User talk:Boffob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Boffob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- pm_shef 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Diamond Crush

Hi. I've seen your two edits, and I'd like to point out that: 1. you wrote the page still says "to be released worldwide before the end of 2006" and now is September 2007, when it actually says "While originally slated to be released worldwide before the end of 2006, [...], its development status is currently on hold. However, a First Playable Version, a sort of pre-alpha for offline multiplayer gaming only, is available for download onto the official game site.". So, this part isn't outdated: 2006 was the former date. 2. The blog page full of links was added because the page had been previously deleted by an admin because of the lack of reliable source links. I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm sorry if I did give you that impression, I just wanted you to know the reasons behind the two things you pointed out. See ya ;) -- 85.18.66.26 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing Contributions

  • Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png 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! -- pm_shef 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster in My Pocket

Sorry to undo your alphabetization work, but the list was not in random order at all. It just needs to be put in a table with things like the numbers. Achelous through Troll should be the only alphabetical part, because the order does not appear to have been included in anything released by the company (except perhaps in Argentina), and they are listed where they are because they are 82-96, but not necessarily in respective order (I would speculate that Genie is #96 though). --Scottandrewhutchins 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob. It should have numbers yes. I just wandered there through the Ankou page and saw this long list with no logical ordering. Feeling compulsive I alphabetized it.--Boffob 02:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eh

Thank you for taking the 'eh' out of intro of the Canadian Indentity article. I had no idea what that editor meant by putting it in.

[edit] Montreal

When you see a large section ot text removed with no explanation then it's hard to know that the rto be released worldwide before the end of 2006est of the edits were valid. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saguenay

Hey - thanks for your edits to Saguenay. Looking back, those were some pretty boneheaded mistakes on my part :P doh. Anyway, hope you can continue to help improving the article - I don't know all that much about the city or the area but it is a shame to see the article go undeveloped. --dragfyre 02:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree the article should be expanded, it's just not the kind of thing I can do. I mostly do small fixes.--Boffob 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independant reinvention!

I see you've discovered our little online gambling news SPAMmer! I've been pulling his crap from as many places as I can find it. I've also filed a request on the m:Talk:Spam blacklist to have it be banned WMFwide. 68.39.174.238 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec French lexicon

Just to say your bot mistakenly replaced the word orignal (moose in Quebec French) with "original" on December 17, 2006.--Boffob 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You learn something new every day! Sorry about that. I've made a note of it so it won't happen again. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks?

Indeed, sounds like a matching pair to me. Wanna be my guest? Or shall I do the honors?--Ramdrake 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. I'm not too familiar with the procedure.--Boffob 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Boffob, I had seen your reply, but as things stand now, and it seems David Olivier now writes exclusively as Michael Brock (he tries to pass himself off as American, but still cites stuff in French from Stopgavage, his organization — very impressive!), he's not for the moment breaking any rules. You can have more than one ID on WP, as long as you don't use them concurrently to skew opinion, disrupt a vote or a debate. If he ever starts again a tandem with David, then I think we have a very strong case indeed, especially with the Youtube video he cited! Am I under the wrong impression, or would you by any chance also happen to be Québécois? (a distinct impression I got from your talk page and your degree of familiarity with French).--Ramdrake 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured as much. Your impression is right too.--Boffob 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I took a peek at Olivierd's talk page, only to find out he'd been indef-blocked along with his sockpuppets. That would explain why the page has been quiet for a week now... Until later. Salut d'un bleuet! :)--Ramdrake 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Click here to comment after reading the bottom message

Hi. Can you see Sesshomaru's talk page? I posted a question there and I hope you can answer it. Only cause you seem to know a lot 'bout Sesshomaru. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cretonnade

I don't doubt in this day and age you might look long and hard to find anyone in Ontario who is familiar with what I described. But my father was born and raised in Ontario. Though it was just across the Detroit River from Detroit, this was 1915 - and my fathers family, and everyone who they knew - spoke French. They were only one or two generations removed from Quebec. The "cretonade-like" dish I describe, which is not creton, but is clearly inspired from it, was made by everyone in his extended family for holiday dinners with goose or turkey. My father's seven children, as well as his brothers and sisters children, all continue to make this delicious dressing every year for the holidays (though all of us live in the States). I believe you that no one you know in Ontario is familiar with it. However, everyone of Canadian descent in my family - upwards of 80 people at last count - all know and love it!

Best, Melos Antropon 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid collateral damage

If you want to continue the ridiculous edit war over the name of InuYasha's sword, do it without inflicting collateral damage on other people's edits. Otherwise, I will revert you. JRSpriggs 06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, taking out red-links is not necessarily a good thing. If there SHOULD be an article, then the link should be left as a reminder to create the article and a link to it once it is created. JRSpriggs 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't remove all red links, only those which I believe won't be created any time soon, such as obscure japanese folkloric creatures. Especially when the essential description is right in the current article.--Boffob 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poutine

You're correct that the poutine segment appeared on This Hour Has 22 Minutes rather than Rick Mercer Report (which didn't even exist yet at the time). Just so you know, I've changed the wording of the sentence so that maybe it'll be a bit less ambiguous. Bearcat 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved by me to the bottom

I hope this is the right place for it. I am new to this: An editor has asked for a deletion review of L3_Internet_TV. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Agupte 11:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un gars, une fille

Merci de m'avoir parlé des modifications à l'article Un gars, une fille et pardon de n'avoir pu répondre plus tôt. J'ai émis mon opinion sur la page de discussion de l'article. Lorsqu'on est Wikipédien québécois, on doit passer une lourde, lourde part de notre temps à faire face à de tels assauts. Sur des douzaines sinon des centaines d'articles dont Hubert Aquin, La Job, Gilles Vigneault et même Mononc' Serge (!) a-t-on eu à livrer de telles fastidieuses batailles. On a même déjà éradiqué une grande part des catégories "Quebec...", voulu fondre List of Quebec television series à l'article canadien et voulu barrer le chemin à l'instauration des stubs québécois! Enfin! --Liberlogos 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of several links and content

Boffob: Looks like we have a problem and we need to talk. You have deleted many changes I have made to various articles regarding Internet TV and IPTV. Initially I bowed to your requests and removed my L3 page which was a valid description of a new technology. However, this is a field in which I am a recognized authority, and my blog has been quoted by several respected entities incudling Business Week and GigaOm.com (I can provide the links if you like). If you are not convinced, please get a third party involved who can vet the content of my changes. Please do not delete my changes and links, at least until we have resolved this. Thanx. 203.199.165.66 12:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

Here is my response. Most important point below is that I did not post it, I asked someone in the same field to post after reviewing it. Yes, you could say there is still a conflict of interest since this person is known to me. But it is really a minor semantic point. See below for my justification.

What should be linked Meets this criteria: 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Meets this criteria: 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. (The Joost article is a review)

Links to be considered Meets this criteria: 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources may be linked to, for example a blog written by the subject of a biography article.

Links normally to be avoided It does not meet any of these criteria. It has no advertising on it. Although it is a blog, it is written by an authority that 26 websites and blogs link to including gigaom.com and businessweek.com, which are respected online publications. Check the Technorati linking for the blog l3media.blogspot.com for confirmation if you need it.

I also did not add it myself, but asked a colleague to review it and see if it fit the page into which I suggested it should rest. As per WP:EL I probably should not have taken an interest in seeing these links on those specific pages, but WP:EL says “avoid” such a situation (does not expressly forbid it) and also as I said above I did not personally do it. (That is why there is no login).

I have also made other contributions to the same pages that are obviously valuable because they have not been edited or deleted.

[edit] Anaheim Ducks

Hello Boffob, I've removed the French 'accent' marks from Giguere's name (at the current roster). Assuming you weren't aware, months ago WPTP decided to keep 'diacritics' off the NHL team pages. Just letting you know. GoodDay 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal

Hi,

I've seen Montreal referred to as the second-largest French-speaking city in the world many times. I have never seen it referred to that way with respect to the Western world. Why is it preferable to change the claim to a weaker and less common one rather than clarify the usual one? Joeldl 13:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Because statistics for linguistic demographics for Abidjan, Kinshasa, etc are not so easy to come by. Then there's issues about whether we include the suburbs or not (without them Montreal has a population of 1.6 million). So, while the "2nd French city in the world" is commonly cited everywhere, it may not actually be true. By saying 2nd French speaking city in the Western world, one avoids all those issues of ascertaining actual number of francophones in African cities that most sources neglect to verify, and the possible edit wars and/or long discussions on the talk page (check the archives).--Boffob 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
According to the [Ethnologue database], fewer than 20,000 Ivorians speak French natively (1988 data - may be outdated, but is less than 1% of the Montreal number), so that takes care of Abidjan. As for Congo-Kinshasa, I admit, I haven't found a good source. Ethnologue doesn't give any data, but this is likely because there are not significant numbers of native speakers. Congo-Kinshasa is never mentioned as a country with a significant number of native speakers of French when countries with significant numbers are listed. La Francophonie estimates that 4% of the population of Congo-Kinshasa are francophones réels, meaning capable of using French in all normal situations. That's about 2.4 million in the whole country. I doubt anybody will claim there actually might be more native speakers in Kinshasa than in Montreal (whose metro area had 2.3 million native speakers of French in 2001). We will eventually find a source that states the obvious — that few Congolese speak French natively — so we are safe in saying that Montreal is the second-largest French-speaking city in the world by number of mother-tongue speakers. This has to be sourceable. Joeldl 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Granted, but I suggest we stick to "Western world" for now, until such sources are found, as it's concise, true, and does not require extra sentences to fuss over details.--Boffob 19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our anonymous friend

I don't think this is a case of sockpuppetry, so much as someone abandoning their handle for the comfort of anonymity. It's perfectly obvious, from a perusal of the Barbara Kay controversy page history, who "132." actually is ... and from the looks of things, he hasn't changed his tactics much in the time he's been gone.

I'd recommend that we revert him, and otherwise ignore him. CJCurrie 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we should obviously report him if he continues his personal attacks -- I just meant that we shouldn't feed the fire by responding to him. CJCurrie 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Montréal

Hey Boffob, I'm with you with the UK thing with the partner cities, but Scotland and England are both countries, eventhough they are both part of the United Kingdom. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah, semantics! ;)--Boffob 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hello, Boffob. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Hu12 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
To Boffob for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) _________

You have removed my links from about five pages. They are not link-spam because they fail to pass the relevant tests. They are intended to provide accurate, factual and referenced information. In my experience, such information is removed from Wikipedia by people with particular agendas, thus it is better to provide links than get involved in edit wars. I recently changed my web address because I am trying to get a book published. However, the articles in question were not written for that project, were not written for wikipedia and are all of higher quality that the Wiki articles they are linked to. I have undone several of your links but as I'm no wiki junkie I have no idea if you have buggered more than I can remember. Please could you reverse the others.

The question you should ask - do these links provide useful, accurate information from an expert in the field. The answer is yes. So leave them alone. James Hannam 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] www.schwartzstories.com

Hi. What it is about the www.schwartzstories.com website that you feel violates the Wikipedia guidelines? It seems to be a community forum from when the Chez Schwartz documentary was being made, and maintained as a way to share stories online. Seems to me to be a useful publically oriented link Shawn in Montreal 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, thanks for replying. Shawn in Montreal 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RSS history needs cleanup?

Hello Boffob. In this edit you added a Cleanup tag. Can you be more specific about what needs fixing? Thanks, EdJohnston 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Unwarranted double reversions

Please do not revert the List of Montreal business people again. Thank you. D. C. Thomas 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did - before I left the above message. D. C. Thomas 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page. No one is compelled to write bio articles at Wikipedia and having red links for very important people is essential. Also, I just removed your "Weasel" notice you posted to the Quebec diaspora article. You put that in without stating it in your edit summary and never gave a reason why you reached this opinion on the Talk page that not only is appropriate, but common courtesy. I'm certain it wasn't your intention, but calling what seems like a clear and precise article with fully documented sources as "Weasel" could well be taken as an insult or the product of a specific motivation. Thanks again. D. C. Thomas 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No you have undertaken what certainly seems an deliberate insult. If you have the "opinion" that an article is a "story" or any other such label, give your explaqntion on the Talk page, please. Its probably just my imagination, but your work seems eerily like User:Laval who "disappeared" after a sockpuppet search was suggested as appropriate? D. C. Thomas 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


You certainly exhibit the behaviouir of someone with a clear agenda. You have reverted Quebec diaspora three times. Next one, I will ask for the appropriate action. D. C. Thomas 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for SHOUTcast help

Just wanted to say thank you for helping to keep the SHOUTcast article free of linkspam. The shoutq.com spammer is rather persistent, isn't he? —mjb 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Imeem. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Do not remove links! MasterXC 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bot making bad edits

Please, put the template {{nobots}} on page Un gars, une fille and the bots (every bot in the world) will never modify the page. Regards. --Alleborgo 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Thanksgiving article

Thank you for clarification of how Canadian Thanksgiving typically falls on the second Monday of October. I live in the United Kingdom and have never travelled outside Europe, so, not having been to Canada, I am not really in an expert position on this one. My only source which says October 11 is a paperback book that is really aimed at younger readers, and which may have got it wrong. ACEOREVIVED 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un gars, une fille

I have changed to nobots tag to bots|deny=.... This is a bit of an experiment, as I don't know quite how many pywikipedia bots will make this class of mistake, or how many articles it may apply to. Just thought I'd let you know. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53 31 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] InuYasha characters... Japanese?

Is everyone in the InuYasha world a Japanese character? The category should only be here if this is so, and not also on each character. Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we have every recurring character categorized, including the InuYasha characters cat. What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to remove those individual ones then. Will you assist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh boy, I have to leave home. If you would like, save some for me eh? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the remaining pages, and after seeing a lot of them, every one should be tagged for deletion because I see no hope of becoming good articles. I'm sure you're thinking the same? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think we should start doing this on those InuYasha articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm speaking more for the minour ones. Now that I think about it, I'll leave it for the time being. Maybe I'll do something in the future unless you have another idea. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Byakuya. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your first edit counts as a revert. Why don't you spark a discussion before reverting a fourth time? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saguenay population...

The urban population is here, and the metro population is here. All the source came from Statistics Canada. La Baie and Saint-Honoré have each one a "urbain suburb" [1] by the same source --Fralambert (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on The China Study

I have requested comment on The China Study, an article which you have edited in the last six months. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexpappas01

Re: Culture.ca / podcasts.culture.ca

Bob, I have seen and read your notes and am displeased that you consider this advertising or press release. I am FULLY AWARE that Wikipedia is not a place to promote. and I disagree that what has been posted is in ANY shape, way, or form, advertising... These are important and very relevant sites. Please be more careful when editing others postings as your opinion is not the only one that matters here. - alexpappas01Alexpappas01 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internet radio cleanup

It appears that you were the original person to put the cleanup tag on the history section of the Internet radio article. I've been cleaning it up, one or two small changes a day, for a short while now. Can you be specific about what needs to be cleaned up in your opinion? (Or, if you think it's now adequately cleaned up, can you remove the cleanup tag?) Thanks. SlubGlub (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Might you care to weigh in on the discussion here? I've been trying to slowly-but-surely clean up the article and would appreciate input on how to proceed given the disagreement there. SlubGlub (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the Cleanup template from Internet radio and replace it with a Cleanup Remainder template at the end of the History section. I'd like to solicit your input on that. I think the article is acceptable now up to that point.SlubGlub (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links with comments

Giving external links with comments (as in the Michel Tapié article before you impoverished it with your deletions) is exactly analogous to providing an annotated bibliography. Who is anyone to decree that explanatory remarks are not to be included with external links? I will revert your changes unless you can explain to me why such remarks are inherently harmful or useless. And by the way, saying that it's written somewhere that "this isn't done" is not an explanation or a justification. MdArtLover (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please place further replies here; I am watching this page.
I don't have a lot of time these days to spend on this. But your edits do not show respect for the actual goal of providing people with useful and relevant knowledge. For example, what was I supposed to do in this case: I discovered, in working on the Gutai article, that while there is no English Wikipedia article on the artist Sadamasa Motonaga, there is a French Wikipedia article on Motonaga. Don't tell me that that links to foreign-language Wikipedias belong under the "languages" column at lower left. That is only for links to foreign-language Wikipedia articles on the same subject as the article itself. Here, what I wanted and what was obviously useful was a link to the French Wikipedia article on this artist. That would also give readers, at a stroke, not only access to that article itself, but access to all the external links provided in that article. A hell of a lot of English speakers do know at least a little French and can get some use out of such a link. Why should I have to forego providing the link? Because it would not help everyone? Not everyone knows a little French, so no one gets to benefit from the link? Your deletion of this, without in any way trying to preserve the access to information it provided, shows that you are not primarily interested in what's useful or what actually works, but only in exercising your petty power to interfere with the honest efforts of others, in the name of arbitrary formalist notions of "what's done" and "what's not done". MdArtLover (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I see above that you have been warned for waging an edit war and violating the 3RR. How unsurprising. MdArtLover (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil. It is standard to reply on each other's talk page as one's talk page is automatically on the watchlist, plus you get a special message as soon as you log on to Wiki. I have not violated 3RR and have never been blocked for edit warring. But more to the point: if there are no articles on particular painters in English wikipedia, write one, link to the other language article there. That is more useful than linking to a foreign language article from another painter's page. Note that the only actual foreign language link I removed on the Michel Tapié article was the interwiki to the Japanese article on the Gutai group, not only because it was in Japanese, which few English readers can read, but also because there was already a link to the English article on that. Anyone who can read the English Michel Tapié article can read the Gutai group linked in the See also section. That makes the Japanese link in the Michel Tapié article completely unnecessary. The single edit I ever made to the article was to improve it, following the manual of style by removing unnecessary peacock words, and tidying up the external links section. Look at other articles: external links section have only external links accompanied by at most a very short description that is in the vast majority of cases less than one line long. If a comment is so long as to take an entire paragraph, it deserves to be incorporated to the main article. In the external links section, it distracts from the other links, gives undue weight to the particular link it is describing and makes navigation more difficult. I have given to you suggestions on how to reinstate the part of the removed material that you feel is important that would respect the Wikipedia guidelines on good articles. Instead of arguing just to put it back exactly the way it was, why don't you give these suggestions a try?--Boffob (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment at Wikiquette

Please see Wikiquette alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Mathieugp_.28talk.29 asking Mathieugp (talk) to review Soapboxing guidelines regarding post at Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment. I don't want it turning into a long protracted debate on the topic as opposed to the article. --soulscanner (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for the third opinion you provided on the flagicon and state seal on Talk:Edelbrock. Aspects (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletions to Alt porn

According to my reading of WP:EL and WP:VERIFY, blogs are not absolutely prohibited as sources or links. The are to be taken down if the information is contested or contentious, and I don't see that in this case. In fact, some of the sources you've deleted or asked for deletion are some of the only sources out there that provide a history of the alt porn genre. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of McGill University people

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. You know, there is precedent that all entries must be cited, and I even gave a link to where the precedent is. There's nothing bad faith about that. GreenJoe 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The [citation needed] tag doesn't do anything. Most of the list is uncited. So I've started to revert additions on sight that don't come with an in-line citation. It's policy, just because it isn't done now doesn't mean it isn't required. Look at List of Dartmouth College alumni or List of Athabasca University people. They're featured lists, and they both use in-line citations. The RFC over at List of University of Toronto people has a clear consensus that in-line citations are required. So while it may be cited in his article, that isn't good enough. The reader shouldn't have to go searching for the citation. It's up to the person putting it in to add the citation. GreenJoe 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If I did that, there wouldn't be a list. Most of the additions lack citations. So I simply revert new additions that don't have a citation. And there is a policy, it's at WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. Lists are no exception. GreenJoe 20:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
While it's not policy, the featured list criteria specifically spells out no original research, and verifiability. GreenJoe 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)