The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for your many small fixes to keep Wikipedia running. Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I award this barnstar to Quebec99 for fixing thousands of articles in Category:Pages with URL errors. Your tireless work is hereby commended. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing my references in the Cub Swanson article. I am new to Wikipedia so I make silly blunders. 张雨涵 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	You make Wikipedia a lot more like the collaborative project it's meant to be. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Cleanup Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless efforts for fixing references. Kambliyil (talk) 06:34 10 June 2021 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For correcting duplicate ref names. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to my user talk page Before posting, please read the notes below. For matters related to article content, "use the article's talk page" (most likely on my watchlist), or use the relevant Wiki project talk page. That's the intended purpose of these pages and will get attention from others that way. Also, use the article or project talk pages to ask for help or advice. Out of place posts may be removed or moved to a more appropriate talk page. Leave me a note pointing me to a discussion if needed. Please use this page only for personal and general comments. Keep conversations together - I will reply to posts on the talk page where the conversation starts. Do not take changes to your edits personally. Note the warning on each edit screen: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I may revert unexplained (no edit summary) edits that appear unhelpful. To prevent this, provide edit summaries with understandable reason(s) to explain your intent. Edits where cited text is changed may be reverted since that violates Wikipedia's WP:Verify policy. Please provide a reference with your changes. Personal attacks will be removed. Unfair and improper criticism will be ignored or removed. Try to make your point without writing paragraphs and paragraphs of text. Overly long posts will probably be ignored or possibly removed. Add posts to the relevant section or start a new section at the bottom. Thanks.

I restored an article to an earlier version to remove what appears to be a copyright violation, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Theater_(World_War_II)&action=history

I see that you made some edits subsequently. In many such cases the subsequent edits relate to the material added and therefore should not be preserved, but it's theoretically possible you were making changes that had nothing to do with the copyright violation. I'm bringing this to your attention. If you think your edits are to be preserved let me know and I'll see if I can figure out how to restore them myself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take it personal. I just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names to find pages with problems... if it shows up there, I'll edit it. :-) Quebec99 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am currently working on Draft:List of most expensive sports films just wondering if ypu want to give me a hand P+T Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Anything that you need me to do? There is a reference (6) that looks weird... http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/patiala-house-music-launched/20110110.htm has a 109 at the beginning. Quebec99 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just expand the charts I have set up Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quebec99. I see you are an eminent wikipedian with lots of experience and qualifications. Thank you for the attention you recently gave the page James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault. You seem to have corrected what you (or an automatic procedure you used) mistook for reference names defined multiple times with different content. I believe there are no such errors in the article. However you changed several Sfn to sfn. I do not see why this should be done. I consistently and purposefully used Sfn with a leading uppercase S. Am I wrong to do so? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not wrong to use initial uppercase letters for wiki commands, but I read somewhere (in Wikipedia) that the commands should all be lowercase. I will have to find it again. It works either way, and you can change them back if you prefer. The page was listed on a page as having duplicate reference names... that was the main reason for editing the page in the first place. Cheers. Quebec99 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quebec99. Thanks for your reply. If you can find where Wikipedia says that "the commands should all be lowercase", I would be very much interested and would try to change them all to lower case. However, there are some templates that seem to be always used with upper case letters such as "TOC limit". With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chat. Quebec99 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quebec99. You are a Master Editor and I am a novice. However, I do not understand your corrections that change the author's last name in the {{Sfn}}s from "La Chesnaye des Bois" to "La Chesnaye des Bois63", "La Chesnaye des Bois61", "La Chesnaye des Bois61b", "La Chesnaye des Bois61c" and similar. The article cites several passages from this book and sometimes more than one from the same page which are then distinguished by a line number or an indication like top middle and bottom. The strange thing with this old book (2nd edition, Schlesinger) is that it numbers the columns on each page separately. The citation 28 seems to have a real issue: two pages are given. Please have a look. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple the {{Sfn}}s with the same name "La Chesnaye des Bois" were causing "The named reference "$1" was defined multiple times with different content? errors. Perhaps I should wrap each SFN in <ref> containers with different names instead?

Quebec99 (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quebec99. I found that it was probably all my fault. I introduced an error when editing the article on 10 August 2021, the last edit before your's. The problem is in the very first citation (citing page 126), which is used twice, once in the text and once much further down in the timeline table. I edited the quotation in the text (introducing a non-breaking space) and forgot to repeat the same edit in the citation in the timeline causing the error "was defined multiple times with different content." I could fix this if you would undo your correction, which does not seem to be effective. Otherwise you do it. I hope my explanation is clear enough. I do not want to get into an edit war with you, you could have me blocked or banned. I have never undone anybody's edits but my own. The change of citation style from short-long (Sfn - Cite book) to REF that you propose would require a consultation of the editors involved according to WP:CITEVAR. Would it really improve the article? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes, I do not do "edit wars", or any other kind of wars. I don't know how to get someone blocked or banned. I was merely trying to improve the article... remove the errors. You can make changes as you see fit. I do not own ANY of the pages on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or Wiktionary, but I have made many edits to all of them. I appreciate that you tread lightly before changing something that I have changed, but it happens all the time, and most people don't ask... they just change it.

If you like, I will make the changes, but feel free to change it. I will not be upset.

Have a great day.

Quebec99 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quebec99. I work for Box (company). In compliance with WP:COI, I've disclosed my connection and proposed some updates to trim promotion, expand the page, improve sourcing, etc. on the Talk page. I noticed you were interested in tech/file-sharing topics and was wondering if you had time to take a look at the draft I proposed. Kellytaaffe (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kellytaaffe, the page looks good. I have never heard of that company, but there are volumes that could be written about what I don't know. Quebec99 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the current page at Box (company) or the draft I proposed at User:Kellytaaffe/boxdraft? Under WP:COI, I’m supposed to propose any changes/drafts to the page for a disinterested editor like yourself to consider. Kellytaaffe (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kellytaaffe, the proposed draft User:Kellytaaffe/boxdraft looks much better the the current page. I thought the the original could use to be filled-in a bit, and the draft looks good. I see no conflict... but I don't think that I am in charge either. I'd say publish it and see who complains. Quebec99 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback Quebec99! I'm looking at WP:COI and it looks like I am very strongly discouraged from editing the page myself. Would you mind doing the honors? Kellytaaffe (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kellytaaffe, you want me to copy the proposed draft User:Kellytaaffe/boxdraft over the current page... I can do that. Quebec99 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, presuming you feel that would improve the page. Sorry to be a bother, but I believe that’s what I’m supposed to do to stay out of trouble. Kellytaaffe (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had an interest in technology and was wondering if you'd be willing to review this COI request on a data resiliency company. CamilleBurdge2021 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how to fix the errors at 2021 Turkmen People's Council election. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything flagged... what errors are you trying to fix? Quebec99 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Quebec99,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

You're welcome Quebec99 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for this edit to Transgender rights in Canada you used the edit summary "Fix duplicate ref names – You can help!", and marked it as minor. But the edit added substantial new content and removed several sourced paragraphs (including an entire top-level section). This is definitely not a minor edit, and for changes like this, I think it's important to be explicit about what you're doing and why. I strongly object to the removal of content in this case, but I could easily have missed that it had even happened if I wasn't carefully checking the diffs (indeed, I had to go through a rather tedious bisect process to even find where the content had been removed - and I never would have guessed it would be in an edit with such an innocuous edit summary). Please try to use more accurate summaries in the future, and avoid marking edits as minor if they involve substantial changes (see WP:MINOR). Colin M (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for someone else to use your username? I would never delete huge sections of text. Never. I was just fixing duplicate reference names as always. I have looked at the changes, I agree that it shows my name, but I can't understand how it happened. Sorry, and glad that you found the problem. Quebec99 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This diff may help, or it may be even more mysterious. It appears that Quebec99 somehow ended up editing and modifying an older revision. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch! So possibly he navigated to that old revision via the history and then accidentally started editing from there? I should have guessed it might have just been a technical hiccup. Thank you both for clarifying. Sorry if my initial message was a little brusque. Colin M (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. THAT is a probability, "(16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)" as I often have to look back into the edit history to see which reference was added with the same name that should have a new name, or no name at all! Quebec99 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Quebec99 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been greatly appreciated! Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcomed. Quebec99 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Quebec99 (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quebec99. My name is Daniel and I work in marketing for Sitel. I saw that you were interested in technology and have helped other PR reps looking to participate ethically. I was hoping you could take a look at my post at Talk:Sitel here and weigh in. Any participation would be very much appreciated. Best regards. DanSlavov (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Yes, I am interested in technology, and worked in the computer industry for over 50 years. I read the section that you would like changed, but I usually just fix typo's and broken links. It seems out of my league. Sorry, Moe Quebec99 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashley Gjøvik 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/Ashley Gjøvik 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.

Sebastien1118 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this edit may have fixed duplicate ref names, but it also introduced Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an error. I can remove the changes and the original errors will return if you like? Quebec99 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References 179, 180, and 181 "Freeman's Journal 1830" does not point to any citation. It's something to do with how you're trying to use {{harvnb}}. If you load one of the tools mentioned at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors you will see them highlighted with an error message. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history of the article and it looks like the problems started recently. I reverted to a previous version and they seem to have resolved. I can't quite see how the duplicates happened, but all seems to be OK now. Sfn and harv references are horribly fragile. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that it is back to normal. Quebec99 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits to Johnius. i have reverted these because it is the accepted convention in biological nomenclature that the author of a species name is put in parentheses if the genus has been changed.

For example Linnaeus gave the Black-winged Stilt the binomial Charadrius himantopus but later authors found that the Black-winged Stilt was not a plover and reclassified it in the new genus Himantopus.

The original name is written Charadrius himantopus Linnaeus, 1758 and the current name as Himantopus himantopus (Linnaeus,1758). Linnaeus called the white wagtail Motacilla alba and that is still its binomial so it still written as Motacilla alba Linnaeus,1758.

If you have corrected this “inconsistency” in other species lists then I would request that you undo these too. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964 no problem. I didn't know. Thanks Quebec99 (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only learnt this when I started to work on biology articles in Wikipedia, thanks to Peter coxhead, and I have some background in Biology. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your latest edit to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, since the refs were fine the way they were. Your edit also introduced a different ref style to the article.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

np. Quebec99 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on fixing duplicate references, updating bare urls, and other improvements to references. This is really helpful in maintaining and improving WP:Verifiability. However, please do not change references that are not broken. Also, you seem to be unfamiliar with {{cite journal}}, or at least, you are breaking some of them; also, some things you are calling "reference fixes" aren't references at all, but something else. Some examples:

• Your revision 1182141918 at Transgender has about a dozen WP:CITEVAR violations. Please do not alter citations that have different capitalization than the way you prefer it, and please don't change params in citation templates by adding or removing spaces around the vertical bars or equal signs. I didn't change this edit, but please don't do more edits like this one anymore.
• I undid revision 1182142290 marked "missing space after reference" at Transgender, because that is not a reference, it's a section delimiter for selective transclusion, and there shouldn't be a space after it.
• I undid rev. 1182143407 at Transgender, where you changed a {{cite journal}} template to {{cite web}}. No; this is definitely a journal—it had a journal name (which you removed), a volume number, a doi value. It looks like either you might be unfamiliar with this type of citation template, or maybe you got confused because it also contains a url? This is normal; lots of types of citation templates have urls: {{cite book}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite conference}}, {{cite AV media}}, and many more; and just because it has a url doesn't make it a {{cite web}}. When you see a {{cite journal}} template (with, or without a url) please don't change it to cite web if it was already valid before.

If you're using a tool or user script to make the ref fixes, remember that all your changes should be verified before saving, and the tool should give you an opportunity to examine the diff before saving (if there's one you're using that doesn't allow this, please lmk). All your edits go out under your userid; the tool is just a tool. Other than examples like those above, you're making lots of improvements, so again, thanks for your efforts! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a trickier example, where transclusion of sourced content from another article is involved, having citations in common with the main article. This was the case with your edit 1182139020 at Transgender history. This edit *was* an improvement (thanks!), because there were red citation errors before your edit, and it was categorized in Category:Pages with duplicate reference names, and after your fix, that went away, so all good.

However, that left the article with two identical citations to Janssen's "Transgenderism Before Gender: Nosology from the Sixteenth Through Mid-Twentieth Century", one named "Janssen-2020", plus the one you added, as "Janssen-2020h". That's okay—much better than it was before—but not ideal. If you want to go the extra mile, consolidating the six citations divided between two reusable references into just one reusable reference is the final step involved, and you can see how that was done in this edit.

The tricky part involves the fact that the original "Janssen-2020" citation is actually defined via selective transclusion in section § Medicalization and brought over from the other article. If your eyes are starting to glaze over, don't worry; if you come up with a similar situation again, just de-duping as you did in rev. 1182139020 is fine and it's enough; it's better to have two identical refs, than having the red "duplicate refs" error. Consolidating them using a single named reference is the final step, but WP:Verifiability doesn't suffer if it is never carried out, so feel free to omit that step if it seems opaque. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I only fix pages that show up on the broken references page. Quebec99 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; just keep in mind the bullet points above while fixing them. By "broken references page", I assume you mean, Category:Pages with duplicate reference names? If not, can you point me to it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I can when I get home. Quebec99 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot These are some of the pages that I go to for pages that need attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_citations_having_redundant_parameters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unnamed_parameters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_archiveurl_citation_errors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_citations_lacking_titles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_incorrect_citation_syntax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_incorrect_ref_formatting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_errors:_access-date_without_URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names
I usually only fix the red errors, but some pages have so many errors that I will spend more time on them. The capitalization "preference" was a reference that I found by another editor that stated commands should be lower-case, and not capitalized. I don't remember where I saw it, and I didn't save the wp reference.
I don't know what all the other bullet points refer to. Cite journal usually has an error about something that it doesn't recognize, or something missing. Changing it to "cite web" usually fixes the error, with no apparent difference in display. I could spend more time adding additional information to the "Edit summary" if the would help. Or I could just stop editing.
This page has a cite journal red link Cite journal requires |journal=... do you have a recommended fix? Or should I just leave it alone? Quebec99 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great list of categories, thanks; I wasn't even aware of most of them. Generally, working references can be improved (more parameters, more info, corrected info, etc.) but not changed just to add or subtract spaces, change capitalization, and that sort of thing that doesn't improve a working citation. You can read about it at WP:CITEVAR. Whatever the other editor told you about capitalization either was referring to something else besides references, or they were just mistaken. By the "bullet points", I just meant the three bullets in my earlier message.

The {{cite journal}} template is for papers published in an academic journal, either in print, or online, or often both. I think a lot of the "missing journal" warnings may be due to not being sure "what counts as a journal". Journals have an editorial board, conduct peer review, and may reject papers submitted to them if they aren't up to snuff. Sometimes, especially in the case of online-only publications, it's not so easy to know if something qualifies as a "journal", or if it is merely an online collection or repository of papers that anyone can post to. Something like PLOS One, which is online-only, is a journal; it has a name, it has a registered ISSN number, and most importantly, an editorial board with a rigorous peer-review process. Repositories are places where anyone can publish their paper, like Academia.edu and ResearchGate. Sometimes, it's not so clear if an online-only site is a legitimate journal, or just a repository, and if in doubt, see if Wikipedia has an article about it (like PLOS One, Academia, or ResearchGate), and they may say whether it is a journal or not. Otherwise, you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk, or at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard.

Something else you can try, is to search Google Scholar for the title of a published paper that has a "missing journal" template, and check the citation Google gives you. For example, for Battle of the Ten Kings, you can search for the paper with this search. There's nothing in the Google result at first glance that shows a journal name or other journal data, so that's a yellow flag, that it's probably not a journal. You can click the "Cite" link at the bottom, to see Google's suggested citation in any of nine formats (I like 'MLA'), and none of them mention a journal name, so it's probably not a journal. Normally, Google is pretty good at displaying the best result first, but you can click "All 5 versions" at the bottom, to see if there's anything better than their first result (there isn't). So for that one, since it's not a journal, I'd change it to {{cite web}}.

If you're not sure if something is a journal or not, and you don't feel like running it down, then just skip that one. You can always ask for help at the WP:Help desk, or WP:RSN, or you can ping me if you want, and I'll have a look. I think you're doing great work improving referencing at Wikipedia, so don't give it up just because you run into a hiccup now and then; that comes with the territory. You're doing fine; keep on going! Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to correct the references but you should have simply reverted. That page has been attracting sock puppets who claim that the party's political position is the exact opposite of what it really is, going so far as to deliberately misquote that Independent article so it appears to agree with them. One of those socks has claimed to be the leader of an opposing party.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68 Thanks. I didn't know about the other drama.Quebec99 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quebec99! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 10:47, Sunday, October 29, 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know why I reverted your removals of the citations. The "CAAPS-2021" citation wasn't empty, it's defined later in the article in the Professional commentary subsection. The "CAAPS" citation was supposed to be "CAAPS-2021", and looks like it was missed when another editor did a rename. The two "splc" citations hadn't yet been reused elsewhere in the article, but have the potential for reuse. I've renamed those now to better differentiate based on their publishing date. I've fixed all of those errors now :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Quebec99 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Quebec99 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quebec99!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. I will read more about it, but my first thoughts are that this is too political for my taste. I am comfortable with correcting obvious errors, misspellings, and broken links, but I tend to shy away from personal conflict. I will read-up on your group and its purpose and let you know my decision. Quebec99 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]