User talk:JeanLatore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, JeanLatore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Contents

[edit] Civility

Please read WP:CIVIL. Comments such as this are not treated lightly. Corvus cornixtalk 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JeanLatore. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Corvus cornixtalk 17:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I love you, too. Corvus cornixtalk 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy!

I didn't unfortunately. Back when I was on it, only the winner got to keep their money, I came in second, and got a trip to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico out of it. Corvus cornixtalk 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anal Sex with Sluts

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anal Sex with Sluts, 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 {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Anal Sex with Sluts. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Anal Sex with Sluts, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Aristoff

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aristoff, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aristoff. Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornixtalk 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Calin chi wong

An article that you have been involved in editing, Calin chi wong, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calin chi wong. Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My previous incarnation

If I wanted you to know who I was before, I would have said. Corvus cornixtalk 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystik Media

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Mystik Media. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack edit comment at Mystik Media is not acceptable. You're going to get blocked if you don't knock it off. Corvus cornixtalk 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Corvus cornixtalk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:JeanLatore. Corvus cornixtalk 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say that there are two really important things around here that we try to keep in mind: civility and assumption of good faith. We're always ready to welcome new contributors like yourself, but it would be great if you could keep those two things in mind. I know it can be hard sometimes, we all have bad days. Anyways, welcome, and please don't hesitate to ask me or any other administrator if you have a question or need some help. Cheers, Keilana|Parlez ici 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Premature FAC removed

I appreciate you're acting in good faith but it's best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. This way they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar with the sources to make any suggested improvements. Someone who hasn't worked on the article can't provide this input, so the FAC rumbles on until the opposes become so overwhelming that the article is failed, taking a lot of reviewers' time. The Beavis and Butt-head article is not FAC quality as is evidenced by the lukewarm reception, so I have removed it. I suggest you first work an article up through peer review and good article to prepare for WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tort Law

I see you reordered the elements, so that actual cause follows proximate cause. Mind if I ask why? Non Curat Lex (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop reverting edits to the List of basic tort law topics? It was nominated for AfD and kept because of improvement. Putting it back to the way it used to be is not the solution. Celarnor Talk to me 06:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zac Efron

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Zac Efron. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Kww (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, your source doesn't even mention Meyers. Second, even if it did, the best you could do was "some people think he is best known for resembling Mike Meyers", because it's a controversial statement that a lot of people would disagree with.Kww (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Miami Vice, without either fixing the problem that the tag refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template has been reverted. Black Kite 11:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autism

Per your post at AN/I, any person may edit Wikipedia so long as they abide by our core policies. No policy precludes a person from participating on the basis of medical conditions of any sort. Edit away, so long as you abide by our policies. from the looks of your talk page, it seems others have linked you to most of our policies already. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For mentorship, you could try checking at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot offer you mentorship on a continuing basis, but if you'd ever like to ask if an article is sustainable please feel free to ask me on my user page or by emailDGG (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Phyllisha Anne

A tag has been placed on Phyllisha Anne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notability

I noticed your comment on my user page and removal of notability tags on articles without notability. I removed the comment from my user page and undone the removal of the notability tags. Please add notability to those articles and keep to the policy of no personal attacks and assume good faith. SunCreator (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no automatic notability on legal terms as notability requires objective evidence, you can check in WP:N, but I do hope some can be found and added for Dies non juridicum. SunCreator (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dies non juridicum

Please do not delete tags without discussing on the talk page first. If you think the page meets notability guidelines, does not need to be merged, or does not need sources (which is really non-negotiable, until the page has sources that tag should remain up), make your case on the talk page but please do not simply remove tags. That can be considered disruptive editing and can result in blocks from editing. WLU (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Just to let you know, I have merged DNJ into the list of latin phrases and redirected there. WLU (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring

Hi. I saw your AN/I post when checking your contributions. I've been on this website for a while now (over a year and a half). I suspected from your Village Pump posts that you were autistic. I'd be happy to talk with you if you want my help with wikipedia, in dealing with this collaborative environment. I'll watch this page if you want to reply here, or you can use my talk page, or we can set up a new page in user space. Whatever works for you. Let me know if you want my help. Best, Darkspots (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Anything you want to ask my opinion on? Darkspots (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess the first question I would have for you is how you would like to communicate. We could take this off our user page to User:JeanLatore/Mentoring, and both watch the page and talk there. Darkspots (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, we can pick this up later. One thing I wanted to throw out was talk page archiving. Check out Help:Archiving a talk page if you like--you could get some of the earlier posts on this page off your main talk page and into an archive. There's no need to keep anything around that isn't useful--seven days (without further comment in the thread) is the basic guideline, but you can archive more or less often than that. You only need to keep active discussions, like this one. The important thing to remember is that you have control over your talk page--the basic rules (WP:NPA, etc.) apply here as they do everywhere, but otherwise it's your space. Darkspots (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spicoli centre

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Spicoli centre, 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 {{dated prod}} 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? nneonneo talk 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring Part II

Hi Jean. The reason I brought up archiving is that you can get stuff off your user talk page that's old or that does not make you look good. Which brings me to Anal Sex with Sluts. I saw that it was deleted as vandalism, I read the DRV, and it seems like all the editors who commented there were surprised that you had made this page. But it's still listed on your user page. Can we discuss this? Darkspots (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] civility for the record

I am glad you are gradually progressing in your Wikipedia career, and that you have moved on from insults like [[1]]. An experienced editor removed that from my talkpage before I even saw it, which I was grateful for. I post this here not in hopes of obtaining an apology (though that would always be nice) but so other editors dropping by, who may also have received similar comments, can see the context and the pattern, and can give you credit for having mended your ways. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question was made on 2 April 2008. Darkspots (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I do think there has been some progression actually even though I've been on the end of [2]. I have nothing against JeanLatore. Seems an individual somewhat confused by the whole wiki thing and having articles deleted, but then I guess that is not uncommon. SunCreator (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi JeanLatore

Responded at my talk page. Darkspots (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Monster

Please stop removing the notability tag from Sports Monster. There is nothing that asserts notability within the article. Celarnor Talk to me 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub sorting

Hello JeanLatore,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! JamieS93 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Could you please not copy articles directly from a word processor into Wikipedia? Or at least use OpenOffice, which doesn't generate the tab errors produced by Microsoft Word. While I can go through your articles and fix the other formatting errors that this practice produces with simple regexen and find-replaces, adding whitespace of varying lengths is a somewhat problematic thing to fix, and requires that I go through line by line and remove them. If you're going to continue doing this, at least use a different word processor (of course, it'd be better if you just wrote them directly into wikimarkup in the first place).

As an added note, your formatting doesn't seem to have improved any since you started; it looks like you're just copying your class notes on common law into Wikipedia from Word. While that doesn't bother me, as they look they can be worked into viable topic lists with extensive trimming, sourcing and other work, it would help a lot if you read and adhered to the Wikipedia manual of style as you wrote your contributions. Celarnor Talk to me 05:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)`

[edit] Speedy deletion of Matthew's best night out

A tag has been placed on Matthew's best night out, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of A night out to remember (story)

A tag has been placed on A night out to remember (story), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop reposting the same material

Please do not recreate the article you have been posting as "Matthew's best night out" and "A night out to remember (story)". This kind of story does not fit our requirements for encyclopedia articles, and it will be deleted again if you put it back. FreplySpang 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And you've earned a 72 hour block for continually reposting it, as well. Please stop it after the block, next time will be longer or indefinite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Ok sorry about the reposting. I was not aware that it should not do that. I know better now, please unblock me and I promise not to do it again"

Decline reason: "Before you're unblocked, it would be good if you read through the deletion policy and what Wikipedia is not to be completely sure you understand this. I doubt, that only 8 minutes into a block, that you do. We make the deletion logs for pages clearly visible for a reason, so it's obvious why your page was deleted and why it's not acceptable here. The fact that you kept missing those, and the warnings on your talk page, goes even further to tell me you don't quite have a grasp of it yet. Please read through those policies - carefully - and come back once you understand why your pages were deleted and what not to do in the future. -Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Given that you have agreed to stop reposting the material, I will remove the block, since blocks are designed to prevent problems, not to punish. However, in the future, if you disagree with a deletion, please speak to the deleting admin rather than simply reposting the problematic material. Reposting deleted material is considered to be disruptive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

It's all about consensus, bro, everything I've been trying to say. Your blind spot is appropriateness; you have to compensate by being more sensitive to consensus than you think you'd need to be. Darkspots (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Audrey Elson

A tag has been placed on Audrey Elson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. seicer | talk | contribs 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flobots

What is your point. Unsourced information is unsourced information. Please add a source. Rau's Speak Page 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He's right. No matter how familiar you are with the subject matter, you need to have reliable sources covering the subject. That is one of Wikipedia's core policies and isn't something that you can ignore whenever you feel like it. Celarnor Talk to me 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The information that you are adding is unsourced, that will never make it past start. To make it to FA, which is unlikely simply because of the subject matter, you will need information on how the songs concept was brought into being, why they made the song, things like that. And they need to be sourced otherwise I will just remove them. Rau's Speak Page 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering I am directly quoting the song, I do not see how it is unverifiable. I intend to add a source, I simply need to locate the right template. Rau's Speak Page 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a direct quote. And what about yours? That was entirely original research. Rau's Speak Page 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
see Talk. Rau's Speak Page 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Because you remember to sign every comment? Rau's Speak Page 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am being both calm and civil. And you seem to be avoiding the issue at this point. Rau's Speak Page 01:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Do what you will. It's not like I am going to try and stop you. Rau's Speak Page 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you were actually going to do it. Now perhaps we can put my "uncivil" behavior in the publics eye. Rau's Speak Page 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Dude, you've gotta decide where you want to go with this wikipedia thing. If you're having a good time with the way things are going, fine, but at a certain point your quarter runs out. If you want to keep going with this website, you need to seriously slow down and find another way to move through this little online world. Let me know if you want to discuss. Darkspots (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC removal

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strap-on dildo has been removed from WP:FAC at the principle editor's request and because of snowball opposes, and has been archived. There is simply no chance that an uncited article will become featured. Dealing with spurious FAC nominations takes valuable time of many editors; please consider working an article up through peer review or good articles before nominating at FAC, and familiarize your self with the instructions at WP:FA, specifically:

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. ... Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

and

Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conversations with my good buddy Jean

I added a version of the meaning devoid of OR and I checked the billboard numbers, the Hot Digital Songs was outdated. Now, if you have the time to talk to me, please please please, contribute to the talk page so that we can sort this mess out. Rau's Speak Page 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Teen Magazine

A tag has been placed on Teen Magazine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. LegoKontribsTalkM 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion notice because the article clearly does not fit the criteria given. Seeing as you are the author, and you have proposed deletion, perhaps you should place a {{db-author}} tag on it. Kevin (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lo-Ji Sales against New York

Excellent work, Jean. You deserve an attaboy for starting the article, and doing a good job on formatting the graphic, as well as presenting essential information. If you want to continue to work with the article, you should insert footnotes or inline citations with the pinpoint citations for each proposition that you summarized from the facts and holding of the case. Keep up the good work. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean - I want to encourage you for starting serious and worthwhile articles - since many of the articles you've started have not survived. That does not mean that it is a FAC. You should follow the advice of the other editors. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Small Sluts, Nice Butts

A tag has been placed on Small Sluts, Nice Butts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. J.delanoygabsadds 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion is invalid because this article is not about a group, website, nor real person, so I removed the speedy deletion notice. However, I have nominated it for deletion because it does not explain its notability using the proposed deletion process. You have a week to fix this and then remove the notice for proposed deletion. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Small Sluts, Nice Butts

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Small Sluts, Nice Butts, 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 {{dated prod}} 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? Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor review

Jean, I think that a serious review is premature. It seems that you have a genuine interest in contributing to the project, but the slut stuff is just way off base and it still remains at your user page as a described priority. I've looked through your work and interactions with other and I think that you got off on the wrong foot, but are making a nice effort at growth. You've definately done some nice work on the legal issues, but you should study WP:N to get a better idea of how and why we demonstrate notability. Sometimes it is a good idea to walk away from WP for an hour or two if you get angry -- there are some real pricks here and they are experts at getting under your skin. Porn is probably important to the project in some ways, but try seeking the higher road of that topic. Good luck to you! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean, you do have 500 edits which shows a strong committment to the project, but you've had a troubled start. I have politely refrained from going further into the matter as I believe that you are on the road to improvement. Typically people seek a review in preparation for becoming an administrator; you are very far from being a candidate. Please continue to contribute, but take my advice from above. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

It doesn't really have a place for me to respond. Rau's Speak Page 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on the handlebars song page

You continue to put the same material into the article over and over and over again. I notice you have intentionally tried to avoid WP:3RR by doing so slowly. That will not save you from being blocked. Repeatedly replacing challeneged material to an article over and over is disruptive, and it is edit warring. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the person adding the material. That several editors have challeneged the material means it is your responsibility to find references before adding it back again. If you continue to replace this material, in whole or in part, without first meeting the referencing requirements, you may be blocked for edit warring and disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed

If you do not want information removed, source it. You also seem to be engaging in personal attacks on other pages, please refrain from doing that. Rau's Speak Page 17:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate removal of others' comments

Please don't do this[3] again. Thanks - Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond arritt, without clicking on the link, someone reading this might think that JeanLatore had deleted a talk-page comment. He deleted a {{resolved}} template that had a comment with it. He did that, I think, against consensus, which is bad--but it is not just a "removal of others' comments". If the {{resolved}} template had been placed against consensus, removing it would have been completely appropriate. JL, I would suggest placing nowiki tags around the template or some similar thing in the future, leave the comment made by the person who added the resolved template, and then add your own comment to explain why think the matter isn't resolved. Darkspots (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would have been much better than removing the material outright. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I do see your point. I just wanted this to be clear. Darkspots (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: fleaubots template

Hi, there! Yeah, I just did create the Template:Flobots template. I also made these templates releated to the Flobots (if you would like to put them on your page too):

Flobots
This user can ride a bike with no handlebars.
F This user likes the song "Handlebars", by Flobots.

Enjoy and I'll talk to you later. Alex (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] You're excused

Quit wasting others' time and it wouldn't be a problem. You're wrong about the First Amendment applying to Wikipedia. It doesn't now, it will not any time soon, and no matter how many times you attempt to revive the thread it will not change. your addition of unsourced and dubious material is likewise a waste of time, and I shouldn't even have to comment on adding things to someone else's userpage. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The "First Admendment" is the fictional amendment which somehow makes your argument correct. In light of that, there is no real amendment which makes your argument correct, and Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. A wide array of editors have listened to you and told you why you're wrong. If you refuse to listen, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and continuing to revive the thread in vain is only wasting others' time. There are better things to do than revive the thread or talk about how you'd like to plow Erin Esurance. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You could do so if you wish. I don't really care. Rather than try to out me, I'd suggest looking into your own behavior first. Your last little string of edits show that you're not exactly editing to be helpful. Should be a fun exercise in futility. Then there's the edit warring on Handlebars, bringing up Rau's RFC on a completely irrelevant page. That, too, would be following. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So if you want to file an RFC for me undoing your nonsense, you go right ahead. It won't go as well as Rau's RFC did, and he's still undoing the very things you're trying to add. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just commenting that I find it amusing to think that he's harassing you. This is not sourced and is otherwise original research. As is this, this, and this. If you care to file an RfC (which does nothing really), you'll find that your stance really has no merit. This also makes me question your understanding of Wikipedia - talk pages are solely for discussing changes or improvements to the article (see WP:TALK); it isn't a forum where you can talk as you please. That and your First Amendment diatribe is frankly laughable. You're honestly quite stubborn if you're still pursuing the issue even though a dozen or so editors have pointed out why you are blatantly wrong. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's you not listening to common sense. What do you plan to accomplish through that discussion in any case? Whether you're wrong or right, consensus is clearly against you. Anyways, that whole discussion could be treated as soapboxing, is not looked at kindly here. Let it go. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply in English next time please. I don't feel like deciphering your posts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, other people seem to believe otherwise. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Hello

I'm good, feeling kinda sick from the BK. I always intend to allow relationships with editors to over multiple matters, disagreeing on one thing should not deter that. How are you? Rau's Speak Page 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, friend!

Hey there! I'm Angie! So you have autism too, huh? Angie Y. (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Concepts in contract common law

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Concepts in contract common law, 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 {{dated prod}} 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? MBisanz talk 04:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slut

It's not necessary to copy the entire passage into the article. A simple quote and reference is enough. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is your context. Please don't revert that again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

If you upload a copyrighted image again, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mentorship

Yea, sure. I'll help you out if you have any questions. Feel free to either leave a message on my talk page or click the "email user" button. Sasquatch t|c 21:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC nominations

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

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

You have now nominated at Wikipedia: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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The criteria are at WP:WIAFA; you can find other Law featured articles at WP:FA#Law. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am not so much requesting an unblock per se but I would like review of "Rudget"'s message above saying that my block would be lengthened for "abuse" of the unblock template. Isn't that some sort of threat or inducement for me not to exercise a procedure that is available to me by guidelines? It just seems improper to me."

Decline reason: "No, it just simply means that if you continue to abuse or misuse this template, your block duration will increase, and it is possible that this page will be protected also. — :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Yes but what is "abuse" or "misuse" of the template exactly? I need to know this to conform my actions to what is expected."

Decline reason: "Correct use of the unblock template is: if you think that your block was improper because you did not break the rule you are accused of breaking, or if you can make some other strong case for unblocking, you may use the unblock template to simply and clearly explain why Wikipedia policies would support unblocking you, or why unblocking you would lead to a better encyclopedia. Incorrect use of the unblock tag is making repeated requests that say essentially the same thing even after multiple neutral admins have declined you, which wastes admins' time. Another incorrect use is to use the tag to carry on a conversation rather than to request an unblock, as you are doing now. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, as you did to Handlebars (song), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Florida v. J.L., 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. Thank you. 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)

[edit] 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|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|c 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)