1009:, we have to agree to differ, but I have to point out that you appear to be in a minority of one here. All other contributing editors, as well as those who reverted the removal of the image when attempted by Rodw in an effort to overcome your concerns, disagree, as does the entire community on Commons who have determined by long consensus that such images can and should be held. As I'm sure you know, Commons is a free media repository, part of the purpose of which is to provide easy-to-use media for other Wikimedia sites, including the English Knowledge. Individual opinions that media hosted there are not 'sufficiently free' based on some different, personal and local, definition of what 'free' means subverts the entire purpose of the Foundation in setting up that sister project in the first place. In the circumstances, I'd suggest you simply cast your !vote against this article being promoted, and leave it to others to judge consensus. I am really sorry that it's not been possible to deal with this to our mutual satisfaction. --
548:, Commons policy agrees that the image is non-free. The policy you cite doesn't say that "there is no copyright violation"; it says, in essence, that creators are unlikely to sue us. The precautionary principle applies. Further, previous conversations around the COM:GRAFFITI policy have demonstrated why the argument around illegality is problematic (and that the "copyright paranoia is awesome community", as you put it, has a problem with such images being hosted regardless). I'm happy to provide sources if you like - while there have been few test cases, most scholars agree that graffiti can indeed be copyrighted, particularly in this case given the known (if pseudonymous) creator.
508:
the former two cases applies here, so the image is non-free. The argument that the creation of the work was illegal has been made, but as the non-free grafitti tag states, "there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested", and
Commons' precautionary principle would demand the exclusion of the image regardless of how likely it is that the artist would or would not attempt to claim copyright. Of course Commons should address on a wider scale the practice of hosting non-free images based on untested legal theory, but as mentioned above the question of the licensing of this specific image needs to be resolved here in order for this nom to succeed.
842:
reproductions do not garner a copyright for the photographer, and that only the original artist's copyright should be considered regardless of the work's country of origin (in other words, following US law, despite the fact that under UK law the photographer can claim copyright on the photo). If you wanted to be absolutely clear on the matter, you could keep the CC tag but specify that it is for the photo only, while the non-free tag applies to the underlying artwork. You just can't keep an unannotated CC tag, as it could give the impression that the artwork is CC-licensed when it is not.
493:
uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party... For legally-painted artworks, see Murals." Since whoever painted it did not have the owner's permission to do that, this image is not a legally-painted artwork, nor a mural. Thus the image, as with many other graffiti is able to be hosted on
Commons. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to start a Deletion Nomination at Commons where all the admins & 'crats can discuss it. Thank you for all your hard work on DYK and Featured article. Cheers!
950:, since it is neither PD due to age nor covered by freedom of panorama. You yourself pointed out the apparent conflict between treatment of graffiti and the general prohibition on non-free material on Commons, in previous discussions about that policy; as another commenter in the various discussions noted, "This is a case where COM:PRP typically is ignored and where unfree images are accepted" on Commons. Since this conflict does not exist on Knowledge, we can use such images here so long as the non-free tag is accompanied by an appropriate rationale.
892:? That doesn't seem to apply as this is not a standard non-free image held on the English Knowledge, but a free image held on Commons. No doubt a local use rationale could be created anyway, if it would assuage your concerns, but where would the information go? It can't be added to the image page on Commons, as English Knowledge-specific text isn't appropriate for a Wikimedia-wide image. Perhaps it could be added to this page, and kept as a record here? --
526:, you seem to have decided that this image is problematic and are unwilling to accept that, as far as the Commons community is concerned, there is no copyright violation. We have told you why it's freely licensed. Please either accept that the copyright paranoia is awesome community have no trouble with it, or come to Commons and engage us in a discussion about every piece of graffiti in countries where FoP is limited. -
704:(though I acknowledge that the situation might be different in other countries, and with other images). Commons' position seems perfectly sustainable under English law, namely that while Bansky may prima facie hold the copyright, he would be estopped under the equitable clean hands doctrine from benefiting from his own illegal act and the courts would not on that basis grant him any relief.
700:
Commons' rules for hosting graffiti images. The CC tag indicates the photographer's licence. All mention above of fair use and freedom of panorama are entirely irrelevant here, as neither are applicable under UK law to this work (UK copyright law applies as the artist is
British and the work is located in the UK).
974:
The WMF rule I believe you are referring to is the PD-ART policy that "faithful reprodutions of public domain images are not copyrightable", however I would not be sure that that applies here - I'm not sold that this is entirely without photographic effort. PD-ART is meant to be about old images from
767:
For every source saying graffiti cannot be copyrighted, you find another that says it can (even in the UK). The legal theory underlying this debate remains largely untested by the courts (though as you note that could change in future). This is why
Commons policy is to tag such images as non-free. It
113:
at this juncture because of various un-referenced passages throughout the article. I also worry about the quality of many of the references used; the "History of
Bristol" section for instance relies on a very wide selection of sources rather than basing its claims squarely on scholarly studies of the
93:
Bristol is the largest city in south west
England. It has over 1,000 years of history and has become a major centre for trade, business and culture - all of which are reflected in the article. Since its creation in 2002 the article has received over 4,000 edits and four peer reviews and a recent copy
507:
The policy goes on to say "Graffiti may be in the public domain if painted without a copyright notice in the United States before 1978 ... Reproductions may be permitted in a few nations that have freedom of panorama for 2D works... For all other works, use the {{Non-free graffiti}} tag". Neither of
707:
In any event a
Featured Article Candidate discussion on the English Knowledge is not the place to attempt to 'correct' decisions made and principles set up long ago on Commons. One of the great advantages of having Commons as a specialist free media repository is that it frees the English Knowledge
1024:
Sorry, no - it's actually
Commons itself that says that such images are non-free, not any "personal and local" definition. If Commons chooses to host such images regardless, well, that's a policy contradiction that Commons will need to resolve at some point (see the multiple discussions regarding
703:
Wikimedia
Commons' approach to graffiti has been in place pretty well since the beginning, and is very well established. Of course it could always be changed in the future if any English court were to decide to the contrary regarding Banksy's art. I think that unlikely to happen under English law
492:
As artistic works, copyright in graffiti will theoretically belong to the original artist. However, in many cases the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to
199:
The first sentence of
Demography is a problem. It indicates it is the 47th-largest but the linked article has been updated to 2014 figures and it now shows it is the 43rd-largest. The reference at the end of the sentence is for 2005 mid-year estimates which seems out of step with the 2008 figures
699:
As several very experienced editors have already pointed out above, the objection to the Banksy image is unfounded, and the fact that one editor disagrees should not prevent this article from being promoted if it is otherwise OK. The image is properly tagged and licensed, and fully complies with
1039:
Would a possible way to overcome this impasse be to copy the image back to wikipedia (presumably with a different filename) and add a "fair use" statement to the file on wp without affecting the file on commons? (It was originally uploaded to wp in April 2007 and transferred to commons in April
316:
Yes, but the CC 3.0 is meant to reflect the photographer's copyright, correct? Or does Banksy himself release his works under CC 3.0? If the latter, I'd like to see a source confirming that. The problem is that because this is a 2D graphic work, we can't use photos of it without considering the
1094:
Which template? - I tried to copy everything to give the history etc. I added the "Non-free media information and use rationale for Bristol", but it now says "To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." I
841:
It's meant to. We would always consider the photographer's copyright in cases where freedom of panorama could apply - in other words, in representations of 3D works. As Michael points out, that isn't the case here - this is a representation of a 2D graphic work. The WMF's position is that such
708:
and other Wikimedia sites from having to re-run every copyright discussion on an image by image basis. There are probably thousands of validly hosted graffiti images that are in use on the English Knowledge, and this one should not be treated differently from any of the others. --
376:
It seems that the Commons page you link to has a more nuanced view than just "not eligible for copyright protection". It notes that authorship is sometimes unknown, which isn't the case here; it also states that for post-1978 artworks not covered by freedom of panorama, the
381:
should be applied - this tag states that "there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested" and that Commons' precautionary principle applies. Thus, given the information presented here the image is not freely licensed and Commons policy would support its exclusion.
590:
Having already removed it from the article once - to be reverted within minutes, I'm having to struggle my way through the non-free content guidelines trying to find a rationale for its use when the article is about Bristol rather than Banksy. Just one question. if
768:
is also Commons policy that copyright doesn't disappear just because someone is unlikely to pursue a claim. Now, Commons keeps these images around regardless, so a case could be made for IAR as Andrew suggested above - but that doesn't mean they are free.
763:
You are correct that freedom of panorama does not apply here under British law - and thus that the CC tag for the photographer does not apply. You are incorrect that image copyright should not be discussed here, as it remains a FAC
306:
I've removed the vandalism, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural". It already includes a CC 3.0. Again - should this image be removed from the article?—
456:
be addressed at Commons, but this article cannot pass FAC with the image as it stands in place, unless someone has more information to demonstrate that it is in fact freely licensed (or unless a fair-use claim can be made).
343:, the image is freely licensed and is suitable for inclusion. You are quite correct that FoP in the UK does not extend to 2D graphic works, such as murals, however what we have here is graffiti. It is the policy of Commons (
826:
The CC tag is correct, as I said above, and needs to be kept. It indicates the licence under which the image has been released by the photographer. Removing or changing the tag would infringe the photographer's copyright.
400:
I don't feel qualified to enter this debate, so I'm glad you two are having it (although I have asked for further input from others with specialist knowledge in this area). I'm not sure about the authorship being known as
425:
I understand you have concerns, but again, this is not the place to do it. The image is freely licensed on Commons. If you think this is in error, file a deletion request for all such images on Commons, or discuss it at
1025:
COM:GRAFFITI there). For our part, English Knowledge is happy to use non-free images so long as they include a rationale. The article could be promoted with the image if one were to be added to its description.
487:
Regarding Commons policy on graffiti very specifically references the illegal nature of the act which created the grafitti. The policy states: "Graffiti are essentially murals that have been painted illegally.
598:
As with the current image, the CC2 licensing there appears to be that of the photographer, not the artist. If we had any evidence that Banksy released his artwork under CC that would be a different story.
562:
This discussion seems to have stalled with no further comments after a week. What should I do as nominator as a result? Does anyone have any further comments on this (or anything else about the article)?—
347:) that graffiti, as illegally painted works, are not eligible for copyright protection. If you wish to argue this I suggest you take it up on Commons, but this FAC discussion is not the place to do so. -
1183:
Unfortunately this has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for more than a month—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --
657:
Interesting, thanks! They give the image a copyright notice for Banksy (presenting the image as fair use) and state elsewhere that Banksy has previously asserted copyright over other work.
1067:, attempting to apply a fair use rationale, but I have found this process very difficult as different templates appear to be used on Commons to those on wp. I have asked for help at
856:
While we can't change or alter the photographer's licences, it will do no harm to state explicitly what rights they applies to. I have amended the info on the image to specify that "
924:
No it's bloody not! It is tagged as free, because it's on Commons, and we don't allow stuff that isn't free! If you don't think it's free, tag it for deletion on Commons. -
303:
in the UK does not extend to graphic works - you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural. Also, the image description page appears to have been vandalized.
1068:
40:
1080:
You could copy the template itself from Commons to Knowledge to give the more specific information, but in the interim I've added the 2D art tag.
150:
The references to English Heritage need updating to Historic England since the organisation split earlier this year. May be could switch to using
799:
You will need to remove the CC tag as it does not apply; the image is otherwise already tagged as non-free, so with rationale it can be kept.
1206:
1108:
No, that part is fine (that message is just part of the template, to remind people to do that). What I'm suggesting is that you could create
257:
the arms were first granted in 1569. That page also shows a very similar representation in use on a cigarette card before 1906. According to
30:
17:
1217:
746:- from a dishonorable cause, an action cannot arise (you cannot, for example, claim copyright in a work created through criminal activity.)
595:
is on another site (CC 2 licenced) and I imported that one would it still be challenged on the same grounds?19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
790:, as the vast majority of contributors to this debate seem to hold a different view to the one that you have cogently argued throughout?—
736:
1096:
727:
674:
I will also note in passing that you should look at making your referencing format more consistent before someone checks that.
269:
shows a similar design in 1673. I don't think I'm going to be able to find a definitive answer - should the image be removed?—
635:. Note that the image in question is shown in that work on page 130. My own view is that we should include the picture per
218:
Apologies for the delay I didn't spot this with all the discussion re images. I have now updated to mid 2014 estimates.—
1240:
1196:
1153:
1139:
1127:
1103:
1089:
1075:
1058:
1044:
1034:
1018:
988:
959:
937:
919:
901:
883:
869:
851:
836:
821:
808:
794:
777:
758:
717:
693:
683:
666:
648:
608:
585:
567:
557:
539:
517:
502:
466:
443:
413:
391:
360:
335:
326:
311:
292:
273:
222:
209:
186:
169:
132:
123:
104:
85:
1112:
644:
119:
405:
has not been identified or identified him/herself. Presumably the outcome would relate to many of the images at
200:
earlier in the sentence. Really need to get a consistent set of figures or clarify what years are being used.
910:
be present on the image description page of any media tagged as non-free that is used here, as this one is.
317:
artist's copyright (whereas for a building or sculpture in the UK we would only consider the photographer).
1014:
897:
865:
832:
754:
713:
452:, which means that concerns in this area are appropriately discussed at FAC. Of course this issue should
1235:
1191:
498:
1149:
1123:
1085:
1054:
1030:
955:
915:
879:
847:
804:
773:
679:
662:
640:
604:
581:
553:
513:
462:
387:
322:
115:
1064:
300:
266:
1132:
983:
932:
874:
Excellent, thank you. Now we just need to add a rationale and we can put this discussion to bed.
534:
438:
355:
631:
817:), which may be important for the other 20 foreign language wikipedia's the image is used on.—
1010:
893:
861:
828:
750:
709:
205:
179:
165:
1228:
1210:
1184:
494:
262:
61:
53:
947:
344:
1145:
1119:
1081:
1050:
1026:
1006:
951:
911:
889:
875:
843:
800:
783:
769:
675:
658:
600:
577:
549:
523:
509:
458:
449:
420:
383:
340:
318:
813:
Now I'm confused I thought you said the CC tag applied to the photographer (in this case
254:
1209:
has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
278:
No, if the design was in use before 1906 this should be fine even without an exact date.
253:
An interesting question - to which I'm having problems finding an answer. According to
977:
926:
907:
787:
636:
573:
545:
528:
432:
371:
349:
427:
201:
161:
154:
1069:
Knowledge talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Banksy graffiti and fair use rationale
639:, which seems especially appropriate when considering the work of an anarchist.
1224:
57:
409:
and others in the commons category: Graffiti artists from the United Kingdom?—
406:
975:
galleries where the composition is constrained, not for an open streetscene. -
1071:
and any guidance about whether I have done this right would be appreciated.—
1136:
1100:
1072:
1041:
943:
818:
814:
791:
690:
564:
410:
378:
332:
308:
289:
270:
219:
183:
129:
101:
82:
592:
689:
Thanks. I will look (again) at the referencing over the next day or two.—
858:
The photographer's rights have been released under the following licences
128:
Could you suggest which passages you consider need further references?—
258:
72:
731:, is specifically applied to copyright in the 2015 English legal text
250:
File:Bristol_city_coa.png: what was the creation date of this design?
402:
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
629:
There is some discussion of Banksy and graffiti in general in
572:
Without more information, your options are a) claim it as
490:
Photographs of graffiti have long been allowed on Commons.
160:
to keep all the references to the web site in one place.
1135:
has kindly done this as I've never created a template.—
65:
265:agrees "Recorded and confirmed 24th August 1569".
1248:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
782:Does does that mean that, in this specific case,
741:
725:The 'clean hands doctrine', sometimes known as
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1254:No further edits should be made to this page.
1223:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
98:This nomination is eligible for the wikicup
232:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
285:File:Bristol_1873.png needs a US PD tag
178:Thanks - I've now done this for all the
1099:but obviously done something wrong.—
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
576:, or b) remove it from the article.
288:Added (hope I've done this right?)—
261:variations were identified in 1908.
946:in accordance with the guidance of
906:English Knowledge requires that a
888:By 'rationale', do you mean under
331:I have removed the Banksy image.—
24:
1097:Template:Non-free use rationale
1063:Thanks I have now copied it to
744:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
728:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
448:Image licensing is part of the
1241:00:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
1197:00:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
1154:16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1140:16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1128:15:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1104:14:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1090:13:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1076:08:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1059:19:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
1045:18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
1035:00:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
1019:23:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
989:22:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
960:22:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
938:22:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
920:22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
902:20:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
884:20:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
870:19:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
852:19:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
837:19:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
822:19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
809:19:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
795:14:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
778:14:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
759:08:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
718:08:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
667:18:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
649:18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
609:01:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
586:19:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
568:18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
223:20:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
210:22:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
558:20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
540:19:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
518:16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
503:15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
467:20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
444:20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
414:19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
392:19:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
361:19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
336:13:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1095:thought I'd done this using
1049:That would be fine with me.
1218:featured article candidates
694:08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
684:23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
327:15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
312:08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
293:08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
274:08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
187:08:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
170:21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
133:20:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
124:20:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
105:16:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
86:16:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
64:) 00:10, 30 September 2015
31:featured article nomination
1271:
1251:Please do not modify it.
1144:Excellent, thanks both.
36:Please do not modify it.
748:
379:non-free grafitti tag
786:would be willing to
299:File:Banksy-ps.jpg:
1065:File:Banksy-ps2.jpg
301:freedom of panorama
1133:User:Pigsonthewing
1181:Coordinator note:
1177:
1176:
1113:non-free graffiti
987:
944:non-free graffiti
936:
538:
442:
359:
180:Images of England
99:
89:
1262:
1253:
1238:
1233:
1227:goes through. --
1222:
1216:
1213:, and leave the
1194:
1189:
1117:
1111:
981:
930:
532:
436:
428:commons:COM:VP/C
424:
375:
353:
233:
159:
153:
114:city's history.
97:
81:Nominator(s): —
79:
48:The article was
38:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1249:
1236:
1229:
1220:
1214:
1192:
1185:
1178:
1115:
1109:
942:It's tagged as
733:Law for Artists
632:Law for Artists
593:a similar image
418:
369:
238:
157:
151:
116:Midnightblueowl
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1268:
1266:
1257:
1256:
1244:
1243:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
765:
737:this statement
697:
696:
672:
671:
670:
669:
652:
651:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
407:commons:Banksy
395:
394:
364:
363:
297:
296:
295:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
240:
239:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
213:
212:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
173:
172:
145:
144:
138:
137:
136:
135:
111:Leaning oppose
91:
90:
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1267:
1255:
1252:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1234:
1232:
1226:
1219:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1190:
1188:
1182:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1114:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
990:
985:
980:
979:
973:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
940:
939:
934:
929:
928:
923:
922:
921:
917:
913:
909:
908:use rationale
905:
904:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
766:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
747:
745:
740:
738:
735:. At p176 is
734:
730:
729:
724:
720:
719:
715:
711:
705:
701:
695:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
628:
610:
606:
602:
597:
596:
594:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
566:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:With respect
543:
542:
541:
536:
531:
530:
525:
522:With respect
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
486:
485:
468:
464:
460:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
440:
435:
434:
429:
422:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
380:
373:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
357:
352:
351:
346:
342:
339:
338:
337:
334:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
315:
314:
313:
310:
305:
304:
302:
298:
294:
291:
287:
286:
284:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
241:
235:
234:
224:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
207:
203:
198:
197:
196:
195:
188:
185:
182:references.—
181:
177:
176:
175:
174:
171:
167:
163:
156:
149:
148:
147:
146:
143:
140:
139:
134:
131:
127:
126:
125:
121:
117:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
95:
88:
87:
84:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1250:
1247:
1230:
1203:Closing note
1202:
1186:
1180:
1179:
1118:on English.
1011:MichaelMaggs
1005:
976:
948:COM:GRAFFITI
925:
894:MichaelMaggs
862:MichaelMaggs
857:
829:MichaelMaggs
751:MichaelMaggs
743:
742:
732:
726:
722:
721:
710:MichaelMaggs
706:
702:
698:
673:
630:
527:
489:
453:
431:
348:
345:COM:GRAFFITI
245:Image review
244:
243:
237:Image review
141:
110:
96:
92:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1231:Laser brain
1187:Laser brain
495:Ellin Beltz
450:FA criteria
54:Laser brain
1146:Nikkimaria
1120:Nikkimaria
1082:Nikkimaria
1051:Nikkimaria
1027:Nikkimaria
1007:Nikkimaria
952:Nikkimaria
912:Nikkimaria
876:Nikkimaria
844:Nikkimaria
801:Nikkimaria
784:Nikkimaria
770:Nikkimaria
764:criterion.
676:Nikkimaria
659:Nikkimaria
601:Nikkimaria
578:Nikkimaria
550:Nikkimaria
524:Nikkimaria
510:Nikkimaria
459:Nikkimaria
421:Nikkimaria
384:Nikkimaria
341:Nikkimaria
319:Nikkimaria
1211:WP:FAC/ar
1207:candidate
815:User:Ajuk
641:Andrew D.
267:This page
259:this site
255:this page
1205:: This
1040:2008).—
978:mattbuck
927:mattbuck
890:WP:NFCCP
574:fair use
546:Mattbuck
529:mattbuck
433:mattbuck
372:Mattbuck
350:mattbuck
142:Comments
50:archived
860:"... --
202:Keith D
162:Keith D
73:Bristol
1237:(talk)
1193:(talk)
788:WP:IAR
723:Info:
637:WP:IAR
403:Banksy
94:edit.
58:FACBot
16:<
1150:talk
1124:talk
1086:talk
1055:talk
1031:talk
1015:talk
984:Talk
956:talk
933:Talk
916:talk
898:talk
880:talk
866:talk
848:talk
833:talk
805:talk
774:talk
755:talk
714:talk
680:talk
663:talk
645:talk
605:talk
582:talk
554:talk
535:Talk
514:talk
499:talk
463:talk
454:also
439:Talk
388:talk
356:Talk
323:talk
263:This
206:talk
166:talk
120:talk
62:talk
56:via
1225:bot
1137:Rod
1101:Rod
1073:Rod
1042:Rod
819:Rod
792:Rod
691:Rod
565:Rod
430:. -
411:Rod
333:Rod
309:Rod
290:Rod
271:Rod
220:Rod
184:Rod
155:IoE
130:Rod
102:Rod
83:Rod
52:by
1221:}}
1215:{{
1152:)
1126:)
1116:}}
1110:{{
1088:)
1057:)
1033:)
1017:)
958:)
918:)
900:)
882:)
868:)
850:)
835:)
827:--
807:)
776:)
757:)
749:--
739::
716:)
682:)
665:)
647:)
607:)
584:)
556:)
516:)
501:)
465:)
390:)
325:)
208:)
168:)
158:}}
152:{{
122:)
100:—
67:.
33:.
1148:(
1122:(
1084:(
1053:(
1029:(
1013:(
986:)
982:(
954:(
935:)
931:(
914:(
896:(
878:(
864:(
846:(
831:(
803:(
772:(
753:(
712:(
678:(
661:(
643:(
603:(
580:(
552:(
537:)
533:(
512:(
497:(
461:(
441:)
437:(
423::
419:@
386:(
374::
370:@
358:)
354:(
321:(
204:(
164:(
118:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.