User talk:Fahrenheit451

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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[edit]

Information.svg 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 2,085 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Robert J. Weber - Find sources: "Robert J. Weber" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Werner Grossmann - Find sources: "Werner Grossmann" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. William Gehrlein - Find sources: "William Gehrlein" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bucklin[edit]

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[edit]

See: Wikipedia: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[edit]

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[edit]

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: Wikipedia: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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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)