Jump to content

User talk:Jeaucques Quœure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Jeaucques)

Hello, Jeaucques, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing 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 help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 23:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please alter the move you made to Ethylene as a plant hormone

[edit]

The title now references Ethene, but the article itself uses the term Ethylene. You can’t change the term used in the title without changing the term used in the main body of the text. Plus all the academic papers cited in the article use the term ethylene, not ethene. I suggest we use part of your suggestion but retain the use of the word Ethylene: Ethylene (plant hormones). Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen the title meticulously. Here is the reference from BBC.[1] Jeaucques (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Plant hormones".
I undid the move, as it was not correctly done (per Dr Dobeaucoup), is out-of-sync with the parent ethylene article, and the majority of its cited refs also seem to use "ethylene". If they are synonyms (which they are), you'd need a very strong case to make the change, not just one BBC ref that is not authoritative for science. See WP:RM. DMacks (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

[edit]

Hello, Jeaucques,

Please discuss page moves that might be controversial or be contested on the article talk page before moving the article. If you look at the page history of Twitter verification you can see that since July the article has been moved around a lot so any change to the page title should be discussed first.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or policy surrounding page moves, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

[edit]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Shiv Shakti point. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Rejoy2003(talk) 11:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Day labor. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively, as you did at Kolbe electrolysis. DMacks (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asylum seeker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm PiGuy3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, LGBT slang, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PiGuy3 (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeaucques Quœure (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for violating the three revert rule, you are blocked for "long term page move disruption, repeatedly warned". 331dot (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lascivity vs Lascivious behavior

[edit]

Hi,

I've noticed you've renamed Lascivious behavior → Lascivity, claiming that the latter is more common and using a Google Books Ngram Viewer search to back-up your claim.

This is incorrect. The reason why you got this impression is that your query — namely [1] — was ill-formed. Here is what happened:

  • Case-insensitive searches and compositions cannot be combined. Therefore the "case-insensitive" option was ignored.
  • The case-sensitive search for Lascivity yielded only one result, and therefore was automatically changed to lascivity.

As a result, what you actually did is a case-sensitive comparison between lascivity and Lascivious behavior.

Any proper comparison will show that the phrase "lascivious behavior" is in fact much more common than the word "lascivity". For instance:

Please revert to the former title (using the "Move" function to make sure the history is kept). Since the page "Lascivity" already exists, you might need to ask for the help of an administrator to rename the page.

In the future, to avoid such situations, refrain from moving pages before a clear consensus has been reached.

Best, Malparti (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that Lascivious behaviour is pleonastic than the much simpler Lascivity. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can consider it however you like. But the article here is about the term lascivious behavior and where that specific word is used, not about the concept of lascivity as a whole. It is not your place to enforce your understanding of language on others, and is highly contradictory to the norms of wikipedia. I'm undoing this move, as part of your pattern of apparently mistaken understanding the nature of wikipedia (and as a simple move-and-dispute therefore return to pre-move state). DMacks (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Center of charge (March 25)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DMacks were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The two references are to 13 pages of a textbook and to an entire 800+ page textbook, and are identified as supporting just one small aspect, application, or underlying idea. There need to be multiple secondary refs specifically discussing this article's topic itself rather than appearing as WP:SYNTH or WP:NEO. Google has many hits specifically stating that there actually is no such thing.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DMacks (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jeaucques Quœure! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DMacks (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Immature sperm has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Immature sperm. Thanks! X (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marsupium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incubated.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christianity and artificial intelligence (May 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
~Liancetalk 02:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"British matriotism" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect British matriotism 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 June 13 § British matriotism until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christianity and artificial intelligence (June 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HistoryTheorist was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
For this topic to be made into a Wikipedia article, more reference work needs to be done. I would also recommend reframing this article to outline specific views on artificial intelligence and the development of such views like Christianity and homosexuality or Christianity and abortion. Good luck revising the draft! It definitely has potential to become a Wikipedia article someday.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gallophone" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Gallophone 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 June 20 § Gallophone until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated content

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Belbury. An edit that you recently made to Inhalation seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. I have reverted your edit. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Scriptio continua, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense诉 18:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Libation. Remsense诉 07:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated text

[edit]

Hey, please do not use AI generated text in articles. Wikipedia does NOT allow them, per WP:LLMS. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Artificial intelligence in education for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artificial intelligence in education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial intelligence in education until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense诉 07:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Remsense诉 07:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Immature sperm (August 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Organic chemistry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: I wasn't edit warring but correcting the supposed mistakes. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believing you are correct is not an excuse for edit warring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo It wasn't warring but fixing up your own the errors for which your previous edits were reverted. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are not listening. Please re-read the above definition of edit warring and point to where it allows any exception for "fixing up".--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted."
Neither did I revert nor change the edits of "others" but mine. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." And please do not try to WP:WIKILAWYER. Your choice of whether to understand this is only yours to make; the community's choice of whether to continue allowing you to edit is also the community's to make. Don't do what you did here again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was WP:CAUGHTUP. Tbh I shouldn't have saved my baby. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I won't do what I did just there owing to my previous belief about responding to an article revert by trying a different edit. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeaucques_Quœure&oldid=1239253239"