text:
User talk:Cccc3333

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Copyright issues
Please add copyright tags to the images of Moscow Metro you downloaded today. Also please specify at what stations these photos were taken, so that we could add them to the articles on those stations. --Ghirlandajo 08:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those are nice photos(Image:DSC00417.JPG and Image:DSC00247.JPG - so I would hate to have to delete them. However, without a description of the source(did you take them yourself, find them on a website, scan them from a book, etc.) and a license or statement of how Wikipedia can legally use them(if you took them yourself, just put GFDL on the image description pages, if you got them from somewhere else, you need to ask the people in charge there) they will have to be deleted, and may be deleted at any time, as they have been up on the site for more than 7 days. (See the Criteria for speedy deletion Thanks for your work on the 'pedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC00417.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC00417.JPG. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Alr 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

hello
Hello! Can we upload to commons these image? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Neta2.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Neta2.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:DSC00229.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC00229.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC02187.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02187.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSC02132.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02132.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 04:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC02192.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02192.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC02191 copy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02191 copy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 07:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Aa1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aa1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Image Tagging for Image:Aa17.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aa17.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Image Tagging for Image:Aa22.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aa22.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DSC02151.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02151.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC02183.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02183.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC02198.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC02198.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Natbag3.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Natbag3.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi there. I see you uploaded these pics:

If you are the author, can you please add them to commons.wikimedia.org? I would like to share these pics freely for non-English Wikipedia articles. Thanks a lot. - Qasamaan 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalo'wm wa elr to'wv. I can tell you are a Jew, and that's cool too; you should be glad I'm not a Lebanese Shia Muslim (heehee :D). But anyways, the truth is that, really, there are hardly any differences between Jews and Muslims, except that we are like fire and water -- if that's the best way to put it.

 * As for commons.wikimedia.org, it is almost as the same as uploading files to Wikipedia.org itself. Except, non-English Wikipedians can actually share it via Wikipedia with respect to there corresponding languages.

 * To'wdah wa laylah to'wv. :)

 * - Qasamaan 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * P.S. Will you have the chance to create a userpage? Everyone has them on Wikipedia, and let me know if you need help in putting templates into your userpage, e.g.:

 * - Demonstration from  Template:User_Israeli
 * I'll upload the pics as you said and give the credits to you. It's nice talking with you by bro. - Qasamaan 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.19.167 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hi again
שלום. I am not sure if threading with Wikipedia is possible, but that seems to be a good idea. I'm afraid that the only option left is to continue posting new messages instead.

And don't worry. I'll log onto my account at Wikimedia.org and start uploading in no time. I'll let you know once I'm finished. - Qasamaan 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's been long. I think it's time we introduce ourselves more properly. :) After finishing typing a message, make sure you type "- ~" to automatically leave your signature, or else you'll get this instead for example:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cccc3333 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.19.167 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost done
I'm almost done uploading the copies of the pics. If you wish, you can check out the page illustrating them right now:

 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ben_Gurion_International_Airport

- Qasamaan 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hi there
Hi. Well, according to the policy of Wikipedia, we should only be using our talk pages for articles improvement for now on. However, you may reach me by e-mail. I'll see if I can set the option up soon. - Qasamaan 08:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli passport
Hi, sorry I reverted your edit there because the claim was unsubstantiated. If a reliable source that makes this claim is presented, there shouldn't be a problem reinstating it. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:BenGuAirConWait.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BenGuAirConWait.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BenGuChec.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BenGuChec.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GlyptoMun.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:GlyptoMun.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia -> Commons
Hello. It would be really great, if you uploaded your images to Commons (the ones marked with free licences, from what I can tell, that's all of them) and added them there to appropriate categories. Images on Commons are instantly usable on all Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, like Wikinews in different languages, not just the English Wikipedia. And, in articles like Oslo Airport, Gardermoen, which already contain a link to gallery or category on Commons, sooner or later someone is going to delete the local gallery, since such galeries really belongs on Commons. Take care, --Mareklug talk 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:OslSculp.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:OslSculp.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kjetil r (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) --Kjetil r (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MUN-SYN.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MUN-SYN.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BMW-MUS.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:BMW-MUS.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the images belong to you and you want Wikipedia to be able to use them, then you must release them under a free license. To do this, select one of the licenses from the free license list, or perhaps you would rather release them into the public domain, and add the appropriate licensing tag to the image page. If you don't really mind about licensing and are happy for others to use your work, I recommend (you lose all rights to it) or  (which is what text contributions to Wikipedia are released under). Feel free to message me if I can be of any help. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that, for media to be used on Wikipedia, it must be licensed to be usable by anyone for any purpose, including modification and commercial use. The biggest restriction you can really put on it is a demand that anyone using it attributes you as the author, which is what GFDL does. If you are not comfortable releasing your work under such a free license, which, obviously, is completely your choice, then I wouldn't recommend uploading it to Wikipedia. Perhaps if you would rather keep the rights to your images, you could upload a lower quality image that you don't mind releasing, and then keep your better images to yourself? J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:BMW-MUS.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:BMW-MUS.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:NorBus.JPG
A tag has been placed on Image:NorBus.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Passid.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Passid.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:FRpass2.jpg
Image:FRpass2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Passid.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Fastlicht Auditorium.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fastlicht Auditorium.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben Gurion International Airport
nominated Ben Gurion International Airport for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Israeli Passport.png
Thanks for uploading File:Israeli Passport.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Israeli Passport.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Israeli Passport.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:FRpass1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FRpass1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:BenGuLugg.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Another one of your uploads, File:BenGuEnt1.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Another one of your uploads, File:BenGuDep.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Another one of your uploads, File:BenGuArr.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Another one of your uploads, File:BenGuDin.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cccc3333


text:
User talk:Xjc

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Xjc


text:
File:MakeWayforDucklingsBookCover.jpg

Fair Use Rationale for Make Way for Ducklings

 * 1) The book cover is of lower resolution and quality than the original. Therefore, copies made from it will be of inferior quality.
 * 2) No free or public domain images have been located for this content.
 * 3) The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the book in any way.
 * 4) The book cover is intended to represent the nature of the book. Its inclusion in the article is important as an example of the illustrations typical in the book, detailed in the article.
 * 5) The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original book in any way.

Fair Use Rationale for Robert McCloskey

 * 1) The book cover is of lower resolution and quality than the original. Therefore, copies made from it will be of inferior quality.
 * 2) No free or public domain images have been located for this content.
 * 3) The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the book in any way.
 * 4) The book cover is intended to represent the nature of the book. Its inclusion in the article is important as a representative example of Robert McCloskey's work, detailed in the article.
 * 5) The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original book in any way.

title: File:MakeWayforDucklingsBookCover.jpg


text:
User talk:Chrismj

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chrismj


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

This dispute involves the continued development of the Ludwig von Mises Institute article on wikipedia, which is currently the subject of a heated content dispute involving violations of WP:NPOV and the article's emphasis. User:Willmcw has engaged in generally disruptive behavior, heavy POV pushing on this article, personal attacks against other editors, addition of inappropriate David Duke sources for POV reasons, and edits that are harmful to good faith efforts to develop this article. User:Cberlet has engaged in POV pushing, personal attacks, and belligerency towards other editors in response to polite requests of him on the article's talk page.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}''

Willmcw

 * User:Willmcw has engaged in extensive POV pushing aimed at inserting personal attacks and discrediting information against the LVMI, the article's subject.
 * He's inserted and attempted to restore POV-driven material to draw associations with persons of known extremism and infamy such as David Duke
 * He's been disruptive to efforts to expand and develop the article.
 * He's repeatedly mischaracterized cited sources that differ from his personal POV as "blogs" as a basis for removing them
 * He's inserted and restored sources that clearly qualify as "partisan political websites" in violation of Reliable sources
 * He's responded to calmly stated efforts to inform him of Wikipedia policies that conflict with his edits by dismissing them as "personal attacks" and generally ignoring any and all efforts by other editors to curtail the aforementioned disruptive behavior.
 * He's engaged in personal attacks upon the occupation and employment of another editor.

Cberlet

 * User:Cberlet has engaged in POV pushing similar to that of Willmcw
 * He's initiated revert and editing wars
 * He's responded to polite talk page requests with extreme belligerency and personal attacks.
 * He's engaged in multiple personal attacks against other editors including attacks on political affiliation and the use of profanity.
 * He's ignored multiple standing objections to the lack of neutrality in his edits and refused efforts to resolve these matters on the talk page.
 * He's attempted to promote his own off-site articles attacking the LVMI through self citations

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

Willmcw

 * - Inserted irrelevant & unconnected quotations from known racist David Duke to discredit other mainstream sources that differed with his POV. Labelled this edit "more info on the SPLC" to suggest it was innoccuous
 * - intentionally mislabelled edit description - he removed a NPOV phrasing about a source he favors that indicated its controversial nature, but described it in the edit line as simply "add citation"
 * - Removed two sourced statements that differed with his POV, falsely characterized one of the sources as a "blog" as grounds for removal
 * - Removed material rebutting a partisan source he added that was intended to balance the article per WP:NPOV, added unsourced guilt-by-association allegation about holocaust deniers - aimed at POV discrediting of article subject.
 * - Addition of lengthy critical paragraph sourced entirely from an extremely partisan political website. Material was often portrayed as factual rather than the viewpoint of the partisan group - violates Reliable sources
 * - Addtl. repeat talk page misrepresentation of non-blog sources that differ with his POV as "blogs" as a basis to remove them.
 * - Personal attack on the occupation and employment of User:Nskinsella. Nskinsella has fully and voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia that he is active with the LVMI. Willmcw nevertheless attacked him over this and attacked his motives, stating in the edit line to Nskinsella "I don't get paid by the LVMI" and stating in his message "I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda"

Cberlet

 * - Personal attack in description line - reverted an extensively described and detailed revision of his earlier edit with request to reconcile NPOV problems on the talk page and attacked the editor requesting talk page discussion with allegation of "shameless censorchip of criticsm"
 * - revert warring over same passage
 * - refusal to participate in talk page discussion over NPOV problems and other WP policy and guideline violations in his earlier edits
 * - bad faith assumption and more personal attacks - accused editor seeking his participation in talk page discussion wiht "This is just censorship"
 * - bad faith allegations in response to good faith effort to initiate talk page discussion
 * - lengthy personal attack on editor User:Rangerdude posted to Willmcw, attack on motives as well: "This passive/aggressive baloney from Rangerdude is tiresome. He now rules the LvMI page with an iron fist, in a perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over. The iron first in the velvet glove--the perfect metaphor."
 * - personal attacks and profanity directed against another contributer.
 * - addition of links to off-site "sources" criticizing the LVMI that he himself authored (located here ). Cberlet did not disclose his own authorship of this link at the time he added it - a conflict of interest and self promotion.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:POINT
 * Reliable sources
 * No personal attacks
 * Assume good faith

Additional applicable sections
 * "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." - Reliable sources (The Southern Poverty Law Center as a partisan political source).
 * "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization" - WP:NPOV (Aforementioned editors organized and presented SPLC material in manner that promoted their POV & selected "facts" that promoted POV's)
 * "(W)hile a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source." - WP:NPOV (Imbalance in addition of SPLC and other critical material)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

Willmcw
Attempts at trying to resolve the dispute with Willmcw by multiple editors

 * - User:Nskinsella approaches Willmcw on NPOV problems regarding David Duke. User:DickClarkMises concurs and proposes the same on NPOV grounds. Willmcw refuses, feigns seriousness in adding Duke on the basis that he's "better known than" other more pertinent sources being used. Also generally disruptive in response - Willmcw's comments indicate he added Duke for reasons that were not constructive, to wit: another source already in the article allegedly makes it that "any general criticism" including Duke "seems appropriate." WP:POINT disruption.
 * - User:Rangerdude directs Willmcw to Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy in response to Willmcw's personal attack on Nskinsella's employment and occupation. States "For the sake of civility and with respect to wikipedia's editing guidelines, I would urge the editor in violation to refrain from such personal attacks upon the person of another editor be they direct or by implication. Thank you." No response given by Willmcw
 * - User:DH003i complains of disruptive and POV pushing behavior by some editors "who have been actively "working" to make this article mis-representative and of poor quality" and stating their "actions speak for themselves." This appears to be intended as a You know who you are so knock it off type warning to disruptive editing practices in general as DHoo3i did not name specific names it applied to. Willmcw reacts with hostility, accuses DH003i of making a "personal attack."
 * - User:Rangerdude responds to Willmcw's allegation against DH003i, states specific objections to Willmcw's disruptive edits (i.e. Duke) and politely requests that he cease and desist: "Myself and many others have suggested this to you in calm and reasonable terms many times with little result, hence the problem and recurring discussions of it. Given these many notes, I trust that you will conduct yourself more responsibly in the future." In response Willmcw ignores complaints about his editing practices, accuses Rangerdude of personal attacks as well and directs that the discussion be removed to his talk page.
 * - User:Rangerdude quotes and links to Reliable sources passage against the use of partisan sources as a reminder to all editors and in reference to violations of it by Willmcw. Willmcw rudely responds, posts insinuations about rangerdude and mocks the quoting of this provision, ignores provision about use of partisan sources.
 * Attempts by User:Rangerdude to communicate with Willmcw above also prompt Willmcw to post a message to Rangerdude's talk page making more allegations that the requests of him are personal attacks. Rangerdude replies on Willmcw's talk page to address this allegation . Rangerdude responds that Willmcw has been ignoring "all attempts to calmly and rationally inform you of the problems many of your edits there are producing in light of Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines" and asks of Willmcw "Please do not mischaracterize these critiques of your edits as "personal attacks" and please cease and desist in your misrepresentation of myself and the other editors who have corrected you for your edits in order to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would also appreciate it if you would abstain from making these false insinuations and allegations on both the article talk page and my personal talk page."

Cberlet
Attempts at trying to resolve the dispute with Cberlet (by User:Rangerdude unless noted)
 * - Detailed description of NPOV and other problems with his edits followed by a polite request to work for consensus first on the talk page and to fix the NPOV problems - "Upon consideration of the above and review of the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he or any other user is invited to propose the addition of materials here on the talk page." Cberlet rebuffed and ignored this request here with a rude 4-word response "Reverted. This is absurd."
 * - Attempt #2. Politely responded to Cberlet that "there's no need for hostility or rudeness" and politely directed him to WP:NPOV policy. Closed with polite 2nd invitation to discuss matter on talk page - "I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated. Thanks." Cberlet refused and attacked with allegation of "censorship"
 * - Attempt #3. Responded to "censorship" allegation and attack by politely directing Cberlet to Assume good faith. Offered a third opportunity to discuss the matter, but this time with a warning that continued hostility would necessitate seeking dispute resolution: "I am patient enough to permit you another opportunity to do this, but in light of the hostility you have displayed despite these multiple attempts, I am prepared to pursue dispute resolution against you in short order if the hostility persists. Thanks." Refused again by denying the problems and making an inconsequential change.
 * - Attempt #4 - again politely requested a talk page discussion: "please propose your desired additions here and I will be happy to detail what I still find objectionable as well as propose collaborative revisions of it in a manner that is more likely to reach consensus among the half dozen or so editors who are actively involved in developing this article at the very moment. Thanks." Cberlet rudely refused, made personal and bad faith allegations, said efforts on the talk page were "not worth a damn" and said to go ahead with dispute resolution as mentioned.
 * ] - User:Nskinsella responds to Cberlet that not "everyone here is working to make the article better." Expresses concern for non-neutral edits biased against LVMI by certain editors.
 * - User:Dh003i addresses Cberlet about disruptive editing, NPOV problems in his edits, lack of seriousness, and false allegations of "censorship" by Cberlet. Cberlet's response is dismissive.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Rangerdude 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * DickClarkMises 03:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Stephan Kinsella 19:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)(specific to Cberlet)
 * Wyss 19:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Response by Cberlet
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

 * This is a blatant attempt to stage a confrontation to allow the complainant and allies to hijack a page and sanitize any serious criticism of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI).

 * It should be clear from a review of the discussion page that Rangerdude and other allies of LvMI did not engage in a serious attempt to edit in good faith, and repeatedly deleted material critical of the LvMI--no matter how I and others tried to rewrite the material to meet the objections raised.

 * Over time, the justifications for these deletions ranged through a series of contradictory demands:

 * ——Simply dismissing the Southern Poverty Law Center as "partisan" and not a credible source (despite the fact that it is widely quoted in the mainstream media)(and then deleting text arbitrarily);
 * ——Demanding that material not specifically cited to LvMI in a SPLC article be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily).
 * ——When the material was cited directly to the LvMI website, demanding that "original research" be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily);
 * ——Claiming the criticisms were in the "wrong" section, (and then deleting them arbitrarily);
 * ——Deleting material and than demanding that all edits critical of LvMI be discussed on the talk page, despite the fact that they were being discussed.

 * This is a shameful episode and an attempt to impose ideological censorship on Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Cberlet 01:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) FeloniousMonk 04:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Cberlet describes a pattern which I have witnessed here before.
 * 3) Willmcw 22:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Ruy Lopez 23:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Will and Chip are both excellent editors, who in my experience exert a calming influence on controversial pages, do not engage in personal attacks, strive to maintain neutrality, and care about using good sources. SlimVirgin (talk)  05:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given the strong personal allegiances to the two accused editors exhibited both above and elsewhere on wikipedia by User:SlimVirgin I would request that this user recuse himself/herself from participation in any mediation or further dispute resolution proceedings that may arise from this dispute on the LVMI article. This editor's repeated citation of personal opinions toward the two aforementioned editors in place of substantive examination of the cited WP policy violations involving them introduce a personal bias that I believe could inhibit constructive work in a mediation or other proceeding if he/she is involved. Thank you. Rangerdude 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have this issue somewhat upside down, Rangerdude. The reason I'm supportive of Will and Chip is that they're both very good editors. I trust their judgment on issues. I've learned from watching them both edit. I've seen rancorous talk pages be calmed down by them. I've watched them both go off in search of reputable sources that others can't be bothered to look for, or haven't been able to find. I've seen them go to great lengths to track down obscure bits of information and verify it. Those are good reasons for supporting editors, and they are reasons, not bias. Anyway, I'm not sure you should be commenting like this on people's endorsements. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd also add that it's an honor to have Chip Berlet working on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 06:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) El_C 06:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC) This is an example of POV editing by individuals who have trouble accepting criticism of an organization which they have admitted close ties to. Stephan Kinsella has written for LvMI, as has dh003i. DickClarkMises is an employee of the organization. I don't think these conflicts preclude them from editing the article, but it's worth noting since they have failed to resist the urge to remove criticism from the article, instead choosing to drum up some charges against the critics.
 * 4) Robert McClenon 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Rhobite - I would urge you to resist painting all supporters of this complaint with a broad brush regarding employment, and also believe you characterize the persons affiliated with it unfairly. Stephan Kinsella, DH003i, and DickClarkMises have ALL been forthright in disclosing their involvement with LVMI during the editing process on this article and have made no attempts to cover or hide this fact. It should also be noted that Cberlet is not without professional biases in this matter - himself being a political consultant/researcher on the left who publishes material attacking the political right, in which LVMI falls - yet he did not, to my knowledge, disclose this as the LVMI affiliates have readily done. Furthermore, this RfC was initiated not by Stephan Kinsella, DickClarkMises, or DH003i but rather by myself. I have absolutely no professional affiliations, connections, or ties to the LVMI whatsoever yet nevertheless observed the same POV-pushing, disruptive behavior, irresponsible David Duke quoting smear attempts, and personally abusive comments being made by the other side that met with objections from the same LVMI affiliates you mention.
 * I never claimed that these editors were trying to hide their affiliations, and I didn't accuse you (Rangerdude) of being affiliated with the LvMI. Neither Willmcw nor Cberlet made "personally abusive comments". I don't wish to discuss this further. Rhobite 07:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * You did however insinuate that this RfC was motivated by an aversion to criticism among affiliates of the LVMI. As I am not an affiliate and as I initiated this RfC on my own that characterization is wrong, which is why I made note of it here.Rangerdude 07:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My name is on the byline of one of the SPLC articles being dismissed as "partisan," and my identity and place of employment are on my user page, and widely discussed on Wiki, including on the Wiki entry under my name. I do not think these editors are idiots and I thought that my identity was part of their problem with my edits; especially since one critic of my prose wrote on the talk page "Chip Berlet is a self-avowed big shot when it comes to 'sniffing out' supposed right-wing hate groups, and as far as I can tell is a Morris Dees wanna-be."  I do not believe there is an issue here, (and at least the person whacking me in the line above has consistently shown a sense of humor). My only concern has been that some people affiliated with or fans of LvMI do not consider themselves "partisan" in this debate--while dismissing as "partisan" any reference to SPLC material (I freelanced one article that criticized LvMI) or other criticisms.--Cberlet 11:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment to Cberlet: I was the one who wrote the above quoted txt. I had never heard of you, and had no idea about your political/professional affiliations until after this disagreement ensued. The fact that you were constantly acting in obviously bad faith (i.e. disregarding the suggestions of other editors with curt, dismissive responses) prompted me to figure out why you might be acting in such an uncooperative manner. This sort of character assassination is of course on par with the SPLC's usual activities, which is partially why I refused employment there in 2000 (I'll admit that the hour commute wasn't terribly attractive either). The difference between my bias and yours is that I wear mine on my sleeve, and don't pooh-pooh others' suggestions. Your edits seem to carry with them a sense of entitlement, as if you are somehow more of an authority than the other editors. My problem with your actions is that you don't seem to have a modicum of modesty about your contributions, and you are not willing to develop them via dialectic. 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Good work by Cberlet and Willmcw in trying to NPOV articles which were being distorted by people too close to the subject to be objective. Jayjg (talk)  16:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Bletch 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) -- M P er el ( talk 20:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Bishonen | talk 21:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Response by Nskinsella
Response to Cberlet :This is a blatant attempt to stage a confrontation to allow the complainant and allies to hijack a page and sanitize any serious criticism of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI).
 * No, criticism is normal and acceptable. But you don't "balance" a criticism with one from David Duke, duhh! Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, different editors were involved. How is that "contradictory"?

——Simply dismissing the Southern Poverty Law Center as "partisan" and not a credible source (despite the fact that it is widely quoted in the mainstream media)(and then deleting text arbitrarily); ——Demanding that material not specifically cited to LvMI in a SPLC article be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily). ——When the material was cited directly to the LvMI website, demanding that "original research" be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily); ——Claiming the criticisms were in the "wrong" section, (and then deleting them arbitrarily); ——Deleting material and than demanding that all edits critical of LvMI be discussed on the talk page, despite the fact that they were being discussed.
 * Willmcw and others kept insisting that critiques from "mere blogs" didn't count; yet Willmcw had previously linked to the Tom Palmer blog. He finally reletned to this being removed. Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No; an article about LvMI was put up. Someone noted that SPLC accuses them of racism. So I or someone else (I can't recall now) put up a critique of SPLC, by Horowitz, that their claims of racism are often exaggerated. this balances the critique. Willmcw then insists that the critique come the victim himself, LvMI. Why? makes no sense. Then he adds a "supporting" critique, noting that ex-KKK grand poobah David Duke "also" has criticized SPLC. This is just horrible political posturing. Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Rangerdude 05:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * DickClarkMises 14:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Response by JamesMLane
I participated in the discussion in response to an earlier RfC concerning article content, so I'm not exactly an "outside" view, though I made only minor edits to the article itself. This article about a libertarian think tank has been edited by several (pro-)libertarian users; in fact, one of those certifying this dispute, User:DickClarkMises, discloses on his user page that he is employed by the Institute. Not surprisingly, the article has seen some POV-inspired battles. Neither side has a spotless record, but the editors who are positively disposed toward the Institute have generally gone much further in pressing their own opinions despite Wikipedia policies. For example, it's not proper to censor notable criticisms of the Institute just because some pro-libertarian editors disagree with the criticisms, deride those criticisms as "nutty", and contrast them with "[s]erious criticism". Fundamentally, there's nothing here except a fairly typical situation in which opinionated editors (including yours truly) find the other side's NPOV violations easier to spot than their own. I find it striking that Rangerdude is complaining about the tone of the discussion, given that he's attacked Willmcw for "disruptive stunts he's pulling" and has generally been at least as abrasive as anyone else in the discussion. JamesMLane 01:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) JamesMLane 01:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) JesseW 02:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Response by Rangerdude
FuelWagon's view of the controversy as expressed here appears to be extremely one-sided, as it completely neglects multiple attempts by Willmcw and Cberlet to add several paragraphs of material favorable to the SPLC's POV. It is troubling and indicative of personal inconsistency that FuelWagon would assert the presence of a "conflict of interest" against two editors who voluntarily and openly disclosed their affiliations with LVMI while simultaneously neglecting the fact that another editor taking the opposite view, which he defends, has actually published partisan political attacks on the LVMI and attempted to insert links to his very own material into the LVMI article for the purpose of criticizing LVMI  while being less than forthright about his authorship. To my knowledge, neither User:Nskinsella nor User:DickClarkMises has attempted to insert off-site material from the LVMI that he personally authored into this article. User:Cberlet on the other hand has linked to materials that he personally authored for and published with the Southern Poverty Law Center and furthermore he did not disclose at the time of the addition that the source he cited was his own.

Just as troubling is the fact that this contributer has made a not-so-subtle insinuation against me personally, alleging a personal affiliation with the LVMI or, at least, uncertainty that suggests a personal affiliation. I have openly noted many times here and elsewhere that I have absolutely no connections to the LVMI, my only thing in common with them being that we share a libertarian outlook on some political issues. To make such an insinuation in spite of this disclosure plainly violates Assume good faith. Just as revolting is the fact that this same editor has accused me of having a "conflict of interest" for simply expressing a viewpoint of the LVMI that isn't consumed with bashing them. Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting people from editing articles simply because they are libertarians, and the fact that another editor would claim this to constitute a "conflict of interest" (and all the while ignoring the vocal partisanship of two editors who hail from the political left) smacks of viewpoint discrimination.

A simple review of the diffs cited also plainly reveals that FuelWagon has misrepresented many of my edits there. He accuses me of deleting "the vast majority of the criticism section" added by Cberlet and purports that the objections I stated in the edit summary (which also clearly and repeatedly directed editors to the talk page for more details about the problems and reasons for this edit ) did not apply. In fact, I had described the problems with this section (which was added moments before by Cberlet and cited off site articles that he himself had authored) in a detailed multi-paragraph 4 point description containing multiple references to the Wikipedia policies it violated. As may be also seen in this talk page posting, I politely approached Cberlet on this subject and asked him to bring his edits into compliance with policies there before restoring them. Cberlet reacted to this with great personal hostility and with a demonstrated unwillingness to cooperate with these polite requests, as is documented at the beginning of this RfC. Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistently-applied "conflict of interest" allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accuracy of FuelWagon's take on this matter.

Users who endorse this sign here
 * Rangerdude 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wyss 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (I don't see much effort at conciliation and consensus towards peaceful encyclopedia writing here on the part of FuelWagon, rather lots of confrontation and attempts at intimidation, while Rangerdude seems to at least be making progress at approaching the problem through WP-wide editing techniques and policy)

Response by FuelWagon
Out of curiosity, this section is titled "response" and the instructions say
 * This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

It seems that Rangerdude and others who are endorsing this RFC shouldn't be putting posts in the response section of the RFC as well. It seems to be little more than a misuse of the RFC in an attempt to continually widen the RFC to include outside commenters that they disagree with. FuelWagon 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside views
These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

View by Bishonen
I have clicked on the diffs offered and read them, and the edits by Willmcw and Cberlet that Rangerdude complains of seem perfectly reasonable to me. They consist mainly of good NPOV'ing of the article, IMO. If this is the evidence you've got, the accusations are groundless. I see little point in this RfC, but if you seriously want it to be accepted, you need to get hold of someone neutral to attempt mediation, however informally, so that you've got something other than your own side of arguments (including some flames) to put under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". That's not what that section is for, and dressing it up by calling your opponent's posts "allegations" and "attacks" and your own "polite" is just... well, I don't know what to call it, it just makes me laugh. "Responded to "censorship" allegation and attack by politely directing Cberlet to Assume good faith". Man, that's some dispute resolution.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Bishonen | talk 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yet another misuse of the RfC process against two very good editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Viajero | Talk 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Bletch 01:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Ruy Lopez 04:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 06:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) El_C 06:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Jayjg (talk)  16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) JimWae 17:51, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
 * 11) Based on evidence, accusations are groundless. -- M P er el ( talk 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC). The characterizations of the edits (as "personal attacks," etc.) do not seem to me be neutral, accurate, or objective. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

View by JimWae
Should not 4 certifications be required against 2 people? Do we not need to remove doubt that this is an attempt at guilt by association, particularly since that is part of the issue regarding some of the edits? RfC should be split in two--JimWae 04:47, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

View by Sam Spade
Evidence of Disputed Behavior
 * Spurious Plagiarism_allegations
 * More evidence of sources having been cited in the article as well as in talk, in contrast to his allegations
 * Instructs an editor to "overhaul your attitude" in reply to an attempt to discuss recent and future edits
 * Remarks comparing statements made by an editor to the "homoeroticism of fascism"
 * Spurious accusation of vandalism
 * He admits to assuming bad faith

Attempts at trying to resolve the dispute with Cberlet by User:Sam Spade
 * Refusal of informal mediation
 * more refusal of informal mediation
 * Requests_for_mediation
 * Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Sam Spade
 * WP:TINMC

I think moving my evidence and signature was weird, this page is not about a specific article, it is about specific people. Since this is the first RfC for two individuals, I find it unusual to set the precedent of moving signatures and evidence presented by the agreived, entirely without consulting them. That said, I dispute the conduct of Cberlet, which is evidenced above. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - Sam - I moved your signature etc. here as a formatting edit in response to complaints on the discussion page, although I am more or less indifferent on the placement if you feel you have a good reason to include it in the section about Cberlet. I would urge you to discuss this issue further on the talk page section where the other complaints were posted, and if need be we can move it as needed. Thanks Rangerdude 02:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

View by Wyss
The article's purpose is to describe the organisation, including its history and what it does. Given the topic's polarization, any documented criticisms specific to the organisation should all be isolated in a separate section called criticisms or something similar. Any generic criticisms of the Austrian school of economics belong in that article, not this one. Wyss 19:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

View by Robert McClenon
This is really two issues, an issue about article content and an issue about user conduct. I agree with the author of the RfC as to article content. The content that the two users introduced into the article was POV, and was not a reasonable addition to the article, even if presented as POV. Any reference to David Duke that is not a direct connection is out of place. Any statements by the Southern Poverty Law Center are also POV. It is not clear why their POV is necessary for the reader to understand what the LvMI is or does.

Having looked at the diffs, I think that the originator of the RfC has made a very marginal case as to user conduct. There may have been breaches of civility, but they were not flagrant. The originator has been overly sensitive in labelling a statement as profanity.

I suggest that the two editors in question refrain from further edits to the article, or at least from further partisan edits to the article, and that the issue of user conduct be allowed to subside. Robert McClenon 21:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Rangerdude 05:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - I concur with the recommendation portion of this view re: partisan edits.
 * My impression too, is they were seeding the article with incendiary, negative PoV. IMO (as I wrote above) a separate criticism section, with summaries arrived at by consensus, would likely work. Wyss 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

View by FuelWagon
This took some parsing to figure out what's going on. The three individuals who certified this RFC: Rangerdude, DickClarkMises, and Nskinsella appear to have a conflict of interest over the Mises Institute article.

DickClarkMises says on his user page that he is employed at the Mises institute.

user Nskinsella says on his user page that he is an adjunct scholar of the Mises institute.

Whether or not Rangerdude is employed by the Mises Institute is unclear, however his opinion regarding the institute is fairly clear when he made the edit below. Rangerdude added the piece that is italicized:

 * Citing some mutual affiliations between the Institute and the League of the South, the Southern Poverty Law Center - a controversial left wing watchdog group that conservative intellectual David Horowitz has accused of fear-mongering -claims the Mises Institute to be a Neo-confederate organization.

DickClarkMises and Nskinsella are is editing an article about their his employer, Nskinsella is editing an article on an organization for which he is an unpaid "adjunct scholar", the Mises Institute, which happens to be a political organization based in Alabama that does not qualify anywhere near "mainstream". The Mises Institute's stated goal is to "undermine statism in all its forms", appears to default to criticism of the federal government on any topic, and didn't like the way Abraham Lincoln handled the civil war, which might be explained by the fact that they also happen to support the right of secession.

The current state of the article is problematic. I haven't tracked down which editor added what, but the "Controversies" section at one point contained a one-word criticism of the Mises institute from the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC), followed by several paragraphs criticizing the SPLC. The SPLC called the Mises institute "Neo Confederate". This point of view was followed not by other points of views about the Mises institute, but by several points of view critical of the SPLC. I see that the section has undergone a major rewrite since I saw it yesterday. It appears that the article is not implementing NPOV correctly, and should list various points of view of teh Mises institute, not one criticism of it, followed by reams of criticism of the criticism. If it refocused on the Mises institute, then things might be brought back on track.

As for the three certifiers, I'm not sure what wikipedia policy is about editing an article about your employer, but there is a personal conflict of interest at work here. Two politically motivated individuals (one paid employee, the other unpaid volunteer) of a political organization seem to be bringing their POV to the article without filtering it through wikipedia's Neutral Point of View requirements.

As for the editors in question of the RFC, this diff by Cberlet seems to indicate an attempt to add criticism within NPOV requirements. The criticism added is quoting what the SPLC says about the Mises institute based on quotes the SPLC has from Mises Institute archives. This diff shows Willmcw adding criticism of the Mises instutite which also seems to meet wikipedia NPOV requirements. The criticism is in the form of "Ed Sebesta says (blah) about Mises institute". Both Cberlet and Willmcw's edits contained URL's to outside sources.

In this diff, Rangerdude deletes the vast majority of the criticism section, citing "original research" and that the critics are "unnamed". However, the block of text removed contained 9 URL's, direct quotes from the Mises institute website, and lists the SPLC and a "London newspaper" (with URL), as the sources of criticism.

In this diff, Nskinsella adds a sentence countering the SPLC criticism.

 * Opponents of this kind of charge view it as merely an excess of political correctness run amok, and frequently note that such so-called politically-correct and liberal types often excuse or whitewash--hypocritically, some say--the genocides and mass murders committed during the twentieth century by governments they would otherwise view as benevolent.

This would seem to qualify as original research as it contains absolutely zero sources. Given Nskinsella's employment volunteer situation, it might also qualify as the point of view of the editor entering the article behind the unnamed "opponents".

User DickClarkMises has few edits on the Mises Institute page. The ones he has made have been relatively minor. This diff shows him correctly changing the wording of criticism from a statement of fact to a claim by critic, which I would support. Other than that, he uploaded an image and made non-controversial edits. On the "votes for deletion Stephan Kinsella" page, DickClarkMises states that he was the original contributer on the Stephan Kinsella article, which means he started an article about someone who would become his coworker, if I'm reading this all correctly.

In summary, it is my opinion that the conflict of interest that two employees one employee/one unpaid volunteer have regarding an article about their employer, and Rangerdude's political alliance with the Mises institute, is likely far more the root of the problem here than any wikipedia policy violations by Cberlet or Willmcw. FuelWagon 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Revised Point of View by McClenon
I have reviewed this controversy in much more detail now. I originally said that there was two issues, one of article content, and one of user conduct. I still agree. I thought at the time that Rangerdude had valid issues about article content. I thought at the time that any complaint about user conduct was at best marginal.

As to article content, the article has been very well revised. The POV of the Southern Poverty Law Center is now presented as POV, and its relevance is clear. I have no major issues with the content of the article. I think that Cberlet and Willmcw have done a commendable job of revising the article while they were being questionably accused of misconduct.

As to user conduct, I now do see a user conduct issue. It is by Rangerdude. This is an RfC that has gotten out of control. There are very precise guidelines for how an RfC on user conduct should be presented. Rangerdude is inserting his own commentary into this RfC in an improper way (unless I am mistaken).

I originally thought that this was an issue between two organizations that dislike each other. It is. It is also a resulting dispute between adherents of these organizations, some of whom are being civil, some of whom are not.

Rangerdude has made some very strong demands. He has demanded that various editors recuse themselves from this commentary due to friendship with or agreement with other parties. This is not a Request for Arbitration or a Request for Mediation. He is not entitled to exclude Wikipedians who agree with the other editors. If he thinks that he is entitled to that, while he can have Wikipedians who agree with him endorse this RfC, then either he is being immature or he is being unreasonable.

I think that Cberlet and User:Willmcw have shown restraint and civility. I do not think that Rangerdude has done that.

I do see civility issues. I do not intend to write up an RfC against Rangerdude. I have enough existing disputes. I will sign an RfC against Rangerdude, as an involved party.

I suggest that the originator of this RfC simply delete it from the Requests for comment page as overtaken by events. If he chooses to continue with it, he should refrain from posting responses to outside opinions directly on the RfC.

Users who endorse this sign here
 * Robert McClenon 02:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wyss 02:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (Rangerdude, I strongly urge you to call off this RfC and try letting the people it has attracted assist in repairing and building this article by consensus)
 * El_C 02:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * -- M P er el ( talk 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * · Katefan0(scribble) 21:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Announcements
Announcements pertaining to the conclusion of the RfC

Response to Robert McClenon and issues of closing the RFC
Robert McClenon. Thank you again for your input, however I believe that you have severely mistaken some of my positions and actions here as several are misrepresented above. If you will take a moment to review my requests regarding the recusal of certain editors, you will find that I explicitly stated that it would apply only to those editors' involvement in the event mediation or arbitration is necessary. Nowhere did I "demand" that they "recuse themselves from this commentary," nor have I ever attempted to exclude comments. If you believe otherwise I invite you to show me, though I assure you that was not my intent. A simple review of my comments sufficiently demonstrates that I did not make the "demands" that you have falsely attributed to me:

Furthermore, I stated in this post that "participation of all editors is welcome on an RfC" indicating that this request for recusal was NOT intended to apply to the said persons' participation at the RfC. Given this, it appears that the position you attribute to me misrepresents my actual stated position on the subject. I do not believe you did so intentionally, and again I apologize if I was not clear enough, however I must also request that you either retract or remove the said allegation against me as it is not representative of a position I took.
 * "Given that a situation in which personal allegiances have exhibited themselves during the dispute resolution has emerged and given the possibility that this particular dispute may require future actions under the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, among them mediation and, if necessary, arbitration or some further intervention, I have become increasingly concerned that the result will be to prolong the dispute itself and inhibit the reaching of a solution that is agreeable to all sides."
 * "Should this indeed become the situation and should this dispute necessitate further procedures such as mediation and/or arbitration, I must request that any contributer with strong personal and/or political allegiances to either User:Willmcw, User:Cberlet or both recuse him or herself from any administrative, mediator, arbitrator, or other related third party role in subsequent steps of this dispute resolution"

As to comments on this RfC, the overwhelming majority of those I have authored are located on the article's discussion page. Far from being inappropriate, this is the explicitly designated area for commentary of exactly this type. The lone exception was posted above as a counterviewpoint to FuelWagon who personally attacked both myself and others, and was posted strictly in self defense. As the course of that conversation devolved into an exchange I also relocated it in its entirity to the discussion page where it may be found presently.

Furthermore, if you will review the recent history of the LVMI article located at you will find that users Willmcw and Cberlet have a combined total of only two edits in the last three days, one of them minor and neither substantially altering or advancing the article. I do not see how this could be called "a commendable job of revising the article," as neither has contributed much of anything in revisions since the RfC began. In reality, the majority of the work to that article between then and now has been done by Wyss, JamesMLane, and myself. On the issue of civility, I must respond that I have consistently employed a reasonable and courteous tone in addressing other editors to the extent that patience permits. Only in cases where I have been personally attacked or approached with plainly disingenuine intent have I been anything less than polite, and even then I do not believe myself to have breached civility.

I do agree that the content of the article has greatly improved since the RfC largely as a result of the new editors it attracted. That said, I am content to withdraw the RfC within 24 hours of this posting for the reason of mootness in light of subsequent revisions, pending that the new revisions are allowed to remain and attempts to restore the original problematic edits do not resume. Thank you again for your consideration and assistance in this matter. Rangerdude 05:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The remark re Willmcw and Cberlet, "a commendable job of revising the article," raised my eyebrows too. However it's about the only remark in Robert McClenon's comment I have any meaningful disagreement with and I do commend Willmcw and Cberlet for their calm and measured participation in this RfC since while they plainly do have strong PoVs on this topic, they've shown deliberate willingness to ultimately cooperate with Wikipedia procedures and consensus. Wyss 16:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In further retrospect, it does appear that I gave credit to Willmcw and Cberlet for revising the article that should have been given to JamesMLane. Robert McClenon 17:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry to see it go, but the praise belongs to JamesMLane. I have supported his edits on the page.--Cberlet 17:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Closing RfC
As indicated above, the RfC is now closed and removed to the archive. Thank you to all who participated constructively in this effort. Rangerdude 03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.


text:
Brown–Forman

Brown–Forman Corporation is an American-based company, one of the largest in the spirits and wine business. Based in Louisville, Kentucky, it manufactures several very well known brands throughout the world, including Jack Daniel's, Old Forester, Woodford Reserve, GlenDronach, BenRiach, Glenglassaugh, Herradura, Korbel, and Chambord. Brown–Forman formerly owned Southern Comfort and Tuaca before selling them off in 2016.

As of fiscal 2016 the company had sales of $3.08 billion. The roughly 40 members of the Brown family, cousins that are descendants of founder George Garvin Brown, control more than 70% of the voting shares and in 2016 had a net worth of $12.3 billion.

The company is a sponsor of the Brown–Forman Retailer of the Year awards given by the American Beverage Licensees.

History
According to one source, the company was founded in 1870 by George Garvin Brown, a young pharmaceuticals salesman in Louisville, and his partner John Forman.

Brown had the then-novel idea of selling top-grade whiskey in sealed glass bottles.

A different source says the company was founded by Brown alone and he brought in his accountant as a partner in 1890.

In 1890, the company's name was changed to Brown–Forman and Company in order to reflect the partnership. Despite the temperance movement in America, the company prospered.

Forman was not sure the idea of selling whiskey in glass bottles would be a good business strategy in the long term, and he sold his interest to Brown and Brown's family in 1902.

According to some sources, Brown's partner's given name was George (rather than John) and he died in 1901, and Brown purchased his stock, and shortly after this, Brown–Forman was incorporated.

Yet another slightly different story is told in a source published in 1905, saying Brown began in J. T. S. Brown & Bro., which reorganized as Brown, Chambers & Co. in 1873, then Chambers & Brown a year later, then Brown, Thompson & Co. six years later, and then, upon the withdrawal of Thompson, became Brown, Forman & Co. in 1889, and then after Forman's death in 1901, became the Brown–Forman Company.

In 1904, Owsley Brown, George Garvin Brown's son, came into the business. When George Garvin Brown died at the age of 70 in 1917, his son, Owsley, took over as president of Brown–Forman.

With the onset of Prohibition in the United States, Brown–Forman was granted one of six national licenses to produce medicinal whiskey.

In 2005, the company sold its Lenox division (one of the oldest and most famous manufacturers of fine china in the United States), which had been acquired in 1983, to Department 56 for $160 million. The income generated by the sale was distributed to the shareholders in the form of a one time special dividend.

In 2006, the company acquired the Chambord liqueur brand (a super-premium black raspberry liqueur produced in France) for $255 million.

In 2007, the company acquired Tequila Herradura, a Mexican company that produces the Casa Herradura tequila brand (a super-premium tequila produced in Mexico) for $776 million, while it also sold its Hartman Luggage division (one of the leaders in the travel goods industry and originally a subdivision of Lenox), to Clarion Capitol Partners. One year later in 2008, it sold the Bolla and Fontana Candida Italian wine brands to Gruppo Italiano Vini (GIV). The terms of neither sale were disclosed.

In 2011, the company sold Fetzer Vineyards and associated brands to Chilean wine producer Viña Concha y Toro S.A. for $238 million.

In 2016, the Southern Comfort and Tuaca brands were sold to Sazerac Company for $543 million.

In 2016, Brown–Forman also reached an agreement to purchase the BenRiach Distillery Company Limited for approximately £285 million. The purchase brought BenRiach, GlenDronach and Glenglassaugh to Brown–Forman's portfolio.

In 2020, the company sold the Early Times and Canadian Mist brands to Sazerac Company.

In January 2021, Chairman George Garvin Brown IV retired. His brother, Campbell P. Brown, was selected to replace him.

In November 2023, Brown-Forman announced the sale of Finlandia vodka to The Coca-Cola Company for $220 million.

Stocks
Brown–Forman has two classes of common stock, both of which are traded publicly on the New York Stock Exchange. The Class A shares carry voting privileges and are thinly traded due to control by the Brown family while the Class B shares are non-voting stock.

Brands
Brown–Forman beverage brands include:

American whiskey:

Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey: Old Forester, Woodford Reserve

Tennessee whiskey: Jack Daniel's

Canadian whisky: Collingwood

Irish whiskey: Slane

Scotch whisky:

Single malt Scotch whisky: BenRiach, GlenDronach, Glenglassaugh

Gin: Fords

Liqueur: Chambord

Ready-to-drink coolers: Little Black Dress

Tequila: Don Eduardo, El Jimador, Herradura, Pepe Lopez

Wine: Korbel (distributed), Sonoma-Cutrer Wines

Environmental impact
In 2009, Newsweek magazine ranked Brown–Forman in their "Green Rankings" which examines 500 of the largest corporations on their environmental track record. Brown–Forman was ranked 63rd out of 500 overall, and was ranked third in the food and beverage industry sector.

Illegal subsidization in China
In 2011, Brown–Forman was accused of illegally subsidizing its distributors in China, and subsequently delaying payment to them as agreed under contract. The Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce fined Brown–Forman 2 million renminbi (US$320,000) for illegal subsidization.

title: Brown–Forman


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chermak

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Chermak
Delete ad/spam -- Etacar11   22:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete made me want to visit, but, unfortunatly, it's advertisement.-Poli (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
 * Comment, while this article is a clear delete, the word gets 17000 Google hits. I suspect there may exist a disambiguation page for this. -Splash 01:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The word is English transcription of common Czech surname Čermák, hence the popularity. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chermak


text:
Dotmusic

Dotmusic was a music webzine that existed as a standalone website from 1 June 1995 to December 2003. Initially intended as the web complement to the UK music industry trade magazine Music Week, the site was relaunched in December 1998 as a website for music fans with features, interviews and the UK charts. The site was edited by Andy Strickland and among its most prominent writers were Nimalan Nadesalingam (Nimalan Nades) who contributed artist biographies and James Masterton who contributed a weekly UK chart commentary. After an internship in summer 2000, Alex Donne Johnson used his experience at Dotmusic to go on and found the urban music website RWDmag, which later become one of the key players in the development of grime, UK garage and dubstep online.

Dotmusic included one of the earliest pay download music services, Dotmusic On Demand. It was also famous for its discussion forum, one of the most popular and active message boards in the UK. As well as forums devoted to various artists, there was a free-for-all, off-topic forum called Dotmusic Lite, known as DotLite for short. A number of DotCons - conventions for Dotmusic users - were held in cities around the UK from 1999 onwards.

There was a major online marketing campaign in 1999, followed by a TV press and online campaign in 2000. The site was regularly in the top ten sites for children.

Dotmusic was originally owned by Miller Freeman, Inc., before being sold to BT in 2002. In 2003, the site was sold to Yahoo! and subsequently incorporated into Yahoo!'s UK based music portal, UK Launch. The main Dotmusic site shut down at the end of 2003. The regular forum posters created a number of replacement boards in an effort to retain the community.

title: Dotmusic


text:
User:Patrickcochran

Please do not insert unsubstantiated rumors into Wikipedia. We need all of our material to be verifiable. -Willmcw 22:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Patrickcochran