1200:
were no credits on the fence. You seem to be taking a moral line of reasoning rather than a legal one when you say you'd support deletion of it (you missed the boat there, anyway). If you were to take a moral standpoint on photographing works of art, then does that mean you'd like to see all our photos of artwork deleted too? I have certainly don't intend to break the law in taking documenting the world around us, but this isn't about crediting me - it's about showcasing important objects/scenes on the encyclopaedia... Deleting the image won't help us out there at all. But okay, if you don't find it striking...
576:, because I think a common sense interpretation of this situation is that this is a free image with no substantial encumbrances from the individual copyrights of the tiles. The continuum of fair use is fuzzy, but lots of fair use is free enough that it doesn't trigger our non-free content policy. The subject here is the memorial itself; any particular tile is incidentally, even though the tiles as an ensemble are not. Furthermore, there is an implicit understanding by those who contributed tiles that this is a public, collective work.--
801:" thing a bit irritating... As if America is the last bastion of freedom or something. The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with American freedom, but the country felt the need to declare they were 'still free' despite the terrorist attempts to take it away somehow. Par for the course when it comes to American Patriotism though. :-) But that is a completely different topic. Other than that, I don't find the tiles particularly controversial. NPOV, sure, but nothing that would stop it being appropriate for the article or FP.
34:
898:
censored, and we have an obligation to uphold that, even if it against our personal sensibilities. Of course there is some room for opinion in this process, but really you should be voting based on our existing criteria, not your criteria. :-) And besides, even if sensitivity was a significant criteria, I think a greater number of people would likely take comfort from the content of the image (as the central tile suggests) than be upset by it.
780:
786:
925:, however, they are welcome. I agree with you, though, that my oppose is far from objective and is based on tip-toeing around an issue that I think needs a more sensitive approach. If you think I've gone much too far into this territory and my oppose bears no weight, I will strike it. Eeeep, sorry for the drama! /me hides . . .
1380:. Knowledge (XXG) isn't here to please everyone. I mean, do all of our FPs hold significance for most people? Probably not. Not everyone is particularly interested in birds, insects, or architecture for example. That doesn't mean we shouldn't feature pictures of them if they illustrate an article well.
1332:
my old rationale still stands, but I don't fully agree with it any more. I'll posit this new one: this is an important image to have on
Knowledge (XXG). It holds personal significance to many people. The problem is that it doesn't hold that significance for a lot of people. We could find a photo like
432:
Good question. My guess is that the legal justification for disallowing images like this nomination while allowing others which show copyrighted logos is that the latter are incidental to the composition and not the focus of it... Then again, I'd like to think that the law has a bit more common sense
875:
is my issue. I merely think it too insensitive to be featured, and the fact that we have other featured content which I may also have that opinion about isn't really relevant. I probably would have opposed them, too. I never put forward an opinion thinking it should be "right", I expect people to
1222:. Basically, from a legal standpoint, I'm sure we're alright (hence not deleting) but, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't think this is a reflection of our best work in terms of freedom. No offence was meant- it's an excellent documentary photograph, but I don't think it's really FP material.
897:
But Maedin, it isn't really our place to be sensitive or make judgments on the sensitivity of others. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to be as objective and truthful as possible, not tip-toe around issues for the sake of how the content might offend people in some way. Knowledge (XXG) is not
699:
I realised while I opposed that my own pov was pushing in, but the crux of my oppose is not so much that the content is pov, but that it would be insensitive to feature it. I think that, when the event is a couple of decades old, this sort of image won't grate so much. And I apologise for however
627:
does not correspond with the reach of 9/11. As the article says, more than 90 countries lost citizens as a result of the attack, and spurred hate crime and war, which has embroiled much more than just the US. In light of that, I think that "featuring" so many US-only sentiments is unsupportable.
258:
I think David is right. It would be difficult to assign the copyright of the overall design to anyone, so it's valid to consider each tile separately, and they're depicted at a resolution consistent with other fair use images on WP. I think the
Foundation is extremely unlikely to get sued for this,
1199:
claiming the artwork as my own work. I'm only claiming that I took the photo of the collage, which is completely different. It's pretty clear this is a collaboration and not something I created myself. I'd have been more than happy to give credit to the individuals who created the tiles, but there
973:
Excuse me. Would fellow reviewers please move editorializing to a different location? My nearest relative survived this attack from a high floor. He was one of the very last people out of the building and most of his coworkers weren't as lucky. I joined the Navy and went to war because of this
239:
low-res, but combine to form a collage which is not restricted to low-res? It does seem like there are a lot of ways to be legally creative, at least in my non-legally-trained mind. :-) It is frustrating, as I am sure the creators of the work intended it to be visible to as many people as possible
1502:
It being a copyvio is only your opinion but it seems a pretty poor reason to oppose given it has already been discussed and resolved. The licensing/legal aspect is completely separate to this nomination. If you still have a problem with it, you should re-raise it on
Commons. Also, it doesn't have
343:
of these non-free works may not itself be eligible for copyright is immaterial. I also think this should probably be deleted, because we already have plenty of free photos of memorials in the article. (photos of piles of roses and mourners and such that don't highlight copyrighted works.) this is
1503:
systematic bias issues any more than the majority of our FPs are by virtue of the contributors being from western countries.. This was covered above. It documents an interesting and historic scene. If the scene is biased, so be it. Many scenes are. The solution to systematic bias is to encourage
946:
Haha no worries, but you have gone and contradicted yourself again by saying
Knowledge (XXG) should not be censored, then saying you draw the line at featuring gruesome/explicit images... Nevermind, I think the greater issue with this may be the licensing anyway, so it might end up being moot.
52:
but IMO it documents a wide variety of individuals' and communities' emotional responses to the attacks well and I think it is a photo that does it in a more personal and intimate way. While the individual tiles are undeniably non-NPOV, I don't think this is an issue as the image itself simply
217:. There is an explicit exception for photographs of buildings in the United States. There is no similar exception for artworks (though there is in England and I believe Australia). Fair use means non-free, and must meet the non-free criteria and be low-res and ineligible for featured picture.
920:
Not many arguments there, I uphold that
Knowledge (XXG) should not be censored. But that creed isn't quite the same as content that is featured. I would draw the line at a particularly gruesome picture, or a bit-too explicit sex illustration. Where they are
870:
Fletcher, you have misunderstood my comments and somehow have taken away the impression that I find peace and freedom controversial. That, of course, is not true, and in fact, is what the minority of those tiles depict (at least the ones in this photo).
57:
shows the full extent of the memorial (it extends all the way around the fence), and while I think both images complement each other and are linked to each other on the image pages, I feel this nominated image has the better composition and more intimate
403:
copyrighted and trademarked logos (officially meaning they actually filed something with a government for the rights to their design). Where does it say that that's legal? (That last sentence isn't meant to sound pompous, I actually want to know). ~
1070:. A single image (which by definition cannot encapsulate the content an entire article) should not be subject to the same requirements as an article for that very reason. Anyway, it doesn't really matter as the image is due for deletion.
1181:. It's not valid to call photographs of other people's artwork completely your own work. I would support deletion of the image, but I do not think it is feature worthy for that reason. Further, I don't consider it particularly striking.
433:
and could reach the conclusion that nobody is likely enforce the copyright on this image, but I suppose they have to cover their asses on 100% of the images to make that a single one of them doesn't result in a lawsuit? :-(
1093:- this is important to have in Knowledge (XXG), that doesn't make it Feature worthy. It is just not compelling enough on its own. If you need a story to understand an image, it's not fulfilling its role as an image.
753:
You find sentiments like "freedom", "peace" or "bless
America" to be controversial and embarrassing expressions of patriotism? That says more about you than it does about the people who made these tiles. There
1031:
235:, right? So in your opinion, this is a clear-cut case and should not be on Knowledge (XXG)/Wikimedia, except as a low-res fair use image? Would it be the case that each of the copyrighted designs on the tiles
384:
700:
this comes out sounding, but I think it would be a disservice to
Americans to feature their nationalism in such a context. And your disagreements are posed in a friendly way; no need to apologise, :-)
125:
POV is not an issue here; this is an image of historical value and it offers a lot of interesting objects to look at. It's technically sound and kept me reading for a little while. Nice shot. ~
1066:
As was discussed (in this nom, and others), I don't think it does fail that. If a subject has an inherent bias, we cannot counter that. We can only ensure that a balanced viewpoint is achieved
392:
677:
with your oposition. A FP can illustrate one aspect of a subject - it doesn't have to be a multinational memorial to have enc significance. If anything, it is a historical snapshot of
339:
Just to confirm my opinion, per Diliff's request: I think this is ineligible. Non-free works are (absolutely) ineligible, and this is a photo of many non-free works. The fact that the
623:
I feel that the content is inappropriate and should not be featured. I have nothing against 9/11 memorials per se, but this in particular shows a narrow, almost political pov which
276:
54:
48:
This is a bit of a risky nomination for me as the wow-factor is admittedly low and it isn't an oversized panorama ;-). It isn't a large scale, visually-impressive memorial like the
191:
Really? Where is the line drawn? What is the difference between shooting a photo of a building that has a copyrighted design, and shooting a fence of copyrighted tiles? Surely
1591:
64:
985:
I'd be the first to admit we got a little off-topic but I'm not entirely sure what your relative's survival and your decision to go to war adds to the discussion either...?
1014:
I'm just going to nominate this photo for deletion bc I believe it fails NFCC8 and NFCC1. This may end this nomination, so interested parties should comment at IFD.
388:
669:
Sorry, I know I've disagreed with you a couple of times lately. No disrepect intended. :-) But it clearly is a POV memorial and that is the point of the image. We
505:
for the photographic merits and enc. This is also assuming the image is free, even though I personally feel that it is non-free. Do we want to ask someone over at
1147:
How should we go about this, then? The majority of the opposition was based on the assumption that it was non-free, but striking them out seems a bit drastic...
53:
documents these views and doesn't attempt to push them on the viewer. I know it looks fairly soft in the thumbnail, but the detail is there at 100%. Also, FYI,
1581:
819:
I was just going to point out that the photographer is not
American, so inherent POV is minimal. But he kind of covered that with this last comment. :-) ~
718:
1446:
More of an issue in the thumbnail than when viewed at 100%, but fair enough. It was taken with the widest aperture available to me (f/4) at the time.
451:
How about we call this an out-of-focus image of a truck and a van behind a "graffitied" fence and that the tiles are necessary evils (incidentals)! ~
17:
1165:
Let's see what happens. Relisting should give the opposers an opportunity to update their reviews, but if they don't they won't be considered.
40:- A collection of hand-painted tiles, dedicated to the victims of the September 11 attacks, on the fence of a car-lot in New York City in 2004.
523:
506:
1586:
607:
Striking my questionable, perhaps too biased, perhaps "having-a-really-bad-week" oppose. Choose instead to not comment on the image, :-).
1567:
1555:
1538:
1520:
1497:
1480:
1459:
1441:
1422:
1393:
1367:
1324:
1307:
1288:
1263:
1231:
1213:
1190:
1169:
1160:
1141:
1127:
1107:
1083:
1061:
1038:
1023:
998:
980:
960:
937:
911:
888:
857:
839:
814:
767:
746:
729:
712:
694:
640:
602:
585:
568:
548:
534:
517:
488:
474:
446:
427:
371:
353:
318:
305:
287:
270:
253:
226:
208:
186:
165:
145:
95:
1376:
the nomination had expired, so the nomination was re-started. I don't think it matters that it doesn't represent or hold significance
1362:
1102:
396:
380:
344:
essentially the same as using ~50 nonfree images in the article because you've photographed so many little artworks in one frame.
1372:
It was renominated because the main reasons for opposition at the time were related to the licensing. This issue was resolved
735:
195:
would apply when the photo is intended simply to document the display of the work, as opposed to copying the design exactly?
480:
Then the image looses enc. because it isn't in a relevant article, and the subject is out of foucs and completely obscured.
1516:
1455:
1389:
1209:
1156:
1079:
994:
956:
907:
853:
810:
690:
442:
301:
259:
and the press would jump on any such suit, given the message of peace that the memorial seems to be intended to convey.
249:
204:
91:
266:
1333:
this for every disaster occurring in the US. It is a very ordinary photo. PS, why was it re-nominated? thank you to
173:
Seems to be a copyright issue here. This photo is essentially just a photo of many copyrighted works. I don't think
1488:, as before. Even if Commons didn't remove it as a copyvio, it still is one. It also retains systemic bias issues.
1399:
231:
I'm not sure what that link was supposed to refer to, but it doesn't seem to exist. No wait, I found it, you meant
1475:
160:
564:
275:
I'm afraid I have to agree. One that I would consider completely free, however, is the lower-quality alt pic,
673:
have any obligation to ensure that the photo itself is non-POV. It almost sounds like you're falling foul to
1551:
1493:
1057:
365:. The United States has freedom of panorama only for buildings. Sorry, but this doesn't qualify for FPC.
33:
1359:
1099:
1019:
349:
260:
222:
182:
232:
1470:
1416:
1347:
1282:
1257:
833:
465:
418:
155:
139:
1227:
1186:
560:
379:
Arrest me if you will, but I'm still giving my support to this image on the basis that images like
1547:
1320:
1303:
763:
598:
581:
974:
day. When I come to FPC, I'd rather review candidates than see this sort of off-topic debate.
1437:
1355:
1123:
1095:
1015:
798:
345:
218:
178:
1513:
1452:
1386:
1315:
also per original !vote. Encyclopedic illustration of how people reacted during that time.
1206:
1153:
1076:
991:
953:
904:
850:
807:
687:
439:
298:
246:
201:
88:
49:
1049:
779:
1432:- Same as before. Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO.
1405:
1336:
1271:
1246:
822:
454:
407:
240:
and had no mind to restrict use or reproductions of it, but I suppose you can never tell.
128:
734:
We also have a FP of a political cartoon (which naturally showcase some form of POV) at
524:
Knowledge (XXG):Media_copyright_questions#File:Sept_11_monument_in_NYC_-_August_2004.jpg
1223:
1182:
1575:
1316:
1299:
759:
594:
577:
104:
Previous !votes that are no longer valid. Please Re!vote below if you voted before!
1532:
1433:
1119:
740:
723:
542:
528:
511:
482:
312:
281:
1508:
1489:
1447:
1381:
1201:
1148:
1071:
1053:
986:
975:
948:
926:
899:
877:
845:
802:
701:
682:
629:
608:
434:
366:
293:
241:
196:
83:
72:
1137:
Kept on
Commons. Unsuspending so we can appraise this on photographic quality.
1564:
1166:
1138:
1035:
174:
1115:- Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO.
678:
214:
192:
1268:
Also, I've informed all previous voters to come back and !vote again. ~
1032:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg
785:
844:
Lol. Well, everyone has a POV. I just don't express mine on tiles.
721:, showing people in Tanzania protesting the Israel/Gaza conflict.
650:
Mainly off-topic discussion re whether image POV is disqualifying
674:
1048:
as copyright violation. Additionally, the image tends to fail
1298:
per my original vote. It's an attractive and useful image.--
310:
I'm leaning towards
Calliopejen1. Sorry for being confusing.
292:
Just to clarify, do you agree with PLW or with Calliopejen1?
1218:
I'm sorry, that was actually a typing error. I meant I would
1117:
Also copyright issues seem to be unresolved (unresolvable?).
758:
jingoism after 9/11, but it is not captured in this photo.
1562:
Promoted File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg
277:
File:Image-Sept 11 monument in NYC 2 - August 2004.jpg
177:
applies where the works are the subject of the photo.
1398:
I think that theory would limit us only to images of
681:
too. ;-) Maybe it should be added to that article...
65:
Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks
717:I know we have at least one FP with obvious POV:
876:disagree. But please, don't make it personal.
1353:for letting me know i needed to vote again. ~
8:
522:A note: I left a query about this image at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
1592:Featured picture nominations/February 2009
719:File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG
655:The following discussion has been closed.
646:
109:The following discussion has been closed.
100:
1243:per my original vote(s) on the matter. ~
507:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
778:
32:
1507:, not to reject the 'mainstream' POV.
797:For the record, I do find the whole "
7:
509:about it...someone there may know.
1582:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
784:
783:Obvious last bastion of freedom
363:Reluctant oppose per Calliopejen
736:File:The Gerry-Mander Edit.png
618:\ 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
61:Articles this image appears in
1:
146:21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
96:18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
28:September 11 Attacks Memorial
1587:Featured picture nominations
1400:UNESCO World Heritage Sites
233:Commons:Freedom of panorama
1608:
1568:02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
1556:01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
1539:23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1521:21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1498:21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1481:15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1460:15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1442:15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1423:14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1394:13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1368:13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1325:11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1308:05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1289:05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1264:05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1214:17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
1191:16:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
1170:12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
1161:11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
1142:07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
1128:16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
1108:22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
1084:10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1062:10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1039:09:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1024:22:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
999:21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
981:17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
961:10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
938:08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
912:08:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
889:07:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
858:21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
840:00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
747:02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
1232:11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
815:22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
768:21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
730:21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
713:20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
695:20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
641:18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
603:03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
586:21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
569:19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
549:16:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
535:22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
518:21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
489:21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
475:19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
447:08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
428:02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
372:20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
354:13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
319:21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
306:21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
288:21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
271:20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
254:12:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
227:01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
209:23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
187:23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
166:19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
1469:Per my orginal vote. —
658:Please do not modify it.
112:Please do not modify it.
539:Kept on Commons --: -->
789:
41:
782:
36:
80:Support as nominator
790:
42:
1519:
1458:
1392:
1365:
1212:
1159:
1135:
1134:
1105:
1082:
1008:
1007:
997:
959:
910:
856:
813:
799:God Bless the USA
693:
445:
304:
279:, that you made.
262:Papa Lima Whiskey
252:
207:
94:
1599:
1535:
1511:
1505:alternative POVs
1478:
1473:
1450:
1419:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1384:
1366:
1358:
1356:The Talking Sock
1350:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1285:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1260:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1204:
1151:
1106:
1098:
1096:The Talking Sock
1074:
989:
978:
951:
933:
930:
902:
884:
881:
848:
836:
830:
828:
825:
805:
788:
743:
726:
708:
705:
685:
660:
647:
636:
633:
615:
612:
545:
531:
514:
485:
471:
468:
462:
460:
457:
437:
424:
421:
415:
413:
410:
377:Still Supporting
369:
315:
296:
284:
263:
244:
199:
163:
158:
154:Very moving. —
142:
136:
134:
131:
114:
101:
86:
50:Tribute in Light
1607:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1572:
1571:
1533:
1476:
1471:
1421:
1417:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1378:a lot of people
1354:
1352:
1348:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1287:
1283:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1262:
1258:
1250:
1247:
1245:
1094:
976:
931:
928:
882:
879:
838:
834:
826:
823:
821:
741:
724:
706:
703:
656:
634:
631:
613:
610:
593:per Ragesoss.
543:
529:
512:
483:
479:</humor: -->
473:
469:
466:
458:
455:
453:
426:
422:
419:
411:
408:
406:
399:clearly depict
367:
313:
282:
261:
161:
156:
144:
140:
132:
129:
127:
110:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1605:
1603:
1595:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1574:
1573:
1559:
1558:
1541:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1483:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1415:
1396:
1346:
1327:
1310:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1281:
1256:
1241:Strong Support
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1110:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1068:in the article
1042:
1041:
1027:
1026:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
941:
940:
915:
914:
892:
891:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
832:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
751:
750:
749:
662:
661:
652:
651:
645:
644:
605:
588:
571:
561:ErikTheBikeMan
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
540:full support.
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
464:
417:
374:
359:
358:
357:
356:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
256:
168:
149:
138:
116:
115:
106:
105:
99:
98:
76:
75:
70:
67:
62:
59:
46:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1604:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1583:
1580:
1579:
1577:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1548:Makeemlighter
1545:
1542:
1540:
1537:
1536:
1529:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1474:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1414:
1412:
1401:
1397:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1361:
1357:
1351:
1345:
1343:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1280:
1278:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1255:
1253:
1242:
1239:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1000:
996:
993:
988:
984:
983:
982:
979:
972:
962:
958:
955:
950:
945:
944:
943:
942:
939:
935:
934:
924:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
906:
901:
896:
895:
894:
893:
890:
886:
885:
874:
869:
868:
859:
855:
852:
847:
843:
842:
841:
837:
831:
829:
818:
817:
816:
812:
809:
804:
800:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
787:
781:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
748:
745:
744:
737:
733:
732:
731:
728:
727:
720:
716:
715:
714:
710:
709:
698:
697:
696:
692:
689:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
659:
654:
653:
649:
648:
643:
642:
638:
637:
626:
622:
617:
616:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
570:
566:
562:
559:
556:
550:
547:
546:
538:
537:
536:
533:
532:
525:
521:
520:
519:
516:
515:
508:
504:
502:
498:
490:
487:
486:
478:
477:
476:
472:
463:
461:
450:
449:
448:
444:
441:
436:
431:
430:
429:
425:
416:
414:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
364:
361:
360:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
320:
317:
316:
309:
308:
307:
303:
300:
295:
291:
290:
289:
286:
285:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
257:
255:
251:
248:
243:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
206:
203:
198:
194:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
167:
164:
159:
153:
150:
148:
147:
143:
137:
135:
124:
120:
119:
118:
117:
113:
108:
107:
103:
102:
97:
93:
90:
85:
81:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
60:
56:
51:
47:
44:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
1561:
1560:
1546:for its EV.
1543:
1531:
1527:
1504:
1485:
1466:
1429:
1403:
1377:
1373:
1334:
1329:
1312:
1295:
1269:
1244:
1240:
1219:
1196:
1178:
1136:
1116:
1112:
1090:
1067:
1045:
1016:Calliopejen1
1011:
927:
922:
878:
872:
820:
755:
739:
722:
702:
670:
657:
630:
624:
620:
619:
609:
590:
573:
557:
541:
527:
510:
500:
499:
481:
452:
405:
400:
376:
362:
346:Calliopejen1
340:
311:
280:
236:
219:Calliopejen1
179:Calliopejen1
170:
151:
126:
122:
121:
111:
79:
37:
27:
1530:as before.
1430:Weak oppose
1113:Weak oppose
923:appropriate
501:Conditional
341:arrangement
215:commons:FOP
73:User:Diliff
1576:Categories
1517:(Contribs)
1477:Wartenberg
1456:(Contribs)
1390:(Contribs)
1210:(Contribs)
1157:(Contribs)
1080:(Contribs)
995:(Contribs)
957:(Contribs)
908:(Contribs)
854:(Contribs)
811:(Contribs)
691:(Contribs)
625:absolutely
443:(Contribs)
401:officially
302:(Contribs)
250:(Contribs)
205:(Contribs)
175:de minimis
162:Wartenberg
92:(Contribs)
55:this image
1224:J Milburn
1183:J Milburn
1407:ωαdεstεr
1363:contribs
1338:ωαdεstεr
1317:Fletcher
1300:ragesoss
1273:ωαdεstεr
1248:ωαdεstεr
1103:contribs
1030:It's at
824:ωαdεstεr
760:Fletcher
679:jingoism
595:Fletcher
578:ragesoss
456:ωαdεstεr
409:ωαdεstεr
193:fair use
130:ωαdεstεr
38:Original
1544:Support
1534:Spencer
1528:Support
1467:Support
1434:Kaldari
1313:Support
1296:Support
1120:Kaldari
1012:Comment
742:Spencer
725:Spencer
621:Oppose:
591:Support
574:Support
558:Support
544:Spencer
530:Spencer
513:Spencer
503:Support
484:Spencer
470:kiss me
423:kiss me
314:Spencer
283:Spencer
171:Comment
152:Support
123:Support
69:Creator
1514:(Talk)
1509:Diliff
1490:Stifle
1486:Oppose
1453:(Talk)
1448:Diliff
1402:... ~
1387:(Talk)
1382:Diliff
1330:Oppose
1207:(Talk)
1202:Diliff
1179:Oppose
1154:(Talk)
1149:Diliff
1091:Oppose
1077:(Talk)
1072:Diliff
1054:Stifle
1050:WP:CSB
1046:Oppose
992:(Talk)
987:Diliff
977:Durova
954:(Talk)
949:Diliff
905:(Talk)
900:Diliff
851:(Talk)
846:Diliff
808:(Talk)
803:Diliff
688:(Talk)
683:Diliff
440:(Talk)
435:Diliff
395:, and
368:Durova
299:(Talk)
294:Diliff
247:(Talk)
242:Diliff
202:(Talk)
197:Diliff
89:(Talk)
84:Diliff
45:Reason
1565:MER-C
1418:«talk
1374:after
1349:«talk
1284:«talk
1259:«talk
1167:MER-C
1139:MER-C
1036:MER-C
671:don't
141:«talk
58:feel.
16:<
1552:talk
1494:talk
1472:Jake
1438:talk
1360:talk
1321:talk
1304:talk
1228:talk
1195:I'm
1187:talk
1124:talk
1100:talk
1058:talk
1020:talk
873:That
764:talk
675:NPOV
599:talk
582:talk
565:talk
397:this
393:this
389:this
385:this
381:this
350:talk
267:talk
223:talk
213:See
183:talk
157:Jake
1220:n't
1197:not
932:din
929:Mae
883:din
880:Mae
756:was
707:din
704:Mae
635:din
632:Mae
614:din
611:Mae
237:are
1578::
1554:)
1512:|
1496:)
1451:|
1440:)
1410:16
1385:|
1341:16
1323:)
1306:)
1276:16
1251:16
1230:)
1205:|
1189:)
1152:|
1126:)
1075:|
1060:)
1052:.
1034:.
1022:)
990:|
952:|
936:\
903:|
887:\
849:|
835:♣T
827:16
806:|
766:)
738:.
711:\
686:|
639:\
601:)
584:)
567:)
526:.
459:16
438:|
412:16
391:,
387:,
383:,
352:)
297:|
269:)
245:|
225:)
200:|
185:)
133:16
87:|
82:--
1550:(
1492:(
1436:(
1319:(
1302:(
1226:(
1185:(
1122:(
1056:(
1018:(
762:(
597:(
580:(
563:(
467:♣
420:♣
348:(
265:(
221:(
181:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
