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)"[reply]

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)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patter drill

Justallofthem (talk · contribs) has nominated Patter drill, an article that you created, for deletion. He does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patter drill. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for the Heads Up

Indeed. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Wilhelmzaisser.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Wilhelmzaisser.jpg, 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tempo sustainable design network

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tempo sustainable design network, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

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 {{dated prod}} 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.. Richhoncho (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message

I'm not sure about user JD554. This is the first time i've encountered him. I'm yet to have a word from him about the promo covers User_talk:JD554#Spaceman_promo_covers. Because i don't think i was using those images unfairly, i provided a license and everything that's required. i must have uploaded 30 images till now, and this is the first problem of this kind i've come across. Suede67 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing edit reverts?

Most definitely not. --JD554 (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyfraud

Here is the response I posted to your "warning" on my talk page:

It appears to me that you are pushing a POV, promoting claims made in partisan citations as if they were facts, and have a major WP:OWNership problem. I have explained edits in edit comments and on the talk page which you have ignored. "Established edits" mean nothing here, especially when they violate policy. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and, heck, WP:KETTLE before trying to complain about my edits.

Frankly, I've been letting things slide on that article that shouldn't. The fact that you are annoyed by what should be uncontroversial edits to clean up the article is not encouraging. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kittens

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Wonderful, it'll work out then. :-D

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. KnightLago (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby refuse this contract and any hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion connected with it. This is done in accordance with State of Florida Law. I reserve all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got your note. I left a diff for Roger to see. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case will go ahead with you as a party, whether or not you particpate, but thank you anyway for your comments. Roger Davies ^talk 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCC

"I hereby refuse this contract and any hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion connected with it. This is done in accordance with State of Florida Law. I reserve all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Duly noted.

The privilege of participating in this collaborative endeavor is contingent on accepting, and following, the community rules. You are correct that you are allowed refuse to participate and have stated clearly your intention to do so; accordingly, your account has been blocked indefinitely. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As your remarks were directed at me, I have decided to unblock you pending further investigation. I would be grateful if you would clarify whether it is your intention to raise this matter in the Florida Courts and, if not, what was the purpose of your comment? Roger Davies ^talk 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:No legal threats. Site standards are that we don't mind if you actually do intend to take matters up in the Florida state courts (or any others), but you may not state the intention onsite or else you may be blocked indefinitely until you withdraw the threat. Additional discussion is at Wikipedia:AN#User:Fahrenheit451_and_Coren. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such statement of legal threat was made. Period. Coren has abused his administrative powers.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I have been discussing your block at User_talk:Coren#Refused_to_cooperate.3F. If you have any comment or input you may wish to make it here. My Wikipedia email is also enabled if you would like to use it. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad your block was withdrawn, you're a good editor and it was ridiculous. Scott Ritchie (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out about Coren's retaliation for a completely imagined and false "legal threat". That is an example of administrative abuse. I have asked for remedy.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you on my talk page on that matter. — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]