User talk:LaRouxEMP

Why Blocked?/Seeking Unblock
Quick question, why was I blocked? LaRouxEMP (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As the summary to my edit stated: “Blocked indefinitely by Admin Toddst1 at 10:11EST 2010-03-12. See here.” Thus, you need to take it up with Admin Toddst1. You should try asking him over at his talk page. In the meantime, if you click on block log in the above notice box, you will see a brief rationale. The only reason I posted the blocked notice here was that when I responded to a comment of yours on an article talk page, I discovered that you were blocked and would be unable to further comment, yet there was no block notice on either of your user page or your talk page. I was only adding the notification as a courtesy to other users. —  Spike Toronto  22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to edit his talkpage. I don't understand.. What could I have done to deserve this? LaRouxEMP (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will notify him on his talk page of this discussion. After that, it is between the two of you since I am completely in the dark. Meanwhile, I would suggest that you review your contributions of the past few days and see if they are in keeping with various Wikipedia policies, rules, and guidelines (e.g., WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc.). You might also go back to the welcome message that User:Cirt kindly placed on your talk page a month ago and see if you had paid closer attention to it, would you be in this state now. (You can find it in this old copy of your talk page taken from its history.) Again, I do not know the full reasoning in your case, and that would be up to the Administrator who applied the block to explain. If it is any help, I found this report that was filed against you at WP:AIV. I believe the blocking administrator may have then made his decision based on that and his own subsequent investigation of your contemporaneous contributions. Once you and he have discussed it, and the rationale explained, you are free to make an unblock request by placing an Unblock template here on your talk page. Your request would be reviewed by a third-party administrator not involved with the block. —  Spike Toronto  22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With this edit, I have notified the blocking admin of your enquiry as to the basis for your being blocked. Good luck! —  Spike Toronto  23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for everything Spike. It's greatly appreciated. : ) LaRouxEMP (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: From the various page logs...
 * You received an only warning on 03:36 10 March 2010
 * You then blanked the page, but it does not delete the warning level.
 * You then made this edit, and it was reverted.
 * This report from AIV gives the reason for blocking...
 * LaRouxEMP - On Talk:Oral sex; vandalism after final warning. Trolling and personal attacks on talk pages. User has already received only warning.. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of blanking the page was not to get rid of that warning or nothing. I did it just because I didn't want anything on my talk page. Simple as that. And the oral sex edit that I made, the guy was obviously trolling so I decided to troll back in an attempt to get him to retract his question. The administrator board is acting like I'm vandalizing articles, which I'm not. I understand some of my comments may have been disruptive but I've already told you, if you grant me freedom from these confines, I will do all that I can to better myself as a Wikipedia editor. On top of that, why was I only given one warning and because of violating that warning, I've been banned "indefinitely"? Makes no sense. Is there no leniency around here that's available to common users? I admit that I was at fault at some point in my editorials but give me another chance. LaRouxEMP (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely leaning towards unblocking you. While that post at Talk:Huffington Post was definitely a WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breach, in my view it wasn't nearly egregious enough to merit a 4im warning.  The only reason I'm not unblocking now is because I want to give Toddst1 time to weigh in, since it's late here on the East Coast.  Understand, though, that if you're unblocked you'll need to be much more careful in how you interact with other users. Blueboy96 05:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, that post on the huffington post when I used the term "dimwit" to describe the person who reverted my change, I've seen other users make personal attacks on here before and I saw some admins just skip over it and not say anything pertaining to making ad hominem attacks. With that in mind, I felt it was okay since dimwit wasn't even that bad of a word. My apologies though if that's not how things function around here on Wikipedia. LaRouxEMP (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from blocking admin
Would you care to explain how suggesting another editor had performed oral sex on his/her father and deliberately trolling another user is in any way constructive or WP:Civil after having been given a level 4im warning for a personal attack - specifically, calling someone a "dimwit"?

You had only made 62 edits in total when I blocked you, two of which were pretty serious civility issues. I frankly don't come to the conclusion that you are here to constructively collaborate with other editors after comments like those. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree those two edits were unacceptable--but that first one was hardly bad enough to merit a 4im warning. I'm of the mind the block should be reduced, in light of the fact he understands what he did. Blueboy96 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion, LaRoux, but when/if you get your editing privileges back, why not spend more time contributing to article space and less time contributing to talk pages (both article and user)? If you look at an analysis of the 73 edits you have made so far, less than half of them have been to wikiarticles. Why not read the various things pointed to in a standard welcome message, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s way of doing things, and spend time just editing noncontroversial wikiarticles in a noncontroversial manner? You would also do well to read WP:GNOME and do gnomish work here at Wikipedia for a while. Such work is invaluable to the overall project! In the meantime, I will place a new welcome message at the top of this page for you to look at while the Administrators determine the outcome of your unblock request. —  Spike Toronto  19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanking User Talk Page
Then you should not have blanked your talkpage - the very first thing on your page was a "Welcome" note that included a whole whack of policies that you needed to follow, including WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your talkpage is a vital part of your Wikipedia experience, and it's recommended that you archive, rather than delete discussions. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be a smart aleck or anything but..keyword is "recommended" correct? LaRouxEMP (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, recommended is correct...I'm allowed to miss a couple of letters at 5AM, and pointing it out doesn't help your case ;-) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, what?? I didn't even mean it like that. I wasn't pointing out a mispell or nothing. I was merely making sure whether or not it was recommended or REQUIRED that I keep the content on my talk page archived. Sorry for not being clearer. LaRouxEMP (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:OWNTALK states the following:"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."Thus, while you may blank your talk page if you wish, and doing so indicates that you have read and understood anything other editors and sysops have placed on your page, it is better to archive. Also, as both User:Bwilkins and I have pointed out to you, if you had spent more time reading the welcome message and the various policies to which it directed you, you would not now be in this mess. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TROLL, etc., would have been well known to you. So, bottom line: feel free to blank your talk page, but the better (read, the best) choice, is to archive. —  Spike Toronto  19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard Offer
Blueboy96 and Toddst1: Would LaRouxEMP be eligible for the Wikipedia Standard Offer ? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Why not? Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Woah what the hell??
Have I been hacked?? It says that my ip address edited some davis high school page. I've never even been to that school before let alone visit that page. I swear this is a mistake on Wikipedia's part. "hot girls, we got some" What the hell?? I wouldn't even vandalize saying some stupid stuff like that. I wasn't even able to edit anything, not even my talk page, till now for this entire day. Once again, this is a huge mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 March 2010
 * I'm unable to find any recent vandalism to any of the Davis_High_School entries that may explain what you're talking about. If you wish, you may email details to me privately or post them here and I'll take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.129.87.199 LaRouxEMP (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Woopsies! This was in 2009 and I have a dynamic ip address (or so I believe). So yeah, false alert. : )

Quick question blocking admin
Hey Todd, do I have the burden of proof in this situation? I mean, is that what you're waiting on before you decide whether you want to unblock me or not? If that's the case, make it known to me so I can start writing out in my defense. LaRouxEMP (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're currently blocked. I'm not going to unblock you. It's possible that another admin may review your request and reach a different conclusion and grant your unblocking but perhaps Standard Offer is your best bet. Toddst1 (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow.. This is insane. I don't want to come off as snub but there is no reason for you to have such an austere perspective on my current predicament. I've already acknowledged my wrongful doings and promised to make amends when granted release, why are you so indignant to my return as a contributing editor? This is unbelievable. I'm sorry, but your lack of leniency for first time offenders is absolutely frustrating and repugnant. Please, can another administrator review my case? LaRouxEMP (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in substantial agreement with Blueboy96 that an indef (or 6 months as the standard offer requires) is too harsh. I'm inclined to reduce the block to a total of about one week, which is fairly harsh but IMO justified given the two fairly egregious diffs. Comments are welcome. Tim Song (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say unblock outright -- the point has been made that those edits were unacceptable, and LaRoux seems to have indicated above that he gets it. Of course, if there's cause to reblock in the near future, it's likely to go straight back to indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and have unblocked. The standard offer isn't really applicable here, and it would be pretty unfair IMO to make this user wait six months. LaRoux, please be aware that this is a probational unblock -- you are expected to uphold civility guidelines to the letter, and are not to engage in any troll-baiting or similar activities. Any further infractions, as noted by Sarek above, will result in an indefinite block, most likely without chance of review. You should take note of Spike's advice above to contribute more to article space. Thanks, Glass  Cobra  15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey todd, can you take off the autoblock on my ip address? Thanks. : ) LaRouxEMP (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Autoblock cleared. I wish you success. Toddst1 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback SpikeToronto
—  Spike Toronto  04:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks and happy editing! —  Spike Toronto  23:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spike for informing me of the use of that minute segment. I will take care to fill in that little piece next time I make an article edit. : ) LaRouxEMP (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir
Thank you for defending my honor, and all of the win-aholics out there like myself. Most have no idea how difficult it is having to go through life everyday with a constant urge to win. Shearsongs78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Speed of light, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if serious. LaRouxEMP (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Click and follow the blue links in the above message to find out how serious. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES  00:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chief Keef concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chief Keef, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Chief Keef. Thank you.  STATic  message me!  01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Chief Keef


Hello LaRouxEMP. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Chief Keef.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)