User talk:Soulscanner

Great job...

on the shortening of the History section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecer

Soulscanner, on the talk page of that article, you have broken up what I wrote. I know it is slightly more complicated to respond to what I wrote without breaking it up, but ultimately nobody else will be able to read it this way. Could you please reorganize your reply and restore what I wrote? Joeldl 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, I've done it. Please don't break up my comments. Joeldl 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner, you've messed up the order of comments again. I responded to Mathieugp, so I indented once more than he had. You were also responding to him, therefore you needed to respond below my comments and indent them the same as mine. Joeldl 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. These talk pages are being abused by us anyways, They're getting way too long. It's just too unwieldy. Feel free to shift things around if you don't like the format. Just don't delete anything.--Soulscanner 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't break up other people's comments. That way, nobody will need to move them around. Joeldl 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Proposed move of Canadian French

Greetings! Would you care to weigh in on this proposed move? There's been a lot of discussion, and I apologise in advance for prolixity. :) Merci! Corticopia 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous comments on your edits to Canadian French

You have deleted a discussion from your talk page that can be found here: [1]

You have moved the discussion that was on your talk page to the talk page of the article. I don't know whether this is appropriate Wikiquette. But I don't think you should remove comments from your talk page. You should instead archive them when your talk page is too long. Joeldl 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

They were not appropriate here. It was a complete discussion about the Canadian French article, where they belong. --Soulscanner 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That conversation is part of the record of discussion of your edits and should be available to people examining your talk page. Joeldl 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The conversation did not belong here. It should havve occured on the talk page for the article. --Soulscanner 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that it was inappropriate to bring it up on your page. There was a potential POV issue and the fact that you chose to make those edits could be of interest to other editors. Joeldl 01:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I made those edits on the Canadian French page. That is where edits are normally discussed. Anyone interested in those edits can go to the talk page there. People can also check the history page here if interested. I did not delete any material. Personal talk pages are not for long interchanges like this. Your note and link on this page document the move. You're right that I should have indicated that I moved the content, though, so I appreciate you doing the work and providing the link. --Soulscanner 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecer

Soulscanner, there is no excuse for removing "citation needed" tags before anybody has had a chance to check the references. You also seem to act like its my responsibility to read the entire reference. Page numbers must be provided. 26,000 "English-speaking Asians" did not come to Quebec. They eventually had English as their first official language spoken. Also, the reference does not say that most Indians, Chinese and Filipino arrivals speak English before coming. Yet you have also removed that fact tag. I removed the Canadian flag because the region with significant numbers is Quebec, practically by definition — no need to accuse me of vandalism. The infobox at California doesn't have a U.S. flag; why then should English-speaking Quebecer?

I was originally inclined to believe that, though you had a definite anti-francophone POV, you would play by the rules in editing. But I now see that that is not the case. In removing the population figures, you went against the majority opinion expressed on the talk page. You are also removing fact tags before I have had a chance to verify the information. You cannot make judgments unilaterally about whether the statements made are accurate reflections of the sources. You also cannot accuse me of vandalism for an edit on which you happen to have a different point of view. Joeldl 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested comment on your edits at WP:RFC/HIST. You can respond at Talk:English-speaking Quebecer. Joeldl 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Québécois

You have contributed so regularly to Talk:Québécois that I thought you would certainly have noticed the discussion there following a listing at WP:RFC/HIST. I should have left a message about it on your talk page earlier. This is an oversight and I apologize. You are welcome to defend your point of view there. Joeldl 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglophone exodus

I removed your text from Anglophone exodus and redirected the page to Quebec diaspora. There was no exclusive "Anglophone exodus" from Quebec in the time frame you suggested but a major exodus of Anglophones along with people from various ethic groups and many French Canadians Interprovincial Migration by Language Groups Province of Quebec, 1966-1991. Collectively, it can only be described as a "diaspora". I intend to expand the article as soon as I get a chance but in the meantime, please feel free to add to the text on this subject. Thanks. Phinius T2 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:37thParliament.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:37thParliament.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:37thParliament.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:37thParliament.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality discussion at Quebec article

Exasperating is a good word. Given the amount of reading and research needed I'm sorry to say that it's not worth it. Discussion tends to die off with a lack of resolution anyway. I don't see the Quebec identity article that was supposed to be created last time. –Pomte 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Quebec nation issue

Hi! I've noticed you have added to the discussion on Talk:Quebec and, in response to the discussion regarding whether or not Quebec is a nation, I have replied with this. I would like you to read the discussion on the Talk:Quebec page, then read my response and leave your comments on it's talk page! Thanks for your input. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada

Check the Canada page again. Regards, -- 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quebec

I just wanted to comment on your comment "bad faith isn't demonstrated here." I didn't remark that Pgsylv was acting in bad faith, I said that I can't assume good faith from him/her any longer. Pushing a political point is not attempting to add to the Wikipedia community in my understanding. That's what I was trying to say. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. But you have to be careful to assume good faith. There are lots of things wrong here and I'm about ready to go to arbitration with a number of edits here, but accusations like this do not help what is left of the dialogue. --Soulscanner 06:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I try to avoid POV discussions, but I cannot avoid this person's arrogance. It seems that no matter what is written, this person will not accept anything other than their interpretation. I'll refrain from commenting on this person's opinions from now on. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for Harrassment

You seems to have a grudge agaisnt G2bambino. First a vexatious RFAR and secondly a bogus 3RR report about an article he hasn't edited for weeks. This isn't acceptable and you need to leave him alone. He certainly doesn't need provoking right now. Your actions are disruptive and harrassing. I have suspended your editing rights indefinitely. That does not mean forever but rather until you make a clear undertaking to leave G2bambino alone. As soon as you do that you will be unblocked. If I am not around you can use an unblock template and any passing admin will do the unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• having thought about this for a couple of hours I have come to the conclusion that an outright block was OTT without an initial warning. I am therefore unblocking you but please be aware that further disruption and any more bogus reports will not be tolerated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just lifted an autoblock Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please Check history page at 3RR page. My reports have been vandalized by G2bambino. They do not reflect what I posted. Your block was in good faith, but terribly mistaken. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Your block log {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:Soulscanner] now reflects the fact that I screwed up and that you were the victim of an altered 3RR report. I have indicated that you are fully exonerated and apologised for my error. A note in the block log is more permanent and useful then a talk page note. Thank you for your understanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Really, I know it's not your fault. --soulscanner (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Please keep me out of this. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion issue et al

Sorry that you are still embroiled in this issue. I have been ignoring it. The antagonists seem to have a unbending POV, are deaf to valid counter-arguments, and one's tired and repetitive ad-hominem arguments should have been censured long ago. The whole thing makes me question the wiki-approach to this encyclopedia but I can only control my own contributions so am ignoring the issue till I feel less passionate about the problem-makers.

As to your question, it was quite a long time ago and I don't recall exactly how I entered. I believe I either saw a Request for comment on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board or perhaps just noticed a Dominion discussion/change on the Canada page through my watchlist. I don't recall if there was ever anyone brave enough to enter as a mediator or if one was actually requested (though it perhaps should have been done if only to improve the quality of discussion and avoid the ridiculous voting).

If your blood is too boiled by this at the moment, may I make the unrequested suggestion that you take a break from it and return later. The encyclopedia is not worth your health and peace of mind. When you return, remain phlegmatic, keep documentation of abuses, and request help and report when needed.

Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries! It's an interesting if obscure topic, isn't it?--Gazzster (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Emergency: Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR History

Please check G2bambino edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The History page shows extensive alterations to posted complaints and decisions (see history page). G2bambino has altered the page to make it appear that my posts were spurious, resulting in User:Spartaz blocking me (in good faith) for harassment. G2bambino then reverted to the old postings. This is a blatant case of vandalism. Please compare following with current page:

• ]Stifle last post before alteration including initial complaints and decisions see link
• Final edit by G2bambino showing altered posts see link

G2bambino deliberately altered my posts to the page with intent to misrepresent them. --soulscanner (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration I've referred it over to ANI because I have to go and this is more complicated than I think. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, moving back to your AN3 posting. I'm sure you know (at least you should) that 3RR is for reporting extant edit wars and not incidents that came up several months ago. Please bear this in mind as future similar reports will be treated dimly. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --soulscanner (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Canada

Your comment has been read. You have not clearly laid out what the dispute is: you seem to have quite a few of them. Your placement of these tags is nothing but disruptive, and seems to be the result of your unwillingness or inability to compel on relevant talk pages -- as such, I have removed the tag. As well, your contradictory, hypocritical, and malformed behaviour throughout has eroded any good faith there may have been. I have little more to say to you, and will comment as needed. Quizimodo (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute is clearly laid out at dominion page. You've been told the policy. I'm filing an incident report. I won't get the page locked again. Removing tags like this violates wiki policy --soulscanner (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute is on the 'Dominion' page; you have renewed it on the 'Canada' page for dubious reasons. Spare me the condescension: file whatever report you wish -- I will respond appropriately. Quizimodo (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion Mediation

It appears Quizimodo isn't going to get involved with Mediation. Since this is basically a Soulscanner VS Quizimodo dispute? You may aswell 'pull the plug' on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am deliberating. Quizimodo (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Are you just being antagonistic about the image of the Queen on Canada? If there's no fair use rationale for that particular article, add it to the image page. This isn't difficult to do. --G2bambino (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to write one, and I don't have the time to figure it out. I'm just enforcing the rules. It will be deleted by a bot anyways. It's happened to a whole bunch of images I put on pages, and it was too complicated to figure out all the rules. I know that you have to prove that there is no free image available to use a copywrited image like that; that rule mafe me give up on puttitng pictures up. I know on this page, there is already a fine picture of the queen on the picture of currencies, so you might have trouble proving that there is no other picture available when another image of her already on the page. --soulscanner (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you were so concerned about the image being used on pages for which there's no fair use rationale given, why then did you not delete it from Canadian and American politics compared, Style of the Canadian sovereign, Government of Canada, Monarchism in Canada, Debate on the monarchy in Canada, and List of Canadian monarchs? Further, all you had to do was this to quell your concerns. --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the relevant Discussion board. I won't discuss it here. --soulscanner (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Note: you have violated WP:3RR at Canada. You may self-revert, otherwise I'll file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --G2bambino (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no 3RR on removing a non-permissable photos. The picture you posted was a copywrited image that had no fair use rationale for the page. You are not supposed to post an image like that. if a self reverted, I'd by violating wikipolicies by knowingly posting a disallowed image. --soulscanner (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We shall see. --G2bambino (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hello Soulscanner, I think you've posted on Gazzster's personal page, instead of his personal talk page. Better take a look. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you should not remove the Official Canadian portrait of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. This is the official picture of our queen, and it is a public image as stated on the Canadian Government website. You can order a free copy of it by calling 1-800-OH-CANADA or emailing them. Thank you in advance for understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfinkw (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion

There is an error in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion. You currently have Example (talk · contribs) as a party, and that's not a real user. Additionally, when you fix the request, make sure to notify the other party/parties. -- tariqabjotu 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, I don't think you're suppose to edit the Mediation's Decision section. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Didn't know. I'll move my postings. --soulscanner (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Instead of arguing on the Canada page, bring up the issue on one the guideline pages like Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or talk to an admin who is involved in fair use criteria like User:Masem, and see what they see as acceptable fair use criteria. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo

I've reported this user's uncivil behaniour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As you're involved in the discussion at Talk:Dominion, you may wish to comment.--Gazzster (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to co-certify?--Gazzster (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I can comment much on the current dispute as I've not participated in the Dominion article and I've not participated in the Canada discussion for several months. I do, however, commend you and Gazzster on going through the steps of this process, documenting the inappropriate behaviour, and seeking a change. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm that involved to be able to comment on an RFC. I've only been really involved many many months ago, and one-single day recently. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2006commemorativeBromeFairposter xw500.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2006commemorativeBromeFairposter xw500.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If unsure of what to use for fair-use rationale, the {{non-free rationale}} provides a good basic one to start from but you have to supply all the details. --MASEM 04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfc on G2bambino

Hello Soulscanner, I'm already involved with an Rfc on Quizimodo. I'm sorta reluctant to get too deep into these disciplinary actions. It's all the more difficult when the editor (G2) is somebody I've had no problems with in my dealings with him. Indeed, I was intially reluctant to post at Quizimodo's Rfc (and Wikiquette). I was also reluctant to post at TharkunColl's 2nd Wikiquette (last year), having avoided his first Wikiquette altogether. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: G2bambino? a meatpuppeter and/or sockpuppeter? I'm not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfC on G2

Hi Soulscanner, I've deleted the page as a second person has not certified the arguments/RfC evidence within the required 48 hours as stated at the top of the page:

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC).

Regards, nat.utoronto 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

Its seems a certain editor [Pgsylv], has breached 3RR. Good luck with this fellow, Soulscanner. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My supposed revert warring on the Quebec page

Please take note that my modifications have been endorsed by a majority of editors, therefore I don't think you can call it revert warring.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly endorsed. That's 2RR.--soulscanner (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ramdrake has read the warning you left on his page, he has every right to remove it. Indeed the fact that he removed it shows he has read it. There is no reason to keep the warning on his talk page if he doesn't want it there. Please respect other editors right to remove such warnings if they so wish, thanks. Alun (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Never said he deosn't hav the right to remove it. He should reach consensus before making edits, that's all. --soulscanner (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but he removed the warning and you reverted, you should not have reverted, just assumed that he had read the warning. You have every right to warn, but once he has removed the warning it's best to let it go. The fact that you have warned is a matter of record in the history page, so if Ramdrake were to break the 3rr rule then you could use this diff as evidence that he has been warned. It increases antagonism to revert war on his talk page and there is no rule that any a user has to keep warnings on their talk page. I'm only concerned that you don't get into a pointless edit war on his talk page, no good can come of it. You may not have been aware that it is acceptable for users to remove such warnings from their talk pages, that's fair enough, I was only notifying you that he is entitled to remove the warning if he so wishes. All the best. Alun (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Especially since my original removal had Read the warning as an edit summary. How much clearer do I need to be?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

POV forks

POV forks

   Main article: Wikipedia:Content forking

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

That's what you do.

Pgsylv (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

Hello Soulscanner. Am I accurate in saying, you will not except 'Quebecois nation' in the Quebec article's lead? We need you at the 'discussion' to clarify things. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm always behind the times. PS- When did you guys decide to remove the Quebecois nation resolution from that article's introduction? GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I like it too. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

The new wording is fine with me. And I would agree that Pgsylv's ban should be lifted as long as he remains civil (maybe restrict blocks only to uncivil interventions and allow civil interventions?)--Ramdrake (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Pgsvlv's talk-page. I don't think he's reformed his ways, yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure happy you & Ramdrake worked things out at Quebec. PS- Things sure got resolved quickly, after Pgsylv got booted out. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal

I see you are a user located in Montréal, you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal. Please add your name to the "Interested" or to the "Not interested" list. Date is set for May 3rd 2008 and Buffet La Stanza is the proposed location. If you have another idea for the location; propose away! Please pass on to any Montreal Wikis you maybe aware of and who are not yet listed as interested, may be interested, or not interested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Quebec regions

Just Google "provision of government services" if you think this is a "faux-ami". Joeldl (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stéphane Dion#Reactions to Clarity Act

"Most in the NDP supported it too, but leader Jack Layton was opposed."

In 2000, NDP leader was of course Alexa McDonough. Layton proposed repealing it in 2004, and presumably he opposed the act back then too, but I don't think the position of a then Toronto city councillor would really be worth mentioning in the Dion article. I would change it to McDonough's position, if I knew what it was. Kelvinc (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MIA

Hello Soulscanner, how are you; where are you? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Made the 2nd request (though rough looking, it looks). GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been rejected on incompleteness; sorry I messed up. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote at Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day)

Hi, I've set up a vote to try and resolve this. As you've commented on the issue already, I wanted to ensure you take the opportunity to vote. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections personally. Makes me look more competent than I was. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible RFC

Hmm, I'm not fully engaged on this topic (as I normally would be); due to the fact I'm currently involved with 2 Mediation Cabals. I'd recommend getting another (more engaged) editor to co-sign with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely involved in the topic but have read up on it if you'd like I can assist in RFC. .:davumaya:. 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

nah; i don't think i'll do that. thanks for the suggestion, though. Soup on the rocks (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An admin's unsolicited intervention on a discussion page

It's just that I've never seen an admin intrude unsolicited on a discussion. There are longer, more bile-driven, tangent-strewn discussions on any number of talk pages, including the ones we're both familar with. But the admin only intervenes when requested. It's not as if the discussion had nothing to do with the edits under discussion. But even otherwise, the users themselves should be permitted to bring the discussion back to point or point out to the writers that they're being vitriolic. Admins should only intervene when there is no other option. I do not feel that the options were exhausted. So I believe there's something slightly to the right of Attila the Hun about the action the admin took. --Gazzster (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Montreal

This article states that human presence in the region can be found 8000 years back. This means the presence of Homo sapiens. Can you add some information about pre-human history, for example what was the condition during Paleozoic etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Government of Quebec logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Government of Quebec logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Question..

Hey.. I have a quick question for you. Can you drop me an email? wikiroux @ gmail.com. Thanks. [ roux ] [x] 11:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya.

Fair enough on the outside wiki thing.. I didn't want to collude anything, just wanted to ask a yes/no question. As it happens, the question has been answered by others.

As for the restrictions, it wasn't really about being 'big', it was about just ending the whole stupid situation. Same as at Talk:Commonwealth realm; I agreed to something I don't like and largely disagree with just to save my sanity and get it over with. Oh well. It is what it is, right? Someone else can deal with the behaviour (and yes, I've seen the latest bits of the saga). Hopefully one day I'll be able to return to the articles I love, but until then I'll be doing other things. Thank you very much for the moral support -- it means a lot. [ roux ] [x] 06:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I have to comment 'cause not 3 hours ago, Soulscanner, I came to your page to send you an email and saw that it was not enabled. My purpose was not to coordinate on-wiki actions, it was more to do a little mini-venting and exchange views in a less structured environment. In particular, when I'm thinking wrongly (which happens often!), I'd much prefer to have someone who I thought would agree tell me that no, I'm actually full of crap. And I also find it valuable to run my dumb ideas past neutral, and also hostile but trustworthy people.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your stance - in an ideal world we would conduct every aspect of wiki-business in public view. (And in an ideal world, I wouldn't publicize my stupid notions) You're right though - it's a wiki, it should all be made clear, right here on the wiki. I'll try a little harder to swing back that way... Franamax (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey.. it's possible that you're currently in violation of 3RR at Canada (looks like it from the history, but I didn't look at diffs). If you are, you might want to fix it. [ roux ] [x] 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... I know how easy it is to do too many edits in the moment, and wouldn't want to see you get blocked for it. The note was a courtesy; I'd rather see people self-rv than get a boot to the head, y'know? [ roux ] [x] 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi... I understand where you're coming from, but right now you are certainly skirting the line of CANVASS if not already over it. Just a courtesy note. [ roux ] [x] 03:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And your rewrite completely changes what I intended by the restriction. G2 frequently evades and/or ignores direct questions, which is one of the more frustrating behaviours that leads to the circular arguments and endless stalling until everyone else gives up. Requiring him to answer direct questions directly removes that disruptive avenue. If other users start baiting him with it, then sanctions should be pursued against them for doing so. [ roux ] [x] 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no set of fixed rules to make someone a good editor. --Lawe (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Where was ya?

It's been awhile since you've been in Wiki-land. Welcome back Soulscanner. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Governor General's powers & duties

Just a general summary. You argue that the GG's powers & duties are non-existant, in the sense that the GG can't defy the Prime Minister. Where's G2bambino, argues that the Governor General can defy the Prime Minister? This is concerning your disputes at Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The events of September 7, 2008 should be noted (somehow) in the Canada article or atleast the Governor General of Canada article. Afterall, the GG upheld the PM's breaching of a Parliamentary Act (the term limits). GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Harper could've fired her. I think he might've had to get the Queen of Canada to do that task. I too was hoping Michelle Jean would've refused dissolution, it would've made things more interesting (drama wise). GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the issue is rather esoteric, at least as far as the average reader is concerned, as they will not be familiar at all (based on what information has already been presented thus far in that section) with the constitutional role of the monarchy and its powers in fact (in actuality) versus its powers in law (in theory). It isn't at all cut and dry, especially given the differences in interpretation between Liberal and Conservative governments. Forsey, for instance, basically outlines what the status quo is (which the Conservatives, with few exceptions, generally support), whereas the Liberals, being somewhat republican-oriented, tend to oppose the traditional interpretation.

My suggestion is that these points need to be better explained in a new paragraph within that section, because one or two sentences, in my opinion, aren't completely sufficient to inform the reader. The problem is arriving at a neutral solution that everyone can agree with. I'm fairly new to the discussion, though I've been following silently for a few days, and I have no personal bias in the matter other than that I'd like to see the facts presented in a way that doesn't leave the reader confused. The current wording looks fine, but in time I think it could use some minor bit of expansion. Just my two cents. IranianGuy (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was in the midst of writing a response including suggestions and so forth and it turned into several paragraphs, so rather than posting it here, I will post it over at Talk:Government of Canada so as not to clutter your talk page and perhaps get responses from others as well. IranianGuy (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed the sentencing just a bit and altered the CSPS sentence to more closely adhere to the source:

Constitutional scholars such as Senator Eugene Forsey have maintained that the sovereign (the Queen) and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, though the Canadian public service has stated that such actions may lack democratic legitimacy amongst the Canadian populace coming from an unelected institution. Liberal governments, for their part, have long adhered to the view that the Governor General does not have the right to refuse dissolution from the prime minister

This removes the idea of "Forsey vs democracy" mentioned by another editor, but still, when I think about it, it seems a bit ill-considered to keep the CSPS bit in there unless we fully expand on that to reflect what the CSPS is really talking about, i.e. that the CSPS actually is in total agreement with Forsey in that it should have the ability to exercise its executive power in emergency constitutional situations.

The other problem is with the Liberal position. There is a whole history there going back to the King-Byng Affair and the constitutional web becomes even more tangled with all the developments in Liberal politics in recent years. I'm not sure I have the time to find all the relevent sources (it was tedious enough when I had to actually study this stuff), but if you or someone else can, that'd be great. IranianGuy (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

G2/ANI

Hi.. I don't think I need to get involved in this. The diffs speak for themselves, and I am not involved in the dispute. It would just look like hounding if I were to comment. [ roux ] [x] 02:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there. I do not see Canada as being within the 1RR restrictions, except as to any monarchy sections, as I took the restrictions to mean monarchy edits because of G2's tendentious editing in regards to that subject. I do see how one could interpret it that way, though. Clarification would be a good thing. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You should be aware that there is a 3RR violation report against you here. --G2bambino (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR discussion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Canada. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. Details of the revert times on request. You made four reverts from the evening of November 6 (UTC) to mid-afternoon on November 7, i.e. within 24 hours. I realize that Canada is a contested article, but please try to obtain more explicit consensus on the Talk page for changes that you know will be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

• I was originally going to post this on the 3RR page in my defence and then found I was blocked. I apologize for not responding sooner. I do not have as much time to post here as others. * I've already refrained from editing on the Canada page for at least 12 hours as promised. I've stuck to this, and will continue to do so until the matter is resolved. I'd go further. I'm willing to refrain from editing the Canada page until this matter is resolved if G2 is. I was actually going to propose that when I was blocked. My understanding is that these blocks are attempts to stop existing edit warring. A block seems excessive at this time because anything that could be construed had stopped when the block was issued. it doesn't serve a purpose. *This is not a clear cut case. The above 3RR report was in response to a report of 1RR and civility violations filed here. This 3RR report was in response to my report, carrying through on a threat made on the Canada:Talk page to "get me in trouble" (stated in the link above) if I documented his violations. * The series of reverts I made above were attempts to restore content deletions that G2 made (without discussion or justification) justified only as "copyedits". I could have been made them as one edit and technically avoided a 3RR violation. I could have also made these reverts difficult to trace and buried along with a bunch of unrelated edits and paragraph realignments that would have made these more difficult to trace. I'm not much for this kind of legalism. I chose to make a series of reverts to carefully document deleted content, making it easier for other editors and administrators to verify the problematic content deletions (G2 had made it difficult to trace them). I was honestly trying to be transparent. * This was not an attempt to "own" the page; this was attempt to respect consensus and the contribution of all editors who made these edits and were now having their efforts deleted. --soulscanner (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) --soulscanner (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you believe someone is violating whatever it is that someone shouldn't be violating and continues unabated, it's best practice to either report them for 3rr, ask for admin assistance, report them for blatant vandalism, file an rfc, ask for a third opinion, and, well, basically the whole script at our dispute resolution guide. It's not worth taking matters into your own hands, because most administrators believe that two wrongs do not make a right. Even when responding to 3RR violations we might even block both the reporter and the person he's reporting for 3RR violations if they're clearly both violating 3RR. Basically, it's worth going through the proper channels to resolve disputes. Trying to resolve them in an edit war will only result in making you appear to be in the wrong.

Second, the block does appear to be preventative, as "I'm willing to refrain from editing the Canada page until this matter is resolved if G2 is" would not be an acceptable unblock agreement in my opinion. It sets itself up for immediate recurrence should that agreement fall through. Edit warring is simply not an acceptable method of dispute resolution.

Finally, whether or not the report was made out of retaliation is irrelevant; for, if the report was valid, the motivations that are/were allegedly behind it report do not change the validity of the report. — slakr^\ talk / 06:49, 9 November 2008 (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.

Comment as the blocking admin: Complaints that are as long as this unblock request risk not getting sufficient attention from admins. G2b is under a 1RR restriction in the governmental sections of Canada, which is more severe than your 3RR limit. If both of you work to stay within your respective limits that would be a big help. User:Master of Puppets tried to get a negotiation started in the middle of the 3RR complaint, but his initiative didn't get enough support. It looks to me that you could have had a better outcome at Talk:Canada#Unsupported claims in government section if you had opened an article WP:RFC rather than to start posting large complaints at admin noticeboards. Then you could (ideally) have come to a nice crisp factual decision on the article, rather than expanding further the various ANI threads and RFC/Us. Revert warring with G2b to remove what you saw as his improper article changes didn't really help matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary. The government section dispute was actually resolved satisfactorily by all editors involved after G2 was blocked. G2 returned, contributed positively to the discussion, and consensus was achieved over several days on the discussion board [2]. The dispute resulted in a brief and well referenced section (probably the best in the article). Enforcing restrictions works, all with minimal admin involvement. --soulscanner (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've not been involved in the latest goings-on, but I will say that right now, the government section is beautiful. It's terse, conveys all the significant facts, is well-referenced. That's the result of extensive and collegial discussion on the talk page and the results are evident. As SS says, no admins were harmed in the making of this section. I suppose we need more of that. Franamax (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, how do you explain the brouhaha on Canada on November 6. Do you think the admins should have enforced some restriction, and they didn't do so? Feel free to explain with reference to the history. As a follow-up, can you say where you believe the discussion on the Talk page failed? In your unblock request, you refer to 'transparency' but I'm not sure you know that a group of consecutive edits by one editor counts as *at most* one revert for 3RR purposes. So you did not expose yourself to any extra sanction by making separate edits. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Re: consecutive edits: I'm aware of that rule, which is why I thought that my series of edits (with explicit edit summaries) only counted as one edit. It's also why I'm confused as to what exactly my 3RRs+ were. I didn't even know I was getting close. If you could, please point me to the four edits that comprised the 3RR violation. I'd like to make sure that I crossed the line; if so, I'll take my lumps. If there was no violation, I'd like to have have the block annotated as being less than clear cut.
• Re: enforcement of 1RR rule: Yes, I think that admins should have enforced the 1 RR restriction. I thought I documented it as fairly as possible here. Reverts were embedded in other edits, and difficult to trace. I described the reverts separately in explanatory text below the links to the edits. I thought that the original post counted as a revert: for example, I thought removing a picture twice would be a violation of his 1 RR restrictions. Is this the case?.
• Re: Talk page problem I: It started not on the talk page, but with an edit:

1. 04:40, 6 November 2008 G2's First edit;no explanations on Talk page; content added and deleted; summarized as "copy edit"
2. 07:37, 6 November 2008 SS's First revert to consensus version
3. 08:48, 6 November 2008Ss's Discussion of first revert; links added to past discussion of consensus; low-grade vandalism/incivility documented and explained
4. [3] G2's threat
5. 12:59 - 19:28, 6 November 2008 G2's eight consecutive edits; content deletion; in response to SS's statement that section is too long; this is editing to make a point
6. 16:30, 7 November 2008 G2 acknowledges that content removal was to make a point
7. 17:08, 7 November 2008 G2 refuses discussion

The nature of the original edit guaranteed a poor discussion. Added links, removed pictures, deleted content, etc. ed described as "copyedits" just aren't good faith edits from an experienced editor who knows all the rules. There is a contempt for the work of other editors behind this edit.

• Re: Talk page problem II: I just noticed this as I checked through the talk page history. I had also posted a link to the 1RR admin report Talk:Canada[4]. It appears that G2 removed this link from the Talk page, which I believe is a blanking violation.

1. 01:26, 7 November 2008 Soulscanner posts link to 1RR violation notice.
2. 16:40, 7 November 2008 Master of puppets posts link to 3RR violation notice (fair enough).
3. 18:02, 7 November 2008 G2bambino removes link to 1RR notice; replaces name of section. I think that is deliberate blanking, with intent (consider the timing) to mislead uninvolved administrators. Not so fair.

Please check my block log. My only other block was because G2 plays games like this in 3RR all the time.

--soulscanner (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the notes I wrote down two days ago when I was checking the history to see if you were over 3RR. All the times given are UTC. I have not studied these again since then and I don't have more time just now:

• All these edits by Soulscanner are consecutive: 15:29 to 16:11 on 7 November. One edit summary speaks of restoring a consensus version, so it must be a revert. (If you restore a former version you are reverting).

• 00:48 and 15:21 are consecutive on 7 November. Both claim to be reverting.

• 22:16 on 6 November is a revert.

• All these edits by Soulscanner are consecutive: 21:20, 21:30, 21:43, 21:51, 22:00 on 6 November. The 21:20 is removing a tag placed by G2b so it is a revert.

EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Hey. To be completely neutral I changed it to this to represent all sides. I'll notify G2Bambino. Also, how do you mean "apply" those civility conditions? Tell you two that you have to abide by them? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's what you meant so I'll state it here just for the record;

These apply to both of you:

1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family except for clear policy-defined vandalism.

Any additions that are not purely housekeeping must gain consensus from other editors first.

Veiled, snide remarks and general incivility are unacceptable.

No discussion of past conflicts; stick to the topic at hand and don't go off on a diff-hunting "this is what you said you hypocrite" tangent.

Sound good? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Misses my main concerns, though. Lets add some more, on BOTH of us, just to be more explicit on civility:

• Edit summary conventions mandatory
• No altering of the others discussion posts under any circumstances (save profanity and serious threats to life and limb).
• All conditions strictly applied; no leniency.
• Enforced by escalating blocks; no leniency.

Last two measures are key. They are what got the Politics section done.

--soulscanner (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I really have to tell you guys the last two are there? I'd feel as if I was talking to children. You guys are mature enough to understand the consequences and not play with fire; unless you want me to explicitly state every single condition here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, G2's latest block was not double his previous block, so I feel that these conditions are often not enforced. I know this sounds like a three year old whining, but I don't know how else to approach this. Maybe I'm not detached enough to make a judgment, or maybe the violations aren't clear-cut enough to make a decision. I've seen this happen time after time, and it seems that letting it go only makes the problem worse. He's back at the discussion page, and refuses to accept what I (and other editors) see as a pretty strong consensus on the page that I've now outlined a third time; it blocks discussion. I'm trying to remain patient, but I know he won't address the issue; he's trying to stall. I'm as frustrated as you by this situation. I won't launch another complaint and clog up administrator boards. I would block him for refusing to accept consensus, but maybe there's something that prevents this. It would be the easiest way to get him to accept consensus. Any recommendations or insights as to why this is not done? I'm not being a smart-ass. I really want to know how this works. --soulscanner (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nation Status in first paragraphs

Sorry for bringing up something from possibly long past, I don't visit very often, and I recognize your name from last year's debate. Last year we spent months reaching consensus on Nation Statements in opening paragraphs, why/when/how, did they slip to some miscellaneous paragraph all the way down the article, it seems ridiculous and wrong to me... I am very peeved! The article now is presented as some dogooder happy go lucky miscellaneous geographic region of Canada, that is so wrong... When you have a chance, can you catch me up?--4.234.159.119 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Québécois

Please comment at the talk page. Joeldl (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to you. Where've you been lately. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

List of national anthems

Ya 'may' wanna take a look at this & perhaps similiar articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to look at Countries of the United Kingdom and the Oxford English Dictionary which clearly establish that Wales, Scotland and England are countries. I have amended the section heading accordingly. --Snowded TALK 09:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada at FAR

User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

Hello, Soulscanner,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary

A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas in Quebec

Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas in Quebec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pls stop for sec

Could you pls stop editing the Canadians page till the talk is over. Its GA article and we now have so real overlap problems that we must address.Moxy (talk)

Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day

Hi- I've been thinking that it's about time to reopen the question of the name for National Holiday (Quebec). Although consensus was not reached last time, perhaps a consensus could be reached this time. It's been six years, time to try again? I'd hope you'd be able to help make the case. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Soulscanner. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Applebaum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Soulscanner. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Appelbaum

We do not use "Sources" sections in Wikipedia articles to relist sources that are already present under "References", or to linkfarm extra newspaper articles that reverify facts that are already referenced in the article but don't actually add anything new. What articles are occasionally allowed to do is include a "Further reading" section — but that would still not be to relist sources that are already being used in the article anyway or to linkfarm more media coverage, it would be used for material like if somebody published a full-on book-form biography of Appelbaum or a full-on book-form analysis of the case itself. We don't just use a section like that to repeat media coverage that's already in the article, or to collect more media coverage — we use it to list book-form sources that aren't already being used as footnoted referencing but are still important enough to mention. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roncarelli v Duplessis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Scott. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas in Quebec

Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas in Quebec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urban agglomeration of Longueuil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint-Hubert and Greenfield Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laval daycare bus crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Laval daycare bus crash

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Laval daycare bus crash, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Applebaum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UPAC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)