User talk:Jeanne boleyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

==

Hello Jeanne boleyn, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! The Ogre (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Contents

[edit] April 2008

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)

  • You are right in the substance of you comments, but it was already stated Madragana was probably of Sephardi origin, and the tone of your comments has no place in a main article, but in a talk page. 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)

  • Again, I agree with you, but an article can not be written as a personal opinion. Please try to writte in a proper encyclopedic manner, with sources, or, if in discordance with same statemente (and remember the statemente is just saying, or it should be, that a certain source says something), tagging the said statement (or a whole article!) as dubious, POV, or lacking sources (that you can demand). The Ogre (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afrocentrists and other biased editors

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)

Regarding 100 Great Black Britons, I added a note in the intro. Notice that the article is basically ok in the sense that what it states is that some people did produce that list - another totally different thing, and my note goes in that direction (but a full section of critique to the list could be made, sourced of course), is to say that the criteria used to produced the list are biased. Why don't you do it? Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 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)

[edit] Reply to my talk page comments

Please have a read of Talk Page Guidelines. It is nothing to do with not having compassion for the victims of these acts. In the case of the Dublin Bombings if it had not been for a bus strike on the day of the attacks it is possible I could have been caught up in them, as it was I was stood in O'Connell Street waitng for a taxi to take me home. Instead of being at the bus stop yards from one of the explosion sites.BigDunc (talk) 12:20, 5 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! ct 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerry Adams

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 Hackney303 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Mr.Adams ever been directly queried as to his alleged role in the planning of the attacks?And if so, what. Now I don't generally like to make assumptions, but it seems clear to me that you have a least a cursory knowledge of the Troubles and the various events, groups and people associated with it. Therefore you should be more than aware that Gerry Adams denies ever having been an IRA member, and that even if a direct question about a particular event had been asked the answer would still have been the same. Your question is phrased as though you're wanting to discuss the event, not improve the article. Please understand that article talk pages aren't to be used for that purpose, they are for discussion improvements to the article. One Night In Hackney303 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

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)

[edit] Rurikids

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)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message, but I'm afriad the name means nothing to me!Traditional unionist (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Portugal

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)

[edit] Follow-up on WP:Verifiability

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)

So I checked out Max Lazer online--I think I'd like 'em a lot. According to one source, the band "enriches glam rock with saxophones and a punk edge." Anything that combines punk and saxophones is good by me. We do have a glam punk article, where I think you definitely could and should add him. Here's a link to a source that should pass muster: [1]. Best, D.—DCGeist (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

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)

Anne Boleyn? I thought it was Elizabeth I of England you said? Otherwise you may wish to add it to the Anne Boleyn page. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is very sad. One must assume other factors of which we have no knowledge. Why else would she have left the throne to her cousin. I dont get why she didnt name another successor...it puzzles me!--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a very good explanation....to atone...yes I like that! Thanks! --Cameron ([[User Talk:Cameron|t|p|c) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have Scottish ancestry but I wouldnt call myself a Scot..nor an Englishman. I prefer Brit = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah,you must be from Northern Ireland then !
= ) I have no Irish ancestry actually (not in the last few hundred years anyway). It is quite a shame, I am rather fond of Ireland...And what nationality are you, if I may ask? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cecily Bonville

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)

[edit] Keith Richards

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)

[edit] Speedy deletion of The Max Lazer Band

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.

[edit] Ulster Defence Regiment

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)

[edit] Max Lazer Band

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)

I believe you. I hope you are able to get the article in shape. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the links in the article for you. You should probably see Wikipedia:Band and WP:RS. Shop sites aren't considered WP:Reliable and are likely to be removed as WP:SPAM. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe you understood my note above. That article still lacks reliable sources and does not assert significance per WP:Band. In trying to help you improve the article, I have attempted to do some research but have come up empty. My honest evaluation is that the group doesn't pass WP:Band at all. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret of Anjou

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)

[edit] Question

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)

[edit] User Box

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)

[edit] Doing well

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)

[edit] Hi, there!

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)

[edit] Re: deletion of information on Anne Boleyn's page

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)

[edit] WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chatting

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-mailGDD1000 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Been trying again - no joy. GDD1000 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can thank my 17 year old son-he wouldn't let me near the computer todayjeanne (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

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. BigDuncTalk 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Img061 - Copia - Copia.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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)

You forgot to hoist the official Public Domain flag on the description of the picture. This is called a "template" and you do it with Template:PD - self but omitting the spaces which I inserted to keep it from waking up and becoming a live template. Oh, and if you are going to send a lot of pictures, you may want to do that in Commons where more people can find and use the pictures for other articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chatting (again)

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)

[edit] Portrait released and posted to user page

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 Jim.jeanne (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Img006.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Elizabeth Fones

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. BigDuncTalk 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Jane Grey D.O.B.

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)


[edit] Gentle reminder about Personal attacks

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)

I'm glad you did not take offense or see my comments as condescending or interfering. These things happen sometimes, and I certainly know from experience (I think we all do :) ) how easy it can be to get sucked into arguments like this, and how difficult to take a step back. Happy editing! :) Kafka Liz (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur

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?

[edit] No problem

Thanks, Jeanne. My apologies if I looked somewhat rude also. Peace at last :). Greetings from Argentina.--Darius (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP problems

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. Rockpocket 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. If the IP continues to disrupt your user-page, I can protect that too. I'll try and keep my eye on your pages, but if it becomes problematic, feel free draw my attention by leaving me a message on my pages. Happy editing. Rockpocket 07:20, 25 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)

Hello again, Jeanne. An IP has been adding a white pride user box to your user page. I have removed it on the basis that you, and you alone, should decide how you identify yourself. I have also protected the page to stop him or her re-adding it. You are still free to edit the page as you wish and the box is in the history, should you wish to revert to that version. Rockpocket 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Bragg

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)

[edit] Taurus (astrology)

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)

[edit] Referencing

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)

I'm afraid you've still got some work to do there. For each fact that you state you need to give a valid reliable source. A couple of the sources you've used are self-published which, more often than not, aren't reliable as anyone can create a webpage without being a recognised authority. One of them however (thepeerage.com) does give a very good reference to Burke's peerage that you can use. It would be well worth your while to read Citing Sources and to have a look at the Biography Wikiproject where you'll fine lots of useful tips on creating biography articles. There are also a couple of templates that you may find useful when giving references: {{Citation}} and {{Cite web}}. I hope this helps, --JD554 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You still need to do some work on them, please read How to cite sources for further help. --JD554 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joan III/Jeanne d'Albret

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)

[edit] Yolande de Lusignan

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)

[edit] Section Headings

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. BigDuncTalk 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

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)

As stated above, it doesn't matter how they're written if they are wikilinked (have double square brackets around them). The reader's preferences will then show the date in their preferred format. So if you were seeing the dates (which I know were wikilinked) in the American format it's because your preferences are not set correctly. To change them, select 'my preferences' and then 'Date and time' and select you preferred date format. --JD554 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Alianore de Lovayne

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)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Barnstar of Racial Purity
For your courage in defending the ancestry and elucidating the bloodline of Philippa of Hainault and your brave attempts at 100 Great Black Britons, I award you the Barnstar of Racial Purity. In your short time here you've done some amazing work! 72.85.128.63 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heading formats

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)

No worries. --Adamrush (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sable Starr

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)

If this person was famous, there should be newspaper articles about her, with page numbers and everything. If these cannot be provided, we can't just say things about her.
As to your sourcing and citing... I was talking about the use of non-reliable sources like: Astrotheme; self-published authors; popularizers; and the like. This has nothing to do with our respective politics; intellectual and scholarly rigor is neutral. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)