Talk:Forbes list of billionaires (2007)

message: I say Carlos Slim goes A and you change the modifications and you add the few missing billionaires and then you just let the list develop ,there are many missing even in the forbes list, we should look as a more open point of view like the french wikipedia which is based on forbes but alos based on many other site
it is much better, for reel
Where is K.P.SING of DLF?
DLF is a real estate company from India. It has been listed in THE STOCK MARKET recently. According to the new equations, K.P.SING is worth 21 billion$. He is not shown properly in this list. Please check.
Yes he is worth that much now,with his family. So someone needs to place him 
above Miss Bettencourt and below Larry Ellison
***For the love of God stop removing useful stuff on wikipedia....fix it don't get rid of it.
There is a user in our community who is compromising the accuracy of the list. Nobel Prize winner for Goober Tech, Mr. Huda, and the remarkable Philly Anderson (Analog to Digital Conversion (DAC)) were removed off the list. This is an outrage.
:When I was writing this, Carlos Slim Helú was missing, although he is third in the list. Someone is deleting things.--200.125.49.54 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put Slim back.  You can thank 209.244.188.141 for vandalizing the #2 entry here and then someone blanked the entry which was an honest mistake since Buffett was previously widely publicized as #2. Also, a new #7 and #8 were vandalism additions as some point - I removed those.  Comparing to Forbes (accounting for the Slim-Buffett switch), the top 24 positions appear to be correct as of the 22:32, 13 May 2007 version. --Georgeryp 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Forbes site was checked.  You missed the update Forbes did in April 2007 about Buffett and Slim or just read the top of this here "List of billionaires (2007)" Wikipedia page. --Georgeryp 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good suggestion.  You were right, someone just swapped #2 and #3 again and changed their reported net-worth's back to the lower values in the original Forbes list. I added <ref name="2ndRichesUpdate042007"> references to both the rankings and dollar values - maybe that over does it but that way if they look at the rank OR compare the net-worths to the original article, they'll realize there's a reference justifying these.  I also added some mention in the first sentence of this article, that Forbes did an "updated"... this is all kind of rediculous given the mention that market changes/exchange rates make many of these rankings indistinguishable.  I'm done fighting this (mostly irrelevant) battle - maybe it's just better to make them reflect the original March 2007 article since these lists are released every year and this article is not titled "Current list of billionaires" but instead is intended as a snapshot in time. --Georgeryp 03:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate!!! 

message: Where's the source of the list? And it's so poorly written, i suggest deleting it until Forbes publishes the official list.
--wil osb 13:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: an argument completely incompatible with deleting it as a copyright violation.
Copying the words Forbes used is a copyvio. However, Forbes has no copyright in the actual ranks, which are  facts. There is no copyright in facts, only in expressions.
I therefore removed the speedy. Unless you can show substantial verbal identity it isn't a copyvio. But the article does need references. DGG 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: Image:Forbes rich list.xls DavidMcKenzie 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added an excel sheet to aid formatting 

message: It would be a shame if this were deleted.  This is valuable information that people would like to look back at in 10 - 20 - 50 years to see how wealth is distributed, accumulated, etc.  This will be a great resource and reference for the future.  It may need added work, but certainly not deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.75.15 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DO NOT DELETE 

message: SLIM IS MEXICAN I CONFIRM THIS SAYING ,HE IS NOT A LEBANESE PASSPORT HOLDER
can we settle the ongoing dispute over Carlos Slim Helú?  he was born in mexico, he lives in mexico, he carries a passporte from mexico, and  he derives his wealth from mexico. that he visits grandma in beirut twice out of the year does not make him lebanese. can we pleeeeze stop this nonsense!!? --emerson7 | Talk 05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Carlos Slim Helu calls him a Lebanese-Mexican. Apparently that was a recent addition. FCYTravis 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos Slim Helú 

message: I AGREE AND I THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT FORBES SHOULD NOT BE OUR ONLY POINT OF REFERENCEWE SHOULD HAVE A CONSTRUCTED LIST WITH SEVERAL SOURCES
books, magazines, ets..
I'm getting sick and tired of Wikipedia deleting everything.  Do not delete this article.  It is useful information and one of the best things about Wikipedia is lists like this.  Sod the copyright violations - if Forbes or whoever have a problem then let them sue Wikipedia.  It's time that big companies like them had their arses kicked in the courts.  Millions of people use Wikipedia and information deserves to be free.  Xanucia 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not delete 

message: why is some people born in one country but a different country flag is used. 
e.g. "Mohammed Al Amoudi" Born in Ethiopia and resides in saudi arabia but is flaged as only Yemen on the 2007 billionaires list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires_%282007%29
Yemen is not his country of birth, citizenship, or residency.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank_4.html
EDITED —The preceding comment is by Tube3255 (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts! 
:* This article needs to state what the "Country" column represents.  Is it the country of birth, citizenship, or residency? Forbes lists both citizenship AND residence.  For Mohammed Al Amoudi that appears to be Saudi Arabia for both. --Georgeryp 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * After further examination, since this page references the Forbes list, I changed Mohammed Al Amoudi's entry to SAU (Saudi Arabia) from YEM (Yemen) to reflect the citizenship shown there and on his Wikipedia page. Note: This page did have SAU earlier, then it became SAU and ETH (Ethiopia) , later only ETH but then changed to YEM . Starting at the top of the list, looking at Ingvar Kamprad, Lakshmi Mittal, and Roman Abramovich, where citizenship and residence differs on the Forbes list, it seems the column here already best matches Forbes' Citizenship column, so that's what I changed the column heading to. --Georgeryp 09:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: list of billionaires 2007 flag of origin mistakes

message: i am not here to argue but i find it disgraceful how a half Ethiopian African black man has a Saudi flag. it is sad people try to keep black people and Africans down because it would have been beautiful to have a black person in the billionaire list. it would actually have given something to make blacks proud and gave them a positive role model... —The preceding comment is by Capricorn6 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 May 2007: Please sign your posts!
:Please understand that the flags (as given by Forbes magazine) represent only legal citizenship, not ethnicity, country of origin, or heritage.  If you can document Forbes was in error regarding citizenship then please, be bold by giving a reference that supports the correction and then change the flag.  As to your other comment, please see #618 Michael Lee-Chin   and #664 Oprah Winfrey --Georgeryp 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mohammed Al Amoudi flag

message: In position 214 it lists a one Richard Schulze and the corresponding link refers to a world war II German SS officer.  I believe it should be linked to Richard M. Schuzle the founder of Best Buy.  Someone please correct this error and insert Best Buy in the source column. --Fudgedelic 19:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fixed.  That portion of the list is currently on the page: List of billionaires (2007) 102-946. --Georgeryp 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard M. Schulze

message: i went to forbes mag .com and it stated that sli was third and buffett was second again i hope some one can change this or at least correct me if i am wrong
:Please see the discussion above on this page (Talk:List of billionaires (2007)#Inaccurate!!!) or see the second  Forbes reference on the article page.  --Georgeryp 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  slim isn't second 

message: This article's semi protection expired a few days ago and most of the June 6th, 2007 edits are vandalism.  I've seen this pattern in the past - protection removed, vandals come in, protection restored, repeat.  Given that this article is a static list that should require few changes, I propose that the article should be semi-protected until Feb/Mar. 2008 (when presumably Forbes will release their new list). I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's protection policies so if anyone is, or has a better idea, please comment. --Georgeryp 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another five or so anon/IP "contributors" have vandalized this article since protection was dropped on June 14th, so I just added a semi-protection tag set to expire in Feb. 2008. --Georgeryp 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm not an admin, so that didn't work - I requested longer term semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  --Georgeryp 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect until 2008 List released? 

message: I don't think this is connected with the earlier confusion.  --158.158.240.230 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian (UK) is reporting as of July 2007 that Slim is now first 

message: Well, there seems to be something wrong with this article. First, it says "the following list uses numbers published by Forbes, which has not substantiated this claim, and still lists Slim as second.", and then lists Slim as first.
I don't mean to create a flamewar in here, I just want this article to be coherent, and since this article is "based on an annual ranking of the world's wealthiest people compiled and published by Forbes magazine", I'm reverting it to its original state. If you wish to comment, do so here BEFORE you re-revert the article. Oskilian 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any particular reason why this list is bound to be faithful to Forbes? I could see if the title included the word Forbes or the proper noun they use for their list (for example, I would never second guess Time's determination of the Person of the Year, but in this case Forbes seems to just be the most-used source, which can be out of date over the short run. Savidan 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list should remain intact until Forbes updates their list.  The issue is one of consistency - we cannot have a list of 100 people that is compiled 99% from one source and 1% from another.  The source that puts Slim at #1, while potentially correct, does not give updated data points for Gates, Buffet, or anyone else for that matter.  Increasing his number based on one report while leaving the other numbers to linger on older data skews the list and favors just that person.  Arkyan • (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Forbes list is consistent. Because of exchange rates and stock valuations the ranking is changing in fact every day, so it is better to have consistent list from trustworthy source from exact date. --Jklamo 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand using Forbes' annual list because it is consistent and ranks everyone at the same point in time. In accounting, you list a company's (or a person's) balance sheet at a single point in time, which gets updated periodically (i.e. quarterly or annually). However, I don't understand why news stories by Forbes are allowed to change the list. Forbes doesn't release news stories for low-ranked billionaires when they change on the list, so the current standard used for this article leads to the list being wrong. In addition, allowing news articles by Forbes, but disallowing news stories by Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, or the Financial Times, has lead to the impression among some editors that a single publication is the absolute source of truth. My key point: The criteria used to generate this list violates proper accounting methodology, because the rankings were not all determined on the same date. Under the current standard used by this article, the list is currently wrong and there was no date in the past in which the list was correct. --JHP 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's your suggestion? I say the current situation is the best we can do. --wil osb 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that the entire list should be based on the May 8, 2007 edition of Forbes so that the wealth of all the billionaires is based on the same point in time. The switch of the rankings of Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim Helu, based on the April 11, 2007 edition of Forbes, should be reverted. Several other billionaires had probably also switched in the rankings by April 11, but were not considered notable enough to get news coverage. --JHP 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better idea idea would be to change the title to Forbe's list of billionaires. Joeking16 (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes or not? 

message: What happened to the Rockefeller family? They got suddenly poor? I don't see any of them being listed. I thought they control or at least used to control companies like Exxon, Chase Manhattan, IBM, GE, etc. These companies are the true giants and you don't get poor if you control them, instead you get richer. John D. Rockefeller was the richest man in the world 90 years ago and I simply doubt that his descendants would disappoint him. Exxon's turnover in 2005 was $340 billion in compare to Microsoft's $40 billion. So even by controlling 12% of Exxon the Rockefeller family must be richer than Bill Gates. And they don't control just Exxon...
Anyhow, say they don't control Exxon. Who does? Say Mr X does so why this Mr X is not on the list? Mysterious...
Lol if Mr.X is controlling Exxon how do you know he is not on the list? You don't even know who he is. It is also possible that Exxon isn't controlled by any major shareholder. You can always conduct your own research and find out. Anyhow i believe Forbes has done research extensive enough to find out.
--wil osb 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at ExxonMobil#Largest_shareholders or . There is no Mr. X. Also take a look at second part of the list List of billionaires (2007) 102-946, there is one Rockefeller. --Jklamo 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's some quality research Jklamo! Cls14 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockefellers ? 

message: This past 3 of July, a report by Mexican financial journalist Eduardo Garcia indicated that Slim's wealth had exceeded that of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, his fortune its an estimated 67.8 billion dollars compared with the estimated fortune of 59.2 billion dollars for Bill Gates.
: Yes, we all know that, but that list is Forbes based and is good to keep it consistent. See discussion above. --Jklamo 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Change on linst 

message: Carlos Slim Helú should be on top of that pathetic list!!!
--Mines urs 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing Forbes with Fortune, but Fortune is every bit as reliable. --JHP 08:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos Slim Helú 

message: Just because Forbes releases an annual list of the world's richest billionaires does not mean that it is somehow the "official" judge on the matter. Anyone can come out with a list. It's just a gimmick Forbes uses to sell magazines. 
If you are going to rank billionaires based on a particular moment in time once per year, then relying entirely on the Forbes list is fine, because no one else publishes a similar list. However, if you are going to allow the list to be updated throughout the year, then other reputable business publications like Fortune magazine, The Wall Street Journal, or The Financial Times should also have an influence.
The current system, which seems to imply that somehow Forbes is "more official" or "more correct" than any other source is a bunch of B.S. I challenge someone to show us a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says articles can choose to rely on one particular publication and disregard other publications of equal stature and reliability.
I advocate either one of two standards, a list that reflects a fixed point in time once per year (much like a company's 10K) or a continually-updated list that reflects the actual current state. But relying entirely on a single publication as the guardian of truth, and disregarding others of equal stature (or higher stature in the case of the WSJ) is poor form. Wikipedia's content should be based on actual fact, not one single source's journalism at the expense of all others. When you have changing values, such as personal wealth, that fact needs to be updated. It can either be updated on a continuous basis, or it can be updated periodically (such as annually). Implying that Forbes is somehow more correct than other highly-reliable sources is, well, not factual. --JHP 07:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you are going to rank billionaires based on a particular moment in time once per year, then relying entirely on the Forbes list is fine", that's exactly what this article is doing, it's written clearly this is an annual list of billionaire compiled by Forbes, thus nowhere implied that this is the "official" judge, people can read the article and judge for themselves. But because Forbes is basically the only publisher that conducts research and reports on this annually, it can be said to be the most official one, and to remain consistency it has to be the only source used. This article is already the first of your advocated two standards, you can always start an article on your second one. --wil osb 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this list does not meet the first of my two advocated standards. It allows later Forbes news articles to change the list, but does not allow news articles by other publications to change the list. The list does not currently reflect the March 8, 2007 edition of Forbes magazine. The entire list reflects the May 8, 2007 edition of Forbes, except for Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim Helu, which are based on a different date, April 11, 2007. The entire list should be based on the same date. --JHP 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case you can suggest to revert the list back to the March 8 edition, personally i'm indifferent, but i guess some people's argument is that since this is a Forbes list, and since Forbes openly recognizes the change in the 2nd and 3rd placing, so the list should follow suit. --wil osb 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my whole point. There's no legitimate reason for this Wikipedia list to parrot everything Forbes says on the subject. I hereby propose that the list be reverted to reflect the March 8 edition of Forbes so all billionaires are ranked based on the same point in time. --JHP 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well JHP if you want to go and find some better and more accurate lists then go ahead :-) Cls14 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand what you read. --JHP 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbes is not an official standard

message: It has been two weeks since my proposal immediately above this section. There have been no objections, so I am making the change. Again, proper accounting methodology requires that everyone be ranked at the same point in time. --JHP 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the list to reflect the rankings on February 9, 2007. I have also removed wording that suggests that Forbes is somehow an ultimate judge of the world's wealthy. --JHP 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making change

message: Isn't murdoch Australian? i thought he started up by changing a small south australian newspaper into the behemoth that news corp is right now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.167.238 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article about Rupert Murdoch, in the subsection titled Moving into the United States: "On September 4, 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen, to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens could own American television stations." --JHP 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murdoch - incorrect citizenship in the table 

message: 8 of the top 100 billionaires are from India?!..placing it right behind USA, Russia and Germany. For a third world country, with no major oil reserves (unlike Russia and Saudi Arabia), that is pretty impressive. BTW, none from PRC? --74.140.120.11 03:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: According to the article on Richard Branson, he has $7.8 billion, and that would qualify for this list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.126.216 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at second part of the list List of billionaires (2007) 102-946 --Jklamo 12:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Branson should be on here 

message: As has been pointed out this list may be useful in the future for people wanting to know who were the richest and when.
From that point of view the list needs a point of reference, and like it or not the most broadly accepted point of reference is the Forbes list.  The article should clarify that that is the reference, and include clearly the date of publication.
Then ANOTHER PAGE should be added "List of billionaires (Current)".  On this list you can start with the Forbes list as a reference and work from there.  
To be consistent it will be necessary to denote when each figure was updated.  
The exercise could prove difficult to get coherent information though.  Even with an article explaining that Carlos Slim Helú has jumped to #1, you will probably not get exact figures for all the other 99 billionaires in the list.
If someone does know a reliable source that regularly updates personal wealth then that'd be great!
There isn't one source that has listings like that. But I agree with you on that totally. We should make a current list and list it as, Worlds richest People Current standings: up to date  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman88 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep THIS LIST for 2007 AND Create a new CURRENT list. 

message: Bless you all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.228.60 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That must be why Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are giving their money away to charity. ;-) Of course, with one-third of the world's people living on less than $2 per day, almost all Americans, Japanese, and Western Europeans are rich by global standards. --JHP 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 

message: Hi,
I read that Carlos slim now takes the first place in the richest man of the world list.
He has now $59 billion.
Resource: CNN Money at http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news/international/carlosslim.fortune/  
Best regards,
Bruno  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barba3 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos Slim is now the richest man in the world 

message: Carlos Slim Helú is now the world's richest person. This has been updated on several other websites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.255.36 (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's richest person 

message: Please check cnn website link here for more details. --Avinesh Jose 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mukesh Ambani, India is now world's richest person as on 29 October 2007 

message: Hey gyus mukesh ambani is not the richest man why did you put him first...it is said fom RELIANCE itself that the calculations about his wealth are wrong...its not 63.2 billions..so why did you do that?why dont you leave the list the way it is until forbes recalculate wealths?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgilios (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong list 

message: http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/14/india-billionaires-richest-biz-07india-cx_nk_1114india_intro.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgilios (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lakshmi richer from ambani...check the list 

message: The four richest Indians are worth an astonishing $180 billion. Steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, who lives in London, is No. 1 again, worth $51 billion, but Mukesh Ambani, whose Reliance Industries is India's most valuable company, is quickly closing the gap. His net worth jumped $30.5 billion to $49 billion, making him the year's biggest gainer. His estranged brother Anil is close on his heels, up $30.2 billion to $45 billion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgilios (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thats what forbes said about asia's list so dont put innacurate wealths!!!! 

message: Can someone please find out how much these people are worth too?
Ingvar Kamprad (Ikea)
Amancio Ortega (Zara)Inditex
David Thomson (Thomson Publishing)
Haven't seen any of those guys updated yet. Can anyone help me out and get their new net worths?
:Please see the Forbes list of billionaires listed within the article. If they're not there, they're not relevant to this article, so I suggest you try another source. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Billionaires 

message: Instead of fighting can we just make 2008? Since it IS 2008 now. Carlos Slim is number one so can we just make a new list? And by the way, Carlos has been the richest since August, yet nobody hardly knows him! FTW!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkbena6212 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Billionaires 2008? 

message: My prediction for 2008 list is:
1)Carlos Slim Helu
2)Bill Gates
3)Warren Buffet
4)Mukesh Ambani
5)Anil Ambani
6)Lakshmi Mittal
7)Oleg Deripaska(based on recent calculations about his wealth)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.235.166 (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we keep the predictions to blogs, please? This is not a forum. Only use the talk pages for discussing the content of the article. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  prediction for 2008 

message: (http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/104529/World-Billionaires-2008)<---- the new rich list76.254.137.168 (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been done at List of billionaires (2008). Please do research first. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new article please update

message: The entire List of Billionaires as presented by Forbes magazine is considered to be copyrighted. The list has been removed and edited to only the Top 15 individuals. This is per the discussion result at Talk:List_of_billionaires#Fair_use_limitations. The small subset will comply with Wikipedia's fair use policy and does not infringe on the copyright of the original. The larger list should not be restored.  — CactusWriter | needles 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem removed

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ingvar Kamprad.jpg Nominated for Deletion