text:
User talk:P.T. Aufrette/archive2

archive1

Template:INR
Hey, I have no clue what you did in your edit, but now nobody sees the new Rupee symbol, just boxes. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I wonder which operating system you are using, and which version? Perhaps it hasn't been updated?  In any case, thanks for the feedback, I will revert to the prior version and try the change again in a year or so, after more people have updated their operating systems. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Heya, I [and most of the users of Wikiproject India], use Windows XP with either IE6/7, Opera 11 or Firefox 5+. Some use Mac, some use Linux. Do I need to do any software update? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * No, it shouldn't be necessary. The change was reverted, so the problem should go away (if any page still shows the old version, it will change when you edit the page). In general though, it's a good idea to keep operating systems up to date, but it wouldn't be a requirement in order to be able to use Wikipedia. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, a note that most entry level phones don't support this unicode character too. Infact, several Android devices don't support it as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that's useful information. It's a pity that many manufacturers of Android devices don't provide operating system upgrades. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand 10 cent coin
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of New Zealand 10 cent coin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://uk.ask.com/wiki/New_Zealand_20_cent_coin.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 * That is just a mirror of the New Zealand 20 cent coin, which the newly-created New Zealand 10 cent coin obviously resembles. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand 5 cent coin
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on New Zealand 5 cent coin, appears to be directly copied from http://uk.ask.com/wiki/New_Zealand_20_cent_coin. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on New Zealand 5 cent coin if necessary. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Same as above -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prime Ministers
Rather than reverting back and forth please comment at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Gérard L'Éveque
Oy vey. Now I'm just confused. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacques Rose

The article Jacques Rose has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 11:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Régent Millette
WP:POLITICIAN is quite specific that in most circumstances a politician has to actually hold an elected office to be notable enough for an article on here; with rare exceptions such as John Turmel, who's notable because he is actually listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world record holder for the most elections run in and lost by any single person in world history, a person is not notable just for running for office, even repeatedly. And the article does not make any credible case that Millette is notable enough to be one of those exceptions — if you can add further evidence indicating that he's more notable than the existing article would suggest, then feel free to do so, but as written, the article does not demonstrate that he's notable enough for an independent article.

And at any rate, redirects can be instituted at any time, and it is not necessary to go to AFD for permission. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Out of all the articles cited as references, there isn't a single one which actually constitutes substantial coverage of Millette as an individual; there are articles which mention his name in passing, but not a single one of them is actually about him as a topic in his own right. For example, a politician isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because you can reference it to the actual table of ballot counts on a page of election night coverage — the fact that his name appears in the table isn't sufficient if the page doesn't contain any meaningful information about him. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 * It's true that the list format has been problematic in the past for that very reason; candidates who run more than once may have their "biographical" information placed in an article that doesn't correspond to the particular election you want to link from. There's also the ongoing problem of actually keeping them clean, since people have far too often taken the list format as a license to post the very same kind of unsourced or poorly sourced campaign brochures that we were trying to avoid in the first place. In truth, the lists are supposed to look more like this — although not all of the older lists have actually been converted yet — and then instead of just linking directly to Régent Millette, one would link to the appropriate list for the relevant election, since he'd be named, and the information relevant to that particular election given, in each individual list. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Marcel Lussier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Damase, Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Hello bot. It is very likely the one in Montérégie, and the French Wikipedia article links to that one, but to verify it would probably require original research. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Senate
Hi, the page needs work, not speedy deletion. It's most certainly notable, and multiple other pages will need to be created to fill in a current gap in wikipedia coverage. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Since you did not wait for my response before issuing the Speedy, I'm going to recreate the page. Next time you want to speedy something, consult first, then nominate. TTFN. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you. You could have saved yourself the bother with a note saying hey - are you going to do something about it? If you'd prefer stubs with next to no information I can do that. I'll fill it out when work is less busy. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Appreciate your help with the disambigs. Only 34 more pages. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John William Ritchie on pl.wikipedia.org
Hi! You have changed date of death to 18 december. On en.wikipedia there are two references ( and, each giving other date (13/12/1890 and 18/12/1890). Do you know which one is correct? (please answer on pl.wiki: here) --Winiar (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Mulcair
I always thought the big bold letters at the top of the infobox should match the article title (Thomas Mulcair instead of Thomas J. Mulcair). If his birthname was simply Thomas Mulcair, and he was known as Thomas Mulcair, I agree the infobox shouldn't bother with the birth name section. The J makes the difference to me. I do not know, however, what the official policy is on this, or guideline. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the sentence. But we're not writing a sentence, just an infobox field. Two different things. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to revert on this over Thomas Mulcair... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

George Buchanan Foster
Hello,

When I created this article, it was my understanding that both father and son were Canadian senators, each in their turn? Was I incorrect in that?

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So then you have saved me from error, for which I am grateful, and Wikipedia is thereby improved. Thanks much.

A monolingual Yank, Georgejdorner (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

João Bráz de Aviz on pl.wiki
Hi! There's already a page (redirect): João Bráz de Aviz. I'm not sure which version is correct - in references both can be found (see:, , ) --Winiar (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gédéon Ouimet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party of Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello. I noticed that you have been active in the Quebec-related articles. Perhaps you would be interested in joining one of the wikiprojects? --MTLskyline (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

SCref
Hey - fantastic job on fixing and updating the SCref template! Mind matrix  16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks... -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

 * List of boroughs in Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to LaSalle, Lachine, Saint-Laurent, Saint-Léonard, Ville-Marie and Outremont

 * Ahuntsic (provincial electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Crémazie (provincial electoral district)

 * List of municipalities in Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outaouais

 * List of township and united township municipalities in Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outaouais

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled section
Hello. I noticed that you've suppressed easily verifiable information regarding candidates for the upcoming Quebec general election. Why are you doing this? Any of this information can be found on the applicable parties' websites. The only point here is to have it on Wikipedia so that people can more easily access it all at once. With all the corruption and scandal going on in the current Quebec government, do you really want to put your reputation on the line by suppressing verifiable information? Please leave it alone. Wikipedia is not your personal property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.200.68 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 * You're mistaken, I have no involvement. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

List of census divisions of Canada by population
Could I ask you to hold off on editing List of census divisions of Canada by population for a few minutes? The list had to be resorted to the 2011 rankings instead of the 2006 ones, but that's taken me about an hour and a half to do, and because you've made several edits to the article since I started doing it I either have to scratch all my work and start over again, or blow all of your edits out of the water and then go back and reapply them manually — so it would really help if you could wait for a bit before making further changes. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I was pretty much done, except I noticed just now that the "was" data in the 2006 column prevented numeric sorting. I was going to add an additional column to put the "was" text into.  There are only about a dozen places where the "was" references go, I can reapply them manually. Let me know when you're done. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just finished updating the article and then reapplying your intermediate changes, so everything's back to normal now and you can do whatever else you want or need to again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, great, thanks. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. When you recently edited John Hale (Canadian politician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Caldwell and Halifax, Nova Scotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite DCB
cite encyclopedia will not work as expected for  if last is set to an empty string

But when  is removed   behaves as expected.

By using the construction I have put in place, one does not need to know what the underlying code is for cite encyclopedia or worry in the future if the logic around some of the parameters is changed. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for the clarification. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Please see Template talk:Cite DCB -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Abacus Data

A tag has been placed on Abacus Data requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mrmatiko (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Abacus Data for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abacus Data is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abacus Data until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Former cities/boroughs of Montreal
Bonjour. I just wanted to point out to you that the "neighbourhood/communities" section of WP:CANSTYLE states in part: "Where a neighbourhood is recognized as a distinct and valid municipal address by Canada Post (see address lookup here), the title may be at Neighbourhood, Province rather than Neighbourhood, City (e.g. East York, Ontario; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia). Such neighbourhoods were usually once autonomous municipalities that have since been annexed or amalgamated, or are semi-autonomous municipalities (e.g. Montreal's boroughs)." That naming convention was the result of a fairly lengthy discussion/consensus. While my inclination is to agree with you (all neighbourhoods/communities should be at Neighbourhood, City ), that is not the current convention (sadly). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, the boroughs of Quebec City were all already at X, Quebec City. I too think it's more logical that way, but in any case, I wanted the X, Montreal variants not to be redlinks, and the easiest way to do that was to move them to their seemingly logical destination. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And I don't disagree with your logic, but when the naming convention was discussed, we unfortunately couldn't convince the majority of editors that common mailing addresses ≠ good Wikipedia title names.  Oh well.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

 * Arthabaska (electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, Quebec

 * Beauharnois (provincial electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, Quebec

 * Bellechasse (provincial electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, Quebec

 * Charlevoix–Côte-de-Beaupré (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to L'Ange-Gardien, Quebec

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! 76.65.57.182 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Bearian's deletion log
Bearian (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jct
We already added a set of parameters to the template that should address the needed functionality. They are the  parameters that allow the input of linked or unlinked locations like Mackinac Bridge (used as a destination along several of Michigan's freeways) or "Other Desert Cities" (used in California, no link would be appropriate).  Imzadi 1979  →   21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's less convenient for users because it requires using the template, which ordinary users shouldn't be expected to know about.  For instance:
 * It's more natural to write this as:
 * -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 * It does actually work with just the | rather than | . -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm, so it does. I thought I tried it without the and it didn't work, but I must have gotten two different editing experiments mixed up in my head.  Oh well.  OK then. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rivière-Windigo, Quebec
Hey - try not to use bare URLs as refs, use or some template of the sort. (See Bare URLs) Cheers!  " Pepper "  @ 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Atkinson
Hi, thanks for your work on Atkinson. Unfortunately the article had been riddled with vandalism the day before by a random IP. As it wasn't picked up, your valid corrections were mixed up with bogus nonsense. I reverted the vandalism, but as I don't know the subject's life and work I can't properly re-add your work. I suspect that your impulse to edit the page came from seeing the vandalism in the first place. You could, perhaps, copy and paste your text back in with not so much difficulty as you know what's what. Thanks and best wishes Span (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was a mis-revert on my part. I was alerted by additions such as

 * "He was a gentleman enjoyed life to the fullest, from a top of his horse, Sir Harry, or his Massey Ferguson 168 tractor building fences, or making friends. Gordon Atkinson had a fascination about each individual person. He considered himself an Answer man, ad took it upon himself to make attempts at settling injustices be it from the Oka Crisis, to the English Language and Alliance Party in Quebec."

 * Most of the adds were nonsense or at best unsourced and original. I would just take the whole lot out and re-add ref'd changes as you see fit. Span (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that. Sorry about the confusion. Span (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quebec infoboxes
Why are you changing standard degree/minutes format for coordinates (that match CTQ) to decimal degrees? Also, the use of the word "constitution/constituted" in the "established" line of the infobox has little meaning for average readers. It usually represents the date of incorporation, so it would be better to use that word. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The words "constituted" and "constitution" are used in the official English translation of AN ACT RESPECTING MUNICIPAL TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, and correspond to the term used in French (eg, for Lawrenceville, "Date de constitution" = 1905-04-27.  So this is actually the official term applicable to Quebec.  Incorporation doesn't apply, in that the word "corporation" in the names of municipalities was specifically struck out (see c. 19, s. 270).  It seems better to use "constituted", since it's a verb, and "constitution" has another much more common meaning in English. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the location, the official MAMROT database (eg, the above link for Lawrenceville) gives a specific address for every municipality, usually city hall or municipal building, so it is useful to extract the latitude and longitude for this from Google Maps and set the  field to the address and the   and   to the corresponding nearly exact latitude and longitude.  At least this will be a useful starting point for exploring the municipality via Google Street View or similar online tools, rather than an approximate latitude and longitude that might be in some field or lake. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, but the fact remains that "constituted" really means municipal incorporation. This conveys a clearer idea to the average reader of what is meant, which, IMO, is better than trying to match terminology of legal documents that have little bearing on the real world. As for coordinates, it's an established practice to avoid over-precision for cities/municipalities (see MOS:COORDS) or use documented coordinates from published sources (such as Commission de toponymie du Québec). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "constituted" is not some incomprehensible legal jargon, it's actually an understandable English word. It's the word chosen by the government translators who translated the law into English; they must have considered other choices of wording and consciously rejected them.  "Incorporation" in particular seems definitely wrong, since no municipality in Quebec is ever referred to as "the corporation of the city of X", like in some other jurisdictions; clause 270 of the law specifically strikes out any former such wording in the official name of any Quebec municipality.  Why not go with the actual jurisdiction-appropriate terminology?   A Canadian province is like a US state, but we still call it a province.  This seems like the same thing. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding precision, there is a "seconds of arc" field provided for the non-decimal form, which is within the nearest 31 meters; specifying within 0.0001° is roughly the same order of magnitude of precision. If   specifies a street address, this is not too precise.  The benefit of a street-address   is that the town hall usually represents the core of the municipality, and some readers will want to click on the coordinates and then proceed to follow links like Google Street View or aerial view and walk through the streets in whatever passes for a downtown in a given municipality.  The benefit of being able to do so outweighs the inconvenience of seeing one or two extra digits in the coordinate display.  Reading MOS:COORDS, I actually read that as a suggestion not to use more than four decimal digits, or fractions of a second of arc.  If second-of-arc precision was never appropriate, there would not be   or   fields provided.  Regarding documented coordinates, a street address represents documented coordinates in effect, because it is trivial (a matter of seconds) to verify the latitude and longitude corresponding to it (eg, in Google Maps, using "What's here", and Bing Maps probably has something similar); a few years ago, that would not have been the case.
 * When the Commission de toponymie du Québec specifies coordinates, they often do so only to the nearest minute of arc; that is, only within 1.86 km. See for instance here for Grenville, Quebec.  However for some of the small village municipalities, their total surface area is small (Grenville is only 2.81 km2, which would correspond, if square-shaped, to a square with sides of 1.68 km.  The Commission de Toponymie coordinates represent an earlier-generation dataset that is not really compatible with aerial views and street views and Google Earth flythroughs, because they might land you in some farmer's field a kilometer away from the heart of the municipality.  We have the capability to provide something better. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are changing a lot of long established infobox conventions. I'll move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quebec to get greater consensus. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi P.T. Aufrette. First, I appreciate the work you are doing to try and make every infobox consistent (let's see if we can do that all Canada ;-)). I replied to your post on my talk page with bold text and ALLCAPS inside the infobox. As for the coordinates, I like to see less precision, pointing to the approximate centre of the territory. Anyway, we have to allow for more time on the WikiProject page, say, till the end of April? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi P.T. Aufrette. I have been away for a while but I can now resume updating articles. I noticed that you just updated Rivière-au-Tonnerre, Quebec. I wanted to recommend a few more things: if the Canada census box is used, why duplicate the change and dwellings in the settlement infobox? It makes this box so long. And since the Canada census box already shows the last 3 census populations, I think there is no need to repeat it again in the population list below it.
 * BTW, nice articles for Rivière-Koksoak, Quebec and Baie-d'Hudson, Quebec. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am just trying to make things consistent across all the municipality articles, and many of them already had the change and dwellings, so by default I settled on adding that feature to the articles that didn't have it. I am grabbing the data from StatCan and filling in the infobox in a semi-automated way, so it requires no extra effort.  I agree that dwellings might be a bit of overkill, but I kind of like the one-line percentage change.  Maybe we can try to survey what others think about it?  It can be removed in an automated way across all articles if there's consensus for that.  I'm not really a fan of the Canada census box, it seems a bit cluttered and hard to read at a glance, and one problem is that there is limited room for horizontal expansion.  I think the key figure is population, and there it's nice to see the figures go back to 1991, which you can't do with a horizontal format.  In any case, I'm not adding population lists to articles that don't have them, but where they already exist I simply add a line for 2011, again in a semi-automated way. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Lawrenceville, Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brome-Missisquoi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Based on your thorough investigation here, I have discovered additional issues and launched a contributor copyright investigation. I suspect that by the time we are done with it, many more issues will be discovered and addressed. Appreciate your careful approach there! Many people just remove the one they stumble upon and leave it at that, which (obviously) can leave a mess that we don't know about. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. When you recently edited Lac-Despinassy, Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abitibi-Ouest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about testiness at Martin Cech. You're right, I have deleted the comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unicode and INR template
Hi, what is the unicode for the new ₹ symbol? How do I get it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 * It's U+20B9, so you can create it by typing in.
 * Here it is: ₹
 * Here it is again: ₹

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, thanks. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi P.T. Aufrette, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hauterive
Thank you for looking closer. You saved me the effort of having to explain it in detail. Hwy43 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

List of designated places in Quebec
Hi P.T. Aufrette, I recently started the above article. Given your interest in the similar List of population centres in Quebec article, I thought you might be interested in auditing the wikilinks to the various designated places to avoid redirects, where applicable, and resolving any redlinked designated places that may have articles at other titles. Any effort to help, if you have the interest and the time, would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at the article's talk page. In short: it might be hard to make a useful list out of this. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Designated places
I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I've noted at Talk:List of designated places in Quebec that I solved the Amqui mystery. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

selective edit
I err'd in reverting both edits at Dénes Lukács (tennis). But I could not keep the Baylor info in the "undo" as it was in the same edit where important things were removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Montréal–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
May I ask why you made this a separate article? Elections Quebec considers it to be the same riding as Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, it has a similar name and kept the same MNA. Were there significant boundary changes? --Noname2 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The National Assembly website lists them all separately, see Les membres de l'Assemblée nationale par circonscription or Les résultats électoraux depuis 1867.

 * Similarity of names can sometimes be misleading. For instance, when Mégantic-Compton was formed, none of its territory came from the newly-defunct Mégantic; when Viger disappeared, its territory was carved up three ways, and only about a third of it went into Jeanne-Mance–Viger.  In the case of Montréal–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I believe its territory went to Marguerite-Bourgeoys and Marquette in addition to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but I don't know in what proportions.

 * In general, even if maps were readily available online (which they usually aren't for old ridings), it would often be a judgment call and a matter of subjective interpretation to determine if a riding in a new electoral map is really merely a continuation of a riding from the previous electoral map, or a new entity (even if maps were readily available online, which they aren't for ridings before 1965). Even Elections Quebec sort of avoids the issue by simply declaring that every electoral division is "new" each time the electoral map changes.

 * I have slowly come around to the view that the cleanest solution, which avoids resorting to WP:original research, is to treat each new name as a separate article, as the National Assembly website does, except for very simple cases like Les Chutes-de-la-Chaudière becoming Chutes-de-la-Chaudière or L'Acadie becoming Acadie or Laprairie becoming La Prairie, which are more orthographic changes or corrections than name changes. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, sometimes a riding can undergo a drastic boundary change but keep the same name. What do we do then? --Noname2 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the 1992 electoral map (first used in the 1994 election), the old Bertrand in Montérégie disappeared and a new Bertrand appeared in Laurentides, and that is considered an entirely different riding that just recycled the name; they are geographically quite distant. On the other hand, Frontenac is a trickier case: the two National Assembly website links I listed above even disagree between themselves over whether Frontenac on the 1972 electoral map should be considered the same riding as Frontenac on the 1965 electoral map: there is a very small (percentagewise) overlap of territory, but 1972 Frontenac is really more of a successor to Mégantic, and Mégantic-Compton was the real successor to 1965 Frontenac.

 * But in general the simplest and cleanest rule seems to be to follow the same principle that the National Assembly website does: if it's the same name, it's the same entity (except for the very rare pathological case like Bertrand); if it's a different name, it's a different entity (except perhaps for orthographic changes rather than true name changes). Admittedly this can create paradoxes, especially when a name is revived after an absence of decades: for instance, is 2011 Mégantic the same entity as 1965 Mégantic even though there is no actual overlap of territory?  And there may be inconsistencies: the National Assembly website seems to consider L'Acadie different from Acadie, but not Les Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (as it was called in 1989) and Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (its name since 1994 and later), and can't make up its mind about Frontenac.  You also have cases of long-lived names that must have undergone drastic territorial changes over the long term: for instance Jacques-Cartier, which has been around since Confederation; today it's just part of the southern West Island (from Pointe-Claire to Senneville) but earlier incarnations included parts of Verdun and Saint-Laurent if I'm not mistaken.

 * But I think any other rule that we could dream up would still result in oddities, and would have the disadvantage of being much more complicated, requiring a great deal of subjective interpretation, and especially, requiring original research and access to maps of old ridings (I don't know of any online for pre-1965 electoral maps).

 * Following this "name" rule even means that René-Lévesque and Saguenay are different articles even though René-Lévesque on the 2001 map had the identical territory to Saguenay on the 1992 map; Saguenay had a long history and probably a number of territorial changes over the years. In general, for older ridings we really don't want to (and can't) do original research to try to distinguish what was a straight rename (like Anjou to Anjou–Louis-Riel), what was a multi-way dismemberment (like Viger and Jeanne–Mance-Viger), and what was something in between... as you can see, the name doesn't always tell the story... and even if we had the maps, it would require subjective interpretation (what is the percentage threshold of overlap of territory that would make a new riding with a different name merely a continuation of an old riding? and shouldn't it be based on percentage of population rather than percentage of territory, since many large unorganized territories have almost no population?).  So we should apply the same simple "name" rule to modern ridings and old ridings alike, to maintain consistency.  I created Anjou–Louis-Riel as a redirect to Anjou, but on thinking it over would probably go ahead and create an article for it. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases where the name changes but the boundary doesn't change even a bit, it should be the same article. No worries about original research there. --Noname2 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because for consistency we should apply the same principle for old ridings and new ridings alike; but we really have no way to research that for old ridings in the distant past. René-Lévesque and Saguenay were created (by other people, back in 2007) as separate articles, and it wasn't until I found the external links with Flash maps of the 1992–2001 changes that I realized that the transition occurred with no territorial change.  For older ridings we have no practical way to discover that sort of thing. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an imperfect solution, but I think it would be less imperfect if we didn't split articles for cases where we know the boundaries didn't change. René-Lévesque and Saguenay should be merged. --Noname2 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would inject extra complication (a territory-based criterion that must be researched, two infoboxes in the same article) for no real gain. Better to keep them disentangled.  The other article is always just a click away. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for two infoboxes. Just say on the page that riding name changed. Right now we mostly keep articles merged when there's a change in name but not boundaries. You're going to need consensus to change that, but I still think it's a bad idea. --Noname2 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just curious
Are you a Francophone-Canadian from Quebec? GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider myself a native speaker of English. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Bgwhite (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Montérégie-Est
I have initiated a full nomination (here) for Category:Montérégie-Est and its subcategories, which you had proposed for speedy renaming and to which another editor had objected. Cheers! -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:P.T. Aufrette/archive2


text:
User talk:Escudo~enwiki

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 03:48, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Escudo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Escudo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Escudo~enwiki


text:
User talk:Bird/archive1

revert my user talk page. I am telling you and I will continue to report to the pages where I have contributed that I have no confidence in the information I contributed. You may revert pages to the condition they were before I edited them and I will have nothing to say about my contributions.

Further, after more research, my opinion about the copyright of images I contributed changed. I now know them to be copyrighted image that cannot be used on Wikipedia.

 * If they are US govt, then it's OK, they are public domain, unless they come from a third-party source. Could you specify where?

 * No, i don't care to further help you find images for your project. I'm telling you I posted them then later discovered them to be copyrighted. Period.

 * It would be great if you could just tell me exactly what it was that caused you to do this, then perhaps we can all take a deep breath and figure what's going on. Yours in good faith. --Lexor|Talk 16:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bird. :) Can you tell me why you suddenly have no confidence in what you've written?  It looks great to me.  What sources did you rely on?  If you've based your articles on your understanding of a subject which you've read a lot about, there's no need to delete what you wrote.  If you've made mistakes (and I doubt that you have) then they will be corrected over time.  Nothing in wikipedia is instant - wikipedia evolves.  I'd be very sad to see you leave, you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most.  :)  fabiform | talk 16:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bird. :) Can you tell me why you suddenly have no confidence in what you've written?  It looks great to me.  What sources did you rely on?  If you've based your articles on your understanding of a subject which you've read a lot about, there's no need to delete what you wrote.  If you've made mistakes (and I doubt that you have) then they will be corrected over time.  Nothing in wikipedia is instant - wikipedia evolves.  I'd be very sad to see you leave, you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most.  :)  fabiform | talk 16:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most
 * That is because I fabricated a user identity with the intention of creating oen that is favorable to group think her. Nobody here knows me and it is apparent that when my real values show, I require more than some want to put out. the show is over "bird"

 * but what do you require? I still don't know what you mean. it sounds like this whole thing was an experiment in testing the community, but if so, for what purpose? --Lexor|Talk 16:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * What I meant by that was that you care about the content you're adding. Contributors who care are contributors who are valued.  Nobody here knows me either, but I believe that I add useful things to this project in my own small way.  fabiform | talk 16:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Bird: you know, this is a wikiwiki, not a peer-reviewed journal. We strive for accurate content and we need educated people (like you seem to be) on every subject. If there are mistakes, we hope they will be sooner or later mended, but -in my opinion- a slightly wrong article is better than nothing. Pfortuny 16:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, you've blanked the brain article within the last hour, claiming that its factual accuracy was questionable and that the images were violations of copyright.

I don't see indications on the copyvio page as to where the images are copies from so that it can be checked as to whether they are really that. You are thus not following standard Wikipedia behaviors which is highly objectionable. You seem to have been here for a bit, so you should have been aware of the ettiquette. Also, disputes as to the accuracy of the article are NOT grounds for blanking the article.

So far as I can tell, this is just a one-off incident, but I will look into it. If I find that you have been blanking without due cause in other places I will take the appropriate steps necessary to start the arbitration process or whichever strand if appropriate towards getting you watched a lot more closely. Your apparent vandalism has been noted and you have been warned about it. David Newton 16:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The history is longer than it looks like, David, I for this time would not call it vandalism. Pfortuny 17:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * David, you might want to look into Talk:Brain to see the source of this issue. Bird is reverting his edits to the state before he started working on them.  It appears s/he may have been ticked off about the focus on image trivialites and felt that not enough attention was being paid to factual accuracy and/or peer review (and in fact was perhaps deliberately putting in a few false facts to test the community).  We would have to look over the edits carefully to see what was actually done.  It's all very strange and vexing, but it appears the reverts have stopped and perhaps Bird has logged off.  I suggest waiting a while to see if Bird returns or not, and then doing whatever repairs are necessary. --Lexor|Talk 17:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but blanking an entire article and putting a line of text saying that its accuracy is disputed it NOT the way to go about that. I was just looking at the Recent Changes and happened to see the rather suspicious subject line of bird's last edit of the brain article. I then saw it had been blanked and started to investigate. I called it apparent vandalism, not just straight vandalism. However, given that I have come across several other articles that have been largely blanked over the past few edits, I am more inclined to say it is vandalism. It is a strange type of vandalism, but it is vandalism I am forced to conclude. I am leaning towards putting this on the vandalism in progress page so that other sysops can have a look at and fix some more of the problems and also keep an eye on things if/when bird logs on again. David Newton 17:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That's 27 articles I count that were either completely or mostly blanked or had rather odd things done to them. Even the Community Portal had a FAQ link removed for no apparent reason. I have reverted most of those articles that others hadn't found, and I have noted what is going on on the vandalism in progress page. Blanking or nearly blanking over 20 articles is certainly vandalism so far as I am concerned, regardless of whether the person wrote the articles as well. David Newton 17:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * With regards to the FAQ, I hear tell that he wrote the School FAQ which extolled some of the features of Wikipedia and indicated that it could be used as a resource in schools. However, some of his comments indicate that earlier (check the history of this page, methinks) indicated that he was withdrawing any such support and reccomendation. Fennec 18:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's just very strange, because we had a good contributor who felt that there was not enough attention to peer review being done (and too much attention on image formatting), and then disappears in a huff, blanking his/her pages as s/he goes (and not reverting them to the pre-Bird state as s/he had indicated s/he was going to do on Talk:Brain.  But it could be even stranger, have a look at Bird's comments on User talk:Fennec to see what I mean.  I'm not sure if this entirely premediated, or whether Bird was being ironic.  All very odd. --Lexor|Talk 17:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * David, you are right, but as I followed the case in real time, I noticed it more as someone becoming mad and trying to destroy his/her own work than as vandalism. But I am not trying to defend these acts. Pfortuny 18:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Bird,

If you think articles should be deleted, list them on Votes for Deletion, rather than blanking them. Please see that page for procedures. -- The Anome 17:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having reviewed content I contributed, I now realize it all to be ridden with errors and plagiarism. I am removing information I contributed which I know to be innacurate. If somebody wants to do the research to contribute accurate information, fine. Otherwise, back off before I begin recalling errors i made while using other information. '''It is wrong. I am fixing the errors.''' Don't try me. Not a bird

Before deleting anything for plagiarism we'd better know where it has been plagiarized from. Otherwise, your claims are void. Pfortuny 19:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * How about I tell you i made up everything I posted and what I didnt' make up I copied. And how about I make press releases citing many other articles I made up with no research besides an old textbook. In some cases I even OCR'ed the text directly into wikipedia. Don't cross me. This site lacks the resources do anything by cry and wish it had not lost the integrity I contributed. There is nothing you can do to restore integrity to anything written under this user name and I will make a career of assuring that the work bears a record of my testimony to the inaccuracy of my work. Go ahead, poke me with a stick some more....

 * Oh, no. I insist, this is a wikiwiki, not the Annals of Mathematics. So nobody should take WP as a definitive source for anything. Just a starter. Pfortuny 19:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello again Bird. The correct way to deal with copyright violations on Wikipedia is to list the relevant articles on Possible copyright infringements. Just blanking pages is against policy and will likely be reverted. If you have added copyvio to Wikipedia, then it should be deleted not blanked. Only administrators have the power to delete. What you're doing achieves nothing as everything you've ever written on Wikipedia is stored in page histories. If you carry on breaking Wikipedia policies by mass blankings etc you aren't likely to have the chance to "make a career of assuring that the work bears a record of [your] testimony to the inaccuracy of [your] work" as you will be seen as a vandal and banned. fabiform | talk 19:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Use whatever euphemism you want to shape the situation to conform with your personal reality. I am a writer who realized after the fact that I had contributed unreliable information. I will make every effort to assure that anyone who attempts to read the false, innaccurate, copied information I submitted knows that it is in fact unreliable. If you want to spend the next six months playing vigilante, ignore the subject matter and continue to go after thye person. The best thing for you to do would be shut up and quit trying to control my actions. Leave the articles the way they were without my contributions and there will be no reason for me to expose the errors in the articles. There is no correct way. The correct way is to acknowledge you have learned nothing from me and that I will not allow you to consider anything I have written or copied to the site as credible. It seems folks here are much better at fighting vandals and moving around pictures than they are at discussion biological phsycology. If that's the arena you want to play in - fighting vandals, have at it. On the other hand, if you have an interest in biological psychology, go read the 20 blank talk pages where nobody had nay interest in the subject matter. Of course the pages maintain history logs. That is where I am addressign these comments, so that anyone who studies these articles can review the history pages and realize the author fabricated or plagiarized the content. Get over it and start over.

"so-called bird"

The image blatted from the deleted version of Human brain is in the public domain. I made it myself as described on the image page. Accusations of plagiarism should not be bandied around lightly. Especially when wrong. Washington irving 19:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Make no mistake, I do not bandy lightly. My approach is forceful. If you created an image and would like to place it on a page, do so. If you would like to compile a list of regions in the human brain, do so. But if you want to create an encyclopedia based on what you think you learned from this username, you can rest assured the accuracy and plagiarism challenges will endure as long as anything sourced from this writer returns to the pages in its original form.

The list of human brain regions is based on nothing but my fancy and speculation. The image I posted there was copyrighted. If you want to start over, find some time and do so, based on your own research, and compile it in such a way that it does not mirror text I have repeatedly stated now is copied right out of a book. . "so-called bird"

Maybe I shouldn't reply, but I feel that I should repeat (forcefully) that the image currently shown on Human brain and List of regions in the human brain are in the public domain. The content I added to these and other pages is not plagiarized. I take the accusation of plagiarism very seriously. It is insulting and wrong. I think this will be my last comment on this page. I'm sorry you chose the important topic of the Brain to make an example of. Many honest and creative people have been contributing to these pages in good faith. Washington irving 19:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protection of Vandalised Pages
OK, this has now escalated rather seriously. Your persistent failure to follow the established ways of doing things has meant that I've protected a whole slew of pages that have been involved in your reversion attempts. I have also added disputed accuracy notices to most of them, so they should be fact checked as well. Any further vandalism will result in protection of those pages as well, and yes we know about Accuracy dispute your sock puppet.

You are going the right way about being banned completely from the Wikipedia. That is now a long process, but it can happen. So, here's what's going to happen:

 * 1) You will refrain from any more reversions or blankings of pages that you have edited.
 * 2) You will go about things in the correct manner for the Wikipedia (within the limits that page protection imposes). That means that if you want a page deleted you will list it on votes for deletion. You can't actually follow the copyright violation policy of the Wikipedia now that the pages are protected, so as a substitute I would suggest putting a message on the relevant talk page giving a reference as to where the copyright violation comes from. It can then be checked.

So far you have made one solid point in one of your reversions, claiming that a page was copied from a particular book. That can be checked, but your other edit summaries have been useless in that respect, as well as being the wrong way to do things.

It would also help immensely if you would sign your posts. To do so please use to sign without a date and ~ to sign with a date and timestamp.David Newton 20:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, well, well. It's now reached the stage where the vandalism has reached the user's own talk page. Bird makes the completely false claim that he/she is being blocked from editing this page. It has not been locked down. It has had blankings reversed. After this message, I am going to retrieve the blanked messages. After that, I am going to start the process of getting the username banned. David Newton 21:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Messages that have been reverted
"How about all of you middle class pigs mind your own business and stop trying to play dictator. Nobody had any interest in this contributor until they smelled blood in the water, and now out of the woodwork crawls a dozen cockroaches clamoring to say how things should be.

There is a real simple way to get respect out of whoever created this former user name. If you have something to add, add it. If this user name reverts copy that it wrote, for whatever reason, accept it and come up with something to replace it. Otherwise, this is not an encyclopedia it is a game environment for people whose life is built around dictating the behavior of others.

My testimony is that the site is not designed to attract contributors, but rather to attract humans with serotonin oriented systems for the dopamine governed power elite who rule the site, as I so adroitly explained in the article on HPA_axis but which I later refused to validate as original or accurate because nobody cares enough to go out and bother to find out if the information that is coming over the transmom is accurate. When the information was preseneted as article, it was all good. But when it becomes a reality in your power game, I am certain one of the first replies will be to imply that I am incoherrent and that attempting to understand my reasoning before rebutting me is irrational because I offer no reason.

Lexor is so wrong to chime in with the projection that my concern is attachment to articles. I have produced far more and affected more action in this world that I will ever be able to attach to. That is the fundament of this users approach, which I stated and which Lexor failed to acknowledge - that I resent being asked to use a user name, and did so only as a concession to dominant factions in a group. The material I submit should be reviewed for accuracy, not for my reputation. I assure you, i will not allow this group to establish a sense of credibiltiy around any user name I create. This is a very intentional effort to destroy any credibility associated with this handle.

This site attempts to identify and type casting people. Editors are allowed to contribute unaltered text based on their reputation among the dopamine crowd here, not because other editors knowledgable in the field have reviewed and checked the work. I will not allow credibility to attach to the bilines of articles I write here, no matter how profound my contributions. The bottom line is none of you have the skills to work with me and you lost me in part. I will do my work from some other approach, and will advocate the same causes in whatever I do here."

"Yeh, ask a person to talk, reject what they say, lock them out of the dialogue. I can see a few Wikipedians are having a real big day in their careers here, finally with some conflict into which they can inject their confident demands."

"This page edit was made by USER:BIRD who was blocked from managing this user page. My preference is to archive all discussion so far and that is the status to which I am setting this page. If anyone tampers with it by reverting, they are not only vandalizing my creative work, they are committing an act of aggression toward me. I encourage all of you to forget about this user except that if this user announces a lack of confidence in something this user created, you go back to where the work started and pick up from there."

These were reverted, once by me, once by User:Jwrosenzweig and once by User:Ahoerstemeier. The talk page was blanked in each case and replaced by the message in question.

This is now a replacement for a page blanked, presumably by Bird. David Newton 21:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I am NOT reverting your user page. I am reverting your TALK page. Those are two entirely different things. Your talk page has not been protected, although you are actually tempting me sorely to do so. However, that would be contrary to Wikipedia policy, since I am now involved rather heavily in this situation and also because it is bad form to protect someone else's talk page. David Newton 21:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just tracking the netblock for 210.177.229.13:

inetnum:     210.177.128.0 - 210.177.255.255 netname:     PCCW-BIA descr:       PCCW Business Internet Access country:     HK admin-c:      TA66-AP tech-c:      TA66-AP mnt-by:      MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA mnt-lower:   MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA-CS changed:     jacky.sm.lam@pccw.com 20020815 status:      ALLOCATED PORTABLE source:      APNIC

role:        TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATORS address:     Pacific Century Cyberworks address:     Room 280, 2/F Telecom House, address:     3 Gloucester Road, address:     Wanchai, Hong Kong. country:     HK e-mail:       noc@imsbiz.com admin-c:     NOC18-AP admin-c:     JL1059-AP admin-c:     DL430-AP tech-c:      NOC18-AP tech-c:      JL1059-AP tech-c:      DL430-AP nic-hdl:     TA66-AP notify:      noc@imsbiz.com mnt-by:      MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA changed:     jacky.sm.lam@pccw.com 20020606 source:      APNIC

title: User talk:Bird/archive1


text:
Emergent

Emergent may refer to:

 * Emergent (album), a 2003 album by Gordian Knot
 * Emergent (software), Neural Simulation Software
 * Emergent BioSolutions, a multinational biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
 * Emergent properties, when simple entities interact to produce more complex ones
 * Any of the group of trees growing above the canopy in a rainforest

title: Emergent