User talk:0xF8E8/Archive 1

Talkback
John from Idegon (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Please see my full explanation at the end of your talkpage regarding the violations of policy by previous revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:203:EDF0:2182:CDEE:E61A:E530 (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Zika map
Thanks for the vector version of the CDC map at Zika virus outbreak (2015–present)! A request, though: could you add in the legend? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for asking (wasn't sure whether you meant the Commons legend or a legend in the file itself, so did both). —0xF8E8 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I meant the file itself, but having it at Commons is good, too. — Gorthian (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just realized that Mexico and all of Central America (except Belize) should be purple, too.


 * It's probably best practice to propose replacing a map for an article on the talk page, so everyone has a chance to give you feedback. Also be sure to read WP:CATEGORY; categories are weird and wonderful beasts. — Gorthian (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for that. I've changed the vector version to reflect Mexico and Central America (minus Belize). I'll just leave the file as is for now, but I think this version should be fine for inclusion. I'll try to discuss file changes in the future (most of the time I've just replaced the image without discussion).0xF8E8 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer beliefs
A brief survey of the various online communities dedicated to discussing Ted Cruz and the Zodiac killer shows that many of the users proclaim their true belief that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac killer. The article should reflect this.
 * Can you provide the source for this survey? The reliable sources used in the article do not say this, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. —0xF8E8 (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Survey the comments here: https://www.facebook.com/TedCruzIsTheZodiacKiller/?fref=ts. This is equivalent to a journalist denying that members of a church believe what they proclaim, the journalist receiving a citation, and anything said by the members of the church being scrubbed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8300:3B70:F92C:F21E:3C93:8A0A (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Facebook polls are not reliable sources. While I understand your desire to reflect this poll in the article, read over Verifiability; we need reliable sources published by major media outlets to establish this claim, and you have not provided any. I'm not trying to scrub anything, just applying policy. Unfortunately, the treshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verfiability, not truth.

An offer
Would you like me to remove your IP address from the publicly visible record of your recent editing? It's up to you, as some people care about revealing such information and some don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
 * I think I'd prefer it removed; thank you for asking, as I wasn't aware it could be removed. —0xF8E8 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe–Galatasaray rivalry
it is constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.41.78.40 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's great you're attempting to add constructive material to the article, but you absolutely must, must, must cite reliable sources to include this in the article. Consider discussing this on the article talk page. Thanks. —0xF8E8 (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenerbah%C3%A7e%E2%80%93Galatasaray_rivalry&diff=720719408&oldid=719477283 where is the source? is it constructive?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.41.78.40 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jason 'Segel's' name is genuinely spelt 'Seagull'...
It is a common misspelling but it is a misspelling nonetheless.

This is absolutely constructive how can we abide by poor spelling?

Besides this, after conducting research into the Seagull family it was found that Seagull farmers would breed many types of bird throughout the year. Birthing "Seagulls" as they are commonly known. Jason Seagull's family adopted the name as they had, for many generations, bred the early genus's of the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.149.184 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're correct, you need to prove it with reliable sources. We can't go off your random knowledge here, especially for such a bizarre claim which seems to contradict nearly every other source. —0xF8E8 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Raggedy Ann
Hello, yes you removed a revision of mine on Raggedy Ann that is a citation by the historian of the Gruelle family regarding J. Gruelle's stance against vaccination. John Gruelle was not neutral regarding this controversy. The previous language in the article actually made it sound like one of the "myths" around Gruelle is regarding the vaccine movement. This is entirely incorrect. The earlier version of this article was attempting to sway readers to think the anti-vaccine movement has creatd myths--but the citation did not confirm this. I replaced with factual evidence from the Pelican Published book by the historian. How is John Gruelle's actual words not FACT?

Raggedy Ann cont.
I want to elucidate further how the previous revisions of this article violated Wikipedia's neutrality policy on several points.

This is important to explain because the previous revisions of the Raggedy Ann article created a historical error of omission at the expense of the reader and to the benefit of a bias:

Inaccurate Citations

The previous revisionist wrote the Origins sections of Raggedy Ann to exclusively address the "myths" surrounding the doll, and to end this argument as describing various uncited myths around the anti-vaccine movement. The first sentence of the revisionist's paragraph read:

"Additionally, Hall notes, Marcella died at age 13 from an infected vaccination, not from the side effects of the vaccination itself, and Gruelle did not then create the limp Raggedy Ann doll as a tribute to his lifeless daughter, as another myth states."

This is an inaccurate citation, ascribing the dispelling of the myth to Patricia Hall ("Hall notes"). Hall did not note this "myth" nor tied in any political myths with the myths of the dolls origin. When going to the source, Hall simply disclosed that Marcella died of an infected vaccine. I have replaced this sentence by a statement of fact, that the girl died of the vaccine.

The previous revisionist added on to this by stating in the second sentence:

''"Gruelle's patent application for the Raggedy Ann doll was already in progress, and the artist received final approval by the U.S. Patent office the same month as Marcella's death." ''

This instead is what the cited source actually said regarding the patent application:

"When the real-life Marcella Gruelle died, at age 13, from the ravages of an infected vaccination, her parents were, understandably devastated. Under different circumstances, this would have been a time of great rejoicing for Gruelle and his family. He was connecting with juvenile publishers, and was working on several sets of illustrated fairy stories. In November (the same month of Marcella's death) Gruelle had been granted final approval by the U.S. Patent office for his doll called "Raggedy Ann." But all was overshadowed by the death of his beloved daughter."

I revised the revisionist's bias to summarize and reflect the actual source. It would be reasonable to add the revisionist's information regarding "patent pending" if it serves the reader--but not at the expense of the factual history of events regarding the death and the affect it had on the Gruelle family.

Lack of Evidence for Widespread Belief

The third and last sentences the revisionists wrote indicated:

"Regardless, some journalistic sources repeat the myth. For example, {2015 internet journal article} Indeed, [the anti-vaccination movement's] most visible symbol was the smiling but entirely limp Raggedy Ann doll created by a popular cartoonist for his daughter, who had fallen ill and would later die, he believed, from a smallpox shot she received without his permission."

This presents several problems violating Wikipedia policy. First, these sentences describe hearsay (example, "someone said that someone else said this"). As Wikipedia states, this does not belong in encyclopedic literature unless it rises to a commonly held opinion by a wide range of people. When following the cited source, the source requires the reader to register in order to access and verify the information. Once you do this, however, the cited source does not back up the claim with evidence or demonstration that people are in fact perpetuating the myth--nor that this stance is widely held. Therefore this is a false hearsay statement.

If revisionist feels readers should know of this "myth," they must qualify the myth to be a substantial viewpoint and that it rises to the level of importance for a reader, as Wikipedia's neutrality policy indicates. Further, according to policy, this myth must be evidenced with a verifiable source.

Error of Omission

Further, by deleting my additions, the revisionist has created their own person bias in the article by providing their view (again unevidenced) AT THE EXCLUSION of providing readers with the link between the anti-vaccine movement of the 1930s to J Gruelle--which is real and factual (note that Gruelle's own words in his own handwriting are found on Page 89 of the historian's published book as cited). This exclusion is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Should the revisionist like to include details regarding the "myth" they must meet the test of evidence, and allow the factual history of event to also be presented by its side. This serves the reader well, as it will clarify why two opinions might be held.

Summary If you are truly concerned about readers getting confused by a "widespread myth," you would want these readers to be able to surface the accurate information on wikipedia. The accurate information would explain in an unbiased way, the entire story of this "myth"--not the half truths. It seems the revisionists are withholding from the reader John Gruelle's actual stance on vaccine and the factual history surrounding the Raggedy Ann doll.

This information is important to be able continue the article describing how the doll was used by various hospitals and medical organizations following the events of J Gruelle's life. 2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and apologize for not responding sooner. Nonetheless, you need to understand what is and isn't allowed at Wikipedia. Hall does indeed clarify that the vaccine was infected, not that she died merely from vaccination. That is the key point you need to understand here. The long quote about vaccination is out-of-place in an article about Raggedy Ann, and significantly skews the page towards an anti-vaccination bias. WP:WEIGHT is something you need to read more carefully; we absolutely cannot treat legends and myths as significant viewpoints. Describing that others have repeated the myth is not non-neutral; with cited references to where it occurs, we summarize all published viewpoints without giving false balance to anti-vaccination ideas, which are widely rejected by the scientific community. I should also note that you've violated the three-revert rule, so you should not revert further before discussing on the talk page. If you do, it may result in a block. Please don't mistake this for an attempt to silence you; you may very well just have gone about these edits unaware of policy, as many new users do. But please carefully read our policies (and perhaps gain some experience making less controversial edits), because your present actions have been disruptive to the consensus-building process. I also encourage you (though it is not required) to create an account, as it makes it easier to communicate and does not reveal your IP address. Thanks, —0xF8E8 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Raggedy Ann cont.
Thank you for your message--and for your professionalism in your response. I'm glad that you agree with me that the describing of myths is not non-neutral. In fact, I requested dispute resolution on this troubling article that appears to have a senior editor comandeering it to keep the telling of these myths in place. For the last several months,this editor has been undoing any edits that change this. He additionally called me a name, whatever it might mean, (you can see in the Edit History of the article now) that makes me believe he has a pre-existing bias.

Wikipedia informed me that dispute resolution is premature for this article. However, they advised that the editors should find what they can agree on as a starting point for revisions, and to only talk about the merits of the revisions. You mentioned one of the revision in your comment. You mentioned that "key point you need to understand here" is that the vaccine was infected. You are correct in that Patricia Hall's website described the vaccine as such. Yet, I am unable to find any definition of an "infected vaccine" anywhere. Have you? Perhaps I'm wrong here, but there does not appear to be such a thing as an "infected vaccine." It does appear if you look through the revisions of the article that many people were attempting to correct this, and perhaps this is key to the confusion of the article.

I will be contacting the historian to get clarification on what she means on her website when she says "infected vaccine." Perhaps she meant the site was infected after vaccination.

Sincerely, on another note, I was surprised to pull up the story of Raggedy Ann and see the editorial summary of the Origins as leading to an argument about vaccination. But since there appears to be a senior editor militantly keeping the article this way, whatever is actually said about vaccination needs to be accurate (for me nothing should be said until put in context of the actual historical events of the doll's use). Personally, when I pull up a page on a subject in an encyclopaedia, I do not wish to read the myriad of people who "believe" something about the subject; what I want to see are facts about the subject. This article seems to be serving an entirely different purpose than education. 2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attempt to contact Hall; I imagine it'll be useful. When I refer to myths and legends, I was referencing the idea that Marcella's death translated into inspiration for the doll, which is not supported by Hall or any other source in the article. Your revision, obviously, didn't directly claim this, but I worried, especially with the long quote, that you might have been exaggerating its prominence. A major trouble with articles like this is that it's hard to pin a direct origin for the doll--a major focus of Hall is various legends surrounding RA's creation. I understand your concern regarding some of the claims not in the sources--I believe Hall never mentions the vaccination story at all. Nonetheless, does his daughter's death truly play any role in "Raggedy Ann"? Hall focuses on both Gruelle's life and Raggedy Ann, and obviously it's not necessary to provide a full biography at Raggedy Ann. That's the primary reason I reverted your changes; they struck me as out-of-place details about Gruelle's daughter in the Raggedy Ann article. I'm perfectly fine if you just intend to remove the bits not supported by Hall, I'm really just concerned about too much detail regarding the vaccination. Anyways, thanks for discussing this directly, but I'd recommend you continue this on the talk page; that way you can talk everyone involved with the article (including the "senior editor" you mention (presumably Tenebrae) to clarify your concerns). I should hope this goes rather smoothly, although I will say that Wikipedia is at times a byzantine system; About is a good overview, but you can only learn some things from experience. —0xF8E8 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your responses! I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, and I completely agree that the quote is too heavy handed and might be better on Gruelle's own page since it is more about his own life and story.  There would only be a potential tie if we wanted to add more information on how the doll became popular in the 40s.  I did contact the raggedy-ann.com website and did confirm that Patricia Hall actually wrote the article on their site, so I might see about talking to her.  The actual information tied to Raggedy Ann and the old-school "anti-vaccine" movement doesn't appear to be available online (I can't find it), but she will have some leads possibly to pulling it up through the libraries and newspapers.  I think that the Origins section should be completely rewritten actually, and not placing any undue emphasis on any of these particular areas, but providing a nice timeline history of the doll--but I think I will get shut down again if I propose something like that. Thank you for being so kind to me.

2601:285:203:EDF0:2CC3:15BB:89E5:4D7A (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Talking to her constitutes original research, which is unusable. I would strongly advise you read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and other pertinent policy/guideline pages before continuing to edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae: I believe the IP editor is just talking about contacting her to ask for sources/offline resources to further clarify information. I've talked to them about policy above and I think that they wish to productively contribute, they were just unaware of policy. While their initial edits were certainly disruptive, they appear to agree to work things out, and as above, have acknowledged potential concerns. When I initially reverted their edits, my immediate thought was that they might be looking to slant the page towards anti-vaxxer ideology. Talking to them, though, seems to suggest they were merely jumpy in rewriting the entire section and placed a rather unfortunate quote within the section. If they continue to be disruptive, of course, that's another story, but I would just continue to discuss with them and revert if necessary. Thanks for reminding them of policy, though.


 * To the IP editor: Nonetheless, I would also advise you to carefully read policy, because otherwise we might see a repeat of the past couple of days. I know it can seem obvious, but sometimes elements of policy are subtle and bare reminders (even to experienced editors, now and then). Wikipedia is filled with various personalities, but the best advice I can give you is to try your best to reach consensus with other editors and assume good faith, even when it seems others have other ideas in mind. You usually find that you can produce a better page by working together. You might consider creating an account, which confers multiple benefits upon you and makes communicating easier (your IP address more likely than not changes from time to time), and is entirely free. I welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, and hope that you can find a way to improve the page. After all, I'm sure the Time Person of the Year can produce a good Wikipedia article.  —0xF8E8 (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You give sound and reasonable advice, which is much appreciated. I would note that while any of us is free to contact anyone, none of what the anon IP learns from Hall is usable. I'm not sure the anon IP understand the concept of reliable source, and I would urge him or her to learn this. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the IP should not attempt to contact Hall other than to find other reliable sources (we can't go off something Hall said in a call, of course). The IP editor's main concern, as I understand it, is that Hall doesn't specifically mention any of the rumours, so Wikipedia's denial appears unsourced. To be honest, I'm not sure what the material about Marcella's illness is there for in the first place--it's not really relevant to Raggedy Ann (though Marcella herself might be, looking through Hall again). We could just opt to omit any mention of a connection between the two altogether, since it's a significantly WP:FRINGE view in the first place and doesn't appear to be covered anywhere reliable. —0xF8E8 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, there are a couple of mentions (Wall Street Journal, etc.), which makes me more unsure. I still think it should be omitted (or perhaps modified, e.g. Some journalistic sources falsely claim that Raggedy Ann's design was inspired by the death of his daughter Marcella, who died of an infected vaccine), but that might pose issues of WP:SYNTHESIS. —0xF8E8 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You express a valid concern. The reason I would opt to retain it is that Gruelle biographer Hall specifically notes that, "Marcella Gruelle's tragic death certainly gave rise to several legends, and The Wall Street Journal cite states in the footnote that the anti-vaccination movement's "most visible symbol was the smiling but entirely limp Raggedy Ann doll created by a popular cartoonist for his daughter, who had fallen ill and would later die, he believed, from a smallpox shot she received without his permission." My feeling is that, given those things, clarifying the circumstance of Marcella's death seems important for an encyclopedia article to include.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

To the IP: To be clear, we can only use reliable sources; while Hall is useful to contact for pointers to other sources, we still need to attribute each claim to a specific source, and anything Hall tells you needs to also be provided in reliable sources. —0xF8E8 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Barrington Public Schools (Rhode Island) has been accepted
 Barrington Public Schools (Rhode Island), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Barrington_Public_Schools_(Rhode_Island) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * You created this a long time ago. Apparently the IP address at found it and added a {{subst:submit}} tag to it, the switched the "submitter" field to your username, causing the Articles for Creation script to automatically send the above acceptance notification to you. I apologize if you were not the IP editor. Although it lacks multiple independent reliable sources, I've accepted the draft because school districts have almost inherent notability under WP:GEOLAND and a legally recognized populated place. I added a few sources I found through a few cursory searches on the article's talk page. Kind regards, Mz7 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. I didn't submit the article (I had forgotten about it after creating it ~1.5 years ago), but I'm fine with it regardless, even though I had originally intended to edit it further. I do wonder why an IP editor took the initiative to submit my barely edited draft for AfC, though. Kind of bizarre. —0xF8E8 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mazda RX-9
May I ask, why did you revert me? Pyrusca (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an existing Mazda model called RX-9 (see sidebar of LA4 series on the Mazda Luce article) which is covered in a larger article. I had thought it was a new model of the Mazda Luce line, or a spiritual successor of some sort, and accordingly I considered it was a better candidate for a redirect the larger article. After further reading, it became clear that was just an alias for a much older car; I saw models of the same line (Mazda RX-7 and Mazda RX-8) have separate articles, and undid the revert.


 * I was especially concerned because the only source in the article was to a website that looked considerably blog-like; however, Car and Driver appears to exercise editorial control, being staffed by several editors, so in reality it should be fine to use as a source. Most of the sources in car articles are enthusiast publications, so it's sometimes difficult to pin down reliability; apologies that your legitimate edits were reverted temporarily. I restored the article as a stub (feel free to add to it) soon after looking into it further. —0xF8E8 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Copper(II) carbonate
Hi, I am the creator of the article copper(II) carbonate that was meant replace the redirect to basic copper carbonate.

The two substances have only two things in common: they both contain some copper(II) ions and some carbonate ions. They are different in every other respect: formula, molecular mass, appearance, occurrence, chemical properties, crystal structure, bibliography, ... They are as distinct as sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate, or potassium sulfate and chrome alum. They are more distinct than sodium oxide and sodium hydroxide. While the neutral carbonate CuCO3 reacts with water to give the basic carbonate, the reaction is not simple hydration (as, say, from CuSO4 to CuSO4.5H2O). It releases carbon dioxide, and is not reversible except in extreme conditions.

I understand that, unfortunately, the basic carbonate is called simply "copper carbonate" in commerce, and even by some chemists. However, that sloppy nomenclature causes misunderstandings and mistakes (e.g. when computing the needed mass for a reaction). I intend to put the proper links so that readers looking for the commercial item are directed to basic copper carbonate, while chemists can still find the true (neutral) copper(II) carbonate.

In fact, basic copper carbonate is actually two distinct substances, with different properties; or a mixture of both, possibly with other stuff as well. But sorting that mess is another project...

By the way, before deleting substantial amounts of valid material, it is good practice to at least post a notice in the talk page of the author and/or of the article, and wait a couple of days for the response.

All the best, ...--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have contacted you earlier on your talk page, but I was unaware of your user account. You had converted the redirect to an article while logged out; I notice from your user page you have sometimes used static IP addresses, but I believe this was accidental, as it is not mentioned there and has only been used for a single contribution. Unfortunately, this made it somewhat pointless, from my point of view at the time, to discuss on the relevant talk page. A one-contribution IP editor who comes to expand a redirect rarely if ever sticks around.


 * I sometimes boldly revert articles expanded from redirects in cases where there is substantial reason for not having an article, such as an album from an already-little known band which fails the applicable notability criteria, minor actors or game show contestants. Of course, most have legitimate reasons to expand an article from a redirect, and I try to avoid reverting substantial contributions without good reason. As you say, Basic copper carbonate covered several related compounds all generally grouped under the name of "basic copper carbonate", which probably threw off my initial assessment of the article. The article was very poorly written, and I took "What is often called copper(II) carbonate or cupric carbonate is actually basic copper carbonate" to mean that copper(II) carbonate was essentially synonymous with basic copper carbonate.


 * That said, I only have a general grasp of chemistry, and therefore I am not really familiar with some of the nuances of terminology (misuse of scientific terms by laymen tends to complicate matters). The substances do appear to be very different, after further research. Apologies for any inconvenience, and happy editing. —0xF8E8 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts for Alain Bashung albums
I see that you've sided with the idea that Bashung's two albums of which I've been advocating the legitimacy of a presence on Wikipedia are apparently not worthy of such recognition, and consider me highly disappointed with this decision. Regardless of the rules you have all been showing me, I've taken two lessons from them: 1. their application is totally random; and 2. it seems at some point people made a poor excuse to keep pages for Star Trek episodes on Wikipedia while deciding on the spot that it doesn't give a legitimacy for other stuff.

Regardless of these, I will tell you that Alain Bashung is an extremely acclaimed artist and his entire output has been carefully studied by critics and journalists in France. He is the most acclaimed and acknowledged artist in France in the post-Serge Gainsbourg era. The knowledge of him and his music are critical when you have even a passing interest in French culture. This whole ordeal for me is a school case of people collectively taking a wrong decision while believing that what they're doing is, by-the-book, right. This is very worrying for me about what Wikipedia is in actuality in contrast to what it claims to be. I've been looking to share knowledge that is widely and consensually considered essential in France and what I on a personal level perceive today is that Wikipedia is not the place for that because of the worst reason possible: that is, the rules are, in essence, correct, but they are applied arbitrarily. I've been supporting this project on an irregular basis for years but today I officially declare that I don't like what it's become. Count me out, I hope Wikipedia in the future will manage to correct its course but on a short-term basis I'm not optimistic enough to keep on lending it my support.PierrothL (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. I should say that I do also see problems with the notability criteria as they are applied, but they are ultimately a reflection of the fact media is sometimes ridiculous in what it decides to cover. You have feature-length books and news articles covering the impact of episodes of The Simpsons, which has allowed several of them to become good or even featured articles, but relatively few sources on the seminal work of important artists. If it helps at all, the existence of an article is ultimately not important in regards to spreading information; albums with only so much sourcing can still be covered in articles about artists and their discography pages. Their application is often less random, more a failure of available sourcing. I have access to some databases, and will try to see if I can find better sourcing which would satisfy GNG. I'll keep you posted. —0xF8E8 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

dont write on my talk page again
and next time when you want to accuse someone of something come up with evidence to back your story and never ever threaten me again capish .(Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing).Bysomalilander (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty usual template message, it's not intended as a threat. I saw you were involved in an edit war at Somaliland passport (you reverted three times on the same day on July 15, and came back days later to issue another), and thought you might be unaware of policy or otherwise needed a reminder. You're free to discuss changes on the talk page and advocate your position, but there's no need to be as combative as you have. At the very least, try giving a brief explanation for reverts in your edit summary. —0xF8E8 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources on Neelix (musician)
Hello. As you might be aware that you can delete my article, but I support many artists and translated them from the German and Polish Wikipedias. As you already told me as I don't have reliable sources so it is eligible to be deleted, I added sources to that article. Please review them and see if they are reliable. Otherwise, I find more sources to that article to sustain it. Ivan Milenin (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP
Hi the review you unreviewed I had not finished reviewing I just press the review button to reserve it so 2 people are not reviewing it at the same time, I would probably also have redirected, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Faizhaider. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Snoopgate, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.  Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 05:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

How can I nominate the article for deletion?
How can I nominate the article for deletion? I don't know anything about preventing the link List of video game mascots from being misleading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusheng02 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Kashiyatra
Siddharth1723 (talk) Firstly, thank you for your promptness. And sorry, I am a new user and do not know the way around the site and how the things are done here. I guess the deletion discussion wasn't monitored by anyone from our side and that led to the page being deleted. I have read the notability and general notability guidelines as mentioned by you. That was the case 2 years back, it has received some coverage outside the university and is expanding to become a nation-wide phenomenon. It has a lasting significance since it was started back in 1982 and this year, is its 35th edition. It has been a host to many eminent celebrities and that can't be included in the original article (IIT BHU Varanasi, university article) in which it was redirected to. More sourcing and references will be provided so that it would be considered notable and worthy of a stand-alone article. For now, I would like your help (if you can) to ask for a deletion review and how to talk to the closing admin to appeal for a reconsideration and restoring of the original article. Thanks again and sorry for the long text. Siddharth1723 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying; Wikipedia does take some time to get used to, so don't worry too much. I noticed you'd asked about how to edit on your talk page, so I suggest reading over the pages at Help:Tutorial, which gives you information on how to edit/format text, add sources, linking, and other general tips. In regards to the article, a deletion review is not necessary to reestablish the article. I had pointed you there thinking you were the original creator of the article, but looking closer it seems that was someone entirely different. The old article is largely based on self-published sources and contains a good deal of promotional material, so should probably not be used as the basis for a future entry. For now, I would suggest creating a draft (from scratch, not based on the old article) and working on finding some independent sources. Once you feel confident it's well-sourced and of satisfying quality, you can move it to the article namespace. Feel free to ask for help if necessary. —0xF8E8 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi 0xF8E8. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A0xF8E8 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

>Hello, there!
Hello 0 x F8E8, thanks for fixing that mispelled word problem that occurred earlier today. I was pretty tired, so I probably shouldn't have trusted my word at the time. Anyways, thanks for fixing that. Have a nice day.

Sincerely, Infopage100 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

About https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:2C1:C003:260:C50E:FC49:8635:BE3C
I actually thought of it myself, but I received a mathematical proof that this holds true, so I assumed that that fact that the method worked was reliable. If you want me to post the proof so you can look through it and test its legitimacy, just ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C003:260:C50E:FC49:8635:BE3C (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't accept original research (that is, discoveries by you or your group of friends that haven't been published in reliable sources). Regardless, your method is not particularly efficient and the ideas behind it are already implemented in several more widely studied algorithms. Someone asked a question which proposes your exact algorithm on a math forum in 1999; the response explains more about that type of algorithm. —0xF8E8 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Read before you revert.
If you had actually checked the diff on my "unexplained content removal", you'd have seen that I fixed an atrocious grammatical error. Don't just drive-by revert.74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider trying to explain your reasoning in edit summaries, as it's otherwise difficult to discern the reasons for an edit. You mysteriously removed the previous lead and replaced it with an unsourced "generally friendly" not supported by the body, which is quite a bit more than fixing a grammar error. Regardless, there's no grammar error I can see; there is a potential awkwardness in the phrasing of "diplomatic and other relations", but no serious issues. Can you try and explain that a bit further? —0xF8E8 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Israel–Palau relations are diplomatic and other relations between the State of Israel and the Republic of Palau." is not a complete sentence, which means that it is a grammatical error. Your new version is acceptable though. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort to improve it, but I think you may be overthinking this a bit. My guess is you're parsing it as "Israel-Palau relations are diplomatic." followed by "other relations between the State of Israel and the Republic of Palau", when "diplomatic and other relations" is actually supposed to be working as a compound there. Is that correct? The sentence is probably a little bit confusing; numerous "X-Y relations" pages use a similar construct, so I might go ahead and rephrase them. —0xF8E8 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Donnold Trump listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donnold Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Donnold Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

excuse
I feel that you are abusing wikipedia by removing the alumni from the high school just because you don't like it. That article has many sentences with no citation but you don't remove those. In fact, the entire article lacks citations. Sally882 (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no intense aversion to the material in question; I reverted because didn't properly source material about a living person. We have specific rules (see WP:BLP) that material regarding living people requires good sourcing. You shouldn't add material suggesting someone attended a specific school (even if you yourself know it's 100% true) without a reliable source to prove it. If you're unfamiliar with how to format citations, see Citing sources. —0xF8E8 (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Devayani
What I said about the article on Devayani was justified. The article is indeed written in very bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.8.38 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to put comments on the article itself; if that was allowed, articles would become a complete mess. There are a couple ways you can bring the article's status to the attention of other editors, though. If you look in the upper-left hand corner of the Devayani article, there should be a "Talk" button which takes you to a page where you can discuss the article with other editors. To start a new discussion on that page, click the "New section" button. You can also add the text to the page, which will put the article in a category of articles needing attention for grammar/spelling/general English cleanup; copy-editors review the backlog over time and will eventually try to fix the article in question.  Remember that you can always try to improve the article itself; be bold. —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Edit reverted
Hi there, 0xF8E8.

You reverted my edit for Felipe Andreoli claiming that I have conflict of interest. Indeed, I am the subject of said article, but proof of the information I provided can be found plenty on the Internet. It isn't clear to me what steps I should take to make sure the information is true. Please help me with that. The article you reverted to is way, way outdated. The edit I did includes a comprehensive list of my recent works, which can be easily verified.

Cheers, Felipe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipeandreoli (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Felipe. Thanks for coming to discuss the issue here. Though people often want to edit their own entries to update material, we strongly discourage people from editing their own entries on Wikipedia (except to correct obvious vandalism or defamatory material) due to the issues outlined at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The usual practice for editors who want to update material in their own article is to propose changes on the article's talk page, where other editors will review the material to ensure it complies with Wikipedia policy and then add it to the article. In regards to how you can demonstrate the material is true, you should provide a reference to a reliable source, such as a newspaper article, magazine, or book for each claim. You can read about how to cite sources here, and what is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia here. Try drafting the discography with sources in your sandbox (click the red link to create it), and post it on the article's talk page, Talk:Felipe Andreoli, when you feel the material is ready. I'll review the material and add it back to the article provided it's properly sourced. Feel free to ask me any questions if you need further help. —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 21:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Again,


 * I've done as you said and proposed the edit on the page's talk page. I've tried to include as many sources as possible, please tell me if this is ok.
 * Cheers! -felipeandreoli
 * Thanks, Felipe. I've incorporated most of your edit into the main page, though I trimmed the discography and altered the wording a bit. If you would like to make future proposals, you are not required to post the entire proposed article on the talk page; you can simply put down the paragraphs or bits you'd like to add/change on that talk page. In order to get other editors to review your future proposals, you should follow the procedure at Simple COI request. Have a good day. —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 05:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Undo of Lepin
0xF8E8, the changes at Lepin were sourced by reference to their homepage in the Infobox. I realize this page could do with improvement, and don't feel the complete reversion is justified. May we restore the page as I had it as it is referenced to the company home page?Sthubbar (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for articles about corporations. I am not solely concerned with the quality of the page; Lepin has simply not received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. The only coverage it has received is in unreliable LEGO fan magazines like Brick Fanatics. You could perhaps add material to some other related article if you find a reliable source, but there is almost certainly not enough to construct an entire article. —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 02:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , may I suggest you refer to Lego clone, section "Major Lego-compatible brands", and specifically the company BanBao. I think that Lepin is as large if not larger than BanBao.  An almost identical page could be made for Lepin.  If Banbao meets the inclusion criteria, then surely Lepin does.  Do you agree?Sthubbar (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consistency is good, but it is not an argument for inclusion as several pages are created by new editors unaware of the notability/inclusion criteria (see Other stuff exists). I've redirected the BanBao article as it suffers from the same issues as Lepin; no independent, significant coverage in RS. As an alternative to creating articles, you could add some material about the companies to the Lego clone article, or create an article on a different wiki like Everipedia, which has no inclusion criteria. —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 03:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , well for fairness, I then suggest you also delete Best-Lock, Cobi, Kre-O, Mega Bloks, and Oxford (toy company) as each of them is of equal notoriety. Is this really serving the development to be deleting so many pages or would it just make more sense to restore the BanBao page and further develop the Lepin page?Sthubbar (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding what the notability criteria mean. All of those articles have at least some significant coverage in RS (just taking a quick glance, Best-Lock has HighBeam paper and Telegraph article, Cobi has a Washington Post article and a lengthy entry in Landmark Intellectual Property Cases, MegaBloks gets regular coverage in several newspapers, and so on). It's not about how many people use a product or know about a product, but rather if reliable sources have covered it in enough detail to create a verifiable, solid article. I searched for good sourcing on both articles, and found essentially nothing reliable. If you want to create an article, you should demonstrate that there are sources independent of the company itself which address the subject in detail; otherwise, the article is much better served on a different platform than Wikipedia.  —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , what we seem to be running into again, is something I'm finding quite common. English Wikipedia really seems to mean Western Wikipedia in the English language.  Lepin is a Chinese brand well known in China.  I would bet that because of the size of the Chinese population and economy that the following is likely true: Lepin is larger than any of those Western company as measured by # of employees, annual revenue, # of people that recognize the brand,  and number of customers.  Despite by every objective measure this company is globally of greater notariety of the Western companies, it is excluded from inclusion here because the Washington Post doesn't write about it.  China actively isolates itself from the rest of the world, and I do my best to try and expose the English speaking world to what is actually going on in China.  If the only way to include huge companies in the English Wikipedia is if they are written up in English press, then we are going to be missing out.  There are huge companies, with 100,000's of employees and $billions of revenue, that will always be absent, and then companies with 10's of employees and $1,000s of revenue included just because they are covered by English press.  Seems like a crazy, unfair, non-productive policy.Sthubbar (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , BTW, there were legal cases brought by LEGO against both BanBan and Lepin that are reported in legal journals and were referenced in the BanBan article that was deleted. Why doesn't that legal case and references count as significant?
 * I certainly didn't mean to imply that coverage of non-Western companies is not welcome here nor that a subject must be written about in Western sources to be included in Wikipedia. I mentioned mostly Western sources because the English Wikipedia userbase naturally finds them more convenient, though they are by no means required. I am more asking that you try to find reliable sources (they don't necessarily have to be in English) before creating an entry--usually if all you can write is a couple of unsourced sentences it's better off waiting until you've found more sourcing. I understand how frustrating the reliance on Western sources can be, as I write about recent events in China myself. You can restore the pages any time you'd like by going to the history tab and undoing the redirect, though I do still disagree that both are notable and would request in their current state that you provide better sourcing. In regards to the legal case with BanBao, it was mentioned in the article but only sourced to a legal blog with no editorial control, not an actual journal--those aren't typically considered reliable. Legal journals would be good sourcing if you can find them. —0xF8E8 ( talk ) 06:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , ok.Sthubbar (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Grenada
Hi

I appreciate the statements which were made on your talk page with respect to the contribution on Grenada as I believe that they were not written from the same tone as the rest off the page. Perhaps there may be merit in your view on the contents which should be included in Wikipedia. However please note the following which you may have missed in your editing:

1 There was information on a Treaty which was signed by CARICOM in 1994 which was intended to provide relief to tax payers of that country and other Caribbean countries. This information is not widely available and while it may not have been updated as to new signatories to the treaty, this is historic in that the treaties have been operational for approximately 20+ years. This treaty attempts to curb the movement of money between countries without payment of the correct form or type of taxes aka money laundering.

2 Many of the events which were posted were significant to the country's history in that they existed for close to 50 years and may have preceded the independence of the country, however you saw them as being promotional and removed them.

3 Also some of the events which were posted were cultural and historic in that the musical events or the creation of the instruments may have originated during the slave trade, however these were removed. Not being facetious, however in school we studied the first 100 years after the emancipation of slavery and this would help a student who is studying Caribbean History today.

4 I will admit that perhaps I should extract statements from websites to provide information as my knowledge is sketchy and links to the website may not be sufficient to justify the existence of places or their history.... I will look to see if I can find anything on Grenada from World War II and post it... Information from that time may not be included on websites and I wonder what is the method of substantiating all of that information which persons believe to be true.

5 I would ask how many persons view wikipedia for anyone to worry about the information which is being posted being promotional...

BTW there is an option to say things should be substantiated and also there is the creation of sub headings to clarify information. Also everything in every area of the United States cannot be inserted into Wikipedia, however information on every country deserves to be included. I was planning to include information on their Olympic medalist, however my information is sketchy and lacking in clarity at this time, do you think that you can write a bit better on that topic for me? :) Jennifer N Bailey (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

A goat for you!
Thank you for being a reasonable human being.

So have a goat (because apparently this is a thing on Wikipedia??)

Hentheden (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

File:Mozilla Phoenix logo vector.svg
Thanks for your work on File:Mozilla Phoenix logo vector.svg,

the thing at front lower center is the icon,

would you be able create a .svg of only that part ?

see : http://www.actsofvolition.com/files/mozillabranding/images/mozillaicons.png
 * (the top left icon)
 * thanks Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure! I've uploaded an SVG of the icon at File:Mozilla_Phoenix_icon.svg. —0xf8e8 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see you meant the one with the circle around it. I'll see what I can do there, but getting the gradient circle right is a little tricky. —0xf8e8 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! File:Mozilla_Phoenix_icon.svg is what I want. Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re-adding a bit of content you removed from Vice Media
You said allegations about Smith's journalistic integrity should go to his page instead of Vice News's one, and i can agree with that. However you also removed well-sourced content about different topics (such as Vice attempting to manipulate the story covering sex workers). I will re-add those to the article. If you for some reason think this should also be removed, let's discuss that in the article's talk page before taking action.

YuriNikolai (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for responding here. To your credit, the trimmed version at least now sticks to the impartial tone we use at Wikipedia, but the material still substantially deals with Smith's actions (even if he's not named), and summarizes several disparate allegations about living people from a single source. Per our policy on balancing aspects, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. I'm happy to discuss this on the talk page over there, but do note that the onus is on those who wish to include disputed material, so I would recommend we try to work things out before you restore anything yet. —0xf8e8 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! However, i do not see why the material is disproportionate. It occupies a small section, and covers a very pertinent aspect of the subject. IF it talks about Smith's actions or someone else's is irrelevant. I can see why you're hesitant to add info with a single source (even though it's a very reliable one), but complete omission of these views is a bit too much in my opinion. How would you suggest incorporating these facts into the article in a cleaner, seamless way? YuriNikolai (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women's Liberation Front, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advocate ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Women%27s_Liberation_Front check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Women%27s_Liberation_Front?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of North Sudan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kingdom of North Sudan. Since you had some involvement with the Kingdom of North Sudan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Slashme (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XHamster logo 2016.svg
Thanks for uploading File:XHamster logo 2016.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)