Talk:Roy Dupuis

Query

Roy Dupuis's name once appeared on your listing as bisexual....................now it doesn't........how come? just curious.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.195.101 (talk • contribs) 02:33, September 16, 2005 (UTC)

Response to above query: A link to an internal Wikipedia entry called List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (since edited) including such erroneous information appeared in an early version of the Wikipedia entry on "Roy Dupuis." Because it was misleading, a later editor removed the link and alerted Wikipedia to the error in the list. While the actor has portrayed characters with various sexual orientations in his work--e.g. "Yves," a gay hustler, in Being at Home with Claude; "Dominique," a married architect pretending to be gay for business reasons, then becoming confused about his sexual identity, in J'en suis--Roy Dupuis' own orientation is heterosexual. He is not "bisexual." Whoever added his name to a list identifying him as "bisexual" conveyed inaccurate information. The list itself is still "controversial" and not reliable as a source. (Please consult the editorial advice and "discussion" and "history" sections there. Many problems still exist in that list.) Cf. Wikipedia: Editing policy--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.217.181 (talk • contribs) 00:11, September 26, 2005 UTC)

External links

Please note, this article has been extensively copyedited to remove the plethora of external and fancruft links; if someone is deserving of a link then consider an article; Wikipedia is not a means to SEO. Also deleted the massive listings at the bottom of the page listing every little film and tv appearance - this is an encylopedia; imdb probably have such an overdose list if someone really wants ot ... --Vamp:Willow 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to the above:

Citing Wikipedia policy: "avoid deleting information wherever possible." There were no "fancruft" links. Whatever "fancruft" is. None of the information provided in this entry comes from IMDb.com. A great deal of time and effort was expended in the compilation of this entry. Whoever "VampWillow" is had no justification for removing the information about a subject that is apparently of no interest to her. The information is both pertinent to defining the subject of the article and useful to others interested in this subject. If "VampWillow" doesn't like it, let "VampWillow" write an entry elsewhere. See the link to Wikipedia policy" already provided. No one asked "VampWillow" (whoever that is) to "extensively copyedit" this entry "to remove" useful information that it provides. She is free to do her work on other articles. This one is about "Roy Dupuis," not about any of the interests listed in her account of herself. As someone who spent a lot of time contributing information to this article, I am not impressed at all by the nature of her changes. She should try actually learning something about Roy Dupuis.

Addendum: It would have been helpful if "VampWillow" had created an internal link to her reference to fancruft. Now that I have read Wikipedia's definition of the term, I strongly disagree that the entry on "Roy Dupuis" is fancruft. "VampWillow" needs to review the definition that Wikipedia itself provides currently of the term. Among the points made in it: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as provocative." Moreover, "As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." Roy Dupuis is not an "obscure" actor; he is the most celebrated actor in French-speaking Canada. "It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." None of this is the case in the entry restored on "Roy Dupuis." "Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating 'indiscriminate collections of information.' The article as restored is not an "indiscriminate collection of information." "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." Roy Dupuis is not a "relatively obscure topic." Perhaps "VampWillow" is not informed about his prominence; that just speaks to her lack of knowledge of the subject.

"Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." The article on "Roy Dupuis" as restored does not violate any existing Wikipedia "policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." All the links provided are means of verifying the research with authoritative, credible sources. None of the currently-provided links are links to fansites. The links were provided instead of footnotes to make accessibility to the information easier for ordinary readers.

It is strongly urged that "VampWillow" respect the work of others interested in a subject clearly of little value to her but of value to people who access Wikipedia for information. The article as restored has been widely cited and is ranked highly by search engines like Google, illustrating its general usefulness.

Further addendum: The previous work done by the major editor of this article, which was, in effect, weakened, if not "vandalized," by "VampWillow" (who, as a self-identified Wikipedia administrator [in her own account]) should know better, was in no way related to SEO (an unfamiliar term, which I had to look up on Wikipedia). Using Wiki terms without giving internal links to them frustrates inquiry. Furthermore, removing informational external links and substituting empty, non-existent internal Wiki links is counter-productive. If "VampWillow" wants to supply articles for each of the useless internal Wiki links, then she needs to do so before removing informational external links, so as to be linking to better internal information links. But no editor should remove information provided via external links and provide nothing useful in their stead. That does not "improve" an article.

Once again, see editing policy and also see Wikipedia: Vandalism for refresher courses in what not to do to previous editors' hard work.

Hmmn. an unsigned comment - how helpful! and the use of scare quotes around my username too. Setting such behaviour aside, the response that you should have made here wasn't to re-create the links (which action is, obviously, now reverted) but to create useful *Wikipedia* content within this project. Wikipedia isn't here to link to all and sundry external sites. If it is really good enough to have an external link (and many that were there I doubted) then it is good enough to have an article about it in "Wikipedia space". Information is not "provided" in any manner whatsoever if it is solely an external link. --Vamp:Willow 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned essay was by User:69.170.218.166 --Vamp:Willow 20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"VampWillow": Please go ruin some other article. Leave this one alone. You are not improving it. You are abusing the following Wikipedia official policy: "avoid deleting information wherever possible."

Go waste your time doing something else. I have spent many, many hours working on this article for over 2 years. Check the history. I do not log on for reasons of abuse by Wikipedia trolls. What you are doing is very annoying and not useful to people interested in the subject of "Roy Dupuis," which, apparently, is not you. Remove useful information one more time, and I will bring your practice to the attention of Wikipedia. You are abusing your title as an "administrator" (so you say).

(above comment by User:69.170.218.166 again)

Dear "User:69.170.218.166" (for you have not created a username and if you have really been here "for over two years" then it would be helpful for you to do so - and also for you to learn to use the "Show preview" option and learn correct wiki-markup as I had to correct quite a bit), Wikipedia articles serve as an information source about different subjects; in some cases places or events, in others people. This one is about a person. It is an article about a person. It is not a directory of links to other websites with no connection to Wikipedia. You have now had three different editors remove these external links and I suggest you should learn from this. An article (and clearly you are very interested in Roy Dupuis) is not under the ownership or control of a single person - whether they have a username or not. At the bottom of the edit page you will have seen If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Others can and will edit this page - it is the "wikipedia way" - as can you. But you may not add lots of external links which do not benefit this (or even 'a') Wikipedia article. One final thing; this isn't an abuse of position; indeed all Wikipedia pages with large numbers of external links are being checked for the usefulness and applicability of those links - this article just happened to be one of the earlier ones to be looked at given the very high number of such external links. --Vamp:Willow 09:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION?

Ladies … As amusing as this exchange has been, the comedy is now beginning to pall. I am not a practiced Wikipedia contributor, so please forgive me if I bypass your conventions and mark-ups. This is a simple attempt by an amateur to mediate. VampWillow, you’re a ruthless woman – your cuts are swingeing and uncompromising, excising superfluous material like a surgeon cutting infection out of a wound. (I reckon you still missed a few rotten bits, but never mind.) It took me 3 seconds’ deep thought to understand the principle of internal vs external links. Rather than creating “useless internal Wiki links”, you are inviting 69.170.218.166 to populate these links, thus enriching the Wikipedia knowledge base.

69.170.218.166, - [. . . .] why don’t you take the administrators’ advice and devote your time to fleshing out such internal links as are necessary? This exercise in itself may encourage you to reflect on priorities regarding relevance.

VampWillow [. . . .] while the original article was ludicrous for the most part, the post VW version is unbalanced and far from adequate. A lot of time is being wasted here … can’t we be sensible?

A well-wisher. (unsigned, but added by User:195.10.45.201)

I welcome a fresh eye - and looking at your edit history Mr/Ms "195.10.45.201" you clearly have a wider range of interests. Could I plead with both of you though to sign your talk contributions ("--~~~~" will do so whether you are logged in or not). At the moment Wikipedia editors - like myself - are starting a blitz on the number of external links we have; links taking users away from Wikipedia rather than take them to other articles we already have (or could have). This article was one of the worst offenders and, in part, some of the problems were also due to the 'overkill' of details. The word "selected" means highlights, not every little minutae about someone. I would *love* to see additional information at the targets of those blue links, and content at those red links. But not the re-introduction of external links which do not add value to the user's Wikipedia experience. --Vamp:Willow 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"and looking at your edit history Mr/Ms "195.10.45.201" you clearly have a wider range of interests" - blimey! that'll teach me to use my work computer. I am not that (those) person(s)! [. . . .]

[There was some kind of glitch--Wikipedia:Editing conflict--earlier, while I was attempting to add a reply (to some now-missing comments]. I was pointing out Wikipedia's encouragment of all users not to use and (if found) to delete gratuitous personal attacks. Whoever removed my comment (which did not post at all) and the previous material did not leave a signature or date/time stamp (or any evidence of being in Talk). Perhaps administrators can do that. I don't know. Whatever the case, the offensive material that I was commenting on is mostly gone, though unfortunately, it still resides in the history of editing changes (for the most part), from what I can tell. There seem to be odd Wikipedia-induced editing glitches every now and then leading to automatic deletion of material, perhaps while more than one person is editing at the same time (just a guess).] --NYScholar 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is an editing conflict you will see a message saying so. I would recommend that before posting you copy the text to clipboard (ctrl+c) so you won't lose it if the edit does not register succesfully for any reason. I'm not sure what you mean by someone removing a comment that did not post succesfully, how can you remove something that is not there? And NYScholar = gentility = viv? Just curious. S Sepp 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did see an "editing conflict" message pop up; that's why I thought the disappearance of my post (which had looked as if it had posted) and other people's posts seemed related to such a conflict. Since then, I've looked at the semi-protection request page and noticed that the requests re: this page have all been removed, so maybe an administrator did remove those comments.

"I'm not sure what you mean by someone removing a comment that did not post succesfully, how can you remove something that is not there?" It was in my editing box and looked as if it had posted (after the "editing conflict" message popped up, but then when I went to read my reply in Talk, not only was it gone, but the comment I had been replying to was gone too, and I didn't remove either of them).

In response to your curiosity: the answer is no.

To everyone: Please let's not discuss specific Wikipedia users' identities in these Talk pages at all; they are not germane to the editing issues. To do so opens people up to personal attacks like those previously deleted: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (qtd. from that Wiki policy). People use log-in identities to maintain privacy on the internet and to avoid identity theft and related safety issues. It is not a good idea to ferret out clues or to try to uncover or to publicly try to connect people's Wikipedia or other non-Wikipedia screen or log-in identities since people wish to maintain such privacy and protection online. Thanks!--NYScholar 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadien (as in the team the Montreal Canadiens) vs. Canadian [English translation of the French (word) Canadien as "Canadian" and/or as "French-Canadian" (Québécois)]

[Cf. "editing summary" comment in "history" of article's revisions:

"(English translation of French-Canadian word "Canadien" is "Canadian": French word for the team is "Canadien"/English is "Canadian"; see, e.g., [1]". (09:49 May 30, 2006 [UTC])]

The earlier translation ("Canadian") intended to suggest that Maurice Richard is a "Canadien" (Canadian) as well as a team member of the Montreal Canadiens and a "French-Canadian" Québécois; it ("Canadian") enables an historically larger sense of the word by including a triple meaning/triple entendre (?): that is, that Maurice Richard was not only a member of a hockey team (a Montreal Canadiens team member) but also both a French-Canadian (Canadien) and a role model for all Canadians (a Canadian). The English translation "Canadian" was intended to maintain this triple meaning (?) which the French word "Canadien" also suggests [in English translation, the French word "Canadien" signifies a Canadian, a French-Canadian (Québécois), and a "Montreal Canadien" (hockey team player)]. Choice of (the English word) Canadian for the translation into English of the French word Canadien was thus a "considered choice," not a mistake (a "mistranslation").

Please note: the Wikipedia entry for Montreal Canadiens points out that in English-speaking Canada, the team the "Canadiens" is generally referred to as the "Montreal Canadiens":

"The franchise is officially known as Le Club de Hockey Canadien, but is usually referred to in English Canada as the 'Montreal Canadiens'."

For some further clarification, I have incorporated internal Wikipedia links to Canadien in both "Canadien" (French) and "Canadian" (English), respectively, in the current version.

The Wikipedia entry for "Canadien" currently includes the following cross-reference to Montreal Canadiens, which makes the team connection clear. The translation of Canadien as Canadian (with a link to Canadien) attempts to maintain the triple (?) meaning of "Canadien" as "Canadian," "French-Canadian" and "Montreal Canadien," which the word "Canadian" may still imply.

"'Canadiens' redirects here. For the ice hockey team, see Montreal Canadiens."

[Note well: There have been quite a lot of recent "reversions" in the entry for "Canada" (which redirects from Canadian now). Some of those editing changes/reversions may have removed a cross-reference to Montreal Canadiens that I referred to being present in Canadian earlier. I don't have time to go through the history of all those editorial changes/reversions in the current entry on Canada to sort them out.]

Please note also: A previous paragraph concerning Maurice Richard in the biographical section of this entry already refers to the Montreal Canadiens; it is very clear that Richard was a Canadien (French-Canadian--Québécois) member of the Montreal Canadiens and, of course, a Canadian (a [great] citizen of Canada).

The program itself (Les Beaux Dimanches: Maurice Richard: Histoire d'un Canadien) is a two-part, two-hour-long miniseries first televised in Canada (in French) in 1999. If someone who has seen the whole miniseries knows whether or not the larger sense (triple meaning?) of "Canadien" (as Canadian, French-Canadian, and Montreal Canadien) is emphasized thematically in the program, perhaps he/she will clarify this issue here in "Discussion."

I still wonder how many potential meanings of (the word) Canadien the creators of the program's French title may have intended; to what degree they may have intended to suggest the various possible double or triple entendres as opposed to a single meaning of (the word) Canadien.

[I edited this discussion page after making another change to the entry to achieve (I hope) greater clarity and also greater significance in the translation of Canadien.] Thanks!--NYScholar 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[I made a few additional typographical changes, adding some internal links, and changes of emphasis also for (I hope) greater clarity. (Explanation of typography: One uses italics when designating the usage of a word as a word; e.g., the word "word" is rendered as word.)]--NYScholar 18:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Today I decided to substitute the "(Canada: English title)" given in IMDb.com to resolve these difficulties. It is less complicated. [I've left this "discussion" intact, however. If an administrator wants to delete the whole prior part of this section after the heading and the initial quotation from "Edit summary," that's fine with me.]--NYScholar 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Items included in lists of works needing verification of source

(moved here until sourced with a reliable source and verified)

• Revenir (2007) (Improvised short, filmed and screened as part of the 11th Festival Regard sur le court métrage, Saguenay, Quebec.)

Here is the link to the Festival website: caravane.tv; the only film that matches that description is not listed specifically by a title on that site in the film "screenings"; it is listed as "Film improvisé de Francis Leclerc," who directed Roy Dupuis in the long feature film Mémoires affectives (2004):

<<

Film improvisé

Course contre la montre et exercice extraordinaire de spontanéité, le film improvisé est l’occasion de permettre à un nouveau réalisateur de faire un court métrage de dix minutes en 48 heures. Le réalisateur, accompagné d’une équipe réduite, se verra contraint de respecter un genre, un lieu, des personnages, etc., contraintes imposées par le public. Pour le public du Festival, c’est l’occasion de découvrir une œuvre spontanée pour laquelle il a collaboré aux choix de productions.

Réalisateurs des films improvisés :

• 2007 : Francis Leclerc
  
  
• 2006 : Simon-Olivier Fecteau
• 2005 : Maxime Giroux
• 2004 : Christian Laurence
• 2003 : Robin Aubert
• 2002 : Yves Christian Fournier
• 2001 : Louise Archambault
• 2000 : Jean-François Rivard

>>

More information and a reliable source still needed in order to include such an entry in the filmography. If you have such information (a verifiable reliable source), please list it on the talk page for further discussion and better presentation. Thanks. A link to an IMDb.com listing would be most helpful and/or a news article that can be read by W readers. ----NYScholar 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions and other revisions to this article

Need to be formatted properly. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Cite, and please add authors, titles, where published, dates of publication, and dates of access, following the prevailing format. This article has been updated with the most recent source about the Genie (not Gemini) award received by Roy Dupuis on February 13, 2006. Accusations of Wikipedia:Vandalism are a personal attack when an editor is operating in good faith in improving an article.--NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post material like the following on my personal talk page; I remove personal attacks. And please do not accuse another editor of "vandalism" when the editor is operating in good faith (as I am).--NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I appropriately removed items that were placed in the wrong section of the article and the editing history indicates that, as does my subsequent discussion further below: I removed the following unsigned comment from my personal talk page: <blockquote.>"Kindly replace information that you vandalised from the Roy Dupuis page. The sources you require are :
[2] and

[3]."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.31.22 (talk • contribs) 18:40, February 14, 2007 (UTC)

Please follow talkpage guidelines (see the header on this talk page) and sign comments using four tildes. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No "vandalism" was involved; for more information about what actually constitutes vandalism, please consult: Wikipedia:Vandalism. As most experienced Wikipedia editors know, throwing around charges of "vandalism" is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Please familiarize oneself with Wikipedia editing policies prior to changing articles and please read the talk pages and present material that one is considering adding to an article prior to making any substantive change to an article. See also Wikipedia:Etiquette. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For addition of sources that one would like to see added to the article, put a new section in this talk page for consideration by various other Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Do not insert any personal attacks on editors' talk pages. They will be deleted. See Wikipedia templates for "No personal attacks": Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. (Personal attack removed) --NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources need incorporation properly in text in the article as "full citations"; do not toss them in as "External links." The prevailing format of this article is to write in whole sentences and to use full source citations that have been and are verifiable by others. --NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The source(s) a previous user inserted as an "External link" (see editing history) need re-formatting as citations and incorporation in proper sentences in the article. One of them was listed as "* [4] ("Rocket Scores Genie Triple Hat Trick: The Rocket Scores Nine Genies but Bon Cop Bad Cop Takes Best Picture.") Article about Roy Dupuis' 2007 Genie Nod." That is not proper citation format. It needs revision if it is still relevant, given the updated already included from Playback Magazine, which is dated February 13, 2007. [I've since re-formatted it and added it as a note following the relevant sentence in the relevant paragraph about the film.]--NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See the prevailing format, and how the information (if still needed) can be incorporated into the relevant paragraph about the film in the article. Such source citation external links should not be added in "External links" section. That section is for a very few carefully-selected external links that are directly related to the subject of the article (e.g., his official biography provided by his agent's site and the IMDB.com biography).--NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are sources for sentences in the text need to be incorporated as notes to those sentences. The goal is to improve the article, not to weaken it. Indiscriminately adding to the "External links" section without recognizing the kinds of links being included there (biography and listings from site of agent, IMDB.com) weakens the article. There is a Notes section and a further readings section (bibliography format). Citations to sources (articles, books) are incorporated into this article already in both a notes format and a bibliography format; please follow these formats. The sources used are "selected" representative sources. Every single article published about the same factual information does not need inclusion in an encyclopedia article on this subject. One or two representative articles will do. Pertinent and reliable news articles are selected carefully for their reliability, their notability, and their representativeness (See guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.) This is an encyclopedia article not a news feature on the subject. --NYScholar 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional information needs a source providing reliable verifiable published translation into English and proper formatting if to be included (Wikipedia: NOR)

Please do not post comments about improving this article on my personal talk page. The proper place to discuss material to improve this article is on this talk page, not mine. My changes are not "personal"; they are simply editing changes. If you have a source that you want to consider adding to an article, post the information first in the talk page if you cannot convert it to a proper format yourself. This is what I found on my talk page, which I am appropriately moving here; once again it was unsigned. Please sign comments on talk pages. See the tag. If you want to add items to the French Wikipedia article, go to that article. It is in French.

<< The Roy Dupuis talk page is semi-protected. What do you have against the source [5] which may be read by Western readers? Surely Wiki is not restricted to English sources? "Les acteurs Roy Dupuis et Sylvain Marcel ont participé à la réalisation du film Revenir de Francis Leclerc, qui a été imaginé, tourné et réalisé en l'espace de 48 heures." Setting aside the short description supplied which is probably more proprotionate to the scale of the work than a full citation, whatever happened to the 'citation needed' tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.31.22 (talk • contribs) 20:53, February 14, 2007 (UTC) >>

The user posting this material on my talk page needs to use proper citation format (see guidelines already linked above); if there is a source to cite (which English Wikipedia users can read and understand), please do some appropriately and cite a "full citation", giving author, title, place of publication, date of publication, date of access, and please incorporate the material into the text and/or source citation notes of the article properly. The above passage is really not entirely clear, plus it is in French. It needs a proper English translation to be posted in English Wikipedia. Otherwise, post it in French Wikipedia article on Roy Dupuis. If English is not one's first language and one feels more comfortable posting in French, please post it in French Wikipedia. In order to include this item as a factual item in English Wikipedia, English sources that are accessible to English Wikipedia readers are needed (in addition to the French-only source).

[I am not finding that this talk page is "semi-protected"; the anon IP user perhaps needs to register to post here further? --NYScholar 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)]

This item still needs more work. See Wikipedia:NOR. I'll see what I can do with this information later. Unfortunately, I'm actually working on something else, and I cannot do this work now. Perhaps someone else can add information about this film (in English) to this talk page for further consideration/discusssion. (I have not run into "semi-protected" status on this article lately. It could be that the message one saw was about Wikipedia being temporarily locked for other purposes. Those are only temporary locks of several seconds sometimes. I have no problem logging onto the database at this time. One needs to be a registered user to edit sometimes. Please sign comments with four tildes (see tagged talkheader above). --NYScholar 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the passage from the article in French that the anon IP user gives as an external link; the source needs a full citation and a verifiable reliable English translation (within guidelines of NOR); one needs to find an article in English that others can read and verify; only "reliable" and "verifiable" sources are permitted. It has to be a source that every English user of Wikipedia can read and verify. <<

"La présentation du film improvisé de Francis Leclerc et diffusé sur l'écran de neige a été une idée totalement géniale. Les gens ont trouvé ça très sympathique."

"En plus de tenir une activité spéciale, cet écran de neige nous a permis d'atteindre un autre objectif, qui était d'attirer une nouvelle clientèle. Et nous y sommes parvenus", estime Julie Dufresne.

Les acteurs Roy Dupuis et Sylvain Marcel ont participé à la réalisation du film Revenir de Francis Leclerc, qui a été imaginé, tourné et réalisé en l'espace de 48 heures.

L'écran de neige, installé près de l'autogare Racine, a d'ailleurs permis à bien des gens d'effectuer une première activité hivernale cette année.

En plus de cette nouveauté, les organisateurs ne cachent pas que la participation du porte-parole, Sylvain Marcel, de la présence du comédien Roy Dupuis et celle du réalisateur Francis Leclerc ne sont pas étrangères au succès de l'événement.

Au cours des derniers jours, les responsables du festival auront donc permis la projection de 110 courts métrages dans le ciné-parc urbain. Les réalisateurs, les acteurs et les producteurs ont bénéficié de 11 vitrines pour exposer leur savoir-faire.

Relativement à l'objectif d'attirer une nouvelle clientèle et d'encourager la relève, la caravane du festival a rencontré les élèves de niveau secondaire de toutes les écoles secondaires de la région. D'ailleurs, plus de 2500 élèves ont assisté aux ateliers du festival....

--NYScholar 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources in English Wikipedia need to be accessible in English; if citing foreign-language (e.g., French) sources, one needs to provide translations in English (usually in parentheses). Click on the French Wikipedia link for articles in French (see menu to the left of the article for links to articles on the subject in other languages). English Wikipedia uses primarily English sources and/or English sources providing translations into English of other languages. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Cite, and other English Wikipedia editing guidelines (see top of page for other links) and the home page of English Wikipedia. Guidelines are given and they must be followed. Deletions can occur when these guidelines are violated. Because I can read French, I was able to read the French source and to verify what it says, but not all readers of English Wikipedia can do that. In the past, I have often provided English translations of French titles (of articles and other works), usually within parentheses, or English sources in addition to French sources. (I have also provided some work in the French version of Wikipedia in the past.) Articles cited must be verifiable by all readers of English Wikipedia. There is no "Western reader" category. Different versions of Wikipedia are written and read in those pertinent languages. In choosing which Wikipedia to edit, one needs to be considerate of its users in its language of usage. --NYScholar 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Western readers" - oops, my mistake. Misinterpreted "W readers" due to the ubiquitous use, in English, of W as a cardinal point. The original Revenir addition was styled identically to the only other work of comparable scale in the entirely comprehensive filmography, i.e. Anémique cinéma. This short, I note, is unverified by any source either in English or French, but is annotated by a brief explanatory comment. As was the Revenir addition. I trust this comment will be redirected to the Roy Dupuis talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.31.22 (talk • contribs) 04:18, February 15, 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with 4 tildes and place them in the right talk page. I don't have time to keep doing this. It is unfair to place things inappropriately on my personal talk page and expect me to redirect it to the proper talk page for the article for you. Please register and follow Wikipedia guidelines in posting comments on article talk pages properly. Please don't keep adding these comments to my personal talk page. They do not belong there. Re: the other film title Anémique cinéma: I provided ample sourcing which previous users deleted; external links to sources, e.g. See the talk page discussions. Please see the history of the whole article for context. That film's sources are ones that I myself have at various times verified. I own a copy of the film. The film itself is the primary source. In citing the film, I am citing the primary source, not a secondary source. --NYScholar 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored deleted source information about the film from previous versions of this article, placing it in a note. [A clip of the film is hosted by some fansites, which one can Google and then view the film to verify its details.] There is (as yet) no comparable source for the "improvised" short film Revenir (2007, dir. Francis Leclerc), as presented (on a screen outside? --"l'écran neige"--outdoor "snow" screen?) at the Festival in Feb. 2007; one would have had to attend the festival and be in that audience to see that film. Other than the one French-language news report cited above and in the article now, there is no further verifiable information published in a notable and reliable source in English regarding Revenir (yet).] --NYScholar 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets--NYScholar 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)]

Translation of "Revenir": the title of the film, Revenir, would seem to be to "return," "come back" or "go back"; hence probably "Return"; but there may also be puns or double entendres involved. ["Revenir" also means to go "back" in an internet site; as in "Revenir" to the home page ("Return home").] It would be helpful to provide an accurate English translation of this film title in parentheses after it in Roy Dupuis' "Selected Filmography"; again, notice that this is a "selected" filmography; it does not include every film in which he appears, and some film titles may be more notable than others in this English Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability. --NYScholar 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For the time being (editing history: "translation ('pending')," I've put "Return" in parentheses as a English translation for the French improvisational short film Revenir. --NYScholar 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roy Dupuis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930212534/http://www.radio-canada.ca/television/notre_cinema/vedettes/fiche.asp?vedette=74 to http://www.radio-canada.ca/television/notre_cinema/vedettes/fiche.asp?vedette=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)