User talk:Fahrenheit451

Jimmy Wales quote: "My point is, there is absolutely no need to impugn a real person with such terms as "liar" or "lied" or "hoax" or "fraud" and all the rest. We can and should refrain from personal attacks on *everyone*, at all times, as much as we humanly can.  The point is, we treat everyone with courtesy and respect.  You have no idea if this was actually the subject of the article doing this, or some enemy of his trying to make him look bad on the Internet.  In any case, it doesn't matter.  Not our problem.  We are writing an encyclopedia, not calling people names. :)--Jimbo Wales 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)" But there are Wikipedia admins who do it with impunity.  Good advice but the words have little effect.--Fahrenheit451 17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT BOTHER LEAVING MESSAGES HERE. I NO LONGER EDIT WIKIPEDIA.

No surprise here: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

“The biggest issue is editor diversity,” says Wales. He hopes to “grow the number of editors in topics that need work.”

Bullshit. The scorched earth method used by certain admins to deal with editors of scientology articles debunks that statement.

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Fahrenheit451! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Robert J. Weber -
 * 2) Werner Grossmann -
 * 3) William Gehrlein -

Bucklin
You may be interested to know that there is a dispute about the Bucklin voting page ongoing. The issues are:


 * 1) Can the term "Bucklin voting" comprehend systems which allow equal and/or skipped rankings?
 * 2) If so, do such systems meet the IIA and Clone independence criteria?

(One possible answer to either question is that we can't say either way because we don't have relevant citations to reliable sources. In that case, we must choose what we can say.)

Your participation in the discussion might help us attain consensus.

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nontheism
See: Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism.

Greetings, I see that you have chosen to conspicuously identify as a "Nontheistic Wikipedian" Me too! Currently there is a proposal to delete the article Nontheism or merge and redirect it to Atheism. Greg Bard (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Wrware.png
Thanks for uploading File:Wrware.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Sfan00 IMG, it appears to me that you do not know how to use a search engine. It would have taken you less time to enter William Robert Ware into the search field of Google, click on images, and get the URL, then write me on my talk page. BTW, I did edit the upload page for the image with the URL. You might learn how to edit an article here, but you will not learn deductive reasoning, as I have seen too many examples of on WP.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion: current deletion discussion
Hello Fahrenheit451,

the article about the Favorite betrayal criterion is marked for deletion. I saw that you participated in an older version of the discussion. Please join the discussion to enrich it for the best possible result: Articles_for_deletion/Favorite_betrayal_criterion_(5th_nomination)

Best wishes, --Arno Nymus (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mielke hon ulb.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mielke hon ulb.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Watchman Fellowship for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Watchman Fellowship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Watchman Fellowship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead File for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dead File is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dead File & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Traditionalist (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Wernergrossmann.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wernergrossmann.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead File for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dead File is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dead File& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   Ravenswing     17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hubbard Association of Scientologists International


The article Hubbard Association of Scientologists International has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Earth Rights Institute for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earth Rights Institute is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Earth Rights Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)