User talk:Knoper

Supply management
Hi. Thanks for your praise, and thanks to you too for your edits to Supply management! I appreciate your extensive editing and having a fresh set of eyes look at it, and in a great many places you improved my language, logic, or tone. I did undo or partially undo a handful of changes where I thought it best, but in every case I'm open to change or discussion. Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Referendum
My pleasure. I vaguely remembered the incident, but didn't have a source for it until I decided to actually tackle starting an article about Joyce Napier yesterday.

I am admittedly a little concerned that for the moment, it's being presented as sort of an isolated incident, where in reality there were some other significant media relations bungles, on both sides of the campaign, beyond just that one alone — going into a bit more depth about the tactical errors and backtracks on both sides, I think, would help significantly.

You're absolutely right about the decline of the community of interest on the topic, but I'm finding that to be a phenomenon right across the board for Wikipedia as a whole these days — there seem to be far less people around in 2015 than there used to be, and both maintenance and content projects are really suffering for it. (Just as an example, I find that when I initiate an AFD or CFD discussion now, it routinely has to get relisted for another week at least once, and sometimes twice, not because of actual debate or disagreement but for lack of anybody even participating in the discussion at all.) I'm a lot more worried about the longterm viability of Wikipedia now than I used to be, frankly. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed Re backtracks, I intend to add quite a few more. Knoper (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Contact info
Hi, I'd like to get in touch with you, but not on your discussion page. I'm not super familiar with Wiki functions. I know I can message admins but can't seem to message you. Not sure if it's possible or I just forgot how. Thx :(  --Dekk01 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there, if you'd like to send me an e-mail, go ahead and send it to jerseymacawesome@yahoo.ca Knoper (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quebec referendum, 1995
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quebec referendum, 1995 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 Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quebec referendum, 1995
The article Quebec referendum, 1995 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:Quebec referendum, 1995 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quebec referendum, 1995
The article Quebec referendum, 1995 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quebec referendum, 1995 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on the "Good Article"
I submitted the project to more or less mirror where possible the french version of the article on the "Projet Quebec" page to let people know what is going on. I anticipate the on rush of separatist trash talk and interference almost immediately judging from the fact they monitor my every comment with anonymous adding of harassing comments. Depending on how many paragraphs per topic, I suggest about a month per topic, including translation, amalgamation if more info exists on french version, and discussions. Everything will be done on the french discussion page.

Thanks again and congrats for your excellent and devoted work!!! --Dekk01 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated. Anything I can do to help, just ask. Knoper (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=695116186 your edit] to Meech Lake Accord may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * was seen as Federal acquiescence to and, in the case of Lucien Bouchard and Louis Plamondon, approval of Bill 178.

Hi Knoper
Thank you for your feedback on my "Quebec referendum, 1995" edit. I have just read you user page. I will not be the "Quebec Sovereignist wikipedian" checking your "ideological blind spots" :)  but maybe I will be one of them from time to time. I do not give much time to Wikipedia but I will continue to hang around now and then for years to come - French Wikipedia is such a disaster :(. It is so true that we all have blind spots. I personally think perfect objectivity does not exist and the only way to get closer to it is to listen to different points of view, weigh the best arguments from every sides and then only make up your mind. Humand brain is made of all kind of cognitive biases. If you are against Quebec separation, I will happily let your "ideological blind spots" challenge mine, as comparing arguments is essential (the only way?) to progress. Popol0707 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

To You & To Knoper
The Quebec referendums are not about "sovereignty", they are about Communism. This web site specializes in exclusive English translations of non-publicized French-language documents, including the 1972 manifesto of the PARTI QUEBECOIS for a Communist State of Quebec: https://nosnowinmoscow.wordpress.com/ You can download that manifesto in a zip file in the sidebar (see the blue lightning). The zip contains a scan of the original French book, and a PDF of the exclusive English translation, along with photos of the French book on the shelf in the university law library.

The word "sovereignty" is a vague misnomer applied to conceal the real intentions behind the referendums, i.e., restructuring of all of Canada in post-Yes "negotiations". The word sovereignty is vague and deliberately misleading, because it means many things in different situations. The purpose of the Quebec referendums, however, is to [1] hijack the national legislative powers out of the Parliament in Ottawa, combine them with the Provincial legislative powers in the Quebec legislature at Quebec City, and then restructure Quebec on the model of MOSCOW, by devolving these powers into communist-style REGIONS, intended to become future international "multicultural" city-states when Canada and its Provinces are dissolved. This is not "sovereignty" for the French Canadians, it is a device to permanently remove the legislative sovereignty and self-government of the French Canadians as obtained in 1867 under the British North America Act 1867, and hand it over to multicultural expanded municipal entities on the one hand, and to new regional super-bodies on the other hand, the whole under a world government.

[2] The other purpose, and this is the main one, of the 1980 and 1995 referendums is to provide the federal level of Canada with a pretext to in fact "negotiate" the dismantling of Canada on the same model as the Communist model planned for Quebec. This is why Canada has the highest world intake of refugees and mass immigration.... all focused on the cities. At the end of the 1990s, the Ontario government created a mega-city out of Toronto by attaching outlying towns and villages. In 2000, the PARTI QUEBECOIS government created 5 megacities in Quebec, the two most notable being the "Greater Montreal REGION" and the expanded Quebec City REGION. These are basically proto-Soviet international city states, created as money-sucking monoliths as a pretext to have them DEMAND sovereign international powers and financial resources to RUN these new entities.... on the model of Moscow as described by Communist sociologist Morris Zeitlin in a 1975 issue of a journal of the Communist Party of the USA. In 2014, as a matter of FACT confirmable in the news, the mayors of the two megacities of Montreal and Quebec BOTH demanded international status together with powers and fiscal resources to run these REGIONS as international city states. That was Denis Coderre and Regis Lebeaume. That joint demand, widely broadcast in the news, in fact represents the recommended attack upon the Quebec legislature and the Parliament in Ottawa, as devised by Communist and Quebec city lawyer Guy Bertrand the 2014 edition of his French-only book, whose title in English would be "The Liberty-Nation Project" (see: https://nosnowinmoscow.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/communist-guy-bertrands-new-plan-to-smash-quebec-into-communist-regions-part-i/). Bertrand recommended that rather than a referendum on the style of 1980 and 1995, the third (and final) attack on Canada should be done through the megacities. He specifically recommended that both the Montreal and Quebec megacities should attack the Quebec legislature to remove its powers by demanding sovereign powers and fiscal resources for themselves. This would put CONTROL of the dismantling process at a different level than the referendums, which likely have been RIGGED by the way, although to no avail in 1995 because of a last-minute Canada rally in downtown Montreal which swelled the NO vote past the level of rigging they had thought was required to pull it off. It would place the destruction of Quebec and Canada into the hands of the MAYORS of the megacities, leaving nothing to the voters except a potential referendum to rubber-stamp the consequences, thus making it "look" "democratic".

Canada is being restructured for a Communist world-state.... but it is also a ZIONIST project, because in 1982 our lawful Constitution of 1867 and our lawful Parliamentary form of government were both replaced by Pierre Elliott Trudeau (a world-government leftist who led a Communist delegation at Moscow in 1952) and his pals from the Socialist International, i.e., the NDP. The new (illegal) constitution features Talmudic "balancing" or "proportionality" as its core feature at article 1 of the Charter, usually called the "Section 1 guarantee and limitation clause".

In addition, over the past 16-20 years, the French Canadian Code of Civil Procedure has been revised by the ruling PARTI QUEBECOIS and their fellow "LIBERALS" (the Liberals in fact set up the PQ from behind the scenes) to adopt Talmudic "balancing" and "proportionality", which has nothing to do with French Canadian law and culture, but is Zionist in nature.

Therefore, when you speak about Quebec "sovereignists" and the "ideology", the so-called "sovereignists" have no clue what is really going on or how they are being manipulated to dismantle and destroy their own government, and their own rights to self-determination established by Confederation. They have no clue the PQ is communist, and moreover, Communitarian, which is Communist-Zionist. The only way French Canadians can free themselves and prevent the rapidly encroaching loss of their real sovereignty in Confederation, is to wake up and throw out the Communists and the Zionists, and also throw out the phony federal Charter, which is a coup d'état, as admitted in 1982 by one of its chief architects, Jew Barry Lee Strayer, see an OCR of the document here:

https://patriationandlegitimacyofthecanadianconstitution.wordpress.com/

Your edits on issues like these will all depend on whether Wikipedia's role is to regurgitate mere opinions of manipulated "sovereignists" and headlines from the controlled news, or whether it prefers to deal with facts, such as those at the links above.

Kind regards.

Your GA nomination of Meech Lake Accord
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meech Lake Accord 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meech Lake Accord
The article Meech Lake Accord you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Meech Lake Accord 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Kitchen Meeting
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Kitchen Meeting&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law
Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html. Best regards, Nemo 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment of 1995 Quebec referendum
1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2022 (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) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1995 Quebec referendum
1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I closed the individual GAR as "Keep - no consensus" and set this a community review page. As a participant in the previous discussion, you are invited to comment on the community review page. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)