User talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive6

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg
Hello, Soundvisions1. This image has been nominated for deletion before in January, and the result of the discussion was "Keep". Have you read the discussion? Also please see the talk page of the image. The mug shot, while free, does not "better tell the story" of him onstage at the historic concert. The image is appropriately tagged, and I have gone so far as to contact a peer of the photographer who took the photo - he cannot be located to comment on possible copyright problems. I eagerly await your thoughts on this matter, and I intend to defend the image's place in the article once again. Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. - You should note that on the speedy deletion template you added after orphaning this image states, "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles.". I am very tempted to undo the changes you have made, as no discussion attempt has been made by you on the article's talk page. I'll give you some time to respond. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read the discussion and, at the time, there were issues with it (the image). The "free" "full version" mug shot was added in March 2010 (a cropped version was added in February 2010) by USER:Karppinen, after the discussion (January 2010) and after the non-free image was uploaded (December 2009). The concept at Wikipedia is that a non-free image can only be used if no free image of the subject is available and, in this case, the article contains a small section about a Doors concert and how events at that concert lead to Jim's arrest - in other words: the Mug shot is free and it perfectly represents that portion of the article. While the File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg simply shows Jim in front of a mic wearing a hat this concert shot could have been from anywhere - there is nothing spectacular about it, except perhaps the hat. It could be used to represent any concert anyplace where as a mug shot from Dade County could only be from one place and represent the portion of an article that discusses Jim;s arrest in Dade County. Beyond that, and the reason I stumbled on the image, is that an OTRS tag was placed, from the history it was placed by yourself, simply to "get attention to this image" (Which clearly it has). But as you just stated above the photographer who took the image can not be located the OTRS tag is misleading. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the original Miami mug on 25 November 2009: it was later "cropped and credited" to Karppinen way after the fact (see }, and deleted for reasons I do not agree with. I was tired of quibbling about it.  It wouldn't be here in this article if someone didn't introduce it; and that was me.  I also put in the New Haven mug shot, BTW.  The concert shot was from the actual Miami concert, not "anywhere"; this has been confirmed by photographer David Levine, who was also there and also took historic photographs at the same concert.  The image was up for deletion on a copyright issue, and your reasoning for removing it has zero to do with that.  You are claiming that a mug shot, simply because it's free, is basically a substitute.  This is not correct. I just saw you've responded at The Doors talk page - we'll continue there.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are very close to the subject at hand so please don't take this the wrong way - I think you need to step back and re-read what I have said. I never said the image was from anywhere, what I said was it could be from anywhere as it is a live concert shot - it shows nothing about the venue or location unless somebody places a tag/caption that states it. I have had this same discussion in the past about other non-free images being used in articles - the uploader argues that is is an image taken at a certain spot at a certain time but forget that unless the image itself actually explains and illustrates that fact it is not always acceptable use. Your argument for this is that is was taken in Florida at the concert that led to Morrisons arrest. But you need to "argue" how File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg visually explains what happened. Was an arrest warrant issued because he wore a hat? I do not see that anywhere, but that is what the image visually shows that would set it aside from any other live image of him at another concert. If you re-read what I said above I said all of this in less words: ...this concert shot could have been from anywhere - there is nothing spectacular about it, except perhaps the hat. It could be used to represent any concert anyplace.... Your stance that I am claiming that a mug shot, simply because it's free, is basically a substitute is not 100% true. For some examples of what I mean look at Concert and see the images being used. All of the images are "live" shots - they are used to illustrate a general topic - Live Concerts. There is nothing specific, visually, about any of the images in the article, but all of the images are "free" images that illustrate the subject of the article. There would be no point, for example, of using File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg in the article simply because it was "free", because it does not illustrate the subject of the article (or any section of the article). Also take a look at 1979 The Who concert disaster and notice there are not any images there even though there are images that exist of that concert. But in order to better illustrate the article's subject by using a non-free image it would need to be an image that shows the rush for seating at the opening of a sold-out concert and not simply of the band on stage at the concert. Or another way of looking at this - visually, without any text stating that it is a live shot taken on March 1, 1969, at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami, Florida, how would File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg, as I said in my summary, "better tell the story" about why Morrison's actions led to the Dade County Sherrif's office issued a warrant for Morrison's arrest than this one, this one, this one, this one or even File:Jim_Morrisonsinging.jpg? Speaking only visually, none of them would because they all simply show Jim Morrison at a concert - some are visually better than others but they all are basically the same. Out of all of them the one I think shows the most is this one because one could, in the absence of any descriptive text, think "Wow, he really wore himself out!" or "Boy he must have been wasted at that show!" or even "He gave it his all but the crowd was indifferent." (and if one wanted to take the image out of context it could be used to "illustrate" that Morrison was drunk at the time of his performance). Even if the mug shot were non-free it would still better illustrate why the "Miami incident" is notable - it resulted in Morrisons' arrest.


 * As for the uploader and the date of the mug shot - I am only going off the conversations I have seen the file history here and at Commons that are credited to Karppinen. Even the conversation (Which I did see before) on Karppinen's talk page is from February 2010, after the deletion discussion, and is about the mug shot being used as the info box image (placed by Karppinen) verses a non-free live shot (placed by you). (I would agree though that a mug shot in not the best image to use in an info box unless that image was one of the most famous images of the subject, or, as you said in that discussion, Morrison is not known primarily as a criminal). As on how to answer your comment of The image was up for deletion on a copyright issue, and your reasoning for removing it has zero to do with that I am not sure what that has to do with my removal and CSD nom of the image. I will say the deletion discussion nomination of the image does not mention it was been nominated for a copyvio. It says: image not necessary to understand article, and no sources indicate the significance of the image itself. Based on that nom I would have agreed that the image, even at that point, failed the Wikipedia Policy on Non-Free content as it does not aid to illustrate why an arrest warrant was issued, or the arrest or trial. What the image does hint at is that there was a Doors concert on March 1, 1969, at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami, Florida simply because the text states the image was taken at the concert. (As an aside, as far a non-free images go, news paper scans such as Jim Morrison and Doors lawyer Max Fink at the Dade County Courthouse or Jim Morrison during the "Miami Incident" trial better illustrate the section as well) However the fact the Doors played a show at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami, Florida is not why the concert was notable, and had the "free" mug shot come into play in that discussion the "keep" result may have gone the other way. (Another reason why I did not think it was not on Wikipedia before February 2010) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

← Great: now I've got more homework to do.... not a problem. I'll post here (or on the talk page) the full history of Karpinen's "involvement" with the image you replaced the Miami concert photo with: it takes some diffs. As far of the fact that Jim is wearing a hat: does the caption itself really bother you? It's just a file name. You want a quote in the article of Jim wearing the hat the infamous concert? I'm looking for it. Rather than bring this up on the talk page before removing it, you did what you did: removed it because it was tagged. I'm busy in RL at the moment, and am trying to find the time to present the evidence (again) why the image should remain here, as it has for the past seven months after two nominations for deletion. Yes, I am "close to the subject", as is obvious from the images on this page: I hope you're not invoking a certain specter with that comment. You want no free images at all? I've heard it before. I'll let someone else take credit for putting any image I upload on WP, like I did with Karppinen - let them have their bottles. I've still the option of reverting your change, and ripping your inappropriate deletion tag before the image is actually deleted. I won't use my rollback to do it, of course; why don't you apply for this tool? You seem like a responsible enough editor. If you're going to "growl" at me, as you did in the above summary: you're only going to make me fight harder for this image. We'll see you soon, Soundvisions1 - and Cheers! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a few quick comments. RE: Hat - nothing at all to do with the caption/image name. I simply point out that he has on a hat, unlike other live shots I have seen of him. Had the concert been notable because he wore a hat, or because the hat was stolen and that led to the arrest - than fine, it relates a lot more to that portion of the article. But as far as I have ever heard the concert was not notable because he wore a hat. RE: "no free images at all" - Sorry I might have missed how that comment came about because I never said one way or the other - but in how it relates to Wikipedias policy however I have to side with that, which is very clear in what should happen if there is a free image that available. RE: mug shot/Karppinen - it is not a big deal really, I simply looked at the discussion and the date of it, saw zero mention of any other "free" image that related to the concert and compared the dates that I saw. If it was on Wikipedia, upped by you or anybody else, prior to the deletion discussion I am surprised nobody mentioned it. RE: "growl" - sorry but huh? If you mean my use of bold that was not a "growl", it was for highlighting certain key points. RE: Rollback - not a big deal if I have it or not really. Bottom line is, as I have said, if you can explain why the photo meets all 10 of the criteria found in the Wikipedia Policy on Non-Free content than you should. And as for you ripping your (my) inappropriate deletion tag, I think we have very different viewpoints on what would best, visually, show the "Miami incident". I would be more than happy to remove the tag and send this over to a deletion discussion if you would like the community to voice in on it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still researching - thanks for the quick reply :> By all means, bring it to the community if you feel that strongly that the image should be deleted.  Consensus will lie where it may, and it can certainly change.  If this edit summary isn't a "growl", you might have hit "Enter" before finishing, "grrreat to work with you here!"  I'll get back to you on this soon.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * eep, minor fixes was followed by a grrr due to me not fixing things I meant to fix, I do use "grrr" perhaps more than I should in my re-edit-fix edit summary. Maybe I should meow instead? I don't really want to take to FFD but if you want me too I will, on the other hand an admin can also come in and view the image on Sunday and take it there as well, or decline the deletion outright and tell me to take it there. I guess the question is what are you going to do on Sunday? Will you let the images fate be decided by an admin or will you remove the tag and re-add it to the article before that time? (just asking - really I am) If that is the case it may be better to just send it over for a discussion now rather than later. Yes? No? Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (lmao) You can "meow", growl, saunter - anything you choose. I've written some "pointy" edit summaries, and yours wasn't even close to broadly offensive.  If you growl at me, I don't back down, is what I meant - and that's enough about that.  I'm not sure what I'm going to do just yet, and I do have until Sunday.  If I revert you, it will be in accordance with the policy I've noted several times.  Removing the "speedy" tag would, of course, necessitate re-inserting the image back into the article again - clearly an option.  Let me finish my research, please... there's no WP:DEADLINE.  Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I've made my decision; I'll bet you can guess what it is. If you really feel this image should be deleted, you need to put it at WP:FFD, and let the community decide (as you noted).  I see where you're coming from, but totally disagree with your reasoning for orphaning this image, and I won't let it be deleted as such based simply on one editor's opinion (when it's been here for as long as it has).  I'm going to undo your edit per WP:BRD (your edit was the "B", my undo would be the "R" - and now the "D" comes), put it back into the article, and remove the tag for speedy deletion.  If the community decides it should be deleted through FFD: so be it.  I think it should stay, and you think it should go - 50:50.  More voices are needed. The image is certainly not damaging to the article, and it deserves to stay until this is resolved.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok - done. See you there. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you never mentioned this at all, anywhere. Why isn't she commenting on this?  You filed this in the wrong venue, when I told you to take it to FFD (proper venue).  You seem to me to not be assuming good faith with me; and the record will show it.  "Canvassing on Wikipedia means sending messages to Wikipedians informing them about a community discussion, with the intention of influencing the outcome in a particular way."  We win some, and we lose some, Soundvisions1.  You are not winning many "policy procedure" points on this one, I fear.  Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversation at IFD discussion Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You're a good editor who cares about the project, Soundvisions1, and so am I.  There's absolutely nothing personal in this: it's strictly business.  This forum is where it should be, and if it gets deleted: the community decided it.  All the best, and Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - The FFD was filed on 25 August, not 22 August, and we don't "backdate" reports across boards like this. This board (which I brought it to, as is proper) has far stricter rules (7 days) than the board you reported to on the 22nd: ("Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.")  The seven days takes effect from the filing date of the report: it's "better" that it's filed under the 25th.  I'll let you do the honors, okay?  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Me again (yay, right?) I'd just like to know if you were going to move the FFD to the proper place before the seven days pass, or if another editor is going to.  It can't stay at 22 August: we don't do that, and this case could thusly be bigger than the issue involved.  Sometimes this happens: it's just random.  I'll give you another day or so, but... you know ;> Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I say, let it be. (as in leave it and let a closing admin decide if was misplace/mislisted/misdated/mistagged or anything else) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself! I think there's no doubt that it's "misplaced", considering you filed it on the 25th and not the 22nd.  It will all come out in the wash.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - Hey, Soundvisions1! I assume you saw this by administrator Nyytend, and I'd like to remove the tag that directs the reader to the PUF files page, where the issue was closed.  I think if this deletion debate should continue, it should direct to the talk page.  Let me know what you think, and Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw, unfortunately the admin who removed the tag appears to have taken the "easy way out" as they have publicly admitted they do not know about Fair Use (Forgive me, but I've never understood details of the fair use criteria). Given that fact I am not sure what the next step is, but their removal of the dfu defeated the entire reason it was placed there. And I did not tag the image after the first go round. It was re-tagged by SoxBot and than the bot tagged it again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew about the bot's tag - and questioned it at the time "This may be a bot error?". There's no objection from removing the tag from the image in The Doors article, then?  I just want to make sure that you're okay with this, and that it's appropriate to do this.  If you want to tag it again, that's fine: but as it is, the tag is misleading, "interrupts" the article, and is no longer accurate.  It's time for this one to be "put to rest"... right?  Cheers, Soundvisions1... Doc9871 (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will remove it then. And the rfu removal thickens: User talk:Fastily. Now I have to question if there is some bad blood and it was easier to remove the tag rather than 1> try to make a decision on something they admit the don't really know about and 2> feeling if they did it would ruffle the IfD's closing admin's feathers. I have not fully decided what to do yet. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing it. Can't comment on the broader situation: I just read about it here.  No "bad blood" between us, I think - we're both doing our parts for the project, and in good faith.  :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider being neutral on nomination
Please reconsider you neutral position on the nomination of Magog to become an administrator. I do not know whether I may vote -- I am not an administrator and presume that it is essential. I continue to have no progress with him and find that he does not read what is essential to begin to understand what is essential. Now he has changed the existing template for Florida public documents to match his misunderstanding of the law. When I corrected it, he reversed my correction and asserted another example of his misinterpretations. I believe that I have been more than patient in trying to get him to understand the laws, so have you. None of the editors involved in this protracted discussion have agreed with him and he resists learning what is essential to make a sound decision. He has advised me to follow procedures in some of these images, that has been stated as incorrect by the sections of Wikipedia to which he directed me rather than facilitating it himself.

I would be most troubled to find him able to wield extensive power over other editors. If I may comment at the nomination, I will. Please advise. 83d40m (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Rfa process is not really a "vote", although it is easy to feel that any discussion is. Anyone may participate but it is best to actually back up an opinion with why that opinion is such as it is.


 * As for my opinion I have to try and weigh the good and the bad - I expressed some of those concerns at the discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, This is the only experience I have had with the editor even though it has gone on for weeks now without resolution that should have occurred long ago, if he had been paying attention. Certainly do not want to weigh in inappropriately. Will consider it. 83d40m (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Trademark status of Florida county seals
Hey, just wanted to talk about your tagging of numerous Florida county seals with the template. I admit, I had no idea about trademark status of Florida government works. However, upon looking a bit, I found this quote in the Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner decision. Citing a decision of the Florida Attorney General, which can be found here, it says “[A] state agency is not authorized to secure or hold a trademark in the absence of specific statutory authority to do so”, since the state is not a legal "person" under Florida law. I written on the Florida public domain template to see if it can be added there, but wanted to discuss this with you to see your objections before undoing the trademark tagging you were performing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The trademark tag only suggests that it may contain a trademark and to check. It does not say there is one, nor does it say the image may not be used. The template is appropriate in this case, also I have noticed the Florida Sunshine laws are being taken extremely broadly in many cases. I would say to *not* change the template because the exemption can vary and should not be made. The public access laws are currently very open - however because the document itself is considered "free" it does not mean items within it are. For example a letter from a state university sent to a local paper would fall under the public access laws, but the logo on the letterhead would not because, unless the state university has released the logo into PD they own it. So in short if is not a good idea to remove the trademark tags where they have been placed.
 * This is a "P.S" - I read the link you provided above and I think you are misreading it. The full letter discusses many logos/trademarks being allowed. For example one of the first things in the letter from the AG is that state statutes provide limited authority to specific state agencies to secure or hold trademarks. Further into the document there are more direct examples such as the right of a state agency to use a mark in connection with the sale within this state of goods or services, or both, may reserve the right to register a mark in this state in connection with particular types of goods or services. Further down in the letter there are even more specific examples such as section 24.105(11), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department of the Lottery to "hold copyrights, trademarks, and service marks and enforce its rights with respect thereto"; section 267.072(1)(d)3.a.(III), Florida Statutes, provides that the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State "may exercise the right of trademark over the terms 'Great Floridian' or 'Great Floridians'"; and section 267.061(3)(n)5., Florida Statutes, provides that the Division of Historical Resources "may exercise the right of trademark over the terms 'Florida Heritage' or 'Heritage Florida'".[6] Clearly, the Legislature considered it necessary to grant specific statutory authority to these state agencies to hold and enforce trademarks.[7] Also it use the example the the Florida Department of State may apply for, hold and enforce legal title to trademarks, patents, and copyrights on behalf of the State of Florida. In short - there is a general statement that a state agency is not authorized to secure or hold a trademark but in consideration, for example, of the misuse or deceptive use of state agency seals or logos or in connection with the sale within this state of goods or services, copyrights, trademarks and patents may be obtained. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the trademark template, I apologize for inconveniencing you with this conversation and causing us both to go out of our way to read laws, opinion, etc. You are completely right, the template only warns that there might be a trademark, not that there is, and that the user must be cautious to make sure they use it properly. As such, you have convinced me that the template is appropriate. Sorry for causing any trouble. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Last of the Mohicans
Thank you for your kind offer. I am located in West Yorkshire in England, so have no prospect of getting images of the area. It would be very helpful, particularly for the 'origins' section, as it seems Cooper was familiar with the area, and according to his daughter was inspired to write the book after a visit to Glen Falls. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me know what you might need. I know that may be hard as you have not been to Lake George or Glens Falls, or anywhere in between, but it should relate to what you are putting into the article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image
Thank you for your template. I have now provided a rationale at File:Victoria Climbié.jpg. Please check whether this satisfies the non-free content policies. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a FUR on the image. Take a look these templates for an idea: Non-free use rationale and Non-free image data. Keep in mind the best way to do this is to make sure you address all of the required 10 criteria found in the Non-free content use policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done I believe. Can you remove the tag now? Christopher Connor (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not fully done, and now it is messy. Try to remove the fair use tags and only use the Non-free use rationale tag. (You can leave the Non-free historic image tag, although, IMO, this is not a historical image in the same sense that File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is) Where the template says "Purpose of use" put a numbered list for all 10 of the Non-free content use Policy and explain why this image meets all of those criteria. You may also want to read the Fair use, Unacceptable use - Images, section of the Non-free content guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Although most of it was self-evident. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I cleaned it up a bit. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:2005 Bali Bombers Heads JP.jpg
I am not the original uploader (it was originally uploaded to the Commons), but I hope that this is good enough. (Also note that the photos might be in public domain as a government work, see commons:COM:PD. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam


Hello Soundvisions1, thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA! Don't worry that you didn't support it; your comments and advice were still appreciated. I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Gatecrasher Fire 20070618.jpg
If we assume good faith on the part of the uploader of this file, there is no reason to dispute the license that he used. The editor uploaded a low resolution version of this file, which he released into the public domain, he then added a link to a higher resolution version of the file on his flickr page that he has not released into the public domain. Whilst I would prefer that he had allowed us to use the higher resolution version under a free license, there is nothing to stop the copyright holder of a photograph from using different licenses for different versions of the photo. I see no reason to believe that the uploader of this image is not, as he claims, the copyright holder, and therefore no need to require OTRS or to delete the file. The editor has not made any edits since 2007, and so is unlikely to respond to messages on his talk page—if you want further clarification from him I suggest that you try to contact him through his flickr account. —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (Conversation at User_talk:JeremyA) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)