User talk:Mfortier

French Canadian, Canadien
I think your assumption is that the (French: xxx) part is meant for literal translations alone. Is it so? Is it not to signify the name of the said ethnic group/people/nation in the alternative language(s) spoken by the said group? This would make more sense. The fact that today's general definition of Canadien/Canadien collides with past definitions is a source of confusion of course. But it is the kind of things that translators take into account when they have to choose the best equivalent word, in the context of both the original source and the target audience. That is one of the reasons why translation is left to human beings and not machines: literal translations do not make sense in a great number of cases.

For a good period of time actually, many people translated Canadien to "French Canadian". Had they been more neutral and less hostile to the very existence of the said nationality, they would have translated it to "Canadian", as were doing some more enlightened and less partisan English speakers during the same period of time. So does Canadien (ancient meaning) translate back to French Canadian? Oddly enough, it does, because "Canadian" means something else today. It refers to the population of a different State, in which the former "Canadians" are today a minority mostly living in the province of Quebec. This artificially created minority was dubbed "French", strangely enough something they had stopped being when, in the late 17th century, they had started to call themselves Canadien. This would not compile in the C++ language, but most politics would not either. ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you take time to teach me. It is interesting and you should submit these facts both in the french and english versions of the article. It is also true that I prefer the literal translation in the (French: xxx) because, in this case, it happen that the literal version is accurate and practical:
 * - We both agree that Canadien is not the actual/modern translation.
 * - If a reader wants to know more on the subject they will be more successful searching for Canadien francais instead of Canadien.
 * - I beleive the Canadien translation is appropriate only in a few rare historical context. It should not be suggested lightly "between parenthesis" that you can use either Canadien francais or Canadien as a direct translation. That is one of the reasons why translation is left to human beings and not machines: the importance of the context ;-)
 * The fact that you needed to provide a long explanation on the side to a French Canadian (myself) is a hint that we are dealing with a subtility that will confuse more than one.
 * We can try to meet half-way. We can remove the (French: xxx) and leave it to the "in other language" box to link to the translation. On your side, you can add the historical details related to the usage of "Canadien" to the articles. Mfortier 07:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that people might be confused. I see multiple ways to resolve this:
 * 1. Since, as you have argued, that information can be presented somewhere else in the article, then maybe we can reintroduce the (French: Canadien français) . (There already is a section named Origin of the name which could be expanded)
 * 2. We could have (French: Canadien francais (~1840s to now), Canadien (~1690s to 1840s)) but it might be too much information.
 * 3. We could have (French: Canadien francais, Canadien (historical))
 * 4. ... (French: Canadien francais, Canadien) -- Mathieugp 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 is my favorite. I am ok with 2 and 3 (in that order), but readability takes a hit. If you choose 3, I still would like to see details specific to the translation in the article. 4 does not work for me. On long term, the "Canadien" article might get diluted with other modern facts unrelated to our intent to point out the historical portion. Mfortier 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical analysis software - your suggestions welcome
I am endeavouring to improve this article in content and unbiasedness. Your suggestions about areas of the article to pay particular attention to are welcome! Natebailey (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. Open source is spot on and neutral. Many of the modification done by Sensatus still irritate me (as you probably read in the discussion page), but it is getting better. The definition of "Custom Indicator" is broken though. It should be a "general purpose" definition of the capability of software to define custom indicator... a custom indicator can be used for many other thing than scanning. Examples: line studies to overlap the chart, look for divergence/convergence, use to confirm a signal, automated trading etc. I think the definition should only mention that this is a typical characteristic of TA software, and keep the description of how they are used vague... or simply something like "they are typically used the same way that "classic" indicators (e.g. ADX, MACD, Stochastic) are used". Mfortier (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did fix the "Custom Indicator" section Mfortier (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TA-Lib
An editor has nominated TA-Lib, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Technical analysis software
An editor has nominated Technical analysis software, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TA-Lib


The article TA-Lib has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sources to indicate this software product meets the notability requirements of WP:PRODUCT"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)