Jump to content

User talk:Cleduc/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by my new User Talk page. After a night of partying, I raise a glass to you and emulate Sam Spade with a hearty cheers. --Norg 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Villeneuve

Sorry to trouble you Cleduc, but I was hoping you might rethink the deletion of Villeneuve's page. It seems illogical to have such a long entry on the Permanent Defense, which is clearly notable and no mention of its founder who played such an instrumental role in defeating a statewide initiative that would have introduce 16000 slot machines to the state. He has been quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a spokesman, he has his own group, he defeated a well funded initiative. I don't much like his politics, but he's certainly prominent. I suspect there's more to this proposed deletion than meets the eye. Libertas

  • I reviewed it again. I don't see how this person is notable outside the context of the organization or initiative. I still support the deletion of this article. -- Cleduc 17:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

St. Clair (TTC)

I was just on a "random page" binge. I kind of think all pages should indicate what country we're talking about (international project, and all that). But I don't feel like tackling a whole series of metro stations, so I'll go back and remove it. (¿Veracruz, Veracruz? Me saludas al malecón, por favor.) Sluj 04:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¿Hasta el fin del año? Lástima; igual y me toca a mí primero entonces. No, jarocho no, pero me encanta la costa de Veracruz. De lo más caribeño que tiene México. Un saludo, Sluj

GFDL versus CC

Hi Cleduc. It turns out the GFDL, which is the license used here at Wikipedia, is incompatible with the various Creative Commons licenses. Hence, it isn't kosher to paste text from a CC source here. (White privilege) Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 09:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paul Monette

As part of the EB2004 project I picked the first item on page 21, did a little research, and put together a stub. Only after I used "what links here" did I see you have him listed as a project. Since I know nothing about gay lit, I'd obviously have no qualms with you replacing it. The point is that we have an article! David Brooks 06:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

White privilege

Thanks for clearing up the white privilege mess. Actually, it'd have been better if the anon had used the Move command. It's the cut-and-paste ability that causes the problem. (That, and well-intentioned editors like me who try to help but makes matters worse). Cheers, -Willmcw 04:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Polish contribution

In my opinion its not the right place for such silly meme or joke (whatever it is) article link - nor the Iraq War neither the occupation of Iraq is or was funny. Its like to create an article with jokes about the French Army during the WW2 and put a link on the French Army article :)--Witkacy 07:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Maria Schneider (actress)

I removed your statement as to her insanity and lesbianism as well as the category. The information that you took from [1] is unacceptable to Wikipedia standards. Should you obtain documented proof from acceptable sources as to this issue and her alleged sexuality, then please reinsert it. In the meantime, to avoid this problem with other article edits I suggest, amongst others, the following Wikipedia policy information would be helpful:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check - Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards - Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia:Check your facts

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the good work. Not to belabor the point, but the gay "date" source is unsubtantiated and the only one to mention the Townsend name and it is not consistent with, and has a very different meaning than, Roger Ebert's statement. Keep up the good work, but if you want Wikipedia:Credibility, and I'm sure you do, then ensuring we use only reliable sources is essential. Ted Wilkes 21:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Categories

I understand your point about redundant categories, but there are dozens and dozens of other such cross-references, or what you call "redundant categories" -- in the Gay, lesbian or bisexual people category, so I'm not sure why you zeroed in on mine so quickly. In any event, I believe that it is proper to list such cross-references, for ease of use to people who may wish to see a list of Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, but not necessarily the specific list of Gay, lesbian or bisexual athletes. Also I'd like to know if you are a Wikipedia editor; if so, I'll respect whatever decision you make; if not, I will respectfully disagree with you and relist the categories as I see fit. Thanks.Inhighspeed 01:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. See below, though, as well.Inhighspeed 09:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
restoring salient parts of my reply, deleted by Inhighspeed from vir talk page.
I'm not dead-set on these articles not being tagged with Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people as such a characterisation is not incorrect. However, allow me to explain why I don't think it is a good idea. The more categories an article belongs to, the less useful each individual category becomes: both within the article, and in the category itself. Articles should be sub-categorised when possible, as it makes the general category listing that much more useful. For example, Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people has about 700 listings, which makes it hard to read -- you wouldn't go paging through all four pages of 200 articles each to find what you're looking for. Generally the base category should be used only when the article doesn't fit a more specific category -- that way it is easier to browse and more meaningful. Also, the more categories an individual page has, the less clear the categorizations of the article become.
For an example of a useful category scheme, Category:Major League Baseball has a series of sub-categories that usefully divide articles among teams, players, coaches, national origin, etc -- all of which make the category that much easier to read and to navigate.

Category:Canadian gay politicians

The problem is that there aren't really enough openly lesbian, bisexual or transgender Canadian politicians at this time to warrant separating those out into four individual categories (there are, in fact, no openly T politicians in Canada that I'm aware of, unless you count Enza, and one who's out as being in a relationship with another woman but has never actually stated whether she identifies as B or L -- but if I put her in B, she'd be the only one there.) The only other viable solution would be to replace it with a single Category:LGBT politicians from Canada, but I don't personally think that either Category:LGBT politicians or Category:LGBT people from Canada is really full enough to make that immediately necessary. I wouldn't object if you or someone else wanted to recreate the category with a more appropriate title, but I don't really care to do that myself. Bearcat 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and yeah...I've run into the same issue in the past with people who think it's necessary to duplicate Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people with a subcategory, and will even revert it if I edit that. Some people seem to have picked up the crazy notion that the main GLB people category has to serve as a master list of all queerfolk with Wikipedia articles, and thus somehow earns an exemption from categorization rules. Never mind that that's what List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people is for; it's not what the category system is for. Keep up the good work, though. Bearcat 03:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I see that this is a controversial issue, but here is a portion of a post that more clearly explains the point I was trying to make.Inhighspeed 09:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a controversial topic. There ARE good reasons to put a category in both a parent and daughter (super and sub-categories). Our categorization system works as both a classification system and a navigation system. Sometimes to satisfy both needs effectively, a category should be in both. There are also multiple hierarchies which coexist. This also leads to cases where multiple entries are useful....-- Samuel Wantman 09:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So okay, enuf said. Obviously it doesn't mean so much to me that I would get into an edit/revert war situation, but I only hope you will consider that there are other thoughtful people out there with a different opinion before you edit wholesale the categories and sub-categories they have chosen to include. Some edits are well and good, but some are merely unwarranted infringements on someone else's opinion (née "crazy notion"). Take care.Inhighspeed 09:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The recategorization work I've been doing is based on discussions held at WP:CfD and Category talk:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, so I'm not exactly out on a limb here. As far as I know, the only way to avoid "unwarranted infringements on someone else's opinion" is to never make changes to existing articles. Be bold, have fun, and don't stop contributing. Cleduc 13:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The "crazy notion" I was referring to is the idea that LGBT categories are somehow exempted from the rules that apply to every other category in Wikipedia just because some people have different opinions about how the queer categories should work. Bearcat 23:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Parris

Hi, noticed you had removed some categories form this page. I also notice you have been working on sorting out categories, but those you removed did not all overlap. Interested if you could explain your reasoning.Sandpiper 20:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed Category:British MPs because the article is also listed under Category:Gay UK MPs, which is a direct descendent of it. By the same reasoning I also removed Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people as it is a parent category of Category:LGBT politicians and thus Category:Gay politicians.
That having been said, Category:Gay UK MPs needs work as well. I'm working through Category:LGBT actors before I do that, though. Cheers, Cleduc 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for replying. As far as I can see category gay uk MPs is not mentioned under British MPs. Which means anyone searching British MPs would not find Parris should they try to find him in British MPs. British MPs claims it should be an all inclusive listing of every MP. The trouble with having a 'gay' subsection is that it makes it very difficult to search a list unless you happened to know this beforehand. Likewise, if the main category was divided according to favourite pet or whatever, if you see what i mean. If you are going to have sub-categories which are particular attributes, then really people need to be in both the sub-category and in the main category. Sandpiper 12:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ: if you click on Category:Gay UK MPs you will see at the bottom that it is a subcategory of Category:British MPs. Whether this is absolutely necessary or not I do not know -- I don't know if there's consensus that Category:British MPs has grown huge and unwieldy like [[certain other categories. However, removing Category:British MPs did not remove that attribute from that article -- it remains in the same category hierarchy nonetheless. However, I'm not terribly pleased with Category:Gay UK MPs being under Category:British MPs, but I haven't tackled that one yet. Cheers, Cleduc 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT actors

Hi, I noticed you are working on the category structures of this cat, as well as one's mentioned above. At this time, there are not enough articles to warrant having sepearte categories for each of the sub cats you have created. This is the reason the category was named Category:LGBT actors. The TOC breaks up the articles in groups of 200, and this is a standard practice. This may come up in Cfd, and I just wanted to discuss it with you first. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 22:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the fair warning. When are you planning on submitting it? I would like an opportunity to make my case before it is pushed through (as the deletion of all LGBT* subcategories was just six weeks ago, then quickly reversed). Cleduc 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, when I first seen the cat, I was, but I like to do research and find the reasoning. As I seen you had done some cat work, and had some good reasoning, I thought it better to discuss it with you. The only problem I see, is a short time ago there was a dispute over the "Lesbian gay ..." cat, sorry I dont have the precise name or a link, and it ended up being the LGBT it is now. I am on Cfd quite a bit, and just know its common practice not to sub-cat until we have to. I am not necessarily saying we shouldn't, but there are not that many to split up either. It may be brought up on Cfd by someone else, so I wanted to discuss it with you first. I would normally recommend joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, but we have a ways to go before it is functionally useful. I am glad you replied, but am not sure of the future of the sub-cats, until someone does submit it. We dont have a good forum for categories other than Cfd. You may want to, if you have not already, start a discussion on the LGBT talk page, so there is some reference to your work. Salut ∞Who?¿? 03:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

your w:ja user page

I was looking for japanese people proficient in spanish on the japanese wikipedia when I ended up in your user page there. Just dropped by to say that in the phrase 私のページをここに訪問しなさい, 訪問 means visit but inheretly physically (a doctor's visit, to visit a winery). Also stating しなさい is a mild-strong imperative (very rude, japanese language uses imperatives scarcely, usually to order someone to do something or else). Sounds trivial in english (and my native language, spanish) but putting something this way in japanese is near an insult.

Some suggestions:

  • 利用者のページはこちらのリンクをクリックなさってください (extremely polite, asking please, honorific)
  • 利用者のページはこちらのリンクをクリックしてください (very polite, asking please)
  • 利用者のページはこのリンクをクリックしてください (polite, asking please)
  • 利用者のページはこのリンクをクリックして (just polite)

SpiceMan (会話) 23:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

ecstasy category

hi cleduc- just noticed today that you created an ecstasy category a few months back. I plan on moving all the articles out of it and nominating it for deletion, but figured i'd tell you first. hallucinogen etc categorization can be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, and the categorization is all laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/categorization. imo the category isn't really necessary and it isn't in line with the current scheme for categorization at the project. The scheme needs work, and i see that you like categories, so feel free to discuss stuff at the talk page there. i won't change the ecstasy category until later this evening. --Heah (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

XLS Bicycle ( Bicycle Exporter )

Deleted, thanks for pointing it out to me. Ral315 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleduc re: your fingers in the Scientology Pie

May I ask with whom you consulted to make the change of the Scientology template :Past lives: becoming :Reincarnation: ? There has been a fair amount of discussion, of back and forth amongst several persons on several discussion pages to arrive at the template as it stood before your substitution for one term with a another term, though I do understand you meant to better communicate the idea, rather than to confuse the situation. Terryeo 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not consult anyone: I am not required to (nor encouraged to). There is no ownership of articles. If you don't like my change, revert it or see what others think. I used a fully automatic process to bypass a redirect, hardly a controversial action. Furthermore, I will not be intimidated by assertions of ownership. Sincerely, Cleduc 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to my request for communication. Thank you further for answering the question I asked. I understand there is no ownership and didn't mean to imply there should be or ever was. There is a good deal of interchange and hard work going on in the Scientology template, however. Myself, I would much prefer that those catagories, such as reincarnation / past lives, whatever it be called, be appropriately linked to exant bodies of information. Another one is "Spirit" which probably most religions believe and the Scientology template spells out as "thetan." There has been some discussion about how to accomplish this integration. Thanks again for responding. Terryeo 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Eccentrics

Hi, it seems you have created Category:Notable eccentrics while a related discussion was going on over at WP:CFD. Seeing that the category is empty, I wonder whether you have any plans with it, or whether it should be deleted. If you decide to keep it for some reason, it should be renamed. (“[A]void descriptive adjectives such as … notable in category titles”)
Wikipeditor 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the timing was purely coincidental -- I recall stumbling across Lillie Hitchcock Coit and wanting a category that fit her. I'm not in the habit of checking with the bluestockings at CfD before creating categories, so I don't recall knowing that some sort of bureau-war was already going on. It's not usually my practice to knowingly bypass discussion. In any case, I find it hard to muster any concern for the existence of that category anyhow. Incidentally, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) wasn't created until 18 July 2005 (after I created the category), I'd need to practice clairvoyance to be familiar with that policy before it was published. Thanks for the tip, though. Cleduc 01:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Hazel McCallion's "ideological pretensions"

I suppose this is rather belated, by six months or so, but it is the first time I read your comments and they sparked my curiousity. To say that Mayor McCallion has no ideological pretension means she does not closely or recurrently align herself with a clearly defined political party or right or left wing policy framework. You're definition must be different, at least I am assuming, so before I make a revision to the article in the future, I thought I would ask for an explanation to your problem with such an accurate assememnt. In the new edit I will add info on how she has worked with both provincial and federal parties and her own lack of a university education which may be a contributing factor in the absence of an ideological orientation. Also, the fact she is a municipal politician adds much, if not all-to-obvious, weight to her absence of defining herself as a party affliated politician. Quiet frankly, I think you are biasing the article out of your ignorance. --Mikerussell 07:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To write that she has no ideological pretensions or orientations is meaningless opinion and cannot be proven. If it is meant to mean something else, then it should be written another way. As it was written, I could read it to mean that McCallion holds no ideology above any other -- that, for example, she'd be equally comfortable with Trotskyite Communism and Mussolini Fascism. If you wish to state "she does not closely or recurrently align herself with a clearly defined political party or right or left wing policy framework" then that's what you should write, and provide sources to prove. I myself have some doubts on the latter part, and would watch for neutral, reliable sources to back it up (as opposed to original research). Also, I respectfully request that you refrain from making assumptions about my ignorance on the subject. Cleduc 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as biased or POV to interpret the word ‘ideological’ in this article- a civic leader in Mississauga- in the fashion you have in your response. Do you seriously think the average reader would assume she is a Trotskyite? Get a grip on the language used, and not a strict, exaggerated interpretation of the word. We cannot assume every wikipedia reader is a moron; the context under which one writes cannot be debased by some irrational standard applied by a single opinionated contributor. Apart from taking a rather straightforward and frank assessment of your qualification on the topic, namely Mayor McCallion and Mississauga’s governance, too personally, you have failed to offer much in response to counter my original astonishment at the surprise I have at your edit of the article. I will try to add more and replace a picture that as taken down, but overall, unless you really think that it is prudent, logical, or good prose to make certain ‘ideology’ a word coined by Karl Marx and tied to his view of History, a word almost totally divorced from its original meaning, which currently covers a wide spectrum of political opinion, is used in some strict academic fashion, then I suspect we will meet again on the Hazel McCallion page. Thanks for the response. --Mikerussell 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to reading your changes on Hazel McCallion, and encourage you to look for sources which document her freedom from ideology. Words are what we have to work with, and they matter. Cleduc 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to pick a fight, but in re-reading this whole exchange I thought I might clarify a point. The reason why I said "Quiet frankly, I think you are biasing the article out of your ignorance" is not anyway intended as an assessment of you or your background- that is why I said you misconstrued it too personally, but perhaps I was not clear. The statement was/is based on my reading of the article and your contributions to it (as seen in history listing) which do not provide any information on what ideological position she does have. My actual comment way back when (6 months ago) was she has 'no set ideological pretensions'- italics now added, which you saw as POV, but you have not ascribed her any ideology either, thus you must be 'ignorant' of what ideology she has, yet certain she has one. Well, what it is it then? You add info about ring tones, but nothing about her ideological views, why not? That is why I claimed you were 'ignorant', it was a 'descriptive' evaluation in my mind of what the article currently states. At any rate, just thought I would make that comment clear because it may be days before I get around to getting a usable picture and updating the article. When I do, I am sure you may have comments. However, you must also be prepared with, in your words, to have "neutral, reliable sources to back it up (as opposed to original research)" to support your own opinions. Thanks for debating. --Mikerussell 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Your personal views on why you think Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is biased are necessary. Otherwise your tag simply mimicks the minority editor's views and is not helpful. Thank you. Haiduc 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The text of the POV tag simply states that there is a dispute on the neutrality of the article. It does not mean that I believe that the article, as it stands, has POV issues. Cleduc 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

 Thank you!

Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve.
N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

PROD

Hello there. You have proposed the article AE Magazine for deletion without providing a reason why you think the article should be deleted. Please consider adding your reasoning in the future when proposing articles for deletion (see: How to propose deletion of an article). This will aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. Thank you. Sandstein 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I did leave a comment with my reasoning, both in the edit comments and at Talk:AE Magazine. I agree that my edit comments could have been clearer, but I did also write them more clearly on the talk page (the edit summary field is a bit too small). Overall, I fail to see the problem... where do you think I should have placed my comments? Cleduc 15:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, my template message should have been clearer. The preferred way to PROD a page is like this: {{prod|The reason for deletion goes here}}. This makes the reason show up in the PROD box and the PROD log. Cheers, Sandstein 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah... I see. Thanks for the pointer! Cleduc 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've updated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions to show how to use the {{prod}} tag: {{prod|reason for deletion}} -- since that's where I originally saw the example, I did just what I saw there. Hopefully that will educate people who are new to this procedure (which is just about everyone at this point). Cleduc 19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! And since there are still bare-naked {{prod}}s out there, I've just created {{PRODhint}} for spreading the word. Sandstein 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

ULEB

Hi, Cleduc. ULEB has been tagged by you nearly a year ago. In my eyes the article has undergone some improvement to have at least the Neutrality-tag removed. There was no discussion hoewver. Could you check that please. Thanks, --Gf1961 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Very courteous of you to check with me (though that's really unnecessary). You are right, of course -- the article is now much better and I have removed the tags. Cleduc 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cathead templates

Thanks for the help with the Cathead templates. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, having taken some days off from Wiki. I'll make sure to add the tags to future catheads. Thanks again! Josh 18:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

IAV:_205.213.44.1

Buenos dias, I have responded to your comments on my talk page at User_talk:Malo#IAV:_205.213.44.1. Thanks. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Roses of the Prophet Muhammad

Netscott reverted your last edit to mine on Roses of the Prophet Muhammad - readding the Daily Show reference. I thought you might like to know. He knows I am letting you know because I accidentally sent this message to him first. KI 23:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Heat death of the universe. That's an... interesting... statement... KI 00:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Troll tag

I tried, and as expected, he will remove it. Says enough for me. And I let it be. KimvdLinde 03:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad Acting Teachers

Hey, thanks...yeah, I just might go check it out if I can convince any of my friends to go with me. (I hate going to theatre alone.) Bearcat 04:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

plop

Thanks.... It sometimes get to serious here, and a bit of humor is sometimes just so nice..... I forgot to use Zap when I started to move it... :-) LOL Kim van der Linde at venus 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

John Herbert

Good thot; the system is so cavalier abt deleting "historyless" rdrs that i actually pictured the deletion of rdrs, other than in reversing a move, as being outside the scheme that provides for undeletion. I had to go look for the del'd rdrs before i was convinced, as you implied, that they were there! Now undeleted. Tnx!
--Jerzy•t 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can try

I know, you are right, I should indeed not do it, should know better, etc etc etc :-) LOL Kim van der Linde at venus 02:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And to be honest, I feel sorry for him. I would like he sees that he can be productive here, and really achieve much more than what he has achieved untill now. So, maybe I keep trying agsint knowing better. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I am affraid that you are right. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cleduc/Archive1&oldid=1036682863"