User talk:Smalltownsask

Welcome!

Hello, Smalltownsask, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lacadena, Saskatchewan, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 04:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Joseph Audet

Richard Joseph Audet is a fascinating article, but it strikes me as having been copied verbatim from a single source which is not acceptable, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Strictly speaking it should be tagged for speedy deletion, but I would rather see it quickly rewritten. Some of the material is rather unencyclopedic and could be deleted, and the rest rephrased in your own words. It also needs inline references to key facts. You can use the source material you have to hand as a reference (with publisher, date etc), and Google will find some more sources such as [1]. Let me know if I can be of assistance.--Derek Andrews (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Joseph Audet

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Richard Joseph Audet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from {{{value1}}}. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets, organized hamlets and special service areas in Saskatchewan

Hello Smalltownsask, you've made some good faith edits that I've had to revert as they are not technically correct. The Government of Saskatchewan only recognizes certain communities as either hamlets, organized hamlets or special service areas. This is the source that confirms which ones fit in those categories or designations. Simply select from the "Status" pull-down menu and click "Search" to confirm all those communities that have these designations. Hope this helps clarify why I had to revert your edits. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Vosnesenya, Saskatchewan

added links pointing to Settlement and Swan River

Arran, Saskatchewan

added a link pointing to Swan River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect hamlet assertions and unsourced populations

I just finally looked at an article you recently edited (Darmody, Saskatchewan). I suggest you review my recent edit summaries there and reacquaint yourself with my message from mid-2015 above. How many other unincorporated community articles have you edited incorrectly? Are you doing the same on RM articles? If so, I suggest you go back and fix the erroneous edits. Hamlet status is something designated by the Government of Saskatchewan. I've shown you above how to verify those communities that currently have some form of hamlet status. Relying on dated information, or other sources that are not the primary and definitive sources, cannot be used to perpetuate myths that certain unincorporated communities are hamlets when they are in fact not. Also, do not add unsourced population figures, or your own original research to add population figures to articles. This is contrary to WP:CANPOP. Hwy43 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just went through my three-day watchlist feed and fixed a bunch of erroneous edits to unincorporated community and RM articles. These types of edits have been an issue for years now. I've reached out to the community previously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods#Not all unincorporated places are hamlets in 2014, and you specifically above in 2015, as well as other editors that seem to have the same editing habits to you. Unfortunately, I've yet to receive a response from you or these other editors (which I suspect may be your alternate accounts). It has been frustrating to attempt to fix the issue over the years that is widespread among hundreds of Saskatchewan articles, and work against continued efforts to re-add or add additional inaccurate information despite the attempts to engage. Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost town assertions

Similar to the above, please don't tag every locality, rail siding and small unincorporated community in Saskatchewan as a ghost town. Preferably, we need a reliable source to confirm that a community is regarded as a ghost town, or worse at least have a reliable source that the place was once significantly populated in the first place. Apparently there is a 1982 book out there called Saskatchewan Ghost Towns. That is a place to start. I fear the vast majority of the entries at List of ghost towns in Saskatchewan and Category:Ghost towns in Saskatchewan never were substantially populated in the first place to warrant a reliable source ever referring to them as ghost towns. Using that book would go a long way to start both the list and category over from scratch. Hwy43 (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]