User talk:LaruaWA11
| Welcome!
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
Best of luck to you, and happy editing! |
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please use WP:CSD template appropriately. If the user attacks you, you can report it in WP:AN/I. Dekisugi (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
December 2007
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to United States Marine Corps. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:28, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC) 12:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding edits made during December 30 2007
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
HELP
SOMEONE HAS BANNED ME
LaruaWA11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
No, you have only been blocked for one hour. I suggest you let it ride, and when it ends, you contribute in a constructive manner. — KnowledgeOfSelf
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.
Block
I requested your block. All of your contributions have been what looks like intentional vandalism. Looking through your history I don't see that anyone put any pictures into your user page or this discussion page, as you claim. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:38, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
It was in my discussion PAGE
how dare you accuse me of lying
SOMEONE SENT ME PORN LINKS
STOP BEING VINDICTIVE
- This is your discussion page, and no one put any porn links here, as far as I can tell from your history. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:43, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
i was attacked first you moron
for gods sake
defend yoursef and get BANNED???????
That is because someone DELETED THEM
THEY WERE THERE
I know it
stop calling me a liar.
there was nothing there
then someone sent porn images
- Deleted items still show up in the history. Nothing gets permanently deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:45, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
look
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaruaWA11&oldid=180970001
that is the page
someone had porn images in the links
- You're right. However that still doesn't explain your edits. We don't retaliate on Wikipedia, especially by vandalizing articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
- The initial attack on you was regrettable, yes; I replaced the (invalid) messages with more proper welcome messages, and noticed that you were behaving in a very unusual manner. Are you here to edit productively? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest checkuser... attacker == attackee? Equazcion •✗/C • 12:54, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
- I hardblocked the attack IP, so they wouldn't be able to edit from there. Suppose they could be using distinct proxies, or cycled their modem, but that could be a bit of a stretch. Probably easiest to wait out the hour block and take things from there, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest checkuser... attacker == attackee? Equazcion •✗/C • 12:54, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)
- The initial attack on you was regrettable, yes; I replaced the (invalid) messages with more proper welcome messages, and noticed that you were behaving in a very unusual manner. Are you here to edit productively? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
January 2008
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:MER-C, you will be blocked from editing. MER-C 12:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked
-- KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Block
This might be news to you but anyone can request a block, if there is sufficient evidence, as I've just done. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:39, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- what would u know, you didn't even realise i was attacked first
- i will not lay down and get attacked by the likes of you.
- if you check, something you seem to have major issues with, i have contributed, it was u and some admin that originally blamed me for something i did not do
no
once again you tell half the story.
i responded to someone else who reverted my edits, and they just deleted me
Appeal
LaruaWA11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not believe that this block is fair. All I was doing was responding in someone's User Talk page.
Decline reason:
No, edits like this, this, this, and this show that you're not really "getting it", I'm afraid. You need to engage in civil discussion with people, when you get into disputes -- keep a cool head. All helpful contributions are very much appreciated, but your current trend of exploding into vandalism every time something happens isn't exactly helpful; please find a more productive outlet for your frustrations when this block expires. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2008 (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.
- Larua wasn't responding, s/he replaced users' talk pages with CSD requests. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
That so called review is not fair
that is the same admin that banned me the other day
that isn't the least bit fair and i do not agree with it in the slightest
- So you believe that repeatedly nominating random userpages for speedy deletion every time you get into a dispute with somebody is both normal and acceptable behavior? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
i don't see why not, they are allowed to attack and revert my edits for no reason, why can't i do the same
what is good for the goose is not good for the gander so it seems
- If you have a problem with an edit, try discussing it. Lashing out with the web equivalent of violence really isn't acceptable or productive. If you continue in this manner, you're very likely to find yourself blocked indefinitely. You're welcome to have complaints, but I strongly encourage you to pursue those complaints in a reasonable manner. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
fine
assistance
{{helpme}}
can someone please tell me how i can lock this page, or request it to be locked, someone keeps posting messages asking for me to be banned when i already am, until tomorrow
thank you
- As you are banned, you cannot get this page locked, and even if you did, the people that send messages to you are administrators, which means that the 'lock' doesn't apply to them. Just wait until tommorow. Happy New Year! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 13:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
i don't mind if the admins respond it's Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC) who keeps attacking me, he is not an admin
how many times am I allowed to appeal a block?
{{helpme}}
how many times am I allowed to appeal a block?
i was blocked once before, i appealed it, i was blocked again, recently, i appealed it again
is there a limit, will i get blocked for longer again if a ask again?
- Generally, once. If you continually ask to be unblocked, it is likely that this page will be protected in order to prevent you from asking again. My advice would be to just sit out the block. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Jan 2 -- more vandalism?
[6] I think you need to be banned for a while until you can behave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.205.221.237 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing on Wikipedia?
Hi LaruaWA11, the rules on Wikipedia are there so that editors can produce an encyclopedia. If you take time to read the rules and follow them then you will (a) help write this encyclopaedia, and (b) get a lot more co-operation from your fellow editors.
What you put on the David Hicks page has been removed cause it is not from a reliable source - if you want to know about this please click on WP:RS and read it.
Wikipedia is not for everyone, and if you do not learn the rules by which we agree to play then some experienced users will make the decision that you are not welcome to play. It's up to you. SmithBlue (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
how do i mark someone for vandalism?
{{helpme}}
someone keeps attacking me in this page, by reverting my edits. how can i report it?
- Report what? Report the person for reverting your unconstructive edits?...I am not saying that you did vandalize, or that your edits were unconstructive, as I havent looked yet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
they are deleting my edits and reverting them on this talk page
- First, please sign your posts to talk pages. Secondly, if you are talking about this, the user only did it one time,
and didn't report you for anythingOh, I found it, but I don't know why the user reverted your comment. I've politely asked them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, the user has admitted to making a mistake by reverting your talk page. Can you please move on now? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
he has been doing it for a while, with numerous of my edits
i've moved on. LaruaWA11 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the future, if you have concerns regarding another editor, you can always leave a note at WP:AN or WP:ANI, or you can always ask me on my talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not antagonize other editors. Talk page guidelines do permit the removal of comments from a user's own talk page. If you persist in this sort of unproductive editing you will be blocked from Wikipedia. You say above that you have moved on, please do. Getting involved in petty disputes with other editors is not helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
but it is fine for him to do it? look at his edits in this page
double standards :S
LaruaWA11 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
what a joke
absolute joke
I would like this overturned.
LaruaWA11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been banned for a ridiculous amount of time, and would like the ban shortened, or overturned entirely.
Decline reason:
I'm seeing some really weird ones after that 12 hour block. Moving wording around nonsensically, and apparently trolling user talk pages. The section you just added below this is also concerning. And, well, is there any chance of mentioning why you think the ban should be shortened? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (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.
- Unblocking Admin: Please notice this AN/I thread prior to decision. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
whatever
all those people complaining about me, how pathetic i wasn't doing anything wrong
- I issued the block due to these series of edits: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Do you understand what you did wrong there? El_C 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion - How surprising that you would emerge. You are a hypocrite. I came to talk to you in your talk page, and all you did was reverse my edits and call it vandalism. Then, you come to talk to ME in my talk page, only when I am banned. You're a coward.
- I didn't just emerge. I started the AN/I thread to ban you. Your first edit to my talk page was to erase one of my comments to another user, and your subsequent comments were trolling. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:40, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Oh now that is a hurricane of lies. You came flying in here, started posting every single time I was reverted by another editor or admin, suggested that I was all sorts of fake accounts. Are you saying that this wasn't trolling? Trolling is to annoy another user, correct? Why stopped you from doing all that anonymously? Oh that's right, you wanted to annoy me (i.e. you wanted to troll). So drop the halo, it is extremely disingenuine.
- Go to hell.
Unblock response
Decline reason: "I'm seeing some really weird ones after that 12 hour block. Moving wording around nonsensically, and apparently trolling user talk pages. The section you just added below this is also concerning. And, well, is there any chance of mentioning why you think the ban should be shortened? --
Yes, there is. Because I have made constructive edits on this website before. It was only when certain users started following me around and reporting all of my edits (including mistakes) for Vandalism that I became annoyed, and started posting inside of their talk pages, however, I was unsure of how to go about requesting someone to actually delete the said page I was referring to; so I must have incorrectly used a tag which marks something up for speedy deletion - for this I apologise.
I most certainly will not apologise for defending myself against some of the users on this site, and I find it beyond reprehensible that I have been banned for this reason when I was confused I didn't realise the correct policy to have someone seen to by an administrator (which apparently is not the speedy deletion). I now know how to report people, so the speedy deletion pages will no longer occur.
I ask again that this ban be reviewed, but knowing how uptight some people are on here, they would see it as flooding the block queue.
I am disgusted.
LaruaWA11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I most certainly will not apologise for defending myself against some of the users on this site, and I find it beyond reprehensible that I have been banned for this reason when I was confused I didn't realise the correct policy to have someone seen to by an administrator (which apparently is not the speedy deletion). I now know how to report people, so the speedy deletion pages will no longer occur.
I ask again that this ban be reviewed, but knowing how uptight some people are on here, they would see it as flooding the block queue.
I am disgusted.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Yes, there is. Because I have made constructive edits on this website before. It was only when certain users started following me around and reporting all of my edits (including mistakes) for Vandalism that I became annoyed, and started posting inside of their talk pages, however, I was unsure of how to go about requesting someone to actually delete the said page I was referring to; so I must have incorrectly used a tag which marks something up for speedy deletion - for this I apologise. I most certainly will not apologise for defending myself against some of the users on this site, and I find it beyond reprehensible that I have been banned for this reason when I was confused I didn't realise the correct policy to have someone seen to by an administrator (which apparently is not the speedy deletion). I now know how to report people, so the speedy deletion pages will no longer occur. I ask again that this ban be reviewed, but knowing how uptight some people are on here, they would see it as flooding the block queue. I am disgusted. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Yes, there is. Because I have made constructive edits on this website before. It was only when certain users started following me around and reporting all of my edits (including mistakes) for Vandalism that I became annoyed, and started posting inside of their talk pages, however, I was unsure of how to go about requesting someone to actually delete the said page I was referring to; so I must have incorrectly used a tag which marks something up for speedy deletion - for this I apologise. I most certainly will not apologise for defending myself against some of the users on this site, and I find it beyond reprehensible that I have been banned for this reason when I was confused I didn't realise the correct policy to have someone seen to by an administrator (which apparently is not the speedy deletion). I now know how to report people, so the speedy deletion pages will no longer occur. I ask again that this ban be reviewed, but knowing how uptight some people are on here, they would see it as flooding the block queue. I am disgusted. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Yes, there is. Because I have made constructive edits on this website before. It was only when certain users started following me around and reporting all of my edits (including mistakes) for Vandalism that I became annoyed, and started posting inside of their talk pages, however, I was unsure of how to go about requesting someone to actually delete the said page I was referring to; so I must have incorrectly used a tag which marks something up for speedy deletion - for this I apologise. I most certainly will not apologise for defending myself against some of the users on this site, and I find it beyond reprehensible that I have been banned for this reason when I was confused I didn't realise the correct policy to have someone seen to by an administrator (which apparently is not the speedy deletion). I now know how to report people, so the speedy deletion pages will no longer occur. I ask again that this ban be reviewed, but knowing how uptight some people are on here, they would see it as flooding the block queue. I am disgusted. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
This is beyond a joke.
people banning me for fallacious reasons
I'm sick to death of it
How can I go about setting up another account, because this is now beyond a joke.
Numerous people have attacked me, I respond and get molested by the likes of administrators, and other admin hopefuls. I would like to initiate a new beginning on this site, where I can acquire an account that the likes of these people cannot follow me around and reverse almost all of my edits which do benefit some articles, they just refuse to open their eyes far enough that they actually see the beneficiaries.
I wait in suspense for your reply. LaruaWA11 (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you are banned, you are banned. Please stop abusing the helpme tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I asked a question. If you think that constitutes abusing the so called "help me" tag, then you must have literally no grasp on reality.
- Try to be sensible and maybe we can figure something out. At the moment, I'm led to believe that you are here to disrupt our project (the links above, seem to indicate this). Prove to me that isn't the case. El_C 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are not banned, you are blocked. Seeing how the unblock request was (frankly, unsurprisingly) declined, responding to my comment directly above probably your best bet to see it lifted. El_C 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)