Cigarlover

Fair use rationale for Image:AndreGarciaLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AndreGarciaLogo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AndreGarciaLogo.gif}

Thank you for uploading Image:AndreGarciaLogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

File:AndreGarciaLogo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AndreGarciaLogo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Cloudbound (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:ANDREGARCIA-GREEN-LOGO.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) 11:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andre Garcia (brand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

File:ANDREGARCIA-GREEN-LOGO.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ANDREGARCIA-GREEN-LOGO.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(@WikiDan61:) : This is clear now. Will add the citation accordingly.

Actually, since the logo is no longer used on the Andre Garcia page, it no longer qualifies for fair use and will probably be deleted anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Documentation of Attempt to Resolve content dispute around Neutrality

CigarLover stated > (@WikiDan61:) I changed the below verbiage out of courtesy to resolve this issue. However, it is important that I must document and show that your assessment is rather superficial and incorrect. See below for a detailed explanation.

Although the stated purpose of your edits was to "[a]djust tone of the content towards neutrality to remove any sense of advertisement or endorsement", you have failed in this purpose. Phrases and content from your edits that fail neutrality:

• @WikiDan61: stated > Andre Garcia brand's guiding principle was one size does not fit all. (Andre Garcia's "guiding principle" is not encyclopedic, but can only be considered promotional)

CigarLover response > The brand was built on that guiding principle. So the deliberation made by you that the intened use is promotional is incorrect.

• @WikiDan61: stated > Roy pioneered a spectrum of sizes... (consider "created" rather than "pioneered" as we have no evidence that he was, in fact, a pioneer in this design)

CigarLover response > The word 'pioneered' is not promotional, since there was no earlier precedence that existed in the cigar case which introduced a spectrum of sizes. So your assumption is incorrect.

• @WikiDan61: stated > the company launched a unique zipper—enclosed top. (use of the word unique here is promotional)

CigarLover response > The word 'unique' is not promotional here, but rather appropriate to communicate to the reader the true intent of the word unique. Given this uniqueness, it was granted a patent in India and has one pending in the US.

US Patent Info Patent Ref:

Indian Patent Info, enter 329278 to search [1]

• @WikiDan61: stated >The urbane design incorporates a humidification stick neatly hidden in the bottom compartment. (urbane: promotional; neatly: promotional)

CigarLover response > I removed that phrase to avoid back-and-forth argument on this. But I do not agree with your opinion here. It is style of writing. See here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urbane

• @WikiDan61: stated >The brand gained instant popularity (unverified and non-neutral)

CigarLover response > Disagree with your above statement. The narrative The brand gained instant popularity is well supported by the following data: Multiple prestigious journals which are highly regarded in the luxury world and within cigar enthusiasts had written favourable reviews on the product during its introduction years. These were not paid advertisements. e.g. Robb Report, Cigar Aficionado, European Cigar Cult, etc. See detailed citations in the Reference Section in Andre_Garcia_(brand)

(@WikiDan61:) stated >Also, you have deleted links to external content. I believe you have misunderstood our discussion about copyrights. It is perfectly allowable to link to copyrighted magazine content, as long as we link to the magazine's website, and don't copy the content to Wikipedia's website.

CigarLover response > I had added the external links, but you repeatedly went and deleted them.

• @WikiDan61: stated > Because of all of these issues, I'm going to revert your changes. It appears that you may have motivation to bolster the reputation of the Andre Garcia brand. If you are editing on their behalf and have a conflict of interest with this topic (e.g. you work for them), you are required to disclose this conflict of interest. Regardless of any conflict, given the problems you've had editing this article so far, I would recommend that you refrain from editing further without first gaining consensus for your edits at the article's talk page first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

CigarLover response > As I tried to explain above, your above assessment and various WP:No personal attacks now shows were based on superficial interpretation and show WP:Prejudice to an infrequent contributor like myself. You have since committed multiple WP:3RR which is against wiki policies, and I personally feel being WP:HOUNDed by you.

The contents that you are flagging as advertisement, are not my content. These are coming from the author of these publications, hence they were supported with citations.

You can go to an older version, and look up the actual publication and verify this for yourself.

Let me know how we can resolve this. I feel I am wasting my time updating a site after 10 yrs.

* @WikiDan61: stated > Cigarlover: your response raises two issues:

1. The content is your content because you added it to Wikipedia. If you did not write the words but are only copying them from the source, that's plagiarism; please write all content in your own words.
2. Not all sources are equally valid or neutral. Many magazines have as their purpose the promotion of brands (often based on payment from those brands). Such writing is called advertorial. It is up to the Wikipedia editor (you, in this case) to assess the source, and extract the facts while rejecting the promotion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

CigarLover response > Ok, it is reasonable to remove words that you are flagging. Part of this has to do with the understanding of what is acceptable in the wiki. My original understanding (now I see it is a misunderstanding) is that contents, when coming from publications, are authentic, as it has been published and consumed by the public. I generally agree with what you are saying in terms of taking contents from anywhere with a grain of salt. However I would not apply this approach as the de-facto standard either.

For. eg, it makes no sense to rephrase "Just Do It" campaign launched by Nike, even though some may argue that it is promoting Nike. While Andre Garcia Brand is no Nike, but as authors and content moderators ( me and you ), we should look at this with the lens where paraphrasing contents does not destroy the article.

When I get time, I will re-visit and try to rephrase the terms that you flagged.

CigarLover response > I have since done more reading on wiki policies and while I gave you the earlier benefit of doubt and changed the verbiage, as explained above, I have provided evidence that refutes your earlier assessments and remarks. --Cigarlover (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

CigarLover stated >(@WikiDan61:) In the meantime, I would suggest, you to modify the content as you feel right, without deleting citations. I am frustrated that you have reverted all the clean citations that I added in my last edit that you reverted. Please do the necessary edits but restore the citations that I added.

I have not deleted your citations (except where a citation was used to source purely promotional content). I have merely formatted them properly so the link is applied to the text rather than standing as a separate entity. I have also consolidated duplicate citations into a single citation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

CigarLover stated > Demonstrates my attempt to resolve issues amicably.

CigarLover stated >(@WikiDan61:) Can you pls take a look at the below revert. I see lot of content got deleted as part of this revert, include links to CII interviews and citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andre_Garcia_(brand)&diff=1026359360&oldid=1026358347 Once you have it restored, we can rephrase the verbiage that you flagged earlier to make them neutral. Please ping me once you get a chance to do so.

CigarLover stated > Demonstrates my attempt to resolve issues amicably.

@WikiDan61: response >Interviews are generally not considered reliable sources. Interview subjects have a motivation to promote themselves or their companies, and are rarely neutral on such topics. We prefer to rely on non-primary sources (such as company reviews that do not rely on company personnel providing information) for neutral information about companies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

CigarLover response >(@WikiDan61:)I would not generalize that all interviews are biased, in fact it could be quite the contrary. If you watch the interview you will see what I am saying.

At this point, I would beg to differ with your broad generalization and would like to take us towards a more objective closure on this.

Unless you can pinpoint specifics on the interview that goes against the wiki principle, I would prefer to include that as a citation.

(@WikiDan61:) Refuting your earlier red-flags. I just wanted to point that it is acceptable to include external links and sources that may seem biased. Here is a good jog on ..what is acceptable as external citation and biased sources. Cigarlover^ChatMe!09:18, 2 June 2021 (EST) However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Edit Warring

(@WikiDan61:) I believe I have addressed all the items that you had flagged earlier. I have also addressed redundant citations that were caused due to unique ref names and added dates to those which otherwise appeared to be the same citation. Please let me know if you find anything else that you would like to discuss from the perspective of wiki guidelines and not based on your personal interpretations of what is acceptable. I would rather have you leave me a note here, so we can attempt to work together in some reasonable way to address any quality issue with the content moderation. What I find unacceptable is, you disregarding my edits based on your own personal judgments and interpretations of what is non-compliant. I have previously pointed out to you wiki's published guidelines on such matters. I hope we can agree to disagree in a decent way, and not abuse our voluntary moderator tenure.

(@WikiDan61:) I just wanted to bring to your attention, that you may have violated the WP:3RR and I feel being personally WP:HOUNDED by you. I would request you to refrain from further WP:HOUND and WP:3RR, instead engage in constructive discussions on the talk page in the future. You may want to review WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

I have neither edit warred (I have not reverted more than 3 times within a 24-hour period) nor have I hounded you (which would involve following you across several discussion fora, which I have not done), although I have evaluated your contributions both here and at Commons and attempted to address problems with them. The present state of the Andre Garcia (brand) page is better than when I found it, but still needs work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it should not reflect the tone of Cigar Afficionado or Robb Report which are written essentially to promote the subjects of their articles. Also, the format of the citations is incorrect. I have tried to correct them for you, but you insist on undoing my correction. Rather than continuing to butt heads over the issue, I will just point you to the {{cite web}} template and its cousin {{cite journal}} that can be used for magazine articles. I recommend that you learn how to use these templates to properly format web site and magazine citations.

(@WikiDan61:) stated > Since you do not appear to want any further help with this article, I will leave you to it. (Remember though, you don't own the article, and other editors will edit it, not always to your liking. That is the nature of Wikipedia.) Happy editing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

CigarLover response > I am still learning the ropes of how to use wiki features in its true potential. This is work in progress, and I very much appreciate pointers similar to what you just now provided. However, your earlier approach of reverting articles and making premature conclusions and accusations on my intent was not the right approach by any means. You do not own the content either so you have no right to revert articles written by another author just because you may have got away doing this too many times, and feel it is right modus of operandi for a moderator. I have tried my best to stay objective in our communications and I took time to respond to earlier statements as you can see in the earlier section of this talk page. I am open to collaboration in the future and you are more than welcome to be a critique. I see progress already in our communication, and glad to see that you are ready to listen.--Cigarlover (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Eckhart Tolle seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I kindly advice you to stop editing this article. It's clear that you're unable to contribute in a neutral, dispassionate way. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(@Joshua Jonathan:)

I just wanted to bring to your attention, that you have violated the WP:3RR.

It appears you have a strong bias in boosting ET's public impression by ensuring wide criticism of him is not included in the wiki article. At this point please take this as a notice, and refrain yourself any further reverts, to avoid escalation. Do you get paid or work for ET ? Cigarlover (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you have no clue what WP:3RR means: I made a single series of edits at 21 june, and then at 24 june, repairing your trashing of the article with your WP:OR and violations of WP:NPOV. You, in contrast:

1. [2] 14:18, 24 June 2021 "Updated with citation. Any revert will be escalated"
2. [3] 14:45, 24 June 2021
3. [4] 15:33, 24 June 2021
4. [5] 15:44, 24 June 2021

Also, your comment User:Joshua Jonathan has past history of repeated edit warring 3RR behavior on multiple wiki articles and thus disrupting the neutrality of the articles. at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Rray reported by User:Cigarlover (Result: Full protection)]] is higly offensive and without warrant. See also this comment diff: We need to escalate this, as this seems like a concerted effort by a 70$ Million dollar Eckhart Empire to create wiki articles that promote his image.. I'm hardly willing to accept or tolerate misplaced accuations like this. Go on like this, and you will be blocked very soon for sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua Jonathan - You have an authoritative style and approach with your edits. The content in ET's page is superflous and infalted with praises that does not cross check with even the cited references. Clearly this is work of deceit and you are now protecting that work. You are not an authority in wiki. Please stay objective. You cannot delete content that has valid citation and can be cross checked while protecting uncorroborated content. You are clearly NOT working towards the interest of wiki.--Cigarlover (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, take this as a clear warning: stop casting unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua Jonathan : You will need disclose WP:DISCLOSE your affiliation with Eckhart's organization and record that you are not affiliated and paid WP:PE by his organization. Until you do that, it is clear that your edits fall under WP:COI--Cigarlover (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion (talk · contribs) I have not attacked anyone. Please see active discussion in Eckhart's talk page where I am trying my best to co-operate and discuss issues. Thanks to C.Fred (talk · contribs).--Cigarlover (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comment immediately above my warning is a personal attack. Stop doing that. Drop the stick. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion (talk · contribs) I apologize if I appeared to be unintentionally attacking. My intent is to make sure, the edit warriors disclose their affiliations before we can have a discussion that is free of WP:COI. Can you please step in and also help us here.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Second warning: "edit warriors" is also a personal attack. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Third warning: refrain from comments like "There is a strong wall of resistance that is keeping this page as a marketing tool for Eckhart." diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Talkpages

Could you please be more carefull when editing talkpages?

• Use indentation
• Don't add your comments inbetween the comments of other persons
• Sign your comments

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been amply warned against pushing aspersions against other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)