User talk:JLaTondre

Welcome to my talk page!

If I initiate a conversation on your talk page, I will watch it (for a limited period of time) for responses. You can respond on your talk page and I will read it and follow-up there as needed.

Please sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Unless you are contributing to an ongoing discussion, please start a new topic.

So you edited Talk:Urprox Screl....

...so I'll leave you this.

Hi! I see that you have edited Shannara related articles here on Wikipedia.....so I would like to invite you to join the Shannara task force, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the series' coverage on this encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here and helping us out. Thank you in advance! the_ed17 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin instructions

Greetings! Regarding the admin instructions: If you think it is helpful for non-admins to have the short version on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page then that is fine with me. The move of the detailed instructions to a separate instructions page was done after a discussion at the proposals forum. The idea is to make it easier for new admins by having a standardized location for processual instructions. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie

I have just noticed that you have not been informed of this deletion review [1] of a redirect you deleted. I should have checked earlier that you had been informed, so my apologies. --Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Foreign Reports" and "Nathaniel Kern"

I'm writing regarding the deletion of the "Foreign Reports" and "Nathaniel Kern" entries. I have permission from the author because I was the author. I work at Foreign Reports for Mr. Kern. Unfortunately, I didn't save the work I did for the entries. Can these be brought back as is? What do I need to do to prove that I have permission through Foreign Reports, Inc., where I am an employee? Let me know what I need to do and I will certainly do it, in hopes of clearing this up. Thanks, and I'd appreciate it if you could get back to me. I would also stress similar points made by Paul Disastro. I worked endless hours on this, and don't appreciate it being taken down before I even had a chance to make some changes. Please let me know what I need to do to bring it back.

Thanks, arlenoil55 —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 14 June 2008

GFDL-compatible license

When I do what you've mentioned, will the Foreign Reports and Nathaniel Kern entries be reactivated to where they were before they was deleted? Also, I'm not an expert on operating websites or monitoring Wikipedia. I use it as a source and I made a concerted effort to add what I did. However, I am authorized to release the content. I wrote the information for the website, even though I didn't upload it. I understand that Wikipedia has to take these things seriously, or it wouldn't be what it is today if it didn't. The work I did clearly took a long time and it wasn't 100% copied from the website. At least I could've had a warning before it was deleted. I'm seriously hoping that they can be restored once I do what you've said. I sent an email an hour ago; still no response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlenoil55 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

redirect

Please be careful in redirecting something on which another editor is working. I was busy removing some of the rather outrageous spam from the article. additionally, I think you redirected in the wrong direction foreign Reports Inc. is much less ambiguous that foreign Reports, a totally generic title. If you have no objections, I'm going to redirect back--otherwise I'll just replace the current text with the version I have partially cleaned up & will be working on further. . DGG (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your note, I didnt mean to snap at you, sorry. I'll consider which direction is best in view of your comment. DGG (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Username Block

You need to unblock my username. You wrote that it violated Wikipedia username policy, but you blocked it without discussion, thus making an assumption about me that you do not know to be true. You need to rectify your error. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:I_love_to_hate_you

After being annoyed by your zealousness I decided that I wouldn't edit Wikipedia; if I can't be given a little rope with something as simple as the creation of a username, why bother to learn how to edit well and improve a resource I use often? But recently I started to edit again, except, being deprived of my chosen username (again, without discussion or any sort of benefit of the doubt), I edit 'anonymously', and make rather unnecessarily unkind edit summaries because, well, I don't *really* edit Wikipedia, because, well, I don't have the fucking username I registered. But I realize that I don't want to do that. I want to be a constructive contributor and have a username of my choice. Ya really.

You are perhaps thinking that I should probably be less vitriolic here in my plea for you to release my username, but the very idea that I have to ask you to undo your mistake pisses me off (your real mistake was not blocking my username, rather it was doing so without even discussing the issue with me).

Here's how things should have went: upon making whatever superficial interpretation of the Wikipedia username policy as it related to my username, you would have opened a dialogue with me and indicated why you thought my username violated Wikipedia policy. I would then have responded with a rather sound and likely cordial argument that would have validated my username choice and put the matter behind us.

But that didn't happen.

I am not unaware of the irony of my post here and the way my username reads, however, I have many delicious arguments in defense of my username choice. Additionally, the acerbity of my (few) posts/edits on Wikipedia correlate pretty well with feeling like I was mistreated by a jackass. But, I dunno, just like you may be wrong about blocking my username (ya are), I may be wrong in thinking that you are a jackass.

I look forward to your response.

P.S. Seriously, I want my fucking username unblocked. When I registered that username I was jazzed-- about being a Wikipedia contributor. Then you shat on that. So be a big boy and cowboy up so I can be jazzed again.

--replace "jazzed" with the slang of your choice that is synonymous with "excited". Some suggestions are "psyched", "juiced", "blazed", "atingled", and "sportin' major wood".

24.44.135.148 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has policies on usernames. Wikipedia also has policies on civility. If you want to edit here, you will need to abide by both. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Usernames which are obviously inappropriate should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, along with an explanation of the issue, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator.

Usernames which are not obviously inappropriate, but which may fit the criteria listed above should not be immediately blocked. The issue should be discussed with the account's creator, who may not be familiar with the username policy. They should be encouraged to create a new account with a more appropriate name. If this is unsuccessful, a request for comment on the contributor's username may be created, and the contributor may be required to change their username if a consensus to do so is established."

It reads, that obviously inappropriate usernames may be blocked. It goes on to say usernames which are not obviously inappropriate, but which may fit the criteria above should not be immediately blocked. The issue should be discussed with the account's creator.

"Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual."

My username does not imply relevant, misleading things about me unless one takes it very literally, but we'll get into that in a minute. It also doesn't give the impression of authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project, or collective.

"Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia."

We can take a pass on this aspect of the policy.

"Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."

Again, only true if one takes my username really, really literally. As I said I'll get to that in a second.

"Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia."

Again a need to take my username to its literal extreme.

Let's examine my username. "I love to hate you", if taken literally, probably can be construed as trolling or some sort of attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, or even a personal attack by one who takes my username in the context of some sort of vacuum, but the generic "you" cannot be taken personally, though it can be considered a plural you, and possibly directed at the Wikipedia community in general, but I don't think that it's obviously inappropriate. It can be argued that someone who chooses a name with any sort of 'negative' conception can be construed as an attempt to troll or disrupt Wikipedia. I haven't taken a scientifically relevant (or even unscientifically relevant) sample of usernames, but I imagine that people are allowed to have usernames that reference chaos or anarchy or other concepts that, taken at their most literal, can be construed as disruptive. But let's instead shift focus to my own case for the validity of my username.

I owned a domain consistent with the username for several years. I recently let it lapse because I did not do much with my domain. Any of the little content was unremarkable.

I used the domain I owned mainly for personal e-mail. While I refrained from using any of the e-mail addresses when it was necessary to make formal contact with organizations, I used these e-mail addresses and sometimes a complementary username at several websites, some of which have similar policies to Wikipedia when it comes to username creation and terms of service regarding behavior on their site. I have never run into any problems with my username or e-mail address.

Given Wikipedia's stated policy of discussing potentially offensive usernames with the account creator, and given that my username does not attack any person, proclaiming them to be gay; or reference any obscene act; or attack Wikipedia personally; or reference public figures or companies; I would think that cautiousness on your part would have been much more prudent. Perhaps we would have discussed this and come to an agreement, and certainly I wouldn't be here posting on your talk page, giving me no opportunity to be perceived as uncivil. And I'd like to point out that regardless of any guidelines advising on proper discourse on Wikipedia, or when posting to an individual's talk page, my invective prose is not the result of trolling, nor is it a "personal attack"--rather it is the result of having some anonymous and inflexible editor restrict my access. Additionally my vituperation here reads a lot more civil than your rather stale and impersonal reply would indicate: the use of profanity and sarcasm in my post only served only to indicate the depth of my anger at being reprimanded in what I again think is inconsistent with a good faith interpration of the Wikipedia username policy--and I feel that whether or not one considers my username to be in violation of said policy, it does not reach the offensive levels of one who would register "suck my cock" or "jlatondre is gay", and that being true, probably warrants discussion rather than denouncement. And as for calling you a jackass it was in an analogy where I implied that neither of us knows one another, thus our perceptions of the other are very likely to be off the mark. Given that you blocked me without discussion I think one can make a great argument that it stands to reason that you expected me to troll or disrupt Wikipedia. Let's continue.

"The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors"

I'm not aware of any other editors who found my username unacceptable, and even if I were, I still contend that the issue deserved discussion.

"Inappropriate usernames do not need to be reported or blocked if the user has made no contributions; most user accounts that are registered are never used."

You were fairly quick to block my username, but I managed to make one (minor) edit in the day or so that my username was active.

"Any block issued as a result of a user's behavior may take their username into account, if it is part of the problem. Such a block may be extended to an indefinite block in order to disallow the username. Behavioural blocks are usually issued for disruption, incivility or personal attacks."

Well, we may have hit the nail on the head there, I think. I haven't admitted to disruptive editing because I haven't done that, but I can certainly see where someone might think that I have been uncivil here, and have made personal attacks.

The thing is... my username block predates any of these sorts of reasons to take into account when blocking a username indefinitely.

I did notice that in your response you ignored the very first thing that I said, which was an argument consistent with the Wikipedia username policy--that perhaps the issue merited discussion, and simply focused on the fact that I (kind of) called you a jackass. Stop trying to hide behind civlity and defend your decision to indefinitely block my username without discussion when you could have nearly as easily tried to discuss the issue and hash out a consensus on the issue that might have left both of us satisfied, rather than just leaving you satisfied (or, more accurately, feeling righteous) and me feeling dis(en)franchised.

This time I don't look forward to your response. I suspect that like your first response, it will be impersonal, like a form letter received from your bank regarding a credit card that you might be interested in.

P.S. If you're just gonna link to couple pages to further condemn my first response, or this response here, or make a rather inflexible appeal in support of your original action, then fuck off. And I don't mean that as an insult. I mean, if you're not going to recognize the fact that the username policy promotes dialogue when a username may potentially be unacceptable, then forget it. Just reply with "I went bowling today" or something, because then there's nothing to discuss. If you've not recognized the validity of my point (it should have been discussed) then don't bother pretending like there's something to be accomplished here. It's the crux of my defense and I don't need you to write something for me to respond to if you have no intention of admitting your error. If I want to walk in circles I'll take off one of my shoes. 24.44.135.148 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)