User talk:Glc4mccain

Proposed deletion of Swigger vote

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Swigger vote, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Terrillja (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Swigger vote, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Terrillja (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you again remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Swigger vote, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Do not delete the maintenance templates or you will be blocked. Terrillja (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Swigger vote, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to provide references but they keep getting removed. Urban terms won't necessarily show up in Merriam Webster's dictionary but more in blogs, discussions, etc. This is a term that's been popping up recently. Glc4mccain (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why neologisms have their own set of specific notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Swigger vote

A tag has been placed on Swigger vote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Dayewalker (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 03:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Glc4mccain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I followed the rules. It clearly says I cannot edit AFD but I can edit anything else after that. I did not agree the article was a hoax and posted references to its usage. Instead of continuing the discussion the article was just deleted and my editing privilege has been blocked. I'd like the article restored and discussion continued.

Decline reason:

Your edits are strongly biased, racist, and disruptive. You have no sources to back up your claims, except those which you created yourself. For that matter, I notice you've now been blocked on Wiktionary for the same thing. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:57, 26 October 2008 (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.