Jeromels

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Coin Talk, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Wildthing61476 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Xavier Tamkamskivitch

A tag has been placed on Xavier Tamkamskivitch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so understanding re the notability discussion on this page. I do hope it won't stop you making contributions elsewhere on the site -- your South Sea Company coins article looks like it's coming along nicely! – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ralph Dodd

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ralph Dodd, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ralph Dodd seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ralph Dodd, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eduard Rodhe

You're going to need to expand upon the notability - citing sources - for Eduard Rodhe to keep his article around. Thanks--CastAStone/^/(talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Incuse

A tag has been placed on Incuse, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Coincraft

A tag has been placed on Coincraft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JD554 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Coin dealer

A tag has been placed on Coin dealer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JD554 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Friedrich Nietzsche

Hi, I have a question about the edit you made to one of the image captions in Friedrich Nietzsche. Do you have a source that called that photograph "The Trinity"? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Luerialiakin

G. Luerialiakin, K. Nabokov... and even X. Tamkamskivitch. Why would you do this? Your other articles are fine, but why would you put in lies like this?

They've been deleted. Don't do this sort of garbage again; it wastes everyone's time, including yours. DS (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Eduard Rodhe

I have nominated Eduard Rodhe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Rodhe. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Potassium heptasulfate

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Potassium heptasulfate, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Potassium heptasulfate

I have nominated Potassium heptasulfate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potassium heptasulfate. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. shoy (reactions) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Pedopope. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating hoaxes and repeated vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeromels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to edit constructively now. Any way the community could regain trust in me ?

Decline reason:

Creating a WP:SOCK in order to WP:EVADE this block was unwise. Some day, WP:OFFER may apply, but I have my doubts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeromels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

that was an old, indef banned sock, I just put the unblock template over there as well in order to increase the chances that an admin would get back to me quickly. I didn't create it. I'd be happy to take the standard offer. Jeromels (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —fetch·comms 03:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of Pewter money

The article Pewter money has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Claritas (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)