User talk:Gwernol/Archive 25

Listen Up!
My only account Coolest Kid 50 has been blocked indefinitely by you and I did nothing wrong! On my talk page, you keep saying I have multiple accounts, which are Coolest Kid 10 and Coolest Kid20. THOSE ARE NOT MY ACCOUNTS!!!!!! And my account Coolest Kid 50 is not a sockpuppet account! It's the only account I've had, and you've blocked it on purpose! You've also protected my talk page, so now I cannot put any unblocked requests on it! And you say the page is protected just the like the Coolest Kid20 account. That isn't my account! The talk page of that account may be protected, but it still isn't my account! And you told me to go back to the Coolest Kid 10 account to put an unblock notice on it, so I can edit here again. How can I do that when that account isn't mine?! And you say you know it's one person operating all the accounts? Well, you are wrong and I am right! UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT NOW!!!!!!! 90.199.49.157 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Listen Up!
My only account Coolest Kid 50 has been blocked indefinitely by you and I did nothing wrong! On my talk page, you keep saying I have multiple accounts, which are Coolest Kid 10 and Coolest Kid20. THOSE ARE NOT MY ACCOUNTS!!!!!! And my account Coolest Kid 50 is not a sockpuppet account! It's the only account I've had, and you've blocked it on purpose! You've also protected my talk page, so now I cannot put any unblocked requests on it! And you say the page is protected just the like the Coolest Kid20 account. That isn't my account! The talk page of that account may be protected, but it still isn't my account! And you told me to go back to the Coolest Kid 10 account to put an unblock notice on it, so I can edit here again. How can I do that when that account isn't mine?! And you say you know it's one person operating all the accounts? Well, you are wrong and I am right! UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT NOW!!!!!!! 90.199.49.165 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ner-a Car Logo.png)
You've uploaded File:Ner-a Car Logo.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you


Switzerland (2007 - 2009) - U.S. intelligence targeting/attack of U.S. Citizen Abroad for compulsory servitude  espionage participation. Non-compliance threatened with U.S. Federal prison; Compliance indicated foreign imprisonment (civilians do not share U.S. intelligence diplomatic immunities). U.S. intelligence objective: infiltration of foreign national statistics offices; Desired Output: foreign government-collected corporate insider trading stock-market information, and supply-chain data (of potential usage for WTO Dispute Settlement determination of material damage per WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures). Total project cost: Over eight million U.S. dollars. Project objectives (data) were never viable. Two-year attack project involved inter alia military materiél, deceptive contracts and undercover operations. Protect America Act of 2007 immunized myriad official felonies via "Liability Protection" of the Act (Section 105B(l). U.S. Citizen forced to ultimately file for political asylum after extraordinary protections appeals to U.S. Congress failed; Possible grounds for failure: CIA Officer (aggressor) was former Trade Counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Finance, former Minority (Democratic) Senate Trade Counsel. CIA Officer evidently deceptively marketed project to Members of Congress as "national security"-crucial. U.S. Citizen forced to request protection of U.S. Trade partners in lieu of normal Constitutional or extraordinary Congressional protections (refused). The CIA was deployed into U.S. trade affairs in 1993 per Presidential Directive 35, this being part of the post Cold-War intelligence reorientation. Myriad expert opinions (including former senior CIA officer Allan E. Goodman) expressing concerns that such areas are NOT CIA forte12 have been resolutely ignored by the Bush and Clinton Presidential administrations alike. Noted: this CIA-driven project attacked a Citizen forwarding U.S. free trade interests. Expert opinions opposing espionage deployment in trade diplomacy make note of high-risk to trade-partner relations; also noting inappropriateness of such zero sum espionage tactics in Pareto efficiency-related trade negotiation work. Lack of U.S. legal protections and refusal of Congress to provide extraordinary protections evident; U.S. Citizen filed for political asylum from U.S. Government aggression in early January 2009. Initial attacks commenced on popular online encyclopedia. 83.76.14.42 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refugeestatus2009 (talk • contribs)

Listen Up!
My only account Coolest Kid 50 has been blocked indefinitely by you and I did nothing wrong! On my talk page, you keep saying I have multiple accounts, which are Coolest Kid 10 and Coolest Kid20. THOSE ARE NOT MY ACCOUNTS!!!!!! And my account Coolest Kid 50 is not a sockpuppet account! It's the only account I've had, and you've blocked it on purpose! You've also protected my talk page, so now I cannot put any unblock requests on it! And you say the page is protected just the like the Coolest Kid20 account. That isn't my account! The talk page of that account may be protected too, but it still isn't my account! And you told me to go back to the Coolest Kid 10 account to put an unblock notice on it, so I can edit here again. How can I do that when that account isn't mine?! And you say you know it's one person operating all the accounts? Well, you are wrong and I am right! UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT NOW!!!!!!! 90.199.49.189 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you


Switzerland (2007 - 2009) - U.S. intelligence targeting/attack of U.S. Citizen Abroad for compulsory servitude  espionage participation. Non-compliance threatened with U.S. Federal prison; Compliance indicated foreign imprisonment (civilians do not share U.S. intelligence diplomatic immunities). U.S. intelligence objective: infiltration of foreign national statistics offices; Desired Output: foreign government-collected corporate insider trading stock-market information, and supply-chain data (of potential usage for WTO Dispute Settlement determination of material damage per WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures). Total project cost: Over eight million U.S. dollars. Project objectives (data) were never viable. Two-year attack project involved inter alia military materiél, deceptive contracts and undercover operations. Protect America Act of 2007 immunized myriad official felonies via "Liability Protection" of the Act (Section 105B(l). U.S. Citizen forced to ultimately file for political asylum after extraordinary protections appeals to U.S. Congress failed; Possible grounds for failure: CIA Officer (aggressor) was former Trade Counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Finance, former Minority (Democratic) Senate Trade Counsel. CIA Officer evidently deceptively marketed project to Members of Congress as "national security"-crucial. U.S. Citizen forced to request protection of U.S. Trade partners in lieu of normal Constitutional or extraordinary Congressional protections (refused). The CIA was deployed into U.S. trade affairs in 1993 per Presidential Directive 35, this being part of the post Cold-War intelligence reorientation. Myriad expert opinions (including former senior CIA officer Allan E. Goodman) expressing concerns that such areas are NOT CIA forte12 have been resolutely ignored by the Bush and Clinton Presidential administrations alike. Noted: this CIA-driven project attacked a Citizen forwarding U.S. free trade interests. Expert opinions opposing espionage deployment in trade diplomacy make note of high-risk to trade-partner relations; also noting inappropriateness of such zero sum espionage tactics in Pareto efficiency-related trade negotiation work. Lack of U.S. legal protections and refusal of Congress to provide extraordinary protections evident; U.S. Citizen filed for political asylum from U.S. Government aggression in early January 2009. Initial attacks commenced on popular online encyclopedia. 83.76.14.42 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refugeestatus2009 (talk • contribs)

Listen Up!
My only account Coolest Kid 50 has been blocked indefinitely by you and I did nothing wrong! On my talk page, you keep saying I have multiple accounts, which are Coolest Kid 10 and Coolest Kid20. THOSE ARE NOT MY ACCOUNTS!!!!!! And my account Coolest Kid 50 is not a sockpuppet account! It's the only account I've had, and you've blocked it on purpose! You've also protected my talk page, so now I cannot put any unblock requests on it! And you say the page is protected just the like the Coolest Kid20 account. That isn't my account! The talk page of that account may be protected too, but it still isn't my account! And you told me to go back to the Coolest Kid 10 account to put an unblock notice on it, so I can edit here again. How can I do that when that account isn't mine?! And you say you know it's one person operating all the accounts? Well, you are wrong and I am right! UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT NOW!!!!!!! 90.199.49.189 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
sorry for deleing your page before as you accuse me of but i have recentlybeen hacked on my account! sorry for any inconveniencce ________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'd like to apologize for any inappropriate edits done on this ip. It's shared among hundreds of computers (few editing wikipedia).--66.158.114.2 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen Up!
My only account Coolest Kid 50 has been blocked indefinitely by you and I did nothing wrong! On my talk page, you keep saying I have multiple accounts, which are Coolest Kid 10 and Coolest Kid20. THOSE ARE NOT MY ACCOUNTS!!!!!! And my account Coolest Kid 50 is not a sockpuppet account! It's the only account I've had, and you've blocked it on purpose! You've also protected my talk page, so now I cannot put any unblock requests on it! And you say the page is protected just the like the Coolest Kid20 account. That isn't my account! The talk page of that account may be protected too, but it still isn't my account! And you told me to go back to the Coolest Kid 10 account to put an unblock notice on it, so I can edit here again. How can I do that when that account isn't mine?! And you say you know it's one person operating all the accounts? Well, you are wrong and I am right! UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT NOW!!!!!!! 90.199.49.189 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but according from the tag on the page, User:Gwernol may have left from Wikipedia. However, if you want to know the reason on why you are accused of sockpuppetry, please see this. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But what if he didn't? He may still be online on Wikipedia, he just doesn't edit anymore! But my Coolest Kid 50 account is not a sockpuppet account! 90.199.49.120 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I think you may request a checkuser to one of these people or another third-party admin to prove your innocence. E Wing (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Telford Steam Railway

User 7severn7 is becoming a pain, whereby he adds negative information to the TSR Wikipedia page and then uses one or more many of his sockpuppet identities on the Severn Valley Railway Forum to draw attention to these amendments.You will recall your previous interventions on on the Coalbrookdale station issues. This has recently been resurrected by 7severn7 on the SVR forum. He posts there under several identities. He must realise that all railway projects have both positive and negative facets. Some attention to this situation would be appreciated.Green Gronk (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Nathan?? Just got a message from you alleging I made vandal-type edits to "nathan". I Didn't. Wonder how many other users with a BT online account randomly received that mistaken missive too? 86.166.177.211 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)pinkypooky

Listen Up!
My only account Coolest Kid 50 has been blocked indefinitely by you and I did nothing wrong! On my talk page, you keep saying I have multiple accounts, which are Coolest Kid 10 and Coolest Kid20. THOSE ARE NOT MY ACCOUNTS!!!!!! And my account Coolest Kid 50 is not a sockpuppet account! It's the only account I've had, and you've blocked it on purpose! You've also protected my talk page, so now I cannot put any unblock requests on it! And you say the page is protected just the like the Coolest Kid20 account. That isn't my account! The talk page of that account may be protected too, but it still isn't my account! And you told me to go back to the Coolest Kid 10 account to put an unblock notice on it, so I can edit here again. How can I do that when that account isn't mine?! And you say you know it's one person operating all the accounts? Well, you are wrong and I am right! UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT NOW!!!!!!! 90.199.49.189 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but according from the tag on the page, User:Gwernol may have left from Wikipedia. However, if you want to know the reason on why you are accused of sockpuppetry, please see this. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But what if he didn't? He may still be online on Wikipedia, he just doesn't edit anymore! But my Coolest Kid 50 account is not a sockpuppet account! 90.199.49.120 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I think you may request a checkuser to one of these people or another third-party admin to prove your innocence. E Wing (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Art of Memory (company)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Art of Memory (company), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * article fails to meet the criteria for organization notability per WP:COMPANY

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Picatrix (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)