User talk:Jacquerie27

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi, Jacquerie27, please see the talk page at Talk:Melencholia I. There are two possible schools of thought:

"Melencholia I" is Durer's original title, so that's what it should be called
"Melancholia" is how we spell it in English, so that's what it should be called, as per Wikipedia naming conventions.

Whichever we do, we should note that the original spelling in the picture is "Melencholia", and that's what the art world generally calls it (see references at end of article). Suggested compromise: call the article "Melancholia I", redirect both spellings to that article, acknowledge that both spellings are used in the article, call it "Melencholia" in the "art world" context. The Anome 12:58 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

Do we need the "creeping" entry? Couldn't this be covered under the existing supernaturalization entry?

I want to put quite a lot of material into the creeping entry, and it's a specific kind of supernaturalization. Jacquerie27

Christopher??? -- John Owens

Verb sap. I'd better not explain it. Jacquerie27

The removal of the statement that Nigger be a taboo "in the Western societies" was a good removal. :-)

(...and, yes, it happends that monolingual English speakers lecture speakers of other languages about our bad, bad offensive words. :-> Although surely not very often.) -- Ruhrjung 16:56 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

The wikipedia convention is to edit pages boldly, but to discuss deletions of other people's material, or at least provide an explanation on the talk pages when you remove someone else's contribution. You didn't discuss adding the "Arguments against the Virgin Birth" section to the Virgin Birth article, so I don't see why I should discuss adding one or two sentences to it. The burden of explanation is generally on the person deleting. Wesley 12:44 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the good start you made on the Church Fathers article, and for the helpful edits on a number of others. Wesley 18:51 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Please do not mark substantive comments as "minor edits." Tank you, Slrubenstein

Re: your recent comments on the talk page of AFS -- I take your word about the Oxford Companion to the Bible. My point (and formal request) is that you incorporate such citations into the article itself. My basic BS-non BS scale is this: the more specific an article is about who has taken a position in a given debate, why they have taken that position (and not just their personal reasons, but the historical or cultural context), and why the debate is or was or has been important, and to whom, the higher a score it gets. One of the values of "talk" pages is that they force people to clarify, specify, or back up their points -- clarifications, specifications, and citations which can then be incorporated into the argument. At leaast, that's what I hope happens, Slrubenstein

Please work with us in attributing the views discussed in supernaturalization to specific sources (philosophers, skeptics etc.). --Eloquence 20:57 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by the speculative nature of your most recent edits of supernaturalization. The new material would be much more appropriate under the heading of Naturalization process. I recognize that everything is a work in progress but, until now I've been a big fan of your work for its avoidance of just this kind of self-indulgent polemics; and I continue to hope that you can perceive the difference I'm referring to and improve or reorganize the new material. Mkmcconn 21:56 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Mkmcconn 20:06, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

orphaned article Jacquerie27 (Polygonal number)

In working to find homes for orphaned articles, I came across Jacquerie27, which appears to be a version of Polygonal number. I'm not sure what to do with it. My guess is that it should be deleted, but I wanted to check with you first. Would you object to putting it on VFD?

- Anthropos 15:28, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peter Simple

Please do not post articles about fictional characters as if they were real. -- Karada 12:59, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And please do not cite them as sources in other articles. This borders on vandalism, as it will undermine people's trust in the Wikipedia by presenting falsehood as fact. You cannot rely on every reader to get the joke. -- The Anome 13:11, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Table of divisors

I've made major edits to the Table of divisors page you created and have worked on extensively. I hope you aren't too annoyed. I believe the simpler tables are a lot easier to read. Please see Talk:Table of divisors and comment there if necessary. Thanks. - dcljr 05:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School article has been revised several times regarding whether or not Kevin B. MacDonald constitutes a third camp of criticism, or merely a notable critic. The concern is that he does not have enough followers to be called a camp. Can you please discuss your reasoning on the Talk:Frankfurt School page? -Willmcw 01:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kevin B. Macdonald

If his theories are contradicted by other research and facts than those items are worth mentioning. Kevin B. MacDonald has been editing the Kevin B. MacDonald article, he is certainly capable of responding himself. AndyL 13:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded Image:JPMARTIN.gif but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 16:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Tidying up

Thanks for the copy editing work you do. In every edit that I've seen where you have been "tidying up" you have made genuine improvements in grammar and clarity without imparting POV. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

Jacquerie, would you please stop rewriting my intro? The intro you want: "Germaine Greer (born January 29, 1939) is an Australian writer, broadcaster, and academic who is widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist thinkers of the 20th century. Greer is a professor of English literature at the University of Warwick in England and the author of several highly acclaimed books," suffers from the she is, she is format, which I am trying to avoid. It would be more helpful if you could expand the article, as it's very insubstantial. Also, it's not clear that she is still at Warwick, so it would also be helpful if you could check that. She doesn't appear to be listed on their website. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 13:52, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pine needles

I appreciate your heartfelt concern. Do people actually smoke pine needles? If so, what are the effects? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do have a weakness for pickled herring; would that qualify me as Scandinavian? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obsession

It's quite interesting being the object of your obsession, so this isn't a request for you to stop. I hope that you don't do this with everyone who disagrees with you, though; you'd have no time for anything else, you poor thing. Anyway, you've found all the pages that I've created so far, but I'll let you know as soon as I create any more, to save you trawling through my User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jacquerie, you're stalking and harassing Mel Etitis. Please stop it; he's a good editor. SlimVirgin 18:56, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of the number of articles, it's the fact that you're following him around with childish insults, and making edits to his work that aren't obvious improvements, and which included at least one grammatical error in the Churchill article. Please change your attitude around here, Jacquerie. You could be a good editor, but instead have managed to get yourself a reputation as an anti-Semite (whether fairly or not) and now a stalker. Every passing moment is another chance to turn it all around, as Sophia said in Vanilla Sky. SlimVirgin 19:14, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, though I think everything I corrected was justifed as a correction. I'll have to see Vanilla Sky — sounds as though I could learn something. Jacquerie27 19:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you are a successful editor for the "9/11 domestic conspiracy theory" page.

I have a page that is being voted on for deletion. My page has links that may be useful to your article.

However, I am not a successful editor. The users who are voting for deletion of my page are also reverting all minor edits or inserts that I make to other pages, in a tag-team fashion. Therefore I cannot try to edit the above mentioned article that you edit.

If you want more links to support your article, you are in a position to harvest them from my article prior to its deletion. My article is called "9/11 open questions".

Best of success with your article.

Bogusstory 20:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Jaquerie, for rolling back the Rubenstein group

I appreciate your work here very much. You are one of the few upright Americans. Could you help me on "Asian fetish", I would like to have this leftist Sheridan Prasso hate trash against Caucasian "sickos" eliminated forever.Thank you in advance.80.138.177.147 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Martlet1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Martlet1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Bacchus.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bacchus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Bacchus1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bacchus1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 14:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Judith Shulevitz

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Judith Shulevitz, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:JPMARTIN.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:JPMARTIN.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bilocate

A tag has been placed on Bilocate 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 or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 page 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 page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Firestorm ^Talk 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bilocate

I have nominated Bilocate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilocate. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jacquerie27! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Edythe Morahan de Lauzon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Edythe Morahan de Lauzon

The article Edythe Morahan de Lauzon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unlikely to be still alive, so no BLP, but I cannot find evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ucucha 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Angels' Songs from the Golden City of the Blessed

The article Angels' Songs from the Golden City of the Blessed has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As for the author, Edythe Morahan de Lauzon; cannot find evidence of notability for this book.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ucucha 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Female priest" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Female priest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 29 § Female priest until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Female priest" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Female priest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Female priest until a consensus is reached. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]