Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Please undelete. The image said to be deleted for copyright reasons is a picture I took myself and have posted on my social media accounts: www. &

I do not understand why it supposedly violates copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Lindsey Abudei (talk • contribs) 16:45, 04 December 2016 (UTC)

Current requests[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1[edit]

I Mondivi1 took photos and created those art work. The administrator who deleted my files lacked professional care and due diligence and deleted my file . I wrote to the administrator never received a reply. In fact only comments on the discussion was her comments which she could not justify. I travel thousand of miles to take picture and create art work. This act of deletion without just cause is unfair and unjust

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandovi1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 November 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose

  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg is the same image as File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg. The latter image is much better. It has the bell in context, rather than with the background crudely whited out. Therefore I see no reason to restore the deleted file.
  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg is an image of a sculpture wtih a background map. In order for this to be restored, both the sculpture and the map must be proven to be PD.
  • The last two are PDF files. We do not keep PDFs of images.

As for "I wrote to the administrator never received a reply", I see no communication on the talk pages of Ellin or Jcb, the only two editors involved in the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that the bell with context is better I think there's no issue in having a second version without. Maybe Mandovi1 can you tell us why you prefer the collages over the just the plain images and how you see them being used (on Wikimedia project)? Do you have any information on who created the statue and when and the same for the map? Basvb (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The statue seems to be created around 1614: see w:Statue of Our Lady of Miracles, Jaffna patao. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My request[edit]

I didn't see there was this request and wrote down the following, lets put it here as a sidestep and discuss under the main topic:

I hereby request the undeletion of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg and potentially that of the other files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1.

The bell is clearly cropped from File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg, for which everything seems to point to a regular own work upload. As such I do not understand why this was deleted and request it to be undeleted.

Except for File:File Size 2.pdf as it seems redundant as duplicate I want to request undeletion of the other files as well. The components of those can be found in File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna 003.jpg and File:The Moon of July 13 2014 Toronto Canada.jpg. Thus all components of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna . Easter Morning 1622.pdf are also own work.

File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg the map is obviously not own work, but very likely PD, maybe the user can help us in asserting the proper source information there.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bas

Thanks so much for being kind to review in detail my concern and recommending my artwork be listed again in the Wiki Commons.

In regard to your comments on " File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg " I have enclosed the following information and images.On Oct 4, 2016, I overlapped (merged) the photograph image of statue on the icon image of Jaffna Town to create the File: Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg. I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives). I have emailed the all three images to prove the above work is my creative work .Please refer to Ticket#2016112510018536. to see those these images. Hope this help to prove the above file is my creative work. Thanking you again for your kind help in recommending to install my other delete file as well. Mandovi1

First, as noted above, you must sign your posts.
Second, also as noted above, we do not keep PDFs of images.
Third, "I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives)." That means that in order for the image to be restored, the copyright owner of the icon image must provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
Fourth, you claim that the map is your own work -- I doubt that very much. You must prove that it is PD or freely licensed.
Fifth, the combination of the map and the sculpture is, as you say, "creative work". We do not generally keep that sort of creative combination unless it is very clear that there is an educational advantage in doing so.
Finally, your OTRS e-mail (addressed to Jimmy Wales) complains at length about the fact that "I spend time responding my comments into her comment box and provided more detail regarding my work into each of my art work. I never received any response from her." As I said above, as far as I can see, you made no actual attempt to communicate with Ellin Beltz on her talk page.
While I do not oppose restoring the second version of the bell image since Basvb thinks it would be good to do so, the other jpg has three problems named above and policy prohibits restoring the two PDFs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Jameslwoodward, Basvb and Mandovi1: Please note that the two files which were uploaded after the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1 19 November request,
At the time the deletion nomination was placed, those two images were unavailable for comparison - all that was available were the cut-outs and composites. I think it would be best to keep the full bell and the full statue, but please add the name of "THE CHURCH". The descriptions and titles are what are searched, so please include all information you have about the bell and the statue in the description field. Also, please add a good category for both of these images to improve their educational value. Adding the actual geo-location to the images via would add even more value and make it more likely that your images would be used by others - which is after all the point. Commons is not Facebook, we're not here to have it "our way", but to contribute to a global learning endeavor. If a copy of the map with no additional imagery attached were to be uploaded, with a statement as to how old it is and where it came from and why it is PD - at that point, all the base imagery would be uploaded and all problems solved. Off topic but mentioned above, I did receive an email from Mr. Mandovi forwarded through the automatic system, but it was addressed to Jimmy Wales and was a series of complaints which had no COM:AGF - as above. I was not the addressee and did not reply to it. I never received any messages from Mr. Mandovi on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • On OTRS I got information regarding the map: It is a 1726 map, thus clearly PD. Basvb (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

3rd opinion for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banks in the Philippines[edit]

The need for originality in architecture is well established (COM:TOO#Architecture). Most of the photos deleted in this batch show no special elements that are copyrightable. I would like another admin review the result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banks in the Philippines, especially since the Philippines copies US law in many respects. --P 1 9 9   14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you provide explicitly notes that some of those decisions were controversial, so I would not call it "well established", and I think that it may be highly country dependent. The US (AFAIR) has a very low TOO for architecture, so if the law of the Philippines is similar in that respect, I think Jim's decision was correct. Storkk (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@P199: do you have any response to the quotation from Philippine law given by Jim in the DR: 172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. ? Storkk (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Any work showing any originality I agreed with deletion, but as already stated, most photos are clearly below TOO (IMO). As for the Philippine law, the quote law is actually article 172.2. 172.1 makes it clear that works must be original intellectual creations ([1]). --P 1 9 9   15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I was considering deleting those files myself, since my reading of the quoted laws is the same as Jim's. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Your reading of the laws may not be complete: works must be original intellectual creations. Respectfully, --P 1 9 9   15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this is getting into very gray areas, but given that the very next paragraph states that they are protected regardless of their quality, I would read the "intellectual creation" as pretty much anything that required an architect's input. So probably not something pre-fab, but otherwise yes. My opinions on this are not strong. Storkk (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Storkk for reopening this discussion. But unless other users agree with me, there is not much else I can discuss. I still feel that these plain buildings are way below TOO and lack any originality. How can one copyright a building that looks like every other building??? The only other thing I can add is that since Philippine law is essentially silent about FOP, this should make us more lenient as compared to countries that explicitly forbid it, especially in such grey areas. --P 1 9 9   17:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree with P199 here. In the absence of FOP, we have to consider some threshold of originality, and even more here, as the law specify that. Such file as File:Card Bank Bula3.JPG should not have been deleted, as nothing from the building can be seen. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was not informed of this discussion despite being the nominator of the DR. :| Okay, my 2 sentimos, I don't think 172.1 says that a work should be original to be copyright protected, it says that literary and artistic works are original and copyright protected. This includes architectural works. And since 172.2 says that works are protected regardless of their mode, expression, content, quality, and purpose, this means that Philippine TOO is very low. That any works listed at 172.1 are considered original enough. So I would Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion if the undeletion is based only on TOO. Anyway, I would like the images here to be temporarily undeleted for me and other non-admins to review. Not only that, I forgot what is the appearance of the images. Poké95 03:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : Multiple admins consider the deletion to be correct, although the laws are not very clear on this matter. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Reopening on request by Storkk. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mexican football soccer logos[edit]

I found the following files:

tagged for Speedy, but, as football soccer clubs from Mexico (as "recognized organizations" from Mexico), I tagged them with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. However, them has been deleted as Fair use, where clearly does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status in the United States? Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this matter? These logos are from Mexico, and as the football soccer clubs are considered as "recognized organizations", these logos are ineligible for copyright in Mexico. It was already discussed in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask about the copyright status in Mexico, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Above is the answer: The Copyright Law of the United States has nothing to do with the logos of "recognized organizations" from Mexico. As them are in the PD in Mexico according to the Mexican Copyright Law, then, them are also in the PD in the U.S (Threshold of originality in the U.S. apply only to logos of organizations from the U.S.). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you remind me of the discussion where it was decided that football clubs were "recognized" organizations. I seem to remember thinking that it meant something like "governmental", but if the community thought it meant football clubs, I'd like to be reminded of the rationale. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : The wording in the law is "emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente". I think this list hints at organizations that are more than "just" a sports club, unless someone with actualy knowledge of Mexican law comes forward. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, considering that there is already DRs of mexican sports clubs resolved as Kept. There is concensus already, and admins shouldn'ty take different actions for the same subject; if you really believe that the sports clubs aren't considered as "recognized organizations", it should be discussed at the Village Pump, because it will affect not just three files, but several other where their future has been already decided. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g:, can you please show us what other cases you are mentioning? Also, for the Mexican law, what are "recognized organizations"? --Ruthven (msg) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I started this thread at the Village Pump. Should be better to discusse this issue there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: For future reference, it is not okay to reopen an UnDR once a decision has been made. In case you think something has been missed, please raise the issue with the closing person or on other suitable forums like you have done here. In this case, I will let the discussion continue here, but please do not repeat that behaviour in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Colombian Troops 1906 Cucuta .jpg[edit]

The deletion of this 110 years old photograph with no known photographer was given the rationale "Again, the eighty years begins with anonymous publication. Neither has been proven here". However nobody has claimed an anonymous publication, only that the photographer is unknown. In the Colombian copyright act the definition (in Article 8) "“anonymous work“ means a work in which the author’s name is not mentioned, either according to his wishes or because it is unknown" is used, so the calculation for works from unknown authors is governed by all sections which define how the law works for anonymous authors; it is unnecessary to prove that a work has been published anonymously.

Commons policies, nor the law of Colombia, require that a reuser of this photograph has to be able to produce official records of when this old photograph was published, or produce official records that the photographer is unknown (which is a logical impossibility). Under LOCC Article 10, the requirement is on the author to mark the work, its reproductions and public disseminations so that their claim of copyright is known. In this case there are no versions with any such claims.

COM:PRP requires that we assess whether significant doubt exists for the free copyright status of the work. In this case no evidence has been produced that the author may be known, and no evidence has been produced that the photograph was not published shortly after it was taken, in 1906. The DR closure makes a presumption that we must delete all uploaded public domain works where we cannot provide full proof of publication and full proof that unknown means unknown. These are weak hypothetical arguments which undermine Commons' ability to host the vast majority of our public domain works. At the end of the day there is no more legal rigour forced on us than exists on institutions such as the Library of Congress or the British Library, the law merely requires us to make reasonable effort to determine copyright and that has been done in spades for this 110 year old photograph.

Refer to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#File:Kardinal_Alojzije_Stepinac.jpg for a very similar case of a weak DR closure by the same administrator.

Undelete please. (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am the deleting Admin. I agree that it is silly to protect the copyright of an image taken over 100 years ago when the author is unknown and its publication status is unclear. I would favor a change to Commons policy that allowed us to keep 100 year old images that probably were published more than the required time ago. This would not include images that came from family albums or other sources where that probability did not exist. However, until we have such a change in policy, I do not think we can arbitrarily decide to keep images from countries that date PD-anon from publication unless we have actual evidence of publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:Village_pump#Clarification_of_the_Precautionary_Principle_for_100+_years_old_photographs -- (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Coca Xie, founder and CEO of China Entertainment.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [2] MCMLXXXIX 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @1989: done. A quick follow up regarding how they became the copyright holder wouldn't harm. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. The OTRS message is from the subject. As Natuur12 says, we need to know how the subject got the right to freely license the image -- that's usually done by her providing a copy of the license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Janid La Magia.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [3] MCMLXXXIX 14:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @1989: done. This one needs a follow up question regarding how this person becames the copyright holder. Prof albumcover. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. Again, the e-mail is from the subject, who claims that she is creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright. That's very unlikely to be correct. She is certainly not the creator and almost certainly not the sole owner of the copyright. Photographers almost never sell copyrights -- in many countries it is not even possible. We need to have evidence that she has the right to freely license the copyright. That is usually done by requesting a copy of the license from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Janid Penicilina.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [4] MCMLXXXIX 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Same as La Magia but this time it is a professional photograph. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. As with File:Janid La Magia.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Job 1586.jpg[edit]

Reason "copyvio" given in the deletion request is obviously wrong, since this file was uploaded by the artist himself via a verified account. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploader's user page on Wikicommons does not have the relevant template. Uploader's user page on German Wikipedia has been deleted since 2008. Thuresson (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The uploader was User:Bodo Sperling, wasn't he? Note the template at the bottom of his German Wikipedia user page; verified as ticket:2013041210010514 --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Photo was uploaded by User:Bodo sperling who is identical with de:Benutzer:Bodo sperling who has not been verified. Thuresson (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: See de:Benutzer:Bodo Sperling. The account you showed was using a small letter s but "Bodo Sperling" is a unified and verified Wikimedia account. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bodo Sperling has not had any contributions deleted since 2009. Thuresson (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The uploader has a verified account at the German Wikipedia that is linked to The image description cites the 4th International André Evard audience awards for Sperling which is confirmed here. This is enough evidence that the uploader is in fact Bodo Sperling who also created the original artwork. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As the user seems to have two accounts (one with lower case s and one with upper case S), used one of them to upload and used the other for verification, I guess there should be possibilities to help the user to fix this. It is obvious that both users are used by the same person, as the verified user with uppercase S claims here to personally have uploaded the file on commons, even though the upload was done with the lowercase s account. I'm quite sure the user is not even aware that he has two distinct accounts. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To bring this forward: if Bodo Sperling uploads the file again with his verified account, will it be ok or is there anything else missing? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Files to undelete concerning entry "Dieter Sieger"[edit]

I hereby affirm that I represent Dieter Sieger, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the above mentioned pictures and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Dagmar Kronenberger-Hueffer Appointed representative of Dieter Sieger for this wikipedia entry December 2, 2016

Dagmarkh (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

First, please note that since you are apparently working for Dieter Sieger, you are probably in violation of WMF policy on Conflict of Interest. I do not know the link to the WP:DE page for that, but you may read it in English at WP:COI.

Second, while many of these are good photographs which we would like to have on Commons (with the exception noted above), they have totally inadequate descriptions and categories. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without good categories, no one will ever find them. Therefore, when they are restored you must ensure that they are properly described and categorized.

Finally, there is the matter of copyright. There are several issues.

  1. In four cases, the author of the work shown is Dieter Sieger. Note that you are not the author of his paintings -- he is. He will need to provide a free license himself, sent directly to OTRS from an e-mail address traceable to him.
  2. In several cases, the object pictured may have a copyright in some countries. I leave that question to my colleagues who are more familiar with German law.
  3. In 13 cases, the photographer is a third party. In all of those cases either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS or (b) Dieter Sieger must provide a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows Sieger to freely license it.

If you want to act for Dieter Sieger, you may do so provided that you first supply OTRS with an appropriate power of attorney from Sieger. I know that all of this will be a lot of paperwork. Please remember that since copyright can last 150 years or more, long after we all are dead, that copyright licenses must be carefully documented. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Performance met naakten.jpg (photographer)[edit]

Works by Sicking - I hold all rights:

Exhibition of Sicking last november, I took the photo's

Please undelete the above files that are part of the wikipedia page Joost Sicking. The artist himself left this life 30 years ago and I hold all licenses to his work by heritage. Some of the images may have been cropped to remove backgrounds etc. It is important to show the work of an artist for people to be able to see who he was and what he did. I appreciate your concern for copyrights, but in this case there is no need for it.

Thank you, Caro Sicking (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, I assume you are the widow, daughter, or sister of Joost Sicking. Unless you are actually unrelated to him, your editing on WP:NL is in violation of WMF global policy on Conflict of Interest. There is a summary of the rules at WP:COI. In particular, you should declare your conflict on your talk pages both here and on WP:NL. You should also restrict your editing to correction of factual errors made by others.

Second, I am afraid that your assumptions about copyright are incorrect in most of the cases above. As a general rule, except in the case of 2D artworks, the photographer holds the copyright to images. Therefore, you do not, on the face of, have the right to freely license most of the images above, except, perhaps, the art work of Joost Sicking. I have noted on each file above the person who holds the copyright. In order to have them kept on Commons, each of the copyright holders must send a free license to OTRS.

As for Joost Sicking's own works, if you are his heir, then you have the right to license them. However, because we get many fans and vandals who pick a username in order to give fake permissions, we require that in these circumstances the heir must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.

Note to my colleagues -- the blue links above all have {{No permission since}} or {{Delete}} tags placed by Natuur12 so we might as well discuss the whole package here rather than in several different places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:רם הרשטין.jpg[edit]

To whom it may concern, The copyrights of the photos is owned by The College of Law and Business, Ramat-Gan, Israel. I am an official authorized representative who allows the use of the photo with the credit for the photographer Shlomi Mizrachi

Decembre 4th 2016

--Roei Duani (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Roei Duani, Assistant President, International Relations & Resource Development College of Law and Business, Ramat-Gan, Israel

@Roei Duani: Please have a look at COM:OTRS for the correct process to get your photos undeleted. Thank you! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:1993 Chevrolet Beretta GTZ Z04 Quad4 (Quasar).jpg[edit]

I am the owner of this photo. I am the owner of this car. These photos are my property and I have authorized their use on this site. I have posted the pictures elsewhere on social media and message boards, which is why you might find duplicates in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante93GTZ (talk • contribs) 04:02, 05 December 2016 (UTC)