User talk:Marc Lafortune

April 2010
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. Favonian (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anglo-Nunavummiut. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Anglo-Nunavummiut was changed by Marc Lafortune (u) (t) blanking the page on 2010-04-30T15:50:24+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Éric Gagnier for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 16:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Language categories
I obviously need to explain this again, though I have very little confidence that you're actually going to read and/or understand this: linguistic and/or ethnic categories are only subdivided by province or territory in the rare instance that the intersection actually constitutes an organized community of people who actually identify that way. There is an actual community of Franco-Ontarians whose existence, identity, history, community institutions, etc., can be verified in reliable sources, for instance, and an actual community of Anglo-Quebecers whose existence, identity, history, community institutions, etc., can be verified in reliable sources. There is not, however, an organized community of "Anglo-Nunavummiut", or an organized community of "English Ontarians". They're terms that simply do not exist.

Bottom line: if you have to invent a term that isn't in actual use in the real world to identify an actual linguistic or ethnic community that actually identifies itself with that term, then do not start an article or category. In fact, every single such "ethnic provincial" group that actually exists in the real world already has an article and associated category — so in reality, there isn't any such group you could possibly create now that won't get deleted as an original research invention. So you need to just stop it. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)