1713:
example, even though the photographer can release this particular image under a free license if they want, they might not want to do so because they're hoping to take advantage of any potential commercial opportunities the image might provide. They might see
Knowledge (XXG) as one way of increasing the value of their photo. I don't mean that in a bad way and not trying to imply that's what happened here; it's just that I think more people these days are aware of potential commmercial value that their personal photos of breaking news stories may have. Photos can easily go from one's camera to being posted online with a simple click. Does the "Meeting the previous publication" section need to be tweaked a bit to make it clear(er) that there needs to be some in-between third-party publication stage between a photo being taken and uploaded to Knowledge (XXG). --
856:) wasn't remotely visible anymore, even after I had tried to make it as small as possible before the bot came through. (Frankly the size I left it still doesn't properly demonstrate the letter shapes as intended.) But I have also seen plenty of other pages where standard biographical portraits of long-dead people of zero commercial value with unenforced sometimes nearly expired copyright, sometimes fairly hard to find better copies of, were made into thumbnails where the person could barely be recognized. As a reader, I always find these images extremely frustrating. I basically don't believe in adding images at all which aren't either free or far, far on the no-brainer side of the fair use line, but for the latter, I feel like making the images tiny mostly defeats the point of having them at all. –
1047:
picture accompanying a journal article. The highest available resolution copy of the digital image as it currently exists doesn't come anywhere close to being suitable for commercial printing of an ordinary glossy photograph, as you might obtain from a portrait studio. There's no way to turn this image into something that won't be "of very inferior quality", irrespective of resolution; the amount of detail in the image is significantly lower than you would get from a bad 2-inch passport photo obtained from your local pharmacy. –
1189:
full scale on commons because it is no longer covered by copyright. We have no idea if this image here as similar ability to be marked free, so we have to go with the default of assuming non free. Also to stress, we do not care about fair use aspects because NFCC is purposely stronger than those to encourage free media and minimize nonfree use. While the commercial value factor is just one part of fair use, NFCC is more than that, and even a freely distributed copyrighted piece that limits reuse is a problem for us.
572:
547:
501:
476:
788:
chance the original photographers or publishing organizations even remember these portraits exist, let alone care that someone distributes them in the context of biographies, and there's no reasonable challenge to the claim that they are fair use, even at full size. Perhaps there should be some better middle-ground option(s) between "preserve the original upload" vs. "turn this into an unrecognizable thumbnail". –
414:
618:
444:
921:, the only person to ever cite the paper where this image appeared. It's possible there's a better copy somewhere in the archives at NOAA, and it's even entirely possible this image was in the public domain at its origin (I don't have more details). Down-sizing it serves no purpose beyond ticking some kind of out-of-context bureaucratic checkbox. –
1266:
point where even reasonably large on-screen details become impossible to grok, and thus it's not a useful image at all.) But I think there's a bit of a difference here between "I tag an image I shrunk down to a reasonable size that readers can still see a slightly larger and clearer image for" and "I'm uploading 1.7-megapixel non free images",
756:) have been tagged with "Non-free no reduce" as well. FWIW, I'm quite happy to go back and self-revert my edit to the first file if the consensus here is that particular file doesn't need to be reduced. However, if that's the case, I think some more guidance on when it's OK to use this template should be added to
1590:
Being uploaded to WP, while that's the first publication, is not the type of previous publication that we expect for non-free images. This is really a case where we expect that the image, being what appears to be a personal photo, should be uploaded as a free image if it hasn't been published before.
1159:
There are many hypothetical scenarios where "images from that period" could still run into copyright claims (whether or not they were pursued in court). For example, if
Knowledge (XXG) scanned a whole book of some portrait photographer's work and reproduced it in its entirety on a page, that would no
1155:
under US copyright law, which it clearly is: This is a 91 year old image which was intended to be distributed as a portrait of a public figure rather than sold as art, and certainly has zero commercial value today; it is being used for an educational purpose, for which it is clearly relevant; our use
903:
image which does a horrible job at fulfilling the purpose of illustrating the subject, only very marginally better than nothing at all, and frustrating and disappointing for many if not most readers. Unfortunately I don't have anything else, but if I had a nice high-resolution photo I certainly would
787:
I added these because these images are portraits of long-dead people with zero commercial value, for which it isn't too easy to find any portrait at all, and the auto reducer is absurdly aggressive in making everything gratuitously tiny and then hard deleting the originals. I don't think there's much
695:
or any non-free one. If Knavs appeared at any official White House events, there's a really good possibility she would've been photographed by an official White House photographer. There also seems to be a good chance that a photo of her was posted on an official social media account. The article was
663:
are being used for said purpose. There are probably more examples of this out there, but these two are the only ones I can remember at the moment. Neither of these is really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in their respective articles, and they appear to have been simply added because
654:
states that "cover art shouldn't used to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover", but non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed for this purpose if all of the NFCCP are met. How does policy, therefore, treat non-free cover art when it's being used for primary
1213:
and can't find any relevant entries after searching for a variety of relevant keywords. When I get a chance, I'll go ahead and change the file page here to describe the image as in the public domain for lack of copyright renewal. Edit: on second glance, maybe that's not right. This renewal database
1188:
For a image that likely might fall into copyright due to its publication date, we need proof position that the factors that limit its copyright term and can be made into a free image be expressed and demonstrated. That's done in a satisfactory way for the Adam's photograph, so it can be uploaded at
1046:
about what "minimal" resolution/quality means, other than that logos should be insufficient for counterfeiting, and for historical photographs copies "will be of very inferior quality". The image in question here is a poor quality scan of a photograph which was printed as a mediocre black-and-white
916:
is an image only a few years away from entering the public domain, whose subject is dead, whose photographer is dead, published in a journal which ended over 60 years ago, and which probably hasn't even been looked at by any human in the past three decades (before I hunted it up), with the possible
868:
Images in which lots of intricate detail is going to be lost due to reduction probably don't need to reduced to the same degree as a "portrait photo" or "logo". Moreover, images which themselves are the subjects of articles in which certain apects of the image are critcally discussed in the article
1688:
I knew not to upload it to
Commons, that is why I uploaded it to Knowledge (XXG) and tried to use "fair use". This was a short-lived event that made the news. Someone on a talk page requested a photo, which I saw in the category of photo requests in Georgia. My son-in-law's father sent us that
1265:
I agree that the non free bot is often ridiculously stingy (treating the 0.1 megapixel rule of thumb as absolute instead of a guide) and specifically upload content in a low resolution that preserves the relevant info based on context (video game screenshots, for example, can get scrunched to the
1089:
Because the line we use is not fair use, it is about reducing the quantity and net content of non-free images to promote more free media for WP so that it can be reused and redistributed. Its nice to have pictures of long-dead persons, but if they were not in the public eye at any point and their
747:
needs to be so large given that default width for most infobox images is much smaller. So, I replaced the "non-free no reduce" template with a "non-free reduce" template. I then decided to take a look at some of the other images uploaded by the same uploader to see whether this was just a one off
1712:
Since this photo is related to an incident that just happened, there could eventually be a free equivalent posted somewhere online, which makes FREER an issue. Not meeting FREER alone is more than a sufficient reason for failing the NFCC. Even so, the NFCC#4 issue is still interesting to me. For
1111:
of
Knowledge (XXG) is "simply decorative", especially on our longer articles, detail embellishment of a story that does not "contribute factors towards notability" (whatever that is supposed to mean). A significant proportion of human mental capacity is devoted to processing of human faces, and
1059:
The vast majority of images from that period will not meet your standard of commercial printing from a modern portrait studio. Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright? Prior debate on the size of images has resulted in the practice that non-free images generally
1861:
I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. And with the templates like how do I use them and when? Thanks
1027:
policy does not say it's ok to use a larger non-free image than we normally allow if we take a guess that the copyright holder isn't going to care. Copyright law is copyright law. There is no allowance in it for chances of someone suing. Neither should there be such leniency in our own policy.
1230:
I am not familiar with that
Stanford database to know if it is strictly limited to books or includes other registrations, but if it is strictly limited to books, then that image on. Commons should be nominated for deletion at commons bince that database can't be used to validate picture
1074:
Ya know how it goes. Not Bureau, IAR. If an editor in good standing vouches for the need to keep a slightly larger image, bet they have a good reason. We're so far from actual line of what US Fair Use actually permits, we have total editorial freedom to accommodate gray cases.
1304:
Part of the problem is that "number of megapixels" is an incredibly poor guide for the actual resolution of an image, i.e. how much detail it contains, but is easily substituted by people who don't have a basic understanding of how human vision and images work (which is most
1274:, you can start an RfC. But right now you're absolutely abusing the template to stop these from being reduced (especially for the Oscar Adams shot, the original scan is so bad all the high-resolution image is really getting you is an appreciation for dot patterns anyhow.)
1090:
appearance contributed no factors towards their notability or importance, these images tend to be simply decorative, not to where they have to be removed but we're not going to necessarily allow NFC to be thrown out the window to allow larger than needed sizes.
1689:
photo while he was waiting to pick up his child. I asked him if it was OK to put on
Knowledge (XXG), and he said yes. I thought it would help Knowledge (XXG) so I put it up. I'm a grandmaster editor so I was really trying to help - now it is all of this.
1352:
753:
1616:. If the son-in-law's father wants to give permission, then a proper CC BY-SA 4.0 license (or equivalent) is the way to show that verifiable permission has been given, no matter the familial relationship between the uploader and the photographer.
869:
might also benefit from not being reduced or reduced as much. How much detail is really lost, though, when it comes to portrait photos being used in main infoboxes or at the tops of biography articles? For example, you also uploaded
1124:
I am not arguing g that such images should be removed, but they are general of very low value in terms of NFCC#8 for comprehension of a person who did not have a public presence as to merit an exemption of NFCC#3 on minimal size.
1393:
I'd fight for a no reduce tag in theory, when an article requires it, but these two specific images are used at much lower resolution in their respective articles. They should be reduced and the larger versions removed.
1476:
images (Creative
Commons Non-Commercial). Our rationale for reduction does not apply because there are no commercial opportunities of the owner to impact. Nonetheless, there is an insistence on reducing the images!
801:
1164:
is a pretty clearly detailed scan of a famous art photograph, and
Knowledge (XXG) is publishing a portion that could be used to print postcards or something, in a way that could conceivably affect the profits of
1289:
I fail to see what the larger brings to the table that isn't apparent from the smaller. It's a man, in a suit, wearing glasses. Even the 94x120 thumbnails on the image description page tell you the same thing.
954:
As a rule, it is better to let the bot reduce the image rather than attempting it yourself. Do it yourself and you usually wind up with the bot reducing it again. I often have free images and tagging them with
1156:
is limited to just this photograph, which we are including on just one page; the image is quite mediocre, and there's really no chance someone is going to start selling prints of it taken off
Knowledge (XXG).
1434:
It means that you aren't supposed to put a high resolution image of someone's fine art painting (or whatever) that could be used to sell postcards or something and hurt the original artist's revenue stream.
1160:
longer be a limited use. If
Knowledge (XXG) included a high-quality scan of a fine-art photograph, that could (conceivably) impinge on the photograph's commercial resale value. For example,
696:
created back in January and appears to have gone without an image until the other day, but there's no indication on the article's talk page of any discussion related to an image search. --
1176:
claims that this 1941 photograph published 1943 is out of copyright because it didn't file any copyright renewal. The same is undoubtedly true of the image currently under discussion. –
1312:. I uploaded the version I did because this image doesn't need further degradation, and carefully reducing the pixel count takes time and work that is better spent on something else. –
656:
1112:
attaching clear pictures of people to their names and accomplishments creates an emotional connection, anchors memory, and provides significant context used to assess the person. –
640:
1408:
I see no problem with reducing them, as they will be displayed at 220 to 300 pixels. My issue has always been with the requirement to reduce free images, for which the wording of
664:
the subjects of the articles are dead. Does policy justallow such files be used in such way for that reason, or does it require different non-free images be used instead? --
1493:
I think I see what you mean: Knowledge (XXG) can legally use those images at whatever resolution it likes. But Knowledge (XXG) policy is stricter than US copyright law, and
1308:
This image could certainly be reduced in pixel dimensions (hopefully by a less shitty process than whatever the bot is doing) without losing too much detail, because, again
852:
826:
458:
50:
1805:
I asked him to say to license it under CC BY-SA 4.0 and he said he did. But something might not have worked - the last time I checked there was no update to the file.
1817:
will only update the file once they've processed the permission, and that could take some time. In the meantime, anyone who knows that permission has been sent can put
660:
405:
940:
Now the bot has come through and turned these images to emoji-sized blobs, at readers' expense. I don't really see the benefit, and may revert at some point. –
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
85:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
1418:
is equally inappropriate. (And does anyone know what "non-free media on Knowledge (XXG) should not be usable as substitutes for the original work" means?)
1107:
I disagree entirely that portaits on biographies, or images more generally, are "simply decorative". By a similar standard a significant majority of the
1555:
Do personal photos uploaded as non-free content which never seem to have been published (at least not prior to being uploaded to Knowledge (XXG)) like
1761:
The photographer (my son-in-law's father, who had a child at the school) has sent an email to the VRT saying that he wanted to use the free license.
764:, perhaps even an example or two of when it's not OK to use this template. It appears someone attempted to try and start a discussion about adding a
578:
552:
1215:
1173:
1161:
91:
904:
love to add it there, in or out of copyright, where it would undoubtedly be fair use under US law. Edit: I will certainly agree with you that
1571:
issues with the photo as well, but for I more curious about the NFCC#4 compliance. Please note the file was tagged for speedy deletion per
1556:
711:
I thought so too. I was unable to find any but maybe someone else may have better luck. The vast majority of images I found were Getty/AP.
454:
450:
453:
on Knowledge (XXG). Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review
1639:
I've uploaded thousands of my personal photos to Commons, which haven't been published before. I've always selected a free license.
905:
870:
624:
507:
481:
31:
655:
identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone biography about a deceased individual? For example,
1348:
1151:– This image is still (possibly, nominally) copyrighted. What we are talking about is whether including it in Knowledge (XXG) is
769:
749:
877:, but is much smaller than the other three mentioned above; yet, it seems to be serving it's encylopedic purpose of identifying
80:
761:
1218:
have ever plausibly be listed in there / was searching that database really sufficient to declare a lack of copyright there? –
981:
I don't understand what your second paragraph is trying to say. Are you agreeing with me that this type of image should have
71:
1575:
by another user while I was typing the above, but I think it's still a good idea to discuss the potential NFCC#4 issue. --
1286:
913:
732:
1497:
applies to images licensed under CC BY-NC (which are considered non-free for this purpose). Which part of the wording of
35:
1821:
1785:
1501:
1412:
1342:
985:
965:
would be a good option because they literally have zero commercial value and there is no valid reason to reduce them.
959:
738:
1649:
I have an email from him to me giving me permission, but I'll contact him tomorrow about sending an email to VST.
413:
104:
462:
424:
1358:
804:
which was turned into such a ridiculously tiny thumbnail that the indicated feature (the shapes of the symbols
896:
878:
583:
557:
512:
486:
692:
61:
757:
76:
1727:
Yes, those hypotheticals are plausible. And yet the uploader states on the file information page that
1534:
1295:
1065:
1033:
1736:
1718:
1679:
1621:
1580:
1439:
1384:
1316:
1222:
1180:
1116:
1051:
995:
944:
932:
925:
886:
860:
792:
777:
701:
669:
772:
back in 2018, but never got a response. Perhaps this should be something worth discussing now. --
1867:
1832:
1796:
1512:
1483:
1463:
1424:
1009:
971:
835:
809:
716:
691:
it would seem that there's a very good chance that a free image could be found to use instead of
429:
1667:
1568:
1399:
1080:
57:
1671:
1663:
1560:
1494:
1271:
1024:
1608:
Interesting case. On the file information page, the uploader identifies the photographer as
1334:
1275:
428:
426:
1814:
1564:
651:
1599:
1530:
1326:
1291:
1241:
1199:
1133:
1098:
1061:
1029:
1572:
17:
1871:
1836:
1809:
1800:
1765:
1740:
1732:
1722:
1714:
1693:
1683:
1675:
1653:
1643:
1625:
1617:
1603:
1584:
1576:
1538:
1516:
1488:
1467:
1442:
1436:
1429:
1403:
1388:
1380:
1366:
1319:
1313:
1299:
1280:
1267:
1245:
1225:
1219:
1203:
1183:
1177:
1137:
1119:
1113:
1102:
1084:
1069:
1054:
1048:
1037:
1014:
998:
992:
976:
947:
941:
935:
929:
922:
918:
890:
882:
863:
857:
795:
789:
781:
773:
744:
720:
705:
697:
673:
665:
1863:
1828:
1792:
1508:
1478:
1459:
1449:
1419:
1370:
1004:
966:
881:. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? --
712:
688:
684:
1806:
1772:
1762:
1690:
1650:
1640:
1395:
1374:
1076:
617:
1210:
1166:
1731:. The only evidence we have of that at this point is the uploader's assertion.
910:
How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size?
571:
546:
500:
475:
1592:
1330:
1234:
1192:
1126:
1091:
1060:
aren't much larger than the place (usually an infobox) where they are used. --
1659:
1003:
Yes. If the image has no commercial value, there is no reason to reduce it.
748:
type of thing. It seems that two other files uploaded by the same uploader (
1662:
and you uploaded this file locally to Knowledge (XXG) as non-free content.
1563:? Is being uploaded to Knowledge (XXG) considered sufficient or satisfying
1149:"Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright?"
1152:
457:
before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to
1827:
on the file, and it'll be tentatively treated as having that license.
1285:
Concur. Frankly, looking at the larger image vs. the smaller image of
1209:
Alright, I took a look through the Stanfard copyright renewal catalog
800:
The specific very bad experience I had with an image I added was with
443:
1857:
non-free rationale and ability to use copyright photos appropriately
802:
File:Blackboard bold in typewritten notes from Narasimhan (1966).png
743:. It seems a bit odd that an image used in a biography article like
1379:
Would you prefer that these images be further discussed at FFD? --
1781:
free license? If so, the file can be tagged with that license and
991:
added so that the bot doesn't come scrunch images to emoji size? –
908:
also has no commercial value whatsoever, and is clearly fair use.
1670:
that are required to be met for each use of non-free content per
1270:, which is what you're doing. If you want to argue for loosening
449:
The project page associated with this talk page is an official
1567:, even though it seems to imply that it's not. There might be
612:
438:
430:
26:
1729:
The photographer has no intention of comercializing the photo
912:
Most of the detail would be lost, for no benefit whatsoever.
731:
While looking at some newly uploaded images, I came across
1214:
seems to only contain copyright renewals for books. Would
641:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions
1658:
Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per
1310:
it's a mediocre scan of a mediocre black and white print
657:
File:The Life and Work of Dennis Potter (cover art).jpg
629:
917:
exceptions of (1) whoever scanned the image, and (2)
838:
812:
846:
820:
646:WP:UUI#9 and biographies about deceased individual
1565:WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion
661:File:Album cover of Nephi the Polynesian man.jpg
581:, a project which is currently considered to be
510:, a project which is currently considered to be
1211:https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals
630:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content criteria
627:discussions and keep related topics together,
8:
593:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Images and Media
1791:, which should resolve the issue for now.
541:
470:
840:
839:
837:
814:
813:
811:
1216:File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg
1174:File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg
1162:File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg
543:
472:
1728:
1613:
1609:
1148:
909:
874:
765:
1042:The policy page doesn't actually say
596:Template:WikiProject Images and Media
7:
1557:File:Winder high school shooting.jpg
1507:do you think is inappropriate here?
895:Quite to the contrary, the image at
577:This article is within the scope of
522:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Fair use
506:This article is within the scope of
34:for discussing improvements to the
1458:images? Where have you seen that?
1339:Is it now safe to assume that the
25:
906:File:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg
871:File:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg
56:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1472:The images referred to are free
1454:There's a requirement to reduce
1349:File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg
770:Template talk:Non-free no reduce
750:File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg
735:and saw that it was tagged with
616:
570:
545:
499:
474:
442:
412:
51:Click here to start a new topic.
1551:NFCC#4 and previous publication
1529:Yes, they should be reduced. --
762:Template:Non-free no reduce/doc
1353:File:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg
754:File:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg
455:policy editing recommendations
1:
1872:17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1837:06:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1810:06:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1801:05:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1766:01:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
1741:05:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1723:04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1694:01:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
1684:04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1654:04:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1644:04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1626:04:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1604:04:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1585:04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1539:10:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1517:06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1489:06:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1468:05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1443:10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1430:06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1404:05:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1389:04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1287:File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg
1044:anything concrete or specific
914:File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg
768:parameter to the template at
733:File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg
525:Template:WikiProject Fair use
48:Put new text under old text.
847:{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} }
821:{\displaystyle \mathbb {C} }
579:WikiProject Images and Media
1612:and says that the image is
1320:15:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1300:13:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1281:13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1246:13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
1226:16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1204:16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1184:15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1138:16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1120:15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1103:12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1085:11:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1070:10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1055:06:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1038:01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1015:09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
999:09:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
977:09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
948:00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
936:08:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
891:08:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
864:07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
796:07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
782:06:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
721:03:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
706:03:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1887:
638:
1277:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
873:which also seems to have
674:05:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
599:Images and Media articles
565:
494:
86:Be welcoming to newcomers
1614:used with his permission
1355:should be replaced with
1172:Aside: The file page at
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:NFC
897:Nathan Altshiller Court
879:Nathan Altshiller Court
1668:one of the 10 criteria
1610:my son-in-law's father
848:
822:
693:File:Amalija Knavs.png
459:keep cool when editing
81:avoid personal attacks
875:zero commercial value
849:
823:
406:Auto-archiving period
836:
810:
508:WikiProject Fair use
1023:I'll note that our
679:Amalija Knavs image
1822:permission pending
1786:permission pending
1502:non-free no reduce
1413:Non-free no reduce
1343:Non-free no reduce
986:non-free no reduce
960:Non-free no reduce
844:
818:
739:Non-free no reduce
727:Non-free no reduce
687:was the mother of
92:dispute resolution
53:
760:and perhaps even
637:
636:
611:
610:
607:
606:
540:
539:
536:
535:
528:Fair use articles
469:
468:
437:
436:
72:Assume good faith
49:
16:(Redirected from
1878:
1826:
1820:
1790:
1784:
1776:
1596:
1506:
1500:
1486:
1481:
1453:
1427:
1422:
1417:
1411:
1378:
1362:
1346:
1338:
1278:
1248:
1238:
1206:
1196:
1130:
1095:
1012:
1007:
990:
984:
974:
969:
964:
958:
855:
853:
851:
850:
845:
843:
829:
827:
825:
824:
819:
817:
767:
742:
632:
620:
613:
601:
600:
597:
594:
591:
590:Images and Media
574:
567:
566:
561:
553:Images and Media
549:
542:
530:
529:
526:
523:
520:
503:
496:
495:
490:
478:
471:
446:
439:
431:
417:
416:
407:
36:Non-free content
27:
21:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1859:
1824:
1818:
1788:
1782:
1770:
1594:
1553:
1504:
1498:
1484:
1479:
1447:
1425:
1420:
1415:
1409:
1364:
1359:Non-free reduce
1356:
1340:
1324:
1292:User:Hammersoft
1276:
1236:
1232:
1194:
1190:
1128:
1093:
1010:
1005:
988:
982:
972:
967:
962:
956:
834:
833:
831:
808:
807:
805:
736:
729:
681:
648:
643:
633:redirects here.
628:
598:
595:
592:
589:
588:
555:
527:
524:
521:
518:
517:
484:
433:
432:
427:
404:
98:
97:
67:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1884:
1882:
1858:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1647:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1552:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1445:
1306:
1302:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1170:
1157:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
952:
951:
950:
938:
919:Mark Monmonier
901:incredibly bad
842:
816:
798:
745:Oscar S. Adams
728:
725:
724:
723:
680:
677:
647:
644:
635:
634:
621:
609:
608:
605:
604:
602:
575:
563:
562:
550:
538:
537:
534:
533:
531:
504:
492:
491:
479:
467:
466:
447:
435:
434:
425:
423:
422:
419:
418:
100:
99:
96:
95:
88:
83:
74:
68:
66:
65:
54:
45:
44:
41:
40:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1883:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1856:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1823:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1787:
1780:
1774:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1695:
1692:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1550:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1503:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1487:
1482:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1451:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1423:
1414:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1360:
1354:
1350:
1347:templates on
1344:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1273:
1269:
1264:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1016:
1013:
1008:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
994:
987:
980:
979:
978:
975:
970:
961:
953:
949:
946:
943:
939:
937:
934:
931:
927:
924:
920:
915:
911:
907:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
867:
866:
865:
862:
859:
803:
799:
797:
794:
791:
786:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
771:
763:
759:
755:
751:
746:
740:
734:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
694:
690:
689:Melania Trump
686:
685:Amalija Knavs
678:
676:
675:
671:
667:
662:
658:
653:
645:
642:
631:
626:
622:
619:
615:
614:
603:
586:
585:
580:
576:
573:
569:
568:
564:
559:
554:
551:
548:
544:
532:
515:
514:
509:
505:
502:
498:
497:
493:
488:
483:
480:
477:
473:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
441:
440:
421:
420:
415:
411:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
108:
106:
102:
101:
93:
89:
87:
84:
82:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
63:
59:
58:Learn to edit
55:
52:
47:
46:
43:
42:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1860:
1778:
1777:Do you know
1638:
1554:
1473:
1455:
1309:
1108:
1043:
900:
730:
682:
649:
582:
511:
409:
103:
30:This is the
1335:David Fuchs
1231:copyrights.
1167:Ansel Adams
758:WP:IMAGERES
683:Given that
463:don't panic
1660:c:COM:FAIR
1531:Hammersoft
1495:WP:NFCC#3b
1327:Hammersoft
1169:'s estate.
1062:Hammersoft
1030:Hammersoft
652:WP:NFC#UUI
650:Item 9 of
639:See also:
625:centralise
1733:Cullen328
1715:Marchjuly
1676:Marchjuly
1664:WP:NFCC#4
1618:Cullen328
1577:Marchjuly
1561:WP:NFCC#4
1485:(discuss)
1437:jacobolus
1426:(discuss)
1381:Marchjuly
1367:Jacobolus
1314:jacobolus
1268:jacobolus
1220:jacobolus
1178:jacobolus
1114:jacobolus
1049:jacobolus
1011:(discuss)
993:jacobolus
973:(discuss)
942:jacobolus
930:jacobolus
923:jacobolus
883:Marchjuly
858:jacobolus
790:jacobolus
774:Marchjuly
698:Marchjuly
666:Marchjuly
94:if needed
77:Be polite
32:talk page
1864:Gymrat16
1829:jlwoodwa
1793:jlwoodwa
1569:WP:FREER
1509:jlwoodwa
1480:Hawkeye7
1460:jlwoodwa
1450:Hawkeye7
1421:Hawkeye7
1371:Hawkeye7
1305:people).
1153:fair use
1006:Hawkeye7
968:Hawkeye7
766:|reason=
713:TJMSmith
623:To help
584:inactive
558:inactive
519:Fair use
513:inactive
487:inactive
482:Fair use
105:Archives
62:get help
1807:Bubba73
1773:Bubba73
1763:Bubba73
1691:Bubba73
1672:WP:NFCC
1651:Bubba73
1641:Bubba73
1396:Feoffer
1375:Feoffer
1373:, and
1333:, and
1272:WP:NFCC
1077:Feoffer
1025:WP:NFCC
410:14 days
1815:WP:VRT
1474:gratis
899:is an
461:, and
451:policy
1779:which
1674:. --
1573:WP:F7
1559:meet
1331:Masem
90:Seek
38:page.
1868:talk
1833:talk
1797:talk
1737:talk
1719:talk
1680:talk
1622:talk
1595:asem
1581:talk
1535:talk
1513:talk
1464:talk
1456:free
1400:talk
1385:talk
1351:and
1296:talk
1237:asem
1195:asem
1129:asem
1109:text
1094:asem
1081:talk
1066:talk
1034:talk
887:talk
830:and
778:talk
752:and
717:talk
702:talk
670:talk
659:and
79:and
1666:is
1440:(t)
1317:(t)
1223:(t)
1181:(t)
1117:(t)
1052:(t)
996:(t)
945:(t)
933:(t)
926:(t)
861:(t)
793:(t)
1870:)
1835:)
1825:}}
1819:{{
1799:)
1789:}}
1783:{{
1739:)
1721:)
1682:)
1624:)
1602:)
1583:)
1537:)
1515:)
1505:}}
1499:{{
1466:)
1416:}}
1410:{{
1402:)
1387:)
1369:,
1363:?
1361:}}
1357:{{
1345:}}
1341:{{
1329:,
1298:)
1290:--
1244:)
1233:—
1202:)
1191:—
1136:)
1101:)
1083:)
1068:)
1036:)
1028:--
989:}}
983:{{
963:}}
957:{{
889:)
780:)
741:}}
737:{{
719:)
704:)
672:)
408::
402:74
400:,
398:73
396:,
394:72
392:,
390:71
388:,
386:70
384:,
382:69
380:,
378:68
376:,
374:67
372:,
370:66
368:,
366:65
364:,
362:64
360:,
358:63
356:,
354:62
352:,
350:61
348:,
346:60
344:,
342:59
340:,
338:58
336:,
334:57
332:,
330:56
328:,
326:55
324:,
322:54
320:,
318:53
316:,
314:52
312:,
310:51
308:,
306:50
304:,
302:49
300:,
298:48
296:,
294:47
292:,
290:46
288:,
286:45
284:,
282:44
280:,
278:43
276:,
274:42
272:,
270:41
268:,
266:40
264:,
262:39
260:,
258:38
256:,
254:37
252:,
250:36
248:,
246:35
244:,
242:34
240:,
238:33
236:,
234:32
232:,
230:31
228:,
226:30
224:,
222:29
220:,
218:28
216:,
214:27
212:,
210:26
208:,
206:25
204:,
202:24
200:,
198:23
196:,
194:22
192:,
190:21
188:,
186:20
184:,
182:19
180:,
178:18
176:,
174:17
172:,
170:16
168:,
166:15
164:,
162:14
160:,
158:13
156:,
154:12
152:,
150:11
148:,
146:10
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
124:,
120:,
116:,
112:,
60:;
1866:(
1831:(
1795:(
1775::
1771:@
1735:(
1717:(
1678:(
1620:(
1600:t
1598:(
1593:M
1579:(
1533:(
1511:(
1462:(
1452::
1448:@
1435:–
1398:(
1383:(
1377::
1365:@
1337::
1325:@
1294:(
1242:t
1240:(
1235:M
1200:t
1198:(
1193:M
1134:t
1132:(
1127:M
1099:t
1097:(
1092:M
1079:(
1064:(
1032:(
928:–
885:(
854:
841:R
832:
828:
815:C
806:
776:(
715:(
700:(
668:(
587:.
560:)
556:(
516:.
489:)
485:(
465:.
142:9
138:8
134:7
130:6
126:5
122:4
118:3
114:2
110:1
107::
64:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.