User talk:Ami du peuple

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Acadiensis has been reverted. Your edit here to Acadiensis was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://acadiensis.wordpress.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to explain why I made changes to the references to the older Acadiensis, which have since been restored by another editor. I thought it was enough to give a link to the first issue in 1901 and then cover the rest by stating that they are also available at archive.org. Like with the modern Acadiensis, there is no need to have links to each individual issue since they are all found at the same place. Also, the index reference at the bottom is a very minor one (it is to entries about Acadians, not the full contents of the journal), so we should maybe spell that out more. We could add areference to a published index to the contents of the original Acadiensis-- but as far as I know it is not available online anywhere. It is described in a review here: http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/bsc/article/view/17567/14501 Ami du peuple (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please do not edit pages without any sources and / or delete information from pages without sources or you could be blocked from editing without further warning ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was being a cautious novice editor. Could you explain what error I am making. Some of the relevant references are in the external links embedded or listed at bottom, so they don't all show as footnotes. Is this wrong? Should there be both? Please advise. --Ami du peuple (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I put my comment in October instead of November, so I repeat it here. I'd like to explain why I made changes a while ago to the references to the older Acadiensis, which have since been restored by another editor. I thought it was enough to give a link to the first issue in 1901 and then cover the rest by stating that they are also available at archive.org. Like with the modern Acadiensis, there is no need to have links to each individual issue since they are all found at the same place. Also, the index reference at the bottom is a very minor one (it is to entries about Acadians, not the full contents of the journal), so we should maybe spell that out more. We could add areference to a published index to the contents of the original Acadiensis-- but as far as I know it is not available online anywhere. It is described in a review here: http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/bsc/article/view/17567/14501 Ami du peuple (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Ami du peuple (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't tell what problems ReeceTheHawk sees with your edits. They're clearly not vandalism, and though the article in question desperately needs better references, I don't think your edits made the problem any worse. I'll leave a comment on the article talk page; maybe ReeceTheHawk could also comment there. Huon (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob Dylan and Tom Wilson, strange edit
I'm puzzled by your edit of the Bob Dylan article. I have the Heylin book cited: Heylin, Clinton (2000). Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: Take Two. Viking. ISBN 0-670-88506-1 Pages 115-6 is a detailed account of how Wilson replaced Hammond. It has interview quotes from both Wilson and Hammond. I also have Anthony Scaduto's Dylan biography; my copy was published in 1972. In this book the replacement of Hammond by Wilson takes place on p.139, whereas you give p.163 as a citation. Mick gold (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking this over. You are right, I can't believe it but I was confusing Heylin with another book! If you don't mind, please go ahead and restore the passage as you see fit. My Scaduto reference is to a paperback edition, so this may be the discrepancy. I hope you will keep the main correction I wanted to make, which is that Hammond produced most of Freewheelin' and Wilson, who was on staff at Columbia and whom he recommended, went on to do the next three albums, so it was a staged transition. My apologies. Ami du peuple (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for reply. I tweaked your wording slightly. I think two cites are enough for this point and I thought it was premature to describe Wilson recording "Like A Rolling Stone" in this section. Best, Mick gold (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Oakwood Collegiate Institute
Hello. Your recent edit to Oakwood Collegiate Institute appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Sorry for the trouble. I did wonder how "notability" was determined, but this explains why so many fall through the cracks. Ami du peuple (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)