This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please review the following before editing:
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This article still needs photos for these models: 602, 701, 902. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What cpu part number and/or cpu core is contained in the new readers? My guess is the 602, 603, 902, 903 all have the save CPU; but likely the 701 has a different part since it is faster. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Does the 701 ship with Android 2.0 or 2.0.1? Their web site lists 2.0 but I wondered if it could be a mistake. •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What are the plans to upgrade to Android 2.2 or 2.3 or ...? •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What video file resolutions does the 701 support? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought about adding a shortcoming section to the article, but thought the vendor might not like to see it, so I decided to make the statement here for now.
Future Hardware Wish List:
Web Site Wish List:
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Just wrote to PB in Kyiv on the questions raised here. I expect some feedback. -- Brainsteinko ( talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Please use only reliable third-party references. Thanks -- Brainsteinko ( talk) 03:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
So I put an {{ advert}} tag on the article yesterday. After looking at it again, I think if the issues, particularly the notability are addressed then its not really a concern otherwise the article does appear to be just an advertisement. For the sources, not all are unreliable, but you have some forum and blog posts which raise red flags. As for layout, well the big thing is section headers. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Changed the links. and what about headers ? :) -- Brainsteinko ( talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the tag. The article is mostly just a list of models. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. Judging by the discussion above and the subsequent edits, I think it's resolved. Anything I'm missing? -- Ronz ( talk) 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the product line, correct? If so, then even one corporate site might be allowed, though it's a stretch of ELOFFICIAL. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
bookland.net is simply not about the topic of this article, so is inappropriate. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone wonders why I cite mobilread.com for some information, it is their official support forum - see the button on the right side on either the current site or waybackmachine in case its changed. http://pocketbook.de/support/ Forkosigan and mtravellerh are employees of Pocketbook Germany BottomDog ( talk) 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know why there is a "notable" banner on this article? This company has been around for a while, plus they are shipping many models. Not every company has a fruit-icon that throngs of people mindlessly buy. I might accept your argument if they were a new company with only one generic product, but they aren't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the banner, "The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.":
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The general criteria for notability is to have independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. After reading the past discussions and quickly skimming the references, my concern was that though it appeared we may have met the notability criteria, it was not clear, and I wasn't certain that the reason for its notability was properly presented in the article. There have been a large number of changes to the article since, so where do we stand? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's look at the sources one by one: -- Ronz ( talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Should it give? Can you give the examples of "about us" where it mentions "editorial oversight"? Further, if they don't say about it, doesn't mean that they don't have editorial oversight. Can you give me the rule from Wiki which is violated? It's not a blog, a blog in common sense is something published on livejournal or blogger - third party feed on external domain base.-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we have enough sources to establish notability with three of the references: telegraph.co.uk/Rossiyskaya Gazeta, goodereader.com, and thetechjournal.com. There are still very questionable sources in the article. I think they should be tagged with {{ Rs}}, but I think it could wait while we give others time to respond. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Added new ref. Can we reduce the objections?-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be some references on the specifications for each model. Their own press would suffice, and simple technical specifications without a promotional material would be preferable. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
Refimprove-inline}}
than to delete an apparently policy-compliant citation simply because one wishes for a different one.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So you inserted three tags. What are your arguments for each of them ?
It's been more than a month since the tag about allegedly unreliable sources in the article. No one expressed concerns which the tag inquired for and I'm removing it for the following reasons.
User Jinnai expressed concerns about a couple of press-releases published by third-parties, so they are not exactly self-published and, furthermore, comply with WP:SELFPUB.
User Ronz expressed concerns about reliability of lesen.net site. I'm ready to discuss it at respective noticeboard.
And the main reason is that the tag disrupts readers from reading the article based obviously on reliable and for the most part established third-party sources, marring them all as "unreliable".
Open-minded replies are welcome.-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Brainsteinko keeps removing and weakening all negative aspects and adding overly broad and positive marketing drivel on the Pocketbook page I did a little digging on Brainsteinko and aparently about all of his contributions are related to Pocketbook. He makes sure Pocketbook is mentioned everywhere and always overly positive.
He works as a Freelancer writer and translator in Kiev - surprise that is where the headquarters and software development of Pocketbook is located.
This article is far from being unbiased and in my opinion is paid advertisement in one form or another.
Also the article references an Telegraph article for the number of employees and revenue numbers. First and foremost the article nowhere mentions those numbers but still has been added as reference, second the article URL plainly states SPONSORED.
I highly doubt PB has more than 30-40 employees worldwide. People in germany constantly complain that they try to send RMA products there only with their parcel return because nobody could be found and people calling the german headquarter with nobody answering.
Since germany seems to be the biggest market for PB at the moment after the soviet block its quite unlikely they sport 150 employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.122.72 ( talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Ronz for showing good faith, though I don't expect that you become proponent of PB. The only reason I write primarily about PB is the sad fact that on Wikipedia its the only company producing something from Kyiv and one of a handful from the whole 45 mln people Ukraine (surprise surprise). There is a small article about engine producer Motor Sich from another city and maybe a few small software developing firms. And I've searched hard.
About Telegraph article. This February 2011 article states estimated numbers of sales in 2010. Here's the quote - "with earnings estimated at around £94m". There is some mistake about 150 people in PB. There is a number of Russian sources about this figure going on for quite a while. Its not a needle you can hide from public if ever anything can be concealed from public. Here is translation of official PB site/About us. For quick search enter "150".-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
What exactly gives you the right to revert all changes others and I did and then tell us to defend our changes? This is wikipedia and not your personal playground. BottomDog ( talk) 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
PocketBook germany site says 7000 "7 000" page turns. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://pocketbook.de/products/pocketbook-902/&ei=3KTyTaClOM_usgaPmpDVBg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://pocketbook.de/products/pocketbook-902/%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns BottomDog ( talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we create a section where we discuss the drawbacks of Pocketbook? Contrary to the Kindle and Sony readers Pocketbook is using an older gen e-ink display that is slower than newer Pearl displays, has a worse contrast and is harder to read in the sunlight.
Also since one of the main selling points of Pocketbook is their "openess" I think it should be mentioned that so far this openness is a farce. SDKs have been promised for the Hardware release, then for March then for May and then begining of June we got some incoherent undocumented blob of binaries without compliance to the GPL License. Pocketbook is using GPL software without adhering to the License and not providing source code when they must according to the GPL license.
Many people including me bought a Pocketbook because of the promise of handwriting and openness which both have so far not been made good.
If you describe the pocketbook with such fanfare and detail it must be correct and neutral and must also shed light on the negative aspects of the product and not just what Pocketbook is telling in the marketing department.
Currently the Pen, 3G and WIFI is quasi useless. The backslide design is broken and every time you try and open the pocketbook (Sim, battery) you run into the risk of breaking the screen because of the force required to open it. I had to wait 2 Months after the supposed release date and after I have had paid my pocketbook to finally receive it. Information has been spare, contacting pocketbook has failed most of the time.
Every software update reintroduce more bugs than it fixes and at least in germany the RMA department and support are quasi non existant. Pocketbook germany links to a third party forum as their official support forum and the two people from Pocketbook keep telling users that they dont get paid to answer on the forum.
Also Pocketbook has silently switched most of the supplied dictionaries from real ones to demo versions in one of the recent firmwares without telling anyone why.
Promised 3G Wikipedia and Bookland support still broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BottomDog ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If we talk about how great pocketbook is, we should incorporate some of that information as well.
BottomDog ( talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Done: * The claim about being the fastest is overly broad, the citation there is specifically for the 360 and not all Pocketbook devices. BottomDog ( talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Working on: * The part about it being open source is misleading. The cited article states its using linux - no word about open source. Open source also means they must supply the source code which they don't.
Adding to that
->:::: * The part about it being open source is misleading. The cited article states its using linux - no word about open source. Open source also means they must supply the source code which they don't.
@Brainsteinko would you please help me work thru the further points. Also why did you remove the information about the production facilities? BottomDog ( talk) 10:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
To GB Fan: Please provide Wiki guidelines where future plans are forbidden. We can arrange something agreeable like change the header of this section or move it to some distant place. It's overall useful information backed by reliable sources. Please don't mass delete. What specific info is not compliant, we can remove it or change. User Ronz complaint earlier that the article is just a list of models. Something has to be added to it, why not information backed by reliable sources. Please reconsider your deletion. Brainsteinko ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Lesen.net is a news outlet with editorial board. No Wikipedia guidelines are violated as well as for Telegraph and Techjournal. About updates. PB does issue updates for different models nearly every month which is easily verifiable e.g. from official site. This is serious distinction from other brands. Every sentence doesn't need to be referenced if it's not questionable. I'm the first person against writing like advertisement but please use common sense-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Please clear your changes on the discussion page first. You have no more rights than I do to just change the content without talking about it first.
Please revert your changes and first discuss them here.
Ram size does not make anything twice as fast. Again lesen.net is a blog and the android article get it wrong. Please show official info that all Pocketbook devices run
android.
BottomDog (
talk) 09:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Bookland.net is no less product of PB than others and no more marketing link than official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainsteinko ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Pocketbook 360 plus blue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please review the following before editing:
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This article still needs photos for these models: 602, 701, 902. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What cpu part number and/or cpu core is contained in the new readers? My guess is the 602, 603, 902, 903 all have the save CPU; but likely the 701 has a different part since it is faster. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Does the 701 ship with Android 2.0 or 2.0.1? Their web site lists 2.0 but I wondered if it could be a mistake. •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What are the plans to upgrade to Android 2.2 or 2.3 or ...? •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What video file resolutions does the 701 support? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought about adding a shortcoming section to the article, but thought the vendor might not like to see it, so I decided to make the statement here for now.
Future Hardware Wish List:
Web Site Wish List:
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Just wrote to PB in Kyiv on the questions raised here. I expect some feedback. -- Brainsteinko ( talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Please use only reliable third-party references. Thanks -- Brainsteinko ( talk) 03:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
So I put an {{ advert}} tag on the article yesterday. After looking at it again, I think if the issues, particularly the notability are addressed then its not really a concern otherwise the article does appear to be just an advertisement. For the sources, not all are unreliable, but you have some forum and blog posts which raise red flags. As for layout, well the big thing is section headers. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Changed the links. and what about headers ? :) -- Brainsteinko ( talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the tag. The article is mostly just a list of models. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. Judging by the discussion above and the subsequent edits, I think it's resolved. Anything I'm missing? -- Ronz ( talk) 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the product line, correct? If so, then even one corporate site might be allowed, though it's a stretch of ELOFFICIAL. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
bookland.net is simply not about the topic of this article, so is inappropriate. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone wonders why I cite mobilread.com for some information, it is their official support forum - see the button on the right side on either the current site or waybackmachine in case its changed. http://pocketbook.de/support/ Forkosigan and mtravellerh are employees of Pocketbook Germany BottomDog ( talk) 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know why there is a "notable" banner on this article? This company has been around for a while, plus they are shipping many models. Not every company has a fruit-icon that throngs of people mindlessly buy. I might accept your argument if they were a new company with only one generic product, but they aren't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the banner, "The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.":
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The general criteria for notability is to have independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. After reading the past discussions and quickly skimming the references, my concern was that though it appeared we may have met the notability criteria, it was not clear, and I wasn't certain that the reason for its notability was properly presented in the article. There have been a large number of changes to the article since, so where do we stand? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's look at the sources one by one: -- Ronz ( talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Should it give? Can you give the examples of "about us" where it mentions "editorial oversight"? Further, if they don't say about it, doesn't mean that they don't have editorial oversight. Can you give me the rule from Wiki which is violated? It's not a blog, a blog in common sense is something published on livejournal or blogger - third party feed on external domain base.-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we have enough sources to establish notability with three of the references: telegraph.co.uk/Rossiyskaya Gazeta, goodereader.com, and thetechjournal.com. There are still very questionable sources in the article. I think they should be tagged with {{ Rs}}, but I think it could wait while we give others time to respond. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Added new ref. Can we reduce the objections?-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be some references on the specifications for each model. Their own press would suffice, and simple technical specifications without a promotional material would be preferable. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
Refimprove-inline}}
than to delete an apparently policy-compliant citation simply because one wishes for a different one.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So you inserted three tags. What are your arguments for each of them ?
It's been more than a month since the tag about allegedly unreliable sources in the article. No one expressed concerns which the tag inquired for and I'm removing it for the following reasons.
User Jinnai expressed concerns about a couple of press-releases published by third-parties, so they are not exactly self-published and, furthermore, comply with WP:SELFPUB.
User Ronz expressed concerns about reliability of lesen.net site. I'm ready to discuss it at respective noticeboard.
And the main reason is that the tag disrupts readers from reading the article based obviously on reliable and for the most part established third-party sources, marring them all as "unreliable".
Open-minded replies are welcome.-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Brainsteinko keeps removing and weakening all negative aspects and adding overly broad and positive marketing drivel on the Pocketbook page I did a little digging on Brainsteinko and aparently about all of his contributions are related to Pocketbook. He makes sure Pocketbook is mentioned everywhere and always overly positive.
He works as a Freelancer writer and translator in Kiev - surprise that is where the headquarters and software development of Pocketbook is located.
This article is far from being unbiased and in my opinion is paid advertisement in one form or another.
Also the article references an Telegraph article for the number of employees and revenue numbers. First and foremost the article nowhere mentions those numbers but still has been added as reference, second the article URL plainly states SPONSORED.
I highly doubt PB has more than 30-40 employees worldwide. People in germany constantly complain that they try to send RMA products there only with their parcel return because nobody could be found and people calling the german headquarter with nobody answering.
Since germany seems to be the biggest market for PB at the moment after the soviet block its quite unlikely they sport 150 employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.122.72 ( talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Ronz for showing good faith, though I don't expect that you become proponent of PB. The only reason I write primarily about PB is the sad fact that on Wikipedia its the only company producing something from Kyiv and one of a handful from the whole 45 mln people Ukraine (surprise surprise). There is a small article about engine producer Motor Sich from another city and maybe a few small software developing firms. And I've searched hard.
About Telegraph article. This February 2011 article states estimated numbers of sales in 2010. Here's the quote - "with earnings estimated at around £94m". There is some mistake about 150 people in PB. There is a number of Russian sources about this figure going on for quite a while. Its not a needle you can hide from public if ever anything can be concealed from public. Here is translation of official PB site/About us. For quick search enter "150".-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
What exactly gives you the right to revert all changes others and I did and then tell us to defend our changes? This is wikipedia and not your personal playground. BottomDog ( talk) 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
PocketBook germany site says 7000 "7 000" page turns. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://pocketbook.de/products/pocketbook-902/&ei=3KTyTaClOM_usgaPmpDVBg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://pocketbook.de/products/pocketbook-902/%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns BottomDog ( talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we create a section where we discuss the drawbacks of Pocketbook? Contrary to the Kindle and Sony readers Pocketbook is using an older gen e-ink display that is slower than newer Pearl displays, has a worse contrast and is harder to read in the sunlight.
Also since one of the main selling points of Pocketbook is their "openess" I think it should be mentioned that so far this openness is a farce. SDKs have been promised for the Hardware release, then for March then for May and then begining of June we got some incoherent undocumented blob of binaries without compliance to the GPL License. Pocketbook is using GPL software without adhering to the License and not providing source code when they must according to the GPL license.
Many people including me bought a Pocketbook because of the promise of handwriting and openness which both have so far not been made good.
If you describe the pocketbook with such fanfare and detail it must be correct and neutral and must also shed light on the negative aspects of the product and not just what Pocketbook is telling in the marketing department.
Currently the Pen, 3G and WIFI is quasi useless. The backslide design is broken and every time you try and open the pocketbook (Sim, battery) you run into the risk of breaking the screen because of the force required to open it. I had to wait 2 Months after the supposed release date and after I have had paid my pocketbook to finally receive it. Information has been spare, contacting pocketbook has failed most of the time.
Every software update reintroduce more bugs than it fixes and at least in germany the RMA department and support are quasi non existant. Pocketbook germany links to a third party forum as their official support forum and the two people from Pocketbook keep telling users that they dont get paid to answer on the forum.
Also Pocketbook has silently switched most of the supplied dictionaries from real ones to demo versions in one of the recent firmwares without telling anyone why.
Promised 3G Wikipedia and Bookland support still broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BottomDog ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If we talk about how great pocketbook is, we should incorporate some of that information as well.
BottomDog ( talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Done: * The claim about being the fastest is overly broad, the citation there is specifically for the 360 and not all Pocketbook devices. BottomDog ( talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Working on: * The part about it being open source is misleading. The cited article states its using linux - no word about open source. Open source also means they must supply the source code which they don't.
Adding to that
->:::: * The part about it being open source is misleading. The cited article states its using linux - no word about open source. Open source also means they must supply the source code which they don't.
@Brainsteinko would you please help me work thru the further points. Also why did you remove the information about the production facilities? BottomDog ( talk) 10:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
To GB Fan: Please provide Wiki guidelines where future plans are forbidden. We can arrange something agreeable like change the header of this section or move it to some distant place. It's overall useful information backed by reliable sources. Please don't mass delete. What specific info is not compliant, we can remove it or change. User Ronz complaint earlier that the article is just a list of models. Something has to be added to it, why not information backed by reliable sources. Please reconsider your deletion. Brainsteinko ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Lesen.net is a news outlet with editorial board. No Wikipedia guidelines are violated as well as for Telegraph and Techjournal. About updates. PB does issue updates for different models nearly every month which is easily verifiable e.g. from official site. This is serious distinction from other brands. Every sentence doesn't need to be referenced if it's not questionable. I'm the first person against writing like advertisement but please use common sense-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Please clear your changes on the discussion page first. You have no more rights than I do to just change the content without talking about it first.
Please revert your changes and first discuss them here.
Ram size does not make anything twice as fast. Again lesen.net is a blog and the android article get it wrong. Please show official info that all Pocketbook devices run
android.
BottomDog (
talk) 09:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Bookland.net is no less product of PB than others and no more marketing link than official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainsteinko ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Pocketbook 360 plus blue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |