User talk:Stu pendousmat

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Regarding the removal of Prod
That's okay, thank you for notifying me about your removal (and your overall kindness :D). Just so you know, I found it while patrolling new pages. Happy editing! -- Razor ICE 15:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Accidentally posted this on your user page >.< Sorry. -- Razor ICE 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moncton
In the future, please keep the sarcasm to a minimum. Its not particularly civil. As well read the fair use guidelines, they're very specific. Logos and other things used under fair use have a very narrow capacity in which they can be used. Decorating articles not about them where they're only mentioned in passing and not as a focus is not one of them. This prevents wikipedia from getting in trouble. --Crossmr 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moncton (again)
Greetings Stu (Matt), this is MonctonRad

I certainly have noticed that you have been quite active in editing the Moncton article recently. I have been active myself in keeping an eye on this article for well over a year now. From what I have gathered, it appears that you also care about this article and how Moncton is portrayed in Wikipedia. Moncton is a vibrant and dynamic city of the future and certainly deserves to have a high quality article describing the community.

A few notes regarding my philosophy regarding the Moncton entry in Wikipedia:

I generally don't like links to subsidiary articles as I believe that most casual browsers who happen across the Moncton entry will not explore these links. These links therefore become little visited and irrelevant "dead ends". As such, I think as much information as possible should be contained in the main article.

Having said this, I do think it was a good idea to include a "point form" historical table in the main Moncton page with a link to the "History of Moncton" page. That seemed to work very well. Aside from this, I am a strong believer in "keeping it simple" and I think additional links to subsidiary articles should be made only after careful consideration. The only section where I think this might be a good idea is "famous Monctonians". If you want to change this one again I will not oppose you although there should be an introduction of some form to the section as well as the provided hypertext link.

When you make an edit, I hope you don't mind if I come along a little later and change the wording somewhat. I am not trying to offend you, I'm more interested in maintaining the flow of the article.

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to have the status of the article upgraded beyond a "B" level. While this is commendable, I think it is more important to ensure that the article is accurate and pleasing to the eye. Whether or not the governors here at Wikipedia like the article is in some ways secondary. I personally think the Moncton article compares favourably to most other city articles in the encyclopedia.

We will have to consider what to do about the "bulletted lists" that the editors seem to find offensive. I can see their point in some ways but lists can be useful if one is trying to be comprehensive and accurate. If you have any ideas on this matter, let me know.

Feel free to message me any time.


 * Greetings Stu, I agree with you that it is interesting that the Saint John article is essentially dormant while the Moncton article seems to be constantly revised on essentially a daily basis. I guess this shows that there is a lot of interest in Moncton and perhaps this says something re: the dynamism of Moncton as apposed to Saint John. It would be nice to see Moncton nominated again for featured article status (it was once previously) but that will probably require some further tweaking of the article. Do you think that the "powers that be" take into consideration the stability of the article when deciding if it is worthy of having its status upgraded? Do you think they would be worried about elevating the status of an article if it is being continuously revised?

I want to thank you for adding in the photographs that you did to the Moncton article. I think they add quite a bit and make the article visually much more appealing. The photos also help to give the casual browser a chance to get a "feel" for what the community is really like.

Finally, There has been a bit of a running battle (fought intermittently) with someone {from Halifax I believe) who has an issue with the quotation that "Moncton has the largest catchment area in Atlantic Canada". You know this is true and I know this is true and I know that there are market studies out there that prove this. I just don't have the stats. Since you are the "reference-meister", would you happen to have a reference to support this claim? If you do, I would appreciate it if you could include that in the economy section in order to put this issue to rest. Thanks a bunch!

P.S. - Good to see you doing some editing to the "New Brunswick" section as well. I do some work over there as well and that section requires some additional work to improve its quality. Keep up the good work. MonctonRad 22:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

References for Economy section in Moncton article
Thanks for providing some references for the Economy section. I wrote most of that and the section has been quite stable for some time but for some reason, Crossmr suddenly decided that the section was "biased". I have PM'ed him a couple of times re: this in the last couple of days but he was being very difficult. I was almost ready to throw in the towel! I think the references you provided should satisfy him. We'll see!! MonctonRad 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * unsourced it can appear biased, and there is no way for an editor unfamiliar with the subject to verify it.--Crossmr 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your start on the references, the text has to be supported by the references. For example, you've referenced the creation of the corridor. Nowhere in that provided reference do I see any mention of the "longstanding rivalry" and an explanation of it or how it relates to the corridor. That reference also doesn't provided citation for the other 2 problems in that paragraph. The second citation doesn't do anything to support the previous paragraph about the head offices. The last citation does nothing to address the claim of a "burgeoning high tech sector" though the previous citation does state there is "significant growth" in hi-tech manufacturing, those aren't saying the same thing. While you have addressed about half of the issues in that section, there are still problems with the text. The article has to be verifiable by someone who is not familiar with the subject. I've said it twice, but I'll say it a third time. Someone who has no knowledge about moncton has to be able to verify the facts in the article and "Google it" isn't an acceptable response to that.--Crossmr 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better thank you. This clarifies it and ensures that what is in the text is verifiable. This is also part of achieving featured article status. I think we should look at going with a more formal citation style though. I'll find an example and show you, it'll keep things neater, and if the page is ever printed (some articles get put on CDs and things like that) the citations will be clearer.--Crossmr 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a ref tag which makes it looks cleaner. I'll put it in the article and let you tweak it until it looks clean enough. It will give you some example of how it works. WP:CITE is an excellent page for formatting this type of thing.--Crossmr 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This page Citation_templates gives some good information on how to use these particular templates. I've done one. All that needs to be done is the same for each one and place it appropriately within the section (the links are smaller so they'll look cleaner), and as you can see at the bottom of the page, they show up there with that added section.--Crossmr 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To Myself
Population of Moncton

Looks good but I think I would reverse the order and put the most recent population figures and the NB ranking in the rightmost columns rather than the leftmost. (ie ascending chronological order rather than descending). This table would obviously belong in the demographics section alongside the table I created listing population by census subdivision.

There is one other table that I have been mulling putting in the article - climatological data. I have noted that a number of cities include this in tabular form in their articles. If we create a climatological table, this would be in addition to the descriptive text in the climate section rather than a replacement for the descriptive text. We don't want to sacrifice text for tables and bulletized lists. The editors don't like that.

To that same end, I have been thinking of removing the listing of golf courses in the article and replacing it with a descriptive paragraph. What do you think? MonctonRad 03:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your "sunset" picture where it is. It offsets the list of census subdivisions quite nicely. Perhaps your new table should go underneath the exisitng table. If there is an annoying blank space to the right of the new table we can always fill it in with another picture. You could use one of your own or a different one. There are a couple of interesting downtown Moncton pictures available at the Wikipedia Commons that are not being used anywhere as far as I know. They would just have to be scaled appropriately. Not a problem.

I will redo the golf section this weekend. I may try my hand on the climatological data later this week. MonctonRad 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to add in your table myself as well as including a new picture of Main Street. I hope you don't mind. I was just playing with the formatting and I thought it looked rather good. If you don't like it, feel free to make a change. MonctonRad 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I don't think we need any more pictures in the article. The pictures we do have I think reflect the city well and are appropriate in the context of where they are placed. Additional pictures would risk having the article appear cluttered. I will work on a climate table later this week. When do you think we should risk having the article reappraised by the editors re: its status? MonctonRad 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Matt. I like what you did to the sports teams section. I think it adds a lot to the article, especially with the inclusion of the team logos. I read your last PM with interest. Personally, I don't think we should dispense with lists entirely. For some sections, especially the media section, I think the list format coveys a lot of information efficiently. For other sections however, lists can be tedious and might distract the interest of the reader. I think the prime example for this in the Moncton article would be the "Attractions" section. I agree with you that it would be a good idea to rename this section as "tourism". I will do this sometime soon. In addition, I plan to redo this section in a narrative format. If you have any other ideas let me know. I note with interest that one of the criteria for featured article status is the "stability" of the article. For this reason, once we have the Moncton article close to the way we want it, we should probably stop frigging around with it for a couple of months and then resubmit it as a candidate to have its status upgraded. What do you think? MonctonRad 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm pecking away at the climate table for Moncton. I stole the template from the Winnipeg article and am inputting the climate values for Moncton from Environment Canada. It's a little tedious and may not be finished for a few days. Cheers! MonctonRad 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Matt. A short note to let you know that I inyend to press on with my version of the climate table. I appreciate what you are saying and understand where you are coming from but I think if we are serious about upgrading the status of the Moncton article that my version of the climate table is better. It is more sophisticated in appearance, more colourful and extends across the entire page. I think it conveys the impression that there was a lot of care and attention given in its creation. These I think would be important factors in the designation of our article as "good" quality. I may be all wet on this point but I think I will press ahead. On another topic, in the transportation section, what do you think about getting rid of the Mountain Road picture all together. I have always been disappointed with that particular photograph but have left in in the article mostly just because of the formatting of the section. Now that you have moved the other photos around, the formatting issue is no longer there. I personally think this picture is eminently dispensible. Let me know what you think. Talk to you later. MonctonRad 00:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Matt:

I agree with you that the Moncton article now has a very rich and visually appealing look to it.There are many more links in the article than before and many of the facts discussed in the article are now properly referenced. Thanks for your hard work! I'm glad you like the climate table. I think it fills up the space on the page very nicely and is also quite informative.

Given all these changes, I think the article is very close to being ready to be resubmitted re: its status.

Yes, I am still keen to redo the tourism section. I have an idea about how I want to do this but it may be a few days until I get around to accomplishing it. Things are busy!

If you have any other ideas about how to improve the article let me know. I really like the panoramic photo at the end of the article. It look way more better in this format rather than in the tiny thumbnail that it was before. The only concern I have is that it is so close to the bottom of the article that many people might not see it. What do you think?

talk to you later MonctonRad 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I shuffled a couple of your most recent pictures around a bit just because I was uncomfortable with the formatting. I hope you don't mind. If you have a problem, let me know.

Just wondering, why did you change the picture of the locomotive in the history section? MonctonRad 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Matt:

I have finished the narrative tourism section. It is still a little rough I think. I would appreciate your input. If you have any additional photos you would like to include, feel free to insert them. MonctonRad 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I have finished rewording the tourism aection to my satisfaction. I can't think of anything more to do with the Moncton article at present and I think it is just about time to let the Wikipedia editors decide its status. If you can think of anything else the article needs then now is the time to add it in. I think that between your efforts and my input that the article is now much improved. Hopefully the article will remain stable. For some reason, I get the impression the article is a magnet for vandalism though. What do you think? MonctonRad 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I'm done, I just added in some links for the regional tourism section and thats it as far as I'm concerned. It's time to nominate and I'll let you look after that. Have a good day. MonctonRad 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

Good job on the photo gallery, you have a good eye when it comes to photography - it all boils down to perspective and judicious cropping. I look forward to seeing how we fair when the article is judged. MonctonRad 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I like what you did to the tables in the Moncton article last night. I agree that it helps make them look less "list like". I agree also that formatting is very important as it gives the impression that great care was used in crafting the article. I know, I used to edit the student newspaper back in medical school. This is reason I tend to muck around with the positioning of your pictures in the article or reword a section so that it takes advantage of an adjacent picture. If there is one thing I don't like it is blank space on a page! I hope you are wrong about the remaining lists in the article. I really do not want to touch the "education" section. The history section might be at risk but I think the point form list complements the narrative form of the history subsection quite well. We shouldn't touch this until we know what the editors think. Talk to you later MonctonRad 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I appreciate your concerns re: the Moncton article. I don't think we should change any of the sections right now and we should wait to see what the reviewers think. I also know what you mean re: the article length and this is certainly a concern to me as well. In some ways, I think the length of the article is acceptable because the article deals as much with the Moncton region as it does for the city of Moncton. In the end, if the reviewers don't like it then we will have to decide whether or not to do a major rewrite. In many ways, I like the article the way it is and it might not be worth "butchering our work in order to get the reviewers approval. In other words; "to thine own self be true". We'll see. MonctonRad 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

Yes, I can redo the intro paragraph and also the history section. I presume that you would like to have a partially condensed version of the existing "History of Moncton" sub-section rather than just reincorporating the sub-section back into the main Moncton article.

Matt:

This is just to let you know that I am now working on the Moncton History section. What I am mostly doing is "editing" in the purest sense of the term, i.e taking the existing History of Moncton" article and removing anything I think is superfluous. I am doing some minor rewording but this is mostly an editing exercise. I should be done in a couple of days. If you have your historical pictures ready, you can plan on inserting them into the article at that time. BTW - You don't happen to have a historical picture of the original Moncton train station do you? That would be ideal for the article.

P.S. - I like your idea of transferring our current history section (in list form) to the History of Moncton article and appending it to the bottom. I think that would be valuable as there is some information in the list that didn't make it into the prose article. I will look after this when I have finished with my rewrite.

Matt:

I like version #1 best, but you forgot to draw in the border between Restigouche and Gloucester Counties.

Matt:

I have finished the rough copy of the history section. It is on my talk page. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. It will probably look familiar but it is shorter than the "History of Moncton" article and I think that the rewording that I have done makes it flow better. If you like it I will replace the tabular history in the Moncton article with this tomorrow. Then you can go ahead and put some pictures in and reference the section. Cheers! MonctonRad 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I have added in the new history section to the Moncton article and have transferred the old tabular format history section to the "History of Moncton" article. I think it looks really good. BTW - I'm sure that your picture of Main Street that you put in the history section is really "circa 1960" and not circa 1930. You can tell this by the style of the cars on the street as well as the stores lining the street. God help me, I can remember when the street actually looked like that! I made the appropriate change in the caption. Talk to you later. MonctonRad 03:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I will do something with the introductory section this weekend. I plan to not make it much longer and probably will make only some general brief comments re: Moncton's location in the Maritimes, history and its economy. It shouldn't take too long to do. Re: the military section; as usual most of what I write I consider to be "common knowledge" (if you know Moncton well). I realize that this does not carry much weight with the Wikipedia reciewers, but that is indeed the case. There is one reference(http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_gagetown/branch/monctn_e.asp) that I found useful. There was also a recent article in the Times & Transcript re: the old Coverdale Naval Station I found interesting but I can't provide you with the date of publication; sorry. MonctonRad 02:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. - I was just surfing the web and came up with a site which has a wealth of information on "abandoned and downsized Canadian military bases" -very useful, I'll have to modify the section now a little bit. The web address is http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2529/ Talk to you later.

Matt:

I think I have finished the revised introduction. I might still tweak the wording a bit but let me know what you think. The rough copy is on my talk page (discussion). Talk to you later MonctonRad 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

I have made final revision to the introduction and have uploaded it into the Moncton article. I think it is good to go! I also inserted one of your pictures from your photo gallery as well, to fill in a blank spot at the top of the article. Hope you don't mind. I will let you renominate the article. Do you think we could get the same reviewer to assess the article again? I think this would improve our chances. Talk to you later MonctonRad 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for peeking in on the SJ article. As you can guess "74.106.31.66" is the IP sock of the image vio "SaintJohnNB" alias from last night. I will be on the look out for more Pro-SJ-cruft/anti-Moncton styled edits from this Rogers Cable user. It's nice to know there is another set of eyes watching as well. Have a nice day! 156.34.210.255 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject New Brunswick
Hey, I would be grateful for your help on WikiProject New Brunswick. The reason I have it as a subpage is because I am planning to move it to WikiProject New Brunswick when enough people are interested. Yvesnimmo 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you want to start putting up NewBrunswickProject's and go ahead with the WikiProject? Alright. Yvesnimmo 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

probably high-importance Yvesnimmo 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt:

Thanks for your hard work on the Moncton article. I think the article ranks up there with any other city article in Canada in terms of quality and I am quite happy that has now been recognized as such. This honour is in no small measure due to your dilligent efforts.

Yes, I don't mind being involved in Wikipedia New Brunswick. My relationship to the project will likely be informal however as I have a number of other things on the go. I do think however that we should try to improve the main New Brunswick article. There are a number of sections (and potential sub-sections) that I think are wanting. My main concern (beyond content and accuracy) is that the article should actually look good (ie - formatted well). I just finished a revision on the education section. I'm sure the article could stand some improvements from your end as well. Think about it anyway. MonctonRad 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy 20th Birthday!
Happy Birthday!!!!!! Yvesnimmo 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted skyline images
thanks for finding the source but that just means it's a copyright violation. i deleted the images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Moncton City Council
If I forgot anything, add it in. If you can get me the information, I can make a map similar to the one in Thunder Bay City Council to show ward organization. I'm going to take that awkward chart out of the Moncton article now. :)  vıd ıoman  23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The list of representatives in the Government section was inconsistent with the infobox. Is the table including MPs that represent suburbs of Moncton but not the city proper?  vıd ıoman  23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :)  vıd ıoman  00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :)
Thanks for the barnstar. :)  vıd ıoman  14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Centennial Park (Moncton)
I just noticed that you added a photo to the Centennial Park (Moncton) article. Thanks for that!. I can now scratch it off my list! Verne Equinox (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moncton
Hello! I did some more editing of Moncton which seems to be your pet project so I'm posting this here instead of the article talk page. Most people like to see full sentences in their photo captions. Some people don't even read the article, they just scroll through and look at the pretty pictures... which means you should take advantage of that and caputre their attention with some interesting and relevant facts about what they are looking at. Maybe then you will draw them into reading the rest of the article with your well-worded photo captions. I took the liberty of expanding them for you, but I couldnn't find any facts about the city hall photo (which you took) so I figured I would leave that up to you. Some of the additions I made probably need citations (such as University of Moncton being the only francophone university in New Brunswick, or Rogers Cable being the largest cable tv provider). You probably know this but even captions need citations if they aren't repeating information that is already in the article. Feel free to change them to something that doesn't need cites... but my point is... it is better to say "Moncton city hall was built in 1924, by famed architect Sacre Bleu, and still stands to this day." rather than "A photo of city hall" which is dull and doesn't really pique your interest. Happy editing! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Better Than A Call Center
Hi Matt. Drop me a line at loud_whisper at yahoo dot com if you might be interested in a wiki/video/photography etc. job. Stoick (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello?
Sorry Matt I was in Toronto. I'd love to get together for a quick chat. Please send some form of contact information to me and we'll get in touch. I can meet outside of business hours if need be. You can leave a date, time and place on my talk page if you are having trouble with internet. Stoick (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Monctonmets.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Monctonmets.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CoupeUniversite.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CoupeUniversite.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ChamplainPlace.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:ChamplainPlace.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again
The Moncton article looks even better than when I saw it a year ago, I can't believe it still hasn't been promoted to FA after three attempts. I recently submitted a new article Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula for FAC, wish me luck. I've been putting it off for a while but I think the article is about as perfect as its gonna get. My first FA, Hours of service was recently featured on the main page and recieved hundreds of edits but nothing was really added, just rearranged some of the parts. So I'm pretty confident in this one. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PowerShot SX10
As I told Ckatz before, none of the other models - A, SX, and G - have articles. That's because being a camera in itself is not notable and the only thing the article contains are specs on the camera and nothing more. I think we ought to redirect all of the S model articles into the Canon PowerShot S article; what do you think? hbdragon88 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Random Wiki Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. - Warthog Demon  03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Property guys.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:Property guys.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunbird image
Stu- Your photo is superior but its flagged for an improper file name. Didn't realize it was your car/photo until I went to your user-page. What year is your car? RegardsVegavairbob (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Acadian expulsion 745.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Acadian expulsion 745.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Monctonairport.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Monctonairport.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:GMIA.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:GMIA.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  00:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:AtlanticLotteryCorpLogo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:AtlanticLotteryCorpLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Serena Ryder and Caracol
Hi Stupendousmat. Are you able to get out of town? There is a concert being held in Sackville on December 2 featuring Serena Ryder and Carole Facal. These are both excellent, up and coming performers and they both lack photos in Wikipedia. Any chance you could get down for a couple of pixes? I would go myself but it is mid-week and it would not be possible for me to attend from Halifax. Cheers! Verne Equinox (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations Stu pendousmat! Your image Image:CostcoMoncton.JPG was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coop atlantic old logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coop atlantic old logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Stu pendousmat! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) George LeBlanc -

Orphaned non-free image File:Magnetic hill zoo logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Magnetic hill zoo logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zoo new logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Zoo new logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Moncton Sister Cities
Template:Moncton Sister Cities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:WorldMensCurlingMonctonFlags.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WorldMensCurlingMonctonFlags.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MFC logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:MFC logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Moncton airport 1929.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moncton airport 1929.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Northrop Frye.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Northrop Frye.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Moncton logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Moncton logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Bloonstdfan360  / talk / contribs 02:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Théâtre l'Escaouette


The article Théâtre l'Escaouette has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable theater company tagged since June 2008.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Atlantic Rangers Football Club for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atlantic Rangers Football Club 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/Atlantic Rangers Football Club 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 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. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pizza Delight logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Pizza Delight logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Moncton Times &#38; Transcript (logo).png
 Thanks for uploading File:Moncton Times &. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PropertyGuys.com (logo).png
 Thanks for uploading File:PropertyGuys.com (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CISmonctonsign.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:CISmonctonsign.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Moncton old city market.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Moncton old city market.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File:University cup moncton.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:University cup moncton.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Wheeler Boulevard, Moncton (night view - 2005).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wheeler Boulevard, Moncton (night view - 2005).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)