User talk:LaLaBand

Warning about your behavior on this site

The way you are going about this Foot fetishism is going to get you blocked. You are edit-warring while discussion is on-going. Whether it is committing serious WP:BLP violations such as calling Ann Wilson a fat bitch, removing content because it doesn't agree with your POV, ridiculing Susan Estrich on her article, or wring anti-semitic curses on biography articles.

You are on thin ice; if you reply with an attack, I will have your IP address (yes, we know it) blocked in addition to your user name, and you will no longer be able to edit this site. Cool it, or you will be forced to leave. It's that simple. Sorry WP:BITE you, but the behavior you have exhibited is disturbing, time-consuming and annoying. --David Shankbone 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who IS this guy?? Some kind of foot fetish enforcer??? I don't think he can kick you off here or he would have done it already????? FeHammer (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how things work around here. We don't just kick people off, we block, then we block again, then we discuss banning if behavior doesn't improve. But we always giving warnings. This was his warning for a pattern of exceptionally problematic behavior. Your efforts to incite will also land you in trouble, so this is a warning. --David Shankbone 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mike Patton, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 09:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sragow

The note you added to the Sragow article about his being criticized needs to be backed up by a reference, please. Otherwise it's just an editor's opinion, and will end up being deleted sooner or later. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mickey and Amelia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Rurik (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Alex Rodriguez. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GlassCobra 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that have ANYTHING to do with the S.E. Cupp article???? LaLaBand (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the Cupp article. It does not change the fact that you vandalized an article and required a warning for having done so. GlassCobra 22:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reprimand but to revert my responsible edits is a bit too much. The warranted action is to warn me of a future ban.... It's a bit too much to revert my proper and responsible edits that are COMPLETELY unrelated to my (admittedly) nonsensical edit of the Alex Rodriguez page. LaLaBand (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Cupp article were reverted for the reason that I noted in my edit summary; blogs are not acceptable sources per WP:RS. I saw that you hadn't been warned for your edit to the Rodriguez article, and issued you one to make sure you knew that further vandalism will result in a block being placed on your account. GlassCobra 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, the reason why blogs are unacceptable sources is because they're almost entirely subjective opinion or second-hand accounts of supposed facts. If somebody states a concrete fact (i.e. what religious beliefs they hold---in first person), it's a credible source. Now...if I was quoting someone else's blog that said "I heard that S.E. Cupp is an atheist"...I understand why that wouldn't be acceptable. Also...why do you keep reverting my other edits that have nothing to do with vandalism or blogs??? LaLaBand (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. The Incident (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

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 Che Guevara, 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

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 Andrew Levy. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:36, 22 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I blocked indefinitely?LaLaBand (talk) 6:40 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

No reason for unblock provided. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2012 (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.

- - Really don't see how this justified a lifetime ban. Kinda silly.