User talk:Jeromjerom

i̯ērom * i̯ērom

Removing Speedy at Krychun Lyudmila

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Krychun Lyudmila. Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willingly to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Krychun Lyudmila

The article Krychun Lyudmila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. No significant coverage in independent 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 {{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. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Krychun Lyudmila for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krychun Lyudmila 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/Krychun Lyudmila 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Levko Borovykovsky

The article Levko Borovykovsky has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, no indication of notability.

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 {{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. GregJackP Boomer! 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Putin khuilo!. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —DoRD (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. --Jeromjerom (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the next removal of the AfD template will result in a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion has already passed! [1]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a speedy deletion proposal. Now I have AfDed it. These are two different processes.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different processes - about the same! Consider and previous discussion! --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I perfectly agree that his is not a speedy deletion material.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked two more of your sockpuppets. If you continue with that behavior, this account will be blocked indefinitely as well. —DoRD (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny. Yes, I had a profile Керди. But, I have no more sockpuppets! Maybe you confuse with IP-range??? --Jeromjerom (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]