User talk:Fahrenheit666
Welcome!
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Chocolate_chip_cookies.jpg/300px-Chocolate_chip_cookies.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Face-smile.svg/25px-Face-smile.svg.png)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Fahrenheit666! Thank you for your contributions. I am Kerry Raymond and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Kerry (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
DS Alert
[edit]Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi
[edit]Please do not impute ulterior motives on my actions (that I am desperate). I will not go on playing with words such as what official is or not, it's the largest organization and is registered. If you're going to play with word semantics, go for it, you'd be alone. [[[User:Yahya Talatin|Yaḥyā ]] (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's that last encounter I am having with you to clarify what would be obvious for most (and the reason why it is in your talkpage I am replying) by now.
- The Muslim Council of Britain is a national representative Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools. [1]
- The largest national representative of British Muslim associations, mosques and schools. [2]
- It's the de facto official organ of the British Muslim associations (by their own mandate). For anyone to claim otherwise (and defeat it's defacto purpose) they have to rely on constructs and word semantics to define what is official and what is not (arbitrary parameters with strong selection bias). This raises more issues on editors intentions rather than plain simple observations on the role of the organization (and its mandate) itself.
- But don't bother my desperation (for merely pointing the arbitrary nature of such an exclusion) and shouting and covering of my own mistake (by your own words), I know where to stop. Yaḥyā (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Firearms policy in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William of Orange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Fahrenheit666. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Fahrenheit666. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit]Disambiguation link notification for December 13
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Redcar (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
May 2020
[edit] Hi Fahrenheit666! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Irish Republican Army that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Hello, I'm FDW777. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Irish Republican Army seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
In addition the Irish Republican Army article, and similar articles, are subject to a 1-revert-rule restriction, meaning no more than one revert in a 24 hour period. FDW777 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit]April 2021
[edit] Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to German battleship Bismarck have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you continue to edit-war and alter sourced information, you'll be blocked from editing. Parsecboy (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What's the source for a shell penetrating Hood's "thin" deck armour? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's in the article. You've been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruptive editing. When the block expires, please use the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The claim that a shell penetrated the deck armour is UNSOURCED. That's why I removed it. You do not own this article. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- "At 06:00, Hood was completing the second turn to port when Bismarck's fifth salvo hit. Two of the shells landed short, striking the water close to the ship, but at least one of the 38 cm armour-piercing shells struck Hood and penetrated her thin deck armour. The shell reached Hood's rear ammunition magazine and detonated 112 t (110 long tons) of cordite propellant.[61]". That footnote points to Bercuson & Herwig. That you are unable to follow a simple hyperlink is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. If you continue to disrupt the article after your block expires, it will be lengthened. Find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will decide what I do. You do not own the article. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course free to decide what you do, but you will not be free of the consequences. Rest assured that if you edit-war again, you'll be blocked again. Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will decide what I do. You do not own the article. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- "At 06:00, Hood was completing the second turn to port when Bismarck's fifth salvo hit. Two of the shells landed short, striking the water close to the ship, but at least one of the 38 cm armour-piercing shells struck Hood and penetrated her thin deck armour. The shell reached Hood's rear ammunition magazine and detonated 112 t (110 long tons) of cordite propellant.[61]". That footnote points to Bercuson & Herwig. That you are unable to follow a simple hyperlink is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. If you continue to disrupt the article after your block expires, it will be lengthened. Find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The claim that a shell penetrated the deck armour is UNSOURCED. That's why I removed it. You do not own this article. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's in the article. You've been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruptive editing. When the block expires, please use the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What's the source for a shell penetrating Hood's "thin" deck armour? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Interesting: some of that weirdness is enlightened by the comments underneath this article. BTW that page copies our text. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit]February 2022
[edit]This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
February 2023
[edit]![Stop icon](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Sophie Labelle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Charles III requested move discussion
[edit]There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.