User talk:JeanLatore/Archive 2

FAC nominations
JeanLatore, I've left you talk page notes in the past about your FAC nominations:


 * 1) Featured_article_candidates/Beavis_and_Butt-head/archive1 and talk page note.
 * 2) Featured article candidates/Strap-on dildo/archive1 and talk page note.

You have now nominated at Featured article candidates/Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York a completely uncited article, which was created a few weeks ago, has not had a peer review and has not been through any other content review process, such as WP:GAN. As you can see, reviewers are stating that the article is unprepared for an FA nomination. I've reminded you in past messages that the first step in the instructions at WP:FAC is to review the criteria. I'd like you to refer you to the many discussions of disruptive FAC nominations linked at User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter. Premature FAC nominations of ill-prepared articles are a misuse of reviewer time; if you plan to work a future article up to FA status, please consider first approaching peer review or WP:GAN. If you continue to nominate unprepared articles, the nominations may be removed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The criteria are at WP:WIAFA; you can find other Law featured articles at WP:FA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IF you don't understand the instructions and process at WP:FAC for determining Wiki's best work, again, I suggest you first try working an article through other content review processes, starting with peer review and moving on to Good article nominations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your conduct
I am becoming increasinly aware of your sustained bad faith and use of bad language as a way of negotiating your point of view. You've violated multiple guidelines and policies here on en.wiki, and if you continue in a manner such as this I will block you for 24 hours in respect to our blocking policy. Rudget  (Help?) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it. In any case, you've been grossly uncivil in your conduct here and Wikipedia, and as Rudget mentioned, you're in violation of many of our guidelines and policies, namely WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT. I'd recommend you limit yourself to editing articles that you like, and stop the flood of premature FAC nominations; the five or so opposes on each one are clear indications that you have little understanding of the featured article criteria, and it would be best if you stop. Any further disruption or incivility will result in you being blocked, with blocks of increasing length following the initial one if your conduct continues. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my talk page, with respect to your question. Rudget   (Help?) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk
Do not post this kind of nonsense at the reference desk. If you're unable to act like a reasonable adult, Wikipedia may not be for you. Friday (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This additionally was not constructive and apparently was put for no specific reason. See WP:DTTR as well. If your disruptive editing does not stop, then you may be blocked per Wikipedia's blocking policy. Simply because the "edit this page" function is available does not mean you can do anything you want. Per Friday, if you can't act responsibly and reasonably, then Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for you. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, that is just an essay. JeanLatore (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rude. Placing a templated message that has no context or basis (if you're even going to cite any specific example then don't even bother placing it) on the talk page of a user who has been around for nearly two years and has 45,000 edits is rather meaningless and a bit insulting. It doesn't matter whether WP:DTTR is an essay or not, it's a matter of conduct. In any case, my warning goes beyond that one report. You've been warned multiple times about incivility and disruptive editing, and you apparently aren't stopping; continuing to do so may lead to blocks. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this has made it clear, your manner was acceptable on my talk page recently, but looking at the broader picture here, you are making unnecessary and inflammatory edits (especially those directed at The Rogue Penguin) - by threatening to start an RfC is going to deepen divisions rather than close them. This is your final warning. If you continue with this unacceptable attitude, I will block you for 24 hours. This may be extended if there is any abuse of the unblock template (pending the decision if you were to use it) or if there is an immediate change for the worst in your comments on either here or elsewhere. Rudget   (Help?) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I told you to stop, you didn't. You're now blocked for 24 hours. Rudget   (Help?) 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Underdog (song)
Your commentary isn't needed here. Please stop adding it. --Onorem♠Dil 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is no wonder that young, attractive, hip New Yorkers would be listening to this tune immediately previous to getting eaten by a ginormous alien monster." - This is the commentary that doesn't belong. Facts belong. Opinions and other irrelevant commentary don't. --Onorem♠Dil 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The characters listening to the song before being eaten may be fact, but your addition is presented as opinion. The "It's no wonder" part seems to infer some sort of correlation between the characters listening to this song and their being eaten. And "ginormous"? Real words are preferable to made up words in articles. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a bit excessive, but I won't revert that addition. --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Onorem may be willing to let you add nonsense to pages, but you'll get no such leeway with me. It's borderline vandalism, plain and simple. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
While a peer review would help, I doubt that the article would pass a GAN. It simply isn't there yet. The unsourced information would definitely be pointed out. I think a more appropriate move would to get it listed into the proper projects and then have it assessed. Then, after that. I think a GAN would be a wonderful move. Rau's Speak Page 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop using the template
Jean, for your own good, please stop using the template. Just type the question. I assure you that a lot of editors are watching your talk page right now. Darkspots (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, it means that you should only use the unblock template if you have a good reason to be unblocked. For instance, if you believed the block to be unfair, like you got blamed for the actions of another editor.  It happens, but not in this case. Darkspots (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Basketball etc vs. pornos
Hi. Thanks for the message. My question was not a serious enquiry. It was intended to demonstrate the contrast between your apparent focus on the social class of people playing basketball vs baseball, and your interest in writing an article on a porno. Does that not strike you as a little incongruous? All the best. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. That was a good one.  I hadn't thought of that when I read his comments at the reference desk.  Celarnor Talk to me  22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the South Florida study what "Anal Sex with Sluts (deletion affirmed at WP:DRV but I'm working on re-writing it)" refers to? --  JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're really serious, JeanLatore. This is fairly telling.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And all we do around here is write a credible encyclopedia without disruption from people who are not interested in playing by the rules, but only interested in wasting the time of others. "By their fruits ye shall know them".   Time to clean up your act, or move on.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Try to remember to use edit summaries so that other editors can better see what kind of information you are adding to Wikipedia. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, on the Florida v. J.L. article, you failed to use edit summaries dozens of times. Please try to be more constructive in the future.  Chicken Wing (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only should you use edit summaries, but you should also refrain from personal attacks. Your comments on my talk page lacked civility.  You seem to have a pattern of unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and I would ask that you tone it down.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking.   Furthermore, you should refrain from using sexist language and obscene language when using talk pages on Wikipedia.  At this point, that kind of behavior will just be taken as an indication that you are unwilling to reform your pattern of abusive editing on Wikipedia.  Chicken Wing (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You should note that this edit summary and this comment you left on my talk page were both unacceptable. You need not worry about whether or not I've read certain cases. Rather, you should worry more about whether or not you have read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and are making a good-faith effort to follow them.  You should also take note of the three revert rule before further engaging in edit warring on the Florida v. J.L. article on particularly trivial matters.  Chicken Wing (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was just browsing Rudget's talk page and noticed Chicken Wing's complaint. JeanLatore, you're acting pretty uncivil. In no way was ChickenWing's first or second post within this section on your talk page "haughty" or "arrogant." ChickenWing is right in that you should use edit summaries, they really help editors stay constructive. And although I personally have a lax definition of breaking civility you're being pretty rude on his talk page. I know Rudget and without some sort of remorse, and even if, you're probably looking at a severe warning if not a block. I figured that if this type of information and opinion came from a stranger it wouldn't hurt your feelings. Good luck. Beam 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest I still have to hold my ground, and I do feel that "chicken wing" was less than civil to me. I know I get a little verbally heated from time to time and I apologize, I guess I am used to strong language in my private life, but I mean no harm.  Chicken wing made me feel like the work I did improving the article was not appreciated.  JeanLatore (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given you final warnings before, JeanLatore. This time is no different. I've been reviewing your contributions (most of which are constructive and well-worthwhile expansions to some legal cases) but then I notice random 'undo's' to ChickenWing's edits, this being an example. Was that necessary? No. I realise Wikipedia isn't censored, but I would ask you to refrain from making irrelevant reverts, unnecessary edits, 'tone down' your userpage (I understand this be the biggest sticking point in your terms) and reduce the amount of criticism of others to zero. Blaming others might be a good idea in the school playground, but here? Not at all. If you wish to be treated fairly or like others, make sure to 'bite your tongue' so to speak and accept responsibility for your edits. I hope you understand the position I am in here. I wish for you to react to this comment proactively taking the suggestions to improve your overall standing here on Wikipedia, so you can both become integrated and accepted in the community. Rudget   (Help?) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry, I've been dealing with some issues this past week that required my time but I'll be back now... What questions do you have specifically? I've looked over some of your edits and I think you need to take a few step back and review some policy first if you're willing to take my advice. Working on Wikipedia isn't about making yourself famous, but rather about helping a community. If you're not willing to help then there's nothing here to do. If you want things you can easily do, please look through some WikiProjects. Some of your work on the legal articles look promising. Please avoid edit warring though. I suggest that you adopt the One Revert Rule voluntarily. If you need have some specific questions, go ahead. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Going through your interaction, I think you need to keep a few things in mind. 1) Don't bother responding unless you have to. I think that's the basic rule. If somebody warns you about something minor, it's probably not personal. The only case where I see you needing to respond is if it's a content related matter. 2) When you choose to respond, you need to take it easy. Avoid conflict. If you get pissed, respond later. I agree with some of the comments that you've been overly harsh toward other users... perhaps you should reconsider your wording and especially get rid of any condescension... But yea, take everything with a grain of salt here and I think you'll do alright. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Myflower.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Myflower.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I created this image myself. Took it with my camera in my yard. JeanLatore (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Myflower.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Myflower.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Not sold in stores (marketing)
A tag has been placed on Not sold in stores (marketing) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jean, you have been warned about this before. Did you forget? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Not sold in stores (marketing)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Not sold in stores (marketing), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This might be better served as a part of As seen on TV (marketing) instead. It's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. By the way, do not remove speedy-delete tags from articles where you are the original author; read the instructions on how to handle this properly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you're done and we'll see how it goes. The PROD gives you five days to work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, make sure you explain the differences. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're OK for now - way too early for an AfD. Right now you need to work on references from reliable sources that show how this phrase is notable. Let me know if you have a question or need help. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of NTWICM!
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as NTWICM!, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Not sold in stores (marketing)
I have nominated Not sold in stores (marketing), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Not sold in stores (marketing). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA
You will be crucified if you continue. Please consider withdrawing for your own well being. You are simply not ready. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to pile on, but I came here with the intention of saying almost the exact same thing. There are multiple issues that you need to rectify in order to gain the community's trust. Two large warning flags: You've created inappropriate pages and have been blocked twice in the last 2 months. I strongly urge you to withdraw your nomination.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on either, but you RFA is is under the policy of WP:Snowball. Read it, and see what the three of up are talking about, or it will be closed per WP:Snowball. America69 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Make that four of us. Your recent history of blocks and other inappropriate actions practically guarantees your RfA will go nowhere fast. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but an admin ended your RFA. Try to get more experience, and you will pass RFA one day. America69 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Closure
It is clear that your RfA was never going to pass given the current circumstances. I feel that I was perfectly justified in closing it per WP:SNOW. If you wish to find out what your fellow editors think of your contributions then you may make a request at Editor review. Having your RfA remain open would appear to be an abuse of process and would foster further resentment against you and may hinder your chances of passing in the future. The purpose of RfA is the gauge the community's opinion on your suitability for adminship, I feel that your RfA fulfilled this purpose. Rje (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
Hi. I saw you made this edit. I have to say, I don't quite see why this should be neutral. Could you explain what is wrong with my wording? Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Future requests for adminship
Your recent RfA failed. Had I seen it in time, I would have said no, but not just for the reasons given. There are two additional factors at play. On your user page, you have two userboxes that raise eyebrows: One says you don't "give a fuck," the other says you edit Wikipedia while high. Both make me want to check your edit history carefully. I want only administrators who actually do care about Wikipedia. Also, if an administrator uses the administrative tools while high, I want plenty of evidence that he can at least edit constructively while under the influence. Having these user boxes won't bar you from getting my support in the future, but they will make me take a much closer look than I would otherwise.

Before you consider adminship again, I recommend you wait at least 9-12 months and put in at least 2000-3000 constructive edits without any negative feedback during that time period. After you've done that, ask for something that is given to only trusted users, such as rollbacker rights. Then go another 3-6 months and 1000-2000 edits without any further problems. During this entire time, work on promoting articles to GA and FA status, participate in discussions, and contribute images to the Wikipedia Commons and to the English Wikipedia. Look at some of the successful RfAs to see why they were successful.

People rarely change their behavior "on a dime." I expect that if you are like most people, you will continue to make problematic edits, but they will be fewer and fewer over time. I hope that by Christmas you have several consecutive months and several hundred edits of good, constructive editing behind you.

I look forward to your constructive contributions to this project. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on Requests for adminship/EricV89
Hi Jean, I removed the question on this RfA about smoking weed. You can't ask questions that don't have anything to do with being an admin, especially if it's a question about an activity illegal in most jurisdictions. It looks like I missed your RfA, too, didn't know you were going to do that. Hope it didn't ruin your weekend, bro, and hope you're feeling okay. Best, Darkspots (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)