User talk:Lawline

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests‎. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rehevkor ✉ 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted your edit of the same section after receiving Rehevkor's warning above. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INDICATED ARTICLES REMOVED

You should not delete the discussion, you can request it is archived, but not deleted it. Consider this your second warning, continuing to vandalise as you have could result in you being blocked. Rehevkor ✉ 14:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LIBELOUS AND SLANDEROUS COMMENTS REMOVED FROM THE POSTING

See Wikipedia:Libel It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Rehevkor ✉ 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLES DELETED AS NOT IMPORTANT, SO IRRELEVANT

Votermarch.org listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Votermarch.org. Since you had some involvement with the Votermarch.org redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). January ^(talk) 14:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGEST DELETING REFERENCE, NOT REDIRECTING WWW.VOTERMARCH.ORG IS A WEBSITE ALREADY See http://www.votermarch.org

Editing comments of other editors

Changing another editor's comments is never acceptable. You are welcome to civilly disagree (and you might want to cut the caps, in that vein, too), but you may not edit or remove them. You've received sufficient warnings for your disruptive behavior by this point. You need to either stop screaming and discuss, or leave until you can. If you can do neither, you will be helped to leave. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SEE Wikipedia:Libel which requires that false and defamatory articles be eliminated immediately. If you continue to act in a reckless manor by reposting libelous comments, I would suggest that you contact the legal Counsel for Wikipedia

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action, as you did at WP:EAR. 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Template:Z7

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).

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

Request reason:

You have violated my First Amendment Right of Free Speech. Per Wikipedia Policy, libelous content should be removed immediately. See Wikipedia:libel Under Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. See also Wikipedia:legal threats Lawline (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, Wikipedia requires all information about living persons to be reliably sourced. Since you've been blanking whole articles, and I cannot find anywhere that you've explained what specific information you are claiming is inaccurate, I can't help you make that happen. If you can clearly explain what material you are objecting to, I'd be happy to look at it, and remove it if is not adequately sourced. Unfortunately, because you have chosen, instead of communicating clearly, to make a legal threat, this account remains blocked until after your lawsuit has concluded, as Wikipedia policy requires. It would have been much faster and more effective to simply communicate the problem clearly with other people, but if you prefer the legal route, that is your choice to make. Please note that the first amendment does not have anything to do with Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not an arm of the United States government. Please, if there is incorrect information that does not have a reliable source here at Wikipedia, explain clearly what the information is, and in which article or articles, so or someone else can remove it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 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.

Possibly unfree File:YippieMuseum-237x400.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YippieMuseum-237x400.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --January ^(talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE FILE

Nomination of Robert Fogelnest for deletion

The article Robert Fogelnest is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Fogelnest 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGEST DELETING ARTICLE - LAWYERS ARE A DIME A DOZEN

Nomination of Hot Lap Dance Club for deletion

The article Hot Lap Dance Club is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Lap Dance Club 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGEST DELETING ARTICLE - THE CLUB WAS CLOSED DOWN. I've already tagged the article about the strip club for deletion, because I don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. You could have done that yourself, or asked someone how to do it if you were confused. But by simply shouting hard-to-understand all-caps legal threats, you made it impossible for anyone to understand what you were trying to do. Since you appear not to have the ability to communicate clearly with other users, which is essential for participation at Wikipedia, I don't think you should be unblocked. However, I have looked at the edits you made, tried to understand what you were attempting to do, and tagged two articles for deletion while opening a discussion of whether or not some information should be changed or removed at Talk: Strip club. These are all things you could have done yourself, and they would have been more useful than blanking whole pages apparently at random while making legal threats no one could understand. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia; almost no one here knows who you are or what happened at your club, and almost no one here cares about those things. We're just trying to write a good encyclopedia, that's all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED, THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, AND NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN NEW YORK CITY.

You are blocked from editing Wikipedia, because you made a legal threat. I've done my best to understand what you were trying to do with your edits, though you still have not clearly explained them, and taken some more useful actions than the disruptive actions you took. I'll say goodbye to you. Have a lovely day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE DELETED YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO WIKIPEDIA. I AM NO LONGER INTERESTED IN CONTRIBUTING TO WIKIPEDIA. GOOD BYE AND GOOD LUCK.