User talk:Pieface007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. While speedy deletions are not definitive decisions: In the case of that article, four sets of eyes were involved in the three deletions, and a fifth editor had alerted you that there was a problem, which did not lead you to offer any explanation of your basis for believing the article to be suitable. Your resubmissions of the same article constitute an abuse of your editing privilege, and thereby a form of disruptive editing. In the future, you should not recreate articles that have been deleted under either AfD or CSD that are in relevant essentials unchanged. You will be, however, free -- if and when the block i am imposing below is lifted -- to make arguments on behalf of such articles in the various channels available to you outside the main namespace. --Jerzy•t 10:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Each does embody a decision on behalf of the community by an experienced and trusted editor.
 * 2) That editor makes the decision not simply that the article is unsuitable, but that it is so unsuitable that the community will not find the deletion controversial.
 * 3) In many cases, the decision reflects the explicit concurrence of two editors; for example, it is my personal policy to request speedy deletion by another, in cases like the article in question, in an excess of caution, rather than make the decision alone.

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. 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  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. It is my finding that while it is possible you are not the same person as Penfoldpotter and Shorty90, it is sufficiently implausible that the three accounts are separately controlled that the community should for now presume that they belong to one person. (In the event that at least one of the accounts clearly states to the contrary, i recommend that that claim be submitted to the editors assigned to testing claims about account identities, and the block be reconsidered in the light of their report.) While you are blocked, you may edit your talk page; the use of English WP without logging on (which you appear to be recently availing yourself of), to do what you cannot do while logged on, is a violation of your block, and you should expect such violation to delay or prevent any lifting of your block. --Jerzy•t 10:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)