Jump to content

User talk:Shawn à Montréal/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How long?

[edit]

How long until we try to do something regarding User:Stefanomione's tendency to you-know-what? It seems like comments on his talk page are not prompting increased participating by him in the discussions or inhibiting his creative motives. I think something further should be done if others support doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, I've now started to see him at CFD, which is a positive development, and he seems open to suggestions. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking it upon yourself to try to sort this out. Is there a way to restrict a user's access to HotCat (in the same way that you need to get approved to use AWB)? Either that or RfC to institute a ban or approval process for category creation for this user... Axem Titanium (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you seem to know more about this than I do. I wasn't aware that one could restrict access to HotCat, but I do know cat creations bans have been put in place in the past. I don't want to overreact to this one recent recurrence, but as admin GoF remarks above, he's already tested people's patience. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you can restrict HotCat access, but if you could, it would be a good way to stop him from creating categories on an impulse and introduce at least some measure of rational thought before zooming ahead. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media by region of setting

[edit]

Hi Shawn. I have this hobby of categorizing uncategorized categories and every now and then I'm completely stumped. Category:Media by region of setting was just picked up by the bot as uncategorized. It was categorized until Category:Media by setting was deleted and now there's really no obvious parent. But of course the category doesn't really have an obvious function... Since you seem to be familiar with this part of the category tree, maybe you have some good advice to offer! Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancer

[edit]

I've closed your RfD nomination of Category:Cancer as discussions about reorganisation of categories belong at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (see the RfD page for more detail). Looking a little further around the area there was a couple of comments of a similar nature in 2004-5 at Category talk:Cancer and one earlier this year at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force about cancer categories more generally. You may wish to discuss your idea a bit at the latter location (dropping a note on the talk pages of the commenters at the category talk if they are still active) to formulate a proposal before taking it to CfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note

[edit]

Hello SiM. Based on your note please feel free to restore the "See also" section to the article. I usually look for some mention of a connection in an article for inclusion of items in that section so that is why I removed it. But, as with all editing here at WikiP, that is just one persons criteria. You certainly establish a thoughtful connection so, again, please restore that section at your leisure. Thanks again and cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of nomination

[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for the notification of the nomination for renaming of Category:Death-related art. However, there is no discussion as you appear to have reverted it here. Was that intentional? The CfD notice is still on the category itself. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this discussion when I got your reply. Seems all is OK now, sort of. I may comment there at some point. Hopefully the art article will end up getting improved as a result. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help

[edit]

Thank you for your help. New Billy Corben page created, in incubator needs to be moved back to articles section. IF you can help with that please do, thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Billy_Corben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankari (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No plot tags

[edit]

Hi Shawn - hope you're well. I've seen you adding the above tag to articles and I've raised a discussion at the Film Project. I think they're a good idea, but better suited to the talkpage.

On an unrelated note - I had the pleasure of visiting Canada last month. A superb country with great people and fantastic places to visit. Lugnuts (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adaptations of works by Mordecai Richler

[edit]

Category:Adaptations of works by Mordecai Richler, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are details of

[edit]

Thanks for the cat mentoring. What does it mean "I've categorized the redirect created for the member who did)" ? Where might I look to see the effect of "categorized the redirect"... Joefaust Re: Denys Irving. The article Lucifer (rock band) says the band name is his alias and that the band is a "solo". And does Denys George Irving deserve an island article for himself? Joefaust (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Shawn in Montreal! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Category:Cancer-related books, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Inuit

[edit]

I was just wondering if they really belong in the Aviation in the Arctic category. They don't have any flights into the Arctic. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't sure if there was another criteria that I hadn't thought of. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

[edit]

Hey there Shawn in Montreal, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Shawn in Montreal.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS AND WHAT NEXT

[edit]

Hello Shawn in Montreal. Thank you for your welcome message. I am newly signed up and new at providing input, but have been an ardent follower and user of Wikipedia for many years. I am constantly surprised at the accuracy and speed with which pages are kept up to date. I have followed many international conflicts and have admired how very sensitive and accurate information is provided, obviously by people who know what they are writing about (structure, order of battle of large military organizations, etc). In regard to the issue of the title and the designation of the Royal 22e Régiment, I obviously came on too strong - but I was disappointed at assertions that were incorrect, but seemed to carry the day. I have now inserted on the discussion page a very neutral summary of research on the Web in regard to usage of the French name in English. This demonstrates that the English translation of that name is no longer the predominant designation of the Regiment EVEN IN ENGLISH WEB TEXTS. Rather than attempting to unilaterally undo the changes that have been made,and getting everybody upset once again, I turn to you and ask what I should now do. It seems clear that a fix is required. Is the ball in my court? Or will you be addressing my research with others? Is more research required? i would be very grateful for your guidance.VanDoo22 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Please note significant new data on subject "Discussion" page. It shows that the official French-Canadian title is 50% more prevalent on the ENGLISH web pages than the anglicized version. We all had missed over 300,000 pages of the title, with accent eliminated. As you suggested I asked Skeezix(?) to look at it. VanDoo22 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for reply. I fully agree that my accumulated texts on the talk page are TLDR, and address issues of no interest to other editors. I hesitate to invite others to look at them on the bulletin board for that reason. I would prefer to delete them all and replace them with a short compact summary of my points. I would focus mainly on my internet research that gives as true a picture as one can get from Google searches. Do you agree with this? I suggest that this is important because the "consensus" leading to the change was based mainly on the belief that the English version of the regimental Title was the dominant nomenclature; 1.7 million hits was quoted for "Royal 22nd Regiment". Since this is the criterion favoured by Wikipedia, I would focus on the data from 2000 to present. It has not yet figured empirically in the debate and gives a very different picture from that underlying the "consensus" discussion. I am above all a fan of Wikipedia that I have used for years, confident that it could be trusted and that its system and people allowed errors to be fixed. Thanks for your advice. Look forward to your agreement that I fix my TLDR stuff on the talk page.VanDoo22 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shawn in Montreal. Please excuse delay. I have had to undertake some intensive research, as well as learn a bit about Wikipedia formatting. However, I now have a piece on my Talk Page that I am prepared to expose to all. It is as un-TLDR as I can make it, unemotional, and based on Wikipedia Policy - at least that was my intent. I have put into annexed tables and notes the research and comments that I hope people won't read, but which some may wish to check. Even those tables are mere summaries of the Excel data that I can provide to anyone that really wants it.

I would be grateful for your comments on the piece and your agreement that I (1) delete my current contributions to the Royal 22nd Regiment Talk Page (2) Replace it with this contribution and (3) raise the issue on the bulletin board as you suggested.VanDoo22 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenzweigs

[edit]

Good catch. Looking more widely, please see my comments on User talk:Bnorrena, & my warning to the editor. If you have an opinion about the possibility of NPOV rewriting, could you add it there. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Shawn à Montréal. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Template:Peter Watkins

[edit]

I don't think the years belong. The navbox is only a quick way to move between the Wikipedia articles, it's not there to provide info about the films, and it's best to keep it compact. Imagine a really big navbox like Template:Michael Curtiz with years, it would be enormous. The release years and other defining info is available in the filmography section in Watkins' biographical article, so those who want to use it should go there. Smetanahue (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the only difference from a category is that it's in chronological order and one click less away. In other navboxes you can group different types of entries with each other, like one goup for features and one for shorts, and include other related articles which aren't in the "Films directed by" category. For example, Template:Jean Genet has separate groups for Genet's novels, plays and his film. Smetanahue (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entropic Gravity

[edit]

Why does Entropic gravity not work as a theory of gravitation? You can argue that it's wrong, or that it is not complete, but Erik Verlinde received the Spinoza Prize for it; he is not a quack. See [1] It seems accepted as a theory (if unproven and incomplete) to me. Sanpitch (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. Sanpitch (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For the edit on Alice. Happy New Year by the way =) Keristrasza (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Place d'Armes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natural light (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Agriculture media

[edit]

Category:Agriculture media, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Target indeed

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Target for Today and category churning. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cold War sites - created by guess who?

[edit]

This is another big category tree courtesy of Target for Today. Once again, heading down, most of it is his creation, heading in the direction of more of his itty-bitty place articles (e.g. Fort Meade radar station). I'm thinking of another mass nomination. BTW, not getting much traction in AN/I in terms of an admin response. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and other subtree: Category:Tributaries of the Monocacy River. Want to guess who created most of these articles, and what battle they are mostly linked to? The madness never seems to end. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I especially like Category:1995 in the Cold War. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my lord, I didn't notice that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's from someone else who also seems to do a lot of category stuff. I wonder if we need to check up on his work too. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with all the "year in Cold War' categories. They are barely populated, and there are several articles (by Guess Who) which live in multiple year categories. I would put out a CfD to roll everything back into Category: Cold War except for my nagging sense that these categories should be able to be populated. I just don't know what to put in them. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've glanced at these in the past. Sorry I don't have any recommendation at this time. The Cold War by year template by Target for Today has been deleted, I know that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects it's not just him. There's now a separate article for each Texas Tower, including the two which were never built. I'm not waiting to condense these all into a single article, considering that they were identical and that only one of them had any novelty of history (one collapsed in a storm). Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Yes, I agree we should act boldly to merge stubs, where applicable. If he refuses to respect consensus, then that's another thing to bring up at ANI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Fever shed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pumphouse Brewery

[edit]

I am trying to write a good article and took the template from a few other sites. IE:Granville Island Brewing, Oland Brewery, Alexander Keith's Brewery and many other brewing companies. You had a problem mostly with the category I think, it wasn't very clear" Could you tell me what you are looking for in particular so it doesn't get deleted. Thanks.

  • It's not the category, it's the article, as I explained in the nomination. Try and find some WP:RS or I suspect that it will get deleted. Best of luck, Gene, and no hard feelings, I hope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no hard feelings Shawn. as per WP:DNB I am new and I appreciate any feedback you can give me, I have to admit sometimes that getting those Exclamation points are scary sometimes. I have taken your feedback and made the article better than most of the brewery's across canada with various sources that I have found. Please let me know what you think.
    • The addition of the awards helps, a bit, to my mind, at least. I'm just trying to figure out if the awards are particularly notable. Again, if you could find a news story in a local or provincial paper, about the Pumphouse winning one of those honours, that would help even more. And don't forget to always sign your posts by hitting the "tilde" key four times, like this ~~~~, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
You are special! Keepscases (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JunoBeach and 3RR

[edit]

Agree there is no issue now, just wanted to make sure that he did not get into a issue with it and that he understood. Mtking (edits) 22:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Lake Woodhouse in Denver

[edit]

A very strange pattern of edits this guy has: he pops right in and starts editing in Target for Today's bailiwick, and pretty much nowhere else. I'm suspected that a sockpuppet investigation may be in order. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting crap!

[edit]

on my talk page and at Canadian Gun Nutz. JunoBeach (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film lists

[edit]

I see you've already done some updates on the films by individual year lists that I started last night — so thanks for that, and I just wanted to fill you in a bit more:

  1. I've only completed 2000-2012 so far; other years have yet to be done (and of course for some periods it might still be worth just hanging onto decade lists instead of individual year spinoffs.) However, the {{Canadian films by year}} template already has links in it for 1980-1999, hidden inside comment tags so that they don't display as redlinks in the meantime — if you get adventurous and beat me to some of those years, you can just go into the template and uncomment the year or years in question.
  2. Although I did do some corrections and updates to some lists, I've noted that for virtually every single year in the period that I already dealt with there were at least 40-50 films for which we already have articles but which hadn't ever been added to the lists, and at least 100 or more films listed on the IMDb page that I added as an external link which don't have articles yet (or do have articles which I didn't catch.) So while some of the lists look pretty damn small right now, every one of them can easily be expanded to list at least 150-200, if not as many as 300 or more, films. And you've also obviously noted that there were some corrections I haven't finished yet (or screwed up myself, *goofy grin*) — so feel free to make any updates, additions and/or corrections that you catch.
  3. In the process, I also noted that sometime in January, a user with no prior edit history (and none since) edited both the 2000s and 2010s lists to strip out any and all films that were associated with the Quebec film industry rather than the Anglo-Canadian one, stating in his edit summary that "Quebec films aren't Canadian" (and no, he didn't even make an "okay, this one's kinda both" exception for Bon Cop, Bad Cop.) But even worse, those edits didn't get caught until I spun out the year by year lists last night. I'm sure you already get why that's a problem, so I don't feel the need to explain it — but be aware that it's something we still may have to watch out for going forward.

And thanks again. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1990s lists switched. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would be a good idea in the long term (especially since short films are somewhat less likely to qualify for articles in the first place), but at the moment it doesn't seem like a priority to me given how much of the basic work of even listing most films at all still has to be done. If you'd like to separate the shorts, go right ahead — I certainly won't revert you if you do — but I'm not likely to start doing it myself just yet. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec films

[edit]

It's because of the director categories, not the setting ones; Golden Gloves is in Category:Films directed by Gilles Groulx, which is in Category:Quebec films. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Category:Films set in Quebec is currently a subcategory of Category:Quebec films as well as Category:Cinema of Quebec, although perhaps it shouldn't be. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admittedly "Cinema of Quebec" does occupy an unusual space; it has to almost function as its own country-level category, by virtue of the fact that Quebec film is so distinct from English Canadian film, yet for the obvious political reasons it can't fully function as such. So we kinda have to let it exist in an unusual space where there aren't too many rules or precedents (except maybe how the British cinema project handles Category:Cinema of Scotland and Category:Cinema of Wales, but obviously even those aren't exact parallels.) So it's all a bunch of guesswork, eh? Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian films of the 1980s

[edit]

I will eventually get around to splitting the 1980s list up by year, so I didn't prioritize directly adding the decade lists to the template, but it probably wouldn't hurt as an interim measure... Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec films

[edit]

Just to fill you in on another change that I've just implemented. As you already well know, there's always been a bit of a dichotomy between Wikipedia's official naming conventions, which indicate that we should be using the title that a film was released under in English-speaking markets, and the eternal English-French linguistic tensions that make our titles for Quebec films such a mixed dog's breakfast of English and non-English titles. Accordingly, I've created a new category, Category:Quebec films by French title, so that if a film is at an anglicized title users can still browse by the redirects from the original French titles if that's what they'd prefer.

I've added it to some, but not all, of the affected articles, so feel free to add it to any other relevant articles you come across. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Cormier Architectes Paysagistes Inc.

[edit]

Surely "Claude Cormier et Associés" is the name of the company? Architectes and Paysagistes is what they do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that seems to be the case. I created it from a target page without checking the actual name. I still think it's a useful redirect; if you disagree, feel free to nominate it for deletion. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is actually my point. Useful in what way? If you are typing in the search box the name of the person comes up first. If you are creating a redirect to link from an article you should use the correct company name. I don't really care whether the redirect lives or dies - I just thought I should bring it to you attention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion - PsyMontreal

[edit]

Thank you Shawn for taking the time to review the article I created! I am new to Wikipedia and certainly want to contribute in the best way possible. I apologize my username was promotional (I did not realize it, due to my inexperience) and have thus changed it to JMDDO123. I also apologize that the article appears promotional in nature. If you would please let me know which parts you found were promotional and I will make sure to modify the language ASAP.

But most importantly, I notice that you mentioned in the discussion about deleting PsyMontreal that all the articles are published by members of PsyMontreal. I apologize if the way I wrote the references made it seem that way, but in reality, that is not the case. I have thus reviewed each of the 8 references to help you distinguish between those that are from members of PsyMontreal versus those that are independent:

Reference 1 is a 46 page document and Reference 2 is a 114 page document published by the government, which are not members of PsyMontreal, and each only includes a 6 page Annex written by a member of PsyMontreal-- but the body of the documents makes reference to the importance of prevention and the relevance of Motivational Interviewing for health behavior change, justifying the importance of the trainings in Motivational Interviewing (which had been done by PsyMontreal) by multiple authors within each document. Reference 3 is a 161 page government document, not written by a member of PsyMontreal, and also highlighting the importance of the Motivational Interviewing trainings within the context of the government health promotion plans. References 4 to 7 are articles written by members of PsyMontreal, published in the official journals of professional orders of various health care fields. Being journals of official professional orders, the articles cannot be promotional in nature. These references are meant to demonstrate the contributions of PsyMontreal in helping the members of these many health related Orders (sort of like listing publications from an author). The Reference 8 is again not associated in any way to any member of PsyMontreal-- it is an RDI Santé news episode that covered the contributions of PsyMontreal's trainings in the Quebec Health care field. RDI is the French equivalent of the CBC News Network. If you would watch it (the episode runs 24:44mins, but they talk about PsyMontreal and Motivational Interviewing from 3:14min to 14:45mins).

Thus, if these additional descriptions clarify the nature of the references, would it be possible for you to mention in the discussion page that not all citations are from members of PsyMontreal, but that there are some that are independent of the firm? I would hope that would help other contributors to make a better judgment of the Notability of the PsyMontreal article.

Also, should I mention the above info in the deletion discussion pages? If so, which one? I notice there are 3 pages...

Thanks again for guiding me in the writing of my first article! JMDDO123 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much Shawn for adding the extra info to the deletion discussion page! May I also please ask you to add one additional correction, concerning your last post? It may help other contributors to the discussion to know that Reference 8 is not "...an interview with one of the members of this company..." as neither the doctor being interviewed, nor the interviewer, are members of PsyMontreal -- The host of the show and the doctor simply decided to have an episode focusing on the Motivational Interviewing trainings of PsyMontreal, with no affiliation or association to the firm, in a fully independent manner.

Additionally, would it help to demonstrate the Notability of PsyMontreal if we added references to magazine interviews with PsyMontreal members? [1] [2]

  1. ^ Forget, Dominique (2006). "Interview - L'entrevue motivationnelle ou l'art d'aider son client a prendre le virage du changement" (PDF). Perspective infirmiere : revue officielle de l'Ordre des infirmieres et infirmiers du Quebec. 4 (1): 36–7. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
  2. ^ Sarrasin, Nicolas (2009). "L'entretien motivationnel : pour aider les autres à changer". Magazine Mieux-Être. 32. Retrieved 4 March 2012. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Once again, thank you very much for your comments to help improve my first Wikipedia article. JMDDO123 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you withdrew the nomination for deletion and are now asking for the article to be cleaned up and fixed - I thank you once again for helping out with this article! I was wondering what parts you'd like to see improved, and I'll be happy to roll up my sleeves and get to work! And on a minor note, I notice that at the PsyMontreal Article page, there is still the box on top of the page saying "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." ... does this mean that despite you withdrawing your nomination for deletion, it's still being discussed for deletion? I apologize for my lack of knowledge about the procedures, and was simply wondering what it meant. Thanks JMDDO123 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Canadians

[edit]

Yeah...I think the distinction is more readily apparent if you grew up in Northern Ontario, and had to spend so much more time wrapping your head around anglophones named Courtemanche or Trudeau or Villeneuve and francophones named Hughes and Bishops and Smith, than it would be to a Quebecer :-) Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. We have that same odd thing here, of course, but there's a whole different benchmark for who's "French" in Quebec, naturally. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for amusement's sake, my own family is an absolute motherlode of people who embody the dichotomy — I have francophone relatives with non-French surnames, anglophone relatives with French surnames and relatives whose first language actually does match their surname. Even more hilariously, I have an aunt and uncle — franco-anglo marriage, obviously (kind of a family tradition!) — who sent their oldest kid to an English school because there weren't any French schools near where they were living at the time, but then sent their younger kids to French schools when that option opened up — so I even have cousins who have a different nominal "first language" than their own siblings do. It's literally just nuts. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it's Canada. I suspect one doesn't see that as much here because language laws prohibit French Quebecers from ever entering the English system, til CEGEP, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African Films

[edit]

A user (user:Gaijin42) sent me many nominations for deletion of African films (see my talk page). Can you contact him and explain what I'm doing? Thanks. --M.casanova (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a post here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#possible_violation_of_Wikipedia:Bot_policy_specifically_WP:MASSCREATION to discuss this issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your efforts to help African films placed at AFD. Great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher's Barnstar

[edit]
Researcher's Barnstar
I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Researcher's Barnstar in appreciation for your superb work in finding sources toward multiple notable topics that were recently sent to AFD, thus showing them as notable enough for Wikipedia. Excellent work! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sea Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sundance Channel
Sea Point Days (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sundance Channel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

[edit]

I would like to nominate you for adminship. Please confirm that you want to run at this time. Keepscases (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Square Mile

[edit]

Firstly, thank you so much for your positive words re the Golden Square Mile; very much appreciated (it's a prickly subject in need of a careful approach!) and extremely kind of you, thank you.

Secondly, I have not 'talked' on wikipedia before, so I'm slightly nervous I have put this in completely wrong the place! If I have, many apologies, and do let me know for next time, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsica (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Shawn... I am starting the bold overload clean up now. Thanks again Parsica (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again Shawn... Funnily enough, I was thinking of adding one 'example image' to each of the architectural periods of construction, so thank you, it looks great! However (sorry!) purely on a personally aesthetic level, I think I may replace it with the wikipedia image of the house on Vincent Meredith's page. In reference to the internal/external links, I actually thought I was being a better wikipedian by including as many internal links as possible without affecting the overall finished image of the page - obviously not (!), perhaps we can clear that up over the next few days? Thanks again Shawn, all the help and suggestions are very much appreciated.

Parsica (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Shawn, thanks as always... Re Galt vs Caverhill: Very simply because Galt built it. Have a look under the McCord database for 'Galt House 1912'. Also in the book on the life of Galt, it mentions him building his house on Simpson Street in the 1860's. The Caverhills moved in (c.1915) after Lady Galt died, ie., when the picture which is shown was taken, it was the Caverhill's house, but it was certainly not Caverhill who built it. Apologies for the lack of edit summaries though, I was not aware, but will be in the future.

By the way, the picture of Molson's Bank under 'residents' was there to represent the Anglo development/domination of business/banking, just as McGill is there to represent their philanthropic contributions to Montreal. On the same note (re Meredith House), do you really insist that the photos that go up have to be the lighest available?? The reason I would prefer to have the one I put up there is because I find the others make the house look rather pokey, sad and forlawn, surrounded by tarmac etc. I find the snow covers this up and gives the house a vestige of it's former past in the midst of an old fashioned Montreal winter. I agree it is not the lightest, but once clicked on, it's very clear to me at least and I have had no complaints from Sir Vincent's page (please don't change that one though!)...

On a positive note, I am very grateful for the clean up and user notes. I was particularly pleased to see the Quartier Musee section disappear - in completely the wrong place! Thanks again Shawn,

Parsica (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shawn, I hope you're well... Just a quick note to say I am not ignoring you! When I finish all the written material I will get in touch properly to 'clear up' the page. Thank you for your help and the editing along the way... May be a few days before I start the final section

Parsica (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Down syndrome in film and television

[edit]

Category:Down syndrome in film and television, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ora (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Narcissus and La Presse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not constructive

[edit]

So why do you reintroduce material that I deleted which goes against the conventions and guidelines. Please answer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think you merit any serious consideration as an editor imo after your childish and disruptive behaviour, you're mistaken. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And since it seems you're watching my talk page, let me just suggest that when your block expires to finally agree to discuss your unilateral changes and seek consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization, as you have been repeatedly asked to do. I will not engage you in any discussion here on my user page following your vandalism of it, or your unacceptable and frankly childish personal attacks. I hope that is clear. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Request

[edit]

Hi Shawn. Yes, I'll look at this (although I think it's now sorted). I've been away for a week or so, hence my late reply. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. For the record, I think you've done a great job in cleaning up the documentary sub-cats. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tenure?

[edit]

So you have curtailed your Wikipedia editing because you think I have some sort of Wikipedia tenure? (Whatever that may be.) If you are a "bad" editor I would say good riddance. If you are a "good" editor I would plead to have you come back. I have not formed an opinion on your editing, but I do know that we disagree on some things. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care about your opinion of me. My contributions to this project are recorded in my edit history, and I'll put them along side yours, any day of the week. But I will not work at your whim and clearly, you have the allies on side to do what you will, eventually, to any and all maintenance templates you deem unnecessary. To that end, I've stopped diffusing Category:Documentary films and all such categories. There's no point: if I do clean up the categories, you'll just succeed eventually in blanking the cat diffuse, and I'll have more such work to do. So fuck it: it's a mug's game, and I won't play. Again, goodbye. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

In case you might be interested in helping out with the page's development. - jc37 20:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jc. I do see you've been engaged with Alan Leifting (in part) on this and I just think it's better for me to disengage from him, as much as possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, I've been trying to help. I'm just hoping all this can be resolved amicably.
And nod at disengagement. Sometimes it's for the best.
I hope your day is going well : ) - jc37 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shawn_à_Montréal/Archive_4&oldid=1142009622"