User talk:B3251/Archive 1

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello B3251! Your additions to King’s Square, Saint John have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there! I understand. I’d there a way you that I could write the history section without plagiarizing, yet still using the monument (the picture I took) as a reference? The source I previously attached simply displayed the text of what was on the monument, so I wasn’t sure how plagiarism worked there. Thanks for letting me know. B3251 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can use https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=77534 as your source, but the content has to be re-written in your own words. Don't use the photo as a source; the photo is nominated for deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, B3251! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 04:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request by email
Hello B3251,

You stated in your edit summary here that you made the edit per an email request. Who was the sender? Based on the contents of the edit, it appears that you might have inadvertently proxied on behalf of Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken! My rule when it comes to email requests is to tell the sender to make the edit themself for exactly this reason. Someone who&#39;s wrong on the internet (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll be even stronger. Don't ever make edits because somebody sent you an email asking you to.  You're just proxying for a sockpuppet. RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I said! Someone who&#39;s wrong on the internet (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody named Macroduck sent me the email. Apologies for contributing based on an email request, I was unaware of the potential circumstances on why I could have received the request and now that I know, it won’t happen again. Thanks! B3251 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, same happened to me here. Got an e-mail from Macroduck too. Thankfully I didn't edit on his behalf. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for George Taylor (photographer)
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Taylor (photographer)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Taylor (photographer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Taylor (photographer)
The article George Taylor (photographer) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Taylor (photographer) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of O'Shae Sibley
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor demanding to approve edits to a page. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Admiral Beatty Hotel
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

CNA
To keep the discussion on the article page on-topic, moving this part here: CNA is an RS. The first discussion you linked was poorly populated (not outright discarding it, but limited participation and lack of clear, policy driven rationale reduce it to being an inconclusive discussion). The second discussion mentions CNA once, in a list but provides no reason why it's in the list (by that metric, WashPo and WSJ would be discarded). The final discussion features HEB—a very good editor with whom I've worked on a couple articles— outnumbered by other editors who articulated why the EWTN-branded pubs are generally fringe-y while CNA is not.

Mere mention of a source at the discussion board is not enough to present it as questionable; there should be ready evidence of a consensus against using an outlet. By saying that a source is questionable, you imply strong evidence to this end. There is not good evidence for CNA being unreliable (for example, in HEB's case, conflation with the distinct website Catholic Culture seemed to be a factor). If you have clear reasons to doubt CNAs reliability based on specific and verified cases of poor reporting, academic review that found CNA inaccurate, or CNA blatantly peddling in conspiracies, please notify the discussion board.

Sorry if this sounds curt, as you are only acting in good faith and wanted to provide a nuanced view on a contentious topic. I've had to explain how CNA and similar independent, sectarian-interest news organizations work in the past both on Wikipedia and in my professional life, so I occasionally get frustrated when I have to relitigate it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * While the discussions are not very great in of themselves, I still feel that Catholic-ran sources, particularly on a topic such as the Canadian Indian residential school system, should have its reliability questioned due to its Catholic perspective being offered in such kind of a topic. I find this different from sources such as WashPo and WSJ due to both of those sources not being linked to the religious or particular affiliation/organization who, in this particular case, the Catholic church in Canada's involvement in the Residential school system. Due to that nature, I'd consider sources offered from a Catholic perspective should almost always be put under questioning prior to being used on such a topic in order to avoid potential bias in such a field. In the case of residential schools, I, personally, would strictly avoid sources from a Catholic perspective in favour of sources that can be ensured to be WP:RS and neutral on the topic. That's all I really need to say, I guess. Again, I also recommend reaching out to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to seek further consensus. B3251 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is me very lightly pushing back on you in this. CNA is not administratively part of the Catholic Church and has been the news org to break many cases of abuse by members–including by leadership–in the church. Articles are not strictly from a Catholic perspective; reporting favors issues relevant to Catholics and will demonstrate a greater degree of expertise in nomenclature on issues related to the church, but it is akin to other special-interest publications in this regard (indeed, some CNA writers are not Catholic). We cite several indigenous tribes and their reports within the residential school gravesite article. Most of the tribal reports are not editorially independent from the tribal hierarchy (and that's a good thing), but we accurately accept them as generally reliable instances of self-reporting. Having dealt with Catholic and Catholic-adjacent articles for the entirety of my time editing Wikipedia, I can say that CNA is essentially the only Catholic-interest outlet that is on a level of reliability approaching that papers of record (though Union of Catholic Asian Newss English-language reporting is getting better). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, not relevant to what you and I are engaging about, as this is plainly an open discussion with good reasons for our positions, but the IP we were both engaging with on the article talk has been blocked for evasion (the original was blocked for trolling). If you don't mind, I would like to pull your comments and place them in a separate section of the talk page and collapse the troll's comments. Let me know what you think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ B3251 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * literal lol at that, so thank you. Hope you have a good one, and happy editing :). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You too, I wish you well with your IP discourse. B3251 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert on jaguar
How is my edit irrelevant? It's in the "diet and ecology" section, specifically next to the part that mentions the jaguar's predation on aquatic reptiles. I don't understand your reasoning at all. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You added a singular case to a "hunting and diet" section, in FA-fashion that would be stuck to Jaguar's typical hunting and diet behavior. Adding a singular case in which one particular jaguar hunted and killed something isn't relevant to the typical hunting & diet section. If a singular case happened for a mammal hunting & eating a human, that wouldn't be added to their 'hunting and diet' section, no? B3251 (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is very relevant if it is the first recorded case of one species preying on another, especially if the two are apex predators. I want to know the exact wording in a "featured article" guidelines that wouldn't allow for something like this to be added. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I wouldn't consider FA-class articles would include random one-off events to be in what is dedicated to sharing the normal behavior for a Jaguar. I, however, am not an expert and I'd recommend seeking input from @LittleJerry, as I know they're quite known for their major contributions towards articles on mammals. B3251 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems too random. What is so special about a jaguar preying on a certain species of crocodile for the first time? Its already mentioned that jagaurs prey on reptiles. Its more important for the article on the crocodile species then the jaguar. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's random at all. It's relevant within the flow of the article, is in the right section of the article, and adds more about the ecology and diet of the jaguar. Before this find jaguars were not known to prey on crocodiles, only caimans, so I think it's a good thing to add. I don't think anything is lost by adding this information Chumzwumz68 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with LittleJerry. It is quite random to add and for a high-quality article, because you generally want to avoid adding in pretty irrelevant instances that can drift away from the main point: the typical Jaguar hunting & diet behavior. Adding one instance in which a jaguar preyed on a crocodile doesn't necessarily add more to the ecology & diet because the rarity of this incident shows that this isn't relevant to the spread of knowledge surrounding its diet. It reads more-so like a random fact more than anything. B3251 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think we should use Ontario or Quebec pre-1867
At least for pre-1867 emigrants Ontario and Quebec I do not think are the names we want. First off although in common usage people referred to Canada East and Canada West in 1865 the place was actually one place the Province of Canada which is sometimes called the United Province of Canada. I am thinking for 1841-1867 the Category would be best named Emigrants from the United Province of Canada. I think we need the United so people understand what we mean, and I think we should go by political dividions of the time. Large parts of modern Quebec and Ontario were outside the limits of thos Province. Before 1841 I think we might have Upper and Lower Canada cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm all for creating categories for Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada West, etc... would you like to do that with me? I'll start with Canada West. B3251 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * on second thought, I'll scrap that idea. I'll start with just the Province of Canada right now and try to start rearranging categories. Is that alright? B3251 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That said I also wonder if maybe we are going too low scale. Maybe we should name the Category Category:Emigrants from British North America and link it to our existing article on British North America. I have read through that now, and am beginning to think we might be going too small scale. Especially since there was even an Arctic Islands Territory. I am biggining to think Emigrants from British North America for 1783-1907 is the way to go, although after 1873 there is not much there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like British North America is a bit broad and is already somewhat exemplified in the already-existing Pre-Confederation Canada category. The Province of Canada should be good enough as there's several articles of individuals from Upper or Canada West. Unless you're thinking of moving the New Brunswick category there? That being said, New Brunswick emigrants should be a category as well as for individuals from the Province of Canada (Upper Canada & Canada West) as to make sure it's not too messy. B3251 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I think we should use categorizes that would make sense to the people at the time, unless doing so would be too confusing for us. In 1910 "Turkey" was used to mean the Ottoman Empire, but if we were to start categoizing every national of the Ottoman Empire are "Turkish" it would create confusion, and even if we had "1910 establishments" and included everything started that year within the Ottoman Empire it would cause confusion, so we use "Ottoman Empire" even though it was not the common name. In 1850 no one referred to "pre-confederation Canada" because no one knew that the confederation would occur. British North America was a designation for the broad area. I am thinking we could have an emigrant category for people from all parts of it going elsewhere. We have other broad categories like Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire. My other fear about pre-confederation categories is people will try to include those who lived in non-British areas, specifically before 1763, although with emigration categories I am not sure that is an issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The first two people in the pre-Confederation Canada emigrants to the United States category look like they would belong in Category:Colony of Nova Scotia emigrants to the United States. The 3rd Elias Bradshaw, shows why we might want to consider a broad Category:Emigrants from British North American to the United States (or whatever exaactly if the best way to formulate that name). He came in 1831, so there was no Province of Canada, there was Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The article does not say which he lived in (I think we can assume he lived in one). My guess is he most likely lived in Upper Canada, but we should not be more precise than sourcing allows. He clearly would fit in the potential Category:Emigrants from British North America to the United States. We already have Category:Emigrants from the British West Indies to the United States. There is another advantage to not being super specific on these categories. Because of the ease of movement between especially geographically connected British colonies, the last place a person lived in British North America before they came to the US is quite possibly not defining. Some of these Emigrants from British North America to the United States will in fact be men who were raised in Montreal or the Toronto region, then worked for a company based in Montreal for about a decade in Ruper's Land, and then decided to head south and settle in Missouri. So do we call them emigrants from the last place they lived, or from where they started out? We would not call someone who moved from Nova Scotia to the United Province of Canada in 1842, became an elected official there, and died in 1866 an Emigrants from the Colony of Nova Scotia to the Province of Canada, so I am thinking that for emigration purposes we probably want to have one category that links people by their starting point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Improving Atlantic Canada
I there! I would like to assist in improving the Atlantic Canada article!

--Izlhyl 21:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there! Thank you for your help. I've seen that you've already done work expanding the article which I absolutely commemorate. I'm currently busy with school, but I'll try to check back in as much as I can. Thanks! B3251 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, B3251. Thank you for your work on Stewart McKelvey. Trainsskyscrapers, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Out of date/ MOS compliance
I would like to thank and accept your offer and am greatly appreciative of any assistance you can provide. Kabiblehopper (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course, would you like to make a sandbox and potentially show me what information you would like to add/update to? B3251 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely will do in the future and again greatly appreciate the constructive offer.
 * Although frankly, that one article took me over a week to source write and format. Given the response and amount of attribution error, unconstructive grief and accusations of edit warring it received; I think I shall take a break for a while.
 * I will let you know of any further projects in mind and am more then pleased to collaborate, there is alot of work to be done on the topic of Irving, and shipbuilding on the east coast in general. Kabiblehopper (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was wondering if I could get your assistance on the JD irving page. Viewmount Viking has constantly been deleting my edits without engaging in the talk page I created and when you look at their own talk page this individual is regularly being accused of deleting other peoples work without explanation.
 * I made a minor edit regarding the opening phrase, where it stated that JD Irving is a subsidiary of Irving group of companies. As maritimers Im sure you are as aware as I am that JD Irving ltd is the parent company of the entirety of Irving's enterprises, and that "Irving group of companies" is a colloquial phrase that doesn't physically exist as an organization.
 * I had provided proof that the Irving group of companies isnt a physical company, and therefore cannot own JD Irving ltd, within the talk page, but this user Viewmount Viking keeps baselessly deleted my edit without engaging in the talk.
 * How can I address this individual and his accusations against me when they wont respond? Kabiblehopper (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look when I'm available. B3251 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kabiblehopper I just took a moment to look at the material you added to J. D. Irving, it seems that you added a paragraph which does require a source (which is why Viewmount Viking removed it), and the list of Irving divisions is quite long if you include less notable ones that do not have articles, so it makes sense to leave them out. I hope this comment helps! B3251 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Drummond
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shep (sculpture)
Hello! Your submission of Shep (sculpture) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I just replied, thanks for your review! B3251 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, I just gave it the "thumbs up." Nice article!  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 23:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! B3251 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Reviewing pending changes, when to accept an edit

DYK nomination of Le Moniteur Acadien
Hello! Your submission of Le Moniteur Acadien at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Davest3r08 > : 3 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hunting in Canada
Hello, B3251. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hunting in Canada, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for William O. Raymond
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi B3251. Thank you for your work on Jacques Poitras. Another editor, CanonNi, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

(talk | contribs) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi B3251. Thank you for your work on H. Avard Loomer. Another editor, Acebulf, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Acebulf (talk &#124; contribs)  06:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jacques Poitras
Hello! Your submission of Jacques Poitras at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 🌙E cl i ps e (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

People from Saint John
Just as an FYI, your recent changes to List of people from Saint John, New Brunswick made it no longer fit the table transclusion scheme in List of people from New Brunswick. Not a big deal, but it came up in lint errors, so I fixed the transclusion as such. I just thought maybe you'd be interested in cutting down on what exactly gets transcluded with. I'd cut the lead and the footer myself, but it's probably better if someone closer to the topic decides on this. Gamapamani (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the whole article as well as the other city articles need to be updated to fit the style of other "list of people from [province/U.S. state]" articles. I personally updated the Saint John one because I have a special interest in editing about Saint John-related topics, but if I have the time maybe I can pick ahold at updating the others and ultimately the province list as well. B3251 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We meet again, because List of communities in New Brunswick and List of cities in Canada got broken due to changes to List of cities in New Brunswick. I think this time I'll leave the fixing to you. :) Gamapamani (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's okay, thanks for letting me know. Apologies for the changes being made, I'm just trying to make improvements to certain lists in order to eventually nominate them for FL-status. It shouldn't be too much work, it's about time these outdated methods of displaying one list on another get fixed anyways! B3251 (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, least of all to me. You may want to put up "under construction" notices on those affected pages, though, if the updates are going to take some time. Otherwise, other lint error fixers may end up spending time trying to figure out a way to do something about this that may or may not be necessary. Gamapamani (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try getting around to doing this by the end of the day, as well as hopefully doing the needed fixes. B3251 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm with you on the lists within lists thing. It should at least be clearly documented with comments in the page code that it's being transcluded in other lists X, Y and Z, because how are people supposed to know about it otherwise? Seeing inclusion tags isn't quite enough to tell the story. Gamapamani (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2024 Loblaw boycott for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Loblaw boycott 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/2024 Loblaw boycott until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi B3251. Thank you for your work on Irving Oil Home Office. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   09:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Interest in Walter woodworth white
hello! I notice you are active in updating photos of my family. I had to reach out to ask if you are by chance a relative? 2001:569:FBEF:CA00:68FA:FB5:C15B:85FE (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I appreciate and understand the curiosity, though I am not a relative of Walter W. White. I just have a personal interest in expanding knowledge about New Brunswick (particularly Saint John and its municipal politics in this instance) on Wikipedia. Information that I've added to the article were retrieved from newspaper archives and the two photos that I've previously uploaded of White were sourced from online archives by UNB and the New Brunswick Museum. B3251 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Le Moniteur Acadien
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi B3251, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  08:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! B3251 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Jynxzi
Hi B3251, the reason I tagged it as UPE is because the creator,, is a blocked sock of a UPE farm. Also note the article was just deleted in December, see WP:Articles for deletion/Jynxzi. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would agree if the content within the article were actually written by the sock, but taking a look at the revision history shows that the only contributions made by the sock are the addition of sources during draft creation, a more footnotes needed template, and a submission comment. From what it seems, the entirety of the article has been written by unrelated editors, including one with a clear interest in online content creators, so adding a UPE tag in this instance does not seem justifiable as there is no clear indication of UPE. B3251 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, B3251. I was not going to restore the tag anyway but wanted to explain why I added it.  S0091 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All is well, I can't blame you for having suspicion. B3251 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Shep (sculpture)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for New California Republic
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack
Calling something vandalism while its not is considered a WP:NPA please read again the edit summary to understand why I did it and it was according to the policy the user was not allowed to create the article --Shrike (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You invited to restore my edit to enforce the arbitration policy --Shrike (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing the article from having content to a single sentence was absolutely unnecessary when all it takes is one request to WP:RPP, which I have now done. I’ve edited the article previously so blanking the page not only removed content made by other editors who may not have WP:ECP but also my contribution as well. I apologize if you feel that this is a personal attack, but I’m just WP:FOC. B3251 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You understand that you restored WP:POV statements that takes for granted words of Palestinian ambassador that accused IDF without any proof except his words such editing may be considered WP:TE --Shrike (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Goodness, there's an image of her mutilated corpse dangling from a destroyed building. What more do you want? Otherwise, your blanking of the page (which included the removal of WP:RS) is your first edit in over three months and as much as I would like to WP:AGF that could in of itself be considered WP:DE. I would assume for you to have the quality of the article's best interests in mind, so why did you not make a WP:RFPP instead? B3251 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Shrike (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

CaseOh Issues
Hi, I am messaging about your edits on the Draft of CaseOh. You can remove the venturejolt source, but all of your other changes do not make sense. In the 1st source, with the 3 videos, it states his name and that he lives in Dallas County, Arkansas. If you can use that source for his birthday, then you can use it for his name and location too. The image was nominated for deletion, until it is deleted we cannot confirm it is copyrighted, therefore it should remain in the Wikipedia. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add back anything I removed that can be sourced from the video, but the venturejolt article fails WP:RS. I'm removing the image because it's a clear copyright violation, as images from YouTube videos cannot be added to Wikimedia commons unless the video's description contains "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" which this video does not. B3251 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi B3251, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:


 * Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
 * If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
 * If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks josh! B3251 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chuck Eisenmann
Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jude Law
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jude Law you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adri-at-BYU -- Adri-at-BYU (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jude Law
The article Jude Law you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jude Law and Talk:Jude Law/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adri-at-BYU -- Adri-at-BYU (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jude Law
The article Jude Law you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jude Law for comments about the article, and Talk:Jude Law/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adri-at-BYU -- Adri-at-BYU (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Albert Tangora
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with editing
Hi, I have seen that you have an entry to the List of kidnappings, good job! I could use some help with adding entries as I have a lot of editing and other things to do, If I give you some entries could you please add them for me. I would be very thankful to get some help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, I might be able to help. What are the entries? B3251 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please add Denise McGregor and Shelly Dadon to the List of kidnappings. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done for now. I don't have time to add others at the moment, but if you have a list of these I can try looking at that sometime in the future. B3251 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fredrick Mwenengabo
Hello! Your submission of Fredrick Mwenengabo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Jacques Poitras
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Fredrick Wangabo Mwenengabo
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Erik Nissen


Hello, B3251. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Erik Nissen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)