1670: 1637: 1599: 1571: 1557: 1543: 1502: 1483: 1457: 1442: 1427: 1414: 1402: 1388: 1364: 1342: 1324: 1293: 1278: 1248: 1229: 1220: 1209: 1168: 1142: 1113: 1099: 1065: 1044: 1009: 991: 961: 842: 816: 802: 787: 739: 722: 691: 669: 650: 638: 595: 570: 541: 499: 474: 444: 416: 389: 375: 354: 332: 313: 295: 120: 2512:. Write a new article using the new sources (nothing is stopping you) and history can be restored. -- 2075: 1915:

Forget it, the proposed new image would still be susceptible to the opposition given in this review.

1800: 1054: 905: 2460: 2251: 1855: 1517: 1240: 1183: 1164: 952: 323:. Some admins I had a great deal of respect for lost a whole lot of that respect in my book today. 288: 287:

it scarcely one minute later as an "orphaned fair-use" image. Knowledge operates on the basis of

2517: 2495: 2247: 1941: 1771:, please specify whether the image may be tagged for speedy deletion (again) in consideration of 1569: 1541: 1244: 1205:

provides evidence of both legal publication outside of Knowledge and of the source of the image.

1136: 1093: 912:

despite the fact that it contains fair use components. For that matter, we would need to delete

861: 764: 711: 220: 2447:

Listed on official wire services - Yahoo!, New York Times, Variety, Fancast - links available -

2453:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=chart_film_prod_d&dept=Film&recordid=1117786664

2480: 2342: 2299: 2044: 1675:

Since when is an anonymous "cultural phenomenon" (pro-article-ers' words, not mine) a source?

1654: 1582: 1578: 1471: 1449: 1394: 1322: 1176: 1175:

The image is irreplaceable, as it is necessary to describe the type of propaganda employed by

1038: 984: 980: 812: 794: 775: 731: 730:

I hardly think that Nv8200p would qualify as unexperienced when it comes to image guidelines.

683: 630: 558: 381: 372: 351: 324: 309: 236: 1964: 1666: 1662: 1203: 1107: 1051: 665: 116: 1239:

Keep. This demotivator pretty much perfectly describes the personality of the *chan boards.

2071: 1796: 1075:

for the same reason I stated in the first IfD, which was improperly closed. No obtainable

368:

was misled by a (IMO) bogus CSD tag that was placed on the image Mar. 8 and dated Mar. 3 -

112: 2475:

standards. From what the links above, it looks like there's plenty to show notability.

2431: 1513:. I do NOT in any way contest the reversal of my speedy, and had there been any sort of 199: 793:

DRV, IfD, and NFCC 10a before closing the discussion, and I stand by my interpretation.

553:. After re-reading the relevant policies and discussions, I have come to agree that the 2217: 2203: 2185: 2170: 2149: 2134: 2116: 2102: 2089: 2026: 2010: 1990: 1920: 1893: 1877: 1840: 1832: 1828: 1780: 1747: 1700: 1633: 1595: 1553: 1498: 1479: 1338: 1308: 1304: 1160: 1155: 1005: 916:, because we cannot identify the artist who applied the paint to the model. Extensive 857: 838: 783: 678: 604: 586: 566: 554: 537: 529: 484: 457: 1940:. This was way out of line, and GRBerry is absolutely right in his comments above. -- 1885: 629:

2513: 2488: 2484: 1564: 1536: 1124: 1081: 701: 617: 608: 514: 512:

I was not aware of this review, although I have contested the deletion separately at

365: 340: 322:. Wow... Nice to know anyone even bothered to mention this to me... </sarcasm: --> 228: 1820: 1736: 510:

deletion, without prejudice on whether the image should actually be retained or not.

2295: 2265: 2001: 1975: 1711: 1677: 1438: 1424: 1410: 1385: 1312: 1226: 1216: 1206: 1187: 1110: 1062: 1033: 997: 988: 983:, the administrator who closed the prior DRV discussion, is downright insulting to 958: 925: 808: 646: 496: 470: 369: 348: 305: 304:

Yeah, that's not good. Appears to be a direct attempt to get around the consensus.

292: 2416: 1999:

Again, find the original post and I'm okay with using that as a copyright source.

274: 660:- who owns the copyright is unclear, and I'm still not convinced this is a logo. 2472: 2456: 1960: 1658: 987:, and, more generally, to the community as a whole, whose wishes were thwarted. 661: 557:

issue is addressed by the fact that the copyright holder of the image is either

92:..... such grandiose exaggerations do not really help us reach consensus; this 90:

if we delete this image we might as well delete all images that use a pseudonym

1881: 1835:(consider its pervasion on several Anon wikis and press coverages). Opinions? 1622: 1619: 1377: 1372:

and whack those who think we need the real name of the creator with a trout.

1194: 936: 434: 406: 104: 582:

per WP:NFCC#10a. Our non-free content criteria are not up for debate here. --

2341:– Deletion endorsed, but permit recreation with the sources listed below. – 2199: 2166: 2161:

A simple retracing would not constitute a new copyright, as discussed here:

2130: 2036: 2022: 1986: 1916: 1889: 1836: 1776: 1743: 1696: 1629: 1591: 1549: 1494: 1475: 1467: 1334: 1001: 834: 830: 779: 583: 562: 533: 2471:

Pretty old debate here. And the AfD allows for recreation if it now meets

219:, at which there was a consensus that the image was acceptable pursuant to 1423:

know who holds the copyright" . That is a demand to know the real name.

1381: 1373: 955:

discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

2449:

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/452606/Working-Class-Rock-Star/overview

2165:, so such a work would face the same challenges as the current image. 1618:

You forgot to mention how often it is used in videos. Some examples:

700:. The image has no copyright source given, and will be eligible for 2483:, but feel free to create a new one. If an admin speedies it under 2461:

http://www.fancast.com/movies/Working-Class-Rock-Star/141279/main

1474:

were written by several authors all under the pseudonym publius.

677:

this is abserd, and at least the 5th dispute I have seen that is

2040: 1352:

Relist the IfD or reinstate any applicable CSD tags if necessary

1625: 2021:; thus, the poster has no "identity" beyond that single post. 979:

the speedy deletion of the image without so much as notifying

1393:

Exactly what I was trying to explain in my close. Thank you.

1727:

the descriptions I've been applying to it. "Anonymous is a

1527:, but for those that are inclined to use DRV as IFD2, then 532:

to suppress consensus because of a single editor's agenda.

86:

if we allow this speedbump we might as well fill the oceans

1821:

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0

1199:"Anonymous: Because none of us are as cruel as all of us". 833:

should have been banned, I'm not being surprised anymore.

774:

was addressing the "inexperienced admin" comment at you,

223:, an outcome which there was no consensus to overturn at 1624:(Non-chanology related). Also, this is further used in 2412: 2408: 2404: 1511: 1470:

to be used by many different authors. For example, the

976: 826: 523: 492: 284: 270: 266: 262: 231: 182: 176: 170: 164: 154: 1876:

Notwithstanding, it still qualifies as fair use under

1179:. To quote from the image caption, the image depicts 2487:, then it'd be a good idea to bring it back here. -- 1225:

Asked and answered -- please see my comments above.

898:

Image:Anonymous Scientology 9 by David Shankbone.JPG

821:

I thought the same thing, especially since I'd seen

2479:, since the previous version is a year old and was 1186:, displaying a tagline highlighting the pervasive 939:, and rules are not the purpose of the community. 1819:? The Insurgency Wiki releases all content under 825:. But, considering that an editor on this thread 1888:) use the said image as the official site logo. 1731:which began on internet image boards. We are a 1214:Explain how it passes criteria 4 and 10a, then. 215:This image was recently retained at a result of 2163:Knowledge:Image_use_policy#User-created_images 479:Please note that the administrator who closed 2457:http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809990129/info 1563:logo for your entity and assert fair use. — 1307:- the copyright holder cannot be identified. 928:. Instead, I suggest that we recognize that 401:the deletion by Xaoflux (which was done) and 8: 1882:Anonymous Lobby Against Scientology Campaign 2360:The following is an archived debate of the 951:. Disagreements should be resolved through 130:The following is an archived debate of the 2330: 1653:. Valid fair use - the source is clearly " 1079:source. HiDrNick pretty well explains it. 1059:our current fair use policy and guidelines 69: 1815:: How about replacing the image with the 1733:collection of individuals united by ideas 1581:instead of making it a subsection in the 403:seek furthur consensus through discussion 483:found that the image was compliant with 456:- in big letters: will perpetually fail 41: 279:less than an hour after the closure of 225:the previous deletion review discussion 50: 1106:Actually, the source of this image is 33: 2070:as per above and fair-use rationale. 1432:/b/ has a record of over 100,000 per 7: 1880:. Several other wikis (for example, 852:(where you found the image) and the 481:the prior deletion review discussion 281:the prior deletion review discussion 2534:of the page listed in the heading. 2319:of the page listed in the heading. 2263:per aboves and fair use rationale. 1419:You actually said "because we can 221:our fair use policy and guidelines 28: 1823:, which is still considered as a 1817:new logo from the Insurgency Wiki 1735:" – Anonymous, Who is Anonymous? 908:has uploaded the image under the 2148:(zomg, broke rules 1 and 2). -- 1466:It is not uncommon for a single 82:Overturn deletion and keep image 2530:The above is an archive of the 2315:The above is an archive of the 2043:to use their logo as fair use. 1773:this image talk page discussion 2379:Working Class Rock Star (film) 2338:Working Class Rock Star (film) 930:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy 759:. Given the discussion at the 291:, not unilateral deletionism. 149:Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg 77:Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg 1: 30: 747:: No. The IfD was closed as 2557: 2521:03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2505:00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2351:21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2304:21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2289:20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2272:18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2256:16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2221:10:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2208:10:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2189:09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2175:07:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2153:05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2139:09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2120:08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2106:08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2093:08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2080:21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2053:17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2031:12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2006:12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1995:11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1980:09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1969:03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1950:20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1925:20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1898:18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1863:17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1845:16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1805:00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1785:15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1752:02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1716:09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1705:01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1682:15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1671:14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1638:17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1600:11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1572:02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1558:08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1544:01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1503:19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1484:19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1458:21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1443:17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1428:17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1415:17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1403:17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1389:16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1365:07:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1343:07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1325:07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1294:07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1279:01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1230:00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1143:05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 571:02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 121:15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1831:and, additionally, as an 1249:23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1221:23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1210:21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1169:21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1114:21:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1100:17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1066:21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1045:17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1010:22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 992:22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 973:the prior deletion review 962:22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 843:18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 817:18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 803:18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 788:18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 740:17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 723:17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 692:17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 670:17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 651:17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 639:16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 596:15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 542:15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 500:16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 475:15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 466:Non-free content criteria 445:15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 417:12:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 390:18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 376:05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 355:01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 333:00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 314:00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 296:22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 18:Knowledge:Deletion review 2537:Please do not modify it. 2367:Please do not modify it. 2322:Please do not modify it. 2246:, fair use rationale. -- 1833:image with iconic status 137:Please do not modify it. 43:Deletion review archives 922:non-free content policy 914:Image:Nice body art.jpg 902:non-free content policy 2364:of the article above. 1957:Keep/Overturn Deletion 1651:Keep/overturn deletion 1201: 957: 854:image copyright holder 495: 134:of the article above. 1765:Note to closing admin 1590:including the image. 1180: 1000:, I agree perfectly. 933: 871:! 21:30, 9 March 2008 627:explicitly anyonymous 488: 2467:18:20, 8 March 2008 1767:: If the closure is 1621:(Chanology related) 609:conflict of interest 227:. Wasting no time, 1729:cultural phenomenon 1448:GRBerry refers to. 1184:motivational poster 935:Knowledge is not a 778:. Just to clarify. 658:Overturn and relist 2270: 345:dispute resolution 2544: 2543: 2503: 2329: 2328: 2264: 1886:Anonymous Toronto 1655:Anonymous (group) 1583:Project Chanology 1579:Anonymous (group) 1472:federalist papers 1330:Overturn and keep 1320: 1265:My vote would be 977:unilaterally seek 969:an IFD discussion 941:Instruction creep 607:--all due to his 594: 551:Overturn and keep 519:an ANI discussion 515:an ANI discussion 339:What was done by 302:overturn/undelete 237:Anonymous (group) 217:an IFD discussion 119: 60: 59: 2548: 2539: 2510:Endorse deletion 2493: 2477:Endorse deletion 2434: 2420: 2402: 2369: 2331: 2324: 2268: 1858: 1825:non-free license 1737:whyweprotest.net 1567: 1539: 1522: 1516: 1363: 1360: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1139: 1133: 1127: 1096: 1090: 1084: 1041: 1036: 869: 864: 772: 767: 719: 714: 592: 442: 440: 414: 412: 278: 260: 202: 188: 139: 111: 110: 107: 70: 56: 36: 31: 2556: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2535: 2532:deletion review 2481:crystal ballery 2443: 2437: 2430: 2429: 2423: 2393: 2377: 2365: 2362:deletion review 2320: 2317:deletion review 2266: 1856: 1565: 1537: 1520: 1514: 1358: 1355: 1317: 1313: 1137: 1131: 1125: 1094: 1088: 1082: 1055:proves too much 1039: 1034: 953:consensus-based 906:David Shankbone 865: 862: 768: 765: 761:image talk page 715: 712: 605:game the system 460:because we can 436: 435: 408: 407: 251: 235: 234:the image from 211: 205: 198: 197: 191: 187: 181: 175: 169: 163: 159: 153: 147: 135: 132:deletion review 105: 102: 68: 61: 54: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2554: 2552: 2542: 2541: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2507: 2465:Unstableground 2445: 2444: 2441: 2435: 2427: 2421: 2372: 2371: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2327: 2326: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2274: 2258: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2211: 2210: 2192: 2191: 2178: 2177: 2156: 2155: 2142: 2141: 2123: 2122: 2109: 2108: 2096: 2095: 2082: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2019:pseudonymously 1953: 1952: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1849: 1848: 1808: 1807: 1788: 1787: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1739: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1367: 1345: 1327: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1259: 1258: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1198: 1172: 1171: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1103: 1102: 1069: 1068: 1048: 1047: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 964: 945:not the letter 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 805: 755:was closed as 694: 672: 655: 654: 653: 598: 576: 575: 574: 573: 545: 544: 524:permanent link 504: 503: 502: 450: 449: 448: 447: 420: 419: 395: 394: 393: 392: 378: 359: 358: 336: 316: 213: 212: 209: 203: 195: 189: 185: 179: 173: 167: 161: 157: 151: 142: 141: 126: 125: 124: 123: 67: 62: 58: 57: 49: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2553: 2540: 2538: 2533: 2528: 2527: 2522: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2508: 2506: 2501: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2440: 2433: 2426: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2368: 2363: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2325: 2323: 2318: 2313: 2312: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2281:71.110.137.60 2278: 2275: 2273: 2269: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2066: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2004: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1977: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1864: 1861: 1859: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1763: 1762: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1648: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1620: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1568: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1542: 1540: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1519: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1441: 1440: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271:82.32.195.193 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1231: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1178: 1174: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1134: 1129: 1128: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1037: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 994: 993: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 965: 963: 960: 956: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 931: 927: 923: 919: 918:wikilawyering 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 870: 868: 859: 855: 851: 846: 845: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 804: 800: 796: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 771: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 743: 742: 741: 737: 733: 729: 726: 725: 724: 720: 718: 709: 705: 703: 699: 695: 693: 689: 685: 680: 676: 673: 671: 667: 663: 659: 656: 652: 649: 648: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 628: 623: 619: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601:Comment again 599: 597: 591: 588: 585: 581: 578: 577: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 549: 548: 547: 546: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 525: 520: 517: 516: 511: 509: 505: 501: 498: 494: 493: 486: 482: 478: 477: 476: 473: 472: 467: 463: 459: 455: 454:Speedy delete 452: 451: 446: 443: 439: 431: 427: 424: 423: 422: 421: 418: 415: 411: 404: 400: 397: 396: 391: 387: 383: 379: 377: 374: 371: 367: 363: 362: 361: 360: 357: 356: 353: 350: 346: 342: 337: 335: 334: 330: 326: 321: 317: 315: 311: 307: 303: 300: 299: 298: 297: 294: 290: 286: 282: 276: 272: 268: 264: 259: 255: 250: 246: 242: 238: 233: 230: 226: 222: 218: 208: 201: 194: 184: 178: 172: 166: 156: 150: 146: 145: 144: 143: 140: 138: 133: 128: 127: 122: 118: 114: 109: 108: 99: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 72: 71: 66: 63: 53: 48: 44: 39: 32: 23: 19: 2536: 2529: 2509: 2489: 2476: 2446: 2366: 2359: 2343:IronGargoyle 2336: 2321: 2314: 2276: 2260: 2243: 2084: 2067: 2045:IronGargoyle 2018: 2014: 2000: 1974: 1956: 1937: 1875: 1812: 1811: 1791: 1769:no consensus 1768: 1764: 1732: 1728: 1722: 1721: 1710: 1692: 1676: 1667:trivial vote 1650: 1587: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1450:IronGargoyle 1437: 1433: 1420: 1409: 1395:IronGargoyle 1369: 1356: 1351: 1347: 1329: 1300: 1286:81.104.39.63 1266: 1260: 1254: 1238: 1215: 1191: 1188:black comedy 1182:A satirical 1181: 1151: 1135: 1123: 1119: 1092: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1032: 1028: 985:IronGargoyle 981:IronGargoyle 934: 866: 853: 850:image source 849: 823:this closure 795:IronGargoyle 776:IronGargoyle 769: 763:, I believe 757:no consensus 756: 752: 748: 744: 732:IronGargoyle 727: 716: 707: 697: 696: 684:Coffeepusher 674: 657: 645: 631:IronGargoyle 626: 622:common sense 612: 600: 579: 550: 521: 513: 507: 506: 489: 469: 461: 453: 437: 429: 425: 409: 402: 398: 382:IronGargoyle 338: 325:IronGargoyle 319: 318: 301: 214: 136: 129: 103: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 75: 65:8 March 2008 64: 2015:anonymously 2011:WP:NFCC#10a 1378:stage names 1305:WP:NFCC#10a 1118:Amended to 996:Well said, 949:ignore them 555:WP:NFCC#10a 485:WP:NFCC#10a 458:WP:NFCC#10a 96:just about 2072:The Myotis 1813:Suggestion 1797:Stormwatch 1775:. Thanks. 1742:culture.-- 1518:Oldifdfull 1195:subculture 937:moot court 704:in a week. 698:Irrelevant 618:good faith 380:I concur. 347:process. - 117:count/logs 47:2008 March 2485:WP:CSD#G4 2218:Ned Scott 2186:Ned Scott 2150:Ned Scott 2117:Ned Scott 2103:Ned Scott 2090:Ned Scott 2037:McDonalds 1857:Seraphim♥ 1468:pseudonym 1382:art-names 1374:Pen names 1192:Anonymous 1177:Anonymous 1161:Guest9999 1120:copyright 1077:copyright 920:over our 827:suggested 728:**Cough** 702:WP:CSD#I4 559:Anonymous 289:consensus 94:really is 2514:Dhartung 2500:Contribs 2490:lifebaka 2085:Overturn 2039:ad from 1938:Overturn 1626:websites 1566:xaosflux 1538:xaosflux 1370:Overturn 1348:Overturn 1241:Stormfin 1122:source. 675:Overturn 508:Overturn 428:This is 399:Overturn 366:Xaosflux 364:I think 341:Xaosflux 229:Xaosflux 20:‎ | 2425:restore 2396:protect 2391:history 2296:JoshuaZ 2267:Spencer 1878:WP:LOGO 1829:WP:LOGO 1693:Comment 1588:without 1425:GRBerry 1386:GRBerry 1309:WP:NFCC 1255:Comment 1227:John254 1207:John254 1190:of the 1156:WP:NFCC 1111:John254 1063:John254 1035:krimpet 998:John254 989:John254 959:John254 858:WP:NFCC 809:JoshuaZ 745:Comment 679:WP:GAME 497:John254 370:Nv8200p 349:Nv8200p 320:Comment 306:JoshuaZ 293:John254 285:deleted 283:, then 254:protect 249:history 232:removed 193:restore 165:history 52:March 9 38:March 7 2400:delete 2248:Sjappé 2017:, not 1961:Fieari 1942:ChrisO 1659:Stifle 1531:(This 1529:delete 1525:relist 1318:le_Jrb 1301:Delete 1152:Delete 1073:Delete 1029:Delete 867:DrNick 770:DrNick 753:review 751:; the 717:DrNick 708:delete 662:Addhoc 593:(st47) 587:ʎʇɹnoɟ 580:Delete 258:delete 2432:cache 2417:views 2409:watch 2405:links 1533:group 1421:never 1359:Jéské 975:, to 926:WP:FU 900:as a 829:that 584:uǝʌǝs 530:gamed 462:never 275:views 267:watch 263:links 200:cache 177:watch 171:links 106:Jerry 88:, or 55:: --> 16:< 2518:Talk 2496:Talk 2473:WP:N 2413:logs 2387:talk 2383:edit 2347:talk 2300:talk 2285:talk 2277:Keep 2261:Keep 2252:talk 2244:Keep 2204:talk 2200:Z00r 2171:talk 2167:Z00r 2135:talk 2131:Ayla 2076:talk 2068:Keep 2049:talk 2041:1940 2027:talk 2023:Ayla 2002:Will 1991:talk 1987:Ayla 1976:Will 1965:talk 1946:talk 1921:talk 1917:Ayla 1894:talk 1890:Ayla 1884:and 1841:talk 1837:Ayla 1801:talk 1792:Keep 1781:talk 1777:Ayla 1748:talk 1744:Cast 1712:Will 1701:talk 1697:Cast 1678:Will 1663:talk 1634:talk 1630:Cast 1596:talk 1592:Z00r 1554:talk 1550:Z00r 1499:talk 1495:Z00r 1480:talk 1476:Z00r 1454:talk 1439:Will 1411:Will 1399:talk 1380:and 1339:talk 1335:Z00r 1290:talk 1275:talk 1267:KEEP 1245:talk 1217:Will 1165:talk 1154:per 1138:Love 1126:Lara 1095:Love 1083:Lara 1006:talk 1002:Ayla 971:and 910:GFDL 839:talk 835:Ayla 831:Shii 813:talk 799:talk 784:talk 780:Ayla 749:keep 736:talk 688:talk 666:talk 647:Will 635:talk 620:and 613:they 567:talk 563:Ayla 538:talk 534:Ayla 471:Will 441:aiba 426:Note 413:aiba 386:talk 373:talk 352:talk 329:talk 310:talk 271:logs 245:talk 241:edit 183:logs 155:edit 113:talk 35:< 2439:AfD 1723:can 1665:) ( 1657:". 1628:.-- 1434:day 860:. ➪ 430:not 207:AfD 98:one 22:Log 2516:| 2498:- 2459:, 2455:, 2451:, 2415:| 2411:| 2407:| 2403:| 2398:| 2394:| 2389:| 2385:| 2349:) 2302:) 2287:) 2254:) 2206:) 2173:) 2137:) 2078:) 2051:) 2029:) 1993:) 1967:) 1948:) 1923:) 1896:) 1843:) 1803:) 1783:) 1750:) 1703:) 1669:) 1636:) 1598:) 1556:) 1521:}} 1515:{{ 1501:) 1482:) 1456:) 1401:) 1376:, 1341:) 1303:- 1292:) 1284:-- 1277:) 1247:) 1167:) 1109:. 1008:) 863:Hi 841:) 815:) 801:) 786:) 766:Hi 738:) 721:! 713:Hi 690:) 668:) 637:) 590:ʇs 569:) 540:) 468:. 388:) 331:) 312:) 273:| 269:| 265:| 261:| 256:| 252:| 247:| 243:| 115:¤ 80:– 45:: 2502:) 2494:( 2442:) 2436:| 2428:| 2422:( 2419:) 2381:( 2345:( 2298:( 2283:( 2250:( 2202:( 2169:( 2133:( 2074:( 2047:( 2025:( 1989:( 1963:( 1944:( 1919:( 1892:( 1839:( 1799:( 1779:( 1746:( 1699:( 1661:( 1632:( 1594:( 1552:( 1497:( 1478:( 1452:( 1397:( 1337:( 1314:A 1288:( 1273:( 1243:( 1197:: 1163:( 1132:❤ 1089:❤ 1040:✽ 1004:( 932:: 837:( 811:( 797:( 782:( 734:( 686:( 664:( 633:( 565:( 536:( 526:) 522:( 487:: 438:Κ 410:Κ 384:( 327:( 308:( 277:) 239:( 210:) 204:| 196:| 190:( 186:) 180:| 174:| 168:| 162:| 160:] 158:| 152:(

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

Knowledge

:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 8 - Knowledge

Index