User talk:Tallard

fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Tallard

WikiProject Food and Drink re Lactose Intolerance
Looking forward to your contributions, as you were talking about citing sources on Wikipedia I thought I would give you a link that might help you out Citing sources. Good luck, and feel free to contact me for any questions you have.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tallard, thank you for editing "Lactose Intolerance" in such a professional and objective way. To be honest, every time I look at it, there is another version online, sometimes it is completely unbelievable rubbish... I was already thinking about asking for protection for this article, as it is obviously 'edited' very often by dairy lobbyists, who delete any point about cutting dairy out of one's diet, even people with severe lactose intolerance have to 'train to consume dairy again' etc. Could you keep an eye on this page or pass it to any Wiki admin? An article like this should be protected, as it contains very highly discussed subjects... Best regards --Reiskeks 21:49, 11 October 2007 (GMT+1).

Dear Tallard, at least a sort of answer, I think the reversing tool of Wikipedia works good enough, nevertheless I usually save any writings on my HDD (it seemed faster to access for articles which are very often reversed and renewed). I just asked you for watching this particular article, as your contribution was very professional.

I am always having a hard time to cope with 'professional' English, I suppose I should contribute in German, but I left the German Wikipedia after the absolutely unbelievable deletion of dozens of articles about different Linux distributions, which was not even reversed for months, and the only reason for this was "those articles were not relevant" (among others, the major polish Linux distro and PcLinuxOS, the most user friendly, and number 3 or 4 on Distrowatch.com, short after Ubuntu, Suse and Mandriva, were deleted).

That is the reason why I started to watch all the pages, which write about lobbyists deleting and rewriting articles in Wikipedia. I think, as lactose intolerance is such a controversy, and there is so much money involved in this game, there should be any kind of monitoring or some control for the 'Lactose Intolerance' article. Wikipedia is the most accessed and most known Open Source page of the internet, and it one of the 10 most accessed and known pages in generally, alongside with such giants like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Therefore, I think it has a certain impact on what people think about different subjects, and so, dairy lobbyists may be of course be interested in changing the 'unpleasant' parts of 'Lactose Intolerance' (even if this would harm the health of thousands of people who read the article). I know well that lactose intolerance is not a disease, but some of the symptoms may be very frightening, especially for people who already have poor health (cancer, HIV, Morbus Crohn, Diabetes etc...).

Best regards --Reiskeks 11:50, 14 October 2007 (GMT+1).

Talk:Hymen Redundant Section
Hello Tallard. The new Talk:Hymen section appears to be a continuation of the previous Talk:Hymen one. Would you mind if I merge the two sections? (I'm "watching' your talk page, so feel free to respond here.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of that section focused on the low grade illustration serving as a "normal situation" image per se; and it's long and unweildly, that's why I started a new one. I guess I was hoping this section would focus more on the general tone and scientific neutrality of the article. But I'm not emotionally attached to the discussion's presentation, maybe we should change the other title to reflect image use only...?--Tallard (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that the discussion has become unwieldy, and but as it is now currently running full steam in the new section I am reluctant to merge them. As far as the discussion related to the image use, I see that we have another new section, this one added by RAN for the RFC. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the new RFC section, it is currently lacking your voice. Some of your objections have been quoted, but I know that you are concerned not just about the accuracy of the drawing, but also about the tone it sets, as the lead illustration, for the entire article, and I have not attempted to paraphrase your thoughts in that regard.  --  Kirk Hilliard (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was very interested to see your remark that the image in question was no longer used in the most recent edition of Gray's Anatomy. I tried to look into this myself, but was unable to view any but the very old editions online. What edition and year was this, and were you looking at a hard copy or did you find it on the net? -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel your understanding of my understanding of the implications of the article are quit correct. I'm frankly at a loss of proper wording to express what I see as a gross misrepresentation of cited references.


 * I am in Whitehorse, the Gray's Anatomy (mid 70s, but I'm confused because I thought it also said said 40th ed which doesn't quite make sense). A four inch thick hard cover book good technical illustrations, not low resolution drawings. I went to the library not knowing for sure I'd find the questioned image. The index page pointed to a single page. That page's entry for hymen was shorter than this paragraph and had no attached figures. The small paragraph merely points out that it's usually completely resorbed by the time of birth and it's developmental pathway. OK, back to the discussion page...--Tallard (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whitehorse! That is so cool.  (I miss snow; I haven't seen a latitude greater than 8 degrees in a couple of years.)  Yukon College's library is presumably not up to university standards; that must be frustrating.  Regarding my understanding of your understanding, thank you, but I think that I am only now starting to see your concerns.  Your remark asking, "Does the phimosis page go on and on about the various shapes and configurations and inconsequential rape examinations" in particular has given me pause for thought.  Even if an article was entirely factually accurate (not that this is necessarily the case here) every part could be correct, but as a whole it could be very wrong.  Correcting this, and even more so explaining how and why it is wrong, could be quite difficult.  Still, the first job is determining the factual errors, which should be easier. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say by "misrepresentation of facts", but possibly your wording can make it clearer for debaters than mine. My main frustration is with Richard's insistence on proving him wrong, which is as impossible as believers asking atheists to "prove" god doesn't exist. But I'm not sure where that stands in Wikipedia guidelines, something about which side of facts does the burden of proof lie within...--Tallard (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard's vandalism on Hymen page
I am at a loss here, yesterday he started vandalizing by flooding the hymen article with multiple edits (individually unrevertible because of intermediate edit conflicts) by again adding religiously biased statements and deleting paragraphs left right and center. He adds {fact} tags to anything against his opinion even when the equal statement is referenced elsewhere on page, and changes referenced sentences and to twist them to his POV regardless of the reference itself. I reverted his vandalism flood several times, with justifications in discussion page of why not individual reverts, but he just keeps putting everything back. How do we deal with this religious zealousness? And I thought the image debate was a work in progress, but it seems the other users that came around have left already... what to do?--Tallard (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tallard. Take a short time out.  I see that Richard has flagged you with a 3RR warning, and there is no need getting blocked over this.  (Three is an upper bound here, and blocks happen for less.  Don't set yourself up so that you have to waste your time appealing a block.)  Remember that this article was in what you considered "bible pedia" condition for a long time before you ran across it, so a couple of days delay to your edits isn't significant in the Big Picture.  Flag the article as Template:POV, as you clearly feel that this is the case.  Perhaps Template:ActiveDiscuss is merited as well.  More to follow shortly.  --  Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I do think that both of you are editing in good faith, although both of you have, at times (and perhaps unintentionally), employed disruptive tactics, and in Richard's case, I do agree that much of his recent activity has been unhelpful. Let me write up a couple of paragraphs about how we can structure the discussion and work toward harmonious editing (yeah, right!).  I can't do it immediately, but I'll get it posted within 24 hrs.  (Morning call for prayer has been echoing across the harbour and with the coming daylight I have to return to real work.)  In the meantime, consider copying Hymen over to a user subpage and working on it there.


 * I suggest that in your posts to Talk:Hymen you avoid labeling material contrary to your view as "religious" or edits as "religiously motivated". It is not at all clear to me that religion (or even an overbearing morality that does travel hand in hand with many religious sects) is responsible for whatever misunderstandings exist regarding the hymen.  Nor is it clear that obsession with virginity (again motivated more, perhaps, by overbearing morality than by religion itself) and resulting virginity tests are much influenced by such misinformation.  Even if some incorrect information is religious in origin, those spreading it may simply be misinformed.  In any case, excessive use of the term does create the appearance of fanatically advocating an agenda (although I suppose, fanatic or not, we should all be advocating an agenda of NPOV).  It should be sufficient to describe an assertion as incorrect.  As you've mentioned, addressing the tone of an article is the most difficult part, so save your "religiously motivated" descriptions for when you need them, and even then use them sparingly.


 * Finally, don't think that I am necessarily "on your side" (unless, of course, "your side" is simply that of the improvement of this article and of wikipedia in general). I am under the impression that you are assuming as fact some statements that I do not find supported by my recent reading, however I am not well informed on the subject, and am even less well informed on your assumptions.  From the beginning you proposed a complete rewrite and asked for others' input, and after not receiving any you started boldly editing the article.  This is good, but as objections have arisen, and as you propose sweeping changes to the article, it is reasonable to discuss what problems exist with both the facts and the POV (the former always easier than the latter) before implementing those sweeping changes.  Before you think that I am part of some religious cabal "against you" (as if denials do any good), left me assure you that I am an atheist, much as I am an Aleprechaunist (however germane that may be).  --  Kirk Hilliard (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've locked the article. He's not vandalising the article. Do you really think he'd be still editing Wikipedia if he was a vandal? Please use this time to talk to him about and get some sort of compromise on the table without the mindless reverts. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Scarian Call me Pat!  21:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tallard. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I'm underway in a few hours, and won't be able to return to WP for a month or so. I did want to point out WP:SYNTH, as it describes a more subtle form of OR that can be problematic even when trying to write about an issue that you know is supported by the sources, but which is not explicitly stated. Also, I think that it would be worth your while to look at a couple of books such as those by Catherine Blackledge or Hanne Blank to see how the subject is treated by modern, feminist authors. I know that you prefer your scientific journals, but the footnotes and bibliographies of even popular works can help in guiding further reading, and their method of presentation may be instructive. Bye. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Hymen
Just had to look-through of the RfC on the Hymen photo issue, and while I have nothing to contribute to that debate, I did want to throw you some more metaphysical support. I think your project is on the money. I've never actually given the issue any thought, but you're clearly correct that the Hymen is primarily important as a sociological construct, rather than as a biological fact. have you looked into any of the feminist, post-feminist or post-structuralist work that deals with paternalism and virginity? I know the work is out there, and I'm thinking someone has had to address the hymen from a philosophical perspective. that might give your argument a little more umph. -- Ludwigs 2 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Viva Chile!


The article Viva Chile! has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable album

While all 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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Agnosticism
(Apologies for the belated response, Wikibreak.) All I can say is that I completely agree and hope the situation with that article can be rectified. Talking about finding proof for a negative statement is absurd ("prove to me god does NOT exist!"), it is a frequently encountered logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam. A person that is simply "agnostic" holds we do not have knowledge of god and additionally states his belief that such knowledge is unknowable. The belief that this is some sort of a "softer form of atheism" stems from the idea that agnostics also hold that we "cannot disprove (a) god" - but this latter notion is simply absurd ("a logical fallacy in which it is considerd that a premise may be true only because it has not been proven false") as one cannot ever disprove or find evidence disproving a phantasm that has yet to be evidenced (especially one that always modifies itself to advancements in knowledge). An agnostic theist believes in (a) god (most often due to a reason unrelated to any empirical and logical reasoning), but does not think we can ever "know his ways" (or something of the sort :). The two are so utterly unrelated it is laughable to even think of using the category "agnostic" as a religious or spiritual determinant.

That said, as a student of medicine I cannot claim to be knowledgeable is philosophy. I make a point of usually staying away from subjects I am not very familiar with. I certainly hope you will fix this nonsense article, simply because that will establish a lower tolerance for nonsense on Wiki. Best of luck :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!
Hello, Tallard,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ☎ call me!

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec) Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Otsuchi tsunami
Hi, I've reverted your additions at Ōtsuchi, Iwate and the main earthquake article about a 25 metre tsunami in the town. In both cases you provided non-reliable sources (YouTube and a blog respectively), and the Japan Meteorological Agency is the organisation responsible for issuing the official tsunami heights recorded, and it would be unwise to use a single first-hand report by someone, unconfirmed by any official agency, stating otherwise. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Whitehorse, Yukon, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cmr08 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, sorry about the welcome part. It seems like every level 1 warning starts with that. This was just a template to point out that I had to fix something in that particular article, and you would now know how the headers should appear. As for the "harder to read part", it's a strange wording, but that's the wording the level 1 template uses. I think it's just trying to say that the encyclopedia is better when all articles are following the same manual of style. If I offended you, I'm really sorry, that wasn't my intention. The message wasn't meant to be critical or anything, it was just to let you know there was a problem with the manual of style you were using in the article. As for the article, I must say that you have done a great job improving it. Cmr08 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I ended up in the article by chance. I like taking a look at community articles because I find those are the articles that end up with the most vandalism or unencyclopedic content being added. I usually jump around, or if I'm checking an athlete or politician, etc., I will often click on their place of birth. Vandals seem to like the notable person lists, while other editors seem hooked on using the "External links" section to promote, so there is often work to be done on those kind of articles. Cmr08 (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Delisting of good article
Hi Tallard, I'm not sure what your concerns are. If an article that is currently listed as a GA (or is considered to have been "wrongly assessed" as being a GA - there are some "poor" reviewers) and that rating is considered to be "wrong", the article can be reassessed against WP:WIAGA by an individual (personal reassessment, by a "user" not an "IP") or by the community (community reassessment), both reassessments by means of WP:GAR; and if it fails, or is put On Hold and not fixed, GA-status can be removed. That process should appear in the article's Articlehistory, i.e. as a minimum there should be a WP:GAN recording the award of GA-status and a following WP:GAR recording the removal of GA-status. Under personal reassessment the decision is made by one editor (which is what your comment appears to be about), but it should be made fairly against the criteria of WP:WIAGA by an editor without conflicts of interest (such as having made significant input to the article, involved in conflicts, etc). If, however, someone is removing GA-status from articles without undertaking a WP:GAR that is plainly wrong and an abuse. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is one other point I should have made. The GA criteria was tightened up several years ago, so some of the early articles that gained GA status might not have been eligible under the current criteria. There was a project WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps to reassess these early GAs and the results can be found at WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total. So some article lost their GAs in that review, but it finished sometime ago. Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reading suggestions, I guess my 'concern' is that the classification process is pretty obscure for someone not initiated to this aspect of Wikipedia. Regarding assessment (not just GA) I'd like to see a presentation of 5W, who what where when why, as it stands there's a lot of scattered tidbits (like GA reading suggestions) but seem disconnected from the general assessment process. The point is it's not only relevant to contributors and reviewers, but also to readers. I think the presentation formats should be more transparent... but this is generalised sentiment about Wikipedia as a whole, the help and project and assessment pages are too complicated to navigate for non professional users... and fancy TOCs on the right should be discouraged :)--Tallard (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well GA and FA are "disconnected": they are English-language Wikipedia assessments not English-language Wikipedia Wiki Project assessments. "Stub", "Start", C class, and B class (and A class) are awarded by individual Wiki Projects (WPs) and the criteria are "published" by each WP (see WikiProject Korea/Assessment for example) but they are quite similar (copy and paste jobs); some WPs don't accept C-class, so WP class-assessments may be different: because they were assessed at different times and the article has improved or been vandalised, the WP has not kept its assessment up todate, people sometimes get it wrong, some WPs rate an individual article as C-class but other don't use C-class. Only a few WPs use A-class.


 * To gain GA or FA and article has to be nominated on the English-language Wikipedia at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, as appropriate. A formal review is carried out in both cases and recorded. If an article gains GA or FA, then it is formally listed as a GA or FA and that assessment is almost always adopted by all the WPs claiming that article as being it their scope. Note: some articles appear on different language wikipeidas, so an English-language WP article could also have non-English-language GA-assessments (sorry I was not deliberately trying to make life difficult).


 * There was a scheme to make readers aware of the article assessments; and the GA-star and FA-star in the top right hand corner of the article is part of that process. Readers are also encouraged to look at the talkpage and the article history (some articles are heavily vandalised, so a "good" article may not be correct at any given time, it may not even be a good article, some articles are rubbish). I'm not sure what has happened to that "educating the reader" - my interest is mostly GAs, so when (if) I pass an nomination I added a green star to the article (and an assessment to its talkpage).


 * I don't work as an employee of Wikipedia, so I'm not a professional user... (in the sense of being a Wikipeida employee). I happen to be a Chartered professional, but that is "work" and I certainly don't mix work with wikipedia and I could not edit articles in work-time (but wikipedia is often used at work as a source of information). Finally, Sorry, Wikipedi now insists on "infoboxes" on the right hand side. An article is not likely to get to FA, probably not GA or B-class without an Infobox. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!
Let me know if you have any questions. We just finished out March Copy Edit Drive, but another one is scheduled for May. Cheers! Torchiest talkedits 03:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Quebec
I noticed you are a participant of the WikiProject Quebec.

The Outline of Quebec was created a few days ago and is under vigorous development. It fills a gap in Wikipedia's set of outlines. It is the 3rd outline to date about a Canadian province/territory.


 * Wikipedia Contents
 * Outlines
 * Outline of geography
 * Outline of North America
 * Outline of Canada
 * Outline of Alberta
 * Outline of British Columbia
 * Outline of Manitoba
 * Outline of New Brunswick
 * Outline of Newfoundland and Labrador
 * Outline of Nova Scotia
 * Outline of Ontario
 * Outline of Quebec
 * Outline of Prince Edward Island
 * Outline of Saskatchewan
 * Outline of the Northwest Territories
 * Outline of Nunavut
 * Outline of Yukon

Outlines form one of the subsystems of Wikipedia's contents navigation system. For more information on outlines, see Outlines and WikiProject Outlines.

The goals for the Outline of Quebec is to complete it to as high a standard of quality as possible, and to make it even better than the Outline of Saskatchewan and the Outline of British Columbia.

Once the Outline of Quebec is completed, it will provide an important example to others creating outlines for the remaining provinces and territories of Canada.

Please take a look at the outline to see if you can notice (and fill in) any missing topics. Pictures would also be nice (the rarer and the more interesting, the better).

Thank you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviving collaboration on WikiProject Cuba?
I know this is a long shot, because your connection to WikiProject Cuba is pretty tangential, just one talk post, but maybe you'd be interested in helping me re-boot WikiProject Cuba after years of inactivity? Maybe? Check out this discussion on WikiProject Cuba, I'm trying to drum up some teamwork and collaboration to create an article on the Cuban Liberation Army. Despite the fact they won Cuban independence in the 1890s, they don't have their own article! If you, or anyone you know would be interested, reply on WikiProject Cuba, where there's also a link to my userspace where we're drafting the new article. Thanks for reading; hope you can help with Latin American history history, and help revive WikiProject Cuba! :) NickDupree (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice translation
I've looked at your translation about the Bird Studies Canada article on French Wikipedia and it looked good. Would you please do me a favor and translate the Ontario tobacco belt article into French for me? It's practically about the same region because the Bird Studies Canada is located in Norfolk County (and the heart of the Ontario tobacco belt)? GVnayR (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Caisse
Can you record the word caisse with a Quebec accent please ? Fête (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month
Good day Tallard,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes to WP:QC
You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares  19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-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 no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. 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) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

July 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stephanie Barrett. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Stephanie Barrett
Your reinstatement of the WP:A7 tag to the above article after I declined it was a violation of policy. If you do something like that again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! menacing much? Is that really allowed to go around on people's talk pages and threaten then after one action you dislike?? Please provide Wikipedia rule that says I can be blocked after one unpopular edit!--Tallard (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've seen of your editing and your stated antipathy for Wikipedia, you are a hair's breadth of being blocked as WP:NOTHERE/disruptive. Your action was a violation of policy, not one I "dislike". You can be blocked after only one edit for a variety of reasons, but in this instance, you would be blocked for more than that. My warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your answer is a bit double-standard, considering your talk-page "still deeply disturbed by the governance at Wikipedia and the WMF, and I doubt that will ever change. I could say more but don't think it's appropriate", it seems like you have more antipathy for Wikipedia than I do. The problem I've long seen at Wikipedia, which a Wikipedia campaign tried to address, and failed, about women being bullied out of Wikipedia, is that women bring opinions that men don't favour, and instead of arguing content, most men here use ad hominem and threats instead. I also think, professionally speaking, that if you occupy a higher up position in Wikipedia that gives you power to block people, it would go a long way if you were transparent about that on your userpage...--Tallard (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this article, when you created Articles for deletion/Stephanie Barrett to list this article for deletion, you forgot to complete step III of the WP:AFDHOWTO and list it on the log page of that day. I have now listed it in today's log. In the future, please make sure you follow all steps so the discussion will be correctly listed and can be seen by all people who regularly patrol these discussions. You can use a tool like Twinkle to automate this process. Regards So  Why  19:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. When I applied the template, I thought I'd read that the listing was automated. --Tallard (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably should be automated, but for some reason it's not. Though why you haven't removed the nomination already I don't know - it's snowing, and now they've actually officially competed, WP:NOLYMPICS is undeniable met. Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

John Stoltenberg and Categories
Greetings. I'm following up with you in a discussion about categories from his Stoltenberg's talk page. In his writings, I see he self-identifies as a "radical feminist" but I don't see anyone else referring to him that way. I like you're solution, which is to note that is how he self-identifies. That, certainly, appears to be true and so I've made that change to the article. Related to this, I see "American feminist writers", "antipornography feminists", "gay feminists", and "male feminists" listed as other categories on his page. I have posted a related but more general matter to the Teahouse, re: introduction of new categories. In this instance, "profeminist", "antipornography profeminist", etc. With thanks for engaging. I'm curious to know how you would recommend handling this as it pertains to John's page, and more generally. --PaulThePony (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)