User talk:LaRouxEMP

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. — SpikeToronto 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. — SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am deeply perplexed as to the contributing factors that led up to my being blocked in the first place but I will not speak of that in this appeal. My only defense is that I was following Wikipedia's guideline of "being bold". I guess I was being a little bit "too" bold. My sincere apologies to the users that I've caused emotiona distress to, if any. Let it be known that I am a progressive human being and always open-minded. I will try everything feasible to correct my ways if only the third party admins review my case and release me of these editorial chains.

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.

Administrator use only:

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=I am deeply perplexed as to the contributing factors that led up to my being blocked in the first place but I will not speak of that in this appeal. My only defense is that I was following Wikipedia's guideline of "being bold". I guess I was being a little bit "too" bold. My sincere apologies to the users that I've caused emotiona distress to, if any. Let it be known that I am a progressive human being and always open-minded. I will try everything feasible to correct my ways if only the third party admins review my case and release me of these editorial chains. |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=I am deeply perplexed as to the contributing factors that led up to my being blocked in the first place but I will not speak of that in this appeal. My only defense is that I was following Wikipedia's guideline of "being bold". I guess I was being a little bit "too" bold. My sincere apologies to the users that I've caused emotiona distress to, if any. Let it be known that I am a progressive human being and always open-minded. I will try everything feasible to correct my ways if only the third party admins review my case and release me of these editorial chains. |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=I am deeply perplexed as to the contributing factors that led up to my being blocked in the first place but I will not speak of that in this appeal. My only defense is that I was following Wikipedia's guideline of "being bold". I guess I was being a little bit "too" bold. My sincere apologies to the users that I've caused emotiona distress to, if any. Let it be known that I am a progressive human being and always open-minded. I will try everything feasible to correct my ways if only the third party admins review my case and release me of these editorial chains. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

LaRouxEMP (talk) 00:39, 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)

 Ronhjones  ^(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.