Talk:Cameron Winklevoss

MERGE SUGGESTION OF WINKLEVOSS TWINS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was No Consensus Oldag07 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Both Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss pages are nearly identical. Recommend .Deaddebate (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Until and unless there's separate content about each, but even there the common information should be in one place. There's also a lot of redundant information at Divya Narendra and ConnectU, as well as other articles. One problem with forking the same content to multiple places is that they don't all get edited in sync. They begin to diverge and errors creep in. Also it defeats the utility of the wikilinks. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for separate articles due to their achievements all being joint efforts. Not enough notability as individuals to warrant their own articles. Zarcadia (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above. Both seem to accomplish things in tandem, rather than individually. Any minor personal achievements (if there are any) could be mentioned in a joint article. Esrever ^(klaT) 21:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Merging the pages of brothers makes sense since so much does overlap. Wikiacurracy (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If the Coen brothers don't qualify as separate individuals, despite only one being married to Frances McDormand, these two shouldn't either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.120.1 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree.Twins are notable as individual athletes. They do not compete exclusively as a team, they have competed and medaled separately internationally in 4-man boats and 8-man boats at notable international competitions. The selection and naming procedure for athletes in the sport of Rowing as governed by the IOC, USOC and respective NGB, is on an individual athlete basis. Should an athlete not be able to compete or decline to compete, only this athlete is replaced, not the entire team of athletes.Ricodecalo (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious. You registered your account right before you posted your two identical comments to Talk:Cameron Winklevoss and Talk:Tyler Winklevoss. Very similar to Johnnywalker56. One wonders on the connection between the two accounts and the high degree of interest to keep the brothers separate and distinct while downplaying the negative information regarding ConnectU from appearing on the articles. Seems self-serving. Regardless of what the IOC, USOC, or NGB says, this is Wikipedia with its own governing rules and guidelines. The articles, content, and notability of both people are not different enough at this time to warrant two separate articles. In fact, the tiny difference between the two -- that of Guest of a Guest involvement -- will be better fitted as a footnote on the merged article. Wikiacurracy (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. FYI, your name Wikiacurracy is in violation of WP:UPOLICY, specifically "misleading usernames" which imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia. Your comments are in violation of WP:FIVEPILLARS, the fourth pillar-"wikipedians should interact in respectful and civil manner and assume good faith in others."Ricodecalo (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It seems very weird to me to merge two people's encyclopaedia entries just because they are twins. In terms of "notability", it is likely that Sergey Brin and Larry Page wouldn't have wikipedia entries if not for their relationship with Google, which was a joint venture -- does that mean that we should merge their pages too? Obviously not. I think the situations are analogous, and the only difference is that the Winklevosses are twins, and Brin and Page are not. Their twin-ness should not have an impact on the decision. Disclaimer: I am acquainted with the Winklevosses, although I haven't talked to them in years and don't know what their position is on the page merge proposal. Bayle Shanks (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. These must be two separate entries as per usual encyclopedic content. Future events will likely be very different for these two professionals as they are still at the beginning of their careers (November, 2010), not historical figures who have expired. Just as every real encyclopedia contains two separate entries for twins, so every virtual knowledge base should also have separate information. Separate entries would seem to meet Wikipedia content standards. 24.177.3.8 (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. A direct comparison of the pages as they are now shows almost no differences between the articles; while there may be more information available on their individual accomplishments, etc., in the future, at the moment there's not enough to warrant two articles. Dysperdis (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. As above, the pages are nearly identical. ReelExterminator (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. They each separately meet Wikipedia notability guidelines for their athletic achievements which are not conducted as a team. --Crunch (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes they are conducted as a team. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree Just because the contents of the two pages are very similar, they are two different people and remain so. Crunch (above) makes a very valid point about their individual athletic achievements, and their paths can only diverge more as they get older. Jim (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree As pointed out by Crunch and Triviator. If they weren't twins this merger proposal wouldn't even exist.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree The Winkelvii are only really notable in connection with FB. The issue is not that they are twins or separate people, but that they are in effect a single actor in the thing(s) of interest/note. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Premature Deletion of Info Unrelated to the Merge above

I Merged ConnectU material to ConnectU article. Material is redudant, not directly related, and already exists in ConnectU article. I disagree regarding merging Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, they are notable in that they both individually Olympians, while their achievements are mostly in tandem, they are individual achievements and they are not all identical.Johnnywalker56 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

First, you did not merge to ConnectU article. You simply deleted the info off Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra pages, without discussing it here first. No decision has been made or discussed. I reverted your action until further discussion is made by other members. Wikiacurracy (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironic. Wikiacurracy, after changing your name to BlueImpact to conform with WP:UPOLICY, you have in your own words "simply deleted the info off Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss...without discussing it here first. No decision has been discussed. I reverted your action until further discussion is made by other members." It is baffling how you proceeded to make the same type of edit that you yourself protested against earlier. Furthermore, you represented your edit as minor which it is not. Please refer to WP:MINOR which states specifically, "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." It is bewildering how you considered this as minor edit when you previously set up this section on the talk page to discuss this very same type of major edit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalker56 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 October 2010

Actually, long-time user The Yeti (talk) suggested to trim it on the other almost-identical Talk:Tyler Winklevoss. I am fine with or without the trim. Here is his original quote from the other talk page:

"Agree. Or at least severly trim it. It is disproportionate to the subject, and is virtually a verboten copy of the ConnectU article. The Yeti (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)"

-- BlueImpact (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further Irony Here is your original quote "Disagree. The info here is a mere summary of the info in the ConnectU article. The ConnectU article is extremely more detailed, and info will be lost without these summaries that link the person to those events." Furthermore, it is a violation to cite that The Yeti user is a "long-time user" in an effort to represent his or her comments as having more or special authority over wikipedia. It is clear that despite changing your username to conform with "username policy" WP:USERNAME namely "no names should contain titles which imply authority on Wikipedia, you have still not grapsed the "Five Pillars" WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. Citing that a user is a "long time user" to defend your "disruptive editing" WP:DISRUPT is misleading in that you are suggesting one editor has more authority on Wikipedia than another editor, and it is irrelevant to the fact that you have engaged in "disruptive editing" WP:DISRUPT.Johnnywalker56 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Point? Not sure what you're ranting about as it is off-topic. Do you want to keep the info the way it is now or not? BlueImpact (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MERGE SUGGESTION OF /* ConnectU */ SECTION WITH CONNECTU ARTICLE

Merge Suggestion of /* ConnectU */ section with ConnectU article. Material is redundant, not directly related, and already exists in ConnectU article. Recommend .Johnnywalker56 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The info here is a mere summary of the info in the ConnectU article. The ConnectU article is extremely more detailed, and info will be lost without these summaries that link the person to those events. Summaries are OK -- although the Zuckerberg section could be trimmed here. Wikiacurracy (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironic. Wikiacurracy, you disagree with my suggestion of a merger of the ConnectU section in the Tyler Winklevoss article with the ConnectU article because you describe this section as already "a mere summary" of the info in the ConnectU article. You then proceed to change your name to BlueImpact and uniilaterally merge the ConnectU section of the Tyler Winklevoss article stating in the edit summary that you "trimmed to summary". I am dumbfounded at how what you described earlier as "a mere summary" was now ready to be "trimmed to summary". You performed the same exact edit and edit summary to the Cameron Winklevoss article. Your editing behavior is in violation of Wikipedia behavior guidline "Gaming the system" WP:GAME, namely "attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies and procedures by using various tricks to make bad faith edits." It also constitutes "disruptive editing" WP:DISRUPT, namely "a pattern of edits disrupting progress toward improving an article." You have also singled-handedly created an "edit war" WP:EW with yourself. To date, you have violated no less than six Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:GAME, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EW, WP:PILLARS, WP:MINOR, WP:UPOLICY) while editing the article and talk page of Tyler Winklevoss and the article and talk page of Cameron Winklevoss.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalker56 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 October 2010

Happy. I'm fine with the info as it is now either way. As mentioned above, this was on the suggestion by The Yeti (talk). Also your accusations about "gaming the system" and whatever else you are accusing me of are unfounded. I also couldn't be happier that you're vigilant about non-deletion of info and am fine with the section as it stands now. Also, there is suspicion about multiple accounts being registered by you to influence the edits of certain pages. And one last thing, since you're clearly into guidelines, please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically under "Behavior that is unacceptable". BlueImpact (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further Irony. Let me remind you that a suggestion by The Yeti is just that, a suggestion. Please refer to Wikipedia conduct policies "Consensus" WP:CONS and section consensus building, namely "editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." Let me also remind you that you objected to my earlier edit that was in the spirit of The Yeti's suggestion, then proceeded to make a similar edit yourself, and then defend your unilateral actions by pointing back to The Yeti's suggestion. This is painful irony. Your behavior speaks for itself, no accusations necessary. Lastly, the only suspicion on this talk page is one that you levied, which Ricodecalo correctly pointed out to you is a violation of "Five Pillars" WP:FIVEPILLARS and Wikipedia behavior guidelines "Assume good faith" WP:GOODFAITH. Your breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines continue to grow. Please refrain from editing until you are prepared to follow them. Johnnywalker56 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Point? Not sure what you're ranting about as it is off-topic. Do you want to keep the info the way it is now or not? BlueImpact (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge-discussion procedure

   The two merge proposals (by same person?) on the 2 brothers' bio pages were botched by not specifying a common discussion page for the two intimately related matters. Nothing can proceed until someone determines whether there is any material covered on only one discussion page (or covered differently between them), non-destructively refactors producing a complete discussion on one talk page, strikes thru the duplicate discussion on the other, and links them so that everything is transparent. (I will undertake that task if no one else does, but not tonite.)
   (I have a number of comments to make in response to what appears on at one or the other, not least regarding the concurrent (and on its face competing) proposal to merge both bios to the company article. But making this more complicated, or rather trying for a globally correct procedure, can wait until we are procedurally repair the initial mistake and its effects.)
--Jerzy•t 04:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've constructed an AFAIK undocumented type of Diff page, for Talk:Tyler Winklevoss, Talk:Cameron Winklevoss; if you don't understand it immediately, please stop worrying about how i did it, and focus on what it appears on its face to be rather than asking pointless questions here. If you don't believe me on trust, please find some difference or match between Talk:Cameron Winklevoss and Talk:Tyler Winklevoss that you think is misrepresented, and then rethink the two-article diff's purpose, with an agenda of figuring out what mistake you made, about what that purpose is: i've never run into a real problem before, using this technique. (And BTW, it represents what was different before i added the contribution that i am now typing -- not what is different at the time you look at the talk pages.)
   Offhand, my impression is that the discordance between the two is a serious screwup, and that my message at the top of this section is more urgent than i imagined and hoped.
   Finally, for the record, this message appears on the "Cameron" tk-pg, but not on the "Tyler" one, bcz the corresponding ("Cameron") article appears to be the one for the brother with more WP-worthy info available. I suggest that here (Talk:Cameron Winklevoss be the talk page where we aim at consolidating the Winklevoss-related merge/split discussion.
--Jerzy•t 05:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement: It is the STYLE of the articles that need improvement

While physically and even a lot in their business lives they are identical, they are still two different people, and Wikipedia should acknowledge that. The articles should stay where they are. The real trouble is that THE ARTICLES are written like they are identical. A ton of sections in the articles (Especially Tyler Winklevoss) need to be expanded.
—AOC25(Talk)---Dec 4, 2010 19:52 EST

• Agree with above; they are sufficiently different that they deserve individual web pages.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with above; the articles are written by the same person. please trim all the informations about lawsuits to the article connectU and leave only the sports achievements.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.233.86 (talk)

Disagree with trimming everything *except* the sports achievement. In the last two days alone, the papers discuss their battle with Facebook. Most people know them for that and their portrayal in the movie, not just the Olympics. BlueImpact (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, don't merge!

I think it's better to keep them separate, even though they've done so many things in tandem. It makes it more interesting, and also reinforces the fact that although they share so much they're still different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.149.250 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. I vote for merging. There is almost no information in either of the twin's pages that is unique to that page. The two articles are pretty much identical. If one of the twins were to do something notable on his own without his brother, then he should get his own page. To the best of my knowledge that is not yet the case. Aberdeen01 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with "No, don't merge". Cameron won a bronze medal at a 2009 World Cup event, and he is the publisher of a website. I discovered this by reading his page. These are young men - we can also expect that over time there will be more and more things they do separately, not more and more things they do together.Wiredcoach (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly sure where to post. This page is so fragmented. And I initially was in favor of not merging the pages. However, after considerable thought, my opinion is Merge. Precedence can be seen in the Category:Sibling duos. Far more notable individuals, the Wright brothers and The Wachowskis, do not have separate pages. There simply arent enough notable differences between the two to justify two pages. Heck even the actor that portrayed them in the movie Social Network was the same guy. Oldag07 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing Merge Discussion

This discussion has gone on for several months with no one closing it. I support the merging of the page, but I don't see how we can determine consensus with the page structured the way it is. I suggest closing the discussion, with the decision being no consensus, and then reopening it, and taking a poll in a more organized fashion. Oldag07 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The majority of this reads like a vanity page to me. There are articles on actual celebrities without as much detail. Louis C.K.'s article is shorter and he's got his own tv show. Jesse Eisenberg, the star of the movie, has a shorter article. There are more notable Olympians without so much trivial detail about their lives in their Wikipedia page. Check the other articles for yourselves to get a sample on how much coverage your average Olympic rower gets in Wikipedia. Wikipedia may not be ink, but it's not these guys' personal diary either. Let's face it: These guys are mostly known because they sued someone famous and were portrayed as secondary characters in a movie. Saying well they deserve a huge amount of coverage because they're Olympians is therefore ridiculous. So take a single page like you would find for your average Olympic rower, add linked references to the Facebook controversy/lawsuit, and you are done. I don't know if everyone has caught this, but the current article is reporting that he played Legos with his brother as a child. That's in the article right now. Or excuse me, actually it's in at least two articles right now. The fact that a former Olympian has a blog about nightlife also just doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedic either. Merge and cut this monstrosity in half in my opinion. Gripdamage (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Like I said earlier, I agree with you. However, this discussion is going nowhere and has gone on way too long. I am going to end the discussion, with the consensus no merge, and reopen the discussion in a month or so. We will be organized and will keep the discussion on one section. Oldag07 (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I am going to post something on the administrator's board, and see what they say. Oldag07 (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The admin board didn't help. I guess I am going to close the discussion as no consensus. I think if the discussion is more organized next time, we can get a better decision. Oldag07 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German descent

Who can report and post more to the German descent of the family Winklevoss (Pennsylvania)? 91.66.8.231 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Look, the Winklevi merit inclusion with an article in Wikipedia, but not two articles. What are they notable for? Two things:

1. They row quite well (together), and,
2. They got screwed by Zuckerburg in the whole Facebook thing (again, together).

They have no individual notability. I propose that Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss be merged together, probably at Winklevoss twins, with both titles redirecting to the twins. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

With well over a week and no one disagreeing, I shall be looking in the near future at consummating the proposed merger. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Do it. The differences in the two articles are so few that you could merge them, then include a few sentences (if you can find that much) about how they are actually different. Shame that WP doesnt let you do a Diff between two articles, i think you would come back with a bunch of "Cameron<" and ">Tyler" and nothing else. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Noting the above could count as 2 Support, apparently before regular format for thread established in next entry. I (as Lycurgus) erroneously referred to a consensus that does exist in this thread but didn't in the one(s) above although there appears to be some irregularity there. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Winklevoss twins already exists and is the most appropriate place to merge the individuals' articles. And if you're so inclined, comment on the RfC on that article's talk page about how we should treat other cases like this. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support In the event that either of them should do something that is highly notable and has nothing to do with his brother, then a separate article for that independently notable Winklevoss would be worth considering. Until then, the separate articles should be merged into the joint Winklevoss twins article. Dezastru (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's vulgar and false to say that Zuckerberg "screwed" them. Rather they attempted to screw him, albeit in a way that is considered normal and traditional. AIUI they received a very large settlement for essentially doing nothing but happening to have an idea that somebody else actually did the work to realize. Leaving aside the relation of Zuckerberg to the labor that actually realizes and realized the service, which to my way of thinking would be the way to find out who, if anyone was "screwed", it's unclear how from pure rational principles, sense can be made out of that claim. The two do individually have notability comparable to or superior to that of some other individuals with articles but as a wiki subject they are a unity as in the real world they are commonly known as "The Winkelvoss Twins". That to actually do stuff requires labor and that absent that it doesn't get done is self evident and exemplified in the lack of a merge in spite of a general consensus for it. Lycurgus (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree While clearly their notability has a tendency to come in pairs, they are each Olympic athletes in their own rights. Olympic athletes are notable. That Winklevoss and Winklevoss are twin brothers and competed on the same team does not eliminate the fact that they are individuals, each with their status as Oympians. Otherwise all individuals notable for their sporting achievements as part of a team (eg all footballers), should also be merged. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Their articles are very similar, indicating the most notable events in which they were together for their most notable life events. They are known as a duo, even pejoratively called by Mark Zuckerberg as the "Winklevii." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Each's notability is entirely linked to the other. One article is sufficient. Cresix (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Makes a lot more sense. Also somewhat hilarious. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.136.169.113 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with FunkyCanute, the Winklevii are Olympic athletes in their own right and other Olympians who are siblings have their own separate articles too. Tiller54 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support It should not be Wikipedia's policy to have two virtually identical articles for any reason. john k (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - are they not people? are they a singularity? SVTCobra (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We have many articles about multiple people. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Both articles contain virtually the same content, this article contains a very small subset of what those articles contain. Very frustrating. --Andrededits (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Plenty of semi-famous bands have separate Wikipedia pages for each member, so the argument of "they're only famous together" doesn't hold much water. They are two separate people and it would be unencyclopaedic to merge their articles. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a repository of popular culture. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC))
• I agree they are only notable together. http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/the-winklevoss-twins-really-are-identical --88.111.113.218 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It is impractical to maintain three separate, similar articles when one can provide better coverage of the pair of individuals. Woz2 (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cameron Winklevoss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718064147/http://www.winklevoss.com/wintech/company/index.asp?mt=2 to http://www.winklevoss.com/wintech/company/index.asp?mt=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514205853/http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1724.html to http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1724.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108050044/http://www.allfacebook.com/developer-sues-winklevoss-twins-everybody-cheers-2011-05 to http://www.allfacebook.com/developer-sues-winklevoss-twins-everybody-cheers-2011-05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Cameron Winklevoss - Fedora.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Facebook

Social media Barney Chandler (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)