382:
what they look like and their proper positioning in the vagina. Now, there are a few photographs of these online, and a few manufacturors have produced "internal diagrams", but I don't think that it's necessarily "fair use" to upload these to wikipedia. Or desirible if they essentially promote one brand over another. And there's no way I'm shelling out $ $ $ to buy some for the purpose of photographing them for wikipedia... and do we want to encourage people to photograph their menstrual cup that they've been usuing for 3 years? Ā :)
326:
well as in a dispute directly with that user, this seemed more approprate. And truely, I hadn't even thought to look to see if the image use policy talk would be the right forum as I'd not thought that this would be appropriate, that that page would be for discussion more along the lines of copyvio and such. Sorry for any inconvenience - I don't really care where the discussion takes place. If there is someplace more appropriate I'd be just as happy moving the discussion there. -
228:(I hasten to add that abstract diagrams that compress the logical structure of a long verbal description resemble, in doing that, mathematical equations more than they do drawings that purport to represent visual appearance. Most of us are good at judging, within fields that broadly educated moderns are "conversant" with, whether an equation or diagram got it right: that's entirely different from reconstructing the appearance of an object from verbal description(s).) --
38:
165:, where many life-sketches exist and agree with each other. In using a sketch, I think it's important that the artist has seen the subject firsthand. Nowadays there are much more effective ways to render an image of hypotheticals. If you do a Google image search on paranthropus, you'll find a mock-up done by the BBC that I think would be ideal except for the copyright concerns. -
670:
cross-sections of crafts, anatomy of pretty much anything (from flowers via humans to mechanics), maps rather than ariel photography, etc). Personally I think brilliant photos and brilliant diagrams should rank equally, and which is the most suitable for an article should be left to the good sense of the wikipedians working on that article.
1650:
article with what I thought was an improved image, but was rebuked by the image's creator for being "rude" and deleting someone else's work. I was under the impression that all work on
Knowledge (XXG) was the result of someone's work. What is the proper policy for this? Furthermore, are there general
1095:
It seems the image pages serve dual function - enlarged views and image maintenance. I think the end-user experience could be better. Pages that feature large images should have minimum markup at the top of page to avoid forcing the user to scroll down. And it seems most users would want a caption
958:
I have the same problem, as I often translate (part of) english articles into french. When there is a good image on the english (or other language) page, it may be possible to use it directly (when it's already in
Commons, I guess) but most of the time it doesn't work. An inter-language image linking
714:
I disagree. Artists sign their paintings. Is that graffiti? If someone wants to put their name in an image that they created, that is their right. As long as it doesn't obscure the meaning or aesthetic of the image, it should be allowed. When done discreetly, it is in fact helpful. The creator of the
701:
I find it irritating when
Knowledge (XXG) contributors feel the need to graffiti their names or the like in the corner of contributed images. We do not sign our names to the text that we contribute to articles, and it seems to me likewise both needless and rude to do so with images. Is there any kind
457:
if good drawings or good photographs aren't available. Just as with text. If an illustration is appropriate, better a mediocre illustration than no illustration. If someone objects, they are always free to replace it with a better one. Quality standards for illustrations are no different than quality
381:
Are we making a distinction here between drawings and diagrams? Should there be no home-grown diagrams of objects if it's possible to photograph them (i.e. on the science pages). Also I've drawn a couple of (not very high-tech) diagrams in the last few days. As an example, a few of menstrual cups,
2300:
didn't have the right license, so I added one based on the other pics in that series of albums. NB. I didn't upload the original picture, but can confirm that this is a picture of the front of the album in question. The one thing I haven't been able to address is the question of whether it should be
2246:
Knowledge (XXG) should imo remove all filename extensions from
Knowledge (XXG) pages, and let the page references for images be independent of the format the image is in. (Yes, there'll be some initial pain if say Dog.png and Dog.jpg exist and are different images used in different contexts, as both
1607:
There are no images of flood-tossed cars in
Bangladesh, no war in Sudan, no boring streets in St. Louis, no littered streets in New York, no bombed buildings in Baghdad, no smog in Mexico City, no welfare lines in Moscow, no overcrowding in Tokyo, no smokestacks in Warsaw, and the list goes on. I'm
1509:
I tried to upload my first image the other day. It was a .bmp Doesn't seem to be in the Image index. I remember it gave me some message like "bmp is not a preferred format" or something to that effect. This main page doesn't seem to really address that issue. I assume it just threw my image away
651:
So then if an article had a lovely sketch and someone found an even-better photograph, the photo would be put in the article in place of the sketch. It just seems more encyclopaedic to have photos rather than sketches, although absolutely horrid photos would of course not be used...mostly I think we
370:
And controversy has been so ignited. Your cited images are eactly the kind of images I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia or other relevant hard-copy text. they are of exceptionally high quality and accuracy. While the image I'm in conflict over are good art, I have problems both with their quality
224:
It's not obvious that the principles underlying the rejection of texts embodying original research apply to "an artist do primary rsearch", but IMO the same reasoning is wise in both cases: the peer review we engage in is based primarily on our shared understanding of the process of editing, and not
204:
Thanks for the comments, Heph. I neglected to mention that In the discussion that followed my removal of the image from the article that I had posted Google image searches. It was those searches and the pages they link to that helped me decide the image was not accurate. (The user then went ahead an
1879:
Why is "what links here" different for images? Image description pages have the "File Links" section, but the "what links here" is not the same as any other item on WP. Is there a technical reason for this? Is there a way to get a "what links here" page for an Image that contains the information
1123:
Will someone please read this and respond. Someone is removeing EVERY Time magazine cover without any discussion here. The images are being deleted without any discussion. Time magazine allows use of its images if the whole cover is shown. An editor is now deleting EVERY cover of Time magazine that
465:
If the issue is capturing an idea, that's fine too. There's no requirement that an illustration should always represent a physical object that the artist is viewing. They should be appropriately captioned, of course. "Artist's conception" is a perfectly respectable phrase. Artist's conception of...
325:
Well, for one thing there are too many right/wrong places to have the discussion. I don't know them all, and I needed to pick one that would be considered reasonable, if not best. I did first start the thread on VP, but since I am in a mediation dispute over a number of images with another user, as
1818:
applyies if the image is illustrating a discussion of the book itself. For example, you could scan the dust jacket of a recent book in order to illustrate an article or section about that book -- although most recent dust jackets can be found online anyway, so you could dispense with the scanner.
173:
This leads me to another question: When by far the best existing images are unavailable for GFDL, and an image is still preferred over none, should a link to the existingimages be provided, should an artist attempt to recreate the images, or should an artist do primary rsearch and create their own
149:
Ah. Well, I think the principle could be the same in future cases: don't use amateur or second-hand sketches of a subject when there are photographs or first-hand renderings available. As for "matching the subject", maybe you're right; that judgement is necessarily subjective. I suppose if there's
1765:
and wanted to see an older version of it. Clicked a bit off and hit "rev" instead which reverted the image. No "are you sure" message, no confirmation of any sort. This is inconsistent with article reversions and I could see how someone might revert and not even realize they were doing it. Is
401:
And no, I wasn't makeing any distinctions between drawings and diagrams. I think though that there isn't a problem as long as the answers to these questions apply: Are the images of reasonable quality? Are they accurate (match available descriptions closely, do not contain incorrect data)? Are no
345:
That said, I wouldn't trust myself to produce an original rendition without the subject right in front of me. With the Yeti and
Paranthropus, not only would I be taking an unacceptable degree of artistic license, I'd also unnecessarily ignite controversy (not that I'm implying a motive, but.. one
683:
And, as I noted above, there are many examples&mdashbird guides being oneāwhose painted pictures can hardly be called "diagrams," but are, nevertheless, used in place of photographs because they provide superior communication of the visual point the author wishes to make. (And, for portraits
247:
I do know that I'm stretching when I mention "primary research". It's not the same, but some of the principles are. In the case of paranthropus: the hard data we have are the skulls. The images created by scientists and artist with significant understanding of anatomy do vary. However, the image
243:
True that, Jerz. However, editting image and editting text are not entirely the same thing. With text, the community can edit at any level from word choice to rewriting/omitting/adding whole paragraphs. Images are not so easily modified. The common user can at best be expected to change only the
1110:
What is the rule for using Time magazine covers to illustrate articles? I just had someone delete a cover from 1930 and they left this message: "The fairuse criteria is to illustrate the publication of the issue in question, the article this is used in is not doing this. Deleting.)" Can someone
1588:
It seems to me that images defy all other precedents of neutrality and factual accuracy demanded of text. This is true especially in articles of cities, where even in the poorest areas of the world slums are very rarely shown, and only the highlights of a city are granted article space. For
349:
So, to summarize: if they're first-hand, accurate, and free of controversy, drawings are fine and need not be elided. I don't mean to insult the author of the disputed work, but it simply has no place in an encyclopedia. I've sinced removed my own overzealous and misguided newbish attempt to
1894:
are stored outside the database, while the image description page is stored in the database just like any other text page; in this sense the images aren't really part of the wiki at all. The "file links" point directly to the actual image; the "whatlinkshere" links point only to the image
669:
Again you're forgetting diagrams. Would you rank of photograph of the cross-section of the human torso higher than a diagram? Of course not - a professional, accurate, well annotated diagram would be _far_ superior in this case (and less gory), and many others (diagrams of sport pitches,
1625:
be applied to the choice of images; the problem is that the set of available images is generally quite limited. If all we have are glamor shots, then glamor shots are the only images that will end up in the article. I think there is a natural tendency for people to avoid uploading more
2521:
and was hoping that members here would take a look and comment. Depending on the outcome, I wanted to get some input from the community as to how to choose between two similar pictures with slightly different pros and cons. This page is not helpful in setting any kind of standard. --
1510:
or didn't upload it or something, but it wasn't really very clear to me. If there are certain formats that are acceptable and others that aren't, the main page should have some statement like that and list the acceptable formats. I'd do it, but I don't know what they are. Thanks.
2451:. The bottom of the page has links to several external pictures. I have not seen this before and cannot find policy for or against it? It seems as though it would be frowned upon or prohibited but I would like somebody a little more familiar with image policy to help out here.
225:
on any ability to do or judge original research in the field at hand. So in reviewing original drawings, the corresponding problems occur, and we are forced to judge the applicability of the drawings in terms of their acceptance by non-WP authorities in the corresponding fields.
477:
If the issue is "sanitizing" copyrighted photographs by substituting a home-drawn version, that's not so fine. I'm not even sure that it protects against copyright infringement. Derivative works, and all that. Again, in biology, there is certainly a longstanding tradition of
2135:- note the link above has a colon at the front, this one does not) brings me to the upload page instead of the image page itself which I have to type in manually to get to. But that's another issue. Why can't I see history of either revisions or deletions for this image? --
2350:
OK. Thanks. I'll try to find the time to deal with it. I'll download the original, tweak to a lower-res, upload under a new name, and nominate the old one for deletion. Simply over-writing the old one feels wrong (though I know that is maybe how it should be done).
884:
On :sl we have a lot (IMO) of unverified images. Is there any rule on how much time must past after tagging it with {{unverified}} and deletion? There we don't have any rule about this and I would like to know is there any common rule/timeline about this, TIA,
358:
I should also add that a) I don't think the drawings at hand are "bad" in and of themselves and the author does have talent; and b) in cases of mythical or "cryptic" subjects (such as unicorns), artistic drawings are fine *if agreed upon* by those concerned.
342:). But I find these to be accurate and in many cases they convey much more information than a small and/or blurry PD photograph would. I also alter the ancient plates from NOAA and shade/colourize appropriately (and to the best of my ability, accurately).
2000:, which is copyrighted by Lucas and used under the fair-use policy on en.wiki). I created the image to avoid the restriction of the fair-use policy (which has been banned on the italian wiki). What i wanted to know is: if i create a drawing from scratch
785:
is there a policy for biography pages in which a portrait should be the main image, and image of the person in action or with other people should be secondary? i believe this is the policy, but i cannot find it written. can someone show me where it is?
2369:
Oh. I agree. I hadn't seen that this "Download high-resolution version" link only appeared on two of the image description pages I linked to above. How do I get rid of it? Does it automatically appear if the uploaded version is above a certain size?
570:
Thanks for the comments. I think anything I'd reply with would be a repeat of something I've already said above. (If you disagree, please point it out. *grins*). I'm not sure I got the point of the
Dickens passage. It was nice reading nonetheless. -
429:
over photographs; I don't know how much of that tradition was due to cost of reproduction, and how much was due to the fact that it was much, much harder to secure a photograph that illustrated the visual point being made than to make a drawing.
2597:
those categories to the
Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP
1115:. Is the rule you can only use a photo of a Time cover on an article about Time magazine and all others have to be deleted? Should I be deleting every Time cover I see, or was the Administrator incorrect? I see dozens of covers in biographies.
615:
You guys are really impossible. How can you have a photograph of something that isn't real, or which won't let you get close enough for an attractive pose? I want to believe in sasquatch, flying saucers and the chance that someday I'll collect
458:
standards for anything else in
Knowledge (XXG). If you don't think it's good enough, don't put it in. If you think what someone else has put in isn't good enough, put in something better or shut up. If you think what someone else has put in is
473:
Just as we may synthesize the ideas of a number of published sources in writing an article, it should be perfectly acceptable to synthesize the visual idea of a number of published pictures, if that's what seems to be the best presentation.
1298:
Similarly, I want to post a fair-use computer-game screenshot and I want to know if I need permission from the people who made it and put it on the Web. I think these both are probably common questions and should be addressed on this page.
2243:- and you don't see .html or .shtml on Wiki pages.) Requiring filename extensions is very DOS/Unix, and can be abstracted away from in a web environment, making updating/replacing images (or editing them and changing format) much easier.
1597:, which is rather well-known for its slums has as its visual representation of this sector a rather handsome image of the roof of an impoverished household, which I feel is not nearly indicative enough of the poverty going on there.
1665:
the work, simply removing it from the article. Ultimately, such conflicts over image selection and placement must be resolved through establishing a consensus among active editors on the page. You might consider posting a notice at
316:
Why is this on an RfC page? Where has there been a failed attempt by at least two people to resolve this "conflict" by using Step 1? Isn't this more appropriate for the
Village pump or the image use policy talk page? I don't get it.
973:
Are there any plans to add support for image maps? I think this would be exceedingly useful to be able to hotlink areas of a diagram to relevant articles (and anchors). This could be done through a special map parameter like so:
220:
The question might sound a bit loaded, but i think it does not beg the question at hand: WikiPrecedent is not available, in part bcz we mostly work on "rough consensus and working text" rather than hammering out binding compromise
726:
I routinely create images expressly for use in this project. I do not sign them. I would neither encourage another to sign his work created for this use, nor discourage him from doing so. It is a purely artistic consideration. ā
2642:
and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, wouldn't we have every image from the Commons categorised by their WP pages on WP, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise,
91:
What's a good rule of thumb for the quality and accurateness of an image for adding it to an article. I've been in a series of debates and disputes about a certain user's images which I feel are not encyclopedic in nature. (See
1522:
BMP files, to my understanding, end up being quite large in regards to memory, hence taking up more space and using up more bandwidth. A JPEG image would be preferrable for a photograph, and I think PNG is what's preferred for
1330:. The screenshot could *arguably* be seen as a unique creative work, although current US law wouldn't appear to support such a claim; all in all, it would be much better to use a screenshot made by you or another Wikipedian.
2219:
Why does Knowledge (XXG) allow extensions (.png, .gif, .jpg, .jpeg etc.) on images when referenced by Knowledge (XXG) pages? If you want to replace an image uploaded as a jpeg with .jpeg extension, to replace that image in
1645:
Is there a policy that requires or encourages contacting the creator of an image before replacing it on a page (not replacing the image file, but rather the image displayed on the page)? I tried to replace the image in the
1459:
Yes, provided that you cite the original source, and it is released under a free license which allows such modifications. Remember that the derivative work is still bound by any licensing restrictions on the original. --
2626:). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to
909:
we automate the insertion of images into a template. However, some images are not named systematically and therefore cannot be used in the template. Apart from uploading the image again, is there any way to rename them?
747:(I realize I'm replying 1 year later)Granted, but as FOo stated, why permit anyone to seek any recognition in a creative work, textual or artistic, when that fundamentally contradicts the goals of Knowledge (XXG)?
449:
The gradual reduction in the cost of both black-and-white and color printing processes has probably led to an overuse of photographs in print reference works; it's sort of the print equivalent of flash animation.
500:'This is a new principle, a discovery, a great discovery,' said the gentleman. 'Now, I'll try you again. Suppose you were going to carpet a room. Would you use a carpet having a representation of flowers upon it?'
505:
There being a general conviction by this time that 'No, sir!' was always the right answer to this gentleman, the chorus of no was very strong. Only a few feeble stragglers said Yes: among them Sissy Jupe.
1651:
guidelines for how many images should be placed on a page? My reason for replacing rather than adding the image was reduce clutter and prevent from distracting from the (rather short) article itself.--
446:
uses paintings, rather than photographs, and with good reason. So does Sibley's. There have been bird guides that used photographs, and the general consensus among birders is that they're not as good.
2388:
I think that depends on the settings in your preferences (under Files). For most fair use images, I upload them at 250px width, since they usually won't be displayed larger in any article anyway. --
1381:
I use PaintShop Pro, which is very powerful but relatively simple to use and with excellent help. It comes bundled with Animation Shop. Both are as friendly to experts as they are to beginners.
804:, the way the images are used now is that one piece of an image is placed inside a template, then the rest of the image is completed by putting the other pieces in. Example: ]]]]]] becomes
1681:. In general, images should inform but not overwhelm the associated article text. I think there may be a more extensive treatment of the issue somewhere, but can't find it just now. --
952:
in English. I'm trying to add that image to the Japanese article. I thought I WAS uploading to the commons, but just transferring that text to the other article won't display the image.
2550:
Please find the appropriate language on the Linking Standards page. In general, the appropriate credit should be "PhillyHistory.org, a project of the Philadelphia Department of Records".
520:'So you would carpet your room - or your husband's room, if you were a grown woman, and had a husband - with representations of flowers, would you?' said the gentleman. 'Why would you?'
2083:
You should be able to link directly to the image in the usual way, i.e. ]. That will include the image directly, unless there is an image on Knowledge (XXG) with the same name... --
1844:
I was curious regarding the kind of page this is; is it a {{Essay}}, a {{Style-guideline}}, a {{Guideline}} or even {{Policy}}? I believe that there should be a tag at the top. --
248:
presented by the user departs from all of the images found in an image search, as do some of his views supporting the image. Is this not a parallel to "primary research"? -
688:
still use those things that look like engravings, rather than traditional halftone photos? I've never known whether they're really engravings or done by Photoshoppery...)
637:
Photographs would be top of the list, ranked by quality, depiction of subject, and so on. Then would come images from historical works; say, if you can't get a photo of a
1295:
I want to post a a US gov't image scan that is up on a private website. It's a diagram from a Navy handbook. Do I need the permission of the people who run that website?
715:
image is important. I want to know who is the creative force behind the image (not simply the person who uploaded it). Discreet signitures do this in an efficient way. -
466:
what people see in near-death experiences. Artist's conception of... Stegosaurus. Artist's conception of... appearance of floaters in the eye. Artist's conception of...
1333:
I agree that questions of this sort should be addressed on the main page, particularly since very few people seem to be responding to the questions posted here. Ā :-) --
141:. For the most part, I'm not looking for specifics for these two articles, I'm looking more for a general solution to the question, so as to deal with future issues. -
535:'It wouldn't hurt them, sir. They wouldn't crush and wither, if you please, sir. They would be the pictures of what was very pretty and pleasant, and I would fancy - '
1442:
Hello, I wanna ask about Image policy in Knowledge (XXG). Can we edit existing images uploaded from the other website (such as resizing, cropping, or other effects)?
2224:
requires that you also upload a .jpeg - otherwise you're creating a new file with a new name, and have to implement a redirect from the name with the old extension.
1050:
Editing boldly, I added a short section. The subject wasn't addressed elsewhere and seemed to fit best on this article. I incorporated coments from the talk page.
257:
Yes, Uther, it is, and i don't think you were stretching; what i hoped to put across was the idea that custom-made drawings (as opposed to original diagrams)
1366:. You should be able to save images in PNG format from Paint; if that doesn't work, you can convert from one format to another using a free program such as
660:
I pretty much agree with you... but I don't understand why, other things being equal, a photograph should be considered "more encyclopaedic" than a drawing.
482:
when something is drawn ("after Hyman," "after Lankester," etc.) I forget the citation style but you'll even see double-barrelled citations that credit the
2325:
1600:
Also, certain images go slightly overboard in their beautification of national landmarks, as in the image of the perfectly illuminated Eiffel Tower in the
282:
is far preferable to an artist's conception. Still better, would be a GFDL photo, or supposing one could be persuaded to sit for it, an portrait in oils.
1124:
does not appear under the Time article. There are many images and lots of work being reversed if no one is even discussing it. Please, someone respond. --
897:
There should be a method to upload image sources such as vector art or photoshop files that retain the maximum ammount of detail possible for a picture.
1210:
Of course, it would have been nice if it someone had answered this question a little more promptly. But hey, what's six months between friends? Ā :-) --
1322:
If that's the case, then the webmaster has no basis for a copyright claim. So before claiming public-domain, it might be prudent to verify that that
2320:
1608:
beginning to get tired of all of the glamour shots. We need to have more images that capture the essence of the entity, instead of its highlights.
470:. Wouldn't it be silly to insist that only photographs of unicorns are permissible? Or that an article about a unicorn shouldn't have a picture?
371:
and their accuracy. I would not expect to find them in a text (an NPOV representation of fact) except as a first-hand accounting of a sighting. -
959:
feature would be cool (and reduce disk usage), something like ]. But a automatic upload to Commons, like suggested above, might be even better.
948:
Why is it not uploaded to the commons when I add it using the upload file link when I'm editing an article? Example: I uploaded an image for
540:'Ay, ay, ay! But you mustn't fancy,' cried the gentleman, quite elated by coming so happily to his point. 'That's it! You are never to fancy.'
2615:
2593:
I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then
2536:
The Philadelphia Department of Records just did an incredible thing and digitized the city's photo archives and made them available online:
2004:
a copyrighted file (in this case the Rebel Alliance logo), can that drawing be released under a free license, since it was created by me? ā
1762:
2227:
The web has supported content specification (the Content-Type: http header) since the beginning. What this means is that if you have say
1125:
261:
like original research in that they are usually beyond our ability to verify, and should be excluded as we exclude original research. --
1921:
930:
Could I somehow use it without downloading it and than uploading to english part of wiki????? Otherwise sound like waste of resourses.
434:
I thought it was because a drawing can include only those features that the illustrator wants to call attention to and exclude others.
83:
78:
73:
2603:
1140:
2279:
1491:
1424:
1593:
presents images of an alive and mirthful populace, without any images of the starvation or drought that run rampant there. Also,
334:
Well, I'd have to agree with Mirv. As you may've noticed, I use many drawn-from-life depictions of fish from NOAA and USFWS (e.g.
2310:
2297:
1188:
652:
should use common sense - does the image depict the concept of the article well? If yes, use. If no, discard. </rambling: -->
2607:
1280:
1143:
840:
807:
801:
2544:
Can I get someone to clarify the license? They're selling reprints, but it looks like they don't mind low res redistribution:
2518:
2315:
1309:
I'm unwatching this now, so if anyone has as answer they want me to get they'll have to mention it on my talk page as well. --
2619:
906:
2247:
could be called by Dog -- but this is a one-off problem, easily resolved in a cleanup of the few collisions that result.)
2264:
To illustrate a television character, which is preferable: a fair use photograph, or an interpretive illustration? --
634:
There should be a hierarchy of images used, based on type and quality, and other characteristics I haven't come up with.
2599:
1270:
Copy the image to My Pictures, go to the Commons, and upload it there. Ask an admin to delete the Knowledge (XXG) copy--
2073:
OK, this was absoultely no help. I've got images on Knowledge (XXG) Commons I want to move into an article. How do I?
1710:
Hello, i am a new user so i have a question gow do you put an image in an article?Please reply on my discussion page.--
1348:
What would be a good program to use to edit images? Do they have to output in .png format? Can I use Windows Paint?
982:
The map tag would take three parameters. The shape (rect, circle, poly), the coordinates, and the article to link to.
1963:
1326:
the case. As for the fair-use screenshot, I think the claim is dubious, and doubly so given the tenuous nature of all
2185:
Because Knowledge (XXG) must remain free for both commercian and non-commercial reuse. The issue here is similar to
23:
271:
LOL, at the risk of arousing Angela's ire -- she just now told me to stay away from "conflict pages" for a while...
45:
2360:
The defacto standard is that the "Download high-resolution version" notice should not appear on "fair use" images.
2025:
1997:
1814:, there are some cases where that is permissible. However, these are rather limited; for the most part, fair use
1192:
185:
I think using an external link is best until something that's usable internally presents itself. (See for example
2623:
1246:, and then make sure all the image includes are pointing to one image (the one not being tagged for deletion). --
1204:
860:
How do I display (not link) to images in other Knowledge (XXG)'s; I'm trying to do it in the Reaction section of
1967:
1696:
What happens if there's a promotional image of a show that was cancelled, so no official source can be found? --
1200:
530:'And is that why you would put tables and chairs upon them, and have people walking over them with heavy boots?'
2496:
2393:
2341:
There's no standard or anything in place. Just use your best judgment. I agree the image should be lower res.--
1929:
2305:
1243:
54:
17:
2047:
I applaud your efforts... but IMO, it's a great stretch to consider something like that to be anything but a
205:
uploaded some of the copyrighted image to the talk - but only the ones that supported his view of things.) -
1196:
731:
702:
of policy or recommendation on the subject that I simply haven't been able to find? Anyone else think there
653:
2146:
2116:
1983:(I changed ref to be a link and not the image). Isn't that a copyrighted image from Lucas and friends? --
1358:
Windows Paint works quite well, although the serious image-makers among us would recommend something like
2389:
1476:
1229:
2168:
2150:
2024:
logo and attempted to distribute it as free license you might have a problem. You might want to ask at
1942:
1911:
1475:
Are Creative Commons images under non-commericl and non-derivative images allowed on Knowledge (XXG)? --
1225:
960:
886:
2503:, to use the image on Knowledge (XXG). Could someone instruct me as to what I need to do here exactly?
2186:
2051:. And unfortunately, derivative works are protected by copyright just as much as outright copies. --
1925:
1811:
1541:
1327:
294:
Silly Ed. Perhaps I'll tie you to a chair so we can finally get a Yeti image! <ducks and covers: -->
1071:, or direct me to a suitable forum where that question can be answered? I would be quite grateful. --
2096:
The same as with the first image on your userpage (Apollo 11 first step), thatās a commonās picture (
2008:
2005:
1974:
1971:
1858:
1007:
244:
presentation of the image, not the image's content - unless one were to upload an entirely new image.
2569:
111:
no real images -- photographs, drawings taken from first-hand experience -- are available. What the
2594:
1609:
1551:
1276:
1025:
847:
748:
739:
1678:
1394:
If you are looking for a free powerfull graphics package there is an open source one called GIMP
620:
as much as the next man, but you'll have to draw me a sketch if the subject won't hold still... --
2428:
Download, re-upload under the new name, put {{duplicate|"new name"}} on the old one (and list on
2419:
1823:
1560:
1178:
1085:
915:
707:
675:
435:
387:
161:
I think sketches should be a last resort, although they are sometimes appropriate; an example is
1800:
So I can't take a book a few years old and put a picture here for reference or an explanation?--
1627:
1084:
but I can't it just looks like a link. Do I have to register at the Wiki Commmons? Please help!
1033:
If images aren't categorized then how is one supposed to know what all is available to them. --
545:'You are not, Cecilia Jupe,' Thomas Gradgrind solemnly repeated, 'to do anything of that kind.'
1386:
935:
767:
97:
2129:
1619:
648:. Then you'd have professional sketches, and then finally amateur ones made by Wikipedians.
2651:
2466:
2433:
2100:
1933:
1801:
953:
876:
I'd like to know how to do this too, in my case from the german version of the same artical
868:
832:
825:
818:
811:
2429:
1667:
550:'Fact, fact, fact!' said the gentleman. And 'Fact, fact, fact!' repeated Thomas Gradgrind.
2611:
2500:
2371:
2352:
2332:
2283:
2248:
2074:
2048:
1711:
1652:
1572:
1524:
1139:
Just wondering if there was a way to link images to articles rather than the image page.--
999:
787:
736:
716:
617:
318:
190:
166:
2462:
1318:
Here's my two cents: In the case of the Navy image, that should be in the public domain
1065:
107:
I would say, use artist's impressions only if they match available descriptions closely
2653:
2579:
2559:
2526:
2507:
2478:
2475:
2469:
2461:
I donāt think Image policy applies here, they are external links, so can be treated as
2455:
2452:
2436:
2422:
2397:
2383:
2374:
2364:
2355:
2345:
2335:
2286:
2268:
2251:
2202:
2193:
2178:
2153:
2136:
2103:
2087:
2077:
2055:
2029:
2011:
1984:
1977:
1959:
1945:
1936:
1914:
1910:
Am I allowed to upload an image of a video game taken via print screen under the GDFL?
1899:
1881:
1868:
1848:
1833:
1804:
1794:
1772:
1767:
1750:
1728:
1714:
1700:
1685:
1655:
1634:
1612:
1575:
1564:
1554:
1544:
1527:
1514:
1498:
1484:
1464:
1453:
1431:
1417:
1398:
1395:
1374:
1352:
1337:
1313:
1303:
1285:
1271:
1265:
1262:
1250:
1236:
1214:
1181:
1128:
1100:
1075:
1072:
1054:
1037:
1028:
1021:
1014:
1010:
whether images should be put in categories along articles, now that we have Commons. --
989:
963:
949:
942:
920:
850:
844:
790:
751:
189:-there's got to be a PD picture of him as president somewhere but I can't find one.) -
154:
123:
1661:
There is no such policy requiring notification of the creator. After all, you aren't
1559:
You would probably need to capture the video via a computer with an anolog-compatible
1020:
I would think generally not, but what about non-free images that can't go in Commons?
119:
bones, and drawings that were based on a first-hand look at those bones, available. --
2627:
2556:
2539:
2342:
1996:
I made that image using MS-paint, and it is based on the logo of the Rebel Alliance (
1787:
1567:. Then, ideally, run a de-interlace filter on the resulting image such as the one in
1511:
1349:
1310:
1300:
1261:
How do I move an image uploaded to Knowledge (XXG) (or sister project) to Commons? --
1247:
1112:
1068:
911:
774:
689:
671:
661:
599:
572:
490:
403:
383:
372:
327:
296:
249:
206:
186:
175:
150:
disagreement, it's better to find a third-party image on which everyone can agree. --
142:
101:
510:'Girl number twenty,' said the gentleman, smiling in the calm strength of knowledge.
2576:
2548:
If I want to use an image found on PhillyHistory.org, to whom should I give credit?
2523:
2265:
2190:
2084:
2052:
1896:
1865:
1830:
1791:
1747:
1725:
1682:
1631:
1495:
1461:
1443:
1428:
1382:
1371:
1334:
1211:
1097:
621:
307:
287:
116:
2198:
Down streamĀ ? surely wiki doesn't allow people to make a profit from our efforts (
1720:
Does wikipedia support clicking on an image that will take you to another website?
1320:
provided that it is really an unretouched duplicate of the original Navy handbook.
1563:, then export a frame from the captured video using a video editing program like
1410:
2645:
2448:
2199:
2189:; while Knowledge (XXG) itself is not commercial, many downstream users are. --
2175:
2119:
was deleted and try as I might, I cannot find any log or history of the image.
2097:
1233:
1051:
986:
865:
350:
illustrate an article, and I certainly won't be doing it again. </ramble: -->
335:
53:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
598:
The point is... sometimes it's OK to have pictures of things that aren't real.
1697:
1671:
1647:
1481:
1034:
1011:
1003:
939:
861:
728:
425:
There is, or was, longstanding tradition in biology that drawings are usually
360:
351:
262:
229:
2634:
that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to
2492:
2380:
2361:
2235:
will return that very image. (Similarly, if there's a file called bar.html,
2021:
1845:
1568:
1414:
1367:
642:
279:
151:
120:
93:
839:
806:
2504:
2301:
a lower resolution (I think it should be). Compare all five images here:
1590:
1363:
645:
2280:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?
1626:"commonplace" but informative pictures; perhaps someone should write an
1594:
1492:
Knowledge (XXG):Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses
1425:
Knowledge (XXG):Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses
638:
467:
1738:
I want to know the best way to get images from video games that I own
1199:. For a commonsense change like this, you might post a note on the
1096:
right below the image, a short description of what is in the image.
306:
Your comment is abominable. If I were a man, I'd resent that!Ā ;-) --
1786:
With a scanner... but only if the image is old enough to be in the
1766:
there a reason for the current method? Is it difficult to change?
525:'If you please, sir, I am very fond of flowers,' returned the girl.
1601:
1550:
It's probably not feasible without some sort of special equipment
339:
2278:
Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at
2228:
1359:
1081:
398:
Ew! Please no thanks! I don't need to see someone's cup! *grins*
275:
162:
112:
1958:
Is it possible to create images representing logos such as the
115:
looks like is anyone's guess, but there are photographs of the
2240:
2017:
1674:) requires more input from the general community of Wikipedes.
32:
2499:. I have permission via e-mail by the creator of the image,
2432:), change all links coming in on the old to the new name. --
2127:
shows nothing. Of course clicking on a deleted image link (
1743:
2232:
771:
2517:
I've posted a specific disagreement over image choice at
2236:
1166:
How would one edit that so that they say the following?:
285:
I hope this settles the question <chuckle, smirk: -->
2639:
2635:
2631:
2124:
2120:
1232:
are the same pictures - how can I propose a "merge"? --
1890:
I don't think so. The reason is that image and media
1291:
Public or fair-use images from websites of 3rd parties
2418:
How does one rename (or move) an image? Thanks. --
24:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 1
2379:
yes. I don't know exactly what that size is though.
2282:. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks.
1819:
After uploading, such images should be labeled with
2164:Can someone explain why non commercial images such
1540:Does anyone know how to make images from a VHS? --
2540:http://www.phillyhistory.org/PhotoArchive/FAQ.aspx
2331:Any advice on how to standardise the resolutions?
1966:logo, and release them under a free license? (see
985:I can't see this being difficult to implement. --
1782:What's the best way to get an image from a book?
1679:Knowledge (XXG):Images#Image_choice_and_placement
843:. Is this helpful or hurtful to Knowledge (XXG)?
2447:I am working on trying to cleanup an article on
1411:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
1111:explain what the rules are. It was a cover of
133:, I come into disagreement with the artist on
8:
2326:Image:An evening in rivendell albumcover.jpg
1409:Can Flickr images with this license be use?
1080:Hey! I need help, I want to put an image on
2274:Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons
766:How should this page be updated to reflect
1471:Non-commercial & non-derivative images
1191:. As such, they can only be edited by an
926:Image from different language wiki article
800:Ok, I am having a problem with images. On
2638:of one of the images, this user promptly
2495:that I would like to put in the article,
2321:Image:A Night In Rivendell Albumcover.jpg
2316:Image:At Dawn In Rivendell Albumcover.jpg
2128:
831:
824:
817:
810:
2215:Question about image filename extensions
2292:Hi-res versus low-res - fair use images
1630:to encourage a different approach. --
486:preceding generations of the drawing.
1670:if you think this specific matter (in
1082:http://en.wikipedia.org/Andean_Tinamou
51:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2630:working on image categorisation that
1763:Image:Hand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
1692:Promotional images of cancelled shows
1187:All such system messages are part of
7:
2640:created a page for the Commons image
1724:I would like this for my user page.
938:. Then every language can use it. --
2296:Orphan Bot kindly pointed out that
1344:recommended image editing programs?
1203:and also on the message talk page,
1154:Many image pages contain the words
1064:Can someone either tell me if this
631:In my somewhat-arrogant opinion...
2519:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Taxobox usage
1641:Permission before replacing images
489:Just my ... well, lets say $ 0.09
174:unique version for the article? -
31:
2311:Image:Leaving Rivendell cover.png
2298:Image:Leaving Rivendell cover.png
1677:For your other question, consult
1195:. This particular message is at
907:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Drugs
402:GFDL allowed images available? -
274:I think a recent photograph of a
2016:I would think if you redrew the
1172:Download high-resolution version
1160:Download high resolution version
838:
805:
36:
2493:an image at the Psychology Wiki
2443:Image Links to external sources
1954:Question about self-made images
1067:image falls under fair use for
802:Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet
2141:12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1886:14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1729:21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
1715:16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
1701:01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
1126:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
921:20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
2527:18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2508:15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2479:13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2470:12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2456:12:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2437:12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2229:http://www.foo.com/image.jpeg
2179:22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
2154:15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2104:10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2088:10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2078:06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2056:05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2034:01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2026:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use
2012:23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1998:image:Rebel_Alliance_logo.png
1989:23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1978:22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1946:23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1937:09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1915:01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1900:05:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1869:05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1849:19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
1686:17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1635:17:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1499:17:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1465:17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1432:17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1375:17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1338:17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1215:17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1129:15:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1029:09:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
934:Download it and upload it to
641:, you get an image from some
462:that's different, of course.
2586:Commons media categorisation
2476:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
2453:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
2423:16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
2398:14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2384:18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2375:17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2365:15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2356:14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2346:14:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2336:12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2287:13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2269:17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
1880:in the file links section?
1834:07:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
1805:04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
1795:03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
1773:20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1751:17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
1399:20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
1389:, 16 October 2006 @12:01 UTC
1257:FAQ - move image to commons?
1201:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump
1101:21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
1076:11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
1055:11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
1015:03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
990:15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
964:23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
943:03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
515:Sissy blushed, and stood up.
131:match available descriptions
2252:15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
2241:http://www.foo.com/bar.html
2203:23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
2194:23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
1968:Image:RebelAllianceLogo.png
1656:08:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
1576:08:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
1528:08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
1205:MediaWiki talk:Showbigimage
1141:Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
1038:07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Images
2669:
2654:05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2560:19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
1757:Why Are Reversions So Easy
1266:02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
1251:16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
1182:04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1119:Time magazine covers redux
1046:Image choice and placement
129:Thanks Mirv. When you say
2306:Image:Tolkienensemble.jpg
1613:03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1555:19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1545:20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
1515:19:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
1485:15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1454:01:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1314:10:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1237:22:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1144:23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
873:05:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
752:04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
710:03:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2614:) so as to populate the
2580:16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2497:Tree of Knowledge System
2487:Need help with ToK image
2260:Fair use vs illustration
2239:will return the same as
2233:http://www.foo.com/image
1930:Template:Game-screenshot
1926:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use
1812:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use
1744:http://images.google.com
1706:Putting Image In Article
1423:No, not as a rule. See
1418:23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
1353:22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
1304:12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1244:Template:Redundant image
1242:You can tag it with the
1091:Functions of Image Pages
889:3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)
851:23:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
777:04:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
744:07:26, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
719:12:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
656:00:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
493:21:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
444:Field Guide to the Birds
418:In my arrogant opinion:
390:20:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
354:20:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
321:20:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
290:17:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
232:20:28, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)~
169:16:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
145:16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
126:16:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
104:16:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2618:of categories created (
2174:arent allowed on wiki (
1920:Would have to be under
1490:No, not as a rule. See
1286:06:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
1060:Help with image sources
791:01:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
692:03:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
686:The Wall Street Journal
678:02:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
664:02:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
624:19:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
602:18:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
575:01:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
438:02:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
406:01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
375:01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
363:21:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
330:01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
310:17:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
299:01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
265:04:26, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)
252:01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
209:01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
193:17:41, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
178:17:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
157:16:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2237:http://www.foo.com/bar
1895:description page. --
1584:Implicit POV in images
1197:MediaWiki:Showbigimage
480:crediting the original
453:Mediocre drawings are
139:available descriptions
2117:Image:Bright_Icon.svg
1589:example, the article
995:Categories for images
697:Signing original work
421:Drawings as such are
49:of past discussions.
2131:File:Bright Icon.svg
1840:Type of project page
1230:Image:Meximullet.jpg
1106:Time magazine covers
2145:It was on Commons:
1970:for an example). ā
1226:Image:Dorantes2.jpg
1189:MediaWiki namespace
834:File:Tng fc pip.PNG
827:File:Tng fc pip.PNG
820:File:Tng fc pip.PNG
813:File:Tng fc pip.PNG
1922:fair use rationale
1561:video capture card
2532:Phillyhistory.org
1761:I was looking at
1734:Video game images
1451:
1284:
936:Wikimedia Commons
918:
880:Unverified images
768:Wikimedia Commons
100:for instance.) -
98:talk:paranthropus
89:
88:
61:
60:
55:current talk page
22:(Redirected from
2660:
2648:
2574:
2568:
2231:, a request for
2173:
2167:
2139:
2134:
2132:
2032:
1987:
1884:
1863:
1857:
1828:
1822:
1770:
1479:
1450:
1447:
1274:
954:user:Andy_Christ
916:
887:Klemen Kocjancic
856:Interwiki images
842:
837:
835:
830:
828:
823:
821:
816:
814:
809:
742:
734:
70:
63:
62:
40:
39:
33:
27:
2668:
2667:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2646:
2588:
2572:
2566:
2534:
2515:
2513:Choosing images
2501:Gregg Henriques
2489:
2445:
2416:
2414:Renaming images
2294:
2276:
2262:
2217:
2171:
2165:
2162:
2137:
2130:
2123:shows nothing,
2114:
2071:
2049:derivative work
2030:
1985:
1964:Galactic Empire
1956:
1908:
1906:Making an image
1882:
1877:
1875:What Links Here
1861:
1855:
1842:
1826:
1820:
1780:
1768:
1759:
1736:
1722:
1708:
1694:
1643:
1586:
1538:
1507:
1477:
1473:
1448:
1440:
1407:
1346:
1328:fair use claims
1293:
1259:
1223:
1221:Twice the image
1152:
1136:
1121:
1108:
1093:
1062:
1048:
1000:User:Rhollenton
997:
980:
971:
928:
903:
895:
882:
858:
833:
826:
819:
812:
798:
783:
781:policy question
764:
740:
732:
699:
618:social security
66:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2666:
2664:
2587:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2533:
2530:
2514:
2511:
2491:Hello. I have
2488:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2444:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2415:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2329:
2328:
2323:
2318:
2313:
2308:
2293:
2290:
2275:
2272:
2261:
2258:
2256:
2216:
2213:
2211:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2161:
2160:Non Commerical
2158:
2157:
2156:
2113:
2112:Deleted Images
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2091:
2090:
2070:
2067:
2065:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
1991:
1990:
1960:Rebel Alliance
1955:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1876:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1798:
1797:
1779:
1776:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1735:
1732:
1721:
1718:
1707:
1704:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1675:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1610:AdamBiswanger1
1585:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1565:Adobe Premiere
1552:AdamBiswanger1
1537:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1439:
1438:Editing images
1436:
1435:
1434:
1427:. Cheers, --
1406:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1391:
1390:
1378:
1377:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1331:
1316:
1292:
1289:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1208:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1135:
1132:
1120:
1117:
1107:
1104:
1092:
1089:
1061:
1058:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
996:
993:
976:
970:
967:
950:Daihatsu Hijet
946:
945:
927:
924:
902:
899:
894:
891:
881:
878:
857:
854:
797:
794:
782:
779:
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
749:AdamBiswanger1
721:
720:
698:
695:
694:
693:
680:
679:
666:
665:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
562:
560:
559:
558:
557:
547:
546:
542:
541:
537:
536:
532:
531:
527:
526:
522:
521:
517:
516:
512:
511:
507:
506:
502:
501:
440:
439:
416:
414:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
399:
379:
378:
377:
376:
365:
364:
332:
331:
314:
313:
312:
311:
301:
300:
269:
268:
267:
266:
255:
254:
253:
245:
236:
235:
234:
233:
226:
222:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
197:
196:
195:
194:
180:
179:
159:
158:
87:
86:
81:
76:
71:
59:
58:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2665:
2656:
2655:
2652:
2650:
2649:
2641:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2596:
2591:
2585:
2581:
2578:
2571:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2558:
2553:
2552:
2549:
2545:
2542:
2541:
2537:
2531:
2529:
2528:
2525:
2520:
2512:
2510:
2509:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2486:
2480:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2454:
2450:
2442:
2438:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2421:
2420:ArglebargleIV
2413:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2373:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2363:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2354:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2344:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2334:
2327:
2324:
2322:
2319:
2317:
2314:
2312:
2309:
2307:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2299:
2291:
2289:
2288:
2285:
2281:
2273:
2271:
2270:
2267:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2253:
2250:
2244:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2225:
2223:
2214:
2212:
2204:
2201:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2180:
2177:
2170:
2159:
2155:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2140:
2133:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2111:
2105:
2102:
2098:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2076:
2068:
2066:
2057:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2033:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2010:
2007:
2003:
2002:modeled after
1999:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1962:logo and the
1961:
1953:
1947:
1944:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1913:
1905:
1901:
1898:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1885:
1874:
1870:
1867:
1860:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1847:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1825:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1796:
1793:
1789:
1788:public domain
1785:
1784:
1783:
1777:
1775:
1774:
1771:
1764:
1756:
1752:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1733:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1719:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1705:
1703:
1702:
1699:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1649:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1629:
1624:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1605:
1603:
1598:
1596:
1592:
1583:
1577:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1543:
1535:
1529:
1526:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1513:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1470:
1466:
1463:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1446:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1412:
1405:Flickr images
1404:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1296:
1290:
1288:
1287:
1282:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:administrator
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1179:Michael Hardy
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1113:Glenn Curtiss
1105:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1090:
1088:
1087:
1086:Mitternacht90
1083:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1059:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1045:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
994:
992:
991:
988:
983:
979:
975:
968:
966:
965:
962:
961:82.238.95.176
956:
955:
951:
944:
941:
937:
933:
932:
931:
925:
923:
922:
919:
913:
908:
900:
898:
892:
890:
888:
879:
877:
874:
872:
871:
867:
863:
855:
853:
852:
849:
846:
841:
836:
829:
822:
815:
808:
803:
795:
793:
792:
789:
780:
778:
776:
772:
769:
761:
753:
750:
746:
745:
743:
738:
735:
730:
725:
724:
723:
722:
718:
713:
712:
711:
709:
705:
696:
691:
687:
682:
681:
677:
673:
668:
667:
663:
659:
658:
657:
655:
649:
647:
644:
640:
635:
632:
623:
619:
614:
613:
612:
611:
601:
597:
594:You wanted a
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
574:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
556:
552:
551:
549:
548:
544:
543:
539:
538:
534:
533:
529:
528:
524:
523:
519:
518:
514:
513:
509:
508:
504:
503:
499:
498:
497:
494:
492:
487:
485:
481:
475:
471:
469:
463:
461:
456:
451:
447:
445:
437:
436:Michael Hardy
433:
432:
431:
428:
424:
419:
415:
405:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
389:
385:
374:
369:
368:
367:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
353:
347:
343:
341:
337:
329:
324:
323:
322:
320:
309:
305:
304:
303:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
289:
283:
281:
277:
272:
264:
260:
256:
251:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
208:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
192:
188:
187:Albert Lebrun
184:
183:
182:
181:
177:
172:
171:
170:
168:
164:
156:
153:
148:
147:
146:
144:
140:
136:
132:
127:
125:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
103:
99:
95:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
69:
65:
64:
56:
52:
48:
47:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
2644:
2592:
2589:
2575:to me... --
2554:
2551:
2547:
2546:
2543:
2538:
2535:
2516:
2490:
2465:describes.--
2446:
2417:
2330:
2295:
2277:
2263:
2255:
2245:
2226:
2221:
2218:
2210:
2169:cc-by-nc-2.0
2163:
2115:
2072:
2064:
2001:
1957:
1941:Ok. Thanks.
1924:. See also:
1909:
1891:
1878:
1843:
1815:
1799:
1781:
1760:
1737:
1723:
1709:
1695:
1662:
1644:
1622:
1606:
1599:
1587:
1542:67.81.199.59
1539:
1508:
1474:
1444:
1441:
1408:
1347:
1323:
1319:
1297:
1294:
1269:
1260:
1224:
1177:
1165:
1153:
1122:
1109:
1094:
1079:
1069:Chef's knife
1063:
1049:
998:
984:
981:
977:
972:
957:
947:
929:
904:
896:
893:Source files
883:
875:
869:
859:
799:
784:
765:
703:
700:
685:
650:
636:
633:
630:
595:
591:
561:
554:
495:
488:
483:
479:
476:
472:
464:
459:
454:
452:
448:
443:
441:
426:
422:
420:
417:
413:
380:
348:
344:
333:
315:
284:
273:
270:
258:
160:
152:No-One Jones
138:
134:
130:
128:
121:No-One Jones
117:paranthropus
108:
106:
90:
67:
50:
44:
2632:recommended
2565:Seems like
2467:Van helsing
2449:Bully Kutta
2434:Van helsing
2151:Mike Dillon
2147:commons log
2101:Van helsing
1934:Van helsing
1859:Descriptive
1802:Herb-Sewell
1523:graphics.--
1505:Image types
1022:Ā·Ā·gracefool
848:(Sound Off)
460:inaccurate,
442:Peterson's
346:wonders).
336:muskellunge
221:agreements.
43:This is an
2372:Carcharoth
2353:Carcharoth
2333:Carcharoth
2284:Carcharoth
2249:Lloyd Wood
2075:Trekphiler
1864:to me. --
1769:*Sparkhead
1712:Stlbabe 53
1672:Paper mill
1653:Daveswagon
1648:paper mill
1573:Daveswagon
1536:Image help
1525:Daveswagon
1006:have been
969:Image maps
862:Anna Lindh
788:Kingturtle
717:Pioneer-12
555:Hard Times
553:āDickens,
191:Hephaestos
167:Hephaestos
2616:hierarchy
2069:Bad move?
2022:Microsoft
2006:Canderous
1972:Canderous
1824:bookcover
1604:article.
1569:Photoshop
1396:Back ache
1368:IrfanView
1272:M Johnson
1263:Stbalbach
845:Zscout370
796:Image Use
643:Dark Ages
427:preferred
280:sasquatch
94:talk:yeti
84:ArchiveĀ 4
79:ArchiveĀ 3
74:ArchiveĀ 2
68:ArchiveĀ 1
2636:deletion
2628:an admin
2557:ccwaters
2555:Thanks.
2474:Thanks!
2390:Fritz S.
2187:fair use
1943:-- VGF11
1912:-- VGF11
1663:deleting
1618:I think
1591:Ethiopia
1512:Wjhonson
1364:Sodipodi
1350:Ideogram
1311:Howdybob
1301:Howdybob
1281:contribs
1248:Andrew c
1150:Editing?
1008:debating
901:Renaming
775:Hyacinth
690:Dpbsmith
684:doesn't
672:fabiform
662:Dpbsmith
646:tapestry
622:Uncle Ed
600:Dpbsmith
590:Oh. The
573:UtherSRG
491:Dpbsmith
404:UtherSRG
384:fabiform
373:UtherSRG
328:UtherSRG
308:Uncle Ed
297:UtherSRG
288:Uncle Ed
250:UtherSRG
207:UtherSRG
176:UtherSRG
143:UtherSRG
102:UtherSRG
2595:linking
2590:Hello,
2577:Visviva
2266:Zanimum
2191:Visviva
2138:*Spark*
2125:history
2085:Visviva
2053:Visviva
2031:*Spark*
1986:*Spark*
1897:Visviva
1883:*Spark*
1866:Visviva
1831:Visviva
1792:Visviva
1748:Zanimum
1726:Mjk2357
1683:Visviva
1632:Visviva
1620:WP:NPOV
1595:Kolkata
1496:Visviva
1462:Visviva
1429:Visviva
1372:Visviva
1335:Visviva
1212:Visviva
1134:Linking
1098:Rtdrury
762:Commons
639:Unicorn
496:P. S.
468:Unicorn
46:archive
2647:Tewfik
2430:WP:IFD
2200:Gnevin
2176:Gnevin
1928:&
1854:Seems
1829:. --
1810:Under
1668:WP:RfC
1494:. --
1383:Gordon
1370:. --
1234:Abdull
1052:Durova
987:Thoric
706:be? --
704:should
596:point.
592:point.
155:(talk)
124:(talk)
2570:cc-by
2463:WP:EL
2099:). --
1892:files
1790:. --
1778:Books
1698:DrBat
1628:essay
1602:Paris
1073:Chris
1035:*Kat*
1012:Error
940:Error
729:Xiong
423:fine.
361:Hadal
352:Hadal
340:cobia
263:Jerzy
230:Jerzy
135:match
16:<
2394:Talk
2381:Geni
2362:Geni
2343:Jeff
2222:situ
2028:. --
2009:Ordo
1975:Ordo
1932:. --
1846:Oden
1816:only
1746:--
1742:Try
1482:-Day
1449:2020
1415:Dara
1387:Talk
1360:GIMP
1277:talk
1228:and
1002:and
917:T@lk
864:. -
737:talk
676:talk
455:fine
388:talk
276:yeti
163:dodo
137:and
113:yeti
96:and
2505:EPM
2121:Log
2020:or
2018:IBM
1623:can
1571:.--
1445:wic
1362:or
1299:---
912:JFW
905:At
870:Boy
866:Roy
773:)?
708:FOo
654:PMC
484:two
319:mav
278:or
259:are
109:and
2573:}}
2567:{{
2524:RM
2396:)
2181:)
2172:}}
2166:{{
2149:.
1862:}}
1856:{{
1827:}}
1821:{{
1413:--
1385:|
1324:is
1279:ā¢
914:|
885:--
674:|
386:|
338:,
317:--
295:-
286:--
2624:2
2622:,
2620:1
2612:4
2610:,
2608:3
2606:,
2604:2
2602:,
2600:1
2598:(
2392:(
2205:)
1478:D
1283:)
1275:(
1207:.
1026:āŗ
1024:|
1004:I
978:]
770:(
741:*
733:ē
57:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.