Knowledge (XXG) talk:Images/Archive 1

375:

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? :)

319:

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. -

221:(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).) -- 31: 158:, 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. - 663:

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.

1643:

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

1088:

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

951:

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

707:

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

694:

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

450:

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

374:

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,

2293:

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

2239:

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

1600:

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

1502:

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

644:

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

363:

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

217:

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

197:

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

1872:

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

1116:

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

458:

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...

318:

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

1811:

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.

166:

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

142:

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

1758:

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

394:

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

338:

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

676:

And, as I noted above, there are many examples&mdashbird guides being one—whose 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

240:

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

236:

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

1103:

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

1581:

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

342:

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

1887:

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

662:

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,

1618:

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

2514:

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. --

1503:

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.

2444:. 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. 218:

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.

470:

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

2128:- 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? -- 2343:

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).

877:

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,

351:

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.

335:). 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). 1993:, 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 778:

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?

2362:

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?

563:

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. -

422:

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.

2590:

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

1108:. 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. 608:

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

451:

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

466:

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.

1291:

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.

2236:- 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. 1590:, 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. 1658:

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

309:

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.

966:

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:

213:

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

719:

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. —

2635:

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,

84:

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

1515:

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

1323:. 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. 2212:

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

1638:

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

1452:

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. --

2619:). 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 902:

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?

740:(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)? 442:

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.

493:'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?' 498:

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.

1644:

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.--

439:

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.

2381:

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. --

1374:

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.

797:, 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 1674:. 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. -- 945:

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.

2543:

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".

513:'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?' 2076:

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... --

1837:

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. --

241:

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"? -

681:

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...)

630:

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

1288:

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?

708:

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. -

459:

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...

1326:

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. :-) --

134:. 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. - 528:'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 - ' 1435:

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)?

2217:

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.

1043:

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.

250:

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)

1359:. 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 653:

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.

475:

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

2318: 1593:

Also, certain images go slightly overboard in their beautification of national landmarks, as in the image of the perfectly illuminated Eiffel Tower in the

275:

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.

1117:

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. --

890:

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.

1203:

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? :-) --

1315:

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

2313: 1601:

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.

463:. 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? 364:

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. -

952:

feature would be cool (and reduce disk usage), something like ]. But a automatic upload to Commons, like suggested above, might be even better.

941:

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

533:'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.' 2608: 2586:

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

2529:

The Philadelphia Department of Records just did an incredible thing and digitized the city's photo archives and made them available online:

1997:

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? —

1755: 2220:

The web has supported content specification (the Content-Type: http header) since the beginning. What this means is that if you have say

1118: 254:

like original research in that they are usually beyond our ability to verify, and should be excluded as we exclude original research. --

1914: 923:

Could I somehow use it without downloading it and than uploading to english part of wiki????? Otherwise sound like waste of resourses.

427:

I thought it was because a drawing can include only those features that the illustrator wants to call attention to and exclude others.

76: 71: 66: 2596: 1133: 2272: 1484: 1417: 1586:

presents images of an alive and mirthful populace, without any images of the starvation or drought that run rampant there. Also,

327:

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.

2303: 2290: 1181: 645:

should use common sense - does the image depict the concept of the article well? If yes, use. If no, discard. </rambling: -->

2600: 1273: 1136: 833: 800: 794: 2537:

Can I get someone to clarify the license? They're selling reprints, but it looks like they don't mind low res redistribution:

2511: 2308: 1302:

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. --

2612: 899: 2240:

could be called by Dog -- but this is a one-off problem, easily resolved in a cleanup of the few collisions that result.)

2257:

To illustrate a television character, which is preferable: a fair use photograph, or an interpretive illustration? --

627:

There should be a hierarchy of images used, based on type and quality, and other characteristics I haven't come up with.

2592: 1263:

Copy the image to My Pictures, go to the Commons, and upload it there. Ask an admin to delete the Knowledge (XXG) copy--

2066:

OK, this was absoultely no help. I've got images on Knowledge (XXG) Commons I want to move into an article. How do I?

1703:

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.--

1341:

What would be a good program to use to edit images? Do they have to output in .png format? Can I use Windows Paint?

975:

The map tag would take three parameters. The shape (rect, circle, poly), the coordinates, and the article to link to.

1956: 1319:

the case. As for the fair-use screenshot, I think the claim is dubious, and doubly so given the tenuous nature of all

2178:

Because Knowledge (XXG) must remain free for both commercian and non-commercial reuse. The issue here is similar to

264:

LOL, at the risk of arousing Angela's ire -- she just now told me to stay away from "conflict pages" for a while...

38: 2353:

The defacto standard is that the "Download high-resolution version" notice should not appear on "fair use" images.

2018: 1990: 1807:, there are some cases where that is permissible. However, these are rather limited; for the most part, fair use 1185: 178:

I think using an external link is best until something that's usable internally presents itself. (See for example

2616: 1239:, and then make sure all the image includes are pointing to one image (the one not being tagged for deletion). -- 1197: 853:

How do I display (not link) to images in other Knowledge (XXG)'s; I'm trying to do it in the Reaction section of

1960: 1689:

What happens if there's a promotional image of a show that was cancelled, so no official source can be found? --

1193: 523:'And is that why you would put tables and chairs upon them, and have people walking over them with heavy boots?' 2489: 2386: 2334:

There's no standard or anything in place. Just use your best judgment. I agree the image should be lower res.--

1922: 2298: 1236: 47: 17: 2040:

I applaud your efforts... but IMO, it's a great stretch to consider something like that to be anything but a

198:

uploaded some of the copyrighted image to the talk - but only the ones that supported his view of things.) -

1189: 724: 695:

of policy or recommendation on the subject that I simply haven't been able to find? Anyone else think there

646: 2139: 2109: 1976:(I changed ref to be a link and not the image). Isn't that a copyrighted image from Lucas and friends? -- 1351:

Windows Paint works quite well, although the serious image-makers among us would recommend something like

2382: 1469: 1222: 2161: 2143: 2017:

logo and attempted to distribute it as free license you might have a problem. You might want to ask at

1935: 1904: 1468:

Are Creative Commons images under non-commericl and non-derivative images allowed on Knowledge (XXG)? --

1218: 953: 879: 2496:, to use the image on Knowledge (XXG). Could someone instruct me as to what I need to do here exactly? 2179: 2044:. And unfortunately, derivative works are protected by copyright just as much as outright copies. -- 1918: 1804: 1534: 1320: 287:

Silly Ed. Perhaps I'll tie you to a chair so we can finally get a Yeti image! <ducks and covers: -->

1064:, or direct me to a suitable forum where that question can be answered? I would be quite grateful. -- 2089:

The same as with the first image on your userpage (Apollo 11 first step), that’s a common’s picture (

2001: 1998: 1967: 1964: 1851: 1000: 237:

presentation of the image, not the image's content - unless one were to upload an entirely new image.

2562: 104:

no real images -- photographs, drawings taken from first-hand experience -- are available. What the

2587: 1602: 1544: 1269: 1018: 840: 741: 732: 1671: 1387:

If you are looking for a free powerfull graphics package there is an open source one called GIMP

613:

as much as the next man, but you'll have to draw me a sketch if the subject won't hold still... --

2421:

Download, re-upload under the new name, put {{duplicate|"new name"}} on the old one (and list on

2412: 1816: 1553: 1171: 1078: 908: 700: 668: 428: 380: 154:

I think sketches should be a last resort, although they are sometimes appropriate; an example is

1793:

So I can't take a book a few years old and put a picture here for reference or an explanation?--

1620: 1077:

but I can't it just looks like a link. Do I have to register at the Wiki Commmons? Please help!

1026:

If images aren't categorized then how is one supposed to know what all is available to them. --

538:'You are not, Cecilia Jupe,' Thomas Gradgrind solemnly repeated, 'to do anything of that kind.' 1379: 928: 760: 90: 2122: 1612: 641:. Then you'd have professional sketches, and then finally amateur ones made by Wikipedians. 2644: 2459: 2426: 2093: 1926: 1794: 946: 869:

I'd like to know how to do this too, in my case from the german version of the same artical

861: 825: 818: 811: 804: 2422: 1660: 543:'Fact, fact, fact!' said the gentleman. And 'Fact, fact, fact!' repeated Thomas Gradgrind. 2604: 2493: 2364: 2345: 2325: 2276: 2241: 2067: 2041: 1704: 1645: 1565: 1517: 1132:

Just wondering if there was a way to link images to articles rather than the image page.--

992: 780: 729: 709: 610: 311: 183: 159: 2455: 1311:

Here's my two cents: In the case of the Navy image, that should be in the public domain

1058: 100:

I would say, use artist's impressions only if they match available descriptions closely

2646: 2572: 2552: 2519: 2500: 2471: 2468: 2462: 2454:

I don’t think Image policy applies here, they are external links, so can be treated as

2448: 2445: 2429: 2415: 2390: 2376: 2367: 2357: 2348: 2338: 2328: 2279: 2261: 2244: 2195: 2186: 2171: 2146: 2129: 2096: 2080: 2070: 2048: 2022: 2004: 1977: 1970: 1952: 1938: 1929: 1907: 1903:

Am I allowed to upload an image of a video game taken via print screen under the GDFL?

1892: 1874: 1861: 1841: 1826: 1797: 1787: 1765: 1760: 1743: 1721: 1707: 1693: 1678: 1648: 1627: 1605: 1568: 1557: 1547: 1537: 1520: 1507: 1491: 1477: 1457: 1446: 1424: 1410: 1391: 1388: 1367: 1345: 1330: 1306: 1296: 1278: 1264: 1258: 1255: 1243: 1229: 1207: 1174: 1121: 1093: 1068: 1065: 1047: 1030: 1021: 1014: 1007: 1003:

whether images should be put in categories along articles, now that we have Commons. --

982: 956: 942: 935: 913: 843: 837: 783: 744: 182:-there's got to be a PD picture of him as president somewhere but I can't find one.) - 147: 116: 1654:

There is no such policy requiring notification of the creator. After all, you aren't

1552:

You would probably need to capture the video via a computer with an anolog-compatible

1013:

I would think generally not, but what about non-free images that can't go in Commons?

112:

bones, and drawings that were based on a first-hand look at those bones, available. --

2620: 2549: 2532: 2335: 1989:

I made that image using MS-paint, and it is based on the logo of the Rebel Alliance (

1780: 1560:. Then, ideally, run a de-interlace filter on the resulting image such as the one in 1504: 1342: 1303: 1293: 1254:

How do I move an image uploaded to Knowledge (XXG) (or sister project) to Commons? --

1240: 1105: 1061: 904: 767: 682: 664: 654: 592: 565: 483: 396: 376: 365: 320: 289: 242: 199: 179: 168: 143:

disagreement, it's better to find a third-party image on which everyone can agree. --

135: 94: 503:'Girl number twenty,' said the gentleman, smiling in the calm strength of knowledge. 2569: 2541:

If I want to use an image found on PhillyHistory.org, to whom should I give credit?

2516: 2258: 2183: 2077: 2045: 1889: 1858: 1823: 1784: 1740: 1718: 1675: 1624: 1488: 1454: 1436: 1421: 1375: 1364: 1327: 1204: 1090: 614: 300: 280: 109: 2191:

Down stream ? surely wiki doesn't allow people to make a profit from our efforts (

1713:

Does wikipedia support clicking on an image that will take you to another website?

1313:

provided that it is really an unretouched duplicate of the original Navy handbook.

1556:, then export a frame from the captured video using a video editing program like 1403: 2638: 2441: 2192: 2182:; while Knowledge (XXG) itself is not commercial, many downstream users are. -- 2168: 2112:

was deleted and try as I might, I cannot find any log or history of the image.

2090: 1226: 1044: 979: 858: 343:

illustrate an article, and I certainly won't be doing it again. </ramble: -->

328: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

591:

The point is... sometimes it's OK to have pictures of things that aren't real.

1690: 1664: 1640: 1474: 1027: 1004: 996: 932: 854: 721: 418:

There is, or was, longstanding tradition in biology that drawings are usually

353: 344: 255: 222: 2627:

that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to

2485: 2373: 2354: 2228:

will return that very image. (Similarly, if there's a file called bar.html,

2014: 1838: 1561: 1407: 1360: 635: 272: 144: 113: 86: 832: 799: 2497: 2294:

a lower resolution (I think it should be). Compare all five images here:

1583: 1356: 638: 2273:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?

1619:"commonplace" but informative pictures; perhaps someone should write an 1587: 1485:

Knowledge (XXG):Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses

1418:

Knowledge (XXG):Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses

631: 460: 1731:

I want to know the best way to get images from video games that I own

1192:. For a commonsense change like this, you might post a note on the 1089:

right below the image, a short description of what is in the image.

299:

Your comment is abominable. If I were a man, I'd resent that! ;-) --

1779:

With a scanner... but only if the image is old enough to be in the

1759:

there a reason for the current method? Is it difficult to change?

518:'If you please, sir, I am very fond of flowers,' returned the girl. 1594: 1543:

It's probably not feasible without some sort of special equipment

332: 2271:

Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at

2221: 1352: 1074: 391:

Ew! Please no thanks! I don't need to see someone's cup! *grins*

268: 155: 105: 1951:

Is it possible to create images representing logos such as the

108:

looks like is anyone's guess, but there are photographs of the

2233: 2010: 1667:) requires more input from the general community of Wikipedes. 25: 2492:. I have permission via e-mail by the creator of the image, 2425:), change all links coming in on the old to the new name. -- 2120:

shows nothing. Of course clicking on a deleted image link (

1736: 2225: 764: 2510:

I've posted a specific disagreement over image choice at

2229: 1159:

How would one edit that so that they say the following?:

278:

I hope this settles the question <chuckle, smirk: -->

2632: 2628: 2624: 2117: 2113: 1225:

are the same pictures - how can I propose a "merge"? --

1883:

I don't think so. The reason is that image and media

1284:

Public or fair-use images from websites of 3rd parties

2411:

How does one rename (or move) an image? Thanks. --

2372:

yes. I don't know exactly what that size is though.

2275:. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. 1812:

After uploading, such images should be labeled with

2157:Can someone explain why non commercial images such 1533:Does anyone know how to make images from a VHS? -- 2533:http://www.phillyhistory.org/PhotoArchive/FAQ.aspx 2324:Any advice on how to standardise the resolutions? 1959:logo, and release them under a free license? (see 978:I can't see this being difficult to implement. -- 1775:What's the best way to get an image from a book? 1672:Knowledge (XXG):Images#Image_choice_and_placement 836:. Is this helpful or hurtful to Knowledge (XXG)? 2440:I am working on trying to cleanup an article on 1404:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ 1104:explain what the rules are. It was a cover of 126:, I come into disagreement with the artist on 8: 2319:Image:An evening in rivendell albumcover.jpg 1402:Can Flickr images with this license be use? 1073:Hey! I need help, I want to put an image on 2267:Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons 759:How should this page be updated to reflect 1464:Non-commercial & non-derivative images 1184:. As such, they can only be edited by an 919:Image from different language wiki article 793:Ok, I am having a problem with images. On 2631:of one of the images, this user promptly 2488:that I would like to put in the article, 2314:Image:A Night In Rivendell Albumcover.jpg 2309:Image:At Dawn In Rivendell Albumcover.jpg 2121: 824: 817: 810: 803: 2208:Question about image filename extensions 2285:Hi-res versus low-res - fair use images 1623:to encourage a different approach. -- 479:preceding generations of the drawing. 1663:if you think this specific matter (in 1075:http://en.wikipedia.org/Andean_Tinamou 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2623:working on image categorisation that 1756:Image:Hand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg 1685:Promotional images of cancelled shows 1180:All such system messages are part of 7: 2633:created a page for the Commons image 1717:I would like this for my user page. 931:. Then every language can use it. -- 2289:Orphan Bot kindly pointed out that 1337:recommended image editing programs? 1196:and also on the message talk page, 1147:Many image pages contain the words 1057:Can someone either tell me if this 624:In my somewhat-arrogant opinion... 2512:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Taxobox usage 1634:Permission before replacing images 482:Just my ... well, lets say $ 0.09 167:unique version for the article? - 24: 2304:Image:Leaving Rivendell cover.png 2291:Image:Leaving Rivendell cover.png 1670:For your other question, consult 1188:. This particular message is at 900:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Drugs 395:GFDL allowed images available? - 267:I think a recent photograph of a 2009:I would think if you redrew the 1165:Download high-resolution version 1153:Download high resolution version 831: 798: 29: 2486:an image at the Psychology Wiki 2436:Image Links to external sources 1947:Question about self-made images 1060:image falls under fair use for 795:Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet 2134:12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 1879:14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1722:21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1708:16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1694:01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 1119:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 914:20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 2520:18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 2501:15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 2472:13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2463:12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2449:12:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2430:12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2222:http://www.foo.com/image.jpeg 2172:22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 2147:15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2097:10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2081:10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2071:06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2049:05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2027:01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2019:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use 2005:23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1991:image:Rebel_Alliance_logo.png 1982:23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1971:22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1939:23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1930:09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1908:01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 1893:05:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1862:05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1842:19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1679:17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1628:17:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1492:17:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1458:17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1425:17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1368:17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1331:17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1208:17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1122:15:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1022:09:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 927:Download it and upload it to 634:, you get an image from some 455:that's different, of course. 2579:Commons media categorisation 2469:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2446:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2416:16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 2391:14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 2377:18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2368:17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2358:15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2349:14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2339:14:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2329:12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2280:13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 2262:17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 1873:in the file links section? 1827:07:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 1798:04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 1788:03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 1766:20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 1744:17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 1392:20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1382:, 16 October 2006 @12:01 UTC 1250:FAQ - move image to commons? 1194:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump 1094:21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 1069:11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 1048:11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1008:03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 983:15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 957:23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 936:03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 508:Sissy blushed, and stood up. 124:match available descriptions 2245:15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2234:http://www.foo.com/bar.html 2196:23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 2187:23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 1961:Image:RebelAllianceLogo.png 1649:08:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1569:08:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1521:08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1198:MediaWiki talk:Showbigimage 1134:Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 1031:07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Images 2662: 2647:05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 2553:19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 1750:Why Are Reversions So Easy 1259:02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 1244:16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1175:04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 1112:Time magazine covers redux 1039:Image choice and placement 122:Thanks Mirv. When you say 2299:Image:Tolkienensemble.jpg 1606:03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 1548:19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 1538:20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 1508:19:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 1478:15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 1447:01:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1307:10:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1230:22:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1137:23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC) 866:05:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) 745:04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 703:03:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2607:) so as to populate the 2573:16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2490:Tree of Knowledge System 2480:Need help with ToK image 2253:Fair use vs illustration 2232:will return the same as 2226:http://www.foo.com/image 1923:Template:Game-screenshot 1919:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use 1805:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use 1737:http://images.google.com 1699:Putting Image In Article 1416:No, not as a rule. See 1411:23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 1346:22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 1297:12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1237:Template:Redundant image 1235:You can tag it with the 1084:Functions of Image Pages 882:3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC) 844:23:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC) 770:04:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) 737:07:26, 2005 May 7 (UTC) 712:12:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) 649:00:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) 486:21:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 437:Field Guide to the Birds 411:In my arrogant opinion: 383:20:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 347:20:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 314:20:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 283:17:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 225:20:28, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)~ 162:16:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 138:16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 119:16:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 97:16:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2611:of categories created ( 2167:arent allowed on wiki ( 1913:Would have to be under 1483:No, not as a rule. See 1279:06:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1053:Help with image sources 784:01:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC) 685:03:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) 679:The Wall Street Journal 671:02:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) 657:02:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) 617:19:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 595:18:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 568:01:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 431:02:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 399:01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 368:01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 356:21:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 323:01:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 303:17:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 292:01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 258:04:26, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC) 245:01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 202:01:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 186:17:41, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 171:17:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 150:16:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2230:http://www.foo.com/bar 1888:description page. -- 1577:Implicit POV in images 1190:MediaWiki:Showbigimage 473:crediting the original 446:Mediocre drawings are 132:available descriptions 2110:Image:Bright_Icon.svg 1582:example, the article 988:Categories for images 690:Signing original work 414:Drawings as such are 42:of past discussions. 2124:File:Bright Icon.svg 1833:Type of project page 1223:Image:Meximullet.jpg 1099:Time magazine covers 2138:It was on Commons: 1963:for an example). — 1219:Image:Dorantes2.jpg 1182:MediaWiki namespace 827:File:Tng fc pip.PNG 820:File:Tng fc pip.PNG 813:File:Tng fc pip.PNG 806:File:Tng fc pip.PNG 1915:fair use rationale 1554:video capture card 2525:Phillyhistory.org 1754:I was looking at 1727:Video game images 1444: 1277: 929:Wikimedia Commons 911: 873:Unverified images 761:Wikimedia Commons 93:for instance.) - 91:talk:paranthropus 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2653: 2641: 2567: 2561: 2224:, a request for 2166: 2160: 2132: 2127: 2125: 2025: 1980: 1877: 1856: 1850: 1821: 1815: 1763: 1472: 1443: 1440: 1267: 947:user:Andy_Christ 909: 880:Klemen Kocjancic 849:Interwiki images 835: 830: 828: 823: 821: 816: 814: 809: 807: 802: 735: 727: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2639: 2581: 2565: 2559: 2527: 2508: 2506:Choosing images 2494:Gregg Henriques 2482: 2438: 2409: 2407:Renaming images 2287: 2269: 2255: 2210: 2164: 2158: 2155: 2130: 2123: 2116:shows nothing, 2107: 2064: 2042:derivative work 2023: 1978: 1957:Galactic Empire 1949: 1901: 1899:Making an image 1875: 1870: 1868:What Links Here 1854: 1848: 1835: 1819: 1813: 1773: 1761: 1752: 1729: 1715: 1701: 1687: 1636: 1579: 1531: 1500: 1470: 1466: 1441: 1433: 1400: 1339: 1321:fair use claims 1286: 1252: 1216: 1214:Twice the image 1145: 1129: 1114: 1101: 1086: 1055: 1041: 993:User:Rhollenton 990: 973: 964: 921: 896: 888: 875: 851: 826: 819: 812: 805: 791: 776: 774:policy question 757: 733: 725: 692: 611:social security 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2659: 2657: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2526: 2523: 2507: 2504: 2484:Hello. I have 2481: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2437: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2322: 2321: 2316: 2311: 2306: 2301: 2286: 2283: 2268: 2265: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2154: 2153:Non Commerical 2151: 2150: 2149: 2106: 2105:Deleted Images 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2084: 2083: 2063: 2060: 2058: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 1984: 1983: 1953:Rebel Alliance 1948: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1900: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1791: 1790: 1772: 1769: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1728: 1725: 1714: 1711: 1700: 1697: 1686: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1668: 1635: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1603:AdamBiswanger1 1578: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1558:Adobe Premiere 1545:AdamBiswanger1 1530: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1432: 1431:Editing images 1429: 1428: 1427: 1420:. Cheers, -- 1399: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1384: 1383: 1371: 1370: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1324: 1309: 1285: 1282: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1201: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1128: 1125: 1113: 1110: 1100: 1097: 1085: 1082: 1054: 1051: 1040: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 989: 986: 969: 963: 960: 943:Daihatsu Hijet 939: 938: 920: 917: 895: 892: 887: 884: 874: 871: 850: 847: 790: 787: 775: 772: 756: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 742:AdamBiswanger1 714: 713: 691: 688: 687: 686: 673: 672: 659: 658: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 555: 553: 552: 551: 550: 540: 539: 535: 534: 530: 529: 525: 524: 520: 519: 515: 514: 510: 509: 505: 504: 500: 499: 495: 494: 433: 432: 409: 407: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 392: 372: 371: 370: 369: 358: 357: 325: 324: 307: 306: 305: 304: 294: 293: 262: 261: 260: 259: 248: 247: 246: 238: 229: 228: 227: 226: 219: 215: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 190: 189: 188: 187: 173: 172: 152: 151: 80: 79: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2658: 2649: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2642: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2584: 2578: 2574: 2571: 2564: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2524: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2513: 2505: 2503: 2502: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2479: 2473: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2443: 2435: 2431: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2414: 2413:ArglebargleIV 2406: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2347: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2327: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2310: 2307: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2284: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2274: 2266: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2252: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2237: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2218: 2216: 2207: 2205: 2197: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2163: 2152: 2148: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2133: 2126: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2104: 2098: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2069: 2061: 2059: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2026: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1996: 1995:modeled after 1992: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1955:logo and the 1954: 1946: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1878: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1853: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1818: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1781:public domain 1778: 1777: 1776: 1770: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1757: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1726: 1724: 1723: 1720: 1712: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1698: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1642: 1633: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1604: 1598: 1596: 1591: 1589: 1585: 1576: 1570: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1528: 1522: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1497: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1476: 1473: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1439: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1405: 1398:Flickr images 1397: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1308: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1289: 1283: 1281: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186:administrator 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1172:Michael Hardy 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1124: 1123: 1120: 1111: 1109: 1107: 1106:Glenn Curtiss 1098: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1083: 1081: 1080: 1079:Mitternacht90 1076: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1052: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1038: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 987: 985: 984: 981: 976: 972: 968: 961: 959: 958: 955: 954:82.238.95.176 949: 948: 944: 937: 934: 930: 926: 925: 924: 918: 916: 915: 912: 906: 901: 893: 891: 885: 883: 881: 872: 870: 867: 865: 864: 860: 856: 848: 846: 845: 842: 839: 834: 829: 822: 815: 808: 801: 796: 788: 786: 785: 782: 773: 771: 769: 765: 762: 754: 746: 743: 739: 738: 736: 731: 728: 723: 718: 717: 716: 715: 711: 706: 705: 704: 702: 698: 689: 684: 680: 675: 674: 670: 666: 661: 660: 656: 652: 651: 650: 648: 642: 640: 637: 633: 628: 625: 616: 612: 607: 606: 605: 604: 594: 590: 587:You wanted a 586: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 567: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 549: 545: 544: 542: 541: 537: 536: 532: 531: 527: 526: 522: 521: 517: 516: 512: 511: 507: 506: 502: 501: 497: 496: 492: 491: 490: 487: 485: 480: 478: 474: 468: 464: 462: 456: 454: 449: 444: 440: 438: 430: 429:Michael Hardy 426: 425: 424: 421: 417: 412: 408: 398: 393: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 382: 378: 367: 362: 361: 360: 359: 355: 350: 349: 348: 346: 340: 336: 334: 330: 322: 317: 316: 315: 313: 302: 298: 297: 296: 295: 291: 286: 285: 284: 282: 276: 274: 270: 265: 257: 253: 249: 244: 239: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 224: 220: 216: 212: 211: 210: 209: 201: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 185: 181: 180:Albert Lebrun 177: 176: 175: 174: 170: 165: 164: 163: 161: 157: 149: 146: 141: 140: 139: 137: 133: 129: 125: 120: 118: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 96: 92: 88: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2637: 2585: 2582: 2568:to me... -- 2547: 2544: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2531: 2528: 2509: 2483: 2458:describes.-- 2439: 2410: 2323: 2288: 2270: 2256: 2248: 2238: 2219: 2214: 2211: 2203: 2162:cc-by-nc-2.0 2156: 2108: 2065: 2057: 1994: 1950: 1934:Ok. Thanks. 1917:. See also: 1902: 1884: 1871: 1836: 1808: 1792: 1774: 1753: 1730: 1716: 1702: 1688: 1655: 1637: 1615: 1599: 1592: 1580: 1535:67.81.199.59 1532: 1501: 1467: 1437: 1434: 1401: 1340: 1316: 1312: 1290: 1287: 1262: 1253: 1217: 1170: 1158: 1146: 1115: 1102: 1087: 1072: 1062:Chef's knife 1056: 1042: 991: 977: 974: 970: 965: 950: 940: 922: 897: 889: 886:Source files 876: 868: 862: 852: 792: 777: 758: 696: 693: 678: 643: 629: 626: 623: 588: 584: 554: 547: 488: 481: 476: 472: 469: 465: 457: 452: 447: 445: 441: 436: 434: 419: 415: 413: 410: 406: 373: 341: 337: 326: 308: 277: 266: 263: 251: 153: 145:No-One Jones 131: 127: 123: 121: 114:No-One Jones 110:paranthropus 101: 99: 83: 60: 43: 37: 2625:recommended 2558:Seems like 2460:Van helsing 2442:Bully Kutta 2427:Van helsing 2144:Mike Dillon 2140:commons log 2094:Van helsing 1927:Van helsing 1852:Descriptive 1795:Herb-Sewell 1516:graphics.-- 1498:Image types 1015:··gracefool 841:(Sound Off) 453:inaccurate, 435:Peterson's 339:wonders). 329:muskellunge 214:agreements. 36:This is an 2365:Carcharoth 2346:Carcharoth 2326:Carcharoth 2277:Carcharoth 2242:Lloyd Wood 2068:Trekphiler 1857:to me. -- 1762:*Sparkhead 1705:Stlbabe 53 1665:Paper mill 1646:Daveswagon 1641:paper mill 1566:Daveswagon 1529:Image help 1518:Daveswagon 999:have been 962:Image maps 855:Anna Lindh 781:Kingturtle 710:Pioneer-12 548:Hard Times 546:—Dickens, 184:Hephaestos 160:Hephaestos 2609:hierarchy 2062:Bad move? 2015:Microsoft 1999:Canderous 1965:Canderous 1817:bookcover 1597:article. 1562:Photoshop 1389:Back ache 1361:IrfanView 1265:M Johnson 1256:Stbalbach 838:Zscout370 789:Image Use 636:Dark Ages 420:preferred 273:sasquatch 87:talk:yeti 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2629:deletion 2621:an admin 2550:ccwaters 2548:Thanks. 2467:Thanks! 2383:Fritz S. 2180:fair use 1936:-- VGF11 1905:-- VGF11 1656:deleting 1611:I think 1584:Ethiopia 1505:Wjhonson 1357:Sodipodi 1343:Ideogram 1304:Howdybob 1294:Howdybob 1274:contribs 1241:Andrew c 1143:Editing? 1001:debating 894:Renaming 768:Hyacinth 683:Dpbsmith 677:doesn't 665:fabiform 655:Dpbsmith 639:tapestry 615:Uncle Ed 593:Dpbsmith 583:Oh. The 566:UtherSRG 484:Dpbsmith 397:UtherSRG 377:fabiform 366:UtherSRG 321:UtherSRG 301:Uncle Ed 290:UtherSRG 281:Uncle Ed 243:UtherSRG 200:UtherSRG 169:UtherSRG 136:UtherSRG 95:UtherSRG 2588:linking 2583:Hello, 2570:Visviva 2259:Zanimum 2184:Visviva 2131:*Spark* 2118:history 2078:Visviva 2046:Visviva 2024:*Spark* 1979:*Spark* 1890:Visviva 1876:*Spark* 1859:Visviva 1824:Visviva 1785:Visviva 1741:Zanimum 1719:Mjk2357 1676:Visviva 1625:Visviva 1613:WP:NPOV 1588:Kolkata 1489:Visviva 1455:Visviva 1422:Visviva 1365:Visviva 1328:Visviva 1205:Visviva 1127:Linking 1091:Rtdrury 755:Commons 632:Unicorn 489:P. S. 461:Unicorn 39:archive 2640:Tewfik 2423:WP:IFD 2193:Gnevin 2169:Gnevin 1921:& 1847:Seems 1822:. -- 1803:Under 1661:WP:RfC 1487:. -- 1376:Gordon 1363:. -- 1227:Abdull 1045:Durova 980:Thoric 699:be? -- 697:should 589:point. 585:point. 148:(talk) 117:(talk) 2563:cc-by 2456:WP:EL 2092:). -- 1885:files 1783:. -- 1771:Books 1691:DrBat 1621:essay 1595:Paris 1066:Chris 1028:*Kat* 1005:Error 933:Error 722:Xiong 416:fine. 354:Hadal 345:Hadal 333:cobia 256:Jerzy 223:Jerzy 128:match 16:< 2387:Talk 2374:Geni 2355:Geni 2336:Jeff 2215:situ 2021:. -- 2002:Ordo 1968:Ordo 1925:. -- 1839:Oden 1809:only 1739:-- 1735:Try 1475:-Day 1442:2020 1408:Dara 1380:Talk 1353:GIMP 1270:talk 1221:and 995:and 910:T@lk 857:. - 730:talk 669:talk 448:fine 381:talk 269:yeti 156:dodo 130:and 106:yeti 89:and 2498:EPM 2114:Log 2013:or 2011:IBM 1616:can 1564:.-- 1438:wic 1355:or 1292:--- 905:JFW 898:At 863:Boy 859:Roy 766:)? 701:FOo 647:PMC 477:two 312:mav 271:or 252:are 102:and 2566:}} 2560:{{ 2517:RM 2389:) 2174:) 2165:}} 2159:{{ 2142:. 1855:}} 1849:{{ 1820:}} 1814:{{ 1406:-- 1378:| 1317:is 1272:• 907:| 878:-- 667:| 379:| 331:, 310:-- 288:- 279:-- 2617:2 2615:, 2613:1 2605:4 2603:, 2601:3 2599:, 2597:2 2595:, 2593:1 2591:( 2385:( 2198:) 1471:D 1276:) 1268:( 1200:. 1019:☺ 1017:| 997:I 971:] 763:( 734:* 726:熊 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Images/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index