LickLack

July 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nancy Pelosi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Wicked Witch of San Francisco

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. 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 in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nancy Pelosi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not create malicious redirects, as you did with Nancy Pelosi. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 78.26 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at The Wicked Witch of San Francisco

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from The Wicked Witch of San Francisco, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nancy Pelosi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at The Wicked Witch of San Francisco

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with The Wicked Witch of San Francisco. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

My only two edits were factual.

Decline reason:

Your edits constituted vandalism in that they damaged the integrity of Wikipedia. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:22, 24 July 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Three problems with the block: 1. My edits were factual 2. You are violating my First Amendment rights 3. Administrators my not decline unblock requests by blocked users that they blocked.

Decline reason:

OK. I didn't block you. I'm declining to unblock you. You took a factual article and put a derogatory title to a copy of it. It's that title not the already existing article. The First Amendment prevents the passing of any law establishing a religion as official in the USA. I think you mean Free Speech - which is subject to libel and slander laws anyway. It doesn't mean you can post anything you like on a site that has its own rules, or anything contravening those laws. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2011 (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.

(I'm not an American...)