User talk:Cmax205

Speedy deletion of Kazimierz Rumza

A tag has been placed on Kazimierz Rumza 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 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 biographies.

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 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. LAA Fan 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of St. Sulien or Sulian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Sulien or Sulian 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/St. Sulien or Sulian 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. M Magister Scienta ^talk (18 November 2011) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franciszek Kleeberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish Legion (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) 08:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erhard Milch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Jackson (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) 09:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the reason for the block. As far as I know I only own one account. this one. What are the others am i supposed to be using? I dont actually know what i am accused of and who has accused me or the evidence that i have done anything wrong.

I think any accusations should be in plain ENGLISH and not some geek jargon which I dont understand.

Its not clear what process i can appeal or where i appeal to.

It feels a bit Kafkaesque. What am i accused of? what is my crime? where is the evidence?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cmax205 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

when i log in i find myself on a page for acrestreet. i think becos i use a public library bb23 or whoever he is has decided without contacting me that this account is fraud. surely he must have known that there are many users in a public library computer system! i think it is up to bb23 to show what evidence there is of abuse on my part. what illegitimate reason have i been persueing? as he has already unblocked acrestreet for the same reason, i suggest he unblock me too. and in future if you see multiple accounts using the same itp address, why not check that address, and if it says public library, perhaps take a moment before you start blocking dozens of people. Cmax205 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm not as persuaded by the evidence as I was with Acrestreet, but you deserve the benefit of the doubt.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this looks like a mistake. My public library allows at least 10 people to be using the same IP, and if using a public terminal, the maximum session length is an hour. Paging blocking administrator Bbb23 for comment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]