User talk:Rickmer

June 2010

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Placing an unreferenced BLP notice on an article with links but no references is not trolling, and ongoing discussion of an issue is not stalking (though you do have the right to request a cessation of communications). Please do not use AIV except to report blatant and persistent vandalism. - Vianello (Talk) 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if you want someone to stop leaving you messages, it would be very prudent to stop leaving them messages. Engaging in the communication that you want to see halted is not a productive way to handle it. - Vianello (Talk) 01:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rickmer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pstanton (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to bother you again, but Pstanton has asked if you'd terribly mind removing the now rather unnecessary image from your talk page. I am asking on their behalf as they do not want to continue leaving you messages after you have been so insistent on requesting they cease. As you can read on the Wikietiquette alert, they're of the opinion that's really the only lingering "issue" with any of this, which I hope you can agree with. I don't mean to bug you, but since you might not really feel like reading the report, I wanted to bring this to your attention since it does kinda need your input. If you'd care to take the image down, I'll mark it Resolved and we'll all get on with our lives. - Vianello (Talk) 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Hi. I've nominated Larissa Riquelme, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. -- Rickmer (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Larissa Riquelme

On July 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Larissa Riquelme, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts?

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).

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

Request reason:

Argumentation: Not every type of multiple accounts by the same ip is abusive. The account User:Jugendschutz (German for: Child protection) is a family member of mine. It was registered to documentate problematic pictures in wikipedia. There is a very similar page to the one, User:Jugendschutz created. My family member did it for the best: Child protection. That's honourable. But it has nothing to do with my account. I did not created multiple-accounts in an abusive way.

Decline: If you want to be unblocked you should request an unblock from your account. We cannot accept anonymous unblock requests. JamesBWatson (talk) 8:55 am, Today (UTC−5)

Answer: That's not possible: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. The account is blocked, also for this page.

Decline reason:

You have registered eight other accounts. I don't see how unblocking you will lead to a better encyclopedia. TN X Man 22:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Leonid Raikhman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Leonid Raikhman 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 person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sabrina Blond

The article Sabrina Blond has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits. Claimed award is not well-known or significant merely because it is given out at the same trade show, but by a different awardgiver, than a more notable award.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sabrina Blond for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sabrina Blond 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/Sabrina Blond 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]