User talk:Cornellier

Cornellier, you may wish to comment at: Talk:Downhill#Disambiguation of title?. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 16:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Élodie Mailloux, Cornellier!

Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have added some categories.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Élodie Mailloux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/mailloux_elodie_16F.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Wood (journalist) 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/Nancy Wood (journalist) 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. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link#Dealing_with_existing_red_links If you think that the red links are excessive, then you can simply turn them into text. But in most cases, you should be leaving them there since they serve a useful purpose. Thanks! Glennchan (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY much of the content concerned should not be in WP, much less red linked. Per WP:RED "Articles should not contain red links to ... topics that do not warrant an article". --Cornellier (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason why Jacob Batalon, Marisa Tomei and Zendaya were removed from the text part of "supporting roles" from the article List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors is because the only film posters their names have been listed in MCU are those of Spider-Man films. Clark Gregg and Gwyneth Paltrow were listed in Iron Man and Avengers films' posters. Jon Favreau was listed in Iron Man and Spider-Man films' posters. William Hurt was listed in The Incredible Hulk and Captain America: Civil War posters. Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba and Stellan Skarsgård were listed in Thor and Avengers films' posters. Hayley Atwell was listed in Captain America films and Avengers: Age of Ultron posters. Benedict Wong was listed in Doctor Strange and Avenger: Infinity War. Danai Gurira and Letitia Wright were listed in Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War posters (although only among the upper names in the latter but still). Benicio del Toro was listed listed in Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers: Infinity War posters (just like actors/actresses of all the members of the Guardians). Lee Pace and Djimon Hounsou were listed in Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel posters. And I don't even need to mention the Avengers members. A long explanation, but now know why that part of the article is like that. CAJH (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much CAJH. Sometimes things are more complicated than they seem. Just for info, in retrospect I was wrong to revert anyway. I was doing page reviews of "locked" pages and came across this one. I didn't like the removal of info with no explanation, BUT according to HELP:REVIEWING one should only not accept (ie revert) when it's an obviously malicious edit. One's perception of the content being correct or incorrect isn't supposed to come into it. --Cornellier (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't let me see you adding links or comments to other user's talk messages, especially their !vote in an RM, again. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ferret, apologies and thanks for spotting and fixing. I accidentally inserted the link twice, once in his comment once in mine. I should've looked at the diff before hitting publish. I'll be more careful about that. --Cornellier (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cornellier,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third anniversary. You are receiving this message because you participated in previous years of the challenge but have not yet submitted any article improvements for this year. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved, ensuring that all submissions are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors in November.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or go the challenge page at WP:CAN10K for more information. 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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Reidgreg (talk) and WP:CAN10K, 21:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I reverted your removal of "Iconic" from the Dorothea Lange photo description here. If you have a look at the article on the photo (see Migrant mother), you will find the term used in the lede and as the heading for a whole section. Thsis is one of those rare cases where it is not an exaggeration or inflation of the facts to call something iconic. In fact, using the word iconic lets you know the photo is among the most famous ever taken. Time says: "Of the 160,000 images taken by Lange and other photographers for the Resettlement Administration, Migrant Mother has become the most iconic picture of the Depression." A web search with the same terms will give you results such as history.com and the Library of Congress using the same wording. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:ThatMontrealIP for your elaborations. My thinking is that the photo is already indirectly described as such in the article body "Lange's poignant images became icons of the era", and that the caption could be a little more minimal and the qualification is not needed. The word "editorialize" in the revision comment was probably not the best choice. --Cornellier (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I ask you to retract the comment about the creator of these articles. I don't know what he's doing now, but these geography stubs were created a long time ago before anyone realized that GNIS had these problems. It is an irritation to have to do the cleanup, and I wish the people who created these would help, but speculative comments about their behavior are not helpful. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mangoe: deleted per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regarding what you call "speculative" comments consider the following facts:

That same user is now creating many similar permastubs. Not from GNIS this time but by apparently iterating through an atlas and creating articles, based on this template for every place-name found there. Take a look at Corytheis. These one-line stubs probably will never be expanded, create an enormous amount of clutter, and who knows, maybe someone like you will be WP:AFDing them 11 years from now. --Cornellier (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ugggh. Probably not, actually, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the source used would most likely be claimed to confer notability. That said, side comments in an AfD discussion aren't going to have a positive effect. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but some of your effort has gotten it wrong.

Parishes and local service districts aren't the same thing. Some LSDs comprise an entire parish, but that's just a matter of overlap. Neither is really a settlement type but since the article is about the parish and not the LSD, parish should be what shows up as the ST if only for sake of consistency.

A parish includes any municipality or LSD that covers part of its territory, according to the Interpretation Act. Census subdivisions ignore this and just include parts that aren't in a municipality, which makes it more confusing to anyone who has a life.

For an extreme case, check out Shippegan Parish, which has something like a dozen LSDs (and part of another) and four municipalities.

If you want the fine details, the government of New Brunswick has the appropriate documents online.

• Territorial Division Act
• Interpretation Act
• Regulation 84-16

Apologies if I've missed something but I've only periodic internet and don't have time to go through and check every parish you've done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:G._Timothy_Walton the area that is the subject of Dufferin Parish, New Brunswick is three things:

• a division of Charlotte County Council, which hasn't existed since 1966, and which "anyone who has a life" doesn't care about
• the LSD that replaced it for local governance
• the federal census area.

All three should be documented and there's not enough material for three articles. So cover them in the same article. Obviously this could not work with Shippegan Parish, New Brunswick where the parish and the divisions for local government don't overlap. The Shippegan article is a good example of how these parish articles are unnecessarily obfuscating the present day reality.

• It has as settlement_type List of parishes in New Brunswick which doesn't even make sense. There's no article about NB parishes because they've mostly been replaced by LSDs.
• The infobox says the population is 4800 but then its map wrongly includes the excluded municipalities. The map should look this the one on the census profile.
• The communities list is wrong.

Bottom line, restricting every article about a NB parish to its 1966 definition and ignoring the LSD, while not explaining the relationship with census division and municipalities and the overall context is not helpful. Actually, it's downright confusing. --Cornellier (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, some confusion is lifted. You've misunderstood the nature of civil parishes in New Brunswick. (I don't have a life, so I understand a fair amount about NB governance.)

Parishes no longer exist as governments but still do exist as geographical divisions that are used for other purposes. The Territorial Division Act is still in effect; the parishes listed in it are what are covered in these Parish articles. Saint John, Fredericton, and the Town of Grand Falls are also listed in the TDA but only Saint John has its municipal boundaries match what's in the TDA.

Layered on top of that are the municipalities (Regulation 85-6), the regional municipality of Tracadie and the incorporated rural communities like Saint-André. They have governance powers and all their territory is still legally part of the parishes they occupy according to the Interpretation Act.

Local service districts (Regulation 84-168) contain almost everything else that isn't under federal control, like national parks, CFB Gagetown, and First Nations lands. LSDs have no governance powers and can't even own property anymore; they serve mainly as convenient units for collecting property taxes.

The Census Subdivisions are the municipalities, quasi-municipalities, and parishes. LSDs are the basis of Designated Places but the boundaries don't always match Regulation 84-168. Statistics Canada doesn't bother breaking down the municipalities and quasi-municipalities that extend into more than one parish so it's not always possible to get the true population of a parish, just the unincorporated parts.

The communities lists are in need of overhaul, true. The big problem here is that the 911 community names and boundaries were slapped on top of what people were already using and what was on the cadastral maps and had already fallen out of use. And then there're the spelling differences in use between different government departments (or even within the same document), the names Natural Resources Canada uses but New Brunswick doesn't, and so on... And then there are the taxing authorities (or taxation authorities, depending on the government document) which follow property lines rather than parish lines but mostly use the same names as the LSDs but sometimes have their own spellings.

Adding to this is the fact that only some LSDs are single communities while many comprise multiple commmunities; the parish of Madawaska at this point doesn't even have any communities within the LSD.

Bottom line, I think the more proper way to sort out the mess is to keep the parish articles consistent and then layer the extra information on top of that. I've never had the online time available to go through everything and make it consistent, though.

I'd like to say I've got a perfect solution here but I don't. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, User:G. Timothy Walton. What do you mean by "911 community names and boundaries"? Comments:

• You wrote that "LSDs ... serve mainly as convenient units for collecting property taxes" But it's a little more than that. LSD Advisory Committees can be formed.
• "keep the parish articles consistent". Great in theory, but all too often that's going to amount to forcing a round peg into a square hole. An example of the unsuitability of parishes for describing the divisions of NB is Grand Manan Parish. It originally comprised Grand Manan and its surrounding islands. When the Village of Grand Manan Island was incorporated, it included the main islands and all of the surrounding islands except White Head Island. So now Grand Manan Parish is limited to WH Island and does not include Grand Manan Island. Or look at Deer Island. We have an article about the island and another for West Isles Parish which are about, er, the same place. According to the article the West Isles LSD is often referred to as the Deer Island LSD.
• "I'd like to say I've got a perfect solution here but I don't." The goal isn't to come up with a perfect solution. The goal is to document the situation as it is. Trying to impose a rigid hierarchy and nomenclature on something that just isn't that logical and systematic is counterproductive. Let's try to describe the situation as we find it:
  • there's a place called White Head Island, it's administered as Grand Manan LSD, it's pop. is X
  • there's a place called Grand Manan, it's a village, it's pop. is Y
  • there's a place called Deer Island, it's administered as West Isles LSD, it's pop is Z

I've started a new section about this at WikiProject NB. --Cornellier (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that subject. I've contributed some of my thoughts over there.

• "911 communities and boundaries" refers to the reform of community names that was undertaken when the 911 emergency system became provincewide. A number of local communities were combined for 911 purposes and the names chosen don't always match up to any pre-existing name in an area (anecdotal, that last bit, as I've trusted the word of someone who was so affected rather than do the research myself). For the communities list, should we list the old names, the current 911 names, or a blend, possibly with deprecated names like those on cadastral maps noted?
• I've been studying the LSD system for about ten years and judging by the non-answers I've received to emails I sent to Local Government I may know more than many of their employees about the subject. Perhaps someday I'll find the time to do a timeline of the evolution of LSD powers and requirements in the Municipalities Act and the Local Government Act that superseded it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

it would also be interesting to put this in the context of the New Brunswick Equal Opportunity program and the RSCs.

I guess the revival of this topic belongs back here more than anywhere else.

I've read some of the updated articles and it still seems wrong to describe them primarily as local service districts. Today I finally remembered what was niggling at my memory.

Parishes predate the municipal county governments, which didn't come along until nearly a century after the province was created. Acting on the assumption that their only function was as part of county government does cause confusion.

Also, as local service districts are replaced by incorporation into municipalities or quasi-municipalities, it becomes necessary to completely rewrite the preamble to each article. If the provincial government ever succumbs to frustration and reworks the whole province that makes 152 articles that need to have their focus changed back to the parish as the primary unit.

Right now it looks like we're working towards a dozen standard articles and ~160 exceptions.

How about this for boilerplate: x Parish is a parish in y County, etc. etc. It functions as a local service district and is used as a census subdivision by Statistics Canada [then note any parts of the parish that belong to a municipality or quasi-municipality]; multi-LSD parishes could have something like the parish is divided into n local service districts. Would this be less clumsy and closer to what you are thinking of?

I also wonder if the text about parishes losing their major function in 1966 more properly belongs in a footnote.

Thoughts? I don't want to end up working at cross-purposes where we try to say much the same thing in different ways. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As a commenter wrote on Talk:St._Andrews,_New_Brunswick "hardly anyone [in NB] talks about parishes or even knows they exist [...] I'm not even sure if the parish should even have an article." and "Parishes are only mentioned within some genealogical/historical research circles and not relatively know by residents." So, in the current setup parishes are given undue importance. They exist in name only. They are historical subdivisions whose boundaries in some cases hang on as CSDs and LSDs. But it's not that simple:

• Grand Manan includes neither the island nor the village of the same name.
• St Andrews has been divided in two, and now confusingly the LSD and CSD do not include the much better known town of the same name.
• Pennfield is a subset of its former area, and is now divided into three CSDs and three local gov't jurisdictions.
• St Stephen does not include the well-known town of the same name. The part that excludes the town is now a single CSD, though local governance is provided by two different LSDs (I think).
• West Isles is a fraction of its former jurisdiction and could be merged with Deer Island.

So a "boiler plate" intro could only be done for the other parishes that are now single LSDs and CSDs that follow the historic boundaries. I agree that "about parishes losing their major function in 1966" could be toned down. Dufferin is fairly simple one, take a look at the format and let me know what you think. I find the "Dufferin Parish is a parish" intro style to suffer from being a self-referential definition. I understand that there is a desire to standardize the articles' format, and these are now different from the rest of NB, but at least they're no longer geographically wrong. --Cornellier (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good morning! I've been impressed with the great improvements you've been making to Grand Manan over the last few weeks and was surprised to see that you rolled them all back yesterday. Why so? Any chance you'll reverse the rollback?

I noticed you've also rolled back your (to me) very constructive and clarifying edit to Grand Manan Parish, New Brunswick. That (now restored) article is baffling, as is its being a link from the GM article infobox.

I see there is a discussion going on about how to cover NB political geography in Wikipedia. It's a bit arcane for me but based on the results I think you're on the right track! HazelAB (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Good morning HazelAB! Thanks very much for your thoughts, it means a lot to me :) Sorry for the bafflement! The rollbacks should be temporary. What happened is that as I worked on these articles I came to realize that there is a large problem with the general definitions and structure of all the geo (e.g. is GM an island, a village or a parish?). I had a bit of polite pushback from some other editors. So I started a conversation on the project page. I did the rollbacks so that I could use the state of the old articles as examples in our discussions of how to move forward. Once we figure that out I'll rollback my rollbacks. --Cornellier (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! All the best, HazelAB (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked this one out today, and there are some factual errors.

• The parish didn't become a local service district until 1969 when ambulance service ("community services") when local funeral homes stopped providing ambulance service. (Regulation 69-17; also "St. Stephen - Milltown Ambulance Brigade" in Municipal Monthly Volume 25 No. 3, page 5)
• The abolition of the county councils took place with the Municipalities Act of 1966, not 1968.
• The RSC is called Southwest New Brunswick Service Commission; Regional does not appear in the name. (This is the only RSC that lacks Regional in its English name)

Only 41 LSDs were created immediately following the abolition of county councils; the last of the parish LSDs was created in 1985.

I'm not going to bother trying to salvage this mess. You broke it, you fix it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually I was deliberately vague about the creation date of the LSD since I didn't know it. I just said it was "after the abolition of county councils". I can't find a reference online for "Regulation 69-17; also "St. Stephen - Milltown Ambulance Brigade" in Municipal Monthly Volume 25 No. 3, page 5". Can you give me a link, or is it paper only?

"Municipalities Act of 1966" fixed, with reference, and on other pages. 1968 was a one-off typo on that page.

RSC fixed, with reference. Also others.

It's late now, I'll take another look tomorrow morning.--Cornellier (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the frustration. Heat wave, etc.

Creation dates for all the LSDs are on the List of Local Service Districts page last I looked. The appropriate Regulations should still be referenced there as well. Great, just remembered I need to clean up the references on that page.

Municipal Monthly and its successor Municipal Journal (title change 1969) isn't available online; I have scans of the proper pages from all issues that were microfilmed - most of the missing issues are from after 1966 (of course). Film available from Provincial Archives of New Brunswick, don't have the reel number to hand.

I have 200+ scans of the pre-2000 Regulations from Royal Gazette as well as the original consolidating Regulations of 1974 and 1984; all RGs beginning in 2000 are available as PDFs from the Government of New Brunswick site and changes are indexed. Note that the current government removed the requirement to publish Regulations in RG in 2019.

Municipalities Act has been replaced by Local Governance Act as of start of 2018 but I haven't done an in-depth readthrough yet. LGA is on the GNB site. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I updated the Charlotte County pages with creation dates and used refs from the list of parishes. Thanks for your edits to Campobello Island. --Cornellier (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be interested in this proposal. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up I don't have skiing on my watch anymore. I'll take a look and comment there. --Cornellier (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The change was not "patent nonsense." Please refer to the province's Interpretation Act, which states that “parish” includes any local government that is within the limits of a parish, and the Territorial Division Act, in which the only municipality separated from its parish is Grand Falls.

I'll meld something at my convenience from your actual improvements and other information that's accurate. Refer to Saint Croix Parish for an example of what these can look like, and links to stuff for those who care to refer to the source material.

But short form for now:

• The Parish of Grand Manan Census subdivision includes only the LSD of White Head Island. It is not the civil parish.
• The civil parish includes the village.
• Census subdivisions are not a government form.
• Census divisions, etc. are federal statistical entities. Parishes are provincial legal entities. This article is supposed to be about the provincial legal entity. The fact they share names means only that they share names. That and nothing more.

And I really should have put in a reference to Census subdivisions in the preamble. Mea culpa.

You really seem to misunderstand the status of parishes in relation to LSDs and the census. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You should read the parable of Blind men and an elephant. It certainly fits this fixation on Census subdivisions or local service districts being what's important in describing parishes. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In this case, a hatnote about a subject you've shown gross misunderstanding of because WP:UNDUE. Village and the parish surrounding it, seems reasonable to cross-hatnote the two, regardless of whether there are other places in other provinces or countries with the same name - that's why the disambiguation page was included for other uses.

You've already shown an inability to understand the subject matter of New Brunswick civil parishes. Reverting simply because you don't like sourced material that proves you wrong is pettiness unbefitting an editor.

If this continues, I may take it to the Disruptive user noticeboard. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton: Thank you for the feedback. Note that linking to the parish in the hatnote is contrary to WP:HAT, as explained at the talk page Kindly note also that the wheels of Wikipedia are greased by civility, and the avoidance of ad hominem attacks. --Cornellier (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cornellier

Thank you for creating Pont Leclerc.

User:Alexandermcnabb, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Perhaps worth adding a project tag on the talk page and maybe finishing the translation of the infobox! :)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! In case you have ping notifications turned off, I wanted to let you know I've proposed an improved Techtronic Industries article at the bottom of Talk:Techtronic Industries. I was hoping you'd be willing to take a look since you helped previously, but if you're not interested I'll try to find other editors or relevant WikiProjects for assistance. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: Done. Keep up the good work! --Cornellier (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I plan to have another update for the article soon, and hopefully it'll be just as easy to review and implement. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! I was hoping you might be able to review this request to update the entry again, given your very helpful assistance last time. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I just replied re: "Bloomberg July2006". Inkian Jason (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Some of what you're calling non-notable does have group pages on WP. More appropriate to link to the group page, which I should have done. A better contribution would be linking to such pages. Or you could leave them there long enough for me to go through them in the next few days and put in the wikilinks.
2. The provincial government is still using parish boundaries for some administrative functions by Department of Education, Natural Resources (whatever it's called now) and in numerous regulations and Acts. They're not used for governance, so calling them a defunct governance unit might be accurate, but administrative is not.
3. The duplicate reference to the List of Parishes article should be deleted across all such articles. Feel free - it's not a priority for me.
4. "The sadly irrelevant List of parishes in New Brunswick" may breach WP:NEUTRALITY. I've commented on your level of understanding of the subject area in the past and stand by my comments. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

1. What is a "group page"?
2. Interested. Please provide references.
3. "it's not a priority" contradictory to your turninG WP into a gazeteer with additions of non notable islands to the geographical constraints of parishes, etc.
4. I appologise for my outburst, and revoke the word "sadly" and hope you will accept "the irrelevant List of parishes in New Brunswick". One waits for your proof that a list of parishes of NB is useful to anybody. I'm talking about more than one person. Of whom one is not you. --Cornellier (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Pages like List of airports in New Brunswick and List of protected areas of New Brunswick. I've seen some articles with lists that wikilink to specific articles where they occur and to the general page where they don't.
2. Game refuges and wildlife management areas comes to mind. I did include it as a reference where they occurred in the parish articles.
3. Priorities are things like working in local service districts and boundary evolution. Some things are highly labour-intensive, some can be done as mass-production. The gazetteer comment I'll concede; some flaws don't become readily apparent until well into a series of edits and by then it's easier to finish and makes fixes as other things are worked in.
4. I do not accept "the irrelevant List of parishes in New Brunswick" The fact they are still in use by government means that they are useful. Genealogists still require knowledge of them and the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick uses them for their family research guides.

An editor at the administrator level asked for an explanation of the difference between Coverdale Parish and the communities of Coverdale, Lower Coverdale, etc. He suggested the model of English parishes, in which the various communities are listed with the parish. Given how little information of any significance is available for the various small communities and LSDs of New Brunswick, would you see value in such a model? Many of the articles on such communities amount to nothing more than their general existence and location; many of the LSDs would amount to nothing more in their articles than their location, boundaries, creation date, and services, since none of their histories actually extend back past 1966. A paragraph in a larger article makes more sense to me than a slew of single-paragraph articles with numerous empty categories. Given the current premier's penchant for bad ideas poorly implemented, (yes, not WP:NEUTRALITY) the possibility of LSDs being abolished in the name of cost-reduction is not farfetched. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Cornellier, I won’t template you because you’ve been around longer than I have been. Let me know what is going on in West Hants that requires the page to be moved back. The Town of Windsor and the Municipality of the District of West Hants apparently amalgamated last year. I think I saw it occur on April 1, which makes me wonder, as I type this, if this was an April Fool’s Day joke that someone bit on and went unnoticed for over a year!? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing by this recent council agenda that they are officially referring to themselves as "West Hants Regional Municipality". Hwy43 (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: well, I'll be dipped. Hants County, Nova Scotia, among many others, makes no mention of the change and says the historical county is divided into two district municipalities. I've seen it written in WP so many times that there are three Regional Municipalities, I believed it to be true. I've just undone a change I'd done to Template:Subdivisions_of_Nova_Scotia and updated Hantsport, List of former municipalities of Nova Scotia, List of towns in Nova Scotia, Demographics of Nova Scotia, List of communities in Nova Scotia, Municipality of the District of East Hants, and Hants County, Nova Scotia. --Cornellier (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

...at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Move to: Cross-country ski competition?. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cornellier. You may wish to add more to the discussion at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Requested move 12 January 2022. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Cornellier, you are invited to participate in a ranked-choice poll at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Ranked-choice poll of alternatives offered, which may help arrive at a consensus among the choices discussed. I have set up an opportunity for you to do so. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Westwind 24‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Ahunt, as the reverter who started it all with this revert, be advised to read and understand WP:BADREVERT and WP:OWNERSHIP. Cornellier (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Danise and I work for the hot tub brand [Jacuzzi]]. The current page on the company is only a few paragraphs long. It also has some trivia and citation issues. I'd like to propose an expanded draft for an impartial editor to review in compliance with Wikipedia's WP:COI policy. I saw that you were one of the largest contributors to the Hot Tub page and was hoping you might be willing to take a look. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Best regards. Danise Danise Lopes (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Danise Lopes. First up, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you so much for this contribution. At a quick glance your draft looks like a big improvement. Nice work! I'll take a look and edit the draft, if necessary. The prognosis for updating Jacuzzi is excellent! If I have any comments I'll make them at the talk page for your draft. Cornellier (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Full fathom five (catchphrase) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing that. I believe what is actually needed here is a WP:REDIR to Ariel's Song and a reduction in unreferenced content per the WP:POPCULTURE tag you added. --Cornellier (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. I've done that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Less than a minute's effort to find out that NOTHING SIGNIFICANT HAS CHANGED with almost every municipality you've chosen to delink in the name of checking whether anything's changed. Indefensible. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"NOTHING SIGNIFICANT HAS CHANGED". Your hectoring tone might be reconsidered, per WP:CIVIL. The new entities are not the same as the old ones and cannot just be linked willy-nilly, as you wish to do. For example, Edmundston states "On 1 January 2023, Edmundston will expanded" (sic), rendering your above statement "indefensibly" false. Be that as it may, I recommend that you take this to the talk page of the page in question.Thanks for taking the time to give some feedback. --Cornellier (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'd consulted the regulation defining municipalities, you'd have seen that annexing an adjacent area is not considered forming a new community. Regardless, delinking something because you don't think anyone should see it until you've finished is not the proper way to handle updating out-of-date information.

The hectoring tone is born of previous dealings with your unwillingness to learn sufficiently about a subject before deleting information. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cornellier! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at J/24 that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggest in future comments you provide a link to the actual revision. I assume you're talking about this: the link label said v-berth, the target was Berth (sleeping). This is Wikipedia:EASTEREGG. Pointed the link to berth. I don't agree this "changes the meaning of an article" but I'm open to arguments about it. Cornellier (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear since it shows what edits you mark as minor, namely the ones that were reverted several times and therefore clearly not minor edits. You did the same on Njörðr, where you are also engaging in edit warring as noted below. TylerBurden (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Njörðr. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Re. your initial reversion, please see Revert only when necessary. Re. your subsequent activities, it is noted that you slapped this template here while you yourself did three consecutive reverts to my two. Re. date formats, I do believe my arguments have merit, and will seek another forum in which to advance them. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Cornellier (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You are altering the stable version of the article, so it is on you to gain WP:CON. When you're reverted on Wikipedia, you discuss your proposals, you don't try to brute force it through edit warring. You have been around long enough that you should know that. TylerBurden (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J/24, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing topics related to an article from the category named after the article. Please see WP:EPONYMOUS. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I was about to do so, thanks. I'm a little new to categories. I'm trying to make the sailboat categories a little more systematic. Cornellier (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I think the addition of by length categories (Category:20-foot keelboats) can be helpful but it needs an explanation of what to be included. Is it boats 20≤LOH<21, 19.5<LOH≤20.5 or boats named 20 something? Even though the middle would be the scientific meaning of 20 foot I think the first one is the one usually considered within the sailing and boating world. I would say choose one of the former two and make it systematic with explanatory text at the top of the category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

One could also only categorise the articles (not the eponymous categories) by length and move the eponymous categories to Category:Sailing by class as the contents are racing-related. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

About your last comment, that is (I think) what I was trying to do. So would Category:Keelboats only contain actual boats as children? Would you mind giving me a concrete example?

About the eponymous categories, my goal was to apply the WP:CATEGORY rule "Pages (and subcategories) should not usually be placed in both a given category and any of its subcategories or parent categories." Thanks for pointing out that eponymous categories are an exception to this. Hope I got that right.

About the length suggestion, I agree more precision is needed. The marketing name won't be objective. 19.5 ft < LOA ≤ 20.5 ft is mathematically tidy but it doesn't match real-world practice by harbour masters and lock masters. So 20≤LOH<21 it is. Please see Category:20-foot_keelboats and let me know if you agree with how I've implemented it. Note I think the explanatory text is too long for the short description, and we can let that stand. Cornellier (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the wording works. Based on WP:EPONYMOUS, I would say, in Category:20-foot keelboats, it's more relevant to have the article Melges 20 than the category Category:Melges 20. All [boat type] categories foremost deal with racing and are accessible through Category:Sailing classes. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear, it would also include keeping Melges 20 in the Melges 20 category so that the article is a member of Category:Melges 20 and Category:20-foot keelboats but the category is not a member of Category:20-foot keelboats. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah OK please give me a sec to try to do it that way! Cornellier (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

We now have

• Melges 20 (the boat) is a member of Category:Melges 20 and Category:20-foot keelboats
• Category:Melges 20 is not a member of Category:20-foot keelboats.

Cornellier (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:21-foot keelboats indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you help me understand your category organization work that leads to the removal of the category Skipjacks from all articles that concern .., skipjacks? I’m sure I’m missing something, but it seems to me a logical assumption that an unambiguous and well-defined category should be used to straightforwardly ease finding for a reader looking for other instances. Individual sailing vessels is fine as a category, but on its own is far from specific. What am I missing? Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: I share your opinion that everything under the category Sailboats is a mess, so thank you for your efforts there. One thing that has irked me specifically about categories is the use of "ships" to describe things shown to the level of a log canoe. I realize that the line between ship and boat is hard to define, but since we're on the topic of skipjacks, I would never call a 70-odd-foot one-masted vessel made from five logs a "ship," but our category trees iare too daunting to alter that (for me at least). Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, you added the addendum as I was typing my first reply. Thanks. I agree the “ship” vs. “boat” distinction is fuzzy, and in everyday nautical usage many vessels that end up in “ship” categories on Wikipedia would never be called ships. Untangling that would be a much larger structural project, cutting across several long-standing category trees.

My focus here was narrower: keeping type hierarchies under Category:Sailboat types distinct from articles about individual vessels, regardless of what higher-level label is used for those individual-vessel categories. More generally, I’ve been doing some incremental clean-up across the sailboat category tree to make the type/class/individual distinctions more consistent, and this change is part of that same effort.

I agree the broader terminology used needs work, but that's probably best handled as a separate discussion. Cornellier (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, thanks for raising this; it’s a reasonable question, and the distinction isn’t always obvious.

The key point is the type vs. instance distinction that Wikipedia categories are expected to maintain.

In the hierarchy Category:Sailboats > Category:Sailboat types, the intent is to group types of boats, not individual vessels. A skipjack is a sailboat type, so the article describing that type appropriately belongs in Sailboat types. However, articles about individual extant skipjacks are not themselves types, so placing them in the same hierarchy conflates two different kinds of things.

This follows guidance at WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT: categories should be based on what the subject is, not merely what it exemplifies. The same pattern applies elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, under

Category:Sailing rigs and rigging > Category:Schooners, we do not include notable individual schooners (such as Bluenose), because the category is about the rig type, not specific ships that happen to use it.

For readers who want to find individual boats, that function is served by the parallel hierarchy Category:Individual sailing vessels, which can (and should) be subdivided geographically, historically, or by function as needed. That preserves discoverability without blurring the type hierarchy. In any case, I believe navigation to the individual boats from Skipjack_(boat) is preserved in the section Remaining skipjacks.

In short, the change wasn’t meant to make skipjacks harder to find, but to keep category boundaries consistent and predictable: types with types; individual vessels with individual vessels. Cornellier (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's roughly what I though was the plan. I'll ponder a little on that, you are braver and more patient than I am. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)