Talk:Speedster (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speedster (comics) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Definition and use

Hey. I think there's a bit of an issue as to what a speedster is and how it, as a term, should be applied to characters. Obviously, the fact that it's under the disambiguater of "(comics)" is a good indicator, but there seems to be some confusion in the article article, as well as in the list of fictional speedsters.

For sharters, shouldn't this be limited to comics? We can cite similarities outside the medium, sure, but we can't go calling everything and everyone a speedster. By the definition, as I understand it, Speedy Gonzales is not a speedster. Now, we either have to tighten up on that part or move this article, and the list to a better location outside the comics project.

Also, either way we need to better define the term and what it means. Last time I checked, "Speedster" isn't a power, or a universal term for those who have superspeed or "runs really fast", as in the case of some supposed other media examples. In fact, we might need to tighten up inside comics, too. I'm sorry, but we can't consider Superman a speedster. The more I think about it, if we don't get more specific and clear, the term will lose what little meaning it has. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the issue of the definition, then I welcome it. However, statements like "I'm sorry, but we can't consider" this character or that character seems more like a unilateral fiat than a discussion. Who, after all, is "we"? And referring to the edits of others as "idiocy" certainly doesn't seem like a comment made in the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. For my part, I see no reason why Speedy or Supes are not speedsters, or why the term needs to apply just to comics. As an example, "retconning" is a term that is not used much (or at all) outside of comics, but its application to the extra-comics activity would make its use of it appropriate if someone wanted to discuss say, the changes made to Worf's character over the course of his appearances in Star Trek, or the changes Enterprise made to previously-established premises. And if you felt the term is restricted to comics, then why did you remove the accompanying image. As for the disambiguation, the reason for that is to distinguish the article from others with the same name, just as with any other disambiguator. It doesn't necessarily carry with it an indication of the term's contextual limitations. Thanks. :-) Nightscream 11:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your edits, again. Don't consider it a "deletion". See Talk:List of comic book speedsters for a more thorough discussion. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. Thanks! 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're engaging in euphemism. Whether you "consider" it a deletion or not, you indeed deleted material, including the accompanying photograph, without any stated reason, or engaging me in discussing the points and questions I brought up above. The statement that you are "just maintaning order" is just rhetoric to cover that fact that you are applying your own personal sense of aesthetics, since there is no reason why the article is necessarily more "orderly" with the deleted material than without it. I saw nothing on that other Talk Page in which you answer these points, and in fact, you directed another editor to read this article, which is somewhat circular. Now would you like to discuss these points or not? Why, if you feel the term only applies to comics, did you delete the accompanying photo, which shows comic book speedsters? Why does the fact that the term is only used in comics mean that it can only be applied to it? Why did you refer to my contributions as "idiocy"? If you do not respond to these points, and continue to delete the material without discussion, we can ask third party editors for consensus. Nightscream 05:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you not, like, issue idle threats at me, please? I'm here; I'm responding. I was the first one to propose a discussion. I respond to your comments far faster than several weeks afterward. Where were you when I commented originally? Anyway, it's not a POV issue. It's not used outside of comics because it doesn't apply outside. You can't call just anyone a "speedster", it's not like superhero. You wouldn't call the people in Heroes "X-Men" or "metahumans", would it? Same thing. The picture is too big and unnecessary. Also, you're reverting to the redirect title of a page, not the current. I know the article is a little stubby, but saying "everybody's a speedster" and such won't help. I referred you to the talk page because the consensus there was "it's comics only". After that, nothing more came of it. I referred to this article because, for a while, it was stable and representative of how things are, not how you want them to be. And no, I'm not going to stoop to your level by claiming non-neutral POV. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not issued any "threats" to you, idle or otherwise. If you can point to where in my above post I did this, please do so. As far as the speed at which I respond (appropriate for this article, ain't it? :-) ), I cannot re-check every single article I have ever worked on every day. Instead, I do so every now and then when I get a chance. If you wish to communicate with me in a more immediate manner, just drop me a line on my Talk Page. Yes, you are here, but you to not answer some of the my questions. So, for the third time now: Why, if you felt that the term was exclusive to comics, did you delete the accompanying photo, which would reflect such a view?

As far as your assertion that we cannot "just call anyone" a speedster, well, I agree with you. I never stated that we could apply this label to "anyone". But characters with superhuman speed can appropriately be called speedsters. Just because it originated in comics and is currently used only there does not mean that term cannot be used as a sort of shorthand in an encyclopedia. For example, tesseracts have appeared in Star Trek: Enterprise and Harry Potter, but without being called as such, or without any term being applied to those concepts. Thus, a WP article on that Enterprise episode or the describing the scenes in HP invovling their use would not be out of line in using that term--especially in the former instance, since A. it's science fiction, and B. it was central to the plot of that episode. Could you call the characters on Heroes metahumans? Sure. Why not? But if that show uses a different term, or if there is a more general term used for them, than that term would be more appropriate. Since there no other term, to my knowledge, used for "speedster" in the other media we have discussed, then using "speedster" is perfectly acceptable.

There was no "consensus" on that other page. Two people opined that it was only applicable to comics, and two opined that it was not. That is not a consensus, let alone "how things are".

I have expanded the article, but placed the section on other media further below, in order to de-emphasize it, and worded it with the phrase "could be considered" in order to accurately reflected the subjectivity and differing opinions that each of us might have on the subject. Let me know what you think. Nightscream 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with including a portion of the "speeders in other media" section. However, since the article is first and foremost about comics, I see no need for an indepth look into them. I'll include an excerpt of the section which includes prominent examples of non-comic speedsters and leaves it at that. I don't see a good reason to expound upon other speedsters in this article, nor do I see a good reason to completely exclude them. EvilCouch 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that the section was that big in the first place. I could understand, for example, removing one of the accompanying photographs, but it's not like the text was that elaborate. And what about when comic book speedsters are themselves adapted into film and other media? Nightscream 20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about this article is big. --Gwern (contribs) 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third party

I've been asked to comment on this page. I don't have any special authority to impose any solution but I hope that both parties -- that all parties -- will consider my few words. I come into this discussion neutral; I've only touched the page to make a minor spelling correction.

Here are some very quick thoughts. Let's hope you all don't do anything to warrant digging deeper. John Reid ° 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles

  • Edit warring is bad.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Civility.
  • Cite sources.
  • Neutrality.
  • Linking is good.

[edit] Facts

  • "Speedster" is jargon, not part of everyday English. It is not specifically comic book jargon; it is used by people in many contexts. [1] [2] [3]
  • Ownership of jargon is always questionable; also, since jargon is not part of the formal language, it has no formal definition. Usage determines scope and this often changes very rapidly.
  • Superman sometimes moves really quickly but does not seem to be a speedster. The term applies to heroes whose super-speed is their primary characteristic. Of interest is [4], where mention is made of The Flash helping Superman be fast. Another fan site [5] says, Several members of DC's speedster set, including Wally West, Bart Allen, Barry Allen, Max Mercury, and Johnny Quick grabbed Superboy Prime and dragged him into the "Speed Force"...
  • The concept, rather than the term, is extremely broad and popular. All kinds of things, including fictional animals, mythological gods, film cartoons, and real-life physical entities move really fast.
  • Hermes was certainly a god who moved really quickly. As usual, the Romans adopted him and gave him a new name: Mercury. Hermes/Mercury is probably the first hero whose prime attribute is speed.
  • Both participants in this discussion have been uncivil; I see worse at Talk:List of comic book speedsters, with other parties involved. Comments such as some jackass are out of line.
  • "Comics" is not jargon but certainly has a vague meaning. There are comic strips, comic books, animated cartoons, teevee serials, graphic novels, editorial cartoons, and live-action films and purely text-only books that tell stories of comic book characters. Characters from comics appear on billboards and coffee mugs; that does not make the mug a comic but it may make it of interest to comic collectors. Many artists shun the term entirely, preferring "comix". Like all popular culture, there is a lot of cross-pollination and marketing exploitation. See Comics and Comic Books.
  • Comics break down into 4 general subcategories: humor, romance, porno, and heroic. Humorous comics are exemplified by, say, Peanuts; romantic comics by Apartment 3-G; porno comics by Spunky Knight; and heroic comics by Batman. These genres are almost entirely unrelated except for the mixture of art and text. Historically, technical limitations caused all comic artists to share similar drawing techniques, giving the comics page a unified look. This is mere accident, though; and as web offset printing has become refined, color cheaper, and various tools put in the artist's hands, comics have begun to diverge. It's hard to keep Ernie Pook's Comeek in the same "drawer" with Marmalade Boy.
  • All of these categories were important themes in fiction and mythology long before technology and general literacy advanced to the point of making comics possible.

[edit] Opinions

  • Most serious is the breakdown of civility. We can argue forever about article content; no certain harm will come about if an article is "wrong". We expressly disclaim accuracy with a link on every page. It may be very good to make an article correct in every possible respect but the need to do so is never more important than maintaining a civil atmosphere within our community.
  • We do not want to edit war. We do want to edit one another and move toward better articles. I see strong indications of edit warring on this page but I also see movement toward a compromise version.
  • I am a reader, as well as an editor. I use Wikipedia daily as a resource; it's what brought me in. When I go to an article, I want as much relevant information as possible. I'm perfectly willing to skim or skip anything I deem irrelevant to the topic or to my needs. This goes right up to the point at which the article begins to drown me in cruft and irrelevancies. Call me a moderate inclusionist.
  • This article is very short. Using the most restrictive definition of "Speedster", there are only a few comic heroes which qualify. (The list is stretching the definition.) There is no point duplicating information about each individual which is found in his own article; there is little to say about them as a group except that they move really fast. Speculation about the suspension of disbelief is pretty much pointless; this is heroic fiction, not automotive engineering. It's understood that speedsters move really fast and that they don't burn up or destroy the world; any objections are waved away, one way or another. Thus there is not even any potential for the article to grow without making connections.
  • Like all popular culture articles, this one tends to remain entirely within its own fantasy universe. This is boring. I welcome all efforts to break out of the box and tie the subject of such articles to something outside of itself. Thus I tolerate a certain amount of that physics discussion.
  • All articles should say something about the history of their subjects. It's very good to mention Mercury, although including him as a comic hero is stretching things.
  • Like many issues resistant to resolution, this seems to be a categorization problem. I'm simply not interested in drawing sharp boundaries through a multicolored world. Begin at any point well within defined limits, start walking in any direction. At some point, I agree, you are no longer discussing a subject within the general topic area. But nobody can say certainly when you crossed the line.
  • I can't help but speculate whether comics, traditionally drawn -- often in black and white -- with heavy black lines around areas of solid color, do not attract people who would object to my last statement.

[edit] Suggestions

  • Consider breaking the world of comics into 4 subcategories. Having eliminated what I think of as a spurious connection, you now have topic areas that are grouped not by how they are drawn or in what medium, but by the ways in which they relate to the human condition. Funnies tickle our funny bones; they speak to the human need to deal with pain by laughing at it. Pornos tickle our willies; they give us our ration of big boobs. Romances are not exclusively sexual romances by any means; they treat issues of sex, death, friendship, betrayal, power, and all the range of drama that we, as monkeys, wish to peer through the bars to see other monkeys acting out. Heroics restore to us our lost potency; they renew our faith in the ideal; they tuck us in at night under the magic sword of incorruptible virtue. As you can see, these themes have almost nothing in common with one another. They do, however, have a great deal in common with similar themes in all of fiction and even reality.
  • Reach out. Make connections to your neighbors. I find it excellent to see mention of Mercury in this article; he may not be a comic-book speedster but he is certainly near the starting point of a long line of fast-moving heroes. Romeo and Juliet links to West Side Story; the former was not written as a Hollywood musical and the latter certainly not by the Bard; but this does not stop interested parties from making the connection -- a very strong one indeed.
  • I am entirely comfortable with an article that begins with the most restrictive possible definition and moves out from there. Mercury belongs in an "Origins in mythology" section; Speedy Gonzalez must be mentioned, being a hero; but some animated twerp of a scrubbing bubble on a teevee ad for toilet bowl cleaner should get stuck in the "See Also" section, if at all; I don't care how fast he moves or even if the agency hands out comic books at the local high school featuring Speedy Bubble.
    • Wouldn't the Road Runner be an even better character? --Gwern (contribs) 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I like a move of the page to, oh, Speedy heroes. Look around for speedy heroes outside of the comic book world. Let some air into the room. For a real speedy hero, see Roger Bannister.
  • Finally, but most important, work it out politely. All sides of this dispute can be accommodated. You just need to cool out and talk it out. Don't revert at all. Instead, look at the article and try to improve it. If you can't make it better than both "your" last version and "his" last version, work in sandbox until you can. Work hard to incorporate the other fellow's concerns into your version. Try, if you can, to make an honest, 100% effort to present the other fellow's side as strongly as possible -- and let him present yours.
  • And I want another picture.
  • Finally, I suggest everybody take a break on this and not come back until the redlink to Lynda Barry's really important Ernie Pook's Comeek is filled in.

[edit] Hiding's thoughts

Okay, I've been asked to comment too so here I am. I'll try and provide the brevity to John's in depth analysis. On the civility side, what John said. He's certainly presented some ideas to move the article forward too, the move to speedy heroes is an idea and the opening of the page's scope should also be considered. But I'd rather not see the breakdown of comics into some four arbitrarily chosen genres which don't fit comics. I don't, however, object to breaking fictive works down into such genres. Hiding Talk 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. Until the four sub-genre types suggestion, I was (and am) rather agreeing with John Reid's comments above. As for "Speedy hearoes", it leaves out villains, and other speedy-type characters. I don't necessarily oppose "speedster", but perhaps something more precise, like: "Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds"? With the introduction clear on what that specifically means. And personally, I think the annual Flash/Superman race should be used as an illustrative example. - jc37 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but villains are heroes, of a darker sort. Heroic fiction speaks of heroic deeds; contrast the hilariously funny effect of Mr. Incredible stuffed into some import compact, stuck on the freeway. To be a great hero, he must have a great villian. Note the thread of questionable morality that runs through many of heroic comics. Batman is shown openly allied with Commissioner Gorden but in his cave, he broods darkly and is never far from crossing the line himself. Spider-Man is beset with self-doubt and personal difficulties and publicly denounced and hounded. Having carefully broken the world into heroes, villains, and the good little people, the first thing the artist does when things get boring is to stir the palette a bit.
I'm curious what Hiding means when he speaks of "four arbitrarily chosen genres which don't fit comics". I see no strong connection between these four, only the accident of medium. I've given examples. There are certainly comics with one foot in each of two genres but this is true of all art. They remain distinct genres. No? John Reid ° 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Chair's 2-cents

I too have been petitioned to read and comment on this article. I honestly see no reason to contest the usage of the term "Speedster" as it is more of a bucket then a power set. There are many "supers" who have supernatural speed in one form or another, and as long as someone has the ability to move faster then a normal human they too should be categorized as a Speedster.

Just as you can categorize different pages on wikipedia under multiple "umbrellas" so too can heroes be categorized multiple times. Thus, Superman is in fact a Speedster... but he is also a flyer, and a tank. --DJ Chair 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We've all had our complaints of Ace removing information that he feels doesn't warrant importance without first discussing it on Talk pages, my suggestion here as it is with all others conflicts is to request the user to cool his/her jets and if the problems persist to request a temporary banning. --DJ Chair 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
John Reid said above, "It's very good to mention Mercury, although including him as a comic hero is stretching things". I don't believe any version of the article mentioned him as a comic hero. It only mentioned that speedsters are literary descendants of such deities. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning this in the Intro. Creating an "Origins" or "Mythologies" sections into which this mention might go isn't a bad idea, but until someone qualified with relevant information on that permutation does so, I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving it in the Intro, at least for now. As for the photograph, what's wrong with the current one, and what critiera would you prefer in a replacement? Thanks. Nightscream 20:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Hermes has appeared in comics, in Eddie Campbell's Bacchus (comics). Campbell was of course making the point John was making, that these heroes are far older and deeper rooted than we might think at a cursory glance. Campbell was also having a tongue in cheek bash at Marvel's Thor, although paying homage to Kirby's run on the book, and also trying to turn a fast buck. So Hermes has been depicted within comics, quite chillingly in fact, Campbell digging about in the characters roots and presenting him as Zeus' hitman. Whether that qualifies the character as a comic book character, I don't know. Hiding Talk 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, gods have appeared in comics. Perhaps the proposed section on Origins/Mythology can mention that. Anyone interested in writing it? Nightscream 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hold...on! DJ, are you implying that I'm wrong and should be blocked for it? Remind me, when did you register?

Eh. Night, when you said "third parties", I was hoping a comic project mention. This is not better than me calling in ThuranX, Erikster and Bignole. And no, I'm claiming Hiding, DJ and John cannot be impartial, though they've all had experience with me in the past.

While I understand it's verifiability over accuracy and I should try to keep cool, I really don't a specific term being misused. The very implication that the term can be or is rarely misused will lead to misuse by readers. Before you know it, you have a band-aid-like situation. Wikipedia shouldn't be responsible for that and one user should be able to put their personal feelings aside to discuss, rather than force it into the article thoughtlessly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to denigrate the contributions of others you do not agree with? Why do you have to assume that any edit you don't agree with necessarily is made without "thought"? Do you even understand how you come off when you make statements like this? I did not "force" it into the article any more than you "forced" your own edits, much less insert them due to "personal feelings". I explained the reasoning (not "feelings") by which I concluded that the term is valid in other media, and for your part, you did not respond directly to much of what I said. Can't you just disagree and state your reasoning without insulting others? As far as third parties, I contacted others who appeared to have an interest in this article in particular, or comics in general. I know of no evidence showing that Hiding, DJ or John cannot be impartial. Nightscream 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ace's reply

I now direct everyone's attention to the "other media" section. While nice, it's gone from asserting an incorrect point to arguing one. The latter is actually worse. Arguing a point is strongly frowned upon, last time I checked. It is also a bit weaselly. As such, I have tagged it with {{weasel}} and as {{speculation}}. I'm sorry, but trying to say that this is general term just won't do. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Which claims are you stating are POV? I can source a description of Speedy Gonzales as a speedster here. Hiding Talk 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the term speedster applies in the general to any person who is a bit quicker than the norm, for example:

  • "As Luff looked to chase his fly-hack towards the corner, the diminutive speedster was blatantly held back by Winnan" Western Morning News 30 October 2006
  • "The powerful Scottish striker is developing a deadly up-front partnership with speedster Michael Chopra" Wales on Sunday (Cardiff); Sep 17, 2006; Andy Rose Wales on Sunday; p. 5
  • "Bridgend Athletic's speedster Rob Coles scored both his side's tries in a 23-21 win" South Wales Echo (Cardiff); Sep 19, 2006; p. 42
  • "Up-and-coming speedster Jordan Williams is today praying for misfortune." Western Daily Press 28 September 2006

Those are just a few examples. Hiding Talk 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • And Sonic is described as a speedster in Chipper Club: Super Sonic hits screens on DVD Mail (Birmingham); Sep 3, 2005; p. 35 and Sonic boom! The Sun (London); Oct 9, 2004; p. 83. Hiding Talk 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* Yeah, I've noticed. You know what? I'll stop being dick. I'll let this happen. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion beyond comics

Okay. I've changed my mind Hiding makes good points. I've seen it before. This term is already generalized. Now, the question is how to handle this. First, I recommend reworking the explain this in the article. Second, I recommend a page move to a more appropriate title. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we can't have "(comics)" appended to a general term, bottomline. Any new title ideas, people? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't have a problem with using "speedster" in this context, with the (comics) disambiguation. (See also several discussion(s) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.)

I suggest the following:

  • Speedster (comics)
  • List of speedsters in comics and animation

However, I would not oppose the longer:

  • Characters who can move at superhuman speeds ("fictional" is presumed due to the use of "superhuman.)
  • List of characters who can move at superhuman speeds in comics and animation (the really long form : )

Hope this helps. - jc37 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "speedster (fiction)"? It seems pretty straightforward. Nightscream 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I "think" that we're trying to more clearly disambiguate comics-related articles and lists from general "fiction" (see several discussions about it on the WikiProject talk page, not to mention the stub sorting project), for several reasons, including article assessments. Plus I don't think that speedster has been used in this way outside of comics-related media. - jc37 23:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let's keep it simple and keep this article where it is.

I can accept going back to "List of fictional speedsters" or something similar for the other article, though. I guess I'll have to re-add all those mentions of non-comics characters. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do prefer "list of character who move at superhuman speeds." It doesn't try to generally apply a somewhat ambiguous term. Long title, but very clear. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK?! No, man! I can't fricken BELIEVE you! After all that you just puss? You just puss out! Oh my god! I don't what kinda schizo/split-persona issues you got man, but fuck dis. This article just officially lost an editor! Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chill out. Where were you when the debate really started? I'm sorry if you don't agree, but this is the decision we're coming to. Also, I changed my mind. I'm allowed to, right? I just had an epiphany. No "schizo/personality issues". I just realize that tyhe term was being used to refer to characters outside of comics. It happens. I accept it now. And I'm sorry you don't want to work with us. (Not that you've ever even editted here before.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. You'd think that convincing another editor of your point of view is at least one of the aims of participating on a Talk Page. Spewing profanity and insults after someone changes his mind is hardly called for. Nightscream 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Flash109.jpg

Image:Flash109.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)