User talk:Aspects/Archive 10

love profusion
hi! i saw what you did with the whole 2nd cover regarding "Love Profusion" i seem to remember that the "Like a Prayer" article also does mention in the article a 2nd cover, i remember that there indeed was one uploaded but then deleted it, why don't you upload that one also?--189.144.100.216 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not upload the alternate cover for "Love Profusion," I am just trying to keep it in the article. I have never uploaded an image and find that part of Wikipedia confusing, so I leave that to people who have more experience in that area.  I suggest that you find an editor who has experience uploading images about uploading the image you are looking for. Aspects (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing Kelly Clarkson discography page
Hi Aspects, it's my first time to use talk section on Wikipedia. I hope there won't be any troubles with a message. (Does it work well?) At first, I'm sorry if I made you annoyed without any notification. However, I thank you to send me this message.

About editing sales information from Kelly Clarkson discography, I think you were mistaken. That article which you had used a source said about Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You) single sales, not Stronger album sales. It cannot be true that Stronger album sold over 350k copies. It was not that high in UK and also sold about 250k copies.

Unfortunately, I don't have an exact source to prove this because nobody posted about this one officially. So it's possible that 250k copies could be wrong because thses numbers were calculated by somebody who considered numbers compared to other albums from chart article.

Taylor Swift's Red might have sold over 274k copies for 15 weeks. This one is big hit in UK. Stronger was good there but it didn't surpass this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.143.216.233 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aspects, Kelly's Greatest Hits record has sold 331k copies in the US as of this week, not 250k. I'm not sure how to cite that, but if you could that would be great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.76.163 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Aspects
I responded to your recent revert at Talk:Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album). Dan56 (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rugrats
Hi, I don't understand why my improvements to the Rugrats article are being reverted. I truly feel like my edits are necessary to the article, enhancing the experience of using Wikipedia. With the cast photo and logo in the infobox and the info box colors altered to match the show, I believe this creates a user friendly environment. It allows readers to experience what they're researching on an entirely new level. Also, other articles have used the methods I'm executing. The article for Family Guy uses both the show's logo and cast photo and the SpongeBob SquarePants article and The Simpsons article changes the infobox colors to reflect the theme of the television show. I don't see the harm in my edits and I understand that you're doing your job to regulate Wikipedia laws but, again, I truly feel like I'm bettering the article and creating a fun environment for users. If there is anything I can do in order to properly execute these ideas, please advise me. And even though I disagree with you reverting my edits, I respect your decision and I hope you can help me improve the article :) CityMorgue (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I found that your edits were not improvements nor necessary to the article. The color fields are deprecated and should not be used in Template:Infobox television.    Only 124 of the 26,407 articles that use the template have the deprecated color fields, so using one example using them, I could use the vast majority that do not use them.  The Simpsons does not use the deprecated infobox fields, it uses a different template Template:Infobox television/colour.  If you feel the colors are clearly associated with Rugrats like yellow is with The Simpsons, then you should either gain a consensus at Talk:Rugrats or you could start a new discussion at Template talk:Infobox television/colour.


 * Two non-free images should not be used in the infobox as it would fail WP:NFCC. I have edited numerous television articles and the only ones I have seen that have two images are the Seth Macfarlane ones. I am about to go change those and move the cast photos to the character sections of the articles.  I was going to do that with the Rugrats article, but you had already posted a different cast photo in that section, which doubly made the smaller cast photo fail WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining, and I completely understand. I will definitely consider your suggestions for alternative methods to accomplish these edits. CityMorgue (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass Effect (comic)
You reverted my removal of the Artbook image because it was "unexplained". In this case, I did explain this, although I sort of explained the image deletion in the edit reason for the edit before it. So, I guess, my bad. If that's your only reason for restoring the image, I'm going to re-remove it. If not, okay then, let us discuss it like gentlemen. Or maybe a gentleman and a gentlewoman; I don't know your gender.

For the sake of ease, the edit reason:
 * "removing art book image because it isn't described in the article and isn't actually an comic."

I also said "an comic". I will carry this tragedy forever. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, but I took a few days off of Wikipedia. I am sorry for the reversion, while I was technically correct about the edit not explaining it, I should have looked at your other edit that did explain.  I should have also examined the image more closely because I honestly thought it was a comic book.  I am sorry for my wrong reversion, which I will revert myself, and will make sure in the future that I do not make the same mistake again. Aspects (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Stinkers Bad Movie Awards
Let's take a look now =) --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Over the Mountain
Contrary to what you feel, the article does NOT currently meet notability guidelines per NSONGS and is about to be nominated for deletion. ChakaKongtalk 11:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to voice my opinion at the merge discussion and make necessary changes to the articles that need to be made. Aspects (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oskar Wolkerstorfer
The photograph in this article IS still covered by COPYRIGHT!! REMOVE immediately! Tom


 * Copyrighted images can be used in biographical articles if there is no free equivalent is available per WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI. If a free image can be found, then it can be replaced and deleted from Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Midway (1942 documentary)
Hi, I changed the photo, because the DVD cover is totally nonsense. The makers used this widely published photo File:USS Langley (CVL-27) and others enter Ulithi.jpg. However, the ships depicted were mostly not even built, when the Battle of Midway took place. I don't know if there ever existed a poster for an 18-minute film. Maybe we coud combine two screenshots, the one I used and the following saying someting like "official U.S. Navy..." Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, like this: File:Battle of Midway (1942 documentary) intro2.jpg Cobatfor (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that image works better than just the title card, especially since it is on Commons. Aspects (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NSONG

 * Although your AfD comment is correct, I don't believe you understand this guideline either. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you explain which AfD I made the comment on, so I could explore it further to come back to you with a better response, especially since the only recent AfDs that I have commented on were three singles that I started the AfDs. Aspects (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't AfDed it (yet). This is in regards to you reverting a redirect of mine on the Ai no Ai no Hoshi article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is also applicable to the redirect I attempted on Over the Mountain which Aspects reverted. As the subsequent discussion showed, the article should be merged as proposed. ChakaKongtalk 11:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Lukeno94, when you redirected "Ai no Ai no Hoshi," it was like a prod that was then removed. It should not have been redirected/reverted again, but a discussion of either a merge or an AfD should have taken place or at the very least a no sources template added to address your concern. Also your edit summaries were incorrect since the reliable sources is just one of the criteria listed at WP:NSONGS.

In response to ChakaKong, "Over the Mountain" now fits three of the criteria listed at WP:NSONGS, notable sources, music charts and notable cover versions.

In both cases, there has been no evidence to show that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub and nothing was stated that makes me think either of you even looked for information or sources to help expand the article in anyway that makes me think you saw a stub article for a song and therefore it should be redirected and no information even merged to the album. Aspects (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden is on proving the songs have in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not in proving they don't. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If this was taken to AfD, the nominator would have to go through WP:BEFORE in that "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." which then are listed below as a minimum of searching Google Books and Google News. If you are claiming an article is so small that they should be merged/deleted, you need to be able to back up that it is unlikely to grow beyond a stub by expressing that you actually took the time to search to see if there is information that could be added to the article to take it beyond a stub. Aspects (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Except there was no need to take it to AfD for what was a 100% policy based redirect. The article should only be restored if the creator finds sources and uses them. And I wasn't referring to either criteria, I was referring to the bit, very clearly written, at the top of NSONG, which should've been obvious. This sort of farce is precisely why NSONG is being reworded. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Stop undoing edits you know nothing about, your just making more work for me i re uploaded those images because the other ones don't fit the infobox correctly, they are just too small so if i re upload put a reduce tag on it then the bot adds the correct size, so please do me a favor and just let the bot take care of it your just creating more problems for both of us. Koala15 (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you understand the reasoning behind my edits, so we can end this edit war. Koala15 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you undo every edit feel free to ask me about them first. Koala15 (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Pickler edit
You say, "changes per MOS." I'd like to know what MOS you're reading. Please see Template:Infobox_musical_artist -- quote: "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed, as a comma-separated list [no break]. Omit parenthetical dates; save that information for the main article." (You also used a hyphen instead of en dash.) Parentheses are generally discouraged in infoboxes, and if they are used, it's preferred to use them with type. Part 2: according to MOS:NUMERO, "No. 15" is correct. Yes, it is fine to write it all out (number fifteen), but, I'm not aware of anything that says it's the preferred way. Personally, I think that if it's more than once or twice in a paragraph it is better to abbreviate so it's not so unnecessarily long. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My full edit summary was "Added back years for record labels in infobox and rv incorrect style/grammar changes per MOS", the first part was explaining my revert to the infobox and nothing to do with the MOS. Had you explained why you removed the years from the infobox with the link you provided above, I would have gone there and seen you were correct.  Most of the American Idol alumni have the years and I always thought that was correct, but now that I think about it I guess I never did see it in other artist infoboxes.  I am going to remove the years from the infobox and in the future when I notice these in other infoboxes I will remove them there.


 * As for the second part of edit summary, I had copied what you had used in your edit summary. WP:NUMERO states that No. or number is preferred to # and as number is already in the article, you previously provided no reason for the change, and in my opinion having it more than once is not unnecessarily long and should stay as it was previously. The numbers themselves should be spelled out per WP:ORDINAL. Aspects (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:ORDINAL says, "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words." So, again, it comes down to preference -- and consensus. But, it's not that big a deal. Thanks for your reply.

Crystal Bowersox edits
I'm Crystal's manager and was correcting inaccuracies on the wiki page. Please reverse your edits. Thanks Gina Orr www.orrigami.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginaalex (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The numbers are backed up by a reliable source. If you want to change the sales numbers, you need to provide a reliable source backing up the numbers.  Please read the message I left on your talk page as to how to go about this.  Aspects (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. You are so right. It's far better to have inaccurate singles and dates. Thanks WikiNazi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginaalex (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's better to have accurate dates with a source. It's absolutely fine to update the information, just supply a source as well, so it's all verifiable. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Affairs of Anatol
You reverted my addition of a high resolution image of a poster of this movie. Yes, it was a poster from a newspaper, but it is better quality than what is currently on the site. The policy you cited says: ''Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used.'' So I don't know why the image I provided is a problem? I wanted to talk about this though, not just revert your edit. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

'Angels' by Robbie Williams
Hi Aspects, I noticed me and you are the people consistently reverting deletion of the information about Ray Heffernan on the Angels article: Angels (Robbie Williams song). As an experienced Wikipedian, do you have any ideas on how we could stop people deleting the sourced information time and time again? Reverting it gets tiresome... Thanks, --Jonie148 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hard when these editors do not justify their actions either in edit summary or on the talk page. It would be helpful if we started a talk page discussion, gain a consensus on the issue and then link to the discussion both in our edit summaries and then on the other editors' talk pages to either see the consensus there or discuss there instead of reverting. Aspects (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PPOT
Hi! I've restarted the article about PPOT, the Danish band. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have contested the speedy. If an article is AFDed for nonBLP reasons and I find new compelling evidence of notability I can write a new article on the subject and post it with no prior discussion needed, and a new AfD is needed if one wants to challenge the new article WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, however, notify the closing admin of the 2010 AFD and he was fine with moving it into the main space and seeing what happens. see discussion- WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Candice Glover edits
It was said that it was the lowest selling coronation songs since Taylor Hicks' Do I Make You Proud, saying that song sold 38,000 copies in the first week, while those were only the digital sales. It also sold 190,000 physical copies the first week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.165.172 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Press Play On Tape, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Record
Record is an album synonym. I don't understand your point? &mdash; Robin   (talk)  22:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles are listed in album categories, uses Template:Infobox album and Clarkson's navigational template lists them as albums, so it should stay as album. I do not find the synonymous, which would explain why I changed it back. Aspects (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. &mdash; Robin   (talk)  18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Manchester Gazette
first, of all let me apologise if there are any formatting errors, I an writing on my cell phone and some unusual line and format errors sometimes occur.

Just a little background on Manchester Gazette, the publication ceased publishing in the 1830s. Last autumn an online newspaper began claiming continuinity with the original publication, last year the claims were added to the article including the logo of the online publication. The logo are the arms of Manchester City Council and they have issued a cease notice to the online publisher. The current arms date to around 30 years later since the newspaper was published so only relate to the online version which i have excised from the current article until such time as it gains notability. I hope this clears up your query. I did mention all this on the talk page. A quick re-through often avoids these type of conversations. Happy editing.

 EhsanQ  (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559016117 your edit] to Requiem for a Heavyweight may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561231203 your edit] to Invasion of the Body Snatchers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * {Don Siegel}

Film year category in Another Face
It's not necessary when the template film year is present. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that normally I 1) check the categories at the bottom of the article, 2) check the categories on the edit page, 3) verify the categories on the preview page and 4) check the categories at the bottom of the article again. Apparently I was editing too many film articles at a time because I skipped my first step. Aspects (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Antonella Barba
The sources you reference do not so much as suggest, much less provide significant evidence for, the assertion that there is a significant public debate or interest in the fact that one contestant was dismissed from a reality show while another one wasn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries.
Hi,

Season 2 of the Vampire Diaries has a dark purple banner on the top, not a blue one. That is why I changed it, to make it consistent with the other season pages. B.Davis2003 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The image with the dark blue banner has been on Wikipedia for over two years now and no one has complained about it. A search on Google for the season covers shows a majority with the dark blue banner and a few with the dark purple banner.  The file you uploaded is way too large in size, almost ten times the file size of the previous image and it is a terrible image with the Australian rating and the "5 Disc Set" images located on them, make it an inappropriate image for Wikipedia.  I do not understand how your changing the image made it consistent with the other season articles, when it was already consistent with them and now this image is inconsistent with the additional images located on it.  As such the previous image should change, until there is a consensus to use the new image per WP:BRD. Aspects (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

500 Days of Summer
Hello, I have posted File:Product 500 days of summer soundtrack.jpg at FfD. I had removed the image today but realized that I had done it before and you had reverted me before. :) I've posted the file for deletion so others can weigh in to determine the overall consensus. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Bollywood films of 1997, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhai (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Aspects

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Champaign, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memorial Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jedi image
Just dropping you a line, but I wouldn't restore the Jedi image again; I understand (and agree) that it is worth keeping, but it isn't worth getting into an edit war over. If it ends up getting deleted due to be orphaned, it can just as easily be undeleted (and I'd happily restore the image in that case), so there's nothing that will be lost. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563779662 your edit] to The Sin of Harold Diddlebock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * | released      = February 18, 1947  (Miami) April 4, 1947 (U.S.) October 28, 1950 (re-release)

Removal of CFB images
I removed then from the pages because I created and uploaded those images and I no longer want my work to be used on Wikipedia. -- Kevin W.  - Talk  03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One Year Later (song) = Ballad is a genre???
Hi, the song One Year Later (song) is actually ballad is a type of song, not a genre, but User:FudgeFury undid it since he thought that "ballad is a genre" in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.141 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Jedi. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) (as DRN volunteer)

File:ACC-Uniform-BC.png
With all due respect, I believe that as the person who created and uploaded the image, I have the right to dictate its use on Wikipedia, especially since it's no world-famous work of art and quite frankly the quality leaves much to be desired. If someone wants to replace it with an alternative, that's their prerogative, but as I am unable to use my work to its fullest potential, I would rather that none of my work be on here than some of it be on here in an incomplete form. In any case, the image is a violation of WP:NFC. I'd appreciate if you would let the image be removed. -- Kevin W.  - Talk  22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think they still need to be deleted from Wikipedia, then take the images to Files for deletion. Aspects (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)