User talk:Missvain/Archives 1

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

Copyright violations

Afrikaans | azərbaycanca | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | Nederlands | norsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | sicilianu | Simple English | suomi | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | Ελληνικά | български | македонски | русский | српски / srpski | українська | հայերեն | मराठी | हिन्दी | বাংলা | മലയാളം | ไทย | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 粵語 | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | עברית |العربية | فارسی | +/−

Hello Missvain.

You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

Eusebius (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks for posting this. I regret that I've caused so many problems regarding copyright issues. I am working in the best interest in Wikipedia and I do not do this with bad intentions. I suppose I am just confused, since there are plenty of other images treated and uploaded in the same way I have done, and they are still on Commons. Again, sorry for any problems this has caused. If I need to nominate the images on my own to be deleted, I will. I keep reading about copyright and I'm just confused on where I've gone wrong. Thanks for bringing up the problems, and again, I apologize for any issues I have caused. Missvain (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I will unblock you now that you've reacted to the situation (thanks for that). Uploading your own photographs is usually ok (unless, for instance, for recent statues in US, but you're not expected to know everything about copyright, so it's the kind of honest mistake we can totally understand, even if the files get deleted). Regarding "Wikipedia saves public art" stuff, I think it is currently debated on the English Wikipedia, you should refer to this discussion if you're part of this project or if you plan to keep uploading their files. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. I've been a big overwhelmed with the situation, and yes, I'm very familiar with the WSPA argument on English Wiki. I do have a question, and perhaps, with your expertise, you can answer this easily for me. Here is an image that I have taken, that is on MY personal Flickr (not the WSPA account, which myself and four other people have access to) Oldenburg in Philly - now, is that image something I can upload onto my Commons page and not have any problems? As long as I made it CC or my usual Sharealike-CC? Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it!! I just get a bit confused! THANK YOU! Missvain (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the main subject is a modern work of art, for which there is no Freedom of Panorama in the United States, so we need a formal permission from the artist in order to host this image. --Eusebius (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The artist is dead. So I presume you'd need permission of the owner then? (i.e. the museum that owns the piece?)Because there are contemporary works like this [1] that don't show proof of permission on the Commons page, and is uploaded from the users Flickr, who took the picture. Missvain (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not from the owners, from the copyright holders! By default, it is the author's heirs, unless the rights over the work have been transferred to somebody else. It can be quite difficult to get such a permission. The permission procedure is detailed here, and standard permission statements can be found here. The picture you point out is problematic in exactly the same way as yours (and as many pictures on Commons). --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks again for your kindness and explanations! I really appreciate it. :) I look forward to being un-banned so I can make sure I upload only the *appropriate* images and can add some of my own (as I have started) to the collection. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have unblocked you yesterday! It didn't work? --Eusebius (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It says it expires at 9:00 pm tonight :) Missvain (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I see no block anymore! --Eusebius (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Still blocked :) I can't even edit my userpage, not til 9 pm hehehe... Missvain (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 1 week. The reason for the block is uploading unfree files after warnings (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Eusebius (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

3 File deletion requests withdrawn

My File deletion requests Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Llamas_by_Una_Hanbury_(1993)_SOS!_Control_IAS_DC000115.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Graft_by_Roxy_Paine_(2009).jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cheval_Rouge_(Red_Horse)_by_Alexander_Calder_(1974)_SOS!_Control_IAS_08600068.jpg are withdrawn.

are withdrawn. The project Wikipedia Saves public art has received overwhelming support at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art. Teofilo (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User support doesn't make an unfree file become free. --Eusebius (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those images obviously violate copyright! LOL Missvain (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion requests

Hi Missvain,

thx for your help on fighting spam on the commons, but please check usage before you post a DR. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Trycatch (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

In DC, you mentioned a copyright meeting. Did you ever attend or what was the date? By the way, you can feel free to email me if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Review of Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from SIRIS

Hi, I reviewed the recent deletions at Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from SIRIS. A few of these photos were taken from the magazine Monumental News, published in the US prior to 1923, and so have been restored and marked {{PD-1923}}. Some of the others may be PD, but that depends if they observed formalities such as a copyright notice and registration/renewal. Keep in mind in the future that whenever you upload a photograph of a sculpture, where both were first published in the US, you must demonstrate that both the sculpture and the photograph are in the public domain with one of the tags listed at Commons:Copyright_tags#United_States. Alternatively, the photograph may be available under a free license, but in the case of SIRIS the photos are generally not available under such a license, as far as I know, but rather taken from books published in the 60s or 70s. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Help_desk#incomplete uploads

Hello Missvain, here a upload by you was mentioned: Commons:Help_desk#incomplete uploads. Please clean up next time if you have incomplete uploads. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Label for Edward Hopper's "Hotel Lobby" at the Indianapolis Museum of Art.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Label for Edward Hopper's "Hotel Lobby" at the Indianapolis Museum of Art.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Truman Lowe.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Truman Lowe.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Truman Lowe.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

– Adrignola talk 23:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

The Commons Barnstar
Thanks for organizing AAA images here on Commons and I look forward to seeing many more photos uploaded! Cheers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP feminism mascot

Nicole is a pretty cool mascot, but we can run wild with this. For instance, I think you'd be a pretty good mascot with an automatic rifle in your hands. :-) I played around a little bit and made User:Dominic/Mascot so that any Wikipedian can be a feminist icon, too! Steps to create:

  1. Make a really bad head crop.
  2. Write {{User:Dominic/Mascot|<file name of head shot>|<image size (optional)>}}
  3. Categorize a NARA file, since they made it all possible.

Enjoy! Dominic (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, here you are:

{{{3}}}


...and more examples!
{{User:Dominic/Mascot|File:Lori Phillips head.png|150}} {{User:Dominic/Mascot|File:Katie Filbert head.png|150}} {{User:Dominic/Mascot|File:Sue Gardner head.png|150}}

{{{3}}}

{{{3}}}

{{{3}}}


Oh, exploitable

{{User:Dominic/Mascot|File:Dominic McDevitt-Parks head.png|150}}

{{{3}}}

Emufarmers (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Missvain!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if categorization bot wasn't a bot they could have noticed that I did categorize the photo, I just accidentally put "category:" in twice. God forbid a human does anything on Commons anymore. Missvain (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of some few things...

  1. Commons is not censored
  2. Nudity, eroticism and pornography are part of the project since Wikimedia treats ALL subjects. Therefore it's in the scope to illustrate these subjects too.
  3. Licenses are not revocabe. If someone changes a license on FLickr (or elsewhere) AFTER the file has been uploaded on Commons, there's no reason to delete the file since the former license is still valid. (Licenses of files uploaded from Flickr are checked to prevent that eventual deletion request).
  4. Anyone who's got an account on Flickr can close it and that disappearance means nothing. Copyvio is not the only reason and can't be a valid argument.

Thanks for your comprehension. I hope you won't launch mass DR with such misunderstandings ! Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How can an image that no longer has a source be considered acceptable? Can you link me to a policy that states that if a Flickr account is deleted that it doesn't matter? Missvain (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well you don't really need a link for that. It's the same rule as "license is not revocable". If the file has been uploaded and reviewed with a correct license, there's no reason to ask for its deletion even after the closure of the original source. That actually concerns other webpages, not only Flickr. If you believe a picture uploaded from a now closed Flickr account is problematic (copyvio for instance), you have to prove it (the fact that the accound is closed is not a sufficient argument for that). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Also read Commons:Flickr files about files reviewing. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
We have flickr image reviewing for this purpose - images get uploaded from flickr, but the image subsequently is removed from flickr. But if it is flickr reviewed, it means someone has checked that the image was available under a free licence, and so we may continue to distribute it under that licence. The CC licences cannot be revoked, and so just because one source (flickr) stops distributing does not mean anyone else is obliged to follow suit. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
We have flickr reviewing primarily by BOTS, bots that occasionally make mistakes, and bots that don't go back and double check their work. I believe that the copyright is non-removable is a poor argument for content that is highly uneducational, and possibly flickr washed to remain on Commons. This isn't censorship, this is concern for the people in the images, this is concern for copyright, and this is concern for sources. Again, bots are wrong sometimes. I don't think these policies are going to stay they way they are for long. Missvain (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No one seems to try to argue that perhaps the copyright changed on this image after it was "verified by a bot" Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Girl_nude_with_shoe.jpg Missvain (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You mix everything. The bot makes no mistake when it reviews the license indicated by the Flickr page. But indeed a bot can't see if it's copyvio or Flickrwashing. But if we presuppose any file can be a copyvio or Flickrwashing without any reason to think so, well let's stop uploading any file !
So I repeat : the license reviewing is a guarantee that the uploaded file was associated to a free license on Flickr. We just have to wonder, for each file, if there's a good reason to think the supposed author has cheated and is not the author, or if there's any other problem. In absence of any good reason, assume good faith... or delete everything ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I mix things? Well the arguments are poor, and I assure you, others agree with me. And yes, if something is questionable, it should not be on Flickr, questionable regarding copyright, project scope, and quality. Delete them all. I don't assume good faith when bad booty shots and un-used snapshots are clogging up the servers in Florida. As someone who uploads educational photographs, and also pays for quality porn (aka I don't need Commons to get off), I think I'm quite aware of education, scope, copyright (which I am very well aware of in regards to my "offline job"), I just think the arguments for keeping content that loses it's Flickr source and most the time is just plain crappy or out of scope are poor. No point in trying to change my mind. I know that if a photograph of mine lost its Flickr source it'd probably be nominated for deletion as fast as it loses it's source content. I just think you're getting your panties in the bunch because you assume everyone is a censor who deletes anything involving tits and ass on Commons. Missvain (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No one seems to try to argue that perhaps the copyright changed on this image after it was "verified by a bot" > there's nothing to argue about that ! As you say, it's after ! If this person had released the picture under a CC license and everntually changed it to a "all right reserved" license, it's his problem, not ours ! Even if he did a mistake at the start. That's the rule, you can't say "well I give that to you for free" and come back 2 years later saying "oh well, no, in fact pay me" ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I just think people sometimes see problems everywhere and presuppose problems instead of presupposing there's no problem (I guess it's a question of personal philosophy - I'm not part of those people who see the bad side of things all the time !)
But to come back to the problem we discuss about : I say you mix things because it's not the right argument to claim "Flickr source has disappeared so license is not valid anymore" (same for "license is now different"). But it may (I say "may") be more logical and acceptable (if there's any good reason to doubt) if someone says "I don't think the license was correct at the very start" and/or "I think the Flickr author may not be the author of the picture" and/or "I'm not sure the person pictured on that file agreed with the release of the photograph" (the latter only if it's contrary to COM:PEOPLE, therefore when it's in a private place, if there's something embarassing about the file, etc). But again, we can't say that only because you just don't believe it can be right ! Or it would mean that we can question and then delete any file as long as someone has a vague doubt with no other argument than this vague doubt !
I also repeat that Flickr is not the only website for which uploaded files lose their original source. For instance let's take this file, for which the webpage doesn't lead anymore to a page with the same picture - should we delete it then ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As the image seems to be Flickr porn spam, I believe the relevant issue here would be Commons:License laundering. There's also a question of scope if the image is unused and unlikely to be used. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

Hi, please don't equip your deletion nominations with nomination templates within the nomination like here. If you use the 'nominate for deletion'-link from the menu, please just specify a reason, the system will take care of the rest. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip! :) Missvain (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Seattle

[2]: Any particular reason you removed Category:Sports in Seattle, Washington? As far as I know, despite their White Center origins, the Rat City Rollergirls teams remain based in Seattle, and all or virtually all of their bouts take place in Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It was an accident! Missvain (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Station Raspail.jpg

Hi !

FYI, I've added two more images to this deletion request.

For the bilingual nomination, we have a joke in France about it : « Somebody who spoke two languages is bilingual, somebody who speak one language is French ».

=) Trizek here or on fr:wp 13:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:ColumbiaPhonographBldg1889.jpg

Hi. I'm just curious where you got the information that the building shown in File:ColumbiaPhonographBldg1889.jpg was constructed in 1889. Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah! I totally just spaced it and added it as being built in 1889, however, I was unable to find any documentation stating that after researching a bit. It was human error =) Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention! Missvain (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Oops, glad I asked; thanks for fixing. (I see you're in D.C.) Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for bringing it up! I enjoy seeing your travel photos...I was fiddling around with some cemetery files yesterday and stumbled across your New Orleans cemeteries. I love New Orleans..and running around as a young goth in New Orleans brings back lots of awesome memories (and the itch to visit soon). :D Missvain (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ray-william-johnson.jpg‎

Did you realize that you nominated a file for deletion, that was already nominated? 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain/Archives_1&oldid=59334320"