Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
surely not own work, this is taken from inside the ring Martin H. (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Suspiccioun came from sockpuppet suspiccion, confirmed this and user blocked - absuive vandal account, own work claim is likey false. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, low quality picture --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Useless self portrait --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly outside the project scope. Tiptoety talk 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a promo shot --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Reproduction of 2D product of the modern artist; false authorship --Ю. Данилевский (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --DieBuche (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this image. After reviewing Commons:Image casebook#Murals and Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Former Soviet Union. I now agree the flickr uploader wasn't authorized to republish their photo of the mural, under Tajikistan's copyright laws. They weren't authorized to place a CC liscense on it, and I wasn't authorized to upload it here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- My thanks to User:ABF, who re-opened this discussion when I informed them I hadn't been aware of the discussion. Informing good faith nominators of nominations is important, because when they made a good faith mistake, informing them of the discussion is a mechanism for preventing them from making similar good faith mistakes in the future. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of artwork not PD nor free licensed. Uploader was unaware of problem when image uploaded; uploader now supports deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Untrustworthy Flickr user; on top of that, uploader has uploaded several copyrighted screen captures (see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rachelle Lefevre resized.jpg, or File:Gina Yashere satnd up comedy photo.jpg). This one is likely a screen capture, too. Lupo 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Useless ID card. Reveals identity --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call this useless. It can be used to illustrate an article on the subject (don't know whether she's notable though) or just to show how a polish(?) identity card looks like. It's the idea of an identitiy card to reveal one's identity... --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- How about just use a sample ID card? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do we have one? Besides, it's not forbidden to reveal one's identity on commons, as long as the subject doesn't oppose it (and the subject is not notable) --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- How about just use a sample ID card? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. It was uploaded, let say, mistakenly and really with agreement with the ID holder. Masur (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
very blurry image of someone's work space malo (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete image quality to low to be useful. Amada44 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, unused. fetchcomms☛ 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Infrogmation (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete see above. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
very blurry band photo, out of scope malo (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion, flickr dumping, unusable. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Blurry image of a palmtree and streetlight? Likely taken from a moving vehicle. Image does not illustrate what it is meant to and there are more images of this shopping centre available (see Category:Multiplaza, San Salvador). Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality and no motive. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No evident subject or not an illustrative one. Blurred also.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) (on behalf of User:93.186.0.58)
- Copyright violation from where? TinEye doesn't show any results. Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment IDK. Just cleaned up this request --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since no copyvio is specified I would have prefered this solution. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep No reason to suspect cv, and this implies uploader self-created. fetchcomms☛ 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No evidence for a copyright violation. GeorgHH • talk 12:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - with cat: "possibly out of scope" ?! - really out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphan personal image; no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - unusable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless person is known grafitti artist or similar. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Without description, it seems just a private picture with no evident scope. We have one. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
converted to rfd by me from a speedy by User:Agua.veronica for "subject does not agree to photograph:Verónica Chen" --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This picture has been taken in a press conference. There's no valid reason to oppose such a file. This is not even a question of quality nor negative aspect of the person. The original nominator, who seems to be the concerned person, actually uploaded other pictures of her, including 2 files that are far worse in terms of quality : File:Verochen.jpg and File:Veronica chen.jpg --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete if the person in the photograph wants it gone, then so be it! --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a public appearance. Here is a photo by a different photographer of the same occasion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
USER DOES NOT AGREE TO THIS PHOTOGRAPH: VERONICA CHEN Agua.veronica (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- We need an OTRS email confirming that. See COM:OTRS --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Received email at Ticket:2010052510013429 confirming same. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- We need an OTRS email confirming that. See COM:OTRS --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, public appearance, valid permission, see COM:PEOPLE. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) That won't really help. Pictures of a notable person on a public event can be distributed and used at will (given the permission of the photographer of course, but that's not the problem here). There are absolutelly no problems with personality rights involved here. One would really expect to be photographed during a press conference, wouldn't she? --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Saying there's no model consent would be hypocrit in the context of a press conference. When a person doesn't want to be photographed during a press conference, s/he warns before. We can clearly see on this picture that she's posing and that she agreed to be photographed. This website also proposes pictures of her on the exact same day, which confirms the consent at the time of this press conference. Veronica Chen has to understand that there's no valid reason to oppose such a picture. Nevertheless I could understand if she prefers another picture to be used on her Wikipedia articles (which doesn't mean we'll delete this file but it would be a bit less visible if we use for instance this file she uploaded herself). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Public place, public event, several (?) photographers present, no personality rights expected. Tm (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I confirm that several photographers were present. This wasn't a huge press conference but if my memory's good, we were about 6 journalists and/or photographers. At least, the photos on the link I gave weren't taken by me, so that makes at least 2 photographers. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Public place, no consent necessary. fetchcomms☛ 21:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Public figure at public event, and this is the highest resolution photo of her we have. In use. Articles on subject in 3 languages. Infrogmation (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Contains likely-copyrighted designs. fetchcomms☛ 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete You're right! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - modern artworks in the interior - no FOP Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
+ missing description Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete clearly promotes hatred by rude words like "pedophile". If you want to imply this, write down it here, here as an image of free expression it doesn't express freedom but offence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.80.118 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "I don't like it" isn't an adequate reason to delete this. Adambro (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Attack image. While "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deletion, "it attacks other people" is. fetchcomms☛ 21:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since when? Adambro (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- See COM:PS#Examples; "Bruce" is not sufficiently notable to illustrate a hate group - Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC).
- Yes, the image has been created to attack Muhammad but it wasn't created to use Commons to attack him and so I don't consider it beyond scope. I have no reason to believe it was uploaded here for any other reason than to broaden our collection of freely licensed images relating to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, a topic which is the subject of a number of articles across WMF projects so clearly there is a good chance media relating to it will have a potential educational value. Per the project scope, "Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." Adambro (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- See COM:PS#Examples; "Bruce" is not sufficiently notable to illustrate a hate group -
- Since when? Adambro (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with comment by Adambro (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, the image was a legitimate entry and represents a common, though mistaken, point of view regarding Muhammad's marriage to Aisha; it should therefore be retained as a notable example. Doc Tropics (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Freedom of expression is sacrosanct but the way to express oneself is a bit more complex than that and, in fact, it's called communication. Communication requires two subject: the communicator and the audience. With a complication: never the message is perceived the same way by the communicator and the audience. So, after millenia discussing about philosophy of art, we have, nowadays, reached the conclusion that the better the communicator the wider is the range of perceptions in the audience the work has. The very case of the danish cartoons. Of course the issue was, later, exploited for political and ideological reasons by both sides so we cannot buy the story media and politicians tried to sold us, but there is a fact: among many good quality cartoons, even deeply offensive, produced in the West about prophet Mohammed, why only the danish ones were chosen to mount the case (some people died also for that)? Because, in my opinion, they were very communicative works of art rising very different perceptions in the audience: gaussianly, for some people they were just subtle irony, for others were only offensive, all the rest of opinion-shades in the middle. It was a matter of complex communication so they were fitting every kind of perception and point of view. But what we have here? A work of art? A couple of smiles just photoshopped and not even created by the author? And what else? Some original, brilliant texts or a bunch of banal cliché? Actually it's true that the picture expresses the communicator point of view, as many others I suppose, and there is no way to mistake it or to interpret it differently. Ironic as it is, the pic in itself it's not offending for Islam or whoever but for the author himself. It communicates to me ignorance, dummyism, over superficiality, to mention some of the messages I perceive looking at it. Communicatively speaking, it doesn't look the same as the famous danish Mohammed with a bomb is his turban. Rightly or wrongly, that one was a work of art. This one is just crap.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have you considered the context here? That being Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? That this is clearly amateur in nature is part of the point and if we want to properly serve those projects which cover that subject it is inevitable that it will involve hosting images like this. Adambro (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Giorgiomonteforti and Pieter Kuiper. --JN466 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Outside project scope. While Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is newsworthy, having scads of amateur drawings documenting the event contravenes COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. This is the same as penis pictures. A few well-done examples actually in use are all that is needed. Would any sane Wikipedia actually use this image in an article for any appreciable length of time before a consensus of editors removed it for being in poor taste? -Nard the Bard 21:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Adambro. Also there is no reason to question the selection of Cirt attempting to give a representative selection of entries for this day event. That does require that we also include some of the nastier ones simply to keep the selection representative. I also take issue with any assertions that quality should be a factor in determining which drawings to keep since this is preeminently an amateur event. There is also a deletion review for an image I uploaded that was initially deleted: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Mohammed by meco.png (there's a link to the image residing on Flickr there). __meco (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I have no idea why anyone could consider such junk worth keeping. It isn't even a good image. --Herby talk thyme 11:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - we are not required to keep needlessly offensive image. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - it is a creative piece of contemporary Art (maybe Microsoft Paint Method) and it catches current prejudice quite good in the modern media context. All words it depicts are common english, and while some may consider a (traditionaly) selected set of words to be Tabu, other do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.138.220 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}} (UTC)
Deleted. Out of Commons project scope per the Delete opinions. Not useful to illustrate 'everybody draw mohammed day' (underlining: most of the "drawing" consists of text, and no, its not a creative combination of image and text, it is simple text, non-artistic, non-educational, plain text. It is what Giorgiomonteforti concluded and Herby summarized.) --Martin H. (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin H. (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused picture. Out of scope 91.168.68.184 17:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's a cat lying inside a piano. Could be used. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep THIS IS CATAMONS!!! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Fine kitty. Trycatch (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Common Good (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All the cover designs pictured would be copyrighted. fetchcomms☛ 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No copyrighted elements visible. -- Common Good (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Fake. This image was uploaded to illustrate a fake article on de.wp, de:Buck (Adelsgeschlecht). The noble family Buck doesn't exist. Also, there is no permission. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted (show/hide) 18:43, 19 June 2010 ABF (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Buck.jpg" (In category Media missing permission as of 22 May 2010; no permission) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log abf «Cabale!» 16:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Personal Rights Violation, Permission missing Nolispanmo 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure you can actually identify anyone in the image unless you know them, but fact is that it's a copyvio from http://fmd-online.de/zentren/hausgemeinde/.
- Comment I too don't know that there is any "personality rights violation", but image taken from website; {{Npd}} added and uploader notified. Infrogmation (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, low quality. --Sevela.p 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Media missing permission as of 26 May 2010; no permission
TinEye finds this http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/593/1002668lu5.jpg, and it has a watermark on it (Sivar74) that doesn't seem to match with the uploader (Emerson19 (talk · contribs) who claims own work. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No source at mlwikipedia Vssun (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted from mlwiki due to lack of source. --Vssun (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete "Transferred from ml.wikipedia" not sufficient as a source, was deleted on ml.wikipedia for lacking a proper source. Hekerui (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
deleted doubtful source, deleted on original wiki axpdeHello! 09:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal Rights Violation, Permission missing Nolispanmo 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DaB.: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HanstedtHG003.jpg
Personal Rights Violation, Permission missing Nolispanmo 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio from http://fmd-online.de/zentren/ (http://fmd-online.de/zentren/fotos%20aktuell/2009_09_02_RMJ-Seminar/IMG_7185.JPG) -- Deadstar (msg) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Just tag as npd or cv next time. fetchcomms☛ 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DaB.: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HanstedtHG004.JPG
Personal Rights Violation, Permission missing Nolispanmo 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DaB.: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Andacht.jpg
The female in this photo is underage. It needs to be deleted immediately!! --96.249.206.96 08:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Proofs? Or is this one more of this libel comments, based in nothing solid to claim that if someone naked is automatically "underaged"? No proof of underaged, flickr user claimed to be 20 years old (if i´not mistaken). Please present proofs of what you claim! The person is not identified, it is only a good educational photo of some adult female naked. Tm (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment 1)Why do you say female is underage? Do you have some knowledge about the model or situation of the photograph? 2)"mere nudity is not pornography" per Jimbo Wales [1]. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Suspected impostor child pornography account showing multiple females that appear to be under 18 years old. Do a Google search on Brittsuza. Definitely not a private user. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep SWR would just suspect anything; I have seen the Flickr-pro account, and I saw no reason to suspect different models (except where this was noted). Do a google search on Stillwaterising and you will see interesting things. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Where is the proof for this allegation? The google search suggested turns up many images. I can't say I looked at them all but were it not for this allegation it would never occur to someone that this female might be "underaged" and the websites seem to be legitimate enough. Stillwaterising seems to be here on a one man moral crusade. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mattbuck: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Brittany_Suza_(brittsuza)_from_Flickr
Out of date, and there's no good way to update it because it's a JPG. Powers (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep for historical purpose, rename to "2009 governors..." etc. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Deadstar. Rename "U.S. Lt. Governors by party affilation 2009" or something similar. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep just rename. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. 99of9 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not think this image is self made. User's other uploads in regards to this subject were clear copyvios, but I can't find this image. it likely came from http://www.grundycountyspeedway.com/Photosinline.htm (see how the top one is a similar shot) but it has been refreshed with 2009 photos. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Other uploads at the same time were all copyright violations, this one appears to be also. Another image with a clean copyright exists for this subject, so no reason to keep such a problematic image. Royalbroil 04:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment See Commons:Deletion_requests/Eiffel_Tower_by_night for a similar debate--DieBuche (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The lights on the Eiffeltower are protected by copyright... request done by ip Huib talk 18:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- De minimis? Probably difficult to argue. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Blurry and not a huge part of the image, so I'd argue de minimis does apply here. fetchcomms☛ 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- That was more or less my initial thinking in putting this image in 'De Minimis might apply'. Now should a separate DR should be filled? Esby (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image is an overview and the tower is only a part of it. So, the image doesn't copyright --Civa (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the tower is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I request to delete the Templates: Template:User Valued Image, Template:User VI100 and Template:User FP10, because we have Template:User VI and Template:User FP, which have all and even more functions than these old templates and they would be much easier to maintain this way. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I would say it makes good sense to centralize the implementation in Template:User VI (I see the new functionality has been reverted by Lycaon asking for discussion first. Personally, i think the new functionality should stay, as it has not broken any existing functionality) and Template:User FP, but instead of deleting the sort of redudant templates, could they not simply call the generalized ones with relevant parameters, or be redirected, such that existing use of these redundant parameters would still work on the user pages where they are used? In that manner there would still only be one place to maintain, sort of, and nobody would be annoyed. Alternatively, I think some effort should be done to replace the existing use of the templates you request to be deleted on the effected user pages (not that many really, is it?), such that the users are not being annoyed by seing a dead link template on their user page. --Slaunger (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I thought first I start the deletion request and when the result is deleting then we/I could replace the boxes on the user pages. They are really not that many. I agree with you, that kind of a rederection/including would be possible too, but I belive it's better to delete the other templates. @Lycaon In April 2010 Alvesgaspar made quite some changes to the QI template, so I thought I do it the same way, probably because I have a slightly different understanding of widley used :P. And except at the QI Template I changed nothing of the basic functionality, so that they remain working after the changes. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the new functionality is backwards compatible, so they might as well stay. Personally, I would do it the other way around to avoid friction with current user box users: That is, first replace existing use of the redundant templates with the generic one on the relevant (relatively few) user pages, and then request them to be deleted. --Slaunger (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I felt not very well to edit all the userpages without asking ;) You are correct, the next time I should do it this way (I'm normally doing it this way, too). But before we haven't discussed the reset of the templates it would not make much sence to replace the user boxes now. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the new functionality is backwards compatible, so they might as well stay. Personally, I would do it the other way around to avoid friction with current user box users: That is, first replace existing use of the redundant templates with the generic one on the relevant (relatively few) user pages, and then request them to be deleted. --Slaunger (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Please look this Template_talk:User_QI George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete standard templates has good updated now George Chernilevsky talk 12:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment FP10 has no additional function except that the counter is by default at 10 instead of showing nothing. VI100 has an default counter with 100 and an other picture, which I added also to the VI template. So there is no additional function. User Valued Image is an template with poor functions and a slightly different text. If someone wants this or an other text we can programm the VI template this way, that you can choose between different texts. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- Agree with the new standard versions FP, VI and QI, no need for the old ones. But Template:User QI should be similar to the other two. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment We have solved the reset issue and so the modified versions of {{User QI}}, {{User VI}} and {{User FP}} are online again. I'm still for deleting the templates {{User VI100}}, {{User FP10}} and {{User Valued Image}}. I've looked into the logs and (now) nobody seems to use one of the tempates anymore. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Now that the templates are not in use anymore and their functionality has been replaced by options to the extended generic templates. --Slaunger (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It is unclear that the uploader is the copyright holder. No source specified. compare with this page. They are from the same photo shoot. The Violin studio may own the copyright. Whpq (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a copyvio. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Delete. The studio page shows well who has the copyright on the picture. Badzil (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
User:DieBuche thinks this is PD-ineligible but which simple geometric shape should it be? High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- you're probably right. Since the image was only a testcase for the illustration workshop, I'll upload the fixed svg at the local wiki. --DieBuche (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If American standards are applicable, compare other examples in Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding the question by High Constrast: The simple geometric shapes are cubic Bézier curves which are indeed fairly simple. Each of the five colored leaves consists of two such curves. (Yes, the SVG is messed up but this is due to Adobe Illustrator but not due to the complexity of its shapes.) --AFBorchert (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, does not meet the Threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on en:Khastegi, this appears to be taken from a movie, and thus a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, part of copyrighted movie. Kameraad Pjotr 17:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Copy of document fetchcomms☛ 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted document. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, scan of a copyrighted document. Kameraad Pjotr 17:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, out of scope? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Out of scope, delete--Motopark (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not very good I admit, but perfectly in the scope since it illustrates the concerned person (who is an Argentinian director) and actually seems to have been uploaded by herself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, not a lot of her in Category:Verónica Chen. fetchcomms☛ 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly in scope; photo of person who has Wikipedia articles about them in 3 languages, properly categorized. Infrogmation (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality and not in use anywhere. There are better pictures of this person. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Totally in scope. Tm (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not a good pic, we have better. --JN466 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Although I agree that it's not a wonderful picture, it costs so little to keep an image than I am disinclined to delete one of four images of a notable person. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, why do we need to know the max speed of the broadband of the town (used translator program) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We do not need! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Promotional, only used on article to describe the company --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again: Invalid deletion rationale. Image is in use, and, as Commons does not dictate what other projects may include in articles, therefore should stay. If the french WP is fine with promotional content in articles, we have to accept this. However, I would Delete this, because of dubious "own work" claim. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, it is used on the article to describe the company? And that is bad because?? That said, the 'own work' claim is dubious. Garion96 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete I uploaded it by mistake and it may have freedom of panorama issues (Freedom_of_panorama#Russia) If you think this too then vote delete.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete seems original enough for me, and if you uploaded by mistake, a {{Speedy}} always speeds things up :P fetchcomms☛ 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - looks like an old building to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in US. fetchcomms☛ 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I've pixelated the Broken Obelisk. Good shot, and it's impossible to photograph the pool and not to photograph the Broken Obelisk. Trycatch (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous. Prodego talk 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and revert back to original. The sculpture is not the subject or central to the image, and therefore, the rule of de minimis applies. This is a bit excessive copyright paranoia here. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Bastique. I've also reverted it per Bastique. Prodego talk 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the obelisk does not meet de minimis - it's a clear part of the framing, and if it weren't there the image would suffer considerably. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- So, crop about half of the sculpture out of the image, it's still a clear part of the framing, the de minimis argument is stronger, and brings the chapel central to the image. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've cropped the image as Bastique said. Trycatch (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment On the other hand, Broken Obelisk could be {{PD-US-no notice}}. SIRIS don't mention any copyright notices on any Broken Obelisk -- [2], [3], [4]. Trycatch (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Mozilla's licensing terms for this logo (here: see "Mozilla Marks and Merchandise" about non-commercial use and "Linking" for non derivated notices) are just against this policies on Commons about mandatory commercial permission and mandatory allow of derivative works of all material posted in the project. --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum (from en:Template:Non-free Mozilla logo)
The logo for a Mozilla product (such as the Mozilla Firefox browser or the Mozilla Thunderbird email client) is protected by copyright and/or trademark by the Mozilla Foundation and/or its subsidiary Mozilla Corporation. According to the Mozilla trademark policy, the logo is free to use as long as:
- It is non-confusing and non-disparaging
- It is not used commercially
- It is not modified
- It is not high resolution
Furthermore, the Mozilla Trademark Policy FAQ reads, "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you?" Answer: "Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this". Also, Mozilla's Firefox Buttons page reads "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!"
Despite this, the restrictions on this logo make it non-free by Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works, and therefore it may only be displayed in the main english Wikipedia namespace in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content.
- Keep Firefox logo is licensed under triple MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 license[5]. All restriction put in place by Mozilla Trademark Policy is relevant only to the trademark, and it doesn't make any difference according by the Commons:Trademarks. Also bug[6] directly relevant to this licensing terms change is marked as fixed and licensing terms changed to triple one[7]. --Justass (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Until work on bugzilla is disclosed, Commons:Trademarks also includes a guideline against complex logos (check "Trademark law" section). --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- en:Template:Non-free Mozilla logo was created 5 years before Firefox logo was released under "free" licenses and has nothing to do with the current situation --Justass (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. It may be against the spirit of Commons to upload trademarked logos which are under free copyright licenses, but that guideline is not against complex logos: “(eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired)” is just a couple of examples. I have uploaded this logo for two reasons: 1) I wanted to prevent repeated uploads and deletions based on incorrect assumptions such as this one, 2) there was a third-party "Firefox logo" used in Afrikaans Wikipedia. There is a link to the Bugzilla discussion in the Permission field. --AVRS (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC), 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Justass. The patches can be found it the latest (4b) version as well--DieBuche (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the logo is not free enough in accordance with Commons' policies. Kameraad Pjotr 20:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read Justass comment?--DieBuche (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the logo was "tri-licenced" like stated in bugzilla tickets, but this still specifies that Mozilla foundation doesn't allow derivated works or commercial permissions for it. Remember that having a free licence is not enough; the following conditions are also mandatory. Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 02:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let me quote Justass "All restriction put in place by Mozilla Trademark Policy is relevant only to the trademark". Also, from your comment I assume you agree and understand that the logo is tri-licenced, namely "MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1". GPL ({{GPL}}) for one is a very common license on Wikimedia Commons and allows commercial use. You can't say "It's released under GPL but you can't use it commercially". –Krinkletalk 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Mozilla_Firefox_3.5_logo_256.png --AVRS (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the logo was "tri-licenced" like stated in bugzilla tickets, but this still specifies that Mozilla foundation doesn't allow derivated works or commercial permissions for it. Remember that having a free licence is not enough; the following conditions are also mandatory. Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 02:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All the comments above about trademark, as several editors have noted, are irrelevant.
The question is, does Mozilla license the copyright to its logos in a way that we can use? It seems to me that the answer is a resounding NO.
At the Legal page for their home page they say, quite carefully:
- "The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party and the look and feel of this web site (to the extent the look and feel elements are works of authorship, such as the graphic design, artwork, and artistic illustrations) are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms."
That is a comprehensive statement that there is no license for the copyrights in their logos. The various quotes of their policy above all appear to be from subsidiary or software pages and do not necessarily apply to logos. Remember that a specific statement overrides a general statement. All of the quotes above are general. This one is specific and, therefore, is the one we must apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
FireFox logos are trademarked, and according to their policy we may not alter their logos in any way. This is in conflict with our "for any purpose" clause which includes derivative works. Template:FirefoxWiki also recommends not using screenshots with the Firefox logo displayed in the browser unless it is de minimis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. At the undeletion referenced in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox icon.svg, I was convinced that Mozilla's General Counsel has explicitly stated that Mozilla will use only trademark to protect the use of its icons and that their copyright is freely licensed on the same terms as the software.
Although their trademark policy sharply limits outside use of the logos, it is our well-established policy to ignore trademark in our decisions on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a history of playing around with the source information for this photo. Sources remain anonymous and the photo should be removed on that basis. Fæ (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:Comment This image is major change from the user's other uploads [8] The user name, Qazqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm, while acceptable, appears to be just series of random characters, like maybe a throwaway account.--Sandahl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Stuck out comment, user has licensed image.--Sandahl (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The story is that I typed both source and author "Charming" first because she was the person who took the photo.And I got a notice that the source wasn't clear. I didn't really know how to do, so I tried many different ways to add some information and tried to remove the warning....PS. Charming, the guy in the photo, and I are friends.(So, I finally type the source "Own work".)--Qazqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm (talk)
- Delete unless Charming emails OTRS to verify permission. It's NOT your own work, please don't lie or mislead others. fetchcomms☛ 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:Comment Oh...There is some misunderstanding...Charming is a famous graphic designer in Taiwan...You can visit her blog to know more about her: http://www.wretch.cc/blog/batyy726 (Although this is written in Chinese, you can see a part of her works are about penis photographs)...The photo is truly "our" work. --Qazqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm (talk)
Oh...I know what you mean...The work I participated in were providing the studio and equipment, and doing the light control. Charming determined on the direction of the model's body and took the photo. The Model determined on his posture(which could show out his personality naturally). We also discussed the work together. Therefore, the photo is our own work. PS. I got a notice that my username may confuse other users from Fæ, so I will create a new account and use that for editing.--Qazqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm (talk)
Deleted, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Category:Banknotes of Estonia images
[edit]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency#Estonia 
Szajci reci 06:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Don't you want to mass delete the images instead of the category? Deleting the category will delete the description of the category, but the cat itself will only (automagically) disappear after there's nothing referencing it. If you need mass removal of the images then please follow its procedure. --grin ✎ 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I updated the information at Commons:Currency#Estonia: Bank of Estonia does allow reproduction under certain terms. (old version for reference the old version was also written by me, just to be clear) So, unless some other specific concerns are found, I see no reason for deletion. —Quibik (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep For the reasons Quibik has already stated. Eynar (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- images Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Croatian coins and banknotes
Szajci reci 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Don't you want to mass delete the images instead of the category? Deleting the category will delete the description of the category, but the cat itself will only (automagically) disappear after there's nothing referencing it. If you need mass removal of the images then please follow its procedure. --grin ✎ 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - empty - Jcb (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Logos for a 1952 established fraternity in the Phillipines. This is not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not Alain Robert (see [9] and other images on Google Images. The description on the Agencia Brasil website was apparently wrong. Uploaded by me. Pruneautalk 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete.-- If we do not know what that picture really represents, it is rather out of scope. « Some guy with a flower in his mouth and grabbing a wall » would not make a very good description. The fact that the source cannot be verified does not help. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Changed to rename -- see below. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The author of the comment, supposedly Robert himself, didn't say that the man in the picture it's not him but that the picture doesn't represent him anymore (he, writing in french, uses this strange pseudo-hispanic-portuguese or catalan-occitan phoneme "mas"). Why it doesn't represent him anymore? Perhaps because he changed his style, his look, his whatever. Who cares? We are not a promotional agency or a PR Company. We don't sell or promote images of celebrities according of their caprices. We illustrate things and we keep track of their memory. If it's true that Robert didn't participate to the celebration on description, let's change the description. But there isn't any reason to delete it. As usual, notability has its price.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt the word "mas" was used by Robert as the catalan word. It was probably a typo for "pas", so that the message means "this doesn't represent me" (without the word "anymore"). If you look him up elsewhere, you'll see the image looks nothing like him. Pruneautalk 22:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if Robert was not even present at the event where that picture was taken, how could he appear on that picture? The question is not if the man on the picture is Robert or not. If we look, we see that it is not him. Like the nominator said, we can compare with actual images of Robert. I find this video especially useful in this context, because it shows Robert on September 1st, 2009, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, while the photo of the unknown man being discussed here is from August 25, 2009, in Brasilia, Brazil. As we can see, on the video Robert still has his usual long hair, which he has had for many years. There is no way that the relatively short hair of the unknown man on the photo could have grown that long to below the shoulders in one week, right? Accessorily, if we think about it, there are also other clues which show that the picture does not fit with Robert. The unknown man's clothes are not at all the type of clothes usually worn by Robert. The wall of the low Interlegis building on the photo is not at all the type of thing that Robert climbs. He climbs skycrapers and towers. Last but not least, there is no mention anywhere that Robert would have been at that event in Brasilia. Which, come to think of it, makes sense, because why would he have been at this type of event, and why would he have been in Brazil that week when he was preparing one of his major feats in Malaysia. It does not really matter much if the correspondent who wrote the message reporting the mistake in the identification of this picture is actually Robert himself or not. What matters is that there was indeed a factual mistake in that identification. As for the message, it reads (after fixing the typos): « Cette photo ne me représente pas et je n'ai pas participé à la journée de commémoration France-Brésil. Est-il possible de retirer cette photo??? Cordialement, Alain Robert », which basically translates as: "I am not represented on this photo and I did not participate to the France-Brazil memorial day. Can this picture be removed? Regards, Alain Robert". When we say that a person is represented on a photo, in that context, it means that the person is seen on the photo. It does not mean that the person uses the photo as a promotional material. So, yes, the correspondent exactly says that the man on the picture is not him. Also, the typing of the message is sloppy and it contains typos. That is no big deal and there is no need to build a theory from a simple typo in what is obviously the word "pas", where the letter "m" was typoed for the letter "p". The question is if we want to keep on Commons that picture of an unknown man holding to a small wall. If it is kept, at least the name of the file will need to be changed, so as to not misrepresent the subject. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename. This guy is Antoine Le Menestrel: [10], [11], [12]. Don't know who he is, but seems notable enough for Commons. Trycatch (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent - rename. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. That works. Rename. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn. Well done, Trycatch. Pruneautalk 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I moved the file to File:Antoine Le Menestrel.jpg, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close the DR since I opened it. Pruneautalk 09:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- It would be good to delete the redirect, or to have it point to category:Alain Robert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did that now, and changed the header of this page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would be good to delete the redirect, or to have it point to category:Alain Robert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept - performer identified, file was renamed, problem is solved (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This image is licensed {{cc-by-3.0}}. There is no copyright info on the source at http://www.destinationoblivion.net/ , therefore no indication that it is a free image. Sandahl (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)