User talk:LustyRoars

October 2009

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Eva Green. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to John Clare. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Richard New Forest (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lusty Roars – not sure you've quite got the hang of WP yet... You're clearly an intelligent person with a deep appreciation of Clare – and I envy your very good turn of phrase (including your excellent WP name). It seems such a waste to limit your talents to childish games.

I know WP can seem a bit dry at times; perhaps even boring – but disruption is not the only possible response to that. WP is full of dedicated people who work hard at improving it; some of them can write well, but many are more, what shall we say, pedestrian. I think your knowledge and expressive language could make a real contribution, if you cared to apply yourself in that direction. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Derek Acorah. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Your use of scare quotes and the word choice of "pretended" apply clear bias to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - in the article on Acorah it is inappropriate to offer an editor's opinion as to whether the living can speak with the dead. It simply states that he says he is a medium, he says he can contact the dead, he says he has had XYZ psychic experience etc. It does not offer opinions as to whether or not these claims are true or false, except where there is good secondary evidence (in this case relating to allegations of fraud made against Acorah and those associated with him).

The article on mediums or the paranormal should make a full examination of all the secondary evidence for or against the notion that the living can speak with the dead, but even here, editors should not impose their own opinions. Once you get your head round how this style of writing works, it is possible to work within it very well to ensure your perspective is represented without actually writing your opinion. Cheers --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I forgot to add my signature! I'll remember next time. HEARMYLUSTYROARS 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! My eyeballz iz dazzeld!! Srsly, don't use that sig anywhere but yr userpage, as blinking text is a big nono I gather. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Derek Acorah, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hurts my eyes. More significantly, it does breach WP:SIG which specifically asks editors not to use blinking sigs. Could you possibly stop flashing, pretty plz. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound strange, but it doesn't blink on my computer. Genuinely, I wasn't aware it was blinking. I'll change it after I post this.

Once more for luck: HEARMYLUSTYROARS 02:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's the font style="text-decoration:blink" wot does it. Must be your browser that stops it flashing :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't blink for me either, but yes, should avoid it anyway, and should also not be "big", both as per WP:Signatures#Appearance and color. Quite shouty enough just with the caps and colours! Richard New Forest (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Righty dokey skip! I shall rid the siganature of its BIG tags... HEARMYLUSTYROARS 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid your current sig is another that is not acceptable: please see WP:SIG. "Images must not be used", and "avoid BIG tags". You did know this already: must try harder. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Meinhar-20Maur.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Meinhar-20Maur.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Wedding for Disaster. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. CTJF83 chat 19:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP adding blogs as a source, they are Not reliable! CTJF83 chat 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CTJF83 chat 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tb

Hello, LustyRoars. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Breathe (Kylie Minogue song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't have an image in your signature, and all that cookie and van stuff is too long, and looks like vandalism. CTJF83 chat 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you really need to remove that image from your signature and sign properly by typing ~~~~ CTJF83 chat 06:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:Botocudo. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Trusilver 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was that vandlaism? I wasREFERING ti the use of the racist slur COOLIES in that text ...THERE ARE COOKIES IN THE BACK OF MY VAN. 06:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hello, I noticed that you took exception to Ctjf83 reverting your edits to the Bart the General page. Per WP:OVERLINK, he was correct. using examples, from your edit, you shouldn't link very common terms (ie. nose or bully), action terms (ie. shrug) and you should avoid linking terms too many times in the same section (you linked Bart at least ten times, and you kept writting out Homer's full name, which disrupts the flow of the section). I undid your overlinking, but I re-added the improvements to the article. [1] -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruptive editing

Please do not continue your disruptive edits, such as your edits today to Ivor Novello. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Diagnosis Murder. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at John Clare, you will be blocked from editing. Also please refrain from edit warring. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued disruption will result in longer blocks without further warnings. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blink tag in your signature

Please get rid of it. Thank you. NW (Talk) 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to? It's good. HEARMYLUSTYROARS]] 03:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIG is pretty straightforward on the matter: "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." No fewer than five editors (counting myself) have advised you that your signature should not blink. It should also not use the <big> tag. I would strongly suggest that, in the name of courtesy and civility, you change your signature to comply with WP:SIG. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better? Ðem Lusty Fucking Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your mind} 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'd say the f-word makes that an automatic no. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Ðem Lusty Fucking Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your fucking mind!!!!} 04:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment and the date and time at which it was made. Because of that, having an uncivil signature is strongly discouraged (in some cases, to the point of blocking the user until it is changed). In general anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either." You couldn't have that word in a username, so it's not acceptable in a signature. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But fucking is civil? I will change it tomorrow. Good night. Ðem Lusty Fucking Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your fucking mind!!!!} 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 (continued)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Playboy Bunny, you will be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thut wasn't disruptive! Ðem Lusty Fuck*ng Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your fuck*ng mind!!!!} 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Michael Hordern. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page Mykola Hrabar appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Amityville: The Evil Escapes (book), without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for vandalism/disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I think I could have blocked you indef, as I see very little in the way of productive editing from you, but I'm giving you another chance. If you want to carry on contributing to Wikipedia take the time off to read up on our policies and guidelines. Peter 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

How am I going to tell my mother? She'll be so disappointed that I've been suspended from my job editing wikipeida. This is the best job I've ever had! She 78 year old, the shock will kill her.... OR THE SHAME. I hope to God I'm not as dumb as you make out, I hope to God... I hope to God. I've never met a girl like you before.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is absolute proof why the block is valid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 9 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Nonsense! I am being silecned because i am dyslexic and not afraid to tell the TRUTH a bout these people and so-called articles! It makes me sick and it stinks to high heaven. you You can censor 000 me, dut you cannot censor the; truth. End this foolishness. That is a direct order.

Decline reason:

I've disabled your ability to contest this block for the rest of its rather generous duration. Kuru (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2010 (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.

...and when you return, your first job will be to replace your signature. This is an encyclopedia, and although Wikipedia's articles are WP:NOTCENSORED, such language - even when partially bleeped - is not appropriate for this type of project. You will likely be immediately re-blocked if not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LustyRoars TRIUMPHS over ADVERTCITY!

Ohhh, it feels SO GOOD to be BACK! YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP ME DOWN, Wickipedia. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) What? The university thing? But it is true. He is not a university legal in the United States Of America if it does not qualify for accredited qualifications. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 22:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend finding a source that says it is not a "university" and then figure out a way to word it that does not smack of POV. I think saying it is unaccredited works. Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! I shall leap right to it! Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 22:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already says "an unaccredited online education program" in the lead so you might want to focus on the bodyCptnono (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not use the talk page as a forum.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You come back from a three month block, and what do you do? You treat talk pages as forums and vandalise Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix. Quit fooling around or I'll indefinitely block this account. Fences&Windows 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I sorry. I was trying to be snappy and vibrant. I am ashamed and suitably sobered. THankyou. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kistler Vineyards, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Instead of vandalizing Wikipedia, why don't you educate yourself, starting with the proper use of hyphens with compound modifiers? Chris the speller (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi Lusty. You seem to have an error in your sig: instead of leading to this talk page, it's pointing to Talk:John Clare. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but my own talk page is soo boring. ive picked a new page, but will it must be my own? this one is sexual in nature NOT FOR UNDER 18s tohogh i might change it l8ter. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing it sooner rather than later, as it could be argued that use of that link is an intentional effort to disrupt Wikipedia and communication between editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: boring but necessary, and that one is even less appropriate. As C.Fred says, by piping links to elsewhere you are misdirecting other editors away from your talk page, where, let's face it, they may well want to say something.

Take it steady this time, Lusty – as I've said before you could make good contributions to WP if you put your mind to it and kept your patience. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oy gevalt! i acually serously changed it almost immediatly after the last one but forgot it would not change old signatures! i fell like a douchebag! here is the final, finished versoin : Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 22:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps thankyou for your kind words of encoragement, Richard! i see you are a wise man. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

fallacious nonsense! I have been using this account for some eighteen months - how can the say it is only for vandalism? I imPLORE you, look to the records! See the good works I have contributed to this most wiki of pedias. I say an injustice has been committed here today! Mark my words, wikipedia, you will pay for this... blasphemy! Witness my good works! Clear the innocent name of Lusty Roars! Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!! 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've failed to address the issues which you were blocked for in your unblocked request, instead you've managed to display them. Because of this you will not be unblocked, and your talk page access will be removed (you got a chance, you failed to use it). Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2011 (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.

Note to reviewing admin - suggest looking here [[2]] and reviewing the next dozen or so edits. One good edit in 12 doesn't make this account not "vandalism only". --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]