User talk:Axolotlxl

November 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Poutine has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Poutine was changed by Axolotlxl (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950238 on 2017-11-20T21:47:06+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poutine

Please note that Wikipedia does not write about things or people from Quebec in such a way as to imply that Québécois and Canadian are mutually exclusive identities of which something or someone can only one or the other but never both. I'm fully aware that Quebec has a distinct culture from English Canada, and in fact spend more time than almost anybody else on the entire Wikipedia project getting those distinctions addressed on here — but the distinction is Quebec vs. English Canada, not just Quebec vs. the entire concept of Canada as a whole, because Quebec is part of "Canada as a whole". So the appropriately encyclopedic way to write is that the subject is a Canadian topic from Quebec, not just that it's Québécois with "Canadian" completely buried. We write our articles in a neutral way, not an ideologically loaded one — so it's not appropriate for us to assert or aver that Québécois things are somehow not also Canadian things, because the labels aren't mutually exclusive or in conflict. And the "consensus" required to decide on a topic's identity label is a consensus of Wikipedians, not a consensus of Québécois. -- Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Québécois, First Nations, Black Canadians, Inuit, Indo-Canadians, etc. together form Canadian culture, even if they're quite distinct from each other. By saying "Quebec has its own culture, dinstinct from Canada." [sic], you're implying there is a mainstream "Canadian" culture exclusive from Quebec when there actually isn't. Québécois, Chinese Canadians, First Nations, Acadians, Black Canadians, Inuit, Métis, Indo-Canadians, Anglo Canadians, etc. all form subcultures making up the greater Canadian culture.

In fact, only 18.3% said of English ancestry in the 2016 Census. Also, Nunavut, the second largest territory in Canada by population, has an Inuktitut-speaking majority and contains the Inuit culture (just another subculture of Canadian culture).

And Québécois are Canadians, Quebec is a part of Canada, and the Québécois culture is a subculture of Canadian culture. As you can see on the Canadian culture page: "The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians." (Canadians, as in all Canadians, including Quebecois). -- EzekielT ^Talk 16:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- EzekielT ^Talk 16:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've temporarily locked the page due to your edit-warring, so that for the next few days it can be edited only by administrators. You may raise your issue for discussion at Talk:Poutine if you wish, but simply revert-warring to get your way, even after people have explained to you why they disagree with your edits, is not how we do things here. Discuss, or drop the stick. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]