Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3

File:Colombia PIB crecimiento 2007 III CEHC.JPG

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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not English B (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (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.

File:Colombian GDP growth 2007 III CEHC.JPG

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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, out of date, would be better as an SVG if such a chart were needed B (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]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.

File:Ramon cabrero.jpg

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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8, #1, #2: a non-free image of a living person without contextual significance and owned by a commercial photo/news agency: http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/news/story?id=625365&s=arg&type=column with a specious rationale. Mosmof (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:ArgentinosCopaLib85.gif

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no contextual significance. A simple image of a team celebrating a championship. Mosmof (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fully agreed, delete —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Nadia Santos.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fulfill the following: "The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership." feydey (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, do any of our non-free content actually adhere to this ? It's a nice 'rule' in theory, but I think that it is something that has been mostly ignored in cases of TV characters. Besides, when it comes to fictional characters, the copyright is much more complicated than just 'who owns or took the photograph'. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Rachel Gibson.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is a promo image. feydey (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms by which this was posted on the originating website are here. St Anselm (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2010 (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.

File:TV-MA.gif

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, superseded by .png version Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really useful anymore with the replacement. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:TV-Y.gif

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, superseded by .png version Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really useful anymore with the replacement. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:TV-Y7.gif

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, superseded by .png version Skier Dude (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really useful anymore with the replacement. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Talossaarms.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tekanu was a sole purpose account that launched a "Tekanu microstate" nonsense/spam campaign. Their main article was speedy deleted as nonsense. This is a mop-up of the images left behind as part of that campaign. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kill with fire and swords and dragons :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:CruzzersChakana2.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, better version from commons here: File:CruzzersChakana.jpg Santosga (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commons version is indeed much more useful. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Merritt Parkway-mainline in Fairfield County.jpeg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality B (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useless file. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:WJones.bmp

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality version of File:William Jones, the Mathematician.jpg B (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons jpg is actually the same version in lower quality (jpg instead of bmp). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Princessruth.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality version of File:Princess Ruth Keelikolani.jpg B (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, higher quality version exists on commons. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inferior in every regard. Hekerui (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2010 (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.

File:Denis Photo-1.jpg

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: Keep; Permission apparently confirmed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission was allegedly sent in February 2010, User:Off2riorob commented that "Please take care with this uploaders pictures, there has been multiple copyright violations", and the uploader was indefinitely blocked in February. Hekerui (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any convincing suggestions that the uploader was the copyright holder. support deletion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is clearly shown in the photo file. The permission was correct and complete in its information. It was e-mailed by the copyright holder with the photo attached, in accordance with OTRS procedure. Deletion is not warranted, when the copyright holder SENT THE REQUIRED PERMISSION to OTRS.

68.174.70.117 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo should not be deleted. I can see that the file shows permission sent to OTRS. Talking about the uploader distracts from the central, dispositive issue: that the PERMISSION WAS SENT by the copyright holder, and everyone can see that it was sent.

The photo should not be deleted.

SinforosoAlicea (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — SinforosoAlicea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree that this photo should not be deleted. The permission was sent by the copy right holder to OTRS. This permission appears right on the photo file.

Recommend: Do not delete this photo

173.70.137.226 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the photo should not be deleted. The permission is clearly shown, and has been there for 4 months.

This photo should Not be Deleted.

FreedomRing76 (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — FreedomRing76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I'm not seeing anything in OTRS regarding this file.--Rockfang (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockfang, that presents a real concern. The copyright permissions were e-mailed to OTRS on February 8, 2010 and again on June 3, 2010 when this "deletion notice" was posted. Both times, the URL to File:Denis Photo-1.jpg was attached to the e-mails. The text of the copyright permissions appears in the photo file. Everything was done properly, as required by OTRS. So something is odd here, and this photo should not be deleted.

24.103.123.98 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest keeping this discussion open at least a couple more days to clear up the OTRS aspect.--Rockfang (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-I also notice there are newly created accounts and IPs with no other edits commenting here. OTRS permission appears to be the process of sending an email claiming to be the living person and stating that you own the copyright, this picture was uploaded by a multiple copyright violator, am I to understand that the violator owns this copyright of what appears to be a adobeshop file, ask him to send the actual file if he holds the copyright or delete it. Look at the public logs of the deleted copyright violations of this uploader. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has indeed sent what appears to be the original (it has been manipulated into more b/w). I can not confirm for certain obviously that he is the Copyright holder and understand the concern but I will say that I called him up to confirm the otrs permission and he has confirmed his claim of copyright and the email that is his. James (T C) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that highly suspect. You don't get banned as a sockpupeteer for being truthful about your identity. Hekerui (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. Sock-puppetry and being honest about who you are different (abusive use of accounts does not mean you are lying about the accounts being yours). He is who he says he is, I called and talked to him using the numbers on his movies website. That doesn't guarantee that everything is perfect but it guarantees that the emails are from him and that he claims copyright. In general this is all that OTRS needs baring evidence that it is wrong. The question that some have is that because of his history they still doubt the permission, this is a fine question to have but is separate from the question on if it is him giving the permission (which was one of the biggest questions we at OTRS had). James (T C) 00:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can not say for certain then we should reject his claim, you say there has been manipulation to black and white? It looks like a photoshop photo of a black and white newspaper picture to me..Anyway there have been multiple violations and false claims from the uploader. Also all these five accounts that have commented to keep this picture have no edits outside this issue, Clearly there is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in action here as well, 173.70.137.226 SinforosoAlicea FreedomRing76 24.103.123.98 68.174.70.117 Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual file was sent along with the copyright permission, from the copyright holder. There is no further true issue here. The above discussion appears more ad hominem, than consideration of the central fact:

PERMISSION WAS SENT TO OTRS, AND OTRS HAS CONFIRMED THIS PERMISSION BY CONTACTING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.

THIS PHOTO SHOULD NOT BE DELETED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.198.133 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a part of the OTRS team. I talked to Jamesofur earlier today and we both worked on this ticket. We contacted the emails and phone numbers associated with the OTRS emails and we did confirm that he sent those emails. We do not have any evidence to the contrary, so the permissions is good and the image can be kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this file was and is a multiple violator of copyright and policy, your trust in them is quaint. While you are trusting your investigations you could also welcome all the socks and meats that have been brought to comment here in support of your decision.Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax a little, your attitude isn't helping anything. The community is of course able to delete it if they still wish to. Multiple OTRS agents (at least 5 at last count) have dealt with this image case trying to verify the image at hand. In general we do not actually do a "if there is any doubt" attitude when confirming images. There are many reasons doubt can be had even though they swear to us that they own the copyright (emails can be forged, they can lie, they can misunderstand the law involved) and it is very easy to delete the image after receiving any future claim or information and the harm is relatively minimal. Normally after doing due diligence (verify that the email is from who they say they are, that they would reasonably have the copyright to that image etc.) we will then verify the image. The biggest concern at the start (at least as far as OTRS was concerned) was the we were unable to verify that the person was indeed who he said he was. This concern has been satisfied, I was able to verify, via multiple reliable sources, that the phone number I had from his website was for the director and lawyer who claimed to be writing us and after talking to him he verified who he was, that he held the copyright to the image and what email he wrote from.

This is usually enough to verify permission especially given that the fact that he is a lawyer and director who would likely understand me when I ask him if the copyright was transfered to him and the fact that it is very easy for us to delete on any claim from a third party (or future evidence that someone else claims copyright). Concerns about past copyright problems are quite obviously valid, however there is very little more we can do to confirm beyond what we have already done. The sock-puppetry to be honest means little to me, we do not generally have a habit of deleting valid media for other things the user has done (including bans/blocks/sockpuppetry). As I said above I do not think anyone is arguing that the SPAs and IPs around us are not Mr. Denis. It is important to remember that it is not in anyway easy for people to go through our processes, especially when they feel like they are being attacked unjustly. It is sadly not rare for a sock-master to begin because he could not understand the "charges" against him in the first place and felt like he had no other choice. Usually we as a community are not faultless and I say that as someone who spends a great amount of time working x-wiki to fight against the abuse and vandalism we get as both a Checkuser and Global Sysop. James (T C) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am relaxed. You are interested in this single picture, I was involved in correcting the edits of the uploader which resulted in an awful attack BLP of a living person that is a political opponent of Mr Dennis and from my position, the uploader can keep his picture even if he has a copyright. We don't have to accept anything from persona non gratis. Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (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.

File:Belgium employment.xcf

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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source image of file that was deleted on IFD in 2005 (can't find IFD link atm). The Evil IP address (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2005_September_16&oldid=23454611, "A bunch of OR/NS images whose uploads are attributed to "Conversion script"." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Rico Roots to the Bone cover.jpg

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: Keep; concern addressed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No FUR for the back cover of an album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use has now been added, also its the front cover not the back. Salavat (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is indeed a front cover. I can see no reason why it was thought to be a back cover.--Rockfang (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2010 (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.

File:Roots to the Bone label.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No FUR for a scan of a CD —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 3 June 2010 (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.