![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on March 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Public or private corporation
Break does not pay 100% of the time when a video is posted on their homepage. For instance I know of several users as well as myself who have had videos posted of their own but have never been paid. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.46.211 ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This website is fake!!!
Sorry, I couldn't resist :p
How much is paid to the users if their video is featured on the main page? -- 165.230.46.150 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe about $400. Ykerzner ( talk) 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
{{Sockpuppet|1= Mtwang IP: 69.108.152.153|evidence=[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mtwang]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.108.152.153]] IP Location California.}}
This article seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind. It's not balanced and includes a large # of uncited sources (listed below). Can someone please get rid of these>
- Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?
- This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking. + Citation?
-Apart from the sponsored adult content, Break.com is a target of spamming from camsites and others. It can take several hours for staff to remove this content, allowing children who access the site to see it. + Citation? Does it take several hours to remove?
All for balanced and factional, but don't understand how this entry can be populated with all accustaions and propoganda. That doesn't seem right, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtwang ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Not much of a wikipediast, but clearly someone is writing thinly veiled smears, with every description being derogatory in some fashion or another. Please someone stop this person who is preventing a balanced, factual entry.
Examples:
- Break.com (formerly Big-boys.com) is a highly publicised kids humor
It's obviously a men's site targeting men 18-35, and says so on the site.
Highly publicisized? Whatever, but goes to show the spirit of this editor's 'work'
- 'This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking.'
Citation? Another vague accusation that shows intent of editor
- 'with approximately 60 percent of video content being reposts from other video websites. (Kids hoping to cash in if their repost makes mainpage).'
Outrageous claim with no citation
'... is a highly publicised kids humor website'
Once again, a back-handed attempt (probably by a competitor) to try and paint Break.com in a less than even-handed way.
- 'Kids'? It's for men 18-35. That's like calling Comedy Central, Maxim or SpikeTV 'kids' properties.
- highly-publicised? How? Is that factually accurate or even endemic to the top level description of break.com. You could just as easily write 'highly trafficked', which would be accurate, but positive. How about something even-handed... geesh.
----------------
- The "Spirit of the Editors work" seems to revolve around the TRUTH. Links to break.com have been provided in relation to what is stated. The proof is in the pudding. Nothing derogatory in depicting the truth. Seems to me that you are on Breaks payroll.
"spurious uncited sources"?? Are you refering to the amounts paid for submissions that make homepage? You are right! These should be removed! As for the rest I suggest you click onto the references/links provided!
You state "Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?" Answer... As soon as material hits the page it has a rating of 3 even though there have been no recorded hits. A blind man can see this. How can something be rated if it has not even been viewed?
There are enough references relating to what the Editor has put on the page. Esspecialy in relation to the pornography, the time taken by the staff to remove such content and the material "scavanged" from other websites. How much proof do you want?
You question whether it takes several hours to remove pornographic content. I see the reference in the "Pornography and adult content" section after "It can take staff several hours to remove content". Clicking onto this reference reveals pornographic content that has been there for 2 months! Whilst looking around I have actually found 47 more references.
Another baseless comment for the sites defense: "It's obviously a men's site targeting men 18-35, and says so on the site". WHERE DID YOU READ THIS?
Well go here and HERE and have a good read! When creating an account yesterday I tried to sign in as a 12 year old only to be hit with a pop up stating that I must be at least 13 years of age to create an account! NICE TRY!
You question the "Highly publicisized". You only need to go to Break.com scroll down to the bottom of the page and hit "ABOUT US". Enough said?
More references and proof behind the Editors work than you can poke a stick at.
You obviously do not like Wikipedias ACCURACY in regards to Break.com, but thats the way it is. If the hat fits WEAR IT.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia based on fact, not a medium for publicising or glorifying your website! This whole page is clearly advertisement/spam and it is beyond me why it is still here at all!
I agree that any valid (eg objective facts) should be included. That's what wikipedia's all about. There is NO intention to use wikipedia as an ad. It's not.
Conversely, it shouldn't be used as a slander tool. Want to mention the adult R-rated material? Fine. Mention that it once. Mention that it requires 18+ age gate. Mention that it includes a family filter which is on by default. Mention that content is R rated. But don't plaster the article with multiple references, which, through repetition and uncited editorialization, hope to even some score.
It's most a humor site for men 18-35 and,more specifically, college students.
Compare the article to metacafe or collegehumor.com. See if they are on par in terms of objectivity editors. If so, it's cool. But some people (probably competitors or banned users) are trying to use as reverse advertising -- a soapbox for personal attacks. that's wrong.
Editors - The various edits and additions speak for themselves.
There are plenty of blogs for editorial petitioning. The jedi mind trick accustaion of the article being used 'for advertising' is silly. It's being used the opposite way. I'm sure you can tell that by looking at the site break.com and searching news.google.com for break.com. Get facts and general consensus about break.com and make that the basis for a fair-minded entry that doesn't have the single objective 'get r-rated content off break.'
Also, the editor (Pollyfodder) has actually increased the number of references on the bottom of the page! I refer your attention to all the articles relating to Keith Richman, break.com's founder. This certainly does not indicate bias to me.
I have received an email at wikipedia HelpDesk regarding this article. In taking a look at it I've found an edit war over content that should not even be included in wikipedia in the first place. I have removed all of it and I will continue to remove it so long as it replies on trivial primary sources and contains original research. See these POLICIES: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Anything that fails to conform with those policies in letter or in spirit will be removed without hesitation. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much editors for arbitrating!! {{Sockpuppet|1=Mtwang|evidence=[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mtwang 69.108.152.153]]and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.108.152.153]] IP Location California}}
Look forward to your supervision to bringing a fair minded pov to reviewing additions and edits. If you look at any additions and edits and ignore some of the rhetoric and attempts at deceptive posturing, you'll manage this properly. If you make semi-regulated, just get a wikipedia editor who has solid track-record and no axe to grind. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
69.108.152.153 (
talk) 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
“ | Joe Lazlo, a senior analyst with Jupiter Research, said the companies that are attracting funding are ones that are finding ways to differentiate themselves. He said one creative concept was that of Break.com, which allows people to post videos, then buys the more popular ones and runs ads with them.
But so far at least, Break.com is not biting at venture capital offers. Keith Richman, its chief executive, said the company had declined financing a number of times as it tried to build the business on its own. Mr. Felser, the president of Grouper, said there was a limit to how much a video creation and sharing company can hope to grow independently, because of the expense of bandwidth and advertising infrastructure. |
” |
A fairly trivial mention at the bottom of a large article, but it's reliable and could be used for some nice like factoids. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Amp'd Mobile, which started late last year, offers video downloads intended for older teenagers and people in their 20's, clips from MTV, Spike and College Sports TV, along with "viral" videos from Break.com and iFilm, and live events like Ultimate Fighting Championship. | ” |
Again, fairly trivial, but still reliable and potentially worth a mention.
“ | Break.com has signed a deal with the production company Endemol USA, which has created TV hits such as Deal or No Deal and Fear Factor, to launch a new series on the male-oriented video hub sometime this summer.
The new series, Record Breakers, will feature contestants competing to beat a series of silly or obscure world records. Thirty episodes of the Breakers have been ordered for the short-form Web-only, according to Break CEO Keith Richman. |
” |
The article continues from there. A much more substantial source with some decent information. If you want to expand the article, those three articles above would be a good place to start. On a side note, I was looking, but I was unable to find any media reference to any controversy over the adult content on break.com. I'll write the section myself if you can find some media coverage, but I so-far have yet to see any. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
+ 'The new sources are certainly worth including. -- Pollyfodder 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Good sources. Very much appreciate your fair-minded approach.
-- Pollyfodder 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please correct grammar mistakes on the top level description:
+ 'Break.com is lead by it's chief executive officer Keith Richman.' Should read 'by its chief executive officer.'
+ 'The websites target audience is Young Men.[2]' Should read 'The web site's target audience is young men.'
Also, although the arbirtration case is cited, it seem bizare to include in top level description of what break is, especially as all the editor's recommended citations were entirely passed up in favor of this strange detail.
Editors: please note above. As mentioned, axe to grind. Just going to continue to look for editorial angles to slip into article. Please keep an eye on. Also, when convenient, please see above grammar requests. Grazie. (Editors please note: "Grazie" IP: 69.108.152.153 per statement above. This IPs only contrabutions have been related to break.com See "contributions"). -- Pollyfodder 07:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
+ 'I question the need to have breaks latest addition to the Mainstream media content section "attractive women finding different ways to break objects" with accompanying reference linking to Break.com at the bottom of the page when it is not even featured on break.com at this time. The reference to "attractive women" is to commercialised and sexually appealing. They tried this a couple of weeks ago but a senior editor removed it. In fairness, and in keeping with the entries accuracy and rightful place within the section, it can be replaced by "women finding different ways to break objects". This would have far less sex appeal and commercial/advertisement value.---- Pollyfodder 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for grammar fixes. I think your edits to name change are fair-minded. It's mentioned, cited and presented evenly now.
Stop putting sock tags on this page. Those are NOT for article talk pages. Those tags are for USER talk pages. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This site has a ton of racist "commentary" and should be cited as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.68.26 ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Break.com. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Defy Media closed shop; effectively ending Break.com and various other online sites : https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/defy-media-shutting-down-layoffs-1203020919/ Defy Media on wiki : /info/en/?search=Defy_Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.224.246 ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it worth making a note that the webaite now using the Break.com domain is not the same as this Wiki? it seems like the domain was sold off but I cannot find a source for this. The loss of data from the sudden closing of Break has not been covered at all. I think both of these should be noted really. Lovesan92 ( talk) 13:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on March 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Public or private corporation
Break does not pay 100% of the time when a video is posted on their homepage. For instance I know of several users as well as myself who have had videos posted of their own but have never been paid. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.46.211 ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This website is fake!!!
Sorry, I couldn't resist :p
How much is paid to the users if their video is featured on the main page? -- 165.230.46.150 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe about $400. Ykerzner ( talk) 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
{{Sockpuppet|1= Mtwang IP: 69.108.152.153|evidence=[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mtwang]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.108.152.153]] IP Location California.}}
This article seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind. It's not balanced and includes a large # of uncited sources (listed below). Can someone please get rid of these>
- Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?
- This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking. + Citation?
-Apart from the sponsored adult content, Break.com is a target of spamming from camsites and others. It can take several hours for staff to remove this content, allowing children who access the site to see it. + Citation? Does it take several hours to remove?
All for balanced and factional, but don't understand how this entry can be populated with all accustaions and propoganda. That doesn't seem right, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtwang ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Not much of a wikipediast, but clearly someone is writing thinly veiled smears, with every description being derogatory in some fashion or another. Please someone stop this person who is preventing a balanced, factual entry.
Examples:
- Break.com (formerly Big-boys.com) is a highly publicised kids humor
It's obviously a men's site targeting men 18-35, and says so on the site.
Highly publicisized? Whatever, but goes to show the spirit of this editor's 'work'
- 'This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking.'
Citation? Another vague accusation that shows intent of editor
- 'with approximately 60 percent of video content being reposts from other video websites. (Kids hoping to cash in if their repost makes mainpage).'
Outrageous claim with no citation
'... is a highly publicised kids humor website'
Once again, a back-handed attempt (probably by a competitor) to try and paint Break.com in a less than even-handed way.
- 'Kids'? It's for men 18-35. That's like calling Comedy Central, Maxim or SpikeTV 'kids' properties.
- highly-publicised? How? Is that factually accurate or even endemic to the top level description of break.com. You could just as easily write 'highly trafficked', which would be accurate, but positive. How about something even-handed... geesh.
----------------
- The "Spirit of the Editors work" seems to revolve around the TRUTH. Links to break.com have been provided in relation to what is stated. The proof is in the pudding. Nothing derogatory in depicting the truth. Seems to me that you are on Breaks payroll.
"spurious uncited sources"?? Are you refering to the amounts paid for submissions that make homepage? You are right! These should be removed! As for the rest I suggest you click onto the references/links provided!
You state "Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?" Answer... As soon as material hits the page it has a rating of 3 even though there have been no recorded hits. A blind man can see this. How can something be rated if it has not even been viewed?
There are enough references relating to what the Editor has put on the page. Esspecialy in relation to the pornography, the time taken by the staff to remove such content and the material "scavanged" from other websites. How much proof do you want?
You question whether it takes several hours to remove pornographic content. I see the reference in the "Pornography and adult content" section after "It can take staff several hours to remove content". Clicking onto this reference reveals pornographic content that has been there for 2 months! Whilst looking around I have actually found 47 more references.
Another baseless comment for the sites defense: "It's obviously a men's site targeting men 18-35, and says so on the site". WHERE DID YOU READ THIS?
Well go here and HERE and have a good read! When creating an account yesterday I tried to sign in as a 12 year old only to be hit with a pop up stating that I must be at least 13 years of age to create an account! NICE TRY!
You question the "Highly publicisized". You only need to go to Break.com scroll down to the bottom of the page and hit "ABOUT US". Enough said?
More references and proof behind the Editors work than you can poke a stick at.
You obviously do not like Wikipedias ACCURACY in regards to Break.com, but thats the way it is. If the hat fits WEAR IT.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia based on fact, not a medium for publicising or glorifying your website! This whole page is clearly advertisement/spam and it is beyond me why it is still here at all!
I agree that any valid (eg objective facts) should be included. That's what wikipedia's all about. There is NO intention to use wikipedia as an ad. It's not.
Conversely, it shouldn't be used as a slander tool. Want to mention the adult R-rated material? Fine. Mention that it once. Mention that it requires 18+ age gate. Mention that it includes a family filter which is on by default. Mention that content is R rated. But don't plaster the article with multiple references, which, through repetition and uncited editorialization, hope to even some score.
It's most a humor site for men 18-35 and,more specifically, college students.
Compare the article to metacafe or collegehumor.com. See if they are on par in terms of objectivity editors. If so, it's cool. But some people (probably competitors or banned users) are trying to use as reverse advertising -- a soapbox for personal attacks. that's wrong.
Editors - The various edits and additions speak for themselves.
There are plenty of blogs for editorial petitioning. The jedi mind trick accustaion of the article being used 'for advertising' is silly. It's being used the opposite way. I'm sure you can tell that by looking at the site break.com and searching news.google.com for break.com. Get facts and general consensus about break.com and make that the basis for a fair-minded entry that doesn't have the single objective 'get r-rated content off break.'
Also, the editor (Pollyfodder) has actually increased the number of references on the bottom of the page! I refer your attention to all the articles relating to Keith Richman, break.com's founder. This certainly does not indicate bias to me.
I have received an email at wikipedia HelpDesk regarding this article. In taking a look at it I've found an edit war over content that should not even be included in wikipedia in the first place. I have removed all of it and I will continue to remove it so long as it replies on trivial primary sources and contains original research. See these POLICIES: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Anything that fails to conform with those policies in letter or in spirit will be removed without hesitation. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much editors for arbitrating!! {{Sockpuppet|1=Mtwang|evidence=[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mtwang 69.108.152.153]]and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.108.152.153]] IP Location California}}
Look forward to your supervision to bringing a fair minded pov to reviewing additions and edits. If you look at any additions and edits and ignore some of the rhetoric and attempts at deceptive posturing, you'll manage this properly. If you make semi-regulated, just get a wikipedia editor who has solid track-record and no axe to grind. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
69.108.152.153 (
talk) 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
“ | Joe Lazlo, a senior analyst with Jupiter Research, said the companies that are attracting funding are ones that are finding ways to differentiate themselves. He said one creative concept was that of Break.com, which allows people to post videos, then buys the more popular ones and runs ads with them.
But so far at least, Break.com is not biting at venture capital offers. Keith Richman, its chief executive, said the company had declined financing a number of times as it tried to build the business on its own. Mr. Felser, the president of Grouper, said there was a limit to how much a video creation and sharing company can hope to grow independently, because of the expense of bandwidth and advertising infrastructure. |
” |
A fairly trivial mention at the bottom of a large article, but it's reliable and could be used for some nice like factoids. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Amp'd Mobile, which started late last year, offers video downloads intended for older teenagers and people in their 20's, clips from MTV, Spike and College Sports TV, along with "viral" videos from Break.com and iFilm, and live events like Ultimate Fighting Championship. | ” |
Again, fairly trivial, but still reliable and potentially worth a mention.
“ | Break.com has signed a deal with the production company Endemol USA, which has created TV hits such as Deal or No Deal and Fear Factor, to launch a new series on the male-oriented video hub sometime this summer.
The new series, Record Breakers, will feature contestants competing to beat a series of silly or obscure world records. Thirty episodes of the Breakers have been ordered for the short-form Web-only, according to Break CEO Keith Richman. |
” |
The article continues from there. A much more substantial source with some decent information. If you want to expand the article, those three articles above would be a good place to start. On a side note, I was looking, but I was unable to find any media reference to any controversy over the adult content on break.com. I'll write the section myself if you can find some media coverage, but I so-far have yet to see any. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
+ 'The new sources are certainly worth including. -- Pollyfodder 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Good sources. Very much appreciate your fair-minded approach.
-- Pollyfodder 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please correct grammar mistakes on the top level description:
+ 'Break.com is lead by it's chief executive officer Keith Richman.' Should read 'by its chief executive officer.'
+ 'The websites target audience is Young Men.[2]' Should read 'The web site's target audience is young men.'
Also, although the arbirtration case is cited, it seem bizare to include in top level description of what break is, especially as all the editor's recommended citations were entirely passed up in favor of this strange detail.
Editors: please note above. As mentioned, axe to grind. Just going to continue to look for editorial angles to slip into article. Please keep an eye on. Also, when convenient, please see above grammar requests. Grazie. (Editors please note: "Grazie" IP: 69.108.152.153 per statement above. This IPs only contrabutions have been related to break.com See "contributions"). -- Pollyfodder 07:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
+ 'I question the need to have breaks latest addition to the Mainstream media content section "attractive women finding different ways to break objects" with accompanying reference linking to Break.com at the bottom of the page when it is not even featured on break.com at this time. The reference to "attractive women" is to commercialised and sexually appealing. They tried this a couple of weeks ago but a senior editor removed it. In fairness, and in keeping with the entries accuracy and rightful place within the section, it can be replaced by "women finding different ways to break objects". This would have far less sex appeal and commercial/advertisement value.---- Pollyfodder 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for grammar fixes. I think your edits to name change are fair-minded. It's mentioned, cited and presented evenly now.
Stop putting sock tags on this page. Those are NOT for article talk pages. Those tags are for USER talk pages. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This site has a ton of racist "commentary" and should be cited as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.68.26 ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Break.com. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Defy Media closed shop; effectively ending Break.com and various other online sites : https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/defy-media-shutting-down-layoffs-1203020919/ Defy Media on wiki : /info/en/?search=Defy_Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.224.246 ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it worth making a note that the webaite now using the Break.com domain is not the same as this Wiki? it seems like the domain was sold off but I cannot find a source for this. The loss of data from the sudden closing of Break has not been covered at all. I think both of these should be noted really. Lovesan92 ( talk) 13:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)