Rrmmll22

Proposed deletion of Michael Finnerty

The article Michael Finnerty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

GNG fail. He is in two collections: a hospital and a local museum in Australia. Neither appear to be notable enough for WP:ARTIST. There seem to be no reviews or other sourcing available. This would not survive a deletion discussion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. --- Possibly ☎ 22:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Finnerty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Finnerty 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/Michael Finnerty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

--- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at David Oliver (magician) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Retaliatory AfD

What you did at Sanlé Sory with the AfD is really something you should try to avoid. It's obviously retaliatory, after I made a good argument for deletion at Michael Finnerty. Finally, if you are going to nominate artists for deletion, make sure they are not in the collection of MoMA, which is likely the most notable art museum in the US. --- Possibly ☎ 05:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK I see now that you also retaliated by launching another bad faith AFD, for the article I created on Jeongmee Yoon. I am not sure if this is what @Cullen328: was notifying you about above, but retaliatory AFDs (and for obviously notable articles) are not acceptable. They are also a big waste of editor time. --- Possibly ☎ 05:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Burge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian. 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) 06:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy.

I'd strongly advise against edit-warring to restore a violation of WP:BLP policy into the David Oliver (magician) article. Regardless of the circumstances, it is liable to result in you being blocked from editing. Updating the article can wait for a few days until policy-compliant sourcing can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrmmll22. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:46, 8 November 2021 (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).

Rrmmll22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not bobbybob2021 but I do think you guys were terrible to them. He did not do anything but propose one edit and you guy banned him for multiple edits. I don’t see what he did wrong. I can also make a new account the subnet you blocked will change in due time and I am NOT an avid user on here. I could change it right now, I mean the starting part of it, that you blocked. Not that I would waste the time. There are many people that share the connection the /64 you blocked and even share computers here. But I would come to bobbybob2021’s aid and say he did not do anything wrong. Except spoke his mind in a chat. He certainly did not as accused make multiple disruptive edits as he he only made one. I do know who bobbybob2021 is and I know how you guys made the error. But I don’t think you guys were fair to him so I am not really interested in working with you guys plus he is my friend. Your sock puppetry these Wikipedia pusodonyms are terrible seems to be unfair advantages which did not happen since bobbybob2021 and I have never colabetrted on the same article so that is not a true violation. They say one can use multiple accounts except for certain purposes. If you can find an article that bobbybob2021 and I worked on together or a message board we are on together or anything then I will give you guys benefit of the doubt. But bobbybob2021 tried to remove an article and then i guess called someone incompetent. I would not use that term myself but there is no way my account violated any rules on the sock puppetry and you can’t even accuse Rrmmll22 in violating any blocks because Rrmmll22 has not been used to publish stuff. Plus bobbybob2021 is new and everyone makes mistakes he nominated an article for run of the mill from what I understand. I am not going to critique or get involved in his argument in terms of the vets article. I find this very offensive that I was blocked but I am not an avid editor and I don’t care to put the Time in.

I don’t think there is any sock puppetry going on even if I was bobbybob2021 I am arguing this for the point of argument. I could change my ip and make a new account. This account only has a few edits itself. I don’t understand why even if I did create bobbybob2021 how that is sock with puppetry. I did not do anything that one is not allowed to do with a second account. Plus, I feel privacy policy etc might have been violated by exposing my IP address which exposes my ip address and location for Rrmmll22 in violation of Californian privacy laws. The law states a website can not reveal an individuals geolocation. I am concerned about that now. Rrmmll22 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I just made a new account and am back in business. No worries!

 Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2021 (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).

Rrmmll22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’ll be honest with you guys I just made a new account because I felt that you all were unreasonable and I had to bypass you all. If you can link it to me I will be amazed! I kinda did it just out of annoyance! Rrmmll22 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2021 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Michael Holland linden hill school.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Holland linden hill school.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)