User talk:Que-Can

Jean Charest

I haven't found anything about on the LCN articles after doing a search, so it was appropriate to remove this. I did found that he liked previously Harper's program in the 2005-06 campaign, but haven't pull his support for him. This edit was there since the start of the year. It was previously mentionned without sources that he would have run in the federal politics again since early 2005 (which i haven't seen or heard). Cheers!--JForget 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise NOT at Lisgar

Tom cruise went to several schools in the ottawa region including Lisgar and Colonel By. Likewise, Mathew Perry attended both Lisgar and Ashbury. Adam Wang 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting information about Tom Cruise. His attendance at Colonel By is well documented. Is there any documentation or reference supporting his attendance at Lisgar, e.g., a pictures in a school yearbook? Que-Can 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa meetup

Don't know if you're in Ottawa, but judging from your edits, you probably are, so just letting you know... -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag

It hasn't been without discussion (examples 1 and 2), and it's an ongoing topic here. - Dudesleeper 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian flags

I think the usage of flags in articles about people are un-necessary. However, I do realise that there are a lot of people who do want them in. At this point there is no concensus to have or not have the flags in the articles. I started removing flags from Canadian politicians but they were all reverted. I noticed that they were all done using the flag at the time of their birth or death. So to be consistent and historically accurate I use the flag at birth for all Canadians. When you think about it, how much sense would it make for Alexander Mackenzie and even more so Lester B. Pearson to have the current Canadian flag for his article? So consistancy says that someone like Jim Carrey should be treated the same. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather for this explanation. I agree that consistency is highly desirable. It seems there's no Wikipedia policy on flags, however, so we see province flags, state flags, current flags for births rather that "birth flags" (especially in the USA), England flags, Scotland flags, UK flags, etc, etc. Given that right now it is no man's land (no official policy) for flag use and anything goes, perhaps it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie (to mix a metaphor) and leave the flags alone, i.e., not delete or change them. In Canada, of course, the use of the Red Ensign is a bit controversial since it never was an "official" flag of Canada, although it was certainly treated as such during much of the mid part of the 20th century. Before the adoption of the Maple Leaf flag in 1965, however, we often saw the Union Jack flying in Canada ... as Canada's flag! Sir Alexander Mackenzie, for example, I'm sure would have had the Union Jack on his coffin, not the Red Ensign, and when Lester Pearson was born, the Union Jack was still widely considered the flag of Canada.

I think the flag in the Macdonald article is a bit odd. The Union Jack is an odd colour and some of the white bars should be wider than others. I found this picture and an interesting bit in the fifth paragraph. The GGs flag is pictured here. I think the remark at the ebay seller is probably correct in that there wer several variations, some less official than others. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think flag at birth doesn't make sense. If you really want a silly flag icon, stick to the one that is/was in use or official while the politician was active.--Boffob 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Boffob: You are entitled to your opinion on flag icons, silly or not. Many people have strong views on both sides of this debate, and no doubt sooner or later the Red Ensign will be back on on the articles where you deleted them. I suggest getting some (talk page) consensus and we get away from all these nonsense edits and reversals, adding and removing flags. Unilaterally deleting flags from articles based on one's personal opinion does not seem to follow the spirit of Wikipedia. Que-Can 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Other editors seem to agree that flag icons don't belong to infobox. Unless you can point me to official Wikipedia policy or other discussions than this one, I really disagree with the use of icons from flags at birth, mostly because those are obscure, unofficial flags which have nothing to do with the political careers of these politicians, hence they are irrelevent. One might as well indicate who was the Pope when they were born.--Boffob 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of an official Wikipedia policy on flag icons, and perhaps there should be. That said, there are A LOT of flag icons in use now in Wikipedia, so some people do like them. Que-Can 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maj-Britt Nilsson

Oops... sorry, got the wrong date. Thanks for the correction.--Tom M. 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Neve Campbell

I use Flickr to find free images, and there currently any other free pictures of her available. However, if you'd like, I can contact the creator of this picture to see if he'll release under a different license. ShadowHalo 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Would it be possible to get permission to use this portrait photo: Neve Campbell at IMDb? It's better, I think. Que-Can 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's usually uncommon (though it has happened) to get promotional pictures like those to be licensed freely. If you'd like to try, it certainly couldn't hurt. ShadowHalo 08:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe Volpe

I'm having another discussion with GoldDragon on this page. Would you be willing to look it over? CJCurrie 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello CJC. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I don't really know how the editing wars (like this one) are normally resolved. I think your changes to the Dion and Volpe articles are good, and I am surprised that the reversals keep going on and on without resolution. Where do you get an arbiter? Que-Can 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Horsey deaths

Hi there. My preference is to add it in, only because of the amount of news coverage I have seen about it. I don't follow thoroughbred racing at all, but I figured that if this horse's death was the top story on CNN.com that it deserved a mention. Personally I don't have a problem with putting well-known animals on that page; I think separating them out is kind of pointless because there are so few "well-known" animals, ya know? A thoroughbred horse who has won medals - yes.... a well-recognized dog on a popular TV show - ok.... one of the Chinese Pandas that get a lot of press - yes.... someone's pet or a nameless animal in a zoo somewhere - no. Is there a discussion on a Talk Page somewhere about this? - eo 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lengths of PMs time in office

You're right, I should. I'll get on that. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for once ...

... I'd like to do it right. Whenever I add a name to that death list, someone changes around something within minutes after I've posted it. I was just trying to find an English language source and wanted to avoid that "citation needed" tag. Is temporarily referring to the German Wikipedia really worse than having no reference? I just don't get it. Best wishes, <KF> 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello KF. Thanks for your message. I too had looked for a German-language or any-language citation for Mr. Fux, but wasn't successful. Bingo - someone ("Acctorp") found a citation and posted it. By leaving the Wikipedia reference as the citation, someone (not me) may well have chosen to wipe out the whole entry for Mr. Fux. It's better to have a (temporary) "citation needed" I think.Que-Can 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So are you trying to tell me that an article from a Wikipedia in a different language (well-sourced with five citations) is less reliable than one non-Wikipedia source? Why else should anyone (not you) choose "to wipe out the whole entry for Mr. Fux"? Just trying to understand. <KF> 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia articles/entries should be supported (where necessary) from non-Wikipedia articles. The five citations on the different-language Wikipedia page therefore would be acceptable (although ideally they should be in English), but the Wikipedia page itself would not be an acceptable citation. The editor "WWGB" is probably the reigning expert on this topic, however, so I would defer to his/her advice...(in other words - I stand to be corrected!)Que-Can 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bird's eye view link

This is in regards to your reversion of an edit I made to Greece Athena High School earlier this month.

I have been removing these links from nearly every article I can find, as they do not work in all web browsers. If links are not compatible in all web browsers they, by Wikipedia policy, may not be added to any article. See Wikipedia's external linking policies for more information. User DJvac (talk) originally posted them to about fifty articles, and has been blocked, after a request made by editor Daniel Case (talk), from editing on Wikipedia after he reverted most if not all of our initial reverts, and ignored our requests for him to stop.

Please respect my most recent edit and do not revert it again. Thanks Sinisterminister 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sinisterminister. Thank you for the explanation. Your edit comment on March 6th had been "bird's-eye link does not work" but as far as I could see at the time the bird's eye view did work fine, and the picture looked great. I had thought it was a "sinister" deletion by you, but now I know better. I will not revert.Que-Can 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Diego Verdager

Hello Azumanga1. I see that you deleted the April 26 birthday entry for Diego Verdager, the Argentine singer. Could you tell me why you deleted it? Earlier, I had planned to delete it, but then changed my mind when I read about him. I am interested in finding out your rationale for the deletion. Thanks, and best wishes, Que-Can 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the deletion, as we have someone named Mmbabies who's maliciously going around adding false and misleading information:

User talk:Mmbabies

You can revert or readd if you wish, and I'll be a little more careful in the future.

Many thanks.

-- azumanga 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Emma Begay

Sorry Canadian Paul. I deleted your Emma Bodie Begay entry in error. (Deaths in 2007) The topic of "oldest" is ripe with confusion. For example, I don't think Ms. Begay had been listed on this page: Living national longevity recordholders Que-Can 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Begay's claim is exceedingly unlikely and, what's more, unverifiable, so she's relegated to the Longevity claims section only. I wouldn't have added her if she hadn't been listed there before her death, as I'm not a fan of adding scores of non-notable people to the Deaths in 2007 list. Canadian Paul 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

J C-N

Hey! I just wanted to let you know that I answered your question on my talk page. Thanks and sorry for the confusion! Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Expo 67 and the FLQ

I agree, in the article on Expo 67 the sentence that deals with the FLQ should be deleted or certainly reworded. Can you add anything to about the FLQ and Expo? My understanding is that Pierre Dupuy basically prevented any attacks by stating that the world will be watching Expo and how would it look to them if it appeared that Quebec could not run a world's fair, so how could they be expected to run their own country? Apparently, the FLQ were on their best behaviour, so as not to make their cause look bad on the world stage. Since I don't have the facts in front of me, if you can confirm or deny this and then add it it to the article it wpuld be appreciated? Abebenjoe 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abebenjoe. Yes, it would be intesting to find some citation about Pierre Dupuy's or anyone else's overatures to the FLQ to persuade them to leave Expo 67 alone (no bombs, for example). I am not aware of any good citation, but I presume there have been some pretty detailed books written about the FLQ that might have some insight on this. If the FLQ was on its best behaviour because of some suasion, it would be quite remarkable, since terrorists have at times been known to be attracted to big events, e.g., the Munich Olympics in 1972.Que-Can 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the Expo 67 DVD from the CBC again, and it appears that Yves Jasmin, the Public Relations Director for Expo 67, takes credit for appealing to the members of his staff with separatist affiliations to tell the FLQ not to do anything for the reason described above. As you point out, it is surprising that they did not use the event to stage a major attack, though Munich can be seen as the first modern showcase event that was plagued by a terrorist action, so maybe the rules of the game were still not completely known at the time by the FLQ. Or, maybe they did believe Jasmin's arguments that any attack during the fair, would hurt the separatist cause. I'll try to transcribe what he said, before I even think of citing it in the article. Abebenjoe 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Layton

Ah, yes ... this was a slip-up on my part. I've reverted Mr. 172 so many times, that I instinctively pressed "revert" on the Layton page. The resulting consequences were the exact opposite of what I intended. Sorry about that. CJCurrie 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem...done it myself once or twice. I hate reversing reversals, however.Que-Can 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lowell Green

Hi. Just a quick note to thank you for correcting my errors. Very sloppy of me. Victoriagirl 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Lowell Green

Thanks for letting me know. ... discospinster _talk 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in 2007

I think something might have gone wrong in your last edits to Deaths in 2007. It's been reverted, but you might want to readd your last edit. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem

Thanks for the note. -- Mwalcoff 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Death in 2008

• Could you ple200ase refrain from reverting my edits without discussion or justification. Thank you. Hektor (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Hektor, but your entry was incomplete. (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2008&diff=prev&oldid=185980941) It had to be deleted and re-done.Que-Can (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Que-Can. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)