User talk:Safyrr

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Quebec

added links pointing to Brunswick, Lawrence, Lowell, Lewiston, Nashua and Hearst

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this template. However I am concerned that the scope of the template is winding to become too broad. Was originally about the contested aspects of Canadian identity (bilingualism, multiculturalism, federalism), not every potential symbol that some Canadians might like (parks, hockey, maple syrup). Can we agree to keep it focused on the debate on Canadian identity, rather than on all the components of Canadian culture broadly defined? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlar67: I agree that the template is a little too big and would benefit from some trimming. As for this template being about the debate on Canadian identity, well I had no idea. Its called "Canadian identity", not "Debate on Canadian identity", so I thought about things are used to define Canada and Canadianess and thought it was weird they seemed absent. I think it would be good to rename the template if its supposed to be about the debate on Canadian identity, rather than Canadian identity itself. Safyrr (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well... saying that the template should be renamed is interesting. I kind of though that since Canadians spend so much time agonizing about identity, it went without saying that it is a debate and not a settled matter, but maybe not. The template hasn't always been named as it is now, either. It used to be very narrowly about multiculturalism and bilingualism (see ) but I thought that it was "taking a side" by being titled "Template"multiculturalism in Canada", since that's only one possible answer to the question: "What kind of country is Canada?" It think an encyclopedia should mention when experts have taken a strong position one way or another, but be careful not declare the question resolved. Anyway, think that there's lots of different ways we could approach it and I'm happy to discuss them further before we make a decision. But I think we agree it's getting a bit long in the current form. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlar67: Yeah, I also think we could go on for a while talking about all the different other identities that can appear in Canada :P. If it helps, I personally see "Canadian identity" as a single identity (simultaneously: the feeling of belonging to Canada, believing in Canadian values, acting like other Canadians and being a citizen) upon which other identities can be tacked on. For example, your average Acadian of New Brunswick, will usually have 4 layers: Acadian (national), New Brunswicker (provincial), Francophone (linguistic) and Canadian (country). But, of course, that is just my perspective. When it comes to removing content, I think the "International relations" part can be cut because its not really that important. I can also remove all of the sports teams and trim the language politics. I think the challenges a country is currently facing shapes culture in an important way, but I can understand if you think that should be removed. After that, what we should remove, I think, depends on the angle we want to take. If we want to talk about the singular Canadian identity, then I could cut out a lot of politics, and if we want to talk about the debate on identity side more, than I can remove some things like the "Landmarks, parks and nature" section. What do you think? Safyrr (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombardier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free state.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please respond at Talk:Quebec#Amerindian. By the way I see that User:Safyrr says "almost done translating from the French page" for Quebec. As per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects you are required to attribute that the material was copied over. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Will try to replace the tertiary sources which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference in the Quebec article. ....this may take time and also result in the removal of content.--Moxy- 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy:You should specify what content you want to remove and why Safyrr (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quebec sovereignty movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Nationale.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your recent change to the Generation article, I'm not objecting to adding the pseudoscience template, but that your edit (currently reverted by another editor) also changes "Millennials" to "Snake People" and makes similar changes throughout. You do know this, right? 01:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad. I thought you might be one of these people who really believes in this and I would have to wip out some science lol. It seems that one of my extensions was changing the text without me noticing. So no, I did not know this Safyrr 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Quebec into Ontario. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa, all of this text on Quebec was originally written by me. Are you saying I should be crediting myself? Safyrr 17:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's optional if you wrote the copied prose, but it may have been edited in the meantime by other people, so it's a good idea to do so regardless. It's also helpful to patrollers such as myself. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok Safyrr 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Safyrr! This is about an edit from almost 2 years ago, so perhaps these are things you know by now, but as both are rather subtle points, I thought I'd take a moment to discuss them. First, just so you know, on the English Wikipedia metadata about translation from other editions goes on the talkpage (or just in the article history). You may be familiar with other editions where such information goes in the references or external links section, and arguably that would be more consistent for us to do that, since we do it with public-domain copying and all other copyleft copying, but for whatever reason we make an exception for our sister projects. I've moved the attribution to Talk:Quebec and templatized it. Also, just so you know, phrasing like "its French-language counterpart" arguably runs afoul of MOS:SELFREF, which says that Wikipedia articles should not acknowledge that they are Wikipedia articles. ("This article" is fine though.)

Anyways, keep up the good work and happy editing! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin! I remember making that edit 2 years ago because someone else told me that we need to put authorship attribution in the references section. (And yeah, I've been doing it that way ever since.) They knew I had translated the information, but I think they may not have known that it was from the French wikipedia article specifically.

Anyway, while it's true my account is 2 years old, there are still many guidelines I don't about so I appreciate! I still translate from the French wiki sometimes too, so I'll be sure to put this kind of info in the talk page from now on. Safyrr 14:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Quebec, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sucre à la crème, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sucre à la crème, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Safyrr: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz(T) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, wishing you a happy 2024 as well Safyrr 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Safyrr. Thank you for your work on Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Safyrr 02:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Safyrr. Thank you for your work on Housing crisis in Quebec. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank very much you as well Safyrr 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Really nice work on your recent species of Canada lists. Beautifully formatted with all the right details (including the range maps). Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 😃 It took a lot of work to do all of this, I'm glad you appreciated the pictures and ranges. Safyrr 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You made your point—frankly, you're making it too well. You know what you're doing, so stop. Thanks. Remsense 🌈 论 16:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Seriously. It's going to be just as obvious to others as it is to me. Fair and final warning. Remsense 🌈 论 16:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You're warning me? Lol 😆

I think you have been on this website too long. Be respectful of others trying to add to Wikipedia and add your reasoning with reversions. And get off the computer every once in a while, it helps with mental health. Safyrr 16:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If I didn't deserve it at least a little, I wouldn't be doing damage control here. Have a good one, genuinely. Remsense 🌈 论 16:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cuisine of Quebec, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The history sections have cn templates so a cn template on the top of the article is not neeeded. I also see no discusssion related to pov so I removed that.Doug Weller talk 14:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

When the entire history section is unsourced and written by anglophones -people historically against Quebec sovereignty- it is pretty safe to say it is not neutral. This needs to be remedied before the template is removed. Furthermore, the article stills needs information to be translated and transferred from the French article since it is more informative, so don't know why you would remove that, @Doug Weller. Some users have been in process of doing that, especially in the addition of survey results and sympathetic organizations since the addition of that label. Safyrr 15:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s only your assumption that it was written by anglophones, you have no evidence for that. And I see you haven’t discussed this on the talk page. How you believe I removed the bit about the French article is beyond me as I clearly did not. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You removed every part of the template, the citations needed and translation desired stuff included. Also, why would I talk about this in the talk page? You are the one who removed it without consulting anyone a month ago. That template was there for years before that. I just restored the page to what it was before.

As for the anglophone assumption, @Doug Weller, it is a fair assumption. This is the English language Wikipedia and this is a Canada-related article. So, it is most likely heavily edited by Anglo-Canadians. If I look at the history of the edits now, I can see several authors appear to be Canadian. Think of it like this: it would be like me going to Conservapedia, and then go to the page "History of the Democrats in the United States" and then thinking "this is probably written by conservative Americans". It would be a fair assumption for me to think that. And if roughly half of the "History of the Democrats" article is unsourced, like this Quebec sovereignty movement article is currently, it would also be fair for me to think that that article is probably biased against the Democrats. But, if the Conservapedia article did have ample sourcing to back up each claim, then I would feel there is no need to tag it as biased. Safyrr 21:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User:Doug Weller. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Going through your talk page, you have a clear history of these "get off of Wikipedia" personal attacks. They need to stop, they are not appropriate at all. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Your notion that the article Quebec was written by Anglophones is merely a wild guess. Anybody can edit any article - they don't have to be Canadian at all, as Doug Weller is not, nor anglophone, as I am not. What you consider "fair assumptions" have no business on Wikipedia — please stick to facts. As for your notion that Doug Weller removed what you call "a series of template" a month ago, it's pure invention. I checked the article history myself, and AFAICS, the last time Doug Weller edited it was in 2011. Provide a diff of your own, or stop throwing out wild non-facts.

Worse, your false notion that Doug removed something from the article apparently inspired you to attack him, here and also in this edit summary. I really don't know if all this comes from lack of competence on your part or just random assumptions of bad faith. In any case, you have been blocked for 72 hours for aspersions and personal attacks. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 18:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC).

Having checked further, I see that the conflict was not about the article Quebec, but the article Quebec sovereignty movement, which Doug Weller has indeed edited. It's still not true that he removed the {{Expand French|topic=gov|Souverainisme_au_Québec|date=January 2024}} template, though. That was Moxy, here. Sorry for the mistake, but it makes little difference in practice; your accusations against Doug Weller remain untrue, and your insults egregious, so the block stands. Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC).

Who are you exactly?? And what are you talking about??? I reverted his removal of templates he did a month ago, then he started harassing me on my own page. I never insulted him or attacked him? Why in the world did you just assume things before checking the actual history of our interactions? This user, as @LuniZunie appears to have discovered, has a history of personal attacks and told him to stop. And you just decided he was right to act the way he did? You decide to assume all sorts of things about me before even checking the history the page itself? You even had the wrong page in mind, thinking it was Quebec instead of the Quebec sovereignty movement. Apologies are in order. Safyrr 02:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly, support a block here, after reading through your edits, I would have sent you straight to WP:ANI if I hadn't already sent a warning. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, Safyrr, you are the one who has the personal attacks, not Doug Weller. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Well thank you User:LuniZunie, you're making me feel relieved I'm not going crazy, haha. Though this other user, User:Bishonen, has blocked me without doing any proper investigation into what happened, probably because they are best friends with User:Doug Weller and just believed everything they said or assumed automatically they behaved properly. I have also never been blocked before, or had to report someone, so I don't know what process to follow here. Safyrr 02:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

And what personal attack happened here? Can you cite what was a personal attack? Safyrr 02:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest taking a step back for a while, emotions are high after a block. I would also tell you to go back and read your comments, and act like you are the one receiving it, and see how it feels to have those comments to be made towards you. Then, and only then, you can proceed with an unblock request. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bishonen and here we go again. You may be too involved for a block now, but I'll let you decide on wether this warrants requesting a longer block or not. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I have received much worse from random wikipedians. So, I would appreciate it if you could just be clear about what this deranged user thought was a personal attack. Safyrr 02:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Safyrr Anything that comments on the person and not the content should not be made. You need to stop. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok like? Why can't you be specific... You know that not getting an explanation looks sketchy. Safyrr 02:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling people "Deranged", or telling them to go touch grass, or telling them they are a "loser", are all personal attacks. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah alright, so I guess every time someone said something like that to me I should have reported them? You know the same and worse is everywhere on this website. Safyrr 02:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Just because you think someone else is rude does not mean you get to be, they will eventually be sanctioned just like you are now. Would you commit murder just because someone else got away with it? – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

No, but over the years, I assumed it was a rather normal style of communication here. With how others editors to me at times. Wikipedia is known for toxicity too. As for sanctionned, I won't hold my breath personnally. I know that the older wikipedians, like User:Doug Walker, get away with a lot. This account wasn't made yesterday. Safyrr 03:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

From what I see, Doug Weller was nice to you until you started making things personal. And no, we are not known for calling people losers and deranged and telling them to go outside and get a life. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had the wrong article in mind at first; I have already apologized for that. For the rest, you seem to have difficulty following what I said. When a word or expression is blue, that means it's a link which you are supposed to click on. For instance, when I wrote " your false notion that Doug removed something from the article apparently inspired you to attack him, here and also in this edit summary", you can click on the words "here" and "this edit summary" to see your attacks that I'm talking about. After your further attacks and egregious misunderstandings above, I have removed your ability to edit this page. You are pretty lucky not to be indefinitely blocked. Bishonen | tålk 03:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC).