Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jackochs13 (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 28 May 2014 (→Sageworks Deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status: Unknown


Friday
15
November
12:53 UTC
Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


Note for other Admins - If you want to change any action I have done, then you may do so without having to wait for a reply from me. Your judgement at the time should be sufficient.
Note: To any interested parties. This is my main account, there are no edits under my old IP address 109.224.128.22 (terminated March 2014); a few minor edits under my even older static IP address 87.127.178.158, my work IP address (but that is shared, and not all the edits there are mine) 193.113.135.87 or 193.113.135.112 I also have User:Ronjones for logging in outside home. Current address is IPv6 - somewhere in the range of 2001:8b0:9f0::/48
All threads on this page will be archived after 14 days of non - activity.

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

responding to your post of today May 13, 1014

Hello Mr. Jones... I am responding to your email and post which indicates you will remove my photograph on the 19th. I purchased the photograph and electronic photograph of myself from the photographer who took it and have used it for many occurrences. I read all of the material regarding uploading of photographs several times. To be honest I did not understand it and just chose one of the responses at the time. Please advise how to correct the situation. Thank you for your assistance. Gailanne M. Cariddi North Adams, Massachusetts gailcariddi@gmail.com ————— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gail Cariddi (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright always belongs to the photographer - unless you also got a signed release of copyright from him. Buying a photo he took does not transfer the copyright.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Body Mind Intellect-BMI Chart by Swami Chinmayananda.pdf

Dear Dr. Jones,

Thank you for reviewing the file "Body Mind Intellect-BMI Chart by Swami Chinmayananda.pdf".

I had forwarded the email from the copyright holder to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on March 2nd. The reply stated that "Non-Commercial and No derivatives are not acceptable licenses."

I checked with the copyright holders, and they do not want to release the file under a free license. Thus, it makes sense to delete the file. Please advise what I need to do.

Sanjaymjoshi (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file will be deleted on the date stated. We cannot host NC and/or ND images. You could try to make it fair-use, but the fair use sizing would make that jpg unreadable - you would have to check it complies under WP:NFCC as well.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Sotti Image

Hi Ronhjones,

I just wanted to advise that I have resubmitted permissions for the image on Wikipedia that was marked for deletion - Fabrizio Sotti Photograph.jpg) (and may in fact have been deleted). Please note that I have emailed my permissions information to the Permissions Wiki email address: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thank you! Hurtinfornewcurtains (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Hurtinfornewcurtains[reply]

Looks like they have processed the permission - File:Fabrizio Sotti Photograph.jpg is now OK.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of College Hill neighborhood, Greensboro, NC.jpg

Ron H. Jones,

The document is classified by law as a public record in the state of North Carolina and thus is not subject to copyright. As indicated at the bottom of the map, it was created by a local government agency (Planning Department, City of Greensboro):

Prepared by: Greensboro Department of Planning & Community Development Cartographer: Sovich, J. Draft: October 17, 2013 \\Market\pcd\HCD\NEIGHBORHOOD_PLANNING\College Hill\GIS\College Hill Base Map 10_17_13.mxd

Under North Carolina law, all documents, specifically including maps, produced by local and state agencies are public records. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132-1:

§ 132-1. "Public records" defined. (a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government. (b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information. (1935, c. 265, s. 1; 1975, c. 787, s. 1; 1995, c. 388, s. 1.)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_132/GS_132-1.html

This is the second time this question has been raised. What can I do to indicate to your colleagues that this document is a public record and not subject to copyright?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide.

Darneke (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) David Arneke[reply]

Nowhere does those statements release the copyright for commercial usage. Plenty of places release material for private use, but all free images on Wikipedia can be used for any purpose. I've checked commons (which has much more info) and the only states listed for free images are California, Florida, Minnesota, and Washington state. See commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#US_States_and_Territories. The only way to be sure is to get a discussion going, so that if it's to be a "keep" then that result will be shown on the image talk page. I'll therefore change the "no permission" to a WP:PUF, and let the discussion start.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you G7 Nick Gordon?--Yankees10 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Yankees10 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File permission problem with File:Bruce Clarke, front row third from the left, with MACV Advisory Team 4 . . . .

Dear Mr. Jones,

The photo in question is mine. I served with Col. Clarke, as well as Pete Luitweiler and Alfred French (deceased) in Vietnam on Advisory Team 4. It seems silly to write a letter to myself giving me permission to use the photo. Is there another way to do it?

Also, thanks for the correction on the link on the Alan Seeger page. You are right that I did not intend the link to be to the disambiguation page for John Reed. That was sloppy work on my part.

Regards,

David SciacchitanoSciacchitano (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sciacchitano: There's a problem. The image has been published elsewhere first - never do that. We cannot confirm who anyone is on Wikipedia - thus if the image is elsewhere - then it could be copied by anyone to Wikipedia, hence we flag it up as "no permission". The easy way out for this one is to add a caption to the image at http://sciacchitano.smugmug.com/Vietnam/MACV-Advisory-Team-4-Quang-Tri/2225217_47ZJwZ#!i=3024926090&k=Wk3Gjj3 which says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." - otherwise the route for permission is at WP:DCM  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem for Jude Anthany Joseph.jpg.

Hi,

This image has been forwarded to me by Jude Anthany Joseph itself through email and the email has been send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on March 28,2014.

Jibin net (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Regards jibin_net[reply]

Removed "no permission" - the OTRS pending gives you 30 days - there can be a backlog  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have acted upon your concern re File permission problem with File:Heather Smith, Australian Author.jpg

Hi Ron,

The copyright holder has filled out the form requested and emailed it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

I have also added ((OTRS pending)) (<--with curly brackets) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

ThatWriterBloke (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "no permission" - the OTRS pending gives you 30 days - there can be a backlog  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ron ThatWriterBloke (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock on hold

Hello, Ron. An editor you blocked is requesting an unblock at User talk:Samotny Wędrowiec. Your block was indubitably correct (though perhaps the rationale "vandalism only account" was not quite technically correct). However, the editor seems to genuinely accept that what he did was unacceptable, and to be willing to change. I am a great believer in WP:ROPE, and I am inclined to give him another chance. Worst case: he vandalises again and is blocked again, and this time stays blocked. Best case: we gain another good editor. Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well certainly vandalism only for that day (6th Apr) - I was not sure what he was about or even if the account had been compromised - that was a very real possibility. I like WP:ROPE as well - if they go there again, then they are really going to have a hard time to get unblocked again. So feel free to unblock, do mention WP:STICK with regards to the page mentioned (Talk:Poland#Central.2FEastern_edit_war)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request to provide proof from owner of photographs that can be placed in public domain

Hi Dr. Ron,

I received a couple messages yesterday that Wikipedia wanted proof that the owner of two photographs consented to my using them and to their being placed in the public domain. I obtained an email from the owner and (hopefully) correctly forwarded that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, being new to Wikipedia, I am checking with you to ensure that my authorization came through (plus I a just trying to play with some of Wikipedia's bells and whistles).

Since I am not even certain about the signing protocol, I will try the only three I know: Dr. Daniel Schag Dschag Dschag (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - you had the important part - the e-mail address from the copyright holder, showing a domain relating to the business. I've processed the permission.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter (actually, also testing here if this is how I should communicate, as a follow up to your note--I got your email so I could have responded that way but those I'd see if the Chat feature performs this function better). Thanks again. Dschag (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletion – inquiry

Hello Ron: You deleted User talk:SoBanal,SoBanal on March 25. I ask because this new editor reverted the subcategory deletions I did. See [1]. This editor has done other edits on James Wesley Rawles related articles. (I figure there is COI or perhaps fandom involved.) I wanted to leave a welcome message on the user talk page, but then I saw your deletion. I'm wondering if there is some back-story about this editor. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, another interesting aspect of this user are the contributions to James Wesley Rawles. The username echoes that of User:SoTotallyAwesome, blocked as a sock of User:Trasel. All three names have been used to edit Patriots Novels Series and James Wesley Rawles. I know only a little about SPI, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user page was (previously not created) tagged by mistake about an an image File:Cover of the Novel Liberators.jpg - I undid the change, hence the deletion - I've put up a welcome menu now, to stop any confusion. As for the rest, you could be right, or it could just be an area (s)he is interested in - it's very difficult, unless they really step out of line.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Skin Game (novel) - unprotection request

Hi there -

Back in December you semiprotected Skin Game (novel) due to an IP continuously (and uncivil-ly) attempting to restore the article off of a redirect. The article is now being developed as the novel is about to be released, so I don't think the article needs to be protected anymore. Could you unprotect it? Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 13:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Philly the dog

The photograph of Philly (dog) was taken by me on May 2, 2014 in the afternoon in the Philadelphia History Museum for the purpose of uploading to Wikipedia page. I created the photo and own it and completely grant free use of it on Wikipedia. The Museum allows people to take pictures without restriction. - GustavM

The result was Keep  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warid Congo

Reference Warid Congo, I had provided substantial content to the page and you have refused request.  SAMI  talk 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the original author can use G7, provided they have added the only substantial content. G7 can never apply for this page. Wikipedia:Csd#g7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members 2014

Hi I got your message about the members pic I do not understand what you have written what I do know is I paid the photographer to take the picture and I can do whatever I want with it including putting it on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.141.194 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file has had an {{OTRS pending}} on it for over 2 months - nothing seems to have been received there. If you have bought the copyright, and not just the photo (copyright is not automatically transferred if you buy a photo) then you should send a scan of that document to OTRS - see WP:DCM  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response to you on my talk page. Please respond there. Thanks. AllanVS talk contribs 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dudley during meeting on NH Governor's Council.jpg

You tagged this as {{subst:npd}}. Did you notice that it also has been uploaded as File:Dudley Dudley at a meeting of the NH Governor's Council.jpg with {{PermissionOTRS}}? If the permission is invalid, then the other file should also be nominated for deletion. If the permission is valid, one of the files should be deleted per WP:CSD#F1. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not scroll down that far!
What a confusion... Ticket#2014031410016907 refers to...
and
I'll restore the first one, add ticket to third one, and delete last one as F1 - after moving link in article. Thanks for the info  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing. I have nominated one more dupe (File:Dudley Dudley at New Hampshire Executive Council meeting.jpg) for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F1. However, note that File:Dudley Dudley at New Hampshire Executive Council meeting.jpg and File:Dudley Dudley at New Hampshire Governor's Council Meeting.jpg list different photographer. If the photographer indeed is unknown as one of the file description pages suggests, then how can we know that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done the F1 - all I can say is photographer is "unknown" and taken mid 1970s. Since it's unknown we can assume there is nothing on the reverse of the image, so maybe {{PD-Pre1978}} would be better. This might be one for a discussion at PUF for the three remaining images. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I wanted to drop you a thank you for your hard work finding files that have been tagged with various OTRS related tags that are still lacking the required information. It is a tireless and thankless job, but I wanted you to know that your good work is preventing many pieces of work being inappropriately hosted here as potential copyright violations. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Everything in Between (Matt Wertz album)

Hi Ron, I just noticed that you've removed Everything in Between (Matt Wertz album). I created this page and was not notified of the PROD. Can you please restore this, as there is notability which I was not able to defend, and due course wasn't followed by its premature deletion. Thanks. --rm 'w avu 23:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the creator gets notified - which they did User talk:Danrock31. Expired PRODs can always be restored as "objected". Do note that once restored, that it's likely that the proposer may well seek to go to WP:AFC if not improved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restored  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bell (racing driver)

Hi Ron, new to Wikipedia in terms of adding content, have to say the adding images and how to express copyright is somewhat confusing. The image of DB with all the Porsches I took myself, its used on his website which I manage. I have updated DB's website with all his Le Mans results and obviously wanted an image that shows him with just some of the cars he raced in terms of being factual. The other image of he with his son is his own image copyright, which was used in his updated biography. In both cases he/I are happy to have teh images freely distributed. There is also a black and white image I want to put up of him in his first ever race in a Lotus. If I can get the first two submissions correctly annotated in terms of copyright, I will know the procedure for the future. Best Patrick Felix7black7 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest solution is to always upload to Wikipedia first - that shows you have the copyright as it could not have been copied from anywhere else, because there is no system within the Wikipedia pages to prove who you are. Otherwise look at WP:DCM. Personally the easier option is that if you can edit the web pages, then add a CC logo &/or text - example can be got from http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by-sa&jurisdiction=&version=3.0&lang=en to show the license of that image. Note that this could be done on a new special page (on the same site), just for the Wikipedia permissions - a page of that logo/text and a gallery of the images released - it does not have to be linked from the main site home page (so can be an "orphan" page - so long as the url is used as the permission). Otherwise it will have to be by e-mail to the OTRS team. Hope that makes sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paisley_Magic_Circle_Logo.svg

Hello. Thank you for reviewing my file and recommending to copy it to wikipedia. Unfortunately I am a bit confused about what todo at the moment, because a couple of bigots called Motopark and jameslwoodward are not accepting my logo in wikimedia god knows why. That is why I uploaded it on English Wikipedia. Please see here [[2]] From "File_tagging_File:Logo_of_Paisley_Magic_Circle.svg" for the discussion. The guy finally say I have to change the info and license as the other, but my logo is Public Domain, so I a do not knwo what do to. Shall I modify it like this bigot of Motopark ask ? Or shall I copy it to Wikimedia Commons as I thought I should do being my work Public Domain ? Please advise me because I had enough of those two bigots and to be honest I would like anyone who needs the logo (like a maker of T-shirts and other memorabilia) to use it without having to ask for permission, which is why I made it Public Domain. Thanks a lot for your time, I'll trust your judgement because I am about giving up. Guilleamodeo (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no giving up. There is always help, but you just have to be a bit patient sometimes, as we don't man the pumps 24 hours a day. OK - I'm an admin on commons as well, I re-jigged your image to remove the no permission banner, changed self-CC-zero to self-PD - as your web site does say Public Domain, some do get picky... I've killed your deletion request for now, I'll delete it if you insist. En-wiki one gets deleted as there is a commons version. So only image is now File:Logo of Paisley Magic Circle.svg. I've searched for the image on Google and TinEye - it's not anywhere there, so no-one should say that you have copied it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, you made my day. You are 100% right, I should have not let them get into my nerves, but it was so... ...well, who cares now ? Again, thank you for understanding what I was trying to do and make it happen. People like you is who make this thing worthy. :-) Guilleamodeo (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microsoft Expression Web screenshot.png

Hello

I am calling in regard to your revision revert. To put it short, there is a bare minimum of information that the image must show (otherwise, its existence would be pointless) and as long as that bare minimum is shown, I don't mind if the image is 1x1 in size. The version by Theo's Little Bot is distorted; if you don't see the distortion, please bypass your browser's cache.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theo's bot is not distorted - do remember that images should not only be less than 100000 pixels but should always be low resolution - that's fair use. A large sharp image is not fair use. If there is a part of the image that needs to be discussed then that can always be put up as a cropped image. But an image just for an infobox does not need to be that sharp. I'll leave it for now, but you can be sure that someone else, other than me, will end up changing it in the future - they always do find them eventually - I try to get the size right at the upload time, so that the uploader knows what is going on.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, fair use is about how much of the work you use, and whether it affects the commercialisation of the work. In this case, the image largely consists of empty space, hardly visible icons and some uncopyrightable elements. There should be much less than 100,000 pixels of copyrighted material in that file, although the file itself consists of more than 100,000 pixels.
Also, a large portion of the image is text (for example: "Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright laws [...]"). When copying text, it makes little sense to talk about pixel count. Word count makes more sense, so keeping the number of words low is important. There do not seem to be many words on the image.
I do not think that a bot can decide what pixel count to use in all situations. For computer software (other than games), you often need a high pixel count, or else the image is useless. On the other hand, computer icons can often be represented using much fewer pixels than recommended by the bot. As an example, File:Microsoft Expression Web icon.png in the same article was downsized to just 64 × 64 pixels, much less than the bot's 100,000 pixels. In some cases, a human will need to step in to choose a more suitable pixel count. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello again, Ronhjones. There are a couple of misconceptions in your message that I think should be addressed:
  • First, there is no firm 100,000 pixels mandate. This number appear in WP:NFC which says "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger." If this condition is met, I don't mind if the image is 1x1 in size. I tried 5 sizes and combination until I settled on this one.
  • Second, this image is not fair-use.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it's only a rough guideline, which is why I did not change it back a second time. In the fullness of time, we will see if it manages to stay like that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Metropolitan Museum of Art "Open Access for Scholarly Content"

The Metropolitan Museum of Art have released a large number of their photographs into the public domain. Some of these are of antique objects such as clocks. You may wish to join the discussion at : Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_.22Open_Access_for_Scholarly_Content.22_images --Racklever (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all been summed up nicely by User:Masem before I viewed it (obviously a different time zone to me). This is not an isolated case, plenty of places release images for non-commercial, sadly we can't use them. You just have to take your own image with your own camera - assuming the object is PD to start with.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier de Saint-Georges, title page of concertos and Dumouriez

Hi Ronhjones, Thanks for putting the two illustrations on Wikicommons. I am all for it. Dsteveb (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Profile picture of self-help author, entrepreneur and healer DDnard.jpg

Hi Ronhjones, an email from the copyright owner, DDnard, granting permission to use this image has been sent to permissions at Wikipedia. Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the no permission banner - to allow OTRS to process. You now have 30 days.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sageworks Deletion

Hi Ron, hope this finds you well. I just noticed that you've removed Sageworks page. I'd like to object to this deletion, on grounds that the company is notable. Can you please restore this, as there is notability which I would have liked to defend before it's deletion/PROD expiration? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackochs13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&oldid=610494239"