User talk:Disfasia

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to National Holiday (Quebec) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to National Holiday (Quebec). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If what you're saying is factually accurate, a sentence or two (NOT two full paragraphs), stated neutrally, and cited from reliable sources, would be appropriate. However, please remember that we're reporting the basic facts in an encyclopedia article, not writing personal essays. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a cultural anthropologist and frankly this smacks of censureship. Please stop deleting posts that have sources! It seems you have an issue with the facts, so do not state falsehoods that these facts are "personal opinion", this is a fallacious argument and quite transparent. If you have facts to offer to counter my fact, then we can discuss them. Until you are able to offer facts, then it seems there is little else to say on this given that I have included two paragraphs that are valid in both content and point of view--a purely historical and sociological tone of analysis.

Nothing of what you posted at National Holiday (Quebec) respects the founding principles of Wikipedia which are listed here. What you wrote might have made it into a column of The Gazette, but it fails on all accounts for inclusion in an encyclopedia striving for neutral point of view and assertions based strictly on verifiable facts. It is not sufficient to add references to your opinion to turn it into something with scientific validity. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, heavily biased and opinionated commentaries on an artificially constructed and poorly reported media polemic do not make good material for an encyclopedia.

If you really want to write something useful on this, start a chronology of who did what and who said/wrote what in all media in both English and French on the subject. Do this in your own sandbox. When you'll have done this, you will have all the known facts and all the known opinions expressed on the "affair". From there, it may be possible to synthesize it all and write an article on it, but then again, this would most likely break the No original research material rule. Maybe in ten years, when the dust has settled, when there will be books to cite, will it be possible to write something useful in Wikipedia on that matter. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First, stop the hyperbole please: "Nothing" of what I have posted is incorrect? A paragraph remains, hence your description is fallacious and libelous. And original research is not necessary to substantiate anything here--it is all over Canadian media. In fact, if anything eveyrthing about Quebec on Wikipedia is incredibly whitewashed to include the entry to Esther Delisle where her work for serious Holocaust Studies researchers is highly acclaimed. In fact, she lost her career because of people who censure, people like you. More directly, you are censuring what is commonplace knowledge. You might not like that there are disputes about this holiday, and probably you disagree given your knee-jerk censureship. But this does not discount the veracity of the facts. In fact, this holiday as listed here is extremely one-sided and the disputes about it--and there are many-- need to be included because there is a huge anglophone community (and even parts of the francophone community) who find this holiday xenophobic and racist. Moreover, this is tending to be the more common view of the holiday viewed by educated Quebecers and reasonable people recognize that the whiteness and francophonecentricity of this holiday are severely divisive and problematic for a province whose immigrant and anglophone communities are participant...not the mention the authocthonous voices obfuscated by this holiday.

Simply put, to censure dissent on this issue goes against what Wikipedia is about. I know this forum quite well and suggest you move away from editing and censuring and try to inform yourself about what are common known facts and discussions in this society and learn to live with voices that differ from yours. I have left the more "white" and Disneyfied descriptions untouched and I expect my descriptions of this holdiay which can be easily verified by any journal--to include the Gazette which you seem to hold in contempt. Wikipedia is intended to define vis a vis many voices the defintions and histories of ideas, events, people, and cultures. You need to allow different points of view which expose this holiday in all its dimensions, as it is lived by various communities.

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 National Holiday (Quebec), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You are presenting the appearance of someone who is at Wikipedia to spread The Truth as you see it. That never goes well. If you are interested in making the encyclopedia better, my suggestion is that you spend some time working on other articles, articles about which you feel less passionately, while you learn the rules and the way Wikipedia works. Then, when you're better acquainted with how to do this kind of research writing, you'll be more able to decide what, if anything, should be changed in National Holiday (Quebec). You claim that you are a cultural anthropologist; surely you learned when you were earning your PhD how to cite the most reliable sources, how to avoid putting your own biases into your writing, and how to adjust your writing style based on what publication you are writing for? I'm a little puzzled about why you, an academic, aren't already using those skills here- but I really strongly recommend that you stop trying to force this one paragraph in, and try something else for a while, until you have a richer understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia's rules. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to National Holiday (Quebec), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are purely bigoted and now insulting here. It seems that you don't like facts that conflict with your own imaginary of this holiday. That is once again your problem. Should you attempt to censure I will simply take this further. But your comments that are nothing more than viscious personal attacks and you need to stop. And you need to calm down and stop them now. You are warned.

Please note that I am not, as you imply above, part of any conspiracy of French-speaking Quebec-dwellers. I don't speak French. I've never even visited Quebec. I had never heard of this holiday before I noticed your changes while patrolling recent changes to the encyclopedia. I am reacting solely to the tone of your writing and the quality of your sources, and have no opinion on the political point you are trying to make. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I doubt the veracity of what you write here. Meanwhile I have cited a dozen sources all of which show the great discontent with this holiday amongst many types of communities. Read the articles. This is not about French or English merely, this is about a racist celebration that a great many people--and I include the younger generation of many French speakers as well--have problems with. This is a well known cultural manifestation and Wikipedia is full of references from sources that are not in books. Again, the censoreship in Quebec is severe--people have lost their jobs over far less and jorunalists--and I know a handful here--are fearful of printing anything about this issue. Hence, the many blogs and boards that I have cited reflect exactly what is written.

Now if you wish to insult my PhD and my research which I have actually NOT included here, we can continue this with a third party mediator. Defintiley. But I think you are a Quebecer and that you are taking sides, just you know that I am calling your bluff. I have had colleagues read my posting here, and nobody finds the posting tendentious or one-sided. If anything, this holiday posting in the Wikipedia is mostly pro this holiday. So you need to put this under discussion and stop censring my writing.

Unlike User:Mathieugp, I have no opinion at all about this holiday; like most of the people on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean anything at all to me. I'm just someone who does my best to do what's best for the encyclopedia. No, I don't believe that you really have a PhD, but if you do, it doesn't make any difference. You don't believe me when I say that I am not Canadian, and there's nothing I can do to prove it to you- besides, that doesn't really matter, either. You don't believe me when I say that I will block you from editing if you don't stop breaking the neutral point of view rule, and in that, you'll find, I can show you that you are wrong if necessary. But you have a right to make your own decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have done is essentially engage in the most bigotted form of arugment--a quite vulgar and uneducated one as well. Being an English teacher you ought to know about it: argument ad hominem. It is a personal attack. And so instead of actually addressing the facts of my article (or you are free to disprove them, but given that I am pointing to an atmosphere of discontent amongst immigrants and non-white, non-francophone Quebecers, you would not be able to discount their experiences), you choose to insult. Again, your choice, but it is an abuse as your position of administrator. Which is why I want my paragraph to stay up and that another administrator take over and work on this.

The fact remains that you are censuring what is an entry for both the positive and negative sides of this holiday--and there are both sides to this "story", if you will. But insisting that excluding information that discusses the larger scope of this holiday after I have cited online sources readily available to you to read, does not actually create an atmosphere of dialogue. Instead you are antagonising me and attempting to put across this holiday in only a positive light, which is only half the story. Read the links I give--you will find a lot of people unhappy with this holiday and in their minds, they have every reason. This should be included in the political nature of the holiday, for this is a political issue, as is the holiday. Disfasia (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)disfasia

I have a point of view on this discussion. I see this Jouallophone celebration much like I see the 12th of July Loyal Orange Order Parade in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and BC as well as Alberta and Manitoba also. St Jean the Baptist Day in Kebec is largely put up by essentially pur laine and also -essentially- racist segments of the Jouallophone population of Quebec. I have some Acadian Heritage and we did our annual celebration in Ontario, in English and also celebrated our Irish and Scottishness. But please, to suggest that the Saint John the Baptist celebrations in Quebec are not in any way chauvinist, based more on bigoted arrogance than on the celebration of the life or patronage of a Saint ... is dreaming in technicolor and frankly rather dishonest. I am here not making a judgment on the viewpoint these people have in desecrating everything they find not to their colloquial liking. We are merely noting the well-documented-to-death-fact that it exists. Even Goebbels could not erase the holocaust. He could do no more than deny it. ₯-Knight of Ma'at.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightofmaat (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Common place knowledge?

(Replying to Disfasia) Common place knowledge? You mean common place knowledge like the fact..

1. that one of two spokespersons of this year's National Holiday is Boucar Diouf, from Senegal[1] ?
2. that the other spokeperson is a woman, on purpose, because the spokepersons are now systematically one man, one woman, since the leader of the Mouvement national des Québécois et des Québécoises (coordinating the June 24 festivities for the past 25 years) is headed by Chantale Trottier, a feminist (since 2002). Before her, it was Louise Paquet, also a feminist.
3. that for the 5th year in a row, the Journée nationale des Peuples Autochtones on June 21 will be teaming up with the Fête nationale on June 24 through the Solstice des Nations event[2]?
4. that last year, at the Grand Spectacle in Montreal, hosted by Normand Brathwaite (for several years), the hip hop band Loco Locass was singing with rapper Samian (Algonquin) and singer-songwriter Paul Cargnello (anglophone)?

How do you account for the above stated facts? And what about the unquestionable diversity of festivities in the neighbourhoods of Montreal[3], something which has been consistently happening for the past decade or more?

You write: "there is a huge anglophone community (and even parts of the francophone community) who find this holiday xenophobic and racist". Who is the source or this opinion, and on what substance is it grounded?

You write: "I have left the more "white" and Disneyfied descriptions untouched". What part are you referring to exactly and on what account does this part get to be called "white" and Disneyfied? Do you have something comparable to say about the current content of the Canada Day article? Do you find this article too "white" and Disneyfied as well? -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources list many experiences of individuals who cite their lives. And the xenophobia is a phenomenon discussed in many journals printed by immigrants (ie. Haitans, Moroccans, Latinos). Again, see the sources and read the experiences of many who view this festival as racists. There are dozens of direct quotes in these links, and you just have to google to see the responses to the many journalistic approaches to this subject. Again you might find this festival inclusive, but you are clearly white as most anyone of colour in this city avoids this festival. This holiday is divisive and racist by virtue of its celebrating a white French ideal of history that is both false and contorted purposefully.

Your saying that a woman or a rapper participated does not make up for the masses of people here who do shun the festival. There were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis as well.

The question is not what the morally right thing is, but what the most neutral, most verifiable facts are- the facts that reliable sources support and that people on both sides agree to be true. The problem is not the facts in your paragraph, but the personal analysis that you are adding. There is a long tradition on the internet that, in any argument, the first person to invoke Hitler automatically loses, but that's hardly relevant here. If you are interested in writing about the Jews who collaborated with the Nazis, Wikipedia might have an article on the subject that you could get involved with. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that of course there are tokens in these celebrations. I am not talking about the dark-skinned faces that are used to propagandize equality, I am referring to the thousands of immigrants who come here daily and who drive our city's cab drivers. I talk to them daily and am hard-pressed to find those who feel included, who feel that this festival is their festival and who do not find the very basis of St Jean offensive. What we have to verify this are the many blogs out there that do discuss this issue. Even Agnry French guy's blog gets an awful lot of flack on this issue. There is a lot of resentment about the racism and xenophobia here--and I include from French immigrants themselves. Many people are at odds with a celebration of anything "pure laine" and this includes my francophone university students (I teach at the U de M). I think it is a shame to exclude this simply because anthing that counters official holidays will of course be labelled tendentious, especially in this climate.

That gave me enough information to identify you (your initials are &*, correct?) so I apologize for doubting your PhD. If that's who you are, then you are indeed an academic. And an artist. I'll bet I'd like you, if I met you. That doesn't, unfortunately, solve the problem with the paragraph you want to add. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to replace your initials. Again, people lose their livelihoods for critiquing the racism here. But the person you mentioned is a Canadian. Cheers.Disfasia (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)disfasia

Reply to -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)from Knight of Ma'at: It really seems that the bottom line to all you have stated is that you want a nice clean presentation to this whole holiday piece. But it isn't a nice clean situation. therefore to reflect intellectual honesty and objectivity, wiki is bound to present the real situation ... even if that makes 59% of the Joual-born Quebeckers feel rather centered out for being so anti-intellectual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightofmaat (talk • contribs)

Detailed analysis of your preferred paragraph

As a favor to you, I've reproduced the paragraph you want to add. The sections in bold are places where what is written is not a verifiable fact, or is not verified by the sources you cite. Of your sources: (1) is an opinion poll, not usually considered a reliable source, for reasons that are discussed in the article about the poll. (2) is a blog, which is not considered a reliable source at Wikipedia. (3) is a reliable source- but it only confirms as fact that there was a disagreement over the inclusion of some specific bands. (4) is a reliable source, but it, too, only confirms the facts related to the band disagreement. (5) is also a blog, and so does not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I can read just enough Spanish to understand that it's one writer's personal opinion, not verification of facts. In your proposed paragraph, there are only 3 statements of verifiable fact: that the holiday celebrates "pure laine," that "pure laine" is a racist term, and that 59% of Quebecers identify themselves as racist. The rest of what you have written is not verifiable statements of fact, but your own analysis, and can't be included. Of the three, neither of the first two is verified by the sources you cited. The third, the poll result, is the only thing in the entire paragraph that is a statement of fact confirmed by your source- except that even your source acknowledges that the poll is not particularly reliable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The central problem of this holiday for the more progressive Quebecois community is that this festivity celebrates the "pure laine" (literally translated as "pure wool"), a term used to describe someone born in Quebec and directly descended from European blood. The Saint Jean Baptiste holiday, therefore, focuses on racial purity thereby alienating the growing numbers of non-white, non-French and non-racist Quebecois (of all origins). Moreso this festivity historically effaces the very real historical and contemporary brutality toward's Quebec's indigenous communities who are virtual guests--and badly treated guests--in their own land. As such, the idea of celebrating racial purity would be akin to celebrating a national holiday for say the Ku Klux Klan; yet this holiday is never put into question in the provincial or local governments despite a recent poll which shows that 59% of Quebecers identify themselves as racist. [4] Many Quebecois are considering holding anti-Saint Jean celebrations in 2009 in order to honour a society that is inclusive and non-discriminatory since many view honoring one version of history--a version that explicitly negates ethnic diversity and historical conquest--does not construct dialogue nor teach the tuth about the multifarious types of conquest and empire in this province as is noted on various websites and well-established blogs. [5] Moreso, there is an enormous amount of censoreship on this subject as the refusal to accept debate about this holiday often results in paucity of direct journalism on this subject and even intimidation by other Wikipedia users. However, current attitudes are readily available on established discussion boards, blogs and newspapers [6][7] [8]

Actually, the holiday celebrates Quebec not "pure laine". "pure laine" is equivalent to "old-stock" and is not as such a racist term: it really depends on the person using it. The January 2009 poll, as made clear by Jack Jedwab's comment, is controversial:

"Quebecers were asked if they consider themselves very racist, moderately racist, slightly racist or not racist at all. Jedwab said in three out of four answers, respondents end up labelling themselves racist".

It is by adding up the people who responded "very racist", "moderately racist", and "slightly racist" that you get 59%. It was 1% who responded "very racist", 15% "moderately racist", 43% "slightly racist". No definition of racism was given to people before answering[9]. Needless to say this survey was denounced as sensationalist BS by several organizations, among others researchers of the the Chaire de recherche en immigration, ethnicité et citoyenneté (CRIEC) and Jack Jedwab, director of the Association for Canadian Studies.

Also, any commentary on this topic quoting only English-language sources from corporate mainstream newspapers edited in Canada is like something written on Tibet quoting only sources in Mandarin from the Chinese press. It has zero credibility. People who do not have a command of French sufficient to quote sources (and translate them) are almost certain to miss out on a lot of information, whether they have good or bad intentions. -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, since this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred (since those are the ones that other users are best able to read and use to verify facts). However, sources in other languages certainly are also allowed. I looked at the article in the French Wikipedia, which seems to be very similar to ours, and which seems to have a section about the political disagreements (unfortunately, I don't really read French well enough to do more than make educated guesses about what it says). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what it says:

In June 2009, a polemic burst when two anglophone Quebecer artists (the bands Lake of Stew and the singer of Bloodshot Bill) were taken off from the programming of a show of the Fête nationale entitled "L'Autre Saint-Jean" because they only speak and sing in English and two sponsors threatened to withdraw their sponsorship of the event if these anglophone artists stepped on the state, fearing manifestations[9],[10],[11]. The organization of the show finally came back on their decision and approved the presence of these artists, but they will have to include songs in French to "insure the preeminience of French and the French character of the activities" during the show in the Rosemont neighbourhood[12]. However, some sovereigntists and defenders of the French language fear this will open the door to other bilingual festivities[13].

This is not quite what happened, but this is what you get when you read one or two press articles on it. Like I wrote to Disfasia, this is too fresh news to be in Wikipedia and people interested in this (if there are any) should be busy compiling full accurate statements for when all the facts will be available. Things are rarely as they seem in these kinds of polemic. It think we have Wikinews for that. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis but there are errors as well. "Pure laine" is a racist term as much as the "N" word is in English. Of course you will find people that say, I called you a N*&&#@ out of affection--and this might exist--but the term "pure laine" is a racist and highly offensive term that even many young francophones shudder when they hear. To make this term into anything else is just purely dishonest. Why I included other sources was because this topic is highly censured here. While some might try to discredit news sources (ie. Gazette) this too is another transparent form of censoreship since the Gazeette is quite conservative in its critiques of the racism here (ie. http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=6e2aa4a2-314f-417f-ad2f-96ee16e9eefb) I have lived in about 35 countries and never seen a subject with so much taboo around it--hence the citations from local Spanish papers that actually do openly talk about discrimination here and need to be considered as these are the voices. Of course there are articles like this http://archives.vigile.net/05-12/15.html (see the Gazette article) which go virtually unmentioned. Also "The racisme scene and the multicultural project: Quebec as an example" in _Trends and Developments/Courants et tendance_, a publication that analyses discrimination in Quebec towards ethnic minorities.

And the comparison with the KKK I believe to be valid--I have heard similar arguments made to justify cultural diversity in their celebrations (and the KKK do view themselves as a culture...and by default the ACLU defends their right to have parades, believe it or not!) whereby the parades are part of a cultural heritage, whereby inclusions and exclusions are likewise cultural choices, and so forth. The comparison is to highlight the contradiction that if a festival celibrating whiteness were to take place anywhere (ie. skinheads in France or the KKK in the USA), people would be up in arms, the media out filming. Here, nobody says anything officially because they fear their jobs, public discrimination and other repercussions. But we cannot discount the blogsphere--after all we are currently accepting information about the events in Iran without published books, through eye witness accounts and Twitter, being repeated here as fact. I think it is urgent that these other points of view are taken seriously and represented here. Again, about half of Montreal does not only not celebrate this holiday, they feel it is an offensive event that consciously divides and excludes.

If ""Pure laine" is a racist term as much as the "N" word is in English. ", then why don't you stop calling them by this name all the time? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not use this name (and your sentence makes no sense really, so I don't know what you really mean by "them"?). Sadly, this is the conception of the holiday--that of a pure French bred, white race, French tongue holiday. You surely can not be so insincere as to deny that this holiday celebrates Frenchness and whiteness. Any person of colour is put on the bill to colour it up, nothing more. The participation by immigrant communities is virtually undetectable. The whole notion of celebrating a holiday of whiteness is purely offensive to any thinking person.Disfasia (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)disfasia

You seem to be discussing the degree to which your analysis is the best analysis, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that an encyclopedia is not a place to publish analysis, but only verifiable facts. The only verifiable fact in your analysis is the statement that the purpose of this holiday is to celebrate the concept of 'pure laine.' Do you have a reliable source that confirms that fact? If you do, a sentence about that could reasonably be added to the article. This source doesn't discuss the holiday at all, so it isn't relevant in an article about the holiday. I can't read this one, since I don't read French at this level, but as I scan it, I don't see the phrase 'pure laine' or anything that looks like the name of the holiday- what verifiable fact are you saying is supported by that source? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

These works below address the notion of "pure laine" and other forms of "nationalism" here in Quebec. Verifiable facts, there are, but as you see, readers here (the mathieu poster above) discount surveys or tries to say that "pure laine" means "old stock", totally ignoring the fact that "stock" means "race". It is not a question of "evil" Quebecois vers an "innocent" anglophone population. It is really about the historical roots of this festival which are correctly surmised in the Wiki from its early years from the religious and historical festival to one which is far more secular, but nonetheless racialized. It is this latter part which I find wholly inaccurate. And these works do get at this problem, as well as more superficially through some of the journalism articles mentioned here and the other site.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000435547

Bouthillier, 1997. Guy Bouthillier, L'obsession ethnique. , Lanctôt Éditeur, Montréal (1997).

Conlogue, 1996. Ray Conlogue, Impossible Nation: The Longing for Home-land in Canada and Québec. , The Mercury Press, Stratford, ON (1996).

Devine, Fiona and Mary C. Waters. Social inequalities in comparative perspective. Blackwell Publishers, 2004.

Francis, 1997. Daniel Francis, National Dreams: Myth, Memory and Canadian History. , Arsenal Pulp Press, Vancouver, BC (1997).

Mathieu, 1988. Jacques Mathieu, New France. In: (2nd edition ed.),James H. Marsh, Editor, The Canadian Encyclopedia vol. 3, Hurtig Publishers, Edmonton, AB (1988), pp. 1477–1479.

McRoberts, 1993. Kenneth McRoberts, English-Canadian Perceptions of Québec. In: Alain-G. Gagnon, Editor, Québec State and Society (2nd edition ed.),, NelsonCanada, Scarborough, ON (1993), pp. 116–129.

McRoberts, 1997. Kenneth McRoberts, Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. , Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON (1997).

Monière and Guay, 1996. Denis Monière and Jean H. Guay, La Bataille du Québec. Troisième épisode: 30 jours qui ébranlèrent le Canada. , Fides, Montréal (1996).

Ouellet, 1980. Fernand Ouellet, Lower Canada 1791–1840: Social Change and Nationalism. , McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, ON (1980) translated and adapted by Patricia Claxton .

And what do those sources say exactly? I happen to have read Guy Bouthillier, L'obsession ethnique, Lanctôt Éditeur, Montréal (1997). Guy Bouthillier just happen to be a former president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, you know, the institution you slanderously accuse of espousing a racist ideology? I find it surprising this could ever be a source of facts supporting what you are writing about. And what does he talk about in his book? Why don't you tell me?

Regarding the historical roots of this National Holiday, well this is public knowledge, although it might be difficult to find online in the English language. But lucky you, I just happen to have translated one of the oldest references to the first Banquet celebrating June 24 as a national day of Quebecers (a people formerly known as the Canadians.) It is right here, live, in Wikisource[10]. It seems to me that if the people of Quebec ought to be ashamed on the origins of their National Holiday, so should the Americans, the Irish and many other peoples on Earth. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Knight of Ma'at: I would like to make an additional comment on this matter of what a racist IS. I have no doubt the average oven-stuffed Jew who survived the death camps (as distinct from the regular concentration camps) -and I have known 6 poersonally in my day- (shared a house with one for some months and became close friends) would say that there is little "practical" difference between a German citizen who voted Nazi; one who actually administered boxcars en route to death camps as a switcher on a Gestapo rail line; or a General in the Nazi armed forces. The voter is to be considered 1% racist (!?) and therefore not as bad as the Hitler he voted for to use a soldier he didn't vote for who is maybe 20% (medium)racist?! What are you talking about, FisherQueen? The entire picture shows clearly that 53% of Germans were racists and supported the Nazis at their peak. In labour unions it was a higher percentage than 53% in Germany although I am miles from the library and cannot look up the source as I write. -This IS as it is in the anti-Catholic worker CSN labour organization in Kebec.

Further I consider your "Question" to me a matter of intimidation. Did you write the francophone contributor with a similar letter of question? For the record, I do not have a PhD but an HBA. I am a retired Canadian army colonel and publish a website in Greater Montreal which fights for ethnic equality with Joallophones. We are opposed to any form of bigotry in any language. I have to leave at the moment, but I will shortly reply to several cases of racism in Kebec which I experienced personally. And the Agency that did the survey in Kebec -Leger Marketing- should really fetch a modicum of respect from you ... a mere on-line editor with far less to match-up with. Leger marketing is indeed a solid source. perhaps you would like to write him and get his credentials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightofmaat (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet more Reductio ad Hitlerum. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, who said these sources all backed up what I say? You might give very one-sided references only to support your argument, but I give sources across a range of arguments to be fair to the many sides of this question. I like transparence in reporting the facts of what has been said, what has taken place, to include dissent on this subject. Evidently, Mathieugp, you don't know very much about your own history since you pick and choose what you choose to believe and can easily translate a text that you pawn as "true" whilst you conveniently ignore other equally relevant facts. And the facts are recorded all over Canada and the United States where you have more and more testimonies from the indigenous speakers and writers (ie. Black Elk). You write: "It seems to me that if the people of Quebec ought to be ashamed on the origins of their National Holiday, so should the Americans, the Irish and many other peoples on Earth." And in this we agree. Certainly any "nation" or pseudo-nation since Quebec is a province, ought to be ashamed of the murder and disappearance of millions of natives killed in what is today the United States and Canada. It is because of many countries historical recollection of conquest and murder that holidays such as the USA's Columbus Day are no longer celebrated in memory of heros who "discovered" lands, but instead are days of remembrance of the dangers of conquest and colonialism, a day of remembrance. I don't see that in the St Jean celebrations---no acknowledgement of those Native Indians who live just over the bridge from Montreal, whose faces you don't have to see as you write so lovingly about a festivity based on their absence. In fact, that text you translated was written say about the time that Residential Schools were being created en masse in this province for these native Quebecois (for if we are going to be truthful, they are the real Quebecois, geographically speaking, no?). And not so many years after the writing of this text, many of these kids were just killed, dumped into mass graves. Sort of like what the St Jean festival does in both practice and metaphor: we see a token native Indian, a token Haitian group singing in Creole (because hey it's not English!) and both groups, all other 364 days of the year are pretty much shafted by the system here. Haitian and Moroccan taxi drivers with PhDs and MDs able to fill our desperately understaffed hospitals and research centers. Oh, and did I mention the very light-handed Bouchard Taylord report? http://www.accommodements.qc.ca/ It does very little to underline the grave problems of racism in this province, but thankfully in a few years the "pure laine" will be minorities and hopefully then they can be driving the taxis and we can have proper healthcare. Disfasia (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)disfasia

Aside from making irrational accusations going in all directions, for which we never see the foundations and hardly connected with the subject, the curious idea that Native Indians ought to be celebrated on the National Day of Quebec (June 24) when there is a Day specifically for that on June 21 (National Aboriginal Day) (what about Canada Day/Dominion Day then, what do you have to write about it to be consistent with your opinions here?), and your concluding wish for the minorization/downsizing of the "pure laine" people (statement which by many standards would identify you as a racist person yourself, since you are wishing for the majority of Quebecers to undergo the faith of the Native Indians, their downsizing, their being outrunned by foreigners on their own lands) where do you think you are going with this and when did you start thinking Wikipedia was a platform for those kinds of opinions? -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this last comment--you seem not to comprehend what Reductio ad Hitlerum means. If you read the entry it states: "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad". What the poster above writes is not at all in this type of logical phallacy (after all it is a logical fallacy)--he is making a point that one cannot distinguish between a "small degree of racism" and a "larger degree" of racism. That's all. It does not make any kind of parallel between Nazi belief and other forms of beliefs. Disfasia (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)disfasia

Actually, the article states that is "variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy". The paragraphs under the Fallacious nature of the argument explain very well what forms it might take, assuming the person cares to make regular arguments and not just nonsensical statements strung without head nor tail. In his case, "53% of Germans were racists and supported the Nazis at their peak" is supposed to somehow support the claim that there are not much difference between respondents who answered A or B on the January 2009 opinion poll, poll which by the way was answered by all Quebecers, not just the main subgroup you are continually attacking. -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again you misinterpret that definition. An association fallacy would read like this: "Since Quebebois answered in extremely high numbers that they were racist, and so did Nazis, then the Quebecois are Nazis". That would be a use of what you are calling an association fallacy. This is not. This person merely used an example from history making no parallels to Quebec, just showing that racism cannot really be measured in terms of "a lot" or "a little". I think his/her point is that racism just "is". This is merely an example not a logical fallacy of any nature. Cheers. (Disfasia (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)) disfasia

No, you are going to have to study the topic of logic a little more deeply to understand it. Sorry, people don't always make expressions of the form "A therefore B". Most people do not do this, they do not care about the soundness of their arguments when they speak from their guts. Which is understandable from a human perspective. The support to his claim was the Nazi example. Bringing in references to the Nazis (and by association their crimes against humanity) into an unrelated issue was precisely what was being mocked when the expression Reductio ad Hitlerum was coined. To justify his statement on the poll, he claimed to have had first hand experience with Nazism, thereby giving him authority to speak on the subject (that in itself is a fallacy) and inferred from some stats about the support to the Nazi party by the German people (which are unsourced, but maybe true) that the people of Quebec are likewise racist. Sometimes, inferences are very weak, especially in poor argumentation where people are trying to prove something by giving the example of a single case. Often, if not most of the time, it is a faulty generalization. You cannot expect people to lay down plain and obvious Aristotelian syllogisms just for you to analyze. Keep practising and maybe one day you'll get it right. You might be interested in the Logic Portal. Cheers! ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you clearly don't know your logic then because the argument "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is in itself a logical fallacy--trying to discredit an argument for its use of example. It could be the holocaust, it could be slavery, it could be anything. This argument was a 'ten second' of fame moment that was quickly dismissed as a logical argument. Honestly, you need to relax because try as you will, you keep getting it wrong. Cheers! disfasia

Editor's requests

I moved your request from the project talk page to the requests page at WP:EAR where it belongs. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have had to lodge a complaint against Mathieugp as he continually removes a paragraph that I have consciously put under the "do not remove until this issue is resolved" category. To whom do I write to have this person banned? He is abusing his rights on this site as our purpose should be to discuss, not to censure, not to insult. All he has done have been sad personal attacks. I do not think wikipedia should tolerate this. Moreover he is dishonest--the sources I list back up exactly what I am saying. He simply resents that I found scholarly material to back up what I have written.

I would appreciate other editors having a say and his not being allowed to further remove material from the site. Also, I made a warring complaint given that I didn't know that was the procedure. Again I don't know how to fill out all the fields and so I didn't complete the form because I don't know how to (sorry). As an addendum, I showed what I had wnated to post in the context of the larger posting, and a specialist in Quebec history actually found it shocking that my material would be considered any more problematic than the material already there. She said that the sources I have used are actually more objective than the state sources already on the listing.

I think this begs the question as to what is considered a good source and who can remove postings based on what they "deem" to be good or bad material. disfasia

July 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you re-add content to National Holiday (Quebec) that were you specifically told not to on this talk page above by FisherQueen, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you wish to discuss the article's content, then do so on its talk page without edit warring. The disruption by edit warring will not be tolerated. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you read the series of edits, but what I put up was put up under the "do not remove until resolved" section. Are you censuring as well?

This is absolutely ridiculous and I do want to know what can be done at this point. I am sorry but your threats are nonesense and quite immature. What you need to do is respect this point of censureship and stop adding your aggression onto an already illogical pile of rubbish. You clearly have not read (do you read before you post?) what has transpired. FisherQueen asked me to edit and repost. I have. So stop your threats or I will take action against you.Disfasia (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC) disfasia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ignoring two final warnings regarding your addition of content to Wikipedia. Edit warring will not be tolerated, nor will threats (1, 2) against other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

1. Deletion review is for discussion on the deletion of entire articles, not a paragraph, thus your entry was ill-formed and removed.
2. I want to resolve this issue. Another admin had tried here and apparently failed. From what I gather the info you're adding is not consistent with our policies on neutrality. This was explained over and over by a (like me) neutral admin. I have no objective or commentary about Quebec or this article, aside from my desire to resolve this content dispute inline with Wikipedia policy. Please try again to convey your point of view without resorting to insults as you had done with the previous admin. Thus, during or after this block, I do hope you can in a clear and non-aggressive manner explain to me here your contested edits so we can sort out this dispute so that it does not escalate any further. I do wish to end this dispute, so please consider my request and keep in mind that threats and accusations against me or anyone else have little utility. If I think someone has acted improperly I will not conceal that fact, but I need clear and well presented information from you without finger pointing please. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't edited anything! In fact, I would like other administrators on this case. This is just pure harassment and is a waste of everyone's time. What has been going on is WARRING BY ADMINISTRATORS and basic misrepresentation of the truth. Since I added a paragraph to a section that was labelled "under discussion--not to be removed", administrators have done nothing other than censure. So I was warned and have not edited that entry. But in the discussion section of the entry I noticed another user, mathieugp who has removed discussion items and even changed the title to my discussion of the problem with the paragraph I want to edit. So now this group of wiki users are abusing their powers as administrators and users. It is not within Wikipedia's design that user comments on the discussion pages are edited, that titles are removed and replaced, that real names of people are made. Yet this has been going on and strangely nobody is doing anything about it. Why I have been blocked is a sad case of your administrative people not reading, not taking the time to read, or having difficulty in comprehending what they read. I have edited nothing and yet I am blocked for editing. I have not threatened anyone more than I have been constantly harassed and threatened here. And yes, as a user who finds her own " talk" comments edited on the page which request outside review, to have mathieugp make changes to my own writing, is quite bothersome. So of course I said that such behaviour will not be tolerated--because it will not. I will take that issue for review and this is not a threat, this is any wikipedian's right for review. In essence the comments directed at my editing have been wholly dishonest and mathieugp has done the best to misrepresent the truth--her words clearly state that my references have no basis and she follows this up by removing my words or references. Again, I just want her off the page and to have outside editors help with the page that I have included in the talk section. This is a case of warring by administrators as you can see I have even sent out messages to other editors for help in trying to get the paragraph onto the wiki entry. So far, I have faced insults and threats. This is entirely unproductive and dare I say, anti-intellectual. A disucssion would go much further than rants which I see happening and rather abusive behaviour from editors and administrators. As for your trying to play the mediator, by using aggressive tactics--you have accused me of insults which I have not commited. You continue to play this power game which is just a sad state of affairs. Sorry, but you laud over others a power to silence, and that is in itself abusive. I have asked for your help in editing the page and you chose to ignore the removal of primary material on the "talk" page by mathieugp, the fact that Fischerqueen has tried to guess my real name and she posted it here!, and by turning my critiques of your tactics into insult. I am critiquing what is a very passive aggressive ploy on your behalf to turn a constructive critique, a plea for help on this page, into my being somehow abusive. I will take this further, sorry to say. That you are incapable or unwilling to engage users when they ask for editing help and then twist the truth--yes, you have misrepresented the truth, I have not edited anything since you warned me--is just a demonstration of your inability to affectively administrate. I don't think you have an interest in this issue, but you are clearly playing a game which silences the underdog, the one person who has all along asked for help on editing this page. This is abusive behaviour, this is tyranical. I will continue to ask for outside help since it is clear that your interest is in shutting up wiki users not working with them. "The cure for pain is in the pain. Good and bad are mixed.If you don't have both, you don't know yourself."

Decline reason:

This request is too long and rambling to review. It does not seem to address your editwarring, and instead addresses the alleged misconduct of others, which is not relevant here (see WP:NOTTHEM).  Sandstein  18:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's upsetting that you did not read what I said, ie to present your case clearly and without resorting to personal attacks and finger pointing. The block aside, I'm more concerned about sorting the content dispute so that when this block ends things may be resolved. You must try to address my note (#2) above, because if you do not, then the dispute will just spiral further out of control, which will only lead to further drama and blocks. Let's avoid this please. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know the proper place to give my two cents, but there are questionable statements being made here, and not from the user who is blocked. I am quite familiar with the sources stated in the original posting which is somehow not here--there were no blogs. Why is defaming a user permissable, but the person defamed is blocked? I am quite disillusioned with this aspect of Wikipedia in all sincerity. I have been following off and on this debate since last month and what I can state in all fairness is that this user proposed a couple paragraphs that were entirely backed up by content (again, not blogs, but texts that I have personally heard of, one of them I have read). Then one of the users came on here and said the texts were not texts, that they did not say what disfasia claimed, bringing of course no proof to back up his statements. Each time I came to see what was happening, it would seem that warring was taking place--but not from disfasia, but from others who vandalized her writing which was placed in a space specified not to be removed, ancilliary and named as "under discussion". So one can only wonder how users can lie, vandalize and defame this user and in the end, he is blocked, not the offenders? I won't pretend to be partisan in the wiki listing--this holiday is simply only a holiday for those who believe in white French supremacism. I was born and raised here and can honestly say that I have many French friends who would totally support what disfasia has written. This is a haggardly devisive and depassee holiday that most people in the city of Montreal do not see as anything other than racially divisive. This citation from mathieu says it all: "the curious idea that Native Indians ought to be celebrated on the National Day of Quebec (June 24) when there is a Day specifically for that on June 21 (National Aboriginal Day) (what about Canada Day/Dominion Day then)" If I am not mistaken, mathieu just made the point for disfasia that this holiday is racially divisive and installs sentiments of both belonging (if you are white, French) or not belonging (if you are anything other than white French). The fact that tokenism is part of this holiday with a Creole group here and a Mexican group there does not undo the terribly divisive politcs that this holiday is. I find it objectionable that wikipedia is aiding in whitewashing quite literally a holiday that is entirely political by making it into some kind of purely apolitical celebration where there are no politics. Just my two cents, but I think the references need to be shown and that other users stop taking off information here that is pertinenant for all to read and understand.(Chang70 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)chang70).

It's interesting that this is a newly created account and the only edits pertain to this block and the content dispute. Whichever name you're going to go by, the fact is you need to read my note #2 above and try to settle this dispute. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cisgender, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cisgender

Hi! We're discussing the "problems" section you included for the Cisgender article on the talk page here. Hopefully you can participate. NauticaShades 14:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

my ip is blocked and i am not a webhost provider at all. Can you please unblock me. I am overseas and use a VPN account otherwise using the Internet would be impossible. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Max Semenik (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Patrick Califia

I noticed that you recently added a section to the article Patrick Califia. After reviewing your given citations, I do not find them to be credible enough to warrant the addition of this rather inflammatory section. As such, I will be removing it. While there may be some validity to the quote you provided, better citations, along with some secondary sources, need to be found before this kind of content can be added to the article. Again, because this is a biography of a living person, we need to exercise caution before adding things that may be considered defamatory. Mattster3517 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Sexology

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mary Daly, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sex assignment, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I did give a valid reason. Please put back my corrections or I will do so. You cannot just remove clearly presented ideas by bullying other users into compliance. Disfasia (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you presented opinions and original research. Reverting such is following Wikipedia policy, not bullying. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I did give a valid reasons and citations--numerous citations. It is bullying when it is clear you are advancing a political front and ignoring medical literature on this topic and published literature that is not NOR. You ought to read the references before making uninformed conclusions.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julian Vigo (December 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Julian Vigo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Julian Vigo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Disfasia! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Julian Vigo

Hello, Disfasia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Julian Vigo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)