User talk:Pieuvre

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Pieuvre, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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

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

We're so glad you're here! GreenJoe 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your welcome! Pieuvre 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Again and again, you've failed to see it was a mistake from me to mention "Quebec" from that motion. You also fail to understand my "interpetions". And you also failed to see I do know how the Wiki works (to show facts for readers to judge, eh?) And you're moving too far from RfC topic. I already gave my comment (as requested here) that I think there is no need to provide a reference next to "nation" in the intro as the fact itself is already linked in the word "nation" (unless you're going to ask me to provide a source defining what is a nation). The motion of the Parliament is already mentioned further down the article itself. I'm not going to repeat myself in RfC. Pieuvre 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're admitting to making a mistake; well that's very admirable of you. As for your interpretation, like I've been stating all along, it is irrelevant just as mine is - we must stick to the facts. Lastly, the stand-alone word "nation" does not need to be sourced, but what needs to be sourced is the statement "Quebec is a nation" - there's a big difference. To claim that Quebec is a nation is a pretty big claim and as per Wikipedia policy such claims need to be referenced with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Wikilinking the word nation does not meet these criteria as Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable. — Dorvaq (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted it a while ago with a "whoops" as the starter. You just had a little trouble noticing it. I was trying to be as suggestive as possible to try to hear your and the others' ideas: What kind of source should we be looking for to back it up? You asked for a poll (I provided another...I missed the word "Canadian" despite reading over and over to check). But what else? Now I'm starting to understand that the references to two motions passed by the provincial and federal legislature should be considered since they're a strong reference, no?Pieuvre 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed. My multiple attempts at clarifying were directed at the other two editors who ran with the idea using your source. As for what types of references to use, it depends on what you want to say. If you are going to use that "the Quebecois are a nation", the CBC article and perhaps a direct reference to the motion would be more than enough, as the statement alone is not an exceptional claim. Now if you want to say that the Province of Quebec is a nation, then a direct and *official* statement from the Government of Canada recognizing Quebec as a nation will be necessary. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm inclined to agree. My apologies if I sounded way too fustrated. Glad we can sort this out! Pieuvre 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Prince Edward Island

Just to let you know of a new WikiProject Prince Edward Island that has just been created. As you have shown an interest in the creation and editing of Prince Edward Island articles, you are cordially invited to join.SriMesh | talk 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Pieuvre! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An upset vandal after being reverted constantly

SI TU PENSES QUE LE QUÉBEC N'EST PAS UNE NATION ALORS TU ES DANS L'ERREUR. CE N'EST PAS DE LA PROPAGANDE SÉPARATISTE , C'EST UN FAIT QUE DES CANADIENS TENTENT ENCORE DE NIER. LAISSE NOUS TRANQUILLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.226.185 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S'il vous plaît, il est inderdit qu'on chiale dans mon talk page. Je ne mettrai pas mes points de vue dans le Wikipédia. Bonne journée. Pieuvre (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying hello

Hello Pieuvre. I wonder if you would translate Pgsylv's posting at my page (as I don't know the French language). Perhaps even translate his postings at talk: Quebec, aswell. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pieuvre. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. It's some of his responses at his personal page, that he's used 'French'. I'm guessing, only an Administrator is allowed to make changes on User pages. PS- You have a nice day too. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informations?

Having grown up in PA "all your life," how come you seem to say "informations" and "homeworks" as an imperfectly bilingual Québécois would. Information and homework are singulare tantums (mass nouns) in English. G. Csikos, 18 February 2008