User talk:Laval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Laval, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Passer le flambeau[edit]

A few years ago, I started contributing to the English language Wikipedia with one idea in mind: making Quebec known to English speakers world wide. I wrote all kinds of articles almost all to myself and made significant contributions of many others: Timeline of Quebec history, Constitutional history of Canada, Constitutional debate in Canada, Politics of Quebec, Charter of the French Language, Language demographics of Quebec, Legal dispute over Quebec's language policy, Fête nationale du Québec, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society, Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Aboriginal peoples in Quebec etc. etc.

I wasted an incredible amount of time arguing with unreasonable people whose primary sources of information were those corporate media waging war against imaginary Quebec nationalist monsters nobody has ever met in person. About a year ago, I gave up my English edits on Quebec a little to work on French language articles instead. I realized that it was best to be patient, to first write high quality articles, properly sourced and annoted, in my native language and translate them over to English after. That BS will be written in English on Quebec meanwhile is unfortunate, but luckily Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source yet. ;-) We have plenty of time to fix it all up between now and the day Wikipedia will be recognized as a reliable source of factual and neutral information.

But maybe you have more virtue than I do...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to my brouillons and diagrammes and abandon you to User:SoulScanner ... ;-) -- Mathieugp 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebec bashing[edit]

The original title was Quebec bashing. Various attempts at getting the article deleted or classified as OR were evaded in great controversy. The article was written by Liberlogos (someone I know personally) to cover the specific subject of what in Quebec we call "le Quebec bashing", that is the constant misrepresentation of Quebec in primarily the English language media of Canada and by extention the rest of the English-speaking world. The subject Liberlogos wanted to cover was not really all Anti-Quebec sentiments, altough that would deserve a long article to itself of course. What he wanted to cover was nicely covered already by Jean-François Lisée in Dans l'oeil de l'aigle and was the cause for Normand Lester's Le livre noir du Canada anglais. Liberlogos has abadonned the article to its faith and he no longer cares if it gets deleted or not. In trying to save the article from degeneration, we found an excellent source to complement the subject in Maryse Potvin's "Some Racist Slips about Quebec in English Canada Between 1995 and 1998", in Canadian Ethnic Studies, volume XXXII, issue 2, 2000, pages 1-26. Maryse Potvin's analysis is in fact retaken very liberally by Normand Lester in his books however with less of a scientific tone.

To rename the article, I suggested many things and in the end I was advocating Perceived bias in the representation of Quebec society in English language media. I thought this would be acceptable and give room to neutral treatment of the subject.

To be quite frank, I think the best thing you and I can do for knowledge on Quebec and knowledge in general is to patiently write quality articles on subjects that we master well or that we know we master more than those who have already contributed to an existing article. And do not do as I did, that is start hundreds of articles that ended up sitting unfinished in my draft pages! :-)

Are you familiar with the subject of language demographics by any chance? I could really use some help getting this article in shape and publishable:

fr:Utilisateur:Mathieugp/Brouillons/Démographie linguistique du Québec

It is a complete rewrite of the one that already exists which I also mostly wrote myself but is full of outdated information and even contains some errors. I would then translate it to English of course and finally there would be one solid source of information in that language on that subject in a very visible corner of the Internet. -- Mathieugp 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


At Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society you accuse me and my fellow contributors to that article of bigotry. However, you fail to specify any bigoted statements in the article. You also have failed to answer my previous reasonable question about your implication that criticism of Quebec is motivated by anti-Quebec sentiment. If you are unwilling to substantiate your accusations, remove them, since, without substantiation, they are clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy on abuse. John FitzGerald 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, and I'll take your use of the word 'friend' at face value. However, I don't see much difference between saying someone is a bigot and saying he is pro-bigotry. I also fail entirely to see how the title of the article supports bigotry. If you want evidence of my good will, check the discussions on my talk page about Esther Delisle. That was anti-Quebec-nationalist propaganda when I ran across it, and I helped fix it.
As you can also see from the discussion at Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society, I also preferred the original title. I went along with the change simply as a useful compromise which would allow us to move on to more important things. However, the article seems to be stagnating now, and a large part of the reason is attempts from people of all opinions about the issue to demonize those who disagree with them.
If you think I support bigotry, show me the bigotry I'm supporting. John FitzGerald 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the prompt reply. Sure, criticism of Quebec nationalism needn't be Quebec-bashing, but the crap in Esther Delisle was. As for who identifies themselves as English Canadians, I do and so do the many English Canadians I know. Why wouldn't we identify ourselves as that? That's what we are. Finally, sure it's possible to find examples of bigotry on this site, but I want to know where the bigotry is in Controversy over criticism of Quebec society. Honestly, I am open to the possibility that some of that content is bigoted. I honestly do not understand how the title itself promotes bigotry, but I am open to arguments that it does. I have learned over my long life that even I can be wrong (hell, I voted for the Ontario NDP in 1990).

Incidentally, I also believe that the English press is indeed madly engaged in mystifying the whole issue of Quebec sovereignty. However, the Jan Wongs of the English Canadian press are few and far between; the problem is the myriad of well-meaning federalists who know nothing about Quebec (most of them can't speak French) but think their good intentions are enough to win Quebec over – which is how you get pathetic spectacles like all those federalists being shipped to Quebec to wave flags at the big rally in 1995. It's as if the flags were magic, eh, and would make the Yes side disappear. On the other hand, the Quebec media play a role in mystifying the issue, too. They have almost no interest in English Canada, and publish wildly inaccurate articles about it – I remember, for example, le Journal de Montréal publishing an article about how Eric Lindros was as big a hero in English Canada as Elijah Harper was, when in fact neither was a hero in English Canada (a lot of English-Canadians supported Meech). And of course, we must remember that the press represents corporate ideas and not English Canada's. And that fewer and fewer English Canadians are paying attention to it.

Whatever. You can, of course, do what you want (within the limits prescribed by Wikipedia). I've been told worse things than that I'm pro-bigotry and survived. You'll survive Controversy over criticism of Quebec society, too. Trust me – I survived Nixon (and in 1968 I sure as hell thought there was a good chance I wouldn't). John FitzGerald 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I forgot you may consider my name to be British, so your point about people identifying as English Canadians may not seem answered. Anyway, people of all origins consider themselves English Canadians and it should be obvious to anyone that they routinely speak of English Canada. The concept of the Rest of Canada (ROC) had to be invented because the dimwit federalists who dominate the English Canadian press couldn't tolerate the idea that a province with a large francophone population could legitimately be considered a part of English Canada. I tell you, I live in Ontario and I think French should be an official language here, but Ontario is English Canada all the way through. It was founded as English Canada. John FitzGerald 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I should clarify more. My name is Irish (originally Norman, but that's another issue). That a person with an Irish name ( a first-generation Canadian, to boot) considers himself an English Canadian pretty well disproves your null hypothesis. You seem to be under the impression that we use English Canadian as an ethnic category. However, in English Canada it designates a Canadian who speaks English as his or her official language. John FitzGerald 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Our dispute over the use of English Canadian comes down to conclusions we have drawn from our own experiences, but it is true that I have friends of several ethnic origins who call themselves English Canadians. Anyway, as I said, I'm not British, and I consider myself English Canadian.
I also disagree that the media are "a reflection of the societies they claim to represent," unless by that you meant that they are a reflection of societies in which control of the media is restricted to friends of the government. In any other sense, Fox News is quite clearly not a reflection of American society (which did vote for the Democrats last time out and has now decided that Iraq thing wasn't such a great idea after all) but of the political needs of Rupert Murdoch (who has to please the Republican party which changed the rules to allow him and the other media barons to build media empires). CanWest Global is another example – it reflects the interests of the Aspers and of their buddies in government.
As an English Canadian, I see almost nothing in Canadian media that reflects the society in which I live. Conspicuously absent from the Canadian media are the opinions of ordinary people – for example, during the 1993 referendum campaign the opinions of ordinary Canadians of either official language were shut out of the English media. Their coverage consisted of the opinions of people in positions of authority. One of the priorities of people in authority is of course to keep Quebec fighting with the Canadian government – there are a lot of careers to be made out of that industry.
As for English Canadian society being ethnic obsessed, we don't have our knickers in a twist because someone took ham out of his pea soup. But as I said, I think part of the reason that both English and French Canadians get the idea that the speakers of the other language are ethnic obsessed is the failure of the media to represent the beliefs of most Canadians from either group. John FitzGerald 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I gather there's not a lot of support in Quebec for the idea that Monday night's election results might be good for the sovereignty movement. But, as someone commenting on today's editorial at le Devoir said, sovereignty is bigger than the PQ. I just have this wacky idea that the ADQ's rise to power could force the federalists into a real discussion of sovereignty (which the entire country needs). Like you and like a lot of people I suppose we should wait and see what the ADQ's really up to, but it seems wrong to me to look on this as necessarily a blow to sovereignty. What do you think?

Incidentally, the newspaper coverage in Toronto has been disgraceful. Both the Star and the Globe said Charest "staved off" the ADQ, as if they were repelling barbarians from the gates of Rome. but then, Toronto journalists are largely stupid. The rest of the English press seems to have done a better job, though. Even Mike Doofus did some reasonable coverage last night. John FitzGerald 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information; you certainly gave me a much better idea of what's going on than the press has. It gives me hope, too – I think a real discussion of sovereignty and of federalism would be of benefit to the entire country. The Toronto media seem to have initially taken the line of "Thank god, separatism is dead!" I cannot express too low an opinion of the Toronto media these days. In particular the Globe has stopped showing any interest in reporting – it chiefly recycles press releases. Over the past week the Star has published two articles, one by Pierre Martin at U de M saying flat out that separatism is dead, and another by André Pratte saying no one should assume separatism is dead. They're the true national English newspaper, so the issue is still being presented as a battle between federalists and separatists. The idea that both approaches arise from real issues which it might be possible to deal with in a variety of ways seems to be lost on journalists. Chantal Hébert's only contribution to the Star so far has been about the role of Harper's fiscal policies in Charest's defeat.
I see "Anti-Quebec sentiment" is now the title of the article. I should emphasize that my complaints about that decision on the talk page are directed at the way in which the decision was made – by fiat, basically, but presented as an expression of the general will. I can live with the new title. Mathieugp's proposal to reference scholarly articles is what the article needs, so if i get the time I hope to be able to help out with that. As I mention on the talk page, I would like to see the general overlooking of Quebec by the English media included in the article, as well as the sort of prejudicial thinking which is slipped into commentary without arousing too many suspicions – the representation of the federal budget as a sop to Quebec, for example. That does more damage to Quebec (and Canada) than anything Jan Wong ever wrote. John FitzGerald 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I think that you just need to ask an admin. I am not certain. If you talk to an admin (like User:Adam Bishop), can you ask him to check if User:SoulScanner is not a sockpuppet of User:A. Lafontaine aka User:DW. -- Mathieugp 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Québécois (disambiguation)[edit]

The word Québécois is not often used in the sense of "Quebec French". I wrote "to emphasize its distinctness from French French" because writing "Quebec French" is already enough to distinguish it, and "Québécois" adds additional emphasis. At least in French, there is often the idea of "Québécois" being a distinct language, for example when Léandre Bergeron wrote the Dictionnaire de la langue québécoise. In that case, the idea was that it was separate with equal status to Continental French. Others may use the term and consider "Québécois" separate but with lower status. Generally speaking, though, this is marginal and the phrases "Canadian French" and "Quebec French" predominate. Joeldl 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecer[edit]

I think the removal of the infobox should be discussed on the talk page. Compare African American (there are of course also people of African descent outside the U.S.) Even if an ethnic group goes beyond a single country or jurisdiction, it is acceptable to identify the members of the group in a certain country/jurisdiction as an ethnic group. Of course, English-speaking Quebecers are not strictly speaking an ethnic group within Quebec, but they are a linguistic/cultural one, especially by a mother tongue definition. I think this is not clear-cut, so I'm going to restore the infobox for now. Joeldl 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Belgian people[edit]

I've looked at the edit history for this article, and found that you were the editor who created this as a separate article. Whilst I don't dispute a potentially worthwhile article is possible, the current revision is trivial, and is completely covered at Demographics of Belgium. I'm an inclusionist by nature and try to make a point of not nominating for AfD unless the original creator agrees an article serves no purpose, and therefore await your response. BeL1EveR 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the statement that I use sockpuppets. It's false. --soulscanner (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to willfully ignore the history of your own actions last year in the Quebec articles. You did in fact use a number of sockpuppets in reverting edits made by myself and User:Mathieugp. Laval (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I had formerly tagged that article as {{essay}} and {{peacock}}; the main editor to the page removed the tages. I asked him to put them back until the issues had been resolved; he hasn't done so. Please see the talk page. [roux » x] 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Laval, you should make up your mind what you want: nominate the article for deletion or ask for it to be rewritten. The two demands are incompatible with each other. Accordingly I am removing the "personal essay" tag. Also, for future reference, please keep in mind that it is considered good form to notify the main author(s) of the articles you nominate for deletion. My offer to roux, to discuss any criticism or suggestions for improvement, goes to you as well, of course. Also, you may want to see my reply on the AfD page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's as may be.. but you shouldn't be removing tags until the issue is resolved. The article is still written like an essay and still uses peacock terms. Please put them back. [roux » x] 03:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the AfD process. Laval (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Roach[edit]

Have you ever actually read WP:BLP. Read it. Then tell me that bit of info does not violate it. And do not accuse me of edit warring when I made one edit. I am removing that info as it violates WP:BLP which trumps all else. If you continue down this path, violating WP:BLP, making false accusations, you will find yourself under report for incivility and edit warring. This works both ways. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with User:Freshacconci[edit]

I highly suggest that you back away from the conflict with this editor. I've asked that he avoid directly editing any articles that you are editing, to avoid the perception of stalking, and request that you in turn ensure that your edits are fully within the spirit of reliable sourcing - especially when they concern a living person. Edits such as those you've been making using sources that include personal blogs are very much not appropriate for articles on living persons. If you have questions about sourcing, I suggest you use the talk pages of those articles to discuss the sources, or perhaps consider asking editors who frequent the reliable sources noticeboard if you're not sure. If you have further issues with Freshacconci, please bring it to my talk page instead of sniping back and forth with the editor, and I'll do what I can to assist. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He is not threatening anything; he's doing what I asked him to do, which is working with other editors to avoid direct contact with you. Please stop making accusations about the other editor; all it will do is inflame the situation, and I want it defused at this point. Stop and consider what other editors have said about this, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do everyone a favour and stop making comments like this one, okay? That's incivil, and you need to drop the calls of bad faith now. Please. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
'kay, I've reminded the other editor to be civil and cool, to avoid you as much as posssible, and to keep good faith in mind. I ask that you do the same, cool down, and discuss edits without making comments about the editors involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Where you are going wrong[edit]

Edits like this [1] simply fail policy. Actually policies plural - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP - are all violated by some of your recent edits. Wikipedia articles should not be written from primary sources, especially where the primary sources are blogs, activist websites and (God help us) YouTube videos. Wikipedia articles are written from reliable independent sources. Newspapers are acceptable, but only just. News magazines of an analytical nature (NewsWeek etc.) are much better, and academic publications better still since they are peer-reviewed. If you carry on adding and edit-warring over material sourced from these poor quality sources then I am afraid you are quite likely to end up blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Re your comment on my talk page: no. Unless the content has significant secondary coverage, using primary sources where the interpretation or significance is dispute, is wrong. Just go to independent sources, and if it's not in such sources then it does not belong here. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread involving you[edit]

An AN/I thread involving you is here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Roach[edit]

The fact that Citizens for a Canadian Republic is up for deletion has no effect on Roach and McCullough's criticism. The fact that it is notable does not mean that Roach is or isn't. To put it bluntly, notability is not inherited. It doesn't mean that we should relax WP:RS on Roach's article. I've added more at the talk page and we can continue there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Québécois[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Québécois. Many pages link to this article when they should really link elsewhere. Joeldl (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I can't quite figure out what you were trying to do with this edit. Obviously, the source ain't RS, and I would have taken it for a mere bit of fun and games, except that this does not tally with other edits by you in this subject matter area. Anyway, if you have concerns about sourcing in Scientology articles, there is an arbcom case on Scientology currently ongoing. The evidence page is here, the Workshop page here, and the proposed decision here (work on that page hasn't started yet). Cheers, Jayen466 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I suggest that if you have, or come across, other examples of bad sourcing, it might be worth adding them to the arbcom evidence. Also, if you run into a problem while editing, don't hesitate to use the noticeboards – there have been Scientology-related threads on WP:RS/N these last few days, for example; WP:BLP/N and WP:NOR/N may be useful too. I think there is a general recognition that the sourcing of the Scientology articles has sometimes been a bit of a joke, and that we should get away from using primary and self-published sources. This includes self-published writing on critics' sites, Hubbard quotes taken out of context to make a point, the use of obscure affidavits in BLPs (a violation of WP:WELLKNOWN) and Scientology's own websites, for that matter. Some people on the critics' side are supporting that move too. There is quite a lot of responsible scholarly literature on Scientology, and the Scientology main article for example, as well as the Scientology beliefs and practices article, has a lot more scholarly sources now than it did a few weeks ago; so who knows, perhaps after five years of rampant anti-Scientology propaganda, we'll eventually arrive at something more encyclopedic. Wikipedia would be better for it. Happy editing, Jayen466 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to Vancouver?[edit]

Vancouver is a great city, set in a fabulous location with the mountains on one side and the sea on two. Yes, winters are gloooomy. I live in Victoria, on Vancouver Island, where the weather is slightly less rainy than Vancouver, but I admit that I find the winters long. There is often rain or at least cloud, from mid/late October to March. And of course, being up at nearly 50 degrees north latitude, it's a little darker in winter than Montreal would be around 46 degrees. But there are also breaks in the cloud and often the days are quite mild. But if you ski, you can take advantage of Vancouver's proximity to Grouse Mountain or even Whistler to get out and enjoy winter sports. By March the cherry blossoms are out in Vancouver and Victoria, and that is a sight not to be missed. Whole streets turn pink. Then comes summer: blue glittering seas; blue skies; lazy sailboats on English Bay; rhododendrons, roses, rowing and running in Stanley Park, with snow on the mountain tops until mid summer.

Vancouver is modern and very multicultural, with half the population of the city now of Asian background, with a diverse restaurant and social scene that is a real meeting of east and west. The indigenous cultures are also very present in Vancouver; the UBC Museum of Anthropology houses a fantastic collection of First Nations carvings and artifacts, and I expect that First Nations will be showcased during the Olympics next spring.

Not to say there aren't serious problems in Vancouver as well. It has a significant issue with drug addiction and homelessness, giving a very rough aspect to parts of downtown, including the infamous Downtown Eastside; and lately the drug wars between gangs have turned very ugly and violent, with brutal murders taking place on a regular basis over the past few months. So it's not all postcard perfect. But once through the winter, Vancouver is a great city, with lots to do if you enjoy the outdoors. And the coastal area is very beautiful, including Squamish/Whistler; the Sunshine Coast; the Gulf Islands; Vancouver Island and whole Pacific Northwest. I have several good friends who have moved out here from Quebec, and much as they miss their families, they are very happy on the West Coast.

Bottom line: I won't mislead you: winters are grey and some people much prefer cold sunny climates to mild wet ones. If that's you, you might find the winter a long slog. But if you want a break for a year from the frigid cold of a Quebec winter, then I think you'd be happy in Vancouver. Corlyon (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Epstein[edit]

I saw this and I can't help but ask: what's a real intellectual? JureLc (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Estates Project Force[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Estates Project Force has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable Scientology program.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Karppinen (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore Tom Freda[edit]

I've been absent from editing for the past 2 years and now wish to resume editing some articles that I was working on before I left. One of them is Tom Freda, which I just noticed has been redirected to Citizens for a Canadian Republic. I have volunteered to help CCR with their pages and now have unlimited access to much more reference material for Tom Freda, enough to easily satisfy all who voted to redirect it. How to I proceed with restoring it? McRuf2 (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the topic of totalitarianism in Marxism-Leninism at Talk:Marxism–Leninism[edit]

See here: Talk:Marxism–Leninism--R-41 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about an edit you made[edit]

Hi Laval, I noticed a few years back you removed an image of Andre James I had added to the Transgender page. I'm okay with it. But I'm wondering what your reason was? I noticed in your edit your summary said "rm selective image." What is a "selective image" and what was the rational for removing it? Thanks for educating me on Wikipedia. Miranda Meagan Keefe (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Leary[edit]

I'm not sure your subsequent edit changes the fact that Leary often changed his wording.[2] He may have said that "the PC is the LSD of the 90s" and "the web is the LSD of the 90s". Is there a reason you chose one over the other? I believe there is a publication where he also said "the Internet is the LSD of the 90s". Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see now that this is widely quoted (for example, Rothstein, New York Times, 9/25/2006, p. 3) even though the cited source, Chaos and Cyber Culture (1994) attributes the quote to a blurb from Time magazine:

"Yes, he's back. At 72, the ex- Harvard professor who encouraged a generation to 'turn on, tune in, and drop out' now counts himself as a cyberpunk. 'The PC is the LSD of the 1990s,' he says."

I'm going to track down the Time source. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I found it. The source that Chaos and Cyber Culture (1994) uses is the same blurb from the cover story "Cyberpunk!", published in Time, February 8, 1993, v41, i6, p. 58. It's still a "Time says Leary says" quote, which I typically avoid like the plague. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone (Gilmor, "Timothy Leary" 7/11/96-7/25/96, Issue 738/739) acknowledges both POV:

Timothy went on to other interests. Primarily he became a champion of computer and communications technology, and was among the first to declare that these new developments -- particularly the rapidly growing Internet -- had the same sort of potential to empower creativity on a mass level and to threaten authority structures as psychedelics had once had in the 1960s.

This pretty much proves my point. Keep in mind, the alleged citation that Ronin repeats from a Time source was published before 1994. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tone of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malinche Entertainment[edit]

The tone of your opening statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malinche Entertainment struck me a a bit harsh. Statements like "There is no rational way to claim that this business is in any way notable," don't feel like someone who is assuming good faith. Indeed, it might be read as an attempt to dissuade people from disagreeing, as the implication is that anyone who disagreed must be irrational. Also, while it may be true that "none of the claims made by Howard the article are verifiable," that's not relevant in a discussion about potentially deleting the article. A flawed article covering a subject that meets the notability guidelines should be improved, not deleted. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for treatment of dog's robbers in Vietnam[edit]

(unfortunately, all are in Vietnamese so you might need the help of Google Translation)

I had provided these links as sources but an IP removed them along with some related information without any explanation. Thanks--AM (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sea Org, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boot camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Grant Cardone, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you on Grant's payroll, by any chance? Because you are removing sourced material. Just because it doesn't reflect well on Grant doesn't make it inappropriate. Carefully read WP:V and WP:RS. Laval (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Grant Cardone. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Christy Lee Rogers[edit]

I am puzzled as to why you added "digital" back in here:

She is just a photographer. No need to describe her as a "digital photographer". Setomorp (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I am puzzled as to how you got "She has also asserted that" here from the phototech reference You replaced "she is known for not using post production manipulation in her images" with "She has also asserted that she does not use post production manipulation in her images". The phototech reference actually says: "All of her images are created in camera and not by the use of post-production manipulation." and those words are obviously not said by Christy Lee Rogers. They are said, not asserted, by Duncan Beebe of photo technique Magazine. So please either give a reference that proves Christy "asserts" this, or put the wording back to how it was. Setomorp (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Christy Lee Rogers - Setomorp[edit]

Hi Laval. I came across your conversation with Setomorp regarding Christy Lee Rogers, while investigating a CIO relating to Dan Wagner. It appears setomorp is a pr account, if this twitter page of the same name is to go by, According to that page, setomorp is part of World Wide PR. You may be interest in this particular tweet from Christy Lee Rogers, &[dead link] (retweet on the 22nd June), recommending World Wide PR.

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Netcom (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EFF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
With compliments! Mootros (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Laval (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello USER:Laval and thanks for your interest in improving such articles as [[Keith Reniere]]. I won't be editing the mainspace for personal reasons, but I have collected sources and summarized some of them here, which is that article's talk page. I hope that helps! Chrisrus (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Use the talk page[edit]

I've started a section on Talk:A Gallery for you and the IP to discuss the disputed section. Please attempt to involve them in discussion there instead of continuing the edit warring that's going on now.  —SMALLJIM  11:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried. This individual has been a problem for a few years, but he had a PR guy handling the article. COI and paid editing are among the major issues at hand here. Laval (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked into it that much, I must admit: I just saw edit warring that needs to stop. I'll block the IP if they continue without engaging in discussion. I do wonder, however, whether the section under dispute needs to be quite so prominent in the article. And, what's the issue over Album Artists?  —SMALLJIM  11:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The identity and culture of the gallery was inextricably tied to Scientology. The owner of the gallery ran the business according to L Ron Hubbard's management principles (so-called "administrative technology") and modeled it along the cultural lines of Celebrity Centre International in Hollywood. There are plenty of additional news sources that go into greater detail about how closely linked the gallery and Celebrity Centre were, to the extent that it was considered a Scientology "field group" tasked with holding religious workshops to get artists interested in Scientology as well as get them to sign up for courses at the London Celebrity Centre. Those haven't been included because it would just be beating a dead horse and what's there is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the gallery was an extension of Celebrity Centre. Laval (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Album Artists, this is a non-notable shell company owned by the same person who owned the gallery (who is the person behind the IP which can be verified by contacting the ISP) that is used to broker album art between bands and artists associated with the gallery. He's basically a middleman. There are no reliable or verifiable secondary sources to back anything written in that article. The article was started by User:Johnalexwood, a prominent Scientologist PR guy in the UK, hired by the business owner, and this is where we start to get into a slippery slope because of real life identities, paid editing, COI, etc. Laval (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind as well that the business owner is quite open about being a Scientologist, as can be evidenced on their Twitter and Facebook, and the language used in the section is very neutral. A few years back, there were editors pushing for the article to call the gallery a "Scientology front" and other such POV allegations and innuendo, so the current version focuses on his own quotes and that of one of his most prominent artist clients (Tyler Shields), and none of it is "negative". Considering the fact that he is constantly promoting Scientology on Twitter and Facebook, trying to wipe the article of this information doesn't quite make sense. Laval (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'm not going to get involved in the details because it isn't a topic that interests me. But it's evident that you need to have a look at the policy on dispute resolution and get input from some uninvolved editors.  —SMALLJIM  12:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
That's been tried before, several times over a period of years. Been there, done that. Too many times. Hasn't stopped this guy from continuing his blanking campaign and abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion and spamming. It's a two way street, and I don't have the time or the inclination to escalate matters. But I also won't allow someone to spam the hell out of this project or blank well sourced material. Laval (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It's also not my job to handle paid editors. I've raised the issue before, no one really wants to do anything, and I have no interest in that area either. Again, not my job. If you think you can get through to this guy, be my guest. Laval (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I now see that you're particularly interested in Scientology issues. Policy is clear that you must not continue to revert as you did yesterday, without taking further action. Don't forget that if you think they're vandalising, and they continue after you've issued the appropriate warnings, the next step is to make a report at WP:AIV. I've also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Album Artists: I hope you'll express your opinion there.  —SMALLJIM  10:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. It's been a long time since I made any reports against others, so have to reacquaint myself with the process, as tedious as it is. Laval (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Less heat, more light[edit]

I know that working with ideologues can be frustrating, but collaboration includes persuasion, persuasion often includes teaching, and teaching works best in a maternal atmosphere. However private it feels, you are always in a theater with an unseen audience. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See [5]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just found WP:TEA -- wish I'd seen it earlier. Please see the copyright violation query cited above. I think there are real BLP issues on that page, but it is taking me a while to put it together. Grammar's Li'l Helper 06:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The image prioryman agreed to remove is an alleged ad in a church publication of some kind (Auditor #56) from about 50 years ago. The image was supposed to be a Hubbard putting a death contract on a list of people using "R2-45" language. Foeffer got it from some blog in Germany, with no pedigree of authenticity. Over Hubbard's signature, Hubbard supposedly wanted someone called "Mrs Knight" killed -- no further description. There were 150,000 people in the US named Knight in 2009. It had all the genuineness of one of those emails from Nigeria asking for money. Grammar's Li'l Helper 07:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have said my piece on the ANI discussion of copyright. The question is an issue of fact rather than consensus, and now we are just awaiting the various admins to confirm that the case is as stated. Some tried to muddy the issue by spurious charges against me without links or evidence, but I had a cup of WP:TEA and the charges did not stick. Grammar's Li'l Helper 08:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scientology and the occult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Parsons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

American Nazi Party[edit]

WP:3RR. WP:Edit warring will get you blocked. 7&6=thirteen () 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laval: For goodness sake, see WP:VER! You've been here for almost 10 years! Give me a break! TJH2018talk 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salmas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Membership in OTO is not universally regarded as a smear. People try out all kinds of things, that's freedom of religion. Secondly, thank you for your correction. You were right. Hubbard wasn't technically a member, just a participant. Excellent catch!!! Sincerely, you improved the article substantially by catching that error. Feoffer (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not under attack, there's no rule against using the talk page or the noticeboards. It's still important to document to wikipedia how much time is being lost due to their uncertainty about whether ortega is RS or not. Gotta justify them looking at it so they'll give a definitive answer and not just dismissing it like they did last time, when sfarney asked arbcom for a definitive answer. Feoffer (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Beware of edit warring[edit]

I will be filing an Arbitration Request soon in which I must name all involved, including you. Be careful not to be caught in an edit warring splash-back accusation. That would complicate things unnecessarily. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbComm Request[edit]

See [6] Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The arbcomm request was an error of process, so I have withdrawn it. What I need to request is arbcomm enforcement. I have issued warnings on each of the offender's pages. BiologistBabe is into name-calling and nastiness, but has not edited the article and I will not bother with the small stuff. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
And now it begins.[7]
And this round is finished.[9]
Here is the key phrase.

BiologyBabe is not a Wikipedia editor[edit]

S/he does nothing but talk pages and a few discussions.[10] Added a link to the Glendora facebook page. Never any editing. Obviously does not understand Wikipedia editing, never tries, and has no interest. Just a WikiInfant. I will ignore her/him if possible. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 05:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laval. You have new messages at Talk:Richard_de_Mille.
Message added 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also: IP-hopping user(s) edit warring. Elvey(tc) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Please calm down on that article. The edit warring over tags and aggressive battleground mentality is more than enough to block you, but I'm not going to do that. I will, however, sound a note of caution - if you continue attempting to take down angry mastodons, somebody else will. I ask that you please propose a set of proposals on the article talk page that is specific, concise and strictly about the article in a new section. That's the only way this can work: You make an exact proposal, it gets discussed, and then we see what has consensus. Please accept this olive branch. Regards, The WordsmithTalk to me 17:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment makes sense to me as well. If you want to make a specific proposal regarding the article, such as a merge, or deletion, or whatever, you are of course free to do so. If you believe such action justified, in fact, I strongly urge you to do so. I have expressed qualms about the article myself. But as others have noted before, we block or otherwise sanction editors much more frequently for issues of behavior than issues of other policy violations. Partially because, I think, that we tend to try to give everyone except the worst and most frequent content-policy violators the occasional benefit of the doubt, and because, frankly, conduct issues which might create problems for others are, in a sense, maybe worse than the occasional content policy or guideline violation, because they more directly affect other editors. You've been an editor under this name since 2007, you probably already know that, just like you probably know the methods of dispute resolution which are more acceptable according to policies and guidelines. Yes, we all can lose our cools once in a while. I say that as someone who is himself under a topic ban of some 4 or 5 articles, even though I believe, according to content policies and guidelines, I was probably more in the right than the other party who wasn't banned in such a way, because my conduct was worse than his. You know how things work around here by now, and I hope that you try to resolve your questions regarding this matter in a way more appropriate than that I took when I got the ban I am now under. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to your message at my user talk page, I think it worth point out that, this point, you would find that even some of the major religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, are actually supporting Scientology in some degree, such as supporting their ability to operate as a religion in Germany. I personally think a lot of the problem with Scientology, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Falun Gong, and a few of the other so-called "cults", is their habit of being extremely secretive, and not engaging in the degree of media contact one would expect of them. This leads, in a lot of cases, to what might be reasonable internal arguments against material sourced from the outside not being as easy to add to the content here, because of a lack of independent sources. To my own eyes, the best way of dealing with all such controversial religious and sociological phenomena is to find what material is covered, and at what length it is covered, in independent academic sources of a roughly encyclopedic nature, and try to develop the similar content here first. Doing so is more likely to make it easier to determine what content is relevant to those articles which academics considered important enough to be included in their works, and, by extension, what related articles here are most deserving of development. If we could do that a bit better, then we reasonably could be a lot more certain we would have all the required "core" articles on any topic to merge more dubious content or articles into. That, however, can and does take a lot of work, including setting up pages like those at Category:WikiProject prospectuses. I would personally love to see more such prospectuses made, and actually have around ten or twenty ready to be added from paper copy as we speak. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be back soon.[edit]

Watch this space. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested[edit]

Arbitration requested.[11] Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Atari AMY[edit]

Some time ago you tagged the Atari AMY for cites. Can you explain why? It seems there are enough cites and they're all inline. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Laval. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)