User talk:Nlaporte

Since your first edit was over two years ago, someone ought to have welcomed you by now, so (belatedly):

Welcome!

Hello, Nlaporte, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context added to Sender Rewriting Scheme[edit]

Hi, I removed the {{context}} tag that you added on 21 January 2007, after having an attempt at providing more context. Please check it. ale 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing on Lake Shore Drive[edit]

The sourcing that would be required to demonstrate that it is called DuSable Drive needs to be much, much stronger. The couple of tweets you added shows the opposite; that people are trying to force that term into common use, which means that it is not in common usage. A single handout, predating the compromise, is also insufficient. It is the very epitome of a primary source. What is needed is a secondary source or two that reports on what the public calls it, almost certainly from a poll, and that will take some time. Some of the applicable policies and guidelines are WP:CHALLENGE aka WP:BURDEN, WP:PSTS, [[[WP:RELIABLESOURCES]], WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, [WP:TOOMANYREFS]], WP:NPOV, and WP:OTHERNAMES within WP:COMMONNAME. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abductive! I'm certainly open to waiting for some more secondary sourcing on DuSable Drive, although I am a little puzzled why you think it's POV-pushing? Is it because the name change was controversial? I'm also not sure about your interpretation that the tweets I cited show that the writers are trying to "force [the] term into common use". They are using the new name, which certainly sounds odd to someone who isn't used to hearing it, but I don't see any evidence that it's "forced". Nlaporte (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]