User talk:Cleduc/Archive2

South Hill
Excuse me but there is no South hill in Chippewa Falls. According to Chippewa slang there is only an East and West hill because those two hills arre a lot closer to the downtown area. R d the savior 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

 * ... is over. Cleduc 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Pies
Just saw your addition regarding this as theatre in the UK. Never heard of them, nor has Google, but rather than slap a notice on the page, especially in view of your other good works, I thought I'd question it direct. Any comments? --Richhoncho 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image_talk:TTCSubwayInterlined1966.svg
Hi Cleduc. I saw your comment on the talk page of this image, and updated the graphic file with a new caption as per your specification (that is, "Multi-level or transfer station"). However, just before uploading it, it occured to me that Union might actually be a multi-level station, if you consider VIA Rail and GO Transit rail service. On the other hand, the map is clearly labeled as a subway map. What do you think? --Ori Livneh (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. I'm archiving our discussion in the talk page, if anyone disagrees.

Bingo
LOL, you guessed it. I have been in TO since '89. I don't think I have been between YUL and YYZ as many times. --YUL89YYZ 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deprecated
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind for the future :) —  Fire Fox  19:05, 09 July '06

escarbot @ en:Category:1??? films
Salut, Vargenau. J'ai vu beaucoup de votre travail en le wikipedia en anglais (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3A1970_films&diff=61428122&oldid=61026321), pour mettre des interwikiliens. Le modèle en:Template:Filmyr comprise toutes les interwikiliens... donc, il n'est pas necessaire ajouter les liens a chaque article. Merci pour tout votre travail ici. -- Cleduc 3 juillet 2006 à 06:20 (CEST) (rsvp à en:User talk:Cleduc)

Bonjour,

J'utilise le logiciel pywikipedia, mais ce n'est pas moi qui l'ai ecrit. Je vais contacter les auteurs pour voir ce qu'il faut faire.

Je pense que le robot ne cherche les interwikis que dans le texte de la page, pas dans les templates.

Merci de m'avoir signale le probleme.

Vargenau 11:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bilingual NB
The same user that made the edits to the NB page also edit the Ontario and Manitoba pages. I'm not familiar with this area, and there seems to be some debate about the actual status. Could you take a look at both pages and the discussion about this matter on their talk pages? Qutezuce 07:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My edit summaries
I talk to Soman with some frequency; I very much doubt that he'd feel "humiliated" by my edit summary. --Descendall 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortbus
Please indicate on Talk:Shortbus what you feel needs to be updated in this article. Thanks. 23skidoo 13:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Charles Plympton Smith
Hi Cleduc, just a heads up that I have listed the Charles Plympton Smith article with a question of notability. CApitol3 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

style warring
You have been systematically replacing "BC" with "BCE" in articles on Hittite kings. Please don't do that. See WP:BCE. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * you are welcome to do as you see fit, but the thing on Wikipedia is that the same holds for others too. This leads to edit-wars, that is, flurries of edits with a zero result. You should at least be aware of the history and context of a point before pushing ahead, and I tried to inform you. There has been an effective cease-fire on eras since 2005, and Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 has
 * When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. [...] See also Requests for arbitration/Jguk.
 * if you ignore this history and simply push ahead, all you will acheive is reviving the edit-wars and waste everybody's time. If you want to take up the matter and look for a solution, you should revive Eras/Straw poll or propose new avenues at Wikipedia_talk:Eras. That's the tiresome way, but the only that is bound to have any effect at all. I should not be required to point this out to you personally, you are expected to read up on the history of the debate yourself (after having been pointed to Eras) if you are interested in the topic. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

James Brown Is Dead
you're right, I jumped the gun on that one, and it was an inappropriate delete. I just felt it was in bad taste, but it probably wasn't a speedy delete. I apologize. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hatusilli III
The book by Trevor Bryce is called "The Kingdom of the Hittites. It is regarded as a classic on the Hittites today by pretty much all scholars--and it is in English rather than German. Perhaps your university or college library has a copy of this book. Here is an Amazon review of Bryce's 1998 book: Regards, Leoboudv 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Charlayne_Hunter-Gault.JPG
Hi, I am currently doing a bit of image checking of images listed on CNN People articles and came across Image:Charlayne_Hunter-Gault.JPG. It says permission has been given for its use by CNN for wikipedia. Could you tell me if this permission has been passed on to the wikipedia permissions email address? Thanks -Localzuk(talk) 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find out more about it at Successful_requests_for_permission and Requesting_copyright_permission. If the foundation don't have any confirmation then the image might end up being deleted as the status cannot be confirmed.-Localzuk(talk) 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Hatred?
Why did you delete the reference to Stephen Colbert in Oliver Cromwell? It seems to be a legitimate pop culture reference, and it was in the appropriate section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.122.7 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
 * A mere mention of OC is not an important influence on pop culture. If OC had inspired Colbert's show, that would be important.  I'm a fan of Colbert, by the way, but every reference that his writers make up and that pass his lips is not a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy tidbit.  Cleduc 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP please
STOP reverting the justified edits of COFS and that I support. STOP edit-warring with me. STOP, you are being disruptive and if you do not stop, I will report the disruption. Thanks. --Justanother 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: ucfirst
Well, yeah, I thought it would be nice to use it to reduce number of parameters. Doesn't do much - the template essentially works the same as before, and I hesitated to do it because it's fairly easy to mess it up - but it worked. In theory, using #expr perhaps, it would be possible to "merge" tens and ones into one parameter. Some other time... :-) GregorB 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology
Since I was blocked on Friday I could not write to you here. I want to catch up on that and have left a question for you here. COFS 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lukas Ridgeston
Hi. I was kind of annoyed with the tone of the discussion at Talk:Lukas Ridgeston in respect of the actor's real name. I'm not sure myself whether or not the real name should be included in the article, but you were certainly asking the right questions. It is unfortunate that some editors feel the need to call others who disagree with their claims as being "clearly malicious". I have referenced the discussion at WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board, and hopefully a decision will be made following a rational discussion. Cheers. Skeezix1000 20:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chipper Jones Personal Life
Thanks! I axed that by accident. // Tecmobowl 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratings
Wasn't anything real special about the ratings for this film back in '73. Anything that wasn't kiddy friendly got the "X", and when it was re-released it got an "R". If you cannot say that in prose then don't clutter the page with indiscriminate lists of ratings. We don't use release dates from every single country, it would take up the entire page if we did that. We generally only talk about "ratings" information if it is relevant, in which case third-party reliable sources, discussing the rating of the film and how it affected it would be the way to go. Bignole 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Santiago light rail
Thanks for polishing Santiago light rail ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, is there a chance you could checkout Santo Domingo Metro, kindly ~ Moebiusuibeom-en 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mona the Camel on San Juan Island
Pardon me, but don't remove content arbitrarily, check your facts first. There is a camel named Mona on San Juan Island near Friday harbor, and is an integral part of San Juan island life. That was correctly placed, and is just as valid a fact as the other commentary in that section. Note the following article in the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2003045616.html Matt S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.26.74 (talk • contribs)
 * With all due respect, mr anonymous editor, I'll do what I think is correct. Feel free to do what you think is correct, too, but by citing sources you'll get a lot farther.  Cheers, Cleduc 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Query on my talkpage
I responded... I just noticed it as it got lost in other edits that happened after you and FisherQueen had posted there.--Isotope23 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:1.6m
A template you created, Template:1.6m, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Pogrom"?
As I'm sure you're aware, that's a term for outbreaks of mass violence against minority groups. As such, it's a somewhat offensive comparison to make. Please don't do that again. Vizjim 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In no case did I delete information - it's there in the categories, it's there in the magazines written for, its there in the main body of the text. But until George W Bush's entry starts with "GWB is the 43rd straight President...", I think it's inappropriate and discriminatory to begins entries with sexuality (except in the case of pornographic actors, whose entries I left alone). Vizjim 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleduc, I, if anyone, will jump all over someone who tries to suppress evidence of same-sex affection. However, in this case the relevant material is (or should be) in the body of the article. I have to agree with Vizjim that inserting the "gay" tag in the intro is heavyhanded. Also, speaking as someone not unfamiliar with love for other males, I don't think it is good policy to define people by their sexuality (unless they themselves do so) any more than to define them by any other aspect of their personalities. I would not want it done to me. And the use of the word "pogrom" is needlessly inflammatory. We all have to get along here. Haiduc 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In most of the articles in question, it was not stated elsewhere (obviously, you don't have to believe me – check for yourself): and yes, I agree that it "should be". And I agree that it doesn't usually have to be in the lede.  And yes, the word "pogrom" was poorly chosen, and now I am fully educated on the etymology and precise definition of the word.  However, the systematic removal of information about sexuality from a body of articles is bad news, which is why I called attention to it. Cleduc 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So here's a suggestion. Let's leave the leads as per Vizjim, and let's fill in the missing info in the body of the article. Since you started this, may I suggest you check to see which ones are missing the relevant info, then you take a few and give me a few and I'll be happy to lend a hand. Haiduc 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Haiduc 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Huei tlamahuiçoltica
Hi there Cleduc. Thanks for your intervention and attempts to place those problematic recent edits on a more reasonable footing, at this article and the Our Lady of Guadalupe one. I was running short of time to do anything more than undo the most egregiously POV and OR edits, so was glad to see someone else come along and challenge them. It is probably going to require a sustained effort; I'll be only minimally available over the next little while, but when I'm able will do what I can towards maintaining a case for balance and compliance with our editorial policies.

I see that you read Spanish; then these Denuncias listed in the Parliamentary Gazette of the Mexican govt (Aug 2000) may provide some interesting reading and background information. These (ultimately unsuccessful) petitions were initiated by one Luis de Guerrero-Osio y Rivas, a.k.a. User:Luisosio (at least, according to his userpage). See in particular the text of the second of the two denuncias, against the Secretary of the Interior at the time, Diódoro Carrasco, for alleged 'genocide and treason'. The claims of Zionist conspiracy and the language used therein might at least partially explain the motivation behind the otherwise elliptical references to rabbis and Judaism inserted by Luisosio into the article. I suppose that in real life Luisosio is free to pursue whatever agenda he sees fit; but it does seem to me that some portion of that user's contribs here are seeking to extend that viewpoint into the articles. Dunno whether you agree or disagree, but in any case I appreciated your actions. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Guadalupan stuff.
I'm also glad that someone else is working on the Guadalupan stuff. I don't really know how to deal with this kind of conflict. Is there a Wikimanual about it somewhere? I don't want to get into an edit war, and discussion didn't seem fruitful, but I don't want to leave the Our Lady article full of exclamation marks and original research either.Katsam 08:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Buddhist polemics
An article that you have been involved in editing, Buddhist polemics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. linca linca  15:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)