User talk:B3251

Welcome to my talk page. If you have any concerns, suggestions, or if you would just like to contact me, feel free to do so here.

Note: I delete bot-created (after they have been dealt with) and unnecessary sections.

Hello B3251! Your additions to

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I understand. I’d there a way you that I could write the history section without plagiarizing, yet still using the monument (the picture I took) as a reference? The source I previously attached simply displayed the text of what was on the monument, so I wasn’t sure how plagiarism worked there. Thanks for letting me know. B3251 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=77534 as your source, but the content has to be re-written in your own words. Don't use the photo as a source; the photo is nominated for deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, B3251! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

On 18 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Carberry highway collision, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Anarchyte (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B3251,

You stated in your edit summary here that you made the edit per an email request. Who was the sender? Based on the contents of the edit, it appears that you might have inadvertently proxied on behalf of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken! My rule when it comes to email requests is to tell the sender to make the edit themself for exactly this reason. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be even stronger. Don't ever make edits because somebody sent you an email asking you to. You're just proxying for a sockpuppet. RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: That's exactly what I said! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody named Macroduck sent me the email. Apologies for contributing based on an email request, I was unaware of the potential circumstances on why I could have received the request and now that I know, it won’t happen again. Thanks! B3251 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, same happened to me here. Got an e-mail from Macroduck too. Thankfully I didn't edit on his behalf. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Taylor (photographer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Thomas Taylor was one of Canada's earliest nature photographers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Taylor (photographer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, George Taylor (photographer)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

The article George Taylor (photographer) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Taylor (photographer) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of O'Shae Sibley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Beyoncé paid tribute to O'Shae Sibley, a gay man who was killed after vogueing to her music, on her official website? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of O'Shae Sibley. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Killing of O'Shae Sibley), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor demanding to approve edits to a page. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Admiral Beatty Hotel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that following its closure, the former Admiral Beatty Hotel was converted into a senior citizens' apartment building? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Admiral Beatty Hotel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Admiral Beatty Hotel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is my edit irrelevant? It's in the "diet and ecology" section, specifically next to the part that mentions the jaguar's predation on aquatic reptiles. I don't understand your reasoning at all. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added a singular case to a "hunting and diet" section, in FA-fashion that would be stuck to Jaguar's typical hunting and diet behavior. Adding a singular case in which one particular jaguar hunted and killed something isn't relevant to the typical hunting & diet section. If a singular case happened for a mammal hunting & eating a human, that wouldn't be added to their 'hunting and diet' section, no? B3251 (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very relevant if it is the first recorded case of one species preying on another, especially if the two are apex predators. I want to know the exact wording in a "featured article" guidelines that wouldn't allow for something like this to be added. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I wouldn't consider FA-class articles would include random one-off events to be in what is dedicated to sharing the normal behavior for a Jaguar. I, however, am not an expert and I'd recommend seeking input from @LittleJerry, as I know they're quite known for their major contributions towards articles on mammals. B3251 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems too random. What is so special about a jaguar preying on a certain species of crocodile for the first time? Its already mentioned that jagaurs prey on reptiles. Its more important for the article on the crocodile species then the jaguar. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's random at all. It's relevant within the flow of the article, is in the right section of the article, and adds more about the ecology and diet of the jaguar. Before this find jaguars were not known to prey on crocodiles, only caimans, so I think it's a good thing to add. I don't think anything is lost by adding this information Chumzwumz68 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LittleJerry. It is quite random to add and for a high-quality article, because you generally want to avoid adding in pretty irrelevant instances that can drift away from the main point: the typical Jaguar hunting & diet behavior. Adding one instance in which a jaguar preyed on a crocodile doesn't necessarily add more to the ecology & diet because the rarity of this incident shows that this isn't relevant to the spread of knowledge surrounding its diet. It reads more-so like a random fact more than anything. B3251 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the discussion on the article page on-topic, moving this part here: CNA is an RS. The first discussion you linked was poorly populated (not outright discarding it, but limited participation and lack of clear, policy driven rationale reduce it to being an inconclusive discussion). The second discussion mentions CNA once, in a list but provides no reason why it's in the list (by that metric, WashPo and WSJ would be discarded). The final discussion features HEB—a very good editor with whom I've worked on a couple articles— outnumbered by other editors who articulated why the EWTN-branded pubs are generally fringe-y while CNA is not.

Mere mention of a source at the discussion board is not enough to present it as questionable; there should be ready evidence of a consensus against using an outlet. By saying that a source is questionable, you imply strong evidence to this end. There is not good evidence for CNA being unreliable (for example, in HEB's case, conflation with the distinct website Catholic Culture seemed to be a factor). If you have clear reasons to doubt CNA's reliability based on specific and verified cases of poor reporting, academic review that found CNA inaccurate, or CNA blatantly peddling in conspiracies, please notify the discussion board.

Sorry if this sounds curt, as you are only acting in good faith and wanted to provide a nuanced view on a contentious topic. I've had to explain how CNA and similar independent, sectarian-interest news organizations work in the past both on Wikipedia and in my professional life, so I occasionally get frustrated when I have to relitigate it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussions are not very great in of themselves, I still feel that Catholic-ran sources, particularly on a topic such as the

WP:RS and neutral on the topic. That's all I really need to say, I guess. Again, I also recommend reaching out to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to seek further consensus. B3251 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is me very lightly pushing back on you in this. CNA is not administratively part of the Catholic Church and has been the news org to break many cases of abuse by members–including by leadership–in the church. Articles are not strictly from a Catholic perspective; reporting favors issues relevant to Catholics and will demonstrate a greater degree of expertise in nomenclature on issues related to the church, but it is akin to other special-interest publications in this regard (indeed, some CNA writers are not Catholic). We cite several indigenous tribes and their reports within the residential school gravesite article. Most of the tribal reports are not editorially independent from the tribal hierarchy (and that's a good thing), but we accurately accept them as generally reliable instances of self-reporting. Having dealt with Catholic and Catholic-adjacent articles for the entirety of my time editing Wikipedia, I can say that CNA is essentially the only Catholic-interest outlet that is on a level of reliability approaching that papers of record (though Union of Catholic Asian News's English-language reporting is getting better). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not relevant to what you and I are engaging about, as this is plainly an open discussion with good reasons for our positions, but the IP we were both engaging with on the article talk has been blocked for evasion (the original was blocked for trolling). If you don't mind, I would like to pull your comments and place them in a separate section of the talk page and collapse the troll's comments. Let me know what you think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ B3251 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

literal lol at that, so thank you. Hope you have a good one, and happy editing :). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You too, I wish you well with your IP discourse. B3251 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least for pre-1867 emigrants Ontario and Quebec I do not think are the names we want. First off although in common usage people referred to Canada East and Canada West in 1865 the place was actually one place the Province of Canada which is sometimes called the United Province of Canada. I am thinking for 1841-1867 the Category would be best named Emigrants from the United Province of Canada. I think we need the United so people understand what we mean, and I think we should go by political dividions of the time. Large parts of modern Quebec and Ontario were outside the limits of thos Province. Before 1841 I think we might have Upper and Lower Canada cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for creating categories for Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada West, etc... would you like to do that with me? I'll start with Canada West. B3251 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

on second thought, I'll scrap that idea. I'll start with just the Province of Canada right now and try to start rearranging categories. Is that alright? B3251 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said I also wonder if maybe we are going too low scale. Maybe we should name the Category Category:Emigrants from British North America and link it to our existing article on British North America. I have read through that now, and am beginning to think we might be going too small scale. Especially since there was even an Arctic Islands Territory. I am biggining to think Emigrants from British North America for 1783-1907 is the way to go, although after 1873 there is not much there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like British North America is a bit broad and is already somewhat exemplified in the already-existing Pre-Confederation Canada category. The Province of Canada should be good enough as there's several articles of individuals from Upper or Canada West. Unless you're thinking of moving the New Brunswick category there? That being said, New Brunswick emigrants should be a category as well as for individuals from the Province of Canada (Upper Canada & Canada West) as to make sure it's not too messy. B3251 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I think we should use categorizes that would make sense to the people at the time, unless doing so would be too confusing for us. In 1910 "Turkey" was used to mean the Ottoman Empire, but if we were to start categoizing every national of the Ottoman Empire are "Turkish" it would create confusion, and even if we had "1910 establishments" and included everything started that year within the Ottoman Empire it would cause confusion, so we use "Ottoman Empire" even though it was not the common name. In 1850 no one referred to "pre-confederation Canada" because no one knew that the confederation would occur. British North America was a designation for the broad area. I am thinking we could have an emigrant category for people from all parts of it going elsewhere. We have other broad categories like Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire. My other fear about pre-confederation categories is people will try to include those who lived in non-British areas, specifically before 1763, although with emigration categories I am not sure that is an issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The first two people in the pre-Confederation Canada emigrants to the United States category look like they would belong in Category:Colony of Nova Scotia emigrants to the United States. The 3rd Elias Bradshaw, shows why we might want to consider a broad Category:Emigrants from British North American to the United States (or whatever exaactly if the best way to formulate that name). He came in 1831, so there was no Province of Canada, there was Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The article does not say which he lived in (I think we can assume he lived in one). My guess is he most likely lived in Upper Canada, but we should not be more precise than sourcing allows. He clearly would fit in the potential Category:Emigrants from British North America to the United States. We already have Category:Emigrants from the British West Indies to the United States. There is another advantage to not being super specific on these categories. Because of the ease of movement between especially geographically connected British colonies, the last place a person lived in British North America before they came to the US is quite possibly not defining. Some of these Emigrants from British North America to the United States will in fact be men who were raised in Montreal or the Toronto region, then worked for a company based in Montreal for about a decade in Ruper's Land, and then decided to head south and settle in Missouri. So do we call them emigrants from the last place they lived, or from where they started out? We would not call someone who moved from Nova Scotia to the United Province of Canada in 1842, became an elected official there, and died in 1866 an Emigrants from the Colony of Nova Scotia to the Province of Canada, so I am thinking that for emigration purposes we probably want to have one category that links people by their starting point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, B3251. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for George Taylor (photographer) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I there! I would like to assist in improving the Atlantic Canada article!

--Izlhyl 21:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thank you for your help. I've seen that you've already done work expanding the article which I absolutely commemorate. I'm currently busy with school, but I'll try to check back in as much as I can. Thanks! B3251 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Canada 10,000 Challenge

The Canadian Content Award Hi there! I happened to see one of your recent edits pop up in my watchlist, and was reminded about a bit of a spat we were involved with on the University of New Brunswick article earlier this year. I see you've been working on a lot of Canadian content on Wikipedia, but I don't see your name beside any of the articles listed under the WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge. You might be interested in checking it out: it's a challenge to create and/or improve 10,000 Wikipedia articles on Canadian topics. It's been running for a little over 7 years now and just passed the halfway mark. Cheers! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank and accept your offer and am greatly appreciative of any assistance you can provide. Kabiblehopper (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, would you like to make a sandbox and potentially show me what information you would like to add/update to? B3251 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely will do in the future and again greatly appreciate the constructive offer.

Although frankly, that one article took me over a week to source write and format. Given the response and amount of attribution error, unconstructive grief and accusations of edit warring it received; I think I shall take a break for a while.

I will let you know of any further projects in mind and am more then pleased to collaborate, there is alot of work to be done on the topic of Irving, and shipbuilding on the east coast in general. Kabiblehopper (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your assistance on the JD irving page. Viewmount Viking has constantly been deleting my edits without engaging in the talk page I created and when you look at their own talk page this individual is regularly being accused of deleting other peoples work without explanation.

I made a minor edit regarding the opening phrase, where it stated that JD Irving is a subsidiary of Irving group of companies. As maritimers Im sure you are as aware as I am that JD Irving ltd is the parent company of the entirety of Irving's enterprises, and that "Irving group of companies" is a colloquial phrase that doesn't physically exist as an organization.

I had provided proof that the Irving group of companies isnt a physical company, and therefore cannot own JD Irving ltd, within the talk page, but this user Viewmount Viking keeps baselessly deleted my edit without engaging in the talk.

How can I address this individual and his accusations against me when they wont respond? Kabiblehopper (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look when I'm available. B3251 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabiblehopper I just took a moment to look at the material you added to J. D. Irving, it seems that you added a paragraph which does require a source (which is why Viewmount Viking removed it), and the list of Irving divisions is quite long if you include less notable ones that do not have articles, so it makes sense to leave them out. I hope this comment helps! B3251 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, B3251. Thank you for your work on

Marking this page as reviewed, but please add another section regarding any notable cases the firm has taken or other situations that have placed them in the media (if possible) to make this page as robust as it possibly can. Otherwise, job well done!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Trainsskyscrapers}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, your recent changes to List of people from Saint John, New Brunswick made it no longer fit the table transclusion scheme in List of people from New Brunswick. Not a big deal, but it came up in lint errors, so I fixed the transclusion as such. I just thought maybe you'd be interested in cutting down on what exactly gets transcluded with <onlyinclude>. I'd cut the lead and the footer myself, but it's probably better if someone closer to the topic decides on this. Gamapamani (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the whole article as well as the other city articles need to be updated to fit the style of other "list of people from [province/U.S. state]" articles. I personally updated the Saint John one because I have a special interest in editing about Saint John-related topics, but if I have the time maybe I can pick ahold at updating the others and ultimately the province list as well. B3251 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On

11 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Drummond, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joseph Drummond, a key figure of New Brunswick's branch of the NAACP, staged a sit-in at a local barbershop whose owner proclaimed that he had "never cut a colored person's hair in 55 years"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Drummond. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joseph Drummond), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied, thanks for your review! B3251 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I just gave it the "thumbs up." Nice article! Malinaccier (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! B3251 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]