Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 5: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Abu badali (talk | contribs)
Abu badali (talk | contribs)
Line 336: Line 336:
****The ''act'' was historic, not the photo. I don't see how anyone needs a photo to understand that Arroyo was sworn in as president. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
****The ''act'' was historic, not the photo. I don't see how anyone needs a photo to understand that Arroyo was sworn in as president. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
::::*'''Comment'''. That's just the thing. She wasn't simply just "sworn in as president." To say so would be simplifying the event. I believe that the source of your misconception would be the weakness of the article text rather than the supposed irrelevance of the image. If the image were to be deleted now, then the article sufficiently bulked up in order to establish the significance of the image in the article and then the image reuploaded, would you have any objections to that? [[User:Shrumster|Shrumster]] 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::::*'''Comment'''. That's just the thing. She wasn't simply just "sworn in as president." To say so would be simplifying the event. I believe that the source of your misconception would be the weakness of the article text rather than the supposed irrelevance of the image. If the image were to be deleted now, then the article sufficiently bulked up in order to establish the significance of the image in the article and then the image reuploaded, would you have any objections to that? [[User:Shrumster|Shrumster]] 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::::*:Do you believe the article can really be "''bulked up''" to establish the significance of the image? Are you sure you don't mean establishing the significance of the event depicted? Can you do that without violating [[Wikipedia:No original research]]? To put it simple, do you know about any [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that discussed about this image (the <u>image</u> itself, not the event)? --''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] <sup>([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])</sup>'' 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


====[[:Image:007Brosnan.jpg]]====
====[[:Image:007Brosnan.jpg]]====

Revision as of 12:27, 16 August 2007

August 5

Image:Audioslave-beyourself-musicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gocsa (notify | contribs).
Image:BYLMphoto4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Max24 (notify | contribs).
Image:HUN_005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edwardx (notify | contribs).


Image:Beetlebum_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moochocoogle (notify | contribs).
Image:RUMUN - 11-19-06 - CHURCHILL AND EBAY DID IT!!!!.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Apfaq (notify | contribs).
Image:Yeti5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lizard King (notify | contribs).
Image:Veldwezelt1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Patrick MMA Bringmans (notify | contribs).


Image:Joelmchale.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MisterHand (notify | contribs).
  • Publicity image of living person replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 06:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Image:Cat cora.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crunch (notify | contribs).
  • Promotional fair use image for living person replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Image:Mark Dacascos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pegasus1138 (notify | contribs).
  • Promotional fair use image for living person, replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 06:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Image:Kevin Brauch 001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crypticfirefly (notify | contribs).
  • Promotional fair use image for living person, replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 07:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Image:Duff Goldman of Charm City Cakes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Junglecat (notify | contribs).
  • Copyright tag says its usable for any purpose, but no proof has been given. Image is a fair use promo photo replaceable with a free use one — Ejfetters 07:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Did not realize this was already a nom for deletion before, sorry. Ejfetters 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This was resolved on Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13. Many thanks. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, my apologies again, I withdraw my nom. Ejfetters 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pauladeen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Air.dance (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use image of living person, replaceable with a free use one — Ejfetters 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Image:U.S._one_dollar_obverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Minesweeper (notify | contribs).
Image:Gp14_sailmarking.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alexx.net (notify | contribs).
Image:1348_LOR_ExpSym.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lifebaka (notify | contribs).
Image:TRAŚh.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:Lwów.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:Ostpreußen.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:Keep Hands Off Polish Lands!.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:Prussian Canadian.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:Nohelmets.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).


Image:Prussian Crow.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:LandhisTea.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AshumsTheMoose (notify | contribs).
Image:Raistlindaughter.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ddcc (notify | contribs).
Image:Raistvesterossa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ddcc (notify | contribs).
Image:P raistlin3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vianna (notify | contribs).
Image:Nostalgic Prussian.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).
Image:BuchloeWappen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kelisi (notify | contribs).
If jpg is a problem, I can easily upload a png version for you. Also, you argue that the Cölbe coat of arms is no good because another file is "bigger and better", but the substitute that you've named here is certainly not bigger, and I would say that the mottling at the lower left lets it out as being better. Kelisi 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:De_tubingen_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:150.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SergeyLitvinov (notify | contribs).
Image:De_wernigerode_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_torgau_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_parchim_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_nwmecklenburg_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_ohrekreis_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_muldental_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_maintauber_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_ludwigslust_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:De_lippe_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:CölbeWappen.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kelisi (notify | contribs).
This is untrue. The file says it was "created by me", and it was. Kelisi 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, There is better version, SVG.--OsamaK 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:De_borken_coat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).
Image:Aschersleben_stassfurt_coa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cordyph (notify | contribs).
Image:Mainz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Optigan (notify | contribs).
Image:Gerb_ir.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Juliya2000 (notify | contribs).


Image:Aumred.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Priyanath (notify | contribs).
  • Image:Aumred.png superseded by SVG version Image:Aum red.svgDoSiDo 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The PNG version is currently placed/linked on over 200 articles, user pages, and user talk pages. What really needs to happen is for someone to replace it on article pages with the SVG version, which I fully support, but can't do. Then what about the user and talk pages that will have a broken image link? Is there a policy on that? Are we now removing all PNG files that have an SVG version? As the uploader/creator of the PNG version, I'm not attached to it staying or being deleted. Someone just needs to make sure that all the pages that currently have the image are taken care of. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like they were all replaced - good job. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It uses in 7 pages only ;)--OsamaK 07:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Seav (notify | contribs).
  • Impressive, but unnesary non-free image showing three million people protesting in the streets, used to illustrate the information that three million people protested in the streets. It doesn't help on the articles comprehension in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image satisfies all fair use criteria. --seav 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No free equivalent. This picture was taken more than 20 years ago way back before the concept of free content was pervasive in Philippine society. You won't find any other image of the EDSA revolution that's not copyrighted.
      • Respect for commercial opportunities. and Resolution/fidelity. The image is of a very low resolution.
      • Previous publication. This image was published in People Power: The Philippine Revolution of 1986: An eyewitness history and other books.
      • Content and Media-specific policy. It's quite encyclopedic, of course. If you argue that it's not encyclopedic, then you really don't know about the EDSA Revolution.
      • One-article minimum and Restrictions on location. Used only in three important encyclopedia articles.
      • Significance. Again, if you don't think this image is significant, then you really don't know anything about the EDSA Revolution and should net make judgement on the image's significance.
      • Image description page. I've added an extensive fair-use rationale on the description page that essentially states what I said above.
        • This nomination only concerns Significance, and I'm afraid you're mistaking a "significant event" by a "significant copyrighted work". We don't need to see an image of people gathering to understand the discussion about this significant event. --Abu badali (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You probably don't care because you're not Filipino, but as a person that goes through this avenue everyday, this picture speaks volumes about the magnitude of an event that I couldn't remember because I was a kid back then. You might not need a picture that depicts "estimated one to three million people filled EDSA from Ortigas Avenue all the way to Cubao" but others, especially Filipinos do need to see it to understand the extreme significance of the event. How else can you depict People Power, which was popularized by the EDSA Revolution, than by showing the people that filled up EDSA despite the threat of military action against them? Have you even read the article? --seav 09:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said in the nomination, this is an impressive image. But again, no, it's not necessary for the understanding of a discussion about the event. --Abu badali (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • We can argue back and forth about the significance of the image with respect to the article in question but this is really a subjective thing. You're saying the picture's not significant and not needed, I'm saying it is. I'm very much opposed for this image to get deleted just because you think it's not needed. I'll say again: the picture depicts the event in question and provides a depth of understanding for Filipinos than just simply saying "one to three million filled up EDSA." You, on the other hand, have not given any convincing arguments as to why it's insignificant; you're just saying it isn't. --seav 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes I have. I say this image, although useful, is not necessary to the article because we can understand that there was an incredible volumes of people on the streets that day just by reading the article's text. This is not nearly as subjective as you say. --Abu badali (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the other guy has stated, the image is extremely significant as a snapshot of a historic event. The photograph is more-or-less synonymous with other classic photographs such as Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, or the lone man standing against the tank in Tianenmen Square. The photograph is not simply there to illustrate that three million people protested, it is meant to show how the event occurred. One suggestion though. Change the image's tag to the {Non-free historic image} to avoid any further problems with such obviously locally-historic (hence most people not aware of the context of the image) images. Shrumster 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE
User Shrumster has posted a comment on a noticeboard asking people to "add some weight" to this discussion (together with some personal attacks on me). Please, before commenting, remember that this is not a vote! No matter how many keeps or deletes we have, the closing admin will judge based on our policy. This nomination, for instance, concerns item #8 of our policy, that says that non-free images are only used when they "increase readers' understanding of the topic" in a way that words alone can't. Nobody doubts that the event depicted on this image is immeasurably significant. Repeating how important this event is doesn't makes a case for keeping the image. --Abu badali (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can readers understand the significance of the topic when there is no photo? If you'd remove the photograph, the events in the article looks like an ordinary coup attempt, or worse, a protest rally. --Howard the Duck 02:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abu badali, no one's saying that this is a vote; only you inferred that. Also, you are being paranoid if you consider Shrumster's comments to be a personal attack. Going back to the discussion: Of course the debate on whether a photo is significant is subjective. It's like saying whether a photo is beautiful or not. It's just your personal opinion when you say that you don't need to see a photo of a crowd of people filling up a street. I'm saying otherwise: seeing the photo increases the reader's understanding of how important the event is than mere words and that makes the photo significant. It's a cliché, but the saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words" is very applicable in this case. --Seav 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE
User Abu badali had a RfC and a RfA regarding his activities in tagging fair-use images for deletion. (Just to be transparent.)
That ended on July 31, just several days ago. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Historic, irreproducible, a picture says a thousand words, falls under fair use. This would be one of the last pictures needed to be deleted by deletionists. There are a lot of other nonsense fair use images that do not contribute to the betterment of an article that should be hunted down. For all intents and purposes, this IfD is a farce. Berserkerz Crit 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. I suggest Abu badali target other images, like those crazy TV screenshots on episode lists or fair use images of living people (since those has a chance of having freer alternatives). Deleting historically images such as this one is ludicrous and, promotes hate and dissention, and is a waste on Wikipedia servers. --Howard the Duck 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have strengthened the fair use rationale section of the image's description page, and paid particular attention to FUC#8, which seems to be the only point of contention regarding the image's fair use in Wikipedia. --seav 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I don't think that rationale changes the situation. The rationale repeats the mistake of most comments above and in the Philippines talk: It explains the Significance of the event, instead of the significance of the image. And it goes on to say that the image is necessary because "readers generally have trouble comprehending or visualizing such a large gathering...", which is something I simply can't agree with. --Abu badali (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The significance of the event rubs off to the image; the image is significant since it refers to a significant moment in a nation's history; if the image's subject was a robbery in a downtown eatery then I'm all for deleting it. --Howard the Duck 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seav, I changed the fair use rationale for the Significance part. Hell would freeze first before this image would be deleted. The image is non-reproducible, depicts a once in a lifetime event, and speaks volume than words can do. This IfD is just plain wrong. SPEEDY KEEP. Berserkerz Crit 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news." (David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press) [1]. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there are other types of fair uses. Just because the photo itself is not the subject of the article does not automatically mean that the infringing use is not fair use. Your "delete" reason is a logical fallacy. --seav 05:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh?? The photo itself is the news? Maybe for other photos, but not this one. The news is what the photo depicts, and that is millions of Filipinos gathering in the streets! And there is no infringement here because it is a low resolution and small sized picture. For god's sake. Someone close this AfD already. Berserkerz Crit 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shot_Dead_on_Arrival.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stalmannen (notify | contribs).
I disagree. Image absolutely passes WP:FUC#8 in History of the Philippines and Benigno Aquino, Jr.. The televised assassination of a major political opponent in front of reporters and 2000 soldiers? It changed the face of the country. Picture easily as valid as Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg or any of the fair use claims I have listed at User:Knulclunk/Sandbox photos. --Knulclunk 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need to show a non-free screenshot to explain the assassination was televised. --Abu badali (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading this discussion, I have an idea. How about making an article about the video clip itself? Seeing as it has been replayed countless times on TV, some movies, used as evidence in several court cases and governmental investigations, documentaries, etc. Seems like a pretty notable video on its own even without the context. Shrumster 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the article is completely sourced and contains no original research, (and considering the article will be more than just a description of the videoclip), keeping the image could be considered. --Abu badali (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sin2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bustria (notify | contribs).
  • Dispute what the Philippine government calls "Public domain" is actually a non-commercial licensing ("...prior approval is needed if a government work will be used for making a profit"). --Abu badali (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale for use of historic images. Said politician is not simply "taking an oath as President." The event depicted herein is not a simple procedural taking of office but an unprecedented move in which a vice president was sworn in as president after the president seemingly left the position but recanted/reinterpreted his statement as not actually stepping down from the position after. Point is, it is a significant point in the history of the relevant country and this picture is more-or-less one of the iconic images of that said event. Shrumster 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But along those lines, can anything only be conveyed graphically? I see a lot of fair-use historical photos on a lot of WP articles. Are they to be removed as well? Shrumster 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's just the thing. She wasn't simply just "sworn in as president." To say so would be simplifying the event. I believe that the source of your misconception would be the weakness of the article text rather than the supposed irrelevance of the image. If the image were to be deleted now, then the article sufficiently bulked up in order to establish the significance of the image in the article and then the image reuploaded, would you have any objections to that? Shrumster 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe the article can really be "bulked up" to establish the significance of the image? Are you sure you don't mean establishing the significance of the event depicted? Can you do that without violating Wikipedia:No original research? To put it simple, do you know about any reliable source that discussed about this image (the image itself, not the event)? --Abu badali (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:007Brosnan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).
  • No evidence that this was released as a promotional photo. Delete per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3, replaceable by screenshot for encyclopedic purposes. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm sure if you scoured Archive.org for the page where the source was originally you'd find it. The source is now gone due to a revamp of the official website. This is most definitely a promotional photo though. Same as 007Connery and 007Lazenby that are also up for deletion below. Whatever works though. K1Bond007 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:007Connery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).
And screenshot is also replaceable with a promotional image. Keep. Alientraveller 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a screenshot is a tiny percentage of a copyrighted film, as opposed to 100% of a copyrighted photo. See WP:NFCC#3. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:-BB48BC80-4A6D-4ACB-938C-04A377D67DF0-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Willy turner (notify | contribs).
Image:007Lazenby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).
And screenshot is also replaceable with a promotional image. Keep. Alientraveller 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a screenshot is a tiny percentage of a copyrighted film, as opposed to 100% of a copyrighted photo. See WP:NFCC#3. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Angelo Coniglio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SoxrockProjects (notify | contribs).
Image:BigGirlsDon'tCryCap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ScoobyDoo01 (notify | contribs).
Image:Mack_Brown_with_the_Golden_Hat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jareha (notify | contribs).
Note: This nomination concerns WP:NFCC#8, so, please let's avoid unrelated keep votes.
  1. "The image depicts a unrepeatable event"
    • Yes, but still we don't need to show an image to discuss this unrepeatable event.
  2. "The event was very very important for the team in question because [insert your reason here]."
    • I'm not saying the event shouldn't be discussed in the article. I'm saying the discussion can be understood without an image.
  3. "One image is worth a thousand words"
    • Per NFCC#8, we prefer a thousand freely licensed words to one non-free image. And, lucky enough, the noteworthy encyclopedic information contained in this image can be conveyed with far less than a thousand words.
  4. "NFCC#8 is bogus, as any image can be replaced by text."
    • No. Some subjects are difficult or impossible to be adequately discussed in a educational context without the help of imagery. The event depicted on this image is not one for those cases.
  5. "This is copyright paranoia"
    • This has nothing to do with either or not this image's use is legal. It's about either this image can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
  6. "The nominator has an RFC and Arb case against him, he's a stalker"
    • Per WP:NPA, comment on content, not on the contributor.

Thanks, --Abu badali (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The two uses it claims fair use for are ancillary topics - one is for the team, which is extant and therefore invalid for fair use, and the other is for, again, an existing trophy. ALTON .ıl 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Augsburg_district_coa.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cordyph (notify | contribs).
Image:Breitscheid_Wappen.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kelisi (notify | contribs).


Image:Encephalon.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nrets (notify | contribs).
Image:GreatRiverRoad.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RingtailedFox (notify | contribs).
Image:Greater-Ceres-Dam wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tojo en (notify | contribs).
Image:AMAZO JLA-Z.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shsh (notify | contribs).
Image:Light from Death Note.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ruka (notify | contribs) and Jesus of Suburbia (notify | contribs).
Image:Webdings font.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by seanqtx (notify | contribs).