User talk:المستهلك

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your Username (المستهلك)

Hello المستهلك, unfortunately the username you have picked is inappropriate. It is considered inappropriate because it is made up of mostly non-Latin characters. Please consider changing it. You can do this by following the instructions at the Changing username page or by just creating a new account. Note that changing your username will allow you to keep your current edits credited to you. If you do not change your username, a Wikipedia administrator may block this account. If you feel this message is a mistake and your username does not violate the rule, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello persian poet gal, can you tell me where you substituted this template from? I would like to nominate it on Templates for deletion, because the section of Wikipedia:Username on which it is based is very controversial. Kim Bruning 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above template was not nominated for deletion. The message was in regards to the addition of the custom reason for it containing "non-Latin" characters. This area of the username restrictions are under debate at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment, it still still against Wikipedia policy to create a username with non-Latin characters: see WP:U. Normally, you probably would have been blocked more quickly, but there are some contentious issues going on with usernames at the moment. However, in any case, I strongly suggest you apply for a new name before making any more edits, or you'll probably be blocked. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• At the moment, the policy is disputed, so I wouldn't block the user. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  So let me understand this. As soon as someone disputes policy, then we can completely ignore it. Note, it is still policy. I might, in extremely ironic fashion, go then and dispute the WP:POINT policy, would that mean that it can be ignored? Until it's resolved, it's still policy. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  The dispute of the username policy is in good faith, whereas your hypothetical dispute of WP:POINT wouldn't be. Adminstrators can decide on an individual basis whether they enforce it or not, and I've decided that since this username is not causing vandalistic edits, I'm not the one who is going to block it. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  True enough about good faith. However if i have a beef with the policy which says "you can remove good faith warnings from your talk page", does that mean I can then go enforce it? -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  I lost you there... if you have the beef with the policy, wouldn't you want to not enforce it? I'm confused. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: It is entirely possible to be rebuked or even blocked for enforcing policy, under certain circumstances. See: WP:IAR. (This is a side of the coin that too many people here do not know about.). I have issued a block for an IARvio once, though it is more common to simply reverse the action and reprimand the violator. Kim Bruning 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism (possible)

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Block Script, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Joseph Sanderson 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I wikified the article, I didn't vandalize it. --المستهلك 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put a reply on my talk page. The 2 postings in a row and the typo in the first one, as well as the deletion of tags made it look as if it might possibly be vandalism, but if it wasn't, fine. Just proof read it next time to get rid of the typos so it isn't mis-identified. Joseph Sanderson 22:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC/NAME

A request for comment has been filed on your username. You may wish to comment there providing your reasons for choosing your username. Also some kind of agreement to use a transliterated signature when signing talk page comments may influence some people's opinion.--BirgitteSB 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I came here to say the same thing. My opposition would be withdrawn if you complied with Wikipedia:Username#Names with non-Latin characters. Oh, and while I'm here:

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFC appears to already have been closed, but I've commented on WT:U. Mel: Where have I forgotten to use an edit summary? Looking through my contributions, I appear to have used one for every edit. Also, I am in full compliance with WP:U. The section in question says only that I should consider using a transliterated signature, which I have not (at least yet) felt the need for, as I do not often use my signature, as I usually edit articles, and I only sign when I need to talk to other people in order to defend my chocie of username. --المستهلك 19:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you didn't need to sign often; still, most (probably all) non-Arabic speakers find it very difficult to distinguish between different Arabic words and phrases unless they're side by side, which means that it's helpful to them to provide a Latin-alphabet version for when you do sign. (The same's true for Japanese, Chinese, etc.) If you do it now, then you won't have to hurry to create one if you find that you do want to get into a discussion.

As for the edit-summary business — I can't remember why I left that; looking at your contributions, you're very good at always using summaries. I must have had a brain storm — sorry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point; a transliteration would be useful. However, it concerns me that people are considering blocking those who don't provide them. While it certainly is reasonable to ask that people do this, and I will comply, the fact that requests might soon be done with the threat of a block saddens me, as it's very likely that good contributors will be blocked. I implore you to reconsider your position on the proposal. --المستهلك 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is that blocking would only be an issue if someone, after being asked to provide one, consistently refused. As I said in my comments at the discussion, I think that it should apply across Wikiepdia, so that if I were to edit on the Japanese or Arabic Wikipedias, for example, I'd have to give a Japanese- or Arabic-character User name as well as my Latin-alphabet one. My feeling is that that's a simple matter of courtesy to the editors there. Mind you, I hate visiting a country whose language I don't speak, for much the same reason; it feels rude.

Note, by the way, that it doesn't have to replace your Arabic name in your signature; it can be added in brackets (the way that I give a Greek-alphabet version of my User name, for example). Although a non-Arabic-speaker, I find Arabic script very attractive, and it would be a pity to lose it from your signature. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)