User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2015

Groupe de Barbezieux

You have speedily deleted Groupe de Barbezieux. From my watchlist, I see that I was notified of this proposal at 21:06 last night and that it was deleted at 04:31, 7h 25m later, which strikes me as being supersonic. Even more so, given that 21:06UTC is 23:06 where I am, so effectively I was expected to participate when I was asleep! I note that, per your deletion rationale, the criterion was "Article about a company, corporation or organization...". But the Barbezieux Group was neither a company, a corporation nor an organisation but a collective name for a group of leading French authors, rather like the Bloomsbury Group - see the article in French Wikipedia: fr:Groupe de Barbezieux. Some of them have articles in English Wikipedia (Geneviève Fauconnier (prix Fémina winner), Henri Fauconnier (prix Goncourt winner), Jacques Chardonne (Grand Prix du roman de l'Académie française,)) mentioning their memebrship of the Groupe de Barbezieux, now ridiculously red-linked.

Clearly I think you were wrong to delete this article at all, and excessively speedy. I would ask either that you reinstate it or, failing that, give me access to it in order that I might be able to edit sufficiently to meet your requirements. (I may not be able to, but don't know without seeing it.) Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emeraude, I've undeleted it. The speedy tag was added because of the lack of sources, so if you could add some as soon as possible (it has been unsourced since 2011), that will prevent it being tagged again. Sarah ^(talk) 22:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do. (And worth noting, it was me who put the noref tag on when I translated the article from French Wikipedia, where it is also unreffed.) Emeraude (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ally workshop

Hi Sarah,

I went ahead and marked the Ally Workshop notice as closed on the admin noticeboard. I hope you understand my rationale, your notice is given and folks can discuss the workshop itself in the appropriate place. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keegan, that's fine with me. Sad that it's necessary though. Sarah ^(talk) 04:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Keegan (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Carnism

I'm currently re-writing the article. Just a heads-up in case we end up writing over eachother. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Okay, that's good, I'll stop editing it in that case. Sarah ^(talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

FourViolas (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reich

How I arrive at an article talk? I have it on my watchlist, - what do you think? - When the topic is infobox I am double alerted ;) - I don't see why you would go for something that looks inferior to me, but won't argue. I just didn't like this "how did you all manage to get here so quickly?" - If you want to discuss the differences I am ready, for example did you know that if the standard width is not good for you, you can specify a larger image size (example The Rite of Spring), or use {{nowrap}} around something you want in one line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are feeling discouraged by editors who roam from article to article that they're otherwise not involved in, imposing their technical/formatting/style/infobox preferences, as though they own the whole encyclopaedia. They upset writers, then once they've got their way, they disappear and the article is abandoned. Sometimes the writers leave, sometimes they don't do something they would otherwise have done, or they edit less, or feel discouraged and consider retiring. I think the situation is going to end up at ArbCom, because it seems to be getting worse. Sarah ^(talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you upset? - I can speak only about myself: I had Reich on my watchlist. Would you please assume that much good faith? - I said I won't argue, just wondered if you perhaps don't know things. I met people who speak about infoboxes but have no idea what makes one, others are afraid of parameters while they don't need to be filled, see? - Can I cheer you up a bit with today's DYK mentioning "unbearably ridiculous and detestable"? (Hint: even better in the original French) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm upset, yes. I had planned to add a lot of content to that article today, and now can't. Thanks for trying to cheer me up, but it won't work, at least not right now. Sarah ^(talk) 21:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wilhelm Reich page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Tools

I've replied to your latest post on Cyber's page where it will get (I hope) a lot of exposure and draw Coren back into the discussion. Unfortunately, there have been so many changes since Tretikov was appointed that with Erik and Brandon both gone nobody is left at the top who knows me and I have to start over after years of building up reasonably good relations .In the past I was able to successfully suggest, move, and shake for useful new products and bug attention but I'm at a bit of a loss to know where to go now. 230 employees and no one to properly maintain the Labs servers. Too many deployed to pursuing the Foundation's socio-political experiments rather than servicing the software. Seems like the Foundation has lost sight of the fact that at the end of the day, we're just an electronic encyclopedia. A very big one though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. I've lost track of what happened. I only know that we had a useful, stable set of tools, then it was moved from the German toolserver, since when some or all the tools have been intermittently or completely unavailable, and no one will own the problem. Even when things are working, the pages take a long time to load and there are lots of timeouts.

But I don't know how or why certain volunteers come to be in charge of the issues, or who in the Foundation is responsible for Wikimedia Labs. I wonder whether TParis has ideas about how we can fix this. Sarah ^(talk) 02:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think TParis is doing his best in whatever way he can and I'm sure that he is as frustrated as I am that the discussions about these issues are fractured all over the place but are not reaching the WMF where it matters. I'll be sending a private message to someone near the top soon who will at least be able to tell me (I hope) who is really in charge of the Labs software and hardware right now, but the WMF has gotten a habit of reshuffling its staff faster than the British Prime Minister's cabinet. The real problem at the Foundation right now however, is that the 200+ employees themselves don't really know who is in charge of what. In their alternativ Bewegung-style flat-hiereachy there are just chiefs and hardly any Indians - if there is a very minor department of just two or tree co-workers, one of them is always called "Director of this and that". --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: The other thing that concerned me about the move from the German toolserver is that the opt-in was removed, so that editors' contributions can be listed whether they want it or not (and arranged in ways that can be misleading). It should at least have been replaced by an opt-out. I tried to discuss this with Philippe and Cyberpower678, but then suddenly it went ahead. (There were two RfCs, neither worded nor closed well, in my view.) I've been wondering whether to hold an RfC to obtain an opt-out. Discussion here. Sarah ^(talk) 03:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit counter supports opt-out, but consensus favored removal of opt-in for this Wikipedia.03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Cyberpower)

The RfC didn't ask about opt-out properly. Recall all the discussions about it, then it just stopped and you went ahead without it. What we need ideally is an RfC that specifically asks that question. Sarah ^(talk) 03:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I think there may be a bit of confusion, but I haven't been part of the Tools project for about 6 months. I keep updated a bit on them from following the mailinglists, and I pay particular attention to Cyber's emails, but other than that I don't touch code. I believe Cyber is moving the tools to a new dedicated puppet instance (a virtual server) and that should supply much more stability to the tools and much more control in Cyber's hands.--v/r - TP 07:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks TParis. Sarah ^(talk) 18:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not strictly concerned with this. I'm just eager tyo get the tools all up and running again because they are holding up the development of important new policies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, I mention it because for me it was part and parcel of the same thing. Tools working and respect for privacy for years, then suddenly neither. Anyway, Elee now has access to WikiHistory, so things may be back on track. Sarah ^(talk) 18:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

COI work feedback

So, per the Arbcom case and the ANI, I am looking for feedback on my COI-related work. If you have some time, is there any feedback you think it would be useful for me to hear? If you don't have time or are not interested, I would understand. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I do have a few thoughts, but I have a long to-do list on WP at the moment, so I don't know when I'll get round to it. Therefore, please don't hold up your COI work waiting for my input, though I may offer it at some point in the future, if that's okay. Sarah ^(talk) 03:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

sure. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. I hope you make it next time. Best, Sarah ^(talk) 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we have a sexual harassment policy?

I have started an RFC here at the request of a female editor who didn't want to do it themselves regarding whether we should have a sexual harassment policy. Although it could effect men, transgendered, or other people as well, the most obvious application would be for female editors, of which we have so few. I wanted to make sure we got a good turnout, hopefully of both genders, and you are one of only a couple editors that I know that (if I remember correctly?) happened to be female; I thought you may want to chip in your two cents. CorporateM (Talk) 19:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:, thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look shortly. Sarah ^(talk) 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If you know any other female editors, I think it's important that we get a good representation of female editors in the discussion. Being that only ~15% of our editor demographic are women, it would take a bit of elbow grease to get the ratio in the discussion up to 50%. However, I don't want to post anything on WikiProject Feminism or anything, because I think that would be crossing the line into canvassing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxen

Hey SV, I just thought I'd offer my services to settle the infobox dispute you are in with Andy. I think you are both good editors and I hate to see you guys spatting. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Montana. I'm too sickened by them to respond now, but I'll get back to you at some point. Sarah ^(talk) 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Cancer Ward

Hi Sarah,

I just noticed you've been editing this article - do you have the book? It contains a reference to Kombucha that I'm trying to get my hands on... (Hope you're well, by the way) petrarchan47คุก 04:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petra, I do have a copy, so let me know where you want me to look. I checked on Google Books and I can see several references to tea, though not that particular word. Sarah ^(talk) 00:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fabulous! I'll look into it. It goes by many names so I'll do some digging. petrarchan47คุก 01:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So far as I remember, kombucha is not mentioned in Cancer Ward, however Chaga mushroom is, which is similar to kombucha in that it is reputed (but not been found) to have anti-cancer properties, and is even today sold as a quack remedy - something that book has unfortunately made easier. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, it seems writers mistook the Birch cancer growth (not a mushroom) for Kombucha. In the section about Birch, which has apparently changed many times since he first self-published the book, he covers the story of a little town where no one was getting cancer. From what I understand, it is theorized that there was no cancer because the townspeople were drinking this tea. petrarchan47คุก 08:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I can look that up later and give you a brief précis of it, if you like. Sarah ^(talk) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, because it turns out not to be referencing Kombucha, and this inquiry was for the article, I don't really need that help. However, if you happen to have access to one of his earliest editions, I would be very interested. Well, heck, I guess I'm interested either way. So, yes. petrarchan47คุก 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• One of my favorite books of all time; I've even excerpted it on my userpage. Not sure I'd use it as an epidemiological source, though... :P MastCell ^Talk 01:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• MastCell, it's one of my favourites too, and I'm going to have to read it again after having flicked through it searching for tea. Petra, there's a chapter on the birch fungus, but it's not really about that, so there isn't much information. It's about the patients' clinging to the idea that there's a miracle cure out there somewhere. The chapter is "Cancer of the Birch Tree," pp. 135–154 of the 1991 Farrar, Strauss and Giroux paperback.

There's mention of Descartes and the importance of scepticism, "self-induced healing," how doctors don't know much about tumours, and how perhaps you'd need a clean conscience for self-induced healing to work, which would rule out several of them.

The main character, Oleg Kostoglotov, had written to a doctor for information about birch fungus and had just received a reply, which he's discussing with the other patients in the ward. The doctor had worked for a long time in a hospital near Moscow and had noticed that none of his peasant patients had cancer. He attributed this to their drinking a tea made of birch fungus or chaga. The letter describes how to make it and lists suppliers. Kostoglotov tells the other patients how to dry, grate and boil it, but doesn't give them the doctor's or suppliers' addresses – "His character had been formed in a place where the law dictated: Found it? Keep your trap shut. Grabbed it? Keep it under the mattress." There is one patient, a philosophy lecturer, to whom he slips the addresses later. After talking to the patients, Kostoglotov goes outside for a cigarette, although in his letter the birch-fungus doctor had warned him to stop smokng, but "[w]hatever happened, his happiness could never be complete without a cigarette ..."

There are other references to it, but it would take me a while to find them all (the Google Books page numbers don't correspond to my edition). I'll post here if I see anything that might be interesting. If you want to see what the first translation said about it, I believe the first full English translation is the unauthorized 1968 edition by The Bodley Head, but the Times Literary Supplement published extracts before that, in April that year. Sarah ^(talk) 17:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, that was delightful. I wouldn't mind having you do all my reading for me. I can see why this is such a beloved book to you and MastCell. I'm glad you were inspired to crack it open again, and if you feel to share more from it, I'm all eyes. petrarchan47คุก 03:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way for users to report things to administrators privately?

We've been working on drafting a WP:Sexual_harassment policy. One of the things it seems there's consensus on, is that editors who believe they have been victims of sexual harassment should have a way to report the incident privately to administrators, in case they don't feel safe making a public report on ANI/Incidents. I'm not familiar with administrator tools, but you are. Is there a way for editors in this position to report things privately that currently exists? Or would we need some new tool?

Also any feedback you have on the draft in general would be very appreciated. --ScWizard (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had the strength to comment there yet, but while the aims are noble, the whole exercise is based on an extreme misunderstanding of Wikipedia. There is no need for a policy to prohibit a particular kind of harassment—anything (other than a one-off outburst followed by humble pie) that looked like sexual harassment would result in a heavy block, and serious harassment would result in an immediate and permanent block. See the "Contacting" section at WP:ARB for how to report harassment (that is mentioned at WP:DWH in the "Harassment" policy). Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly those that are commenting on the talk page, seem to have taken the view of. 1. Sexual harassment is not more serious than other forms of harassment. 2. Victims of sexual harassment should have no way to report their harassment privately. 3. Unfounded accusations of sexual harassment are a greater threat to our encylopedia than actual sexual harassment itself. 4. There should be no policy mentioning or dealing with sexual harassment in particular. I'd like to hear more voices speak up and at least say "this is a problem on WP and we should do something about it." --ScWizard (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, the form of harassment that LB experienced is something unlikely to happen to a male editor. It took the form of repeated unwanted engagement, whether positive or negative: posting on her talk page, including after she asked them not to; criticism followed by advice, offers to help, here's a source, then back to criticism; following her to articles; mentioning her constantly, including in unrelated discussions; trying to enter into dispute-resolution with her; encouraging others to start DR.

I've never seen that intense interest develop in relation to a male editor, where the editor becomes a pure object of pursuit. Harassment of men on WP is more results-oriented, rather than a cat playing with a mouse. Sarah ^(talk) 00:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

LB has "thanked" me four times and I believe I have tried to help. I agree that the treatment she received was appalling, but it is difficult to help some people, and third parties could not see who was the problem due to the extreme noise from both sides. I don't think the proposed policy would have helped, and if it had been used in the LB case there would have been even more of an uproar. I say that because I'm not sure that any of the on-wiki stuff was sexual harassment. I have seen hints that there was on-wiki sexual harassment, but I have not seen any evidence of that. During the initial eruption I tried to focus the discussion on the fact that it is very uncivil (blockable) to repeatedly use the c-word in an environment where it should be known that it would cause offense. Instead, LB placed an interpretation on the c-word that was not evident in the language used, and there was no hope of any sensible discussion. I take your point that declared female editors can attract undue attention, and it is likely that things would have turned out differently for a declared male editor. To me, that indicates a weakness in admin support for the current policies, not the need for a new policy. The problem with adding more words to prohibit bad behavior is that they drown the essential point—if people were to mildly harass, say, a Catholic editor with snide remarks about religion, there should be swift admin response, and the same should apply to any other form of harassment. Adding words merely provides room for wikilawyering. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Yes, you did try to help, and thank you for that. Sexual harassment needn't involve anything sexual; it refers to harassment of women because they're women (or harassment of any gender where gender is the determining factor). This is where it gets tricky, because the people doing it will not only deny that it's harassment, they will also say that, whatever it is, it's not because the target is a woman. I may try to write something about the particular way in which women are targeted.

Your point that "third parties could not see who was the problem due to the extreme noise from both sides" is important. I've advised people not to respond, but to keep diffs. They underestimate how hard it is after the fact to reconstruct events if they respond, especially in a way that people are willing to read. Sarah ^(talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and SlimVirgin: Johnuniq, you mentioned that it's possible to contact the arbitration committee earlier privately. I assume there's no way to contact administrators on the whole privately then... I will bring this up with the technical village pump then to start I guess. --ScWizard (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ScWizard, there's no way to contact all admins privately, but you can contact functionaries. See Wikipedia:Functionary for more details. You can also email individual admins. Sarah ^(talk) 17:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, alright thanks. This is now a thing, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on it: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Private_incident_reporting_and_tracking_system_for_admins

Orphaned non-free image File:Femaleeunuch.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Femaleeunuch.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks a lot for rescuing carnism from stalemate. I had about had it and was going to be content to leave it the way it was for a while, tired of arguing over every word. By the way, you are not taking e-mails anymore? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339, my email is back on. I had briefly switched it off to check something then forgot to switch it on again. And you're welcome re: carnism. Sarah ^(talk) 07:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Sarah, that means a lot to me, especially since I really appreciate your work here. -Darouet (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Darouet, you're welcome, and thanks again for creating it. Sarah ^(talk) 07:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A heads up ...

I got approached to do picks for an installment in this section of the WMF blog, and figured I'd give you a heads up one of my choices was FGM. The piece should be going up in the next few days, so if you see a spike in vandalism, it's my fault. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ealdgyth, and thanks for choosing it. I look forward to it (I think!). Sarah ^(talk) 17:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cuusoo

Hi there, might I enquire about the deletion of the Cuusoo page? Actually I wrote it last year because it is an interesting company and project. I was doing some promotional work for Cuusoo but this was not meant to be advertising, just a resource for people looking for information about them. Any chance you could revisit this decision?Yakushimaspur (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Graham Davis

Hi Yakushimaspur, the problem with the article is that it had no independent sources, and looking around (admittedly a very quick look), I couldn't see any. If you like, you could work on it at Draft:Cuusoo, add whatever independent sources exist, then we could look at it again. Sarah ^(talk) 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson

I started a discussion about the article's ability to stay as a Featured Article. You were involved, so I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

You may wish to change your signature. I know it's completely unintentional but we have a User:Sarah and then your signature only says Sarah it can easily make it confusing when attempting pings and such. Just a thought. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment: I don't think it's a big deal. I sign as Victoria but there is a user called Victoria (I would have preferred that but it would have required usurping and I'm not sure that's still allowed), so my sig doesn't match my username and I've not had trouble, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have, when I briefly used Eric as my signature. Eric Corbett 21:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It has caused at least one issue and the other person is an admin as well so it would be understandable that both of them should expect pings. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

For all I know the person who is simply "Victoria" (whose name I sign as) is getting pings meant for me, but I can't for the life of me see what being an admin has to do with it. Yesterday I replied on a talk page post and referenced someone called Maria whose username is very different. I blame it on our laziness at relying on the pinging software to do what we want. We know we should copy the username carefully and then sign for the ping to work, but lots of times we make mistakes. I really don't think this is a huge issue in the grand scheme of stuff that happens on WP. Victoria (tk) 21:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well as an admin she will undoubtably work with new users often. The fact that an established editor made the mistake when pinging SV and pinged the other admin is a textbook example of the confusion that can easily occur especially with new editors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Case for Animal Rights.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Case for Animal Rights.JPG. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)