User talk:Teeterdilforlife

Your attempts to save Teeterdil were perfectly fine as long as you stayed within Wikipedia guidelines. Recreating an article voted for deletion, however, is considered vandalism. I would strongly advise you not to do it again. -Elmer Clark 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many reasons for deleting Teeterdil were given at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teeterdil. Please actually read WP:Notability and WP:NFT, and if after doing so you still feel that this article merits inclusion despite all the points brought up on the AfD page, I would be happy to hear why. -Elmer Clark 04:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have restored the article again. If you continue to engage in vandalous behavior, you will be banned from Wikipedia. Give up this ridiculous crusade. -Elmer Clark 04:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you. We don't have to prove that it's not notable, you have to prove that it is. You have not provided one shred of evidence of this, no website mentioning it, no newspapers, nothing, only your insistence that it's "huge" in the Bay Area. -Elmer Clark 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reposting deleted content. It is considered vandalism. The article was given the customary five days of discussion, and was deleted under the rules. You are not entitled to ignore the rules. Fan-1967 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has become apparent that your account is only being used for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely.

Specifically, that means repeatedly recreating an article that was deleted per Wikipedia's AFD procedures. NawlinWiki 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]