User talk:TheJF

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

I've noticed your interest and avid editing on Fête nationale du Québec. I do not know if you're aware of the three revert rule, but it is this: no Wikipedian (not even administrators) is allowed to revert a page more than three times in 24 hours. You already have three reverts on the above article. We're all glad you have an interest in Wikipedia, but make sure you're careful to follow the rules!

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Let me or another Wikipedian know if you need anything.

Good luck! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

controversy over Quebec article[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, telling me about the three revert rule and the intervention, however since I'm not supposed to edit the page again, I would like to point out the problem with Tearfree's external link to her blog: Wikipedia:External_links, Links to normally avoid, Line 12: Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

Tearfree's blog entry is a personal story, so I don't think it qualifies as an exception, hence it should be removed. I also think it fuels the stereotype of Quebecers as rude and racist (where the guy says "get out of my country"). I don't dispute that it did happen to her, but I can't help but feel linking to such a personal story in an entry on the Saint-Jean-Baptiste gives that impression.

Finally, Tearfree edited 7 times, and I'm aware that this last point makes me sound childish but I still feel it's worth pointing out.

Disclaimer: No, I'm not a Quebecer, I'm an Acadian.

I admit I didn't read the link -- I only noticed the edit war when I was patrolling the new edit function. Now that I know what the debate is about, maybe I can be of some help.

You are correct about the categorization of Tearfree's link -- that it is not verifiable / possible vanity, and is therefore not acceptable content. Even though, however, you are in the right, you did the right thing notifying me of the problem instead of once again reverting it yourself. Good thinking.

Tearfree is apparently new to Wikipedia, just like you, and was apparently unaware of the revert rule. I have notified him/her that he/she is in violation of it, and he/she has agreed to stop editing the page for awhile.

I was going to avoid getting into the subject of the debate, but since it seems to be such a clear-cut case, I will make the proper edit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will let Tearfree know what I am doing and why. Hopefully that will end the problem. If not, I will consider bringing in an administrator, but I'm trying to assume good faith right now.

Good luck in the rest of your wiki-adventures. If you have any more questions or concerns, don't be afraid to ask me. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please support complement EU !!![edit]

Hi,as a EU supporter maybe you´d like to support this: I´m trying to implement the 'EU' in the city-templates of European city articles. The EU should be mentioned next to the country; like country : Spain / EU Please support the enhancement in these templates and argue for the innovation if you want to. Would be great.

all the best Lear 21 22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the country field is really the place to do it, this leads to confusion, and it's unfortunate that no other place has such an advanced supranational state, because we could just put in "Supranation" or something like that, but that wouldn't make much sense right now. It's a hard one. I'll see if some sort of compromise solution can be found, but I can't push your idea 100%. --TheJF 01:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]