User talk:Veillg1

Hello and thank you

Hello Veillg1 - yesterday I copy-edited an article you started here on this project about Lake Missionary. Thanks very much for translating it from French Wikipedia. I see that you have made several translations this year, and they are all appreciated. I enjoyed working on the Missionary Lake article, and would be very happy to do some copy-editing on other articles you have translated. It is my plan over the coming months to check your contributions here and do this copy-editing. I wanted to let you know about this before I start so that you would not feel I was trying to interfere with your work.

If you have any questions or thoughts, please let me know on my talk page. It is very nice to have this set of articles about such a beautiful and important part of Québec. Risker (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that, now that I have completed a different longterm project, I have now started work on copy-editing articles related to the Mauricie. If you have any particular articles you would like me to work on, please let me know. In the meantime, I will start with this list. One quick note: When researching the article initially named "Lordship of Triton", I did a bit of research, and everything in both English and French that I could find referred to it as "La Seigneurie du Triton", so I have moved the article. The word "seigneurie" is not an easy translation from French to English, but the word Manor comes closest; however, I could not find any sources that use that term.

Thank you again for all of the work you have done in translating and transferring these articles from French Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bostonnais for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bostonnais 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/Bostonnais 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. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia does not create disambiguation pages to comprehensively list every single article that has a given word in its title, as you did at Bostonnais; we create disambiguation pages only to direct readers to the correct choice among pages that could potentially compete for the same title. That is, the only reason for Bostonnais to exist as a disambiguation page would be if there were two or more pages that could potentially be placed at the exact title "Bostonnais" — but according to our actual naming conventions, there are none and the page is thus not necessary or valuable at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Rivière Matawin (Hamlet)

Hi, I'm CaroleHenson. Veillg1, thanks for creating Rivière Matawin (Hamlet)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great article! The next steps are to add some more references and link it to other articles.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. CaroleHenson (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve La Trenche Generating Station

Hi, I'm Moonchïld9. Veillg1, thanks for creating La Trenche Generating Station!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Only reference is a dead link (on my computer :(, may not be on yours)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Moonchïld9 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zec Dumoine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zec Dumoine 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/Zec Dumoine 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hello, I have taken notice of your edits on multiple disambiguation pages. From your editing style, I could see you come from French Wikipedia where the governance of such pages is completely different (not to say almost absent).

English Wikipedia on the contrary uses a strict set of guidelines for disambiguation pages. Can I ask you to have a look at WP:DDD for a short summary.

In short, could you make sure:

Only to include ONE, and exactly one blue link per line. So only one item per entry should be linked with a blue link.
Do not pipe entries on dab pages.
Please do not use the keyword homonymy nor create redirects called Foo (homonymy). That keyword is not being used on WP.EN. We use disambiguation and explicit redirects to dab pages are called Foo (disambiguation). So don't use it in hatnotes such as {{For|homonymy|Foo (disambiguation)}}. So either replace the word homonymy with something more descriptive, or easier, use the {{other}} template.

Thank you for your consideration. --Midas02 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East River

Yes, there are indeed other East Rivers in the world, and we even have an article on at least one of them, but, practically speaking, the East River in New York City is the best known, and therefore the primary subject of that phrase. If you disagree, please open a discussion on Talk:East River. You'll find instructions for how to open a Request Move (RM) discussion on WP:RM. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of Quebec

Bonjour Gaétan, je travaille à la création d'un tableau des affluents et sous-affluents de la rivière l'Assomption en utilisant la liste des rivières du Québec. J'ai remarqué que les cours d'eau y sont classés à partir de la confluence principale selon leur confluence rive droite puis rive gauche. Dans le tableau j'ai classé les confluences rive gauche en ordre inverse de leur confluence afin de créer une boucle pour chacun des sous-affluents. Ainsi, lorsqu'on suit la séquence on fait le tour des sous-bassins et du bassin principale, à partir de la confluence principale, de la rive droite vers la rive gauche pour finalement revenir à la confluence principale. Qu'en penses-tu ? --YB ^✍ 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translations and attributions

Hello, when you translate an article from French Wikipedia, please remember to add the translation attribution template to the talk page. Also, please add an edit comment explaining the translation and the originating source on French Wikipedia.

The translation attribution template is called {{Translated page}}

Attribution is needed to comply with WP:WCW requirements on Wikipedia due to WP:COPYRIGHT -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should say WP:CWW -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batiscanie has been nominated for discussion

Category:Batiscanie, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled right

Hi Veillg1, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! œ^™ 07:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Autopatrolled right. Veillg1 (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Rivière à l'Orme) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Rivière à l'Orme, Veillg1!

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

Please stop adding hatnotes which do not meet WP:HATNOTE.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boleyn for your specific feedback and for monitoring Wikipedia's content. The hatnote is a subject that deserves to be discussed. Hatnotes are widely used in languages other than English; reluctantly, the hatnotes are often erased in the project in English. Erasing hatnotes in English reduces my search efficiency; while in French the hatnotes help me to go faster in research and to find appropriate links. In geography, place names often appear similar or identical; thus, the hatnotes make it possible to validate similar place names. Let's put in perspective that the hatnote is generally useful when referring to an article of disambiguation. The hatnote facilitates navigation on Wikipedia. As WP becomes larger, it will be necessary to use the hatnotes. I hope that hatnotesless fans understand that hatnotes are very useful for many Wikipedia users. Hoping that in English, WP adopts the policy of promoting the hatnotes such in other languages as they are necessary for navigation. Veillg1 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muy 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/Muy 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. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article "Muy" is a based on a French family name. This term has many uses: lake, river, commune of France, persons, an acronym for Moscow Airport, a village of Nicaragua, a township, a magazine, an album, an actor, a mountain in Mexico, a watercourse in Nicaragua... That means this page is a reference for writing new articles in different languages. This disambiguation page help the readers to navigate through WP. We hope that WP will continue to support the initiatives of creation of disambiguation pages. Blocking creation may discourage WP writers.Veillg1 (talk) 4:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Layout of lake and river articles

Hi there. I noticed you're creating a lot of articles on lakes, rivers and other water features. This is really good work, it's very much appreciated. I just wanted to reach out to you on two things I noticed in the articles that pose some layout issues to users.

Firstly columns are only useful if the information being presented is short and succinct, like lists of names etc. In the articles there is prose in the Geography section that is difficult to read for the reader, especially on a mobile device, due to the columns. So I would ask that you don't put such information in columns.

Second the See also section should only be for items that are not already linked in the article. I noticed that the majority of the See alsos were already linked in the main article, therefore shouldn't be listed again per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Additionally if an article doesn't yet exist (redlink) then it shouldn't be in the See also section.

That's all, just wanted to bring these up as you're creating a lot of these articles (which is good.) Keep up the good work. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail. Thanks for your feedback. Your role on Wikipedia is helpful and appreciated. It is good to discuss these issues in looking for a common methodology. Let put in perspectives that you are referring to small-screen devices (eg smartphones) with which users have difficulty reading certain texts with columns. I use my cellphone daily to read on Wikipedia. Sometime, if necessary I turn the device 90 degrees; and that's usually enough.

In counterpart, many texts without columns are difficult to read on large screens. In particular, dyslectic or older readers have difficulty reading long lines of text then trying to connect to the beginning of the next line. If newspapers had only one column, they would be very difficult to read and unpleasant to read.

In short, Wikipedia can not accommodate both large screen users and users of small screens. Nevertheless, I wish the computer experts find a solution to automatically accommodate both situations. Gaétan Veillette 01:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

East-west

In addition to the points made by Reywas92 immediately above, I'd like to point out that in articles such as Petite rivière Jean-Boivin and Jean-Boivin River you've used east longitudes rather than west longitudes in the coordinates. Please remember to use a hyphen before the decimal numeral for west longitudes. Also, use |display=inline,title only for the mouth coordinates of rivers, not for both the mouth and source coordinates, since there should be only one set of coordinates displaying in the title position. Deor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonald River (Quebec)

I saw you moved MacDonald River (Quebec) to MacDonald River (Côte-Nord), since there is another MacDonald River in Desbiens in Quebec. That is fine. You then blanked MacDonald River (Quebec). That caused a serious problem, since we now had about 100 pages pointing to the blanked page, and none to MacDonald River (Côte-Nord).

I have changed MacDonald River (Quebec) to a disambiguation page to MacDonald River (Côte-Nord) and MacDonald River (Métabetchouane River), and started to clean up the links so they point direct to MacDonald River (Côte-Nord). You may want to help with this. When you move a page, you have to think about what happens to links that point to the old name.

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this new redirection. This change makes sense. The root cause of the problem is the use of the wrong title in English MacDonald River (Quebec). When choosing an article title on a toponym article, the author of the article had to consider the other homonymous toponyms already existing in the given territory even if the other homonymous toponyms do not yet have an article on Wikipedia.

Let's put in perspective that, with regret, the policy of Wikipedia (project in English) is to display in the disambiguation list only the articles existing. This bad policy often leads to later corrections to the titles of articles in English. Hoping that one day Wikipedia (English project) will change its policy to allow adding to the disambiguation list the elements that are not already covered by an article.

Thanks, Veillg1 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on DABs was discussed and decided long ago: a DAB helps readers find an article when their search term is ambiguous; redlinks are not helpful. Article title qualifiers should be as broad as possible, E.g. "Xyz (Canada)" or "Xyz (Quebec)" rather than "Xyz (Lac-Walker)" or "Xyz (Aux Rochers River)". The reader is more likely to know the country or province than the municipality, main stem river, etc.. It is easy to move to a more precise qualifier if a new page will have a similar title. The best approach is:

Move the existing page, leaving the old title as a redirect
Change all links to the old title so they point to the moved page, and the redirect has nothing pointing to it
Start the new page
Change the redirect to a DAB pointing to the old (moved) page and to the new page with the similar title
Add links to the new page from other articles

That way all the links keep working throughout the process. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder of Wikipedia on DABs policy. Admittedly, this policy is clear, but ineffective. You know my long experience on the creation of articles on the plans and watercourses of Quebec. And I have some criticisms to address concerning the choice of the titles of geographic articles on the English Wikipedia project. Too many errors arise when assigning an article title based on the name of the river with the country (state or province) in parenthesis. This attribution is often done without having taken into consideration the existence of other toponyms on the same territory. This is the case of MacDonald River (Quebec). In addition, after finding the title error, a redirect link is automatically placed on the old title to the moved page; which is often confusing, as the link should rather be redirected to the disambiguation page or to the correct article title. In short, I would like a review of this rule on the English Wikipedia project. Veillg1 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving all the links pointing to the old title after a move, and blanking the page with that title, is destructive. Readers can no longer follow links to the moved page. You are surely not proposing that should be standard practice. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to say that the links pointing to the old title should be redirected to the right title. In short, for the correction to be complete, there must be a redirection of the old link to the right title. To achieve this, old links should not be directed to a blank page. We agree on this point.

The problem is rather than:

automatic redirection to the new title is not appropriate in all cases;
there are many titles which are badly conceived on the English project of Wikipedia.

In short, to be effective, it is important for Internet users to choose the right titles of geographic articles and to make the right redirects; currently, several titles are erroneous because the article designers forget to consider the other homonyms existing but which do not have an article. Veillg1 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to add your articles to this, it's exciting to see a range of articles coming in. Keep up the great work!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to add references after punctuation like that and to give date and title information in references. If you're not happy contributing with the others no worries, I'll leave you in peace. :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is required for translations

Hi! As you've already been advised higher up this page, attribution is required when translating from another Wikipedia – our content is licenced in a way that makes this obligatory. The simplest way to provide it is with a {{translated page}} template on the talk-page. Would you kindly provide that for Zec Dumoine and for any other page where you have translated without attribution from French or any other Wikipedia? If it's not clear to you how to do so, please ask (here is fine)! Thanks!

About translation, may I remind you that: "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing"? A sentence such as "With regret, the terrible Spanish grid of 1918 entirely decimated this community" is completely incomprehensible to the English-speaking reader – by putting stuff like that in Wikipedia you are just making work for other editors. If you don't have sufficient fluency in both languages to translate correctly and idiomatically, it's probably best to leave translation to those who do. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Did you read this, I wonder? I asked you to provide attribution for the content you copied and "translated" from French Wikipedia at Zec Dumoine, as is required under the terms of our CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. It seems that you found time to make other edits, but not to deal with this; would you kindly now give this requirement priority over any other edit you may be thinking of making? As above, if you don't know how to do it, please ask here on this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! With surprise, you wrote: "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". This statement is clearly not a consensus; it is rather a great exaggeration. Translation software has greatly improved over the past 25 years. And they continue to improve in particular through the Wiki concept where users give their feedback. Today, the main translation softwares are much more reliable. If you disagree on a specific sentence translated by software, it is your duty as a citizen to give feedback to the firm that sponsors the translation software. This initiative will benefit future users. Beyond this technology, the role of humans is to validate and to revise after a translation done with a software; this is what I apply in all writings published in several languages.

As for the article "Zec Dumoine", if you have elements of style to improve in the English version, it is your duty to do so; or add informative content. This will be better than threatening to delete the article concerning the 3rd largest ZEC (controlled operating zone) in Quebec in area.

The territory of this ZEC has a great reputation in the Amerindian history and the defense of the French colony in America thanks in particular to Fort Dumoine. Your initiative to create the discussion to have this article deleted from WP for the second time is an insult to the people of Témiscamingue, to the users of this ZEC and to the users of WP.Gaétan Veillette 00:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fort Dumoine

Thank you for creating Fort Dumoine. Be aware that not all military installations meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I did not review the page for notabilty. I was alerted to it because of the error in the map. You had two errors: You had the wrong "map type" - it needed to be "Canada Quebec" insted of "Quebec, Canada". There may be a more specific map you can use instead, see Template:Location map for details on how to find existing maps. Also, you had the longitude sign incorrect. I fixed both problems. I also added a WikiProject template to the talk page. There may be other WikiProject templates that can be added to the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Gaétan Veillette 22:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Île d'Orléans. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Don't add repeated and red links in the "See also" section; this is totally unnecessary, and just a linkfarm. Thanks. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information concerning the various procedures in case of different on Wikipedia. Your summary seems to me to reflect the rules.

However, for your benefit, this information is not intended for me. Rather, they should be addressed to those who are waging a publishing war by unfairly erasing the good work of their colleagues.

My contributions on the article "Île d'Orléans" (in English) are based on editorial rigor and research (especially geographic and historical); I invest less on other aspects (eg ecology, botany, fauna ...) but hoping that others will be interested.

This editorial methodology is the same for several thousand articles of my design on geographic elements on Wikipedia. We can be proud of the good work done to design an article on each significant watercourse or body of water, particularly for those in Quebec.

In the "See also" section of an article, it is normal to have a list of related items to help the reader navigate the vast documentation on Wikipedia. It is sad to note that other Internet users unnecessarily delete elements of this section without good justification.

Contrary to your insinuations, my contributions have never been "unconstructive", nor "disruptive"; rather they are harmonized with a long history of publishing, the respect of official rules and common sense. Be advised that if you continue to erase the good work of your colleagues you could lose your editing privileges. -- User talk:Veillg1 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's College School

Thanks for the alphabetical order but the alumnus you added are for Bishop's University not BCS--202.75.250.209 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying coordinates in infobox lakes

Thank you for creating Lac de la Rivière aux Anglais, Ouiatchouan Lake and others. It seems that you've overlooked the "inline" display option in the infobox coordinates for these. If you can, please check that the coordinates display in the infobox for new articles to reduce the maintenance burden. Cheers. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Coaticook Regional County Municipality

A tag has been placed on Category:Coaticook Regional County Municipality requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of rivers of Quebec, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Duck River and Rivière aux Brochets.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Veillg1 continues to create machine translated articles without attribution". Thank you. William Graham ^talk 04:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Draft) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you from editing main and draft space for unattributed translations; translated content from other Wikipedias must be attributed. I will be shortly opening a Contributor copyright investigation to clean up the translations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Veillg1🏝️Talk 01:50, Sept. 1st, 2020 (UTC)For you information, I do agree with the translation message for related articles. If there is any future article translated, I intend to post it. If Internet users believe that there are aspects to be revised in the translated texts, they are welcome. I consider this blockage exaggerated. Gaétan Veillette 01:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Moneytrees.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Veillg1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your blocking of the English project is unfair and exaggerated. My writing in English is appropriate. As mentioned previously, I fully agree to the addition of the translation message in the translated articles (or translated sections); simply, that in my devotion to writing, I forgot to add it. Please restore my rights to revise the articles of the English project.Gaétan Veillette 19:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below the promise below. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- You promise to use the {{Translated page}} note to all of your translations in the future, and to help assist in adding the note to pages you previously translated? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - In accordance with what I wrote previously, I agree to put the message " {{Translated page}} " in the articles which are the subject of translation. Note that it took me a long time not knowing how to display this message and where to place this message. For my part, I will apply this instruction when creating future articles that are subject to translation. To do this in retrospect (on previously published articles), I will try my best to participate.
      - Note that for several weeks now, I've been spending my time exclusively on talk pages (like this one) rather than designing or editing posts. The design of articles has become very heavy even on often unnecessary details. On WP, we understand the importance of compliance, but sometimes some abuse it, to the point of often reducing efficiency; this often prevents or delays the publication of good content.Gaétan Veillette 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

32/5000

Problem with your custom signature

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Veillg1

Thank you for creating Noire River (Yamaska River tributary).

User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

It’s of encyclopedic value alright but please add more sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007. Thanks for your feedback. Following your report, the main source used was added to the writings. Well noted. -- Veillg1 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Please remember to sign your posts with a signature which includes a link to your user page or talk page. Your posts at User talk:Bkonrad do not include any such link, which is particularly important when you sign with a name which is completely different from your user name. PamD 21:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD - Thanks for your feedback. The procedure you recommended to me has been performed. -- Veillg1 User talk:Veillg1 02:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi. And thank you for all the work you're doing adding these geography articles. However, could you please take a bit more time and add more sourcing to them? Remember anything unsourced can be removed at any point in time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation links on Quebec rivers

Hi, Thanks for your edits to Quebec rivers etc, I have noticed quite a few links to disambiguation pages (eg watershed and Bécancour on Gentilly River (Quebec)). Before you save could you check the wikilinks are pointing to the articles you intended?— Rod ^talk 09:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod. Thanks for your feedback. For the sake of rigor, before each publication, I do a double check. Maybe I missed a few things.Veillg1 (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To help with your checking you can go to your Preferences, then Gadgets then tick "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" which highlights dab links in yellow/orange - On Rivière aux Chevreuils which you have just created Lyster and watersheds link to dab pages so using this gadget would enable you to spot them.— Rod ^talk 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

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

Gentilly River (Quebec)

added a link pointing to Bécancour

Rivière de Grand-Saint-Louis

added a link pointing to Gentilly River

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Please be aware that simply linking to the main page of a database is not a proper footnote. Footnotes need to link to the specific information cited in the article. In addition, the information in the article needs to be included in the reference, and not something which you deduce from that reference, as per WP:SYNTH. So the geography sections of the River articles you are creating, that information needs to be specifically stated in the reference.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Let us put in perspective that the interactive instrumentation of Toporama (Government of Canada - Natural Resources) provides numerous data of a geographical type (e.g .: altitude of the surface of a lake, geographical coordinates, width of a body of water, etc.). In my humble opinion, Wikipedia's regulations should be updated to take into account the instrumentation available on the Internet on cartography. For my part, in a second major tour of Quebec's watercourses, I would like to add data more specific to each watercourse relative to other areas: fauna, flora, recreational and tourism activities, infrastructure, history, economy, etc. In the meantime, my colleagues are invited to contribute more on these aspects. -- Veillg1 Veillg1 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veillg1, sorry, but you're doing admirable work on adding all these watercourses. That does not lessen the burden of providing valid citations. That's not negotiable, and based on what WP requires, I don't think its too onerous to expect editors to comply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Onel5969, a link to https://atlas.gc.ca/toporama/fr/index.html is not a compliant form of referencing. The database uses javascript to load the information on the page so there is no unique url for a particular page, as such there is no way to guide a user to a particular piece of information. Added to this, the database is difficult to navigate, even if you use the English version of the site. --John B123 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put in perspective that on WP the important thing is to publish fair, valid and verifiable data. A good way to do this is to have several reliable sources of information. If these sources are equipped with reliable and practical information retrieval tools, it helps editors. Precisely in the design of content on WP, I apply myself with rigor.

However, the means of obtaining this data may vary among various WP writers, even with reference to the general framework established. WP's current method, based on the notion of published work, raises a lot of criticism, conflict and waste of time. The same is true of other data search methods, in particular by mapping. Geographically, you will never have unanimity between the two major opinion groups.

In Quebec, among all the sources available, the two basic government sources that I like to use are on the Internet: the "Commission de toponymie du Québec" (translation: Quebec Name Places Organism) and the Atlas of Canada (Toporama).

The Commission de toponymie du Québec (CTQ) is an agency of the Government of Quebec. Their site provides an information sheet on each Quebec toponym with a location on the geographic map; each file contains mainly toponymic, geographic and historical information. Several articles with geographic content on WP that concern Quebec often refer to the CTQ site.

Let us put in perspective that the data generated by the Internet site of the Atlas of Canada (Toporama) are officially provided by the Government of Canada (via Natural Resources Canada). They are therefore recognized and valid government data for Canada. This site is evolving. In addition, cartographic and geomatic research instruments make it possible to produce reliable informative reports in this matter. It is true that this cartographic instrumentation on the Internet requires a certain familiarity to use them well.

This cartographic information is very valid and up to date for publication. For example, you instantly obtain the geographical coordinates at the mouth of a body of water, including the altitude of the surface (eg: 100 m.). It is not required to have a doctorate in geography to establish the coordinates of a specific point from Toporama, nor the distance between two points. This data can be verified by anyone who uses the Internet.

In addition, distance measurements, such as the width of a lake, are obtained using a tool. You can even copy the report (eg: PDF format) giving the result of the cartographic search, such as the course of a river, with the distance measurements. The use of Toporama has made it possible to correct (or validate) many geographic data published on Wikipedia. It would be a mistake for WP to exclude information from this source of information.

Geographically, the constraints currently imposed by WP limit the geographic content, in quality and quantity. As a geographer, I prefer to access fundamental information, rather than a 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation source of data. From my humble point of view, in terms of geography, a revision of the concept of published work (for references) is needed on WP. If there are other reliable sources providing this geographically fundamental data, please let us know.Veillg1 Veillg1 14:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "This data can be verified by anyone who uses the Internet", the site is probably not user-friendly enough for the average reader. Although you may not agree with the current requirements of WP:VERIFY, that's no reason to ignore them. If everybody did the same anarchy would prevail. --John B123 (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of view is clearly expressed. Regrettably, your method does not meet the principles of rigorous verification of published data; only fundamental verification allows it. Any user can use Toporama; as a simple process, the first option in the menu on the left allows you to establish the altitude and coordinates of a specific point. What is the problem on that point? -- Veillg1 Veillg1 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple if you know how to do it, but lack of instructions when pressing the "get coordinates" button leaves the reader to guess you then need to click on a point on the map to get the coordinates. As I said previously, it's not user friendly. I don't see that you could reasonably expect the average reader to verify "The Trois Saumons river takes its source from Trois Saumons lake (length: 5.5 kilometres (3.4 mi); altitude: 434 metres (1,424 ft)), located in the municipality of Saint-Aubert. This recreational and tourist-oriented lake, with a significant density of chalets on its banks, is surrounded by forest. This head lake is located 9.4 kilometres (5.8 mi) southeast of the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, 6.2 kilometres (3.9 mi) south of the center of the village of Saint-Aubert and at 9.0 kilometres (5.6 mi) northeast of the village center of Saint-Cyrille-de-Lessard. Trois Saumons Lake flows through its northeast end." (from Trois Saumons River) from Toporama. --John B123 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I trying to guide you about measuring distance. On Toporama/Natural resources Canada, follow theses steps: 1. Choose "Menu" in the left top corner (I assume it appears at the same position on your screen). 2. Choose "Measuring and Drawing tools". 3. Click on the left icône of "Measure a path/area". 4. On the right side of the screen, click the box of "Draw values on map" (I prefer this option because the result data is visible). 5. Resize the map at the desired format, by using the right top corner regulator. 6. Click on the map on a specific point (ex.: mouth of the river). 7. Slide you mouse indicator on the screen to a second specific point (ex.: center of the village). Then you get the distance between two specific points. -- Veillg1 Veillg1 21:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most readers won't have anybody to guide them through the side, and with proper referencing, they shouldn't need to. --John B123 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- This is in response to your question on my talk page, which you should have asked here, to keep the thread together. You've been told repeatedly by several editors that you must adhere to WP:VERIFY. Slapping a link to a database which does not support the information put into the article doesn't come close to meeting this WP policy. That's right policy. Not a suggestion. Policy. In addition, even if you could link to a specific page, my guess, based on what you have stated so far, that what you are doing also would fall under WP:SYNTH, which also isn't allowed. If you continue your disruptive behavior, there will be no choice but to take you to ANI. Which would be a shame, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123 and Onel5969: Please note that the user has been blocked twice (w:fr:Sujet:W0bvkeuntvf0nnfl, w:fr:Sujet:Vt9pej9fqnvuecnx) on frWP for repeated infringement of WP:OR and WP:Consensus (Failure or refusal to "get the point"). --Webfil (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. That's nearly 5,300 new articles (French and English) on WP published by my keyboard, especially geographic, with generally the same kind of content, the same style. And a lot of positive comments have come to me because the articles are well designed and rich in content. Recently, reviewers have been intransigent in applying the SEO policy, and often overkill. Do we need a reference to indicate the confluence of one river with another? The distance from the mouth to another point? Why erase this basic and simple data that anyone can check for themselves with other tools if they want? The usual findings or the obvious do not need to be referenced each time. Contributors feel they are not being listened to. That does not motivate to continue the editorial efforts in geography. There is nothing to understand. One day, common sense will have to return. -- Veillg1 Veillg1 02:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titles translations

I agree there is considerable original research and synthesis in this editor's work. In addition to the poor citation practices, there is idiosyncratic application of MOS guidelines (such as MOS:NOTSEEALSO and MOS:SECTIONORDER). Then there are the multiple redlinks and non-existent categories. And article naming seems haphazard -- some articles seem to be a weird mix of half-translated French name. For example Tortue South-West River for fr:Rivière Tortue Sud-Ouest. Why half-translate the name. The English equivalent would be Southwest Turtle River (or maybe Turtle River Southwest). But Tortue South-West River appears to be complete invention. older ≠ wiser 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, especially on how to translate (French => English) the titles of French toponyms. I have asked this question a few times to anglophone contributors; but, without obtaining any particular answer. Is there a particular standard (eg where to put the cardinal points in the title, eg South-West Tortue River)? Note that in Quebec, toponyms are formalized by the "Commission de toponymie du Québec" (Quebec Toponyms Board); according to their standards, toponyms must be registered in French, with some exceptions, particularly for indigenous communities. Thus, publishers must adopt their own policy for translating toponyms (French => English). For my part, in the absence of specific WP standards, as a general policy for the design of articles in English, French toponyms composed of more than two words remain in French (eg: Rivière du Petit Moulin). If there is no official standard, I agree to discuss on a titling standard for articles related to French toponyms.-- Veillg1 (Veillg1) 20:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no authority for the English name of a stream, it would likely be best to use the French name as the article title. That would certainly be better than an invented half-translation. If sources are found later for an English name of the stream, it can be moved. older ≠ wiser 20:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkonrad: Following the guidelines of the Government of Canada regarding the translation of geographical names and WP:ENGLISH, the correct translation would be Southwest Tortue River, unless a sources proves otherwise. It's okay to translate generics and cardinals; not specifics (unless it's cited in english). --Webfil (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well that is rather not a typical approach to translation, but I suppose it is to be expected in a multi-lingual nation such as Canada with a noted proclivity to tie itself into pretzel shapes to appease Francophone activists. Of course, Wikipedia is not bound to use the style and naming guidelines provided by other entities. In the absence of any evidence of an English name used in reliable sources, I still think it would likely be less confusing to use the native name. Or if there must be translations, then perhaps it should be taken up by WP:WikiProject Canada to establish consensus for practical guidelines that are aligned with existing WP standards and conventions. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Canadian Government's L'Atlas du Canada - Toporama] (French version} and The Atlas of Canada - Toporama (English version), there appears to be only one "official" name for geographic features, some of which are English, some French. Turtle Mountain is listed as such in both language versions (not Mont Turtle in the French version), whereas Rivière Tortue Sud-Ouest is listed under that name in both versions. To avoid translation problems/anomalies perhaps we need to use he "official" name for article titles, be that in English or French. --John B123 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts on the title translations. According to the present discussion, it would be wiser as a general rule to keep the original version of the title (generally French) for toponyms of Quebec on the English project of WP; this would avoid the translation difficulties of certain titles for which the translation into English is not obvious. If it suits the community, the choice of titles during my future creation of geographic articles in English will comply to this guideline.--Veillg1 (Veillg1) 01:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lévis

A tag has been placed on Category:Lévis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Good job on all those rivers in Quebec articles, you're making this encyclopedia better! :) Neverbuffed (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation. There is teamwork. We are rigorous. The important thing is that this great research is very useful to the readers and that it is a reference enclyclopedia.--Veillg1 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gentilly River (Quebec), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bécancour.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Richardson (New Zealand, Canterbury) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mount Richardson (New Zealand, Canterbury), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Not a single one of the current citations mentions the subject of the article.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Richardson (British Columbia) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mount Richardson (British Columbia), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Not a single one of the sources mentions the article's subject.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Nevers Lake (Gouin Reservoir)

Hello, Veillg1,

Thank you for creating Nevers Lake (Gouin Reservoir).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I think your Nevers Lake Wikipedia needs more references to establish notability, which is required for a Wikipedia article. I think it is very likely that this lake is notable, but that needs to be established with references that cover the subject in some depth. See WP:NGEO. If such references can't be found, it might be appropriate to merge this content with another article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|PopePompus}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PopePompus (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

Navboxes are for navigation, they cannot be used as references, such as at Regional Park (Quebec). --John B123 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback about Navboxes.-- Veillg1 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Assinica National Park Reserve

Hello, Veillg1,

Thank you for creating Assinica National Park Reserve.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hello, None of the websites listed as references open, without any it is unlikely this article will be reviewed by anyone, and the best case scenario is it will be sent to draftspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mont-Ham Regional Park moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mont-Ham Regional Park, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Claude Mélançon

The article Claude Mélançon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the sources are in-depth about this individual. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Chocolat moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mont Chocolat, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rivière de la Boule moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rivière de la Boule, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Little Clive River for deletion

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

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

Webfil (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel Veillet-Dufrêche moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Hôtel Veillet-Dufrêche, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Park moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Park, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isle-Verte Bay National Wildlife Area moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Isle-Verte Bay National Wildlife Area, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Belle River, Prince Edward Island

A tag has been placed on Draft:Belle River, Prince Edward Island requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Should not have been moved to draft (original redirect blanked by creator who moved the article to a new name -Belle River, Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JW 1961 Talk 22:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Veillg1, Ignore those two (automatic) notices above - I didn't notice that you had moved the page to a new name and blanked the re-direct and so moved tha blank page to draft which now can be deleted. Your article moved to Belle River, Saint Pierre and Miquelon should be reviewed soon but at the monent doesn't cite any sources. Thanks for your contributions on all these Quebec geographical articles! JW 1961 Talk 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Veillg1 Talk 23:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belle River citations

Hi, I saw a bit of what happened on Belle River, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and thought I might be able to help you cite things. It can be infuriating to be unable to find sources for something that you know is worth having an article for. I don't know if you need the help, but I have found a couple potential sources that may help, although one is unfortunately monetized. This link is to a download for a geological map of the islands in which you can make out the course of the river and the Anse du Governeur it empties into. This link has a bibliography for a study map which may be useful although not all the cited sources are on the web. Finally, this links a way to buy a map of the islands made by the French national geographic institute. I don't know if you care enough about the river article to look through these, and I don't know how sourcing stuff that isn't readily available on the web works on Wikipedia, but I do hope this helps and let me know if it does. Starkenborgher (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. You suggest a lead to get references to the original article. it can certainly help if we are unable to find other sources. Damage that some Internet users wildly erase certain new articles, rather than helping to find sources. You are welcome to continue your research on your own. We wish to achieve the goal of having references that support the content of the article. For my part, I am continuing my research.--Veilg1 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Sainte-Anne River (La Haute-Gaspésie)

Hello, Veillg1,

Thank you for creating Sainte-Anne River (La Haute-Gaspésie).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add some WP:RELIABLE references in the 'Geography' section

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Amkgp}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Amkgp 💬 15:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Summits of the Laurentians (administrative region) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Summits of the Laurentians (administrative region) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mont Chocolat

Hello, Veillg1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mont Chocolat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.