User talk:MGA73/Archive 9

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Look at my answer at here. Thanks! --AK09 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

new answer by me. --AK09 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


If you can, please close this DR by me as keep. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. By the way, maybe you can find the OTRS E-mail for the image under discussion here . I certainly trust Trodel. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Lima Peru Temple.jpg

Comment: I don't know what is the problem with the permission. It does say cc by sa and user Trodel can certainly be trusted. Trodel looks like he keeps good copies of his old records, too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, maybe I'm dreaming but the license below appears to be "cc by sa" even though the flickrbot failed it.

  • File:Tsumeb dioptase.jpg What do you think? If you agree, please pass it. On second thought, I will mark it. I did not contact the flickr owner here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been busy so I just made the link to the OTRS. The permission is probably ok it is just "a little funny". Once there is a "OTRS received" on we have some extra weeks to check. My priority has been to find sources to images with no source (or those where bot can't find size) as soon as possible to prevent free images to fail just because we are slow. Once they are faild there is no rush.
License on images are changes so i is not the first time unfree images suddenly are free. Someone could have send user a message. User could have changed his/her mind. So if you find anymore please review at once :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for mentioning your views here. Personally I think most of the unsourced images have now been found. There are a few images here from Swarve (Simon Laird)'s account which has not been active here since 2007. I think that the images uploaded (or reuploaded to the maximum resolution) by user Swarve may be kept...but the ones by Ronline could be deleted. Ronline made many many copyvios. But User Swarve always maintained his pictures here are his work. I flickrmailed him on the 'Odeon' but he has been away since early 2009 from his flickr account. But from his last activity, he maintained it was his work Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • At that time in July, I did not realize what 'self' was. Since I saw the image was indeed licensed freely on flickr, I ordered a flickrreview which I thought was natural...just to add a second layer of protection for the image. Just as we have OTRS as a second layer of permission. There was nothing insidious here, I hope. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is self we should put the old license back on. --MGA73 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I will do that to all the images you gave me. But did you notice something? After the flickrreview, it uploads the highest resolution photo. Before, it was all low resolution photos and I don't have enough time to upload them manually. That was another reason I also ordered a flickrreview. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes Flickrreview is good enough. It' just that we either use the license from Flickr or the original. The one we ended up with was somthing in between :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is likely a flickrwash while this image appears to be own work: File:Alfa Pendular.jpg The uploader is long gone...but his name is clear: Antonio Cabral. He even discusses it. But only you can decide here as an Admin. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You really made a lot of edits in this message :-D Well now I understand it. I fixed it. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. I try to research info. on photos before I do something. (Former Admin) Paddy said the same thing when I typed in a flickrpass (in his name) for this image (see the note)...before I saw it was also "cc by 2.0" on Para's I suspected. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of file

Hello MGA73, can you help me clarifying what happened? I see that you deleted :

  • 15:32, 7 November 2009 MGA73 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Notgeld Stroebeck, 75 pf, 1921.jpg" ‎ (File page without media: Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic)

I uploaded the file from Flickr, and it was available under cc-by-sa at that time. The user played around with the license, so it was not displaying a valid wiki license when you checked.

I asked the Flickr user and this was his reaction:

"From:Iliazd No real name given Subject:Re: your notgeld pictures in wikipedia articles sorry, I was playing with the licenses the other day. I'll corrected this afternoon."

I am not shure which foto you deleted:

because [File:Notgeld - Stroebeck, 75 pf, 1921.jpg] this picture is still available on commons. A bit confused I ask you to undo the deletion.

Best regards neozoon

Hi! I restored File:Notgeld Stroebeck, 75 pf, 1921.jpg. As you can se the image has not been uploaded. That and the unfree license is why I deleted it. --MGA73 (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello MGA73, thanks for your quick reaction. Now that you restored, I see what happened. There went something wrong during upload and it was uploaded twice, why the file was still visible for me under the slightly different name: [ File:Notgeld - Stroebeck, 75 pf, 1921.jpg ].

To solve the situation I ask you to finally delete [File:Notgeld Stroebeck, 75 pf, 1921.jpg] and put a remark that the picture is available as [ File:Notgeld - Stroebeck, 75 pf, 1921.jpg ]

Best regards from sunny germany --Neozoon (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Sun sounds good. We had like 3 hours of sun in November :-( --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2 images

I think the 2 images below can be passed since they were uploaded by Admin East718.

While the images have been deleted from the flickr, the flickr source licenses most of his images as 'cc by sa' Check here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I hope you saw my message here. East718 can likely be trusted. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say yes! Also to the image you mention on the Captains talk-page :-) I won't complaint if you fix it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. I passed the first 2 in East718's name at the time he uploaded them to wikipedia. As for my message to the captain, I hope he will deal with it himself. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Teniseri Srbije.jpg

Hi, the four sources for the mosaic are:

It's not that hard to find them, it's just that maybe Đoković's photo needs to be uploaded to Commons. --Matija (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done I uploaded the last image to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: What??

I deleted the page File:1stslovakia_flag_large.svg because it was not a media file, as the page only consisted of this test edit. Apparently CommonsDelinker acted incorrectly to replace the duplicate ([1])

I've linked the article to the correct page, however as that image would have been widely used I fully expect that there are hundreds across most wikis. I'll try and put a list together to fix them.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, as Kjetil r noticed the same problem on, he created a redirect. Reverting the Delinking will restore the correct image in the articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. Maybe "the image" was added as code? Well I'm glad it is not me that has to solve that mystery :-/ But once delinker is reverted it would be a good idea to use it to replace usage on as many images as possible. --MGA73 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Lamborghini Murcielago 40th anniversary edition.jpg

I think one could trust the original uploader Michi1308 here. I see he has uploaded many flickr images without problems. The original author has deleted his account now. I am just puzzled as to why no {{flickrreview}} happened here. There are only 2 image warnings on his talkpage--one was deleted and the other was kept This is a pretty good record. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  • As an aside, I feel sad to file a DR here on this great image but the uploader doesn't seem to know the rules. But first try to make a decision on the Lamborghini. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I nominated first one for deletion as a keep and asked Flickr user on the second one. Lets see what the result will be. --MGA73 (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: He changed the license to cc by sa as you suggested now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merlin-UK Images - Licensing

Hi thanks for the message, with regards to this please feel free to update all of my images to the

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

as you need to, I was not aware of the license changes but will change all images in future to

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

, hope you can do it as a batch otherwise you're in for a long, long day... lol - regards Merlin-UK Merlin-UK (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Wakan 100 Roadster.jpg

Do you know how to pass this picasa image (not flickr)? The 'no permision tag' is nonsense. I can see from the picasa link that the license is cc by 3.0. Its copyright free. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm... We have no template for that. Just type: This image was licensed under xxx here (link) and sign. Or somthing like that. I could not find where you read it was cc by 3.0 so a link would be good. --MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

licences of User:MatthiasKabel


you asked for changing the licences of my pictues to a newer version of cc, that'S ok. I answered also on my discussion page. MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello MGA73. This file was removed two days after your message et not 7 as announced ! by User talk:Odder. Please see his page. Permission was send yesterday at 18:43 by the autor. Thank you to replace the file. Thank you and sorry for my bad English. --Égoïté (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored File:Mouna ou mona.jpg and added {{OTRS pending}}. You speak better English than I do French so I better let others check the permission :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MGA73 ! :) --Égoïté (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)



Your bot is putting the Meteorology category to this File:Sillitoe-black.png and many other files that are related to ambulance colors. This has nothing to do with meteorology and should be stopped. Pierre cb (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pierre cb! The bot uses this tool [2] to find categories. The tool finds out where the image is used (en:Sillitoe Tartan) and then checks which categories this article is in. One of the categories is en:Category:Visibility and that category is in en:Category:Meteorology which links to Category:Meteorology. So in order to fix that you need to recategorize the article or the category on enwiki.
Once the images is categorized the bot skips them so it is a one time problem. The only alternative to use bots is so work on the images in Category:Media needing categories manually.
One you have checked the categories on an image you should remove {{Check categories}} (just click "Check them now!"). Then others can see that the categories has been fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments removed by marking relicencing.

Hi could ou pls review your edits. It seems you always remove upload comments within nowiki-tags when marking a GFDL relicence. I.e. here. I already corrected that example but it looks like there are a lot more similar misedits. I guess you using something like a helping Java-Script which seems to be a big buggy. Thanks in advance. --Jutta234 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. This must be a mistake in the script in the migration template. I did not write it my self so I do not know why or when it fails. Good thing you noticed. --MGA73 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done It took a while but I found a lot of junk. --MGA73 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's TSL-FSHT ?

Thanks for doing some of long overdue renames. I'm just wondering if some of these renames are really worth doing. As a sample, I don't think the above name is meaningful and meets the rename guideline. The discussion at VP didn't seem to favor these either. -- User:Docu at 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea :-) As I see it the German people agree on the rename and they have uploaded most of the images themselves. The rename is part of standardization. They work on getting a template to show somthing we can all understand (like a full name). If it works in German it should be possible to make translations for English etc. --MGA73 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh. And "worth doing". Well it does not take much longer time to move than to remove the template. And if it can make them happy I think it is worth it. --MGA73 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to look here Template:COA Bw\Abbreviations. --MGA73 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a long discussion on VP on this (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Oct#Suggested_rename_of_some_COA). If there is no consensus, they shouldn't really be done. In any case, even if they are standardized, they should include a word for "ensign" or "coat of arms" in one language or the other. -- User:Docu at 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I know about it - I started it. But if you look at the comments it seems that only a few oppose and some more supported. And if you look at Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed? there is both "6. harmonize file names of a set of images" and "1. Uploader requested or agreed". It is mostly used in de-wiki and they are the ones that decided the standard. --MGA73 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I thought it wasn't useful to repeat what everybody else already said. In any case, you are still free to rename them to a more suitable name, no? Personally, if I find a file that needs renaming (e.g. [3]), I attempt to give an explicit filename. -- User:Docu at 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I alway evaluete the suggested name and if it is not ok I just remove the request. Personally I would not mind if a file was named 8376546592.jpg because the description is the most impotant. But after the "move" tab is working I think it is ok to move since it keeps the file history intact. We should of course remember to use delinker to fix the usage of the file. --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the note! When I categorised it last May I didn't think to check the license too, so with no evidence, have voted for deletion - MPF (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Bernhard Ernst von Bülow.JPG

hi. yesterday I discovered this file was mis-named. As best I understand, what i am supposed to do in such a case i re-load it under the proper name and then mark the old version for deletion. Yet when I did, you deleted the one I had just gone to the not insignificant trouble of reloading and kept the original. Did I misunderstand what I should do or is the procedure daft? Sandpiper (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the file history. You suggested thet the original File:Bernhard von Bülow 1890s.jpg was deleted and replaced by the newly uploaded File:Bernhard Ernst von Bülow.JPG. Then I moved the old one "on top" of the new one to keep history intact. As I understand the question the current file name is correct - you just wonder about the process.
If you find a file with a bad name and it is not yourself that uploaded it you should add {{rename|New name.jpg}} and then an admin will move the file to the new name. That will keep file history intact.
If you upload a file and make a typo you can upload a new file and mark the old one with {{badname|New name.jpg}}. Then an admin will delete the wrong version. You can also use rename on your own files. Personally I prefer rename because it reduces the amount of space used. Files are not really deleted - they are "moved" to a hidden place. If you need the file to be renamed fast because you want to use it in an article "now" you can ask on IRC to get it renamed fast. --MGA73 (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It might be just me, but my recollection was that renaming was impossible and the only route was to create a new file. Struck me as stupid. In fact, looking at my user page I see it now specifically explains in the welcome guff how to rename. I am certain that was not there before! Sandpiper (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right. The possibility to move was not active for some time so there was a period where new files were uploaded - mostly by a bot. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, MGA73. You have new messages at Docu's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

File:FuenteTlaq by waywuwei.jpg

This picture should not be removed from captain tucker's list, I think. We have no idea who Sachavir (the uploader) was. It should be placed back in the captain's list. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm... I'm sure it was on the list twice... Well. Now the list says 166 and the category 164. It is a never ending job we have ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request regarding User:Quahadi

FYI: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Selected images of User:Quahadi. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 03:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi MGA73. As you did some work on these files, would you have a look at the files remaining here? To complete the rename, I finished updating most templates and removing duplicate manual categories. Most remaining ones should probably go into this cat, but I'm not sure if they need to be sent into a review category as well. Files like this could probably remain there. -- User:Docu at 09:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That is good work!!! Yes the server and the logos should be in a Flickr category (not a hidden one). As for review it is not needed if the original is reviewed or if it is own work (a self-template) but where author mentions that there is also a version on Flickr. If you are unsure you can always put them in a review category. --MGA73 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your feedback. -- User:Docu at 10:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Is it possible if you can close this DR as delete? Its an obvious flickrwash. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eagle Nebula 3xHubble WikiSky.jpg

Hi MGA73, this image was covered by this DR which was closed by you. However, it was neither deleted nor was {{delete}} removed. Would you please take a look at this case? Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was not deleted or nomination was removed was that the DR did not link to it. I removed DR from it. It looks ok and if someone disagree they should start a new DR so others have a chance to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Please feel free to make a comment here to keep or delete. It seems likely that the uploader can be trusted but he long ago left WikiCommons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • As an aside, I will be slowing down now for personal reasons but at least the number of unfree images is less than 150 today. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. FYI, without a reason=, the bot won't accept replace requests. I don't know why, I just know it is so.  :) Wknight94 talk 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been down before. The text I added was an auto generated text so it should be ok. If not the "script" should be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I got it. The "Quick add" did it right the manual one did not. I fixed the manual one now I hope :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Found another image which passed review until someone removed the flickr pass mark here and your bot asked for a new review on an unfree license.

  • PS: It would be nice if you could make a comment to keep or delete in this DR Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I looked at it and thought we could ask Flickr user if (s)he is still active but then something came in the way and I forgot to leave a note. The other image was easy to fix - good thing you noticed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1 image

Thanks for commenting on my DR. I think you can pass this since it was uploaded by former Admin jkelly who would know the difference what ARR was. But I don't know if GFDL is allowed on flickr. Its a puzzle. Maybe it needs OTRS. If it has to be deleted then so be it.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it was uploaded by this user who only had a few edits. Not sure that jkelly checked license on Flickr. The GFDL looks strange. --MGA73 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bangladesh location map.svg

Hi MGA73, you deleted the previous contents of this file and left a redirect to File:Bangladesh loc map edit.svg. NordNordWest has created an improved version of a location map for Bangladesh and would like to upload it over the redirect. The problem is apparently that a template for location maps expects to find the maps under "<Country name> location map.svg". There were just some surving links in ru-wp to the redirect which have meanwhile been fixed manually be NordNordWest. Do you see any remaining issues with that approach? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted because user had uploaded file twice and requested the old one deleted. No, if old usage has been replaced then the redirect is not needed. So I see no problems in uploading a new image on top of the redirect. --MGA73 (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Commonist licenses


I change the licence on my Commonist. Ok, you can pass my licences photos on {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}. Th'ks CaptainHaddock (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The new version of Commonist do not work. She can't do the update of my galley. Do you know why ? CaptainHaddock (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I do not know :-( --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To trust or not trust...that is the question (not only in Denmark!)

Dear MGA,

Do you trust the uploader here or not in this DR Sorry I hand you this hard one but I always respect your input. If you vote keep, I will probably withdraw my DR but the thing is someone else might nominate it again unless this uploader is deemed to be a trusted user. I do not understand why he never typed in a {{flickrreview}} Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See too what he says on the flickr link. I think that one could trust this uploader. Any comments, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Flickr user has been told about the image 35 months ago and has not made any protests. --MGA73 (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OK I passed it with a special template. Secondly, it looks like the Saatchi uploader followed your suggestion Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way it would be nice if you can OTRS this image as the OTRS pending tag has been here for almost 4 weeks:

Thats true. The permission is "for Wikipedia" and does not specify a specific version of "the creative commons sharealike licence". So I will look for someone to give a second opinion. --MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The part about 'for Wikipedia' is quite legitimate. I, too, have seen some of my Commons photos used on non-wikipedia commercial web sites. But the license version is really too much. How can we expect an amateur on flickr to say version 2.5 or 3.0? That is too technical. That is why I say in my flickrmail messages these key words: "can you license this image on an 'Attribution ShareAlike Creative Commons' license (ie. copyright free)." The word license and copyright free is clear enough...and people know exactly what I mean. They either say yes or no as in this case I just hope that DR is closed soon as his response is crystal clear....and it is 1 week old now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to make a further comment into this DR from your first comment? --Leoboudv (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)