User talk:Angelique

Hello new user and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date
Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
Have fun.

-- Alexandros 19:07, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I like dead people too. Alexandros

Dear Angelique, i remove your question from the Village Pump to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. I dont like dead people :) Muriel Victoria 16:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adding an opinion... I dont know what the Quebec thing is about,, neither do i want to get involved. But, if you accept a friendly advice, try to contribute in other topics too and not get too involved about this one in particular. And trust the mediation of other wikipedians. And have fun, like Alex suggested above: thats the most important thing here. Cheers, Muriel Victoria
- I'm glad to know that are not actually *dead* people :). Yes, i'm sysop but that does not mean that me or my opinion matter more than yours. I moved to conflicts because its the place you go when you want to avoid a perpetual reverting between users, or where you ask for a third party mediation. That is what i think you wanted... Muriel
  - I started the Kings of France family tree where my reference started. If you want to complete it / correct it / change it and improve it go ahead! Thats the beauty of wiki! If you like history, then there is a lot you can do around here. I'm more into acient history but i know that some section in medieval are hopeless. There are loads of contributions to be made! Muriel

Angelique, I think you, Mathieu, and Tremblay need to take a break from the History of Quebec article, but especially you most of all. If you want, I will try to make some sense out of what is there, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, but I think you should stop editing it for a few days. Adam Bishop 17:16, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See, you can't even respond to me without the same sort of polemic you are writing on History of Quebec. I'll wait to see how Mathieu responds to what I've said, but my advice remains the same - stay away from the Quebec article for a few days, at least. Adam Bishop 17:29, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether or not your edits are all factual, you are quite obviously pushing your own POV and that certainly is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, no matter how much you claim it is. Mathieu and Tremblay and whoever else may also be doing this from the opposite perspective (and I'm pretty sure they are), which is why I'm suggesting that all of you take a break. I also don't understand why you are claiming they're the ones going on and on about racism? It's fairly easy to see you're the one doing that, at least on the History of Quebec talk page. BUt I don't really want to get into accusations and all of that, all I am trying to do is get the three of you to stop editing the page for awhile. 17:41, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angelique - Mathieugp and Tremblay have both agreed to stop editing the article for a week (that was a few days ago, so I suppose it's down to 5 days now), and I still think it would be in everyone's best interest if you did the same. Adam Bishop 16:52, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I highlighted a sentence above for you. Cheers, Muriel Victoria 16:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adam Bishop stated: "you are quite obviously pushing your own POV". My reply (again) is that you have not read a single thing. Your remarks are unfounded, ignorant, and in violation of Wikipedia policy on several levels. Please stop. Thank you. Angelique 16:58, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How have I violated policy in any way? And why are you completely unwilling to work with anyone, even to the point of moving the entire article? This is ridiculous. Adam Bishop 18:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You "win," I suppose - I'm going to avoid this article entirely now, because it's impossible to work out what should be there and what shouldn't. I am also no longer neutral as I find it difficult not to take sides against you :) So, have fun with the article, hopefully someone gets tired of it eventually. Adam Bishop 19:31, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw my question on the History of Quebec talk page, so I'll ask here...what specifically is the problem with the "though every dog in Quebec will bark" quote? Is it apocryphal? Or are you just trying to make Macdonald look better? Adam Bishop 20:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unless you know of a better source, we'll have to make do with personal pages which various users have decided are reasonably accurate to suffice for the time being. Lirath Q. Pynnor

eventually, any information at that site will be assimilated. Until it is, we should retain the link. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The village pump is archaic -- wikipedia: mailing list Wikipedia:IRC_channel <--- no longer red

The information at the external link, which u removed, will eventually be added to the wikipedia; and there will be no need for that link. Until then, keep the linl. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The Wikipedia endorses no links; do you object to any of the information on the page in question? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi again, I was thinking I may have been a little too jumpy lately, especially as there is a policy of "don't bite the newbies," so I'd like to apologize. I'm sure you'll get used to Wikipedia once you're here longer, and hopefully we can work together on articles instead of accusing each other of various things :) I want New France and the other articles to be accurate too, of course! I hope this is acceptable, and I look forward to working with you. Adam Bishop 05:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't particularily care if it's racism or not - the reader can decide that for his or herself. We can't accuse people of racism in an article. Even just providing the quote is a little suspect, if you have included it simply to bash the BQ (while apparently wanting to remove a quote that denigrates Macdonald's character). I think you have misunderstood the POV policy on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 04:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angelique. Can you use Talk: pages more often before making controversial changes to various articles? I'm not only referring to Timeline of Quebec history but also Bloc Québécois. You seemed to be open to discussion at one point.. but then you returned to reverting everything while ignoring everyone's concerns. It's gotten so ridiculously petty. Tremblay 04:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unless you're prepared to add every controversial statement ever made by a Canadian politician to the appropriate party page, this particular incident doesn't belong on Bloc Québécois. It's no more worthy of note than many other similar incidents that are not listed on their party's page, such as the numerous Canadian Alliance statements against gays, "Tequila Sheila", "Sambo", anti-francophone statements, etc. It's all or none. The Suzanne Tremblay incident is not special. Bearcat 04:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you want to do an article specifically on Suzanne Tremblay which makes note of this incident, great. I'd support that. But mathieugp and Tremblay are correct that the incident does not belong in Bloc Québécois. Bearcat 16:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angelique, may I request that you do not add quotes from me on your user page. I feel that displaying them out of context in this way gives a false impression of what I actually meant at the time I wrote these. Angela . 14:48, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well then try forgiving and forgetting. If Mathieugp is no longer making personal attacks, I don't see why he should need to be reminded of them via your user page. If he is, then you need to address that in the normal way, not by using your user page to make a statement. As I have said before, I object to adding messages to or from me on your user page. Please refrain from doing this. Angela . 15:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here is a link to the interview of Robert Libman at the Voir weekly paper. This time, it is not a copy of it on http://www.vigile.net/, rather it is on http://www.voir.ca/, the actual online edition of Voir, which any Montréalais can grab for free in the métro or in cafés and various other public places. The Voir also has many other editions for other cities in Québec City, Gatineau, Saguenay etc. Being free, there are literally millions of people who read it every week. Follow this link to read the article: B'nai Brith va-t-elle trop loin? You can use http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate if needed, although don't expect too much from a robot translation :-). -- Mathieugp 21:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This obsession of yours for ethnic questions gives me the idea of writing articles on Israel-born Solomon Cohen and African-born Maka Kotto who are both members of the PQ. I mean, these are important public figures here. One is a war hero of Israel, the other one is a France and Quebec tv and movie star. They sure deserve to be in Wikipedia more than Suzanne Tremblay who is a nobody from the BQ. -- Mathieugp 21:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Angelique! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Fred Foster - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Marc Carbonneau - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michaud Affair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michaud Affair 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaud Affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]