This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
The Ogre (
talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
100 Great Black Britons worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
The Ogre (
talk) 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are a problem. As well as white racists. What one must do it to eliminate false and unsourced caims, and regarding stupid but sourced claims (such as the one about Queen Charlotte), constructing the article in such a manner that readers are able to understand that is was a lone and biased scholar that invented such claims, at the same time presenting others sources that contradict its lunatic claims. That is what I tried to do in this case. Before it was just stated as a fact that Queen Chralotte had black ancestry. In the present form it is stated that there is a single author that claims that and that all other sources prove him wrong. Notice the difference? In the first case a fact is presented as real, in the second case a claim by a single published author is presented (not as fact, but as him having said so) and contradicted by other pusblished authors. Hope to have been of some help. Good edits! The Ogre ( talk) 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Dublin and Monaghan bombings are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. BigDunc ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Omagh bombing for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. BigDunc ( talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Joséphine de Beauharnais. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Chris! c t 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop using article talk pages for general discussion, they are for discussing improvements to the article only. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
One Night in Hackney seems to be dormant at the moment, but as far as I can see he is an English class warrior with an interest in Ireland. He was very dismissive of my quotes on Sinn Féin by the Political Correspondent of The Irish Times. These comments were, and remain, deleted, though somehow I doubt if he reads The Irish Times. Millbanks ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you had a cat on your user page declaring you were an Irish wikipedian have a look here you might see a user box you like and you can put it on your user page. BigDunc ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jeanne! I'm afraid I'm not the person best qualified to answer this question, sorry. What you are asking is way beyond my area of expertise. If you post this question at the Russian notice board, however, you might have better luck in getting an answer.
Sorry not to be of more help, but please let me know if there is anything else I could be of assistance with.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) ==Thank you,anyway.I was told you wrote the article on Mstislav(1175- 1228).He was either the Princess' father or grandfather. jeanne ( talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, but I'm afriad the name means nothing to me! Traditional unionist ( talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know. The Portuguese wikipedia, though, does give her birthday as March 20. Cheers. The Ogre ( talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see from your edit history that you've just been on Wikipedia for a couple weeks. Just to follow-up on the punk rock matter: basically, the more established an article is, the more you need to be prepared to verify your information and cite good sources for things you're interested in adding (the existence of a record itself is not generally considered a good source, unless it's got detailed liner notes that can be cited).
For new articles or ones still at any early stage of development, the practice is a little looser, and any information that steers the article in the right direction tends to be seen as helpful. The punk rock article happens to be one of the most established articles on Wikipedia--that little star on the top upper right of the article tells you it's a Featured Article, one of our best. (You can look at the whole list of Featured Articles here-- WP:FA--to get a sense of how they look and specifically the kind of citations they have.) Anything you add to a Featured Article or what's been designated a Good Article (just a tier below) will generally have to pass a pretty high standard of verifiability. I hope this help clears up what happened in this case (the existing sentence's focus on 1977 is also significant, of course). I hope you enjoy editing here. All the best, Dan.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just checked. I appear to have removed your statement as you accidentally placed your statement inside the archive box. I am truly sorry, it was nothing personal. Feel free to re-add your question to the bottom of the page properly this time. Thanks for understanding...-- Cameron ( t| p| c) 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the incorrect rename to Cecilia Grey, 2nd Baroness Bonville. I've never worked on a peerage related article. Um, is "peerage" the right word? Obviously I missed the significance of the phrase "in her own right" when I renamed it. Most of my work was done through cross-referencing the info to existing Wikipedia articles rather than external sources. The rename seemed proper when I came across redlinks elsewhere on WP in the "Grey" name which were obviously referring to the same person. I really know next to nothing about hereditary and awarded titles so it's unsurprising that I made such a mistake. Is the first name correct? Or did that change with marriage as well? Again, all the other refs called her Cecilia so I went with that version. Thanks for the feedback. I'll be a little more careful next time. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne, thanks for adding Keith to the Anglo-French category. That category is really intended for people with a close connection to France- i.e. at least a grandparent who came from France. If we listed every modern English person with Huguenot ancestry then the category might become very large and unmanageable. Also if you want to add someone to a category you need to add a category to the bottom of someone's page, rather than add them to the category page. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on The Max Lazer Band requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Please do not delete my comments to other users regarding the Ulster Defence Regiment. This is a very sensitive subject which had been resolved and restarting it isn't going to help anyone. If you wish to take part in the discussion you are welcome to do so at Ulster Defence Regiment. Please note that intevention has been re-requested from the original third party editor SilkTork.
GDD1000 ( talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, the article was deleted because you did not assert importance. They might well be, but since you did not indicate how/why or give any reliable references, it was tagged and deleted. As a courtesy, I have restored the article to User:Jeanne boleyn/Max Lazer Band where you can get it in shape before moving it back to article space. Cheers. Toddst1 ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jeanne. I notice you are doing a lot of work on this lady who also interests me.
I think the article would benefit by some extracts from Georges Chastellain's history, particularly the period when she was effectively a fugitive after Towton and until she settled in Lorraine. I have a couple of books that quote from Chastellain's account and I will try to add something from those. I think we also need to mention her relationship with Pierre de Brézé.
By the way, I enjoyed reading your biography: my late mother was from Fermanagh, though I was born and raised in England. Best wishes. -- Jim Hardie ( talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne is there any reason why you sign your comments in the middle of a sentence? I have noticed it a couple of times. BigDunc ( talk) 12:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeanne it is just a copy and paste job on the box you like. If you find any you like and cant put them on your page send me the link and I will do it for you. BigDunc ( talk) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Jean you are doing well. You have created 9 pages as I see! Keep up the good work!-- Cameron ( t| p| c) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you related to the contemporary fugitive Christopher Bollyn? I appreciate your comments on the Alamo bunch. Wowest ( talk) 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As I stated, Jeanne, I checked my copy of the book and the page reference was incorrect. I apologise if we are perhaps looking at different editions. It certainly is a discredited opinion that Anne knew Marguerite well, although that is still a matter of debate and one which we will probably never resolve. Boleyn ( talk) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I got another message from you, Jeanne, asking for the information on Marguerite to be repinstated. I sent a message to you yesterday; I reinstated it as soon as I got the first message from you. Please check the page, it's definitely on there. Boleyn ( talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne, I note we have been asked not to chat on my talk page. Just to let you know you may continue the discussion via my e-mail if you wish. You might be a handful at times but some of your comments are thought provoking LOL. GDD1000 ( talk) 11:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Try an e-mail
GDD1000 (
talk) 11:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Been trying again - no joy. GDD1000 ( talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Upload your picture here then it is only a matter of linking the image to your page. let me know when you have uploaded picture and if your stuck ill give you a dig out. BigDunc Talk 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Img061 - Copia - Copia.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeanne, please do not continue to use user talk pages as chat rooms, as you are continuing to do at User talk:GDD1000 despite him asking you not to. Editors including myself are trying to build a consensus on important issues over a number of articles, and it is very difficult to do if we have to wade through enless accounts of your offspring monopolizing the family computer. Scolaire ( talk) 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Since what we are discussing is more your difficulties and interests than mine, it is best that we use your talk page for chatting than someone else's. Other editors with the same interests can then see what we're doing. I put the Public Domain Template in your portrait's description so now it is properly released for anyone in the world to use for whatever purpose they please, which I understand was your intention. Anyway that's what I do with my own pictures. I also inserted the picture at the top of your User Page. You can use the difference feature to study how it was done so you can do similar things yourself in future. So, is all this what you wanted? Jim.henderson ( talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Img006.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Elizabeth Fones requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
BigDunc
Talk 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Your recent change to the Lady Jane Grey article in which you reverted the reference to her date of birth back to the traditional date of 12 October 1537 is erroneous. Your citation to the online Encyclopedia Britannica is outdated. Recently published scholarship has shown definitively that Jane Grey cannot have been born in October 1537.I have therefore "undone" the edit and changed the citation to a more recent and more authoritative secondary source. PhD Historian ( talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Alison Weir is not an academic or scholarly historian. And while I do respect her non-fiction work for what it is (amateur writing for an uneducated public), she has only the most minimal training in historical research and methodologies, and no training in historical theory. Her book about Jane Grey, "Innocent Traitor," is a fictional novel. Her other non-fiction books are each based on the work of other writers before her and not on Weir's own research in the primary source archives. Alison Weir is not recognized by the community of professional academic historians as one of their (our) own. She is a non-scholarly writer for the masses, nothing more. Astrotheme is an astrological website, and does not in any way qualify as an authoritative source, despite your personal beliefs. However, if you can provide for me Astrotheme's precise documentary evidence that irrefutably establishes Jane Grey's birthday as 5 October 1537, I would be delighted to withdraw my objection and offer abject apologies. But since birth certificates did not exist in 1537 and the baptismal records for Bradgate were destroyed long ago, I rather doubt that Astrotheme's "verified" source is at all "verified." In fact, virtually no author writing about Jane Grey prior to the middle of the 19th century EVER mentions her date of birth. After searching literally hundreds of works, I have found that the first writers to do so were Francis Hodgson (a novelist) and Agnes Strickland (an amateur historian) in the middle of the 1800s. And Jane's father was away in January 1537, yes fifteen thirty SEVEN. The "cool" thing about a PhD is having the skill to convert Old Style dates to New Style easily and accurately. I repeat my objection that the profusion of non-expert amateurs editing articles on Wikipedia makes of Wikipedia nothing more than an oversized discussion blog utterly devoid of the kind of peer-review and quality controls necessary to achieve scholarly credibility. PhD Historian ( talk) 07:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You believe in astrology and cannot construct a grammatically correct sentence. What more do I need to say? PhD Historian ( talk) 09:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Strickland, Plowden, and Weir are not "scholars." Strickland was an amateur novelist and popular historian. Plowden had no university education at all and was for most of her life a scriptwriter. Weir is a respected and respectable popular historian, but she is NOT a "scholar." And I see by your "Talk" page that others have taken issue with your amateurish efforts on Wikipedia. QED. PhD Historian ( talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I could care less if you report me to the "authorities" for "incivility." Boo-hoo. Go tell Mommy that someone pulled your pigtails. Your edits ARE amateurish, and the feedback and removal warnings on your own Talk page are clear evidence of that fact. Now, go back to the JFK article, since I feel quite certain that you are indeed a true expert on that topic as well. It's people like you that give Wikipedia its well deserved trashy reputation as a joke among so-called "reference works." PhD Historian ( talk) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely, extremely hesitant to get involved here, but I have been watching your dispute with PhD Historian from the sidelines for the past few days. There seems to have been a certain degree of incivility on both sides here, but could I gently ask both of you to try to let it go? Perhaps take a break from Lady Jane Grey for a short period, or simply agree not to attack each other either on talkpages or in edit summaries? I do understand how frustrating historical editing can be, and even better how unpleasant it feels to have one's work dismissed, but I don't see that such hostile exchanges can solve anything. I apologise if I seem to be butting in, but I am just trying to help and would truly like to see this unpleasantness end. Kafka Liz ( talk) 10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Goodness; you were having a right jolly little scrum with that snob. I don't dare get into such discussions, preferring to stay out of topics such as noble biographies that attract trained scholars who make full use of the tools of the trade including judicious balancing of sources. Aware of my limits as a moderately industrious amateur I easily retreat into areas that don't much interest such people.
A quick look at some of your recent edits shows a lot of linking of bare dates, a practice generally frowned upon as counterproductive though not particularly pernicious. What stands out more prominently is a lack of edit summaries. Those summaries greatly help other editors who seek to understand quickly the thoughts behind a series of edits.
As for me, having written into Wikipedia most of what I know about topics worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, I don't want to go on to entering things I read in popularizations and thus risk running afoul of snobbish and qualified scholars. Rather, I've been directing my efforts towards photography. Many geographical articles have no photo, or only a very poor one, since trained photographers rarely take much interest in Wikipedia. This leaves the field open to bumbling amateurs and, living in one of the most photogenic places in the world, I have been going around snapping pictures, uploading them to Commons, and connecting them to appropriate articles.
One area of curiosity in which you may be able to help is, on a TV show Eugen Weber once mentioned how sloppy people were in the Middle Ages with dates, for example with the Countess of Champagne, one of the great heiresses of the time, whose birth date became a topic of royal investigations due to legal questions. Alas, I am unable to indentify this person precisely. Was it perhaps Marie of France, Countess of Champagne?
Thanks, Jeanne. My apologies if I looked somewhat rude also. Peace at last :). Greetings from Argentina.-- Darius ( talk) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jeanne. Regarding your request for assistance from Big Dunc, I have semi-protected your talkpage for a few days, meaning the bothersome IP will not be able to hassle you here. If his or her edits continue to target you elsewhere, please let me know. Rockpocke t 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne. I'm sorry to see that you've been having trouble on your user- and talkpages. I'm not an
admin, so I couldn't have been as helpful as
Rockpocket was, but I can always offer advice. First off, I'm not sure that
PhDHistorian is responsible for the vandalism to your talkpage. I'm pretty sure if he had more to say to you, he'd say it directly. Also,
his userpage indicates that he may have retired from Wikipedia. Finally, the IP user's other contributions
here and
here seem to indicate that it is some third party. In short, I think this is just a
troll, someone looking to stir up a little drama. The best thing to do in these cases is to revert and ignore. Don't let them get a rise out of you, because that is exactly what they are trying to do. The best places to ask for assistance if the trouble persists are
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
On another note, if you do choose to interact with an anonymous IP vandalising your page, it is better to use one of the templates here rather than to write a personal note. The templates serve as formal warnings than can help lead to a block, and they also preclude the possibility that your temper may get the better of you. Does that make sense?
Finally, while you are free to delete whatever you like from your own personal talkpage, it is considered bad form to delete messages you leave others. The preferred method on Wikipedia is to strike withdrawn comments by <s>placing strike tags around them</s> Example.
I hope I've been able to help, Kafka Liz ( talk) 13:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because a song receives a lot of airplay doesn't make a fact worth noting in the artist's article. Billy Bragg incidentally has had a lot of airplay for a number of songs - they aren't all listed. If it's worth noting the fact that a song has had a lot of airplay it should be in the article for the song or, if there isn't one, in the article for the album. But if you are going to add something like that to a song or album article you need to provide a reference for it as well, please see WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks -- JD554 ( talk) 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jeanne, could you please inform me as of the exact source for the material you added 30 April 2008 to Taurus (astrology)? ( your edit here) There is a persistent anonymous editor insisting on changing "women" to "men", which seems dubious. Thanks, -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed the references you've used on some of the new articles you've written could do with some work. It might be helpful for you to read the following Wikipedia guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS. You're doing some good work on those articles, just the referencing needs tightening up. Cheers -- JD554 ( talk) 08:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jeanne :) You're right, she is best known as Jeanne d'Albret, but we should mention Anglicised form of her name (at least in the infobox) because her predecessors are known as Joan I of Navarre and Joan II of Navarre. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have redirected this article to one we already had on this individual at Yolanda of Lusignan - I hope you don't mind, and I hope that you'll continue to build on the exisiting article information. If you have any questions about this or anything else, please drop a line to my talk page Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi would you mind not putting == '''Childhood And Early Years''''' == bold markup on section headings they should look like this ==Childhood And Early Years== as you did on the Juliette Drouet articles and all the others you have created thanks. BigDunc Talk 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British or European topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you.
JD554 (
talk) 07:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that (the vast majority or Wiki articles are written with American style). Sorry for any inconvenience. Victor Lopes ( talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just going through your article on Hortense de Beauharnais, and I noticed your headings. Main section headings are simply written with two hyphens--no bolding required. Thanks. -- Adamrush ( talk) 08:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article as written was poorly written, unsourced, and a general violation of our biography of living persons standards. Groupies are a very risky area to write about unless you've got rock-solid sourcing for what you write. A number of your articles, from what I've seen, have somewhat skimpy standards of documentation; and that's an area where we are quite rigorous here, espcially with living subjects. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it can get dispiriting, but people will disagree on issues. I've been setting up a few pages on sixteenth-century women who are mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but not on Wikipedia. It's nice to feel proud of an article which contains a lot of your work and which brings an interesting but quite obscure person to the attention of others. Articles like Anne Boleyn's have been edited to death really, although I often find something! I've just set up stubs on Elizabeth Darrell and Elizabeth Howard, Duchess of Norfolk which could do with your help, if you're bored of the constant debate about the better-known articles. Boleyn ( talk) 06:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being so understanding at Catherine de' Medici. I recently wrote an article which might be up your street: Henry IV of France's wives and mistresses. I am working in from outer articles to hopefully do something one day with Henry IV of France, Marguerite de Valois, and Marie de' Medici. I'm not really interested in royal mistresses in themselves, but this crew were politically very significant (and, in my opinion, very entertaining). qp10qp ( talk) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I know there is a portrait of her but I don't know how to add them to articles. I tried to add Catherine Carey's picture to her article but couldn't work it out. I'm glad they let the Countess of Arundel's article stay too. I tend to start articles as stubs and add to them over time, so I have to be quick to avoid speedy deletion at times. And you're quite right, I'm British. Boleyn ( talk) 19:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, if you're wondering what happened here, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Offensive Barnstar. giggy ( :O) 10:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to communicate with me for whatever reason, they may freely do so here: Windows Live Messenger richard91@aol.it All comments and queries are welcome, may they be critical or complimentary. Any text or information that is sent to me will be regarded as strictly confidential, and I shall not publish anything. Now, while I sincerely appreciate frank, open speech, I prefer that profanity be avoided, despite my relative proficiency in that dubious art- having lived in four different countries, one does tend to acquire a wee bit of the local jargon. Profanity is merely a verbal form of aggression- rarely articulate- which obstructs clear, concise discourse.Remember I am on the CET time zone. jeanne ( talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne, when you start new sections using ==...== please write your comment below the equal signs. I corrected one for you here. Hope that helps. — Realist 2 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Jeanne. Please consider the following Wikipedia policy: WP:USER#What may I not have on my user page?. Btw, I'm a capricorn who enjoys red wine, candlelit dinners, and long walks on the beach. Kisses! 24.41.90.13 ( talk) 15:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne I see you have been reverting a bit of vandalism lately but you are not warning the vandals you can find all the templates for the different warnings and levels at WP:WARN. Just a matter of copy and paste the templates on to the user page of the vandals. Keep up the good work. BigDunc Talk 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to say great job on creating the article on Elizabeth Bourchier - I've put lots of work into various Cromwellian articles but Elizabeth's has always remained a red link, until now! Great work. Greycap ( talk) 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne, I notice that this IP has a message from you about vandalizing your user page. This is a public MacBook in an Apple store. Anyway, enjoy Wikipedia and don't let anonymous IPs get you down! 12.189.144.233 ( talk) 15:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Seamtress_Sicilian_crib.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama KReply? on my talk page, please 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm glad you came to the same conclusion that I did, as it can sometimes be a touchy issue when one's own images are removed from an article. It is hard to explain exactly how I achieved the opalescent effect because there are so many factors involved in creating a photo. The night was quite foggy so all the lights glowed in the sky. Also, a trick that I used was to take 3 photos with different exposures and combine them together so that the brightest parts weren't so bright, and the darkest parts weren't so dark. Complicated, but it sometimes works quite well. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jean:) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nick19thind (
talk •
contribs) 11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeanne see your hard at it again creating articles great work just a note could you give the exact URL for the peerage.com site that you use, say for example you do an article on Colonel Sir William Pierce Ashe-A'Court, 1st Bt then link it with the URL [http://www.thepeerage.com/p2712.htm#i27115 peerage.com] peerage.com so that editors can go straight to the page instead of the home page. Hope that helps any questions regarding how to do it just drop by my talk and keep up the good work. BigDunc Talk 09:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I cant seem to find anything on Maude on the peerage but I found this is that what you are trying to link to? BigDunc Talk 10:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I don't know a thing about fashion (but quite a bit about subcultures) but if you write it i'll add the references
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sicilian_arrotino_animated_crib.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama KReply? on my talk page, please 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I found a copy of the Complete Peerage, and spelling seems to be a complex topic. For simplicity's sake, I suggest a centralised location for the discussion, namely Talk:Earl of Ormonde (Irish). The quick answer seems to be that there were several spellings, with "Ormond" probably more common before the creation of the marquessate and "Ormonde" almost universally used afterwards. I assume the confusion is what's to be expected when English clercs write grants for Irish earldoms... Huon ( talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
After your page ended up on my watchlist when we last spoke, I've noticed you constantly trimming and massaging your user page. I noticed that you support John McCain. Not to turn this into a political debate, but all the other things you support/oppose tend to suggest that Obama would be the one that most agreed with your opinions (free health care, gay rights, war in Iraq). What is it about Obama that you causes you to not support him? As I said, just curious... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Women who marry peers do not thereby themselves become peers. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Jeanne, to-date the EU has been among the best and most freedom-enhancing developments in Ireland's modern history. It has brought us more civil, legal and human rights. More social protections, better roads, better infrastructure and, most importantly of all, freed most of this island's population from the suffocating presence of the British state and the policies of colonialism and dispossession upon which that state's presence rests in Ireland today, in 2008. The EU has re-awakened Ireland's millenia-old links with the world beyond Britain, a world closed off by the insularity of the "British Isles" project of British state development in Ireland. All those cultures, languages, histories, the art, the renaissance, the richness of cultural diversity- amazing.
In contrast, we have the narrow, monoglot state of Britain where non-English languages are dismissed and public school is in fact Protestant school under a monarch who must, under current law, be a member of the anglican Church. For me that's amazing, too, but in a very different way. With such a choice, giving part of our sovereignty to the EU therefore is a voluntary act, an expression of support for the ideals, cultural openness, tolerance, inclusiveness and progressiveness of the European Union project. None of these values have marked the British state's presence in this country. Rather, that state's raison d'être has been to crush cultural diversity, close Irish people out from advancement and persecute our people century after century: to make Ireland a new England, a new Britain. It is hard to conceive of a more anti-Irish presence, a more inhumane presence, in Ireland's history.
Ergo, when you call this island part of your "British Isles" you are simply imposing another British element of control over the Irish people. We are acutely aware of the power dynamics being employed, as you indubitably are. As Edward Said pointed out, control the representation of a people and you control how people view them and their subsequent destiny. It really should not be difficult to understand why, given our history at the hands of Britain, Ireland is consistently among the strongest supporters of the EU project. "British Isles" in contrast is an assertion of the old dynamic, the old control, the old dominance, and the old inferiority complex. Times have changed, for the better as far as the vast majority of this island's population is concerned. The EU is freedom because it breaks the suffocation of the old mould. All you really need here, Jeanne, is to sacrifice your ideology for some empathy with the Irish experience. Trust me, you will see it all differently then. Dunlavin Green ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no. I know everything about her edits of Catherine of Aragon article - I've been edit warring with her since since the beginning of October. Two other users joined me, but no avail. You've seen what she has done to Catherine of Aragon article. Anne Boleyn is so close to FA. Perhaps we can notify an administrator about her edits? Surtsicna ( talk) 08:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Its very nice to talk to ppl meanly behind their back isnt it?:D. Im only trying to improve the articles, its a matter of opinion of what good edits are and bad edits are. I dont agree with some of your edits but i dont go sneakiliy being nasty to someone.
Really? It's such a good article that I had to remove downright lies from it when I first started editiing it. Saying Martin Luther had one opinion about Anne's marraige when he had the exact opposite, getting the dates of when she was Queen from wrong, etc. doesn't make an article very good. Well congrats to you for not caring, that's a very good way to live life not caring about other people's opinions of your actions when you scrutinise and judge their's on multiple talk pages, well that is apart from their own.
Chloe2kaii7 ( talk)
That is irrelvent to the conversation. So what if an article is written well well some of the content is downright lies. I believe the Catherine of Aragon article is an extremely good article, the Anne Boleyn one however I find quite boring and not very informative. Novel like? Pah. All edits don't need to be backed up by sources. We need to air to breathe, we need food and drink to survive, but we dont need sources, so what if an article is FA standrad. That is just someone's opinion of it. The Catherine of Aagon article has good grammer and structure. "Prosy" means dull or commonplace, something which the Catherine of Aragon article is not. :P
Chloe2kaii7 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment was added at 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC).
I do because it only contains basic information which I already know. It just isn't very interesting for me as it doesn't go into detail. I do not believe I said so what, and even if I did I can say it whether you think it is disrespectful or not because I do not get much respect from any users of wikipedia, you all seem to just argue over stupid details in articles. If I want to put some info in an article then I can do that, I have to same rights as you can't just say that you don't like an edit so therefor it ammeditaatley is a "bad edit" as it is a matter of opinion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chloe2kaii7 (
talk •
contribs) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |