Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Voyageofthedamned.jpg‎ (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sceptre (notify | contribs).

• Garbled fair use raionale "As a screenshot of a major point of the plot of the specific episode. The screenshot also shows Banakaffalatta and the Heavenly Hosts, two non-human lifeforms which cannot be adequately described.", use "as a screenshot" is an invalid FU criteria, neither of the two lifeforms appearence has significant relevance to the plot, and their appearence is unmentioned in the article, these non humans even if mentioned could not be clearly identified from this image Fasach Nua (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Banakaffalatta and the Host are a crucial element of the plot. Also, "as a screenshot" is an invalid FU criteria is a very empty argument in itself. — Edokter • Talk • 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination flawed - the Host stalking the party is pretty much the entire premise of the episode. Will ^(talk) 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, "Bannakaffallatta" is mentioned three times and the Host ten times in the plot summary alone. I don't know if you actually read the article, to be honest. Will ^(talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Thankyou for those statistics, I was wondering if you could tell us how many times the appearence of the characters are referred in the article. The images claimed function is to show how these characters appear, while the hosts are essential to the plot, their appearence is largely irrelvant Fasach Nua (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought you meant appearance as in "appears in the special", not "what it looks like". Even so, both appearances are mentioned in the article, and the "appearance of the characters" was intended to be additional, not the main reason. Will ^(talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is an absolute joke, so taking your last comment together with the rationale you wrote, the primary reason of this image is to be a screenshot? The critical commentry this FU image is used to aid is that this programme was broadcast for use on screen, what you are doing is getting very close to vandalism Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - image is fair use and characters are important to plot Million_Moments (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appearance of the Host is relevant to certain complaints levied against this article by people who resent their appearance as angels. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Image is relevant, and useful for the plot. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Consensus is fair use rationale is adequate and appropriate. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jerry landry summer of 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerrylandry (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Annfox age20.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Annfox (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tajmajal98a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dennis L. Siluk (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jun12 61.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Originalworks (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bugboyandy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BugBoyAndy (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BugBoyAndySignature.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BugBoyAndy (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Darren Gilbert '2006.jpg_ (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Darren Gilbert (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ea0e990f.jpg_ (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diane Reyes (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:David_Barrera_in_2007.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legithrand (notify | contribs).

• UE, OR. Used on now-deleted page. - Calton | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily deleted per CSD G11 spam --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:12-31-07-DMA-WEB-BANNER-cop.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DMA (Direct Media Advertising) (notify | contribs).

• Obvious advertising, user has been blocked per SPAM and SOAP DodgerOfZion (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:The Office Convention 10-07 021a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Polarbear97 (notify | contribs).

• Although the PD donation is appreciated, this image is of far too low quality to be of any use. It's very blurry and in very low resolution; it does virtually nothing to illustrate the article on Angela Kinsey, because all we can tell is that she's a vaguely blonde woman. Dylan (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the image is of low quality, it is the only one of Angela Kinsey available. Unless another one of Angela Kinsey is uploaded, I believe the image should stay. Polarbear97 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad quality, and couldn't we always use the one from the character page?-Mastrchf91- 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is a replaceable non-free image. -- RG² 06:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per polar, its a bad photo, not a terrible one, and it does (just about) fulfill its function. The image from the article is FU, and as such cannot be used in a biographical article to show what a person looks like Fasach Nua (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. No consensus to delete. -Nv8200p talk 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplicate listing: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 1#Image:Mondasplanet.jpg — Edokter • Talk • 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mondasplanet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Khaosworks (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image kept. Added to Mondas (Doctor Who) -Nv8200p talk 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hippo.03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meebly (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily deleted per CSD I5 unused non-free image; furthermore, it is easily replaceable with a free alternative. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School Sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ssbohio (notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:OC_Horse&JockeyHurling2.038.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sarah777 (notify | contribs).

• Copyright violation (derivative work) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as a copy of a 2D image, or a picture of a 3D monument? If the latter, I think it is okay Fasach Nua (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Freedom of panorama applies. -Nard 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a public monument on a public road; it is a photo of a 3D street monument; (I took it myself). The information on it is 100 years old and not protected in any way. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep, Ireland has a very generous FoP. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama for all the detail you could ever want on the subject. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But according to the commons page, UK law (on which Ireland is based and which it advises we should use as a baseline) signs do not qualify for FOP.[2] Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Irish and UK law have been diverging for the past 90 years! (Sarah777 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Two-dimensional objects do not, this is true. Commons however has been lenient towards monuments for example with engraved signs with some amount of 2D in them. The section you indicate shows that hand-painted tiles and stained glass are covered under FOP, for instance. This hurling monument should get no less consideration. -Nard 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really have an opinion on this, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument Fasach Nua (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion? Hmmmm. Maybe in future I'll take my pictures of monuments to Irish Heroes from slightly to the side. Weren't you the chap tried to put Union Jacks beside Irish Players from the Occupied Territories? (Sarah777 (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think you might want to look into those edits a bit more closely, I think you might have missed the wp:point of them. I dont really see what the connection is, however you are right, if you had of taken this picture from a further 1/2 metre back, this would be an unambiguious case of freedom of panorama, and a 100% keep. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept based on Commons:Freedom of panorama. -Nv8200p talk 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per CSD I1 - redundant/duplicate image. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osvicsyndih.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lkosci3 (notify | contribs).

• orphan image. any chemists know what this reaction is? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depicts the oxidation of an alkene with osmium tetroxide. The image appears to be redundant with Image:Oso4mechanism.gif which is used in osmium tetroxide. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily-deleted unused, unencyclopedic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Originalwoman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NS-ward (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Moncton_Golden_Flames.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flibirigit (notify | contribs).

• WP:NFCC#8 violation. Used in a gallery of old logos. The logo is not discussed in the article and is not needed to understand the subject of the article Rettetast (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Technically, no logo is required to "understand the subject of the article". The logo serves as visual identification of the Moncton Golden Flames, an aspect of the franchise in the article. The logo isn't in an infobox because, per the nature of minor league sports, there have been numerous iterations of the same franchise as affiliations change. Ideally, the logos should be in the body of a history section documenting when and why the franchise shifted names and logos rather than a gallery, but that is a correctable issue with the content of the article, not with the validity of the Fair Use claim of the logo itself. Resolute 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Resolute, definately part of understanding the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Resolute. Article does need to be expanded. All the incarnations were lumped together per consensus for article merger. Unfortunately nobody has had the time to write more historical text, yet. Flibirigit (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. DMighton (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful to illustrate article Million_Moments (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If, as Resolute says, the image is used as "visual identification of the Moncton Golden Flames", then it fails WP:NFCC#3. If not, then it fails WP:NFCC#8 in that the logo isn't mentioned in the article. (This goes for the logo below as well.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it fail NFCC#3? One logo does not suffice, as each logo represents a different aspect of the franchise. Each logo, representing each incarnation of the franchise is equally as important as any other logo used as a visual identification of any other subject on Wikipedia. Resolute 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One logo would adequately represent the organization. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - copyright violation FU #1, #8 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:Logo is now used in an infobox only at Moncton_Golden_Flames. Flibirigit (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per all of the above keeps'. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept per change in usage by Flibirigit. -Nv8200p talk 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: }

Image:Nbhawk79.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flibirigit (notify | contribs).

• WP:NFCC#8 violation. Used in a gallery of old logos. The logo is not discussed in the article and is not needed to understand the subject of the article Rettetast (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Technically, no logo is required to "understand the subject of the article". The logo serves as visual identification of the New Brunswick Hawks, an aspect of the franchise in the article. The logo isn't in an infobox because, per the nature of minor league sports, there have been numerous iterations of the same franchise as affiliations change. Ideally, the logos should be in the body of a history section documenting when and why the franchise shifted names and logos rather than a gallery, but that is a correctable issue with the content of the article, not with the validity of the Fair Use claim of the logo itself. Resolute 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Resolute, definately part of understanding the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Resolute. Article does need to be expanded. All the incarnations were lumped together per consensus for article merger. Unfortunately nobody has had the time to write more historical text, yet. Flibirigit (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. DMighton (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful to illustrate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Million Moments (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete - blatant violation of #8 and #1 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:Logo is now used in an infobox only at New Brunswick Hawks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per the above, obviously. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- Image kept per change in usage by Flibirigit -Nv8200p talk 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]