Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/12

The file is of extremely bad quality and there are at least 2 files on the subject of much superior quality. 155.69.192.240 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. File is used. ZooFari 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope and extremely low quality Gavia immer (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete but not for the reasons noted above. This image is, in part, a booking photo from the Island County Sheriffs Department, State of Washington. They hold rights to it. The image is also a montage with a plane, and the plane image is of unknown source. This is really a speedy deletion candidate as being a copyvio of the booking photo. See File:Colton harris-moore.JPG (which may be deleted by the time the reader reads this). That is the image from which this image is, in part, derived. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Derivative so deleted Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

renamed category; this one now empty --JonRidinger (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file has been replaced by its original by its original author. This one, made as a stop-gap until the author could be located, is not being used anywhere. The correct one by the original photographer (see image) is now being used at 1969 Darshan. I suggest this one now be deleted.

--Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: poor-quality image that has been replaced by superior alternative. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted by Túrelio: This file has been replaced by its original by its original photographer David Bradley, which is available under a free license, making this image "replaceable" and invalid under fair us

unused test file - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: no associated article in any Wikipedia project indicating notability of persons pictured, so not useful. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: no associated article in any Wikipedia project indicating notability of person pictured, so not useful. Also, this is a derivative work of the painting featured, and there is insufficient information showing that the artist has licensed images of the painting to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused small, nearly private image - taken from a website - copy vio and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy photo/Angel DelCueto = not made by an USAf or other US military or US government employee Denniss (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake Crusier (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy photo/David Drais = not made by an USAF or other US military or US government employee Denniss (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake Crusier (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: see http://singapore2010.sg/public/sg2010/en/en_global/en_footer/en_terms_of_use.html, para 5a. Logo must be transferred back to a Wikipedia project and used under a fair-use justification, if applicable. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, likely copyrighted, no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a little more information on location and purpose of the building and after a rename to a meaningful filename - and under the agf assumption that it is indeed "own work" - this image worth keeping. Without that information not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's the Peace Centre in Warrington: see uploader's contributions and File:Peace Centre, Warrington - geograph.org.uk - 21493.jpg. And I don't see why it should be a copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, I will add it. I wrote that it is an AFG assumption by the fact that maybe not a person by the (nick)name of Hadianm is the author and copyright holder but an organization and so an attribution with "(C) Hadianm" wouldnt be satisfying for the real copyright holder and does not meat the true source and author. See here (same image, compare the branches of the tree in front). If marketing people try to add stuff to Wikipedia they often make wrong that they simply claim something "own work" and attribute the authorship to their (nick)name instead of the correct copyright holder - e.g. the company they are working for. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most blatant adverts on en.wikipedia tend to contain copyvios. AGF all you like, but I'm just pointing out a trend. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great find by Martin H. Certainly it requires an OTRS. Trycatch (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image / poster - unusable and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope (cannot be identified) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nominator. --Korman (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused a bit strange diagram - unusable for other than the uploader = out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused article from a deleted article - out of scope - see discussion in the village pump about this example Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the CTA have released this under a free license. JeremyA (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The monument is more recent than 70 years and is protected by copyright; no FOP in Greece exists. Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement. Also uploaded as "own work" which it is definitely not Pbech (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement. Also claims permission without substantiating that claim Pbech (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement. Also claims permission without substantiating that claim Pbech (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement. Also explicity claims authorship, which simply cannot be the case. Pbech (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Veolia Transport.png

Identical file, with identical name, has been deleted previously Pbech (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a Brazilian newspaper from 1946 or 1947. From what I can tell, that does not qualify for public domain. User has uploaded several similar newspaper images, including modern color ones which have already been deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently from a Brazilian newspaper from 1943 or so. From what I can tell, that does not qualify for public domain. User has uploaded several similar newspaper images, including modern color ones which have already been deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 14:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a Brazilian newspaper from 1946. From what I can tell, that does not qualify for public domain. User has uploaded several similar newspaper images, including modern color ones which have already been deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work. Uploader would have us believe s/he is the official photographer for all local teams as well as many professional teams. Large list of deleted contribiutions. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work. Uploader would have us believe s/he is the official photographer for all local teams as well as many professional teams. Large list of deleted contribiutions. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work. Uploader would have us believe s/he is the official photographer for all local teams as well as many professional teams. Large list of deleted contribiutions. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:724900.jpg
• File:Calici Axum.jpg
• File:Georgian woman.jpg
• File:Aznavour-armenian-priests.jpg
• File:3 Azeri.jpg
• File:Bolnisicross.jpg
• File:DE003722.jpg
• File:Wielka Synagoga w Tbilisi.jpg
• File:Kostavam001.jpg
• File:Ethiopianstag2.jpg
• File:Chechenchildren.jpg
• File:Nina Ananiashvili.jpg
• File:Mapgeorgia9847.jpg
• File:DB001653.jpg

Luis Dingley aka User:Ldingley was indef. blocked on the English Wikipedia for persistent upload of copyrighted images (and sockpuppeteering to evade a block). Now I searched Commons and found that images uploaded under his name remain. I nominated those that are not PD-Art/PD-old. Hekerui (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment. The file File:Kostavam001.jpg have to be in a different because he did not claim that it's from his archiv.
•  Delete. After checking that users behavior in the en.wikipedia I came to conclusion that his statment that the photos are from his own can't be trusted. Geagea (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment This also: File:Stalin's Mug Shot.jpg. Geagea (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A category with the same name (Piergiorgio Odifreddi) has just been created; no need to keep a gallery page. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep if gallery contains a selection of high quality images from the category. Delete if the gallery merely contains all the images that are already in the category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the gallery is merely a replica of the category, which includes *all* the photos related to professor Odifreddi -- Blackcat (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As Blackcat wrote, here the gallery contains approximately the same images of the category, so it's quite redundant. Furthermore, here the gallery doesn't show the images grouped in different paragraphs, with a description, but it's used as a category. However I didn't find a specific guideline about these situations and I think that if these images can have a short description and can be grouped in paragraphs, then the gallery could be kept. This probably could happen in the future, when we will have more images but now, in this condition, I agree to remove it. Even if there are a lot of categories and galleries in the same situation. (I want to underline that mine was a difficult choice between neutral and remove). --sNappy 20:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I agree it is a close decision, but the gallery has at least one interesting caption and one fewer image, so there is a difference. I would encourage interested parties to write captions for all the images. Categories, while essential, are a very sterile way of gathering images for viewing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept - categories are not a reason to delete galleries (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argumentation of {{PD-USGov}} is, that something was created by an US government employee during that persons official duties. Thats not true for this photo. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osama Bin Laden.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed stopping

El archivo no debe ser borrado porque es una fuente del gobierno federal de Estados Unidos (CIA) y se encuentra claramente soportado en las imagenes subidas a Commons en wikipedia. Por lo tanto, no debe ser borrado

Johanapc (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep They're using it, so they most likely bought the rights. JJ Georges (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This image is a work of a Central Intelligence Agency employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a Work of the United States Government, this image or media is in the public domain Nanovapor9 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the basic requirement, but is it true? Any evidences? --Martin H. (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hermano pero date cuenta que el requisito básico es que se encuentre bajo el amparo de los Estados Unidos, la foto es del gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos y así como se lo expliqué a otro wikipedista te lo comento a ti, el tema del terrorismo es un tema global, que sabes tu si esta foto fue suministrada al gobierno de Estados Unidos ? si te das cuenta en mi gobierno (COLOMBIA) tanto el presidente como otros altos mandos colaboran con dichas fotos para ayudar contra el terrorismo, un claro ejemplo de esto que te digo es lo siguiente: dale clik al enlace

Narcotics Rewards Program - Target Information

En este enlace te vas a dar cuenta que las fotos fueron suministradas al gobierno de Estados Unidos pero con el fin de llevar a la captura de terroristas y de su divulgación, entonces aparece en un portal del gobierno federal de Estados Unidos pero no viola ningun derecho ya que mi gobierno (COLOMBIA) se las suministro, entonces porque no puede ocurrir lo mismo con OSAMA BIN LADEN ? cual es la diferencia ? NINGUNA ! por eso creo que esta foto es legal publicarla, no viola ningun derecho y esto seguro que fue suministrada al gobierno de Estados Unidos

Nanovapor9 (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photographing a terrorist does not mean that the photographer looses his copyrights to the U.S. government. The photo was not created by an employee of the U.S. federal government, at least there is no evidence that it was. Beeing usefull for educational purposes or beeing usefull in fighting terorism is not a valid reason to upload something here. --Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo no he dicho que el fotografo pierda sus derechos, jamas los perderá, lo que te comento es que la foto aparece amparada por el gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos, porque será ? y si no fuese de esta manera entonces porque no se borran las fotos que igualmente se encuentra en el portal web que te acabo de mostrar Narcotics Rewards Program - Target Information que están publicadas en varios articulos como estos: * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_Revolucionarias_de_Colombia, * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estructura_Militar_de_las_FARC, *http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di%C3%A1logos_de_paz_entre_el_gobierno_Pastrana_y_las_FARC_(1998-2002), entre muchos otros articulos. El tema aquí es que estas imagenes han sido subidas y no han violado ningun derecho porque son del gobierno de Estados Unidos. Si te das cuenta los articulos que te acabo de poner aquí tienen imagenes de las FARC (GRUPO TERRORISTA = AL QAEDA = FARC) y no fueron borradas, entonces porque borrar las de Osama Bin Laden ? me parece que estamos perdiendo tiempo con temas que la verdad no tienen relevancia ya que estas fotos son del gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos y no violan ningun derecho. Nanovapor9 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Martin H - Hey, you're somehow insecure or what? why all the time you deleting something? --77.48.153.172 16:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted, no evidence whatsover that this image was taken by an US government employee during that persons official duties. In fact, that's even very unlikely. Kameraad Pjotr 12:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation, definitely *not* own work by uploader Pbech (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep looks like a case for {{Pd-ineligible}}. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo_NS.jpg

Copyright violation. Company logo of NS (dutch national railways), rights owned by that company, designed by Dumbar & van Raalte in 1968, definitely not public domain as indicated. Jaho (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{Trademarked}} now. But I think {{PD-ineligible}} or even {{PD-shape}} does apply here.  Keep --JuTa 13:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept - clear case of PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo_NS.jpg

The logo is a registerd trademark or at least a copyrighted image. The fact that a template exists that can be used to suggest that image is in the public domain doesn't make it so. Using that template only means that someone thinks the image is in the public domain. There's no proof given that is in fact in the public domain and the disclaimer on the website of the NS suggests otherwise. Until it is 100% proven that this image is in the public domain, it is not. And nobody here can be the judge of that, you need unbiased, reliable sources for that. EvilFreD _overleg 17:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the license is correct. Just the trademark warnign was missing. --Denniss (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep design too simple, could use moar templates for less drama. Penyulap ☏ 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept -FASTILY 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement. Also uploaded as "own work" which it is definitely not. Pbech (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more on the precise nature of the connection you make between the case you mention and the case presently under consideration? The logo nominated here is not a purely functional design involving non-distinctive pictures of people and boats. Pbech (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted, passes the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted copyvio on en.wikipedia, no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: may be useful for illustrating wave propagation. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep seems useful per above, quality is good/ok. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 21:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept, within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Atlas of creation cover.jpg
• File:Adnan oktar 01.jpg
• File:Potrai Adnan 01.jpg
• File:Adnan Oktar 9517.jpg
• File:Adnan oktar 03.jpg
• File:Adnan oktar 11062009-1A1225.jpg
• File:Religious leaders adnan oktar.JPG
• File:Adnan oktar looking atlas.jpg]
• File:Adnan Oktar Agustos2007 01.jpg]

Probably copyvio per website which don't allow modification --Otourly (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I think that with "don't allow modification", Otourly gives a very polite and optimistic interpretation of "© 2010 by Harun Yahya International. All rights reserved. These materials may be freely copied, printed and distributed (...)". Mine is that "All rights reserved" and "freely copied, printed and distributed (...)" cannot coexist, and that the disclaimer indicates that the person who wrote it is not competent to release material under a licence. We must then be conservative, protect the uploader from himself, and assume the material is "All rights reserved". In addition, the problem of "no modification" makes me think that this material is speedy fodder. Rama (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All rights reserved was at one point required to protect copyright, even freely licensed copyright. It's meaningless legal boilerplate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support undelete. I have contact with a partner of Oktar's organization. Permission is granted to modify the images clearly. As source have to be always given "Harun Yahya". If you still want an explicit permission from the author, I can arrange this. Within days, this should be implemented. Is this step necessary?-Einstein2021 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Permission has been received for File:Adnan oktar 03.jpg. ZooFari 14:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Agree with Rama. See also the reaction my comment, years ago on Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos when I discussed the publicity-photos of Marat Safin. The publicty photo was not allowed, because "we don't accept noncommercial licensed media, and we don't accept "no derivative work" licenses". Thus, the Harun Yahya-publicity photos could not be allowed as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Permission received for File:Atlas of creation cover.jpg and File:Adnan oktar 01.jpg when emailed in for submission, they were later uploaded by the user themselves but with an incorrect licence. I have applied the original licence as given by email. Fæ (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted the images except the items we received permission for. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]