User talk:Sue Gardner

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Sue Gardner!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | Català | Нохчийн | Čeština | Cymraeg | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Sue Gardner!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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) 13:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Le Souillot.jpg[edit]

Sure. No problem. The flickr license is still 'cc by sa 2.0 generic.' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


File tagging File:Wikimedia Bookshelf.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wikimedia Bookshelf.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not 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 OTRS-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:Wikimedia Bookshelf.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

You are not the author and somebody completely different added a license. 178.5.105.217 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sue, you might be interested in User_talk:Saibo#Jorm_.28WMF.29. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Wikimedia Foundation SOPA Boiler Room Meeting.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wikimedia Foundation SOPA Boiler Room Meeting.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Saibo (Δ) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Wikimedia Bookshelf.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wikimedia Bookshelf.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not 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 OTRS-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:Wikimedia Bookshelf.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Saibo (Δ) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Foundation SOPA Boiler Room Meeting.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wikimedia Foundation SOPA Boiler Room Meeting.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sue, just a quick note to say I've answered your question at this DR. --99of9 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocks during the Beta M saga[edit]

Sue, Could you please get someone to look at various blocks that took place during the Beta M saga. In my opinion, some admins willfully ignored the evidence in blocking users such as User:Peter Damian and User:Fred the Oyster for calling for the action that the Office finally took. You have expressed concerns about problems with attracting and retaining editors. Having admins on Commons who appear to believe that any pornography, however perverted, is educational, and that the presence of the likes of Beta M is beneficial to any project that provides services for schools certainly puts good people off contributing.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Hallgrímskirkja church in Reykjavik.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hallgrímskirkja church in Reykjavik.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue.
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 | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JD554 (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

Sue, in this post I am going to discuss "banned user list" and why it should be deleted by WMF.

1.There's no other site that I know of that has a list of the users they banned for a public view.

2.I do not believe there's any other site that allows anonymous volunteers to ban their users.

3.In many cases keeping a user on this list is a violation of BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)"

4.Most AN/I discussions and arbcom deliberation are original research which is lacking verifiability and provides an opportunity for content opponents to attack a discussed person violating neutral point of view.

5.Banned user list is absolutely unnecessary for wikipedia's safe functioning.

6.Banned user list is yet another form of bullying that should not be allowed at the site that belongs to a charitable, tax-exempt organization.

Sue, in my particular situation I am being bullied every second, and not because I am upset I am banned from wikipedia (I am proud I got lynched for fighting bullying to the very end, and would have done it all over again even, if I knew what witch-hunters will do to me in return). I am being bullied because I was editing under my real name and the lies told about me are hurting me in my real life. During my time on wikipedia I was lied about more than I was in my entire life, and I mean I really was lied about. For example one of these lies is a slander invented by a criminal who hacked my email account.

Sue, in many cases banned user list provides a perfect playground for lunatics. I'd like to share a quote with you please. It is from 1984 by George Orwell, but it is also about AN/I discussion that led to my ban and bans of many others: "The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.

Sue, I am being bullied every second on your charitable, tax exempt site!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


And today something new is happening on wikipedia. WMF is asking for donations using not a picture of Jimbo, not a picture of Brandon Harris, not a picture of a good-standing editor, but a picture of ... Wikipedia asking for donations screen-shoot.jpg a puffer-fish, a picture that I took! And while my picture is used to ask for donations CEO of WMF does not bother to respond my absolutely legitimate request! I hope that at least small part of the money that my image will help to bring to WMF will be used to stop bullying, to stop hate, to stop antisemitism, to stop defamation, to stop witch-hunting each of which I personally encountered while editing wikipedia.

Sue, even although I am banned from wikipedia (and proud to be so), I am being bullied on wikipedia every second by the lies that are attached to my name, by the lies that you, Sue, are refusing to remove, do you hear me, Sue?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1 - Sue is currently on vacation - that's the reason she hasn't responded, I'm sure. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is she going to respond as you did? D:
Anyway while you are here I'd like to repeat some of my questions I asked you, but got no response. Here they are:
  1. I was indefinitely blocked by arbcom, with my talk page access removed. My block log clearly stated that only arbcom could unblock me. Why I was community banned after all of this was done to me already other than to bully me even more than I already have been, and what exactly WMF does to prevent this kind of bullying by a bunch of anonymous and mostly involved bullies that dare to call themselves "wikipedia community" ?
  2. Why wikipedia is the only site on the Net, and probably the only place in the civilized world, that allows banning already indefinitely blocked persons, why WMF does nothing to prevent such bullying on their charitable, tax-exempt sites? My situation is not unique, not in this way anyway.Mbz1 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Mbz1. If you don't mind, I will take the liberty of responding for Sue given that she is on a well-deserved holiday (albeit a short one). Allow me to just start off by saying a big thank you! With respect to the banner, a lot of people enjoyed it tremendously. Our fundraising team listened when you suggested that picture and approach back in November, and we were eager to test out your idea. There was a lot of conversation about how good the photograph was, and I personally find it beautiful, like so many others that you have posted.
With respect to the “banned user list”, I hear your concerns, but I'm not sure I will satisfy them. The Wikimedia Foundation seldom becomes involved in matters of daily community governance. That said, we do take bullying seriously, and in fact we do use small amounts of fundraising money to put in structures to address harrassment, bullying, and other types of unacceptable conduct. For example, we recently drafted with the community the new Terms of Use where we set out a strong prohibition against harassment and other improper behavior (Sec. 4) as well as the parameters for a global ban policy (Sec. 10). But we are reliant on the community to address this issue in most cases because, unique (and a credit) to our website, the community is empowered to establish policies, engage in daily governance, and make decisions to address unacceptable conduct. Our community often includes experts in this area, understanding the factual nuances of particular situations and histories of users. We recognize that finding the best methods of self-governance is always going to remain an evolving process on any project, and we are happy to help find policy and structure solutions, but imposing major changes on community governance decisions or opining on individual situations are usually outside our competence at the Foundation. --Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank for your response,Geoff, but you responded using only general terms. You said WMF takes bullying seriously, but where is a particular example it dealt with a real situation of bullying? I saw none. I saw just the opposite. When I reported a bully admin to arbcom, and WMF, my requests were ignored, and it led up to a needless hurting of 16-years old kid.
You said WMF takes bullying seriously. Then please be so kind to respond my questions #1 and #2 I posted above, in particular why a bunch of anonymous, and mostly involved bullies were allowed to lie about me while I could not even respond these lies at my own talk (if you have another word to name these ("Two Minutes Hate" I am ready for your suggestions)? How safer is Wikipedia and Wikipedia community with me being not only blocked bullied by arbcom, but banned lynched by so called community? Not only I have done nothing wrong, but I exposed a protected-bully-admin, and got bullied myself, bullied beyond belief. So where exactly WMF takes bullying seriously in my situation? Generally speaking how one could explain to a normal person why Wikipedia needs to have banned user list in a public view, and why in a world indefinitely blocked persons (and I am using the word "persons" in purpose) have to be banned atop of indefinite block?
Have you read this article? What is being done to me on wikipedia is much, much worse!
In a meantime I am being bullied every second at Wikipedia, and bullying kills.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Once again to clarify what I mean, when I state my BLP has been violated:
I have been editing under my real name. I was accused in harassment, one dirty, anonymous bully even accused me in "a criminal harassment" and another dirty, anonymous bully stated at AN/I that it knows an attorney or a few who will charge me in a criminal court. These dirty bullies were allowed to scream at their will although according to wikipedia policy "Threats" and "Perceived legal threats" are considered to be harassment.
On the other hand I threatened none, I outed none, I wikihounded none. Who did I harass? How? Where is a single fucking evidence of an alleged harassment? I literally begged arbcom and others to provide a single diff of alleged harassment. None has been ever provided. I have never made a false accusation towards anyone. Each and every statement I made on the subject was supported by at least one on-wiki diff. I have been treated as trash on your charitable, tax-exempt site! My BLP has been violated, and you're saying WMF is taking bullying seriously? Really?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

OK, Sue is editing English wikipedia, but does not bother to respond my post. So here's my conclusion. Geoff stated just above that "The Wikimedia Foundation seldom becomes involved in matters of daily community governance" So, let's please take a closer look at some of the members of wikipedia community that were allowed to ban lynch me with no single evidences presented to support their false allegations about me.

  1. User:Sandstein an abusive, bully admin whose performance was characterized by a fellow admin like this "The way you dish out blocks is worse than any admin I've ever seen, but you cannot or will not accept that there is a problem. You lack the judgement, and the thickness of skin, to do the job properly; you lack the compassion, humanity and humility to admit it when you fuck up (and we all fuck up Sandstein, even you); and you lack the perspective to be imposing blocks.". Besides everything else Sandstein harasses and discriminates against mentally sick wikipedians "Also, and I mean absolutely no disrespect by that, the idea of an administrator of whom we know that they are suffering from psychiatric disorders does not sit well with me. Admins can do substantial damage to the project if they want to, and I just don't feel we should take the risk in this case." One more: "Sorry, but your userpage says that you have Schizotypal personality disorder, which according to its Wikipedia article may manifest as "inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof); behaviour or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar; poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal" and so forth. These are not characteristics that administrators should exhibit, and I'd rather not run the risk that they may appear in the future even if they have not done so far." (In the last situation the user asked Sandstein to reconsider the oppose reason "I respectfully ask that you reconsider the reasons for your opposing."), but Sandstein has never bothered to respond. Do you see a problem, Sue, with a senior Wikipedia's administrator harassing and discriminating against editors with disabilities?
  2. User Russavia is blocked from editing Wikipedia for a year partly for posting racist cartoon to his user page.
  3. User Night Ranger added to its user page an image of "Human penis and scrotum" when it was told to stop adding "ban user" templates to user pages. I'll also recommend to take a look at deleted revision of 22:35, 16 March 2012‎. The user might have left wikipedia with a nice goodbye message D: "fuck you all"
  4. User tarc harasses me and lies about me on and off wiki every time it sees my name. For example here's what tarc said on WR "I find it highly amusing that the fuckwit of the hour monitors this thread and used it to get Rd232 to turn her talk page access back on.What did you do Mila, promise him a blowjob someday?" (the link could be provided per request)Any more examples? I have plenty of these.
  5. User Beeblebrox demonstrated more that once that it is incapable of making intelligent decisions because of its instability. Here are just a few examples: edit summary: "what an asshole";edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum";edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it.";"go away now you abusive disgrace of an admin";an outburst on English wikipedia. Many more examples could be provided by request.
  6. User Jehochman. I am not sure what to make of that admin, but I tend to believe that besides being a witch-hunter he's an idiot. Here's why: Once he revered my post to his talk with an edit summary: "per house rules, dull and rude comments are not allowed". If somebody please would tell me where I was rude in my comment I will publicly apologize to Jehochman. Surprisingly or not, but when the user is called "an idiot" he still does not get it was said about him. :-)
  7. User Demiurge1000 used against me dirty lies it got from a criminal who hacked my email account.

Do you need any more examples of the representatives of the community which WMF allows to govern Wikipedia, to destroy people reputations, health and lives? Because, if you do, I could for example tell you how Raul654 misused his checkuser tools, and was forced to resign or how ..., but I guess it is enough to see what kind of users WMF allows to govern wikipedia...

I guess I was not very civil in my post, was I? But exactly as with my RFC concerning Gwen gale I supported every statement I made with at least one example, and in most cases more examples could be provided per request. On the other hand, when I was lynched there was not a single example of an alleged harassment provided. One more difference between this post and my lynching procedure:every user I mentioned in this post is able to respond. I was lynched with my hands and feet tided and with over-the-mouth gag. Actually it is worse than that: I am being lynched every second because my name is displayed in the banned user list with the link to the lies about me...


Regards. Yours sincerely being lynched forever FrankLynchedLarge.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I support this complaint[edit]

It is a barbaric practice to publish the names of 'banned editors' in this way, and I fully support the points made by Mbz1 above. I am a victim of it myself, indeed it is currently being used to harass me in all kinds of ways. Peter Damian (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)



Afrikaans | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | עברית | हिन्दी | italiano | Lëtzebuergesch | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk | norsk nynorsk | polski | română | русский | српски (ћирилица)‎ | srpski (latinica)‎ | slovenčina | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | Tagalog | українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Sue Gardner,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 09:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)