User talk:Frederic1122
Welcome!
[edit]
|
November 2015
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly has been reverted.
Your edit here to 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://nationalspacestudiescenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/will-it-go-round-in-circles.jpg?w=614) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jeraphine Gryphon. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.
Your edit here to 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbesVL8QfR4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding the links. I'm sure you're trying to be helpful but it's basically original research and not encyclopedic style. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read the edit summaries when you're reverted. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please COMMUNICATE with me. I'm watching your talk page. (You can also use the article's talk page.) But please refrain from further repeating your edits or I will report you for disruptive editing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The "See also" section is only for links to other Wikipedia articles (I already said this but I don't know if you see any of it). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The info you're adding is unsourced and basically not relevant to the article, "many videos exist on the internet" is not sufficient proof that this belongs in the article or on Wikipedia at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
March 2018
[edit] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Quebec addition in 2018 Winter Olympics article
[edit]Hi there, Whilst I was prepared to accept (and edit) your small addition re. Quebec athletes in the intro section, it has occurred to me that if any of the 8 millions Quebecers wanted to find out how their athletes performed during the games then the best place for them to look would surely be the Canada at the 2018 Winter Olympics article. Would it be OK to insert the info there instead? And maybe even include a breakdown of how the other provinces performed to balance things up. With the greatest respect, I do tend to agree with Sportsfan 1234 that the info doesn't belong on the main olympics page, which does need to remain generic as far as possible. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear Rodney, Thank you for the advice. The problem I'm having now is that some persons seem to ignore the fact that the 10 canadian "provinces" (such as Québec, Ontario, etc) are in reality States (which are federed in the canadian federation)... Frederic1122
Quebec
[edit]In English, Canadian provinces are not called "states". To call them such is incorrect. To call them a "federation of states" is completely wrong: this is never used in describing Canada in English. Furthermore, your edit was riddled with spelling errors and incorrect capitalization. Do not change it back as it is disruptive to continuously insert incorrect information. freshacconci (✉) 05:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- The mere fact that anglo-canadians don't call the provinces "states" won't keep those states from existing.frederic1122
Freshacconci, I did see your message in which you calll me wrong. So here are two Wikipedia articles that justify my modification. First, in the Wikipedia “FEDERATION” article, we find that: “A Federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing STATES or regions under a central (federal) government.” Then, in the french Wikipedia article “Provinces et territoires du Canada”, we again find that (translation) « The provinces are FEDERED STATES (...) ». (Original text : “Les provinces sont des ÉTATS FÉDÉRÉS possédant (…) des pouvoirs souverains, indépendamment du gouvernement fédéral. ”) Please, stop claiming that canadian provinces are not States. Thank you, Frederic1122
Dear Freshacconci, You say that in English provinces are "never called states". But they are, in the Wikipedia article "Federation" (“A Federation(also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states"). Is this article not reliable to you? Frederic1122
- The federation article is an outline of the concept of federations or federal states in a generic sense, an overview of all nations that can be described as federations. However, when addressing specific topics such as Canada, we go with local variations as long as they are soundly sourced. In Canada (in English-language usage) "state" is not used to describe the provinces. You would need to find actual reliable sources that address Canada and language usage in regards to the Canadian nation and the provinces and territories. In the article on Canada itself, Canada and its political subdivisions are described as "a federation composed of ten provinces and three territories". To state that Canada is "more accurately put, 10 States which are federed in the canadian federation [sic]" is factually incorrect and not supported by sources. The article Canadian federalism goes into more technical detail, but it states that Canada is "a federation with 11 jurisdictions of governmental authority: the country-wide federal Crown and 10 provincial Crowns." It goes on to describe Canada as specifically a federal monarchy that comprises of "Canada's 11 (one federal and 10 provincial) legal jurisdictions; linking the governments into a federal state." And before you get ahead of yourself, the federal monarchy article starts off with the definition of a federal monarchy as a "federation of states". However, that is the word "state" in the generic sense, and the article later goes on to describe Canada as a federal monarchy comprised of subdivisions called "provinces and territories". These are the terms used for the political subdivisions of Canada in English. To argue that it is "more accurately" 10 states which are "[federated] in the [Canadian] federation" is simply incorrect. To continuously push this definition after three editors have disagreed, and to do so without discussion on the talk page or providing reliable sources, is disruptive. "State" may very well be used in French. However, regardless of Quebec being a predominantly French-speaking province, this is the English Wikipedia and we use the language and terms in common use in Canada, in English. This may be very different in the French Wikipedia and the use of French terms common to Quebec French would be appropriate there. freshacconci (✉) 18:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're using many - many - words only to let us know that you're uncomfortable with the word "state". But FACT IS: each canadian "province" has ALL the characteristics of a state (prove me wrong PLEASE) as mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. However I suppose that YOUR interpretation will prevail. Your language argument is fallacious; the matter has nothing to do with language; a state remains a state, wether in French or English. P.s.: Judging by the time of your message, my guess is you're from the west part of the continent. Have a nice one.frederic1122
- Not uncomfortable, and I don't need to prove you wrong: as I argued, this is the word usage in effect in English Canada, and that's what the sources support. And it has everything to do with language: the word "state" in the generic sense, versus the more specific usage in the United States, Germany, and Australia, to give three examples. To state, as you did, that it's more accurate is the very definition of original research. You have nothing to back it up, other than generic uses of the word. In common usage, in Canada, in English, "province" is used. I have no idea why where I am matters in the discussion, but, no, I'm not on the "west part of the continent". I'm from Ontario, lived in Montreal where my son was born, now living back in Ontario again. freshacconci (✉) 19:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're using many - many - words only to let us know that you're uncomfortable with the word "state". But FACT IS: each canadian "province" has ALL the characteristics of a state (prove me wrong PLEASE) as mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. However I suppose that YOUR interpretation will prevail. Your language argument is fallacious; the matter has nothing to do with language; a state remains a state, wether in French or English. P.s.: Judging by the time of your message, my guess is you're from the west part of the continent. Have a nice one.frederic1122
- Thank you for contributing. Wikipedia can never be used as a source for itself, though. Please look for reliable, published, secondary sources to support your statement. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Yankee, all right, keep your own interpretations along with your pink bubble and your threats (that I've deleted) to yourself. Have a nice one.User:Frederic1122
- Whilst I'm thrilled that you've not added the Quebec info back into the main 2018 Winter Olympics article, and encouraged that you have started up a healthy discussion around the issue of naming conventions for federal states, might I suggest that you introduce the original statement re. Quebec medals into the Canada at the 2018 Winter Olympics article (maybe intro or new section) and initiate a discussion on the Talk page there so that other people can air their views, particularly those who have a keen interest in all things Canadian, i.e. casual visitors to the article. (Wow that was a long sentence!) I would be happy to help with wording/spelling if you can provide the facts/citations. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Your edit summary gave two links: this one and this one. The first one says "We report on the state of Ontario's forests every 5 years. Read the 2016 report now." The word "state" has several meanings, and that example is completely different to what you are arguing. State in this sense means "situation" or "condition", not statehood, as a synonym for nation. The second link is an academic book and although I can't verify it at this moment, the use of state in this context appears to be in regards to Quebec sovereignty. So, yes, "state" as in nation but it's about (as the introduction says) "the Quebec question". I have no doubt that if Quebec were to separate from Canada it would (obviously) not be a monarchy, most likely be a republic, and the use of state would reflect French usage. The title of the book is State and Society, so it is clearly about the idea of Quebec as a separate nation from Canada. This is the difficult part of homonyms that you are failing to grasp. However, that has nothing to do with the make-up of Canada today, nor the use of the words "state" and "province" in Canadian English. freshacconci (✉) 19:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
All right I was wrong with this example. Still the POINT I was making remains: federations (such as Canada and others) are made of states. This is a plain fact, however "disrupting" to some people, and as we find on Wikipedia, both English and French. If the canadian federed states were "provinces" they would not have governments, parliaments, laws, flags, so on.frederic1122
To freshacconci: If the web sites https://olympic.ca/, https://www.ontario.ca/page/government-ontario and https://en.wikipedia.org are not "good sources", please tell me what IS a fkn good source. A fax from God?frederic1122
March 2018
[edit]Your recent editing history at Quebec shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. freshacconci (✉) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)