Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

Translate this header

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 11 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png

Latest comment: 4 days ago16 comments4 people in discussion

The permission from the person who created the cover art is at ticket:2025052010011304. However, since this might be a work for hire, I wonder if I also need to seek permission from Andy Baio to address the possibility that he owns the copyright. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The permission letter must come from the copyright owner. Nemoralis (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some significant additional context here that Baio was threatened with a lawsuit over this cover at the time, it being a derivative work of the original Miles Davis album cover: https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ Belbury (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to the one at the bottom of that blog post; accordingly, I have uploaded that as File:Kind of Bloop comparison images.png. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd I wonder what problems the ticket has that I assume caused you to delete both of the images. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prospectprospekt, no response to VRT's question. Nemoralis (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What was the question? prospectprospekt (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We cannot disclose what was privately discussed with the permission sender. If possible pease encourage them to reply or to send the permission again. Krd 06:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd, @Nemoralis: Can I least know what vital information the ticket is missing that made you ask the question? This is because I fear that you might be asking for information that is already known. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prospectprospekt, file's name or URL on Wikimedia Commons. Nemoralis (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis: That information is useless because they can't see what the files depict. At least for File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png, the given information should be sufficient; in my initial email to them, I included a link to an archived version of the original cover art on the Kind of Bloop website, and in their reply, they make it clear that they know what they are granting permission for—the original cover art is what was subject to the fair use controversy. You should be able to verify this information by looking at the ticket, which should contain both my email to them and their reply. prospectprospekt (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis Can you check if the permission sender has sent a second ticket to permissions-commons? prospectprospekt (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for late reply @Prospectprospekt. No, there is no second ticket. I will request for undeletion of the file and ask related questions in ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nemoralis ~~If the ticket contains what I think it contains, then the file does not need to be undeleted per my previous comment. If that is the case, then, instead of asking what the filename on commons is~~ Regardless of if you think a filename or commons url is needed, you should also ask 1) if the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to that depicted at https://waxy.org/random/images/weblog/kindofbloop_draw_the_line.png, 2) if they created the set of comparison images, and 3) if they signed any sort of agreement or exclusive license concerning the original Kind of Bloop album art or the set of comparison images. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC) edited 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC) edited 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I have forwarded the email I sent them and their response to VRT. These are at ticket:2025071210042515 and ticket:2025071210042499. prospectprospekt (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will take this matter to Commons:Undeletion requests rather than continue discussing it here. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Event photos of models

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments5 people in discussion

It is alleged that Commons images and x.com images share some features (subjects, event names, angles, captions, etc), that they must have been taken by the same person, and that we need to follow COM:VRT and confirm the identity via email. This concerns hundreds of pictures tagged and linked at User talk:Bject now, including File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg.

I looked into the allegation, asked some questions at User_talk:Bject#File:Trend_Girls_Photo_Session_(May_4,_2025)IMG_4472.jpg, and left with confusion and disagreement over what I think as simple facts. Or perhaps I might be missing something obvious. I hope to get a fresh perspective that will hopefully guide us to a resolution. Here is my summary of what the disagreement is:

The uploader User:Bject claims

that they are not the same pictures, although there might be similarities if they were taken from the same angle
that the uploader is not the person behind the x.com account

The tagger User:Alachuckthebuck claims

that some of them are the same pictures, and/or have exact matches
that captions match and it adds to the suspicion (that images might have been stolen)
that the x.com account and the uploader here are likely to be the same person

My opinion is that the tagger's claim is not well substantiated, at least not to the level where VRT can start working on from. I have not seen any previous publication that have pixel-level matches to Commons files listed at the talk page. Similarities in captions are very weak evidence to claim the associated images might have been stolen. I asked for links, and got only one, which didn't show an exact match in my opinion. What do you think? whym (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

At least the example of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg that was apparently matched to https://x.com/stonefree_part6/status/1921401301625196914/photo/2 is a false positive. This is easily visible on the hair patterns and the finger positions (the hair falls differently, the fingers are closer together in our upload). Stemming from my experiences as hobby photographer, I would say that these images, assuming that they were taken sequentially, were shot with maybe less than one to a few seconds in between. It's also possible that the model is proficient enough to get into the same position within a few millimetres when resuming her pose, but the wrinkles on the bikini, IMHO virtually unchanged, make a serial exposure more likely. We could discuss concise Twitter-Commons image pairs, maybe on COM:VPC, but the circumstances do not really point towards pure NETCOPYVIOs. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

When looking for NETCOPYVIOs or duplicates, it's always sensible to look for intricate details while making comparisons: hairs, scales (in animals), pavement and vegetation patterns, the form and quantity of reflections (like in eyes or windows); in short everything that is easily moved out of position by even slight movements of or in the motif or where minute angle changes of the camera change the perception of e.g. the perspective on a pavement. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The claim that the uploader is not the person behind the X account seems weird. Has anyone asked them straight out, "Is the X account using photos you took?" It's not just that it looks like an image taken seconds later (at most), but that it looks like it's taken by someone the same height and with the exact same lens, the same exposure settings, the same aperture, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I may have operated under a misunderstanding, looking for whether images are identical and nothing else. I think that it is quite obvious that the owner of the Wikimedia account "Bject" is also owner of the Twitter account "@stonefree_part6". But that is IMHO mostly irrelevant - as long as any relevant image was not published first on Twitter. Only that was my point: the Twitter image is different from the Commons upload. Furthermore, by the fact that there are quite complete EXIF available here points toward a legitimate upload (Twitter removes them, as far as I'm aware). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments. Can I conclude that while there is some doubt on the uploader's claims, there is nothing VRT should do about it for now, unless true duplicated publication outside of Commons is found?

I notified the two users using user talk page. It looks like they don't have further comment to add so far. whym (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It appears ticket:2025051610000477 is related to this discussion. Krd 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

私が投稿した画像を削除したことに不服を申し立てます。似ているだけの画像が削除され、加えてなぜ全く違う場所や投稿日のものも巻き添えなのでしょうか。I am complaining about the deletion of the image I posted. Why are images that are merely similar being deleted, and why are images from completely different locations and posting dates also being deleted?--Bject (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd Do you have any response? whym (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sadly not, but I don't even understand the question. Can you help? Krd 06:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think Bject wants you to explain the deletion of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg and other similarly-named files you speedy-deleted along with it on June 16 (and presumably, what it takes to undelete them). This is about more than 100 files deleted practically at the same time, if I recall it correctly. whym (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is ticket:2025051610000217 about this, but it's in Japanese, which I cannot read. Please assist is possible. Krd 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Krd If it's up to me, I would keep the files without a VRT tag. I already said that much on 30 May 2025 above. I believe COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary applies, so the content of email is irrelevant, in Japanese or otherwise. Publicly available information including discussion here should be enough basis to decide. What do you think? whym (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree. Though I don't see any list of the affected files. Do you have any? Krd 08:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the files are listed in [1], although they are mixed with other deletions. Alternatively you might want to try this: files with the "File:Enako" prefix at User_talk:Bject/Archive_5, and files with the "File:Trend Girls" prefix at [2]] whym (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you want to double-check, the file links are also in ticket:2025061610008557, ticket:2025061610008539, ticket:2025061610008495, ticket:2025061610008422, ticket:2025061610008315. whym (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission

Latest comment: 9 days ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Hi all

I'm trying to find some information and I can't find anything written down about it. Is there any documentation on the circumstances where a VRT permission wouldn't be valid or could be revoked? E.g I assume that a VRT permission wouldn't be valid if the person who sent the VRT didn't have permission from organisation to grant permission for the files or they made a mistake within the form eg released them under an incorrect license which they didn't have permission to do?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is no general information, as cases may be different and always are complicated. Please contact VRT if you have any issue, and please withdraw the question if this is just a what-if. Krd 11:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict) There are definitely situations where a permission received through VRT can later be considered invalid or insufficient, even if it was originally accepted. In terms of process, any user — not just VRT volunteers — can raise concerns here on this noticeboard about a specific ticket or file, and another VRT agent can review and re-assess the ticket. If the issue is serious enough, they can invalidate the permission by removing the relevant VRT tag from the file(s). These actions are not taken lightly, and usually involve either internal discussion among volunteers or clear evidence that the permission should never have been accepted in the first place. From the community side, if someone on Commons disagrees with a VRT-accepted permission, they can still open a deletion request (DR) and raise the matter there. Ultimately, it's the closing admin of the DR who decides whether the file stays or is deleted. VRT exists to verify permission in a private and accountable way, but it does not override Commons policies on licensing or community consensus.

Within VRT, agents have access to an internal wiki and mailing list where we regularly bring up tricky or ambiguous cases. If a volunteer is unsure about the validity of a permission, for example if there are doubts about the sender's role, inconsistencies in the message, or third-party content involved, they can consult with other agents to get additional perspectives. In some cases, a permission may have been accepted in good faith at the time, but new information later comes to light that requires us to revisit and potentially revoke it.

So while permissions aren't revoked often, it definitely happens when justified. It's part of our responsibility to ensure Commons' licensing standards are upheld, and agents take that responsibility seriously. If you have a specific case in mind, feel free to link it here and we can take a closer look. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Josve05a, thank you very much. I'm working with an organisation where a representative has sent a VRT permission which has been approved. However there was some misunderstanding between me and the organisation and within the organisation and they sent the wrong resolution images and sent a permission for the wrong license (CC BY-SA 4.0 instead of CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO), both of which they did not have permission from the organisation to do. They still want to share the images, we just need these two things correcting asap. I really want to fix this as soon as possible because their images are extremely valuable (seen millions of times a month on Wikipedia) and they want to share a lot more images. I'm assuming we could do something like this:

We agree on how to proceed with this, and someone drafts an email to VRT with the correct wording to fix these issues. Maybe something like "As discussed with VRT volunteers on the VRT noticeboard I confirm that the wrong resolution images were shared on Wikimedia Commons and that the permission should have been sent for CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO, not CC BY-SA 4.0, please could you change the permission to the correct license and delete all previous versions of the files and only leave the most recent versions of the images."
I upload the correct resolution images as new versions of the current images, to avoid losing all the hard work of Wikimedians who have been adding them to articles.
They send the email confirming the changes.
A VRT person approves the changes and deletes the old versions of the files.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This sounds like a question for the Commons community at-large on how they would like to act on the already uploaded files, rather than a VRT question.

If the person who sent the original permission was authorized to release images on behalf of the organisation, then the license they specified (in this case CC BY-SA 4.0) is valid and can't be retroactively changed. CC licenses are irrevocable by design — once someone with authority releases a work under a CC license, that license sticks, even if the organisation later realises they didn't mean to allow that resolution or license type. If the issue is that the person didn't have internal permission to make that release, that doesn't automatically invalidate it. It's like a parent using a joint bank account to buy a car without the other parent's approval — maybe they weren't supposed to, but the dealership still considers the sale binding. So if the sender was authorised to act for the organisation, Commons has to treat the license as valid, and that applies permanently to those files, regardless of what the organisation wishes in hindsight.

If the sender wasn't authorised to license anything at all, then that's a different matter — VRT agents can reassess the permission, and the organisation would need to send a corrected statement from someone who is authorised, clarifying what they want to release and under what license. But from what you're saying, that doesn't sound like the case here. If they still want to share the files, just under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO and at lower resolution, they should confirm that in writing for future uploads. It won’t undo the release of the current high-res versions (those remain freely licensed), but it could help prevent confusion going forward. File history cleanup (removing old versions) might be possible, but that’s about practicality, not revoking rights — and it's unclear if the Commons community would support doing so, since anyone who downloaded the high-res version under CC BY-SA 4.0 still retains full rights to use it.

I'll let others weigh in though, given that we shouldn't want to cause bad-will (but a release is a release)... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your thoughts, please can you tell me where this is written down as rules? I'm struggling to find anything actually written down as policy.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The fact that licenses are irrevocable are written in the license terms; see Legal Code - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International - Creative Commons. Who is or isn't authorized is a matter of law and interpretation, not a specific public "guide" here on Commons on who is or isn't authorized for every organization that exists. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fixing the license shortly after publication is nothing uncommon. Especially with such a minor change between different versions of CC-BY-SA I see no problem. Just correct the file pages. The change is also transparently visible in the page history for external re users who used the old license. The resolution is a totally different topic that has nothing to do with licensing. CC licenses are for the creative work and not for a specific digital representation of that work. The license therefore applies to every resolution (see CC FAQ). If they have these higher resolution works published anywhere else we should also keep them. If Commons is the only platform where the high resolution versions are publicly available and there are potential problems because people are identifiable they would not be in the lower resolution I would perform a courtesy deletion. GPSLeo (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for the explanation. My understanding is that some CC licenses allow dual licensing for different resolutions and some don't, however I can't find that written down anywhere currently, I'll update this message with a link if I find one.

Thank you for the offer of courtesy deletions, yes Commons is the only platform where high res is publicly available, I think all of the images include identifiable people.

John Cummings (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, it is always possible for us to blur faces of private individuals in otherwise high-resolution images. Similarly for license plates, etc., or anything seen as inappropriately identifying individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the suggestion, but this won't solve the issue. John Cummings (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jmabel, GPSLeo, Josve05a, please can you tell me would this be acceptable as a VRT email sent by them to

Only allow a new lower resolution version of the images on Commons and delete the old versions
Change the license to CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
Maintain the file names so the images don't get removed from the very high traffic articles they are being used on

Dear Wikimedia Commons VRT Team

I'm writing to you to inform you that recently a permission was sent to you for which the person did not have the authority to release. However we would still like for the images to be available, however we cannot release them under the same resolution or license as was originally shared.

We would like for the new resolution of images to be uploaded under the same file names so the images are retained on the Wikipedia articles they are currently used on, John Cummings can do this for us. We would then like the older versions of the images deleted from Commons and the license changed to CC BY-SA IGO 3.0.

We apologise for the additional work this may cause.

Many thanks

Would this fulfill the requirements and allow the organisation to make the changes they want? I.e to upload new lower res versions under the same file names and switch the license, without the images being lost from Commons so they all get kept in their Wikipedia articles?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

They need to explain why they want the full resolution to be removed. GPSLeo (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @GPSLeo: , could you explain why they would need to say why they want to remove the higher resolution versions. Also what answers would be acceptable to Commons? Eg would it be acceptable to simply state it is not their policy to make high resolution versions available to the public? John Cummings (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This really isn't something the VRT noticeboard can decide. VRT's role is to privately receive and confirm permission statements, and to make that confirmation available to the Commons community. Whether files should be deleted, have older versions removed, or have their license changed after upload is a matter for the Commons community at large — for example, via a deletion request or village pump discussion. VRT could confirm via email if the organisation had genuine privacy concerns with the high-resolution versions, or if the person who originally emailed us did not have any authority whatsoever to release the images (for example, being a random intern with no mandate). In this case, however, it appears you are requesting courtesy deletions of higher-resolution versions due to the organisation wishing to back-track on their release, which is a community matter rather than a VRT decision. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for the explanation, I'm just trying to understand what and what isn't allowed, I can't seem to find anything written down so that's why I'm asking here :) John Cummings (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 16:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Washington Digital Archives permission

Latest comment: 7 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Please confirm permissions in the VRT ticket listed on File:President of the Senate Victor A. Meyers.jpg

I would like to update several official post-1930 portraits, such as this one of Meyers with higher resolution versions which have become available in the past decade.

Thank you OceanLoop (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@OceanLoop: Resolution shouldn't affect copyright, presuming the original licensed image is legible. At least under U.S. law as I understand it, there is no distinct copyrightable element in a higher-resolution copy. So if we have the license for the copyrighted material, that should also cover a higher-resolution copy. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do not know whether we have the license - this is my question to VRT. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"This is a public domain web site. It is governed by the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.56.040-130) which makes this information, and any information you submit to this site, freely available for public inspection and copying." Nemoralis (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This disclaimer does not allow the free use of any image on the Digital Archives website, as some content is clearly marked in-copyright: it even says this information (refering to the privacy policy - not all information. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there is a ticket on the item, then clearly for that particular item VRT were satisfied; otherwise they would have nominated it for deletion.

The office of the Washington State Secretary of State is the one Washington State department that routinely puts everything it owns into the public domain. It sounds like the state purchased the Susan Parish Photograph Collection, and it's on the site of the Secretary of State; if that purchase included the copyrights, then I would guess that this would be public domain. I'm not VRT, so I have no idea whether the ticket is any broader than the one image, but if you end up contacting the Secretary of State to clarify this, it would be good to see if they will assert that the entire Susan Parish Photograph Collection has been placed in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like PequodOnStationAtLZ is going for it - bravo! OceanLoop (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

happy to help! PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both ticket and website mentioned this as copyright policy. Quote from the ticket: All photos retrieved from the Digital Archives website which you are using are in the public domain. Because they were created using state funds, they are a public record. Nemoralis (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I feel strongly we still need an explicit list of collections which are "created using state funds", and therefore in the public domain, because this is ambiguous to me as a casual user, and clearly not inclusive of all available digital records available. It would be in everyone's interest to get clear and direct permission to copy identified collections to Commons at their maximum available resolution - a formality best left to professionals. OceanLoop (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd doubt this on a couple of levels. (1) Speaking from experience, the Office of the Secretary of State is the only entity of the Washington State government that consistently places its intellectual property in the public domain. For example, note the copyright notices on the pages for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Revenue, etc. So that general statement about state money is simply not true. (2) Regardless of their intent to place content in the public domain, if they purchased a collection of photographs, they can offer licenses only if they purchased the copyright. Have they explicitly said that they did so in this case? - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Complex release that doesn't fit templates

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moved from User talk:AntiCompositeBot#Complex release that doesn't fit templates

James Porter the author and original creator of Disk/Trend Reports is deceased, and his copyright has been licensed to the Computer History Musuem. I asked for and received permission from the museum to extract pages from his many reports and post them to Wikimedia when appropriate, the first such was: File:FDD_Market_1988-1997.png.[3] I filled out a license form and attached to it a png of the emails between the museum and me, but the email comes from my address, so the bot flagged the media. The media is a png marked with both Disk/Trend and the Computer History Museum but it's not clear that the Bot would associate any email address. I've asked the museum to send a release on their email address and I rewrote it a bit to make it clear that it was a general release for any editor to extract images and post them. How do I get the tag removed and how do I not have to involve the museum in every extract I see a reason to post in the future. Tom94022 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tom94022: Please respond to the email we sent (August 18, 21:01 UTC). Once permission is accepted, we can set up a template for you to use that confirms your permission, so you don't have to email every time. We will also remove that tag once permission is accepted. (If the permission takes too long, we can always undelete the file if needed.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025