User talk:Luaza1313

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Luaza1313, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Soetermans. T / C 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars 1313[edit]

Hi Luaza1313,

Maybe you're a big fan of Star Wars, like I am, and that you would like to see Star Wars 1313 actually being released someday. However, unless you have some new information that can be backed up with a source, removing "cancelled" from the article and the Star Wars video games templates is not helpful. If you do though, feel free to add that information! --Soetermans. T / C 14:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Nuclear warfare does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Soetermans. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Star Wars 1313, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Again, you will need a source. It still *is* cancelled, it is not "on hold". Do you have new information? Add it! Soetermans. T / C 11:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another questionable edit. Look, you do not have to communicate with me or other editors, but you will have to follow guidelines. --Soetermans. T / C 13:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-thriller[edit]

You claim that this is not related to or a genre of Science fiction - yet everything about this article argue that is highly related (but with a complex relationship with SciFi.

Please desist from editing in this way until you have argued the case with other interested editors on the relevant talk pages. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. You seem to be editing while logged out as 85.173.179.178 to restore some of your disputed edits. Rather than edit warring, please discuss the issues on the articles' talk pages. Thanks. SummerPhD^v2.0 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Techno-thriller. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Can you please stop your unconstructive editing and actually communicate with other editors? You've crossed the three revert rule a couple of times now, using several IPs. Soetermans. T / C 13:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Eye & science-fiction[edit]

The article doesn't reflect it yet, but Eagle Eye was nominated by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films for a 2009 Saturn Award for "Best Science Fiction Film". It handily qualifies as a science-fiction film, so please don't remove such designators from the article. Thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page guideline[edit]

Hello, Luaza1313. I noticed this recent edit of yours, on a talk page. On an article, that would have been good, but there's Wikipedia guideline that, with very few exceptions, it's better not to edit other editors' talk page posts. This is explained at WP:TPO. Not a big deal in this case, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. About your recent edits on Talk:List of superhero television series -- specifically, this and this -- it's against the Wikipedia talk page guidelines to remove other editors' comments. This is explained at WP:TPO. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:List of superhero television series, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 15:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT edit other users' talk page comments, even to correct a typo. Do NOT edit other users' talk page comments.

Once someone has responded to a comment you have made on a talk page, do NOT edit your comment. Changing the wording of your statement changes the meaning of the other person's comment. Changing the date and time of your comment makes it look like the other person responded to you BEFORE you commented. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banner shell[edit]

[1] {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} redirects to {{WikiProject banner shell}} so no need to replace the latter with the former. The parameters 'class' and 'importance' are also determined automatically on category talk pages so do not need to be added. Tim! (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. luaza1313 09:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you continue to make such edits, for example this one. Please stop. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So parameters "class and "importance are determined automatically in talk pages of categories. Ok I will not add parameters in talk pages of categories .I will add WikiProjects if talk pages of categories are empty. luaza1313 18:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to make these changes [2] ? Tim! (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I want make more contributions.Mainly I add WikiProjects in talk pages if talk pages don't have WikiProjects. luaza1313 11:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't add any WikiProjects, you changed the order of two that were already present, and added the parameters |class=Category|importance=, which as I stated above, are completely redundant. Compare the page as it was with the page as you left it: other then the order of the WikiProject banners, and the order of the categories at the bottom, there is no difference at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed order of WikiProjects in the category because this category is about British Motorsport. luaza1313 11:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you add {{WikiProject British Motorsport}}? But apart from that, changing the order was wrong, since the articles are primarily about motorsport, and secondarily about the United Kingdom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did not know about this WikiProject. luaza1313 11:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Luaza1313. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject rater gadget[edit]

From your contribution history it seems to me you might be interested in this tool for WikiProject-assessing: User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. I find it very useful and it has saved me countless hours of time already. Just wanted to let you know about it.

--Fixuture (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Skyline (film), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

You removed a source specifically covering Inspector Gadget and similar science fiction concepts because you disagree with it. This is not the way it works in Wikipedia. You can not reject sources that do not fit your definition. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think whe should discuss in discussion page ? luaza1313 18:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am under the impression you are gutting the article and removing available sources, in an article that relies way too much on websites.

The Scott source you removed is an Oxford University Press source which cites different definitions and uses of "cyborg" in real life and science fiction. Inspector Gadget is specifically covered as one of the science fiction examples and the similarities with other uses of the concept noted. Which is far more detailed than the Metacritic article. You removed the source as self-published. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question.luaza1313 18:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered "yes". And I am initiating discussion. What did you think the above comment was? Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in talk page of Inspector Gadget I will explain why science fiction as a genre should be removed . luaza1313 15:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a comment on the page List of superhero television series that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on K.C. Undercover. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at True Blood.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You were warned previously about adding categories to articles which their text did not support, but appear to still be doing so, in addition to your other problematic behaviors. Please stop. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Dpm12. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Scooby-Doo related articles have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Don't change or add genres without reliable sources Dpm12 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Max Payne. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not add genres without a reliable source. Do not add categories that are not supported with a reliable source in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Max Payne 3. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. luaza1313 12:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add Category:Neo-noir to articles, then somewhere in the article "neo-noir" (or something similar) needs to be mentioned, with a source. Just because you feel that this category or genre fits, it needs to be supported. Please don't edit war over this. Discuss your reasons on the article's talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I should add source in my summary ? luaza1313 12:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be sure that the category you add is supported with a source in the article. Please see WP:CATDEF which states "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article you added why it was placed in each of its categories". I read through a few of the articles you added Category:Neo-noir to and it was not clear, or the article did not contain sources to support the category. If I add the category "punk rock bands" to an article about a band, it means that somewhere in the article it must be very clearly stated, with a source, that this band plays punk rock. If you feel your category is appropriate, discuss it on one of the article's talk pages, or leave a detailed edit summary explaining your reason. The reason your talk page is filled with warnings is because you are not supporting your edits with a reason or source. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for running unapproved bot scripts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

104 pages changed in 49 min (Category talk:xxxx in Finnish sport) would be going some for a normal bot and impossible for normal editing. Please obtain proper bot approval or WP:AWB approval. Do not repeat this editing system without approval. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot.I don't have any bots. luaza1313 12:26, 11 February 2017 (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).

Luaza1313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I make useful contributions.I am not a bot.I really don't have any bots.Luaza1313 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At 15:15 you made six page creation edits in one minute! When the evidence points one way the onus is on you to demonstrate how you made the edits without automated assistance. Just Chilling (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2017 (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.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at K.C. Undercover.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. You have had a long string of warnings by different editors to which you appear not to be paying heed. During this enforced break please take the opportunity to read and reflect on the advice that has been given to you, above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Just Chilling (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2017 (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).

Luaza1313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I make useful contributions.I add WikiProjects if categories don't have WikiProjects.I am a good editor.That's why I shoud be unblocked.Luaza1313 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luaza1313, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD^v2.0 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luaza1313. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2017 (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).

Luaza1313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I
1. I understand what I have been blocked for,
2. I will not continue to cause damage or disruption,
3. I will make useful contributions instead, and
4. I will not create new accounts

That's why I should be unblocked.Luaza1313 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will need to address the problems that led to your original block in greater detail. Explaining what kind of useful contributions you plan to make will also be helpful. And a comment on this would be nice, too. Huon (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2017 (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.

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).

Luaza1313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts.I and Aslansalpagarov are different people. I will not create new accounts. I can make useful contributions.That's why I will make useful contributions.I will correct information.I will update information.Please unblock me.Luaza1313 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The sockpuppetry is confirmed. If you are different people, which I don't believe, that'd still be a violation of WP:MEAT given the technical and behavioural evidence against you here. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2017 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luaza1313, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD^v2.0 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]