User talk:Jeanne boleyn/Archive1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WikiCookie

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

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)

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. BigDunc^Talk 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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 {{ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. BigDunc^Talk 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. BigDunc^Talk 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks!

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)

Of Valois and Medici

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)

Re: Elizabeth Fitzgerald

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)

Removal of barnstar

Hey, if you're wondering what happened here, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Offensive Barnstar. giggy _(:O) 10:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "democracy" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is hosted on private servers, they have the right to do whatever they want. If we as a communtiy decide that parts of your userpage may be offensive to others, then we can remove it, and no, there is no such thing as free speech here. So knock off the whole patriotism act by questioning others' loyalty to the United States, this isn't McCarthyism. If you think calling the American flag "ugly" is offensive, then hit up WP:AN on it. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

E- Mail

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)

You might want to put contact details on your userpage, people will not look here for details on contacting you. Just an idea. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New sections

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. — Realist² 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Myspace

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)

Kisses, I only wrote about myself in a paragragh (albeit a long one). WP policy says a couple of pages. I have read user pages where editors describe their prefered sexual activities!!! Yes, you would be a Capricorn they are such sticklers for rules, aren't they? Well, I hope you enjoyed reading my user page. Thanks for the advice. Red wine makes me ill, candlelit dinners are fine by me especially if the food is Mexican and I prefer to jump in the water as soon as I hit the beach. Cheers. BTW, who are you?--jeanne (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

Thanks for the praise. It's been a good while since that has come my way. I tend to receive sarky put-downs and condescension. I'll remember about the warnings. Thanks again. Cheers.--jeanne (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bourchier

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)

I think you're right about historians' lack of interest in Cromwell's wife and wider family, particularly when there are lots of surviving letters to Elizabeth, to Richard, to cousins in his kinship network, etc. This is changing though - some are starting to look at Cromwell's personal life in more detail. Patrick Little has looked at Cromwell's interests in hawking, racehorses, art and fashion for instance! You might be interested in this article by him: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120123483/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Anyway keep up the good work. Greycap (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Computer in Cambridge MA Apple store

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)

Image:Seamtress_Sicilian_crib.JPG listed for deletion

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. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it not be uploaded to Commons for future use?--jeanne (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this image for? If you're active and want it on your user page, that's fine. You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 October 1#Image:Seamtress_Sicilian_crib.JPG. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just put it on my user page. Thank you for your helpful advice.--jeanne (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo of the Liffey

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)

Links

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)

Maud le Vavasour

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

Image:Sicilian_arrotino_animated_crib.JPG listed for deletion

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. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ormond(e) spelling

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)

OK, I'm curious...

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)

Massaging and trimming my user page! I understand the trimming bit, but MASSAGING? Explain. Ok, you asked why I do not support Obama. I don't trust the man. Who is he? How is he going to pay for all of his wonderful social programmes. I'll tell you. From the already depleted wallets of the working- and- middle-classes, who do not qualify for free health care. And I can assure you that those afore-mentioned people will not qualify if/when Barack is elected. Do you think he'll pull US troops out of Iraq? Yeah right, just like Romano Prodi promised he'd pull Italian troops out. Did nought but raise prices here. Obama will do the same. His schemes and plans will not and cannot work in America. Another thing, as a woman, I rather like the idea of a woman being VP. After all, females do make up the majority in America.Remember Diliff, I said I support McCain with reservations. I don't care for his gung-ho approach to Iraq. I always cry when I watch Platoon. War is a tragic and senseless waste. The politicians kiss and make up while the families of the dead are left with faded photos and shattered memories. By the way, I have been looking at some of your photos around Wikipedia. All I can say is WOW. Y ou are really talented. I'm jealous. I love taking photos, but I have just a digital camera. Where abouts in Australia are you from?--jeanne (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why so coy, Diliff. One of the main reason Jeanne shows up on our watchlists is that we already know that she doesn't trust Barack Obama and his ilk. 68.163.245.162 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is in response to the person who butted in where he/she wasn't asked to. I said I do not trust Obama. I don't know what you mean by his "ilk", and I find your intrusion trollish so please GET OFF OF MY USER PAGE. This is a serious discussion I'm having with Diliff. Stupid, ignorant comments you have just made are not welcome. Get lost.--jeanne (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, seeing as I'm on so many people's watchlists, what did all of you sentinels do in the summer while I was on holiday? Must have been sheer boredom for all of you when I was at the beach having FUN in the SUN (see 3rd image at the top of the page). You poor wee dull things.--jeanne (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism. If anyone does it in future you can undo it by going to "history" and clicking undo on that particular edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick19thind (talk • contribs)

Well, as I said, it wasn't my intention to get into a political debate, but if John McCain isn't promising to exit Iraq anytime soon, and Obama is, then even if Obama breaks his promise on that, the result would be the same, so why support the guy who definitely isn't going to do what you want done in Iraq? There is still a chance for Obama to be proven right ;-) And Obama is going to lower taxes for those under $250k and increase them for those over 250k (as the Joe the plumber incident has clearly brought to light). Given that the democrats are more centerist and are generally considered to be more sympathetic to the working class/middle class, I'm not sure why you think that McCain is going to do a better job of looking after the 'little people'. Sure, some of Obama's social programs might be expensive, but if they're necessary for the well being of the population, isn't that a necessary evil? America is a great country (I lived there for a little while and almost married an American), but its social welfare sucks. People do very well financially in the US, but if lose their job, lose their health insurance and get sick, they can easily bankrupt themselves, which is a tragedy even if you're not sympathetic to the unfortunate/working class. I think it is generally agreed that it is important for the economy that the people are healthy and stable, and if it costs everyone slightly more in taxes, isn't it worth it?

I don't understand the lack of trust regarding Obama. When its all said and done, who is anyone? How can you really completely know or trust anyone? But Obama has written a couple of autobiographies. If you don't know who he is, then you can read them, and if you still don't understand him, then what makes you think you really understand McCain or Palin either? I agree that it would be nice for a female to be a leader of the country, but surely you can't just support the first one that comes along regardless of her credentials or beliefs. She supports almost the exact opposite of the things you support! Anyway, I didn't mean that to be quite as long and preachy, sorry. Thanks for the compliments about my photography. I have a digital camera too, you know. A digital SLR, that is, but it is still digital. I'm from Melbourne originally, but I've been living in London for the last almost 3 years. I may go back in the next couple of years though. I came over here when the economy was good, but I work in IT in the financial sector as a contractor and things are not too rosy here now!! ;-) I was out of work for 4 months earlier in the year and London is an expensive city to be without a job. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Diliff, anyone can write an autobiography. That's not the basis on which to place one's trust, especially a young man of mysterious background and upbringing (did he live in Hawaii or was it really Idonesia?) with the world's largest nuclear arsenal. His programmes will not benefit the average working man or woman. Democrats never do. Remember Lyndon Baines Johnson was a democrat. What did he give America? Vietnam and welfare-paid for by the working and lower-middle-class!What is Obama's stance on crime? I've had some intersting talks with my brother who tells me Obama wants to enforce complete gun control? Do you realise the social ramifications of that in America? No Diliff, I do not trust the man and what's more I cannot stand his wife Michelle. She appears to me very hostile and humourless. Where does your surname Diliff come from? It sounds Welsh? London always was an expensive city. I used to live in Brighton.That's a fun place and close enough to London by train-just an hour's train journey. Your photography is marvelous. I often see your photos on Wikipedia.--jeanne (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Peers of Ireland

Women who marry peers do not thereby themselves become peers. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Suo jure no, but they acceed to the titles of Duchess, Countess, etc. What should they therefore be called, just noblewomen?--jeanne (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no category for them. You need to put in the lead what it is that makes them notable in their own right. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a man but Earl_Mountbatten sets out straight away why he is notable. Quickly looking for a peeress try this; it has a truly awful opening which is exactly not what to do but the article itself is is not bad. It mentions of her political role, social role,fashion and examples of her in contemporary art. The citations mention two books specifically about her and of course the recent film. AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no please, not another verbal attack!!!!

"British" Isles

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)

I wouldn't usually get involved - but as I was editing here it caught my attention. Whatever else wiki is it's not a place to proselytise and the argument on an article should be calm, rational, evidence based and stay within NPOV. I think the above unhelpful to such aims AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As for this "proselytising" nonsense, User:Jeanne boleyn took the trouble to come to my Talk Page and question me about my objections to this term. She initiated this discussion; the above is my response. So, before you jump into some discussion, please make the minuscule effort to familiarise yourself with the facts. That you do not like the response is, really, not my problem. If you genuinely wished to see the extensive evidence for Irish resistance to this British nationalist term, you would have gone to the article British Isles and its accompanying 23 archives of Talk pages where it is extensively documented. There you will find the "calm", "rational" evidence that you (pompously) pretend to seek here. The girl under whose name this page is simply refuses to accept this evidence as it clashes with her rather idiosyncratic views in support of British monarchism. That you clearly find the term "British Isles" to be rational when it includes Ireland speaks volumes for your own political ideas about Ireland's place in the world. I find nothing rational about people calling Ireland a "British" isle. I do find much that is profoundly irrational and extraordinarily politically motivated about use of that term. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• I know I'm not directly involved in this one either but I couldn't help but dive in. I can't speak for exactly what Britain has done to Ireland in the past, but I don't think that the monarch really has much in the way of real control over the state these days. The queen is a symbolic figurehead, but the real modern Britain is hardly monoglot state where non-English languages are dismissed. You're acting as if it is stuck in the 1800s, still trying to expand it's empire and impose itself on the world. Those days are long gone. Most people here, just as in Ireland, want to get on with their lives. And I'm not speaking as a Brit, I'm an Australian living in the UK whose country was also once a British dominion. We've moved on. So has Ireland. So has Britain. The past is the past and the future is the future. Live and let live. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Please spare the sophistic drivel of "the past is the past". It is so smug, so shallow and so false. Generally as insulting as it is patronising, in other words. It is clearly not the "past" when you are using terms asserting domination from that past such as the "British Isles" to refer to Ireland in 2008: that term, rather, is most assuredly an assertion of British hegemony over Ireland. It is another British nationalist attempt to suffocate Irishness. You want it both ways, it seems: forget the past, Paddy- but keep our terms asserting British control over Ireland. That's not going to happen: not today, not ever. This "British Isles" assertion is against the expressed wishes of the vast majority of Ireland's population, who are now free from British colonial rule. Why are people like you resisting this reality? Of course, you do know this- if you know a single Irish person you would know they have no time for being under British rule again. It's not even on the agenda, but terms like "British Isles" are still being used (by an increasingly smaller minority) to infer that Ireland belongs to the British. PS: The more accurate historical analogy is between the native Irish and the Australian aborigines- the natives, and the white Australians and the White British- the colonialists. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The parallel universe theory: One wonders, what if it would've been the Irish Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop being an idiot, GoodDay. Thank you.Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As usual Dunlavin, you continue to bless us with your fine rhetoric. Too bad, it's based on fantasy. I notice you did not respond to the comment I made about the Irish previously submitting to domination by the Catholic bishops well after Independence, largely imposed by De Valera. But that's the past. Let's talk the present. For all your glorifying praise of the benevolent, liberating EU, you failed to mention the pretty penny it's costing you to be a member-and it's not even an exclusive club-anyone can join. And you fail to mention the sky-rocketing crime in Ireland. How many people were killed in Dublin this summer in gangland style shootings? Ah, the security of living in the EU, we in Italy feel the same comfort, going to bed with the soothing lullaby of the EU Parliament in our ears. You say I need to acquaint myself with the "Irish experience"? My good man, I had an Irish father, my mother was about half Irish, Irish husband, Irish boysfriends, best friends, workmates,flatmates, I have lived and worked in Ireland, and last but not least, I have two Irish sons living in Donaghmede, and they are as Dub as you can get. (By the way, I have asked them, and the term British Isles does not bother them in the slightest. Crime, money, and rain are higher on the list of worries). Everytime, I sign my Irish surname I share in the Irish experience, so I ask you, WHAT MORE EXPERIENCE DO I NEED, pray tell? So you dont reckon the Irish and the British have anything in common? Apart from speaking English-which is rapidly becoming the first language of the EU- the cultural bonds are obvious to anyone who has lived in or visited the two places. For instance, the pub culture that the Irish share with the British, not to mention the lifestyle, the food,the music- when was the last time you heard Eurovision-style Euro pop played in a Dublin club? There are also the same football teams that you support, the same tabloids that you read, the same television programmes, and fashion. Ever since the British-influenced, Carnaby Street-styled fashions of the 1960s, the Irish have always dressed as their British counterparts from the bootboys in their parallel jeans to glam rock, punk, New Romantic, goth, and now chav. Honestly, Dunlavin, I really cannot see the Irish turning into expresso-drinking, scooter-riding, kissing-on-the cheek Continentals. Sorry. Now this is not an attack against continental Europeans, but apart from the Czechs, Continentals just do not have a sense of humour, whereas the Irish-again in common with the British do, which is why the British Isles talk page is so amusing. Finally, Dunlavin, why do you have a problem if I'm a monarchist who is passionately interested in Norman-Irish noblewomen such as the Butler ladies, the FitzGerald, de Burghs, de Clares, de Lacys ? Were they not Irish? Wasn't Aoife MacMurrough Irish? Yet she married Strongbow and her genes were widely diffused amongst the medieval English nobility. How can anyone reject the English/British when they have given the world so much, such as the Magna Carta, the smallpox vaccine,Emmaline Pankhurst, television, trains, the English language, Sir Isaac Newton, the miniskirt, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare, The Rolling Stones and Lady Caroline Lamb.--jeanne (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, keep trying. You will never be Irish, and you will never be British. Your definition of "Irish" is of course, colonial Anglo-Irish. We, the real Irish, are the invisible people to your sort, just as we were, legally, under the British-imposed Penal Laws. You are just another cultureless Yank trying to be cultured. An intelligent Yank trying to be cultured would, of course, look to France, the home of the Normans and the language of the Enlightenment and even, surprise surprise, your beloved English court for centuries. But then we have the US peasants who hilariously think they are being cultured by looking up to the nation de boutiquiers. Britain, the nation which spent a fortune on perfecting violence while other European nations were encouraging the great musicians and artists of European culture.(Jeanne wonders if this cultured dude Dunlavin has ever heard of the Prussian Junker, Otto von Bismarck, Napoleon?) The nearest thing to a British musician-Handel- had to be hijacked from the Germans. Nevertheless, had you ever been to Ireland(Jeanne has to cut in again with the comment that two of her children were born in Dublin,thus it stands to reason that, duh, she has obviously been to Ireland) you would see that fashionwise, it is US fashion which determines trends for most people, and France and Italy for the wealthier. British fashion, like British cars, were never a strong point for your heroes. Dark, dreary, dull, dour and lacking warmth. How apt. That you clearly prefer to deny this and claim that Irish fashion is British fashion confirms your delusionary character. Even in Britain, US fashion dominates. Talk about disconnected from reality. As for DeValera "imposing" anything, the simple fact that he was elected with a larger democratic mandate than any other leader in Europe highlights your disconnection once again. This minor fact makes Dev a radically more legitimate ruler in Ireland than any of your genuinely imposed British colonial rulers of this country (who, unsurprisingly, supported the Catholic Church strongly from 1792 although WASP outsiders like you would be unaware of such complexities).(Jeanne did know this na na a na na na-Dunlavin, I thought I kept my King James Bible well-hidden, oh wellllllll)

Oh, and unlike your beloved British state, there has never been a ban on somebody becoming head of the Irish state because of their religion. The first president of the Irish state as long ago as 1939 was a Protestant. He was "imposed" by DeValera. In your "advanced" Britain, Catholics in 2008 are still forbidden from becoming head of state. Pathetic. Ugly. And disgustingly sectarian. And you have the temerity to accuse us Irish of being sectarian and backward? Your bigotry is noted. Your eagerness to embrace sham geneological trees and titled persons and your need for heroes is also deeply disturbing-"Sad is the land that needs heroes" (Bertolt Brecht). (TheStranglers have already said there are No More Heroes) Yes, "the continentals do not smile"- another fine contribution to your now standard bigotry against all Europeans except British monarchists. Quite.

Montgomery Clift and priests

Hello Jeanne. Ya forgot my fav, Benny Hill. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Mr.Bean. Benny Hill was too sexist for my tastes. All those nurses!LOL.--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Luved those nurses. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

They couldn't beat Monty Clift dressed as a priest (check out the image on this talk page--jeanne (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, gals are usually attracted to priests. Fellas like me can only offer a good time, priests can offer eternity. PS- I hadn't noticed 'til now, those images on your front page were self-portraits; I was trying figure out which actress that was. Err, I sorta look like Groucho Marx. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PS- I was just joking about the priest stuff. But, not about my resemblance to Groucho (my silly luck). GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dont believe ya. I have never seen an ugly French-Canadian. They dont exist.--jeanne (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not another verbal attack against me, PLEASE

Benign Colonialism

GoodDay, I wonder why Dunlavin has not responded to me? Do you think he's perhaps revving his engines?--jeanne (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, he'll respond. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's definitely getting ready to launch another carefully-written diatribe against me, adroitly refusing to answer the issues I have raised, yet firmly keeping me in the supplicant role of the Anglicised Plastic Paddy desperately seeking enlightenment.--jeanne (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, going around obsessed with the British monarchy, lauding old (and thus safe) delusionary monarchistic visions of the past and attempting to then claim you are Irish is both disengenuous and sad. Disengenuous in its quaintness:(Dunlavin, you sure you ain't American yourself?) benign colonialism meets a defender of the colony who is so desperate for a heroic society that she has not got the strength to accept the reality. The sadness? There's eccentric, and then there's just somebody so scared of real life, so hurt by this real world, that they scurry back to create some safe nostalgic past and laud it as a panacea for their inability to deal with the world today. That is really what's going on, and no matter where you move to you just cannot get away from a life you are clearly deeply unhappy with. Stop trying to be something you are not. You are not Irish, and you are not British, no more than I suddenly become British or American if I decide to live in those lands. You are, simply, an unhappy US citizen who feels rejected by her own society and who reacts by glorifying a society that is not, and never will be, her own.(Goodbye cruel world-Jeanne) That cowardice and human frailty is sad, really sad. Most of us are lucky enough to have people to love us enough to keep us on track when we drift. You, on the other hand, make a career out of offending people because you need your ideals so badly that if you didn't have them you'd have to face real life. PS: Getting consolation from the beliefs of your own children, whom you have had years to indoctrinate with your idiosyncratic notions, is just embarrassingly desperate. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC

Oh dear, I'm now in a state of shell-shock after that barrage of artillery launched at sad, deluded little me. As I said before, goodbye cruel world, I'm going to take refuge from harsh reality in a nice hot cup of green tea.--jeanne (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for butting in here. Dunlaven, you should not take these things so seriously. I like you am an anti-monarchist yet I can get on fine with Jeanne without agreeing with much of what she believes in. I don't know her personally, but she seems to be a very nice person indeed. Every one needs their ideal world, and Jeanne's is a world with Royalty. My ideal world is one without Royalty, but I think we can have a laugh while at the same time disagreeing. One last point I would like to make, if Jeanne considers herself Irish why would you want to take that away from her. If she tells me she's Irish then I would accept that. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Titch, as for me being a nice person, well it depends on the company that I find myself in. With you I'd be very nice indee, but with others....--jeanne (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

....And the torrent is unleashed. You on the other hand, seem to exist on Wikipedia simply to argue about this subject. I do think your opinion on what makes someone Irish or British is grossly simplistic though. Legal definitions aside, I don't believe one is authentically British or Irish simply by virtue of being born there, and neither do I believe that you can categorically discount someone as being Irish or British if they have embraced the country and it's culture. It seems like you are the one that sees the world in black and white. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're baaaaaaack, you're back in the saddle again. Thank you for the free analysis, Dr. Green. Head-shrinkers cost so much these days. Why did it take you so long to compose this carefully-articulated, borderline-obsessive attack against moi, or is Dunlavin Green really just a composite of disgruntled students who couldn't get a green card to yankland. My darling Dunny, seeing as my mother (sob sob who never loved me sob sob) had ancestors who fought in the Confederate Army as opposed to the Union during the War of Northern Aggression, calling me a Yank clearly shows your provincial outlook. As for cultureless, Dunny Boy, I am continually soaking up Europeon culture here in southern Italy, on the Ionian Sea, birthplace of Western Civilisation. I am no longer the ignorant hick from Surf City who grew up in abject cultural and social deprivation. (All that sunshine and smog tends to stifle the march of intellectual progress, therefore making me light-years behind someone as sophisticated as you). Your words Dunny Boy really burst my bubble. After all these years of living amongst all of you cool, hip and far-out YOUR-A-PEONS such as yourself, I am still regarded as an outsider. I want to be in with the In Crowd. It's not fair. In fact, I am, as one of the greatest Englishman of all time, Mickey Jagger said, Shattered shadooby shadooby shadooby.--jeanne (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If I hated Europeans would I retain my French name, which came about due to my French great-grandmother. Actually, when I was a kid, I was a Francophile. So there. Na na na na na na na. I wonder how long it'll take all of you guys to write up a reply-another month mayhap?--jeanne (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please DG. Be more accurate about who you're calling an idiot. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, GoodDay, you just got caught in the crossfire as he launched his barrage of verbal artillery at me. You and I are the only attentive audience Dunny Boy has ever had in his life. I'm sure the others down at the pub have long sinced blocked their ears whenever he begins his speeches.--jeanne (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chloe

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)

Yes, I saw the edit war you were having with her. I reverted the changes she made to the Anne Boleyn article. It would be a shame if the Anne Boleyn article were to fall into the same disastrous state as the Catherine of Aragon one. By the way, you did a good job removing the prose on the Coronation section. I had to fix the article on Catherine of Aragon in Popular Culture.--jeanne (talk) 05:45, 21 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.

Chloe, I have no qualms about saying directly to your face that your edits to the Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn articles are not helpful. The Anne Boleyn article is on it's way to FA status and it's not fair to the many editors who have contributed tirelessly to the article to see their labours gone to waste because of your frivolous edits. This is not a personal attack and I'm not being uncivil, but your disruptive edits really have got to stop. As for your opinion regarding my edits, I'm not really interested in your opinion one way or the other.--jeanne (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Chloe, all edits need to be backed up by sources. The Anne Boleyn article is well-sourced, legible, it has good sentence structure and grammar, it is informative without being prosy or novel-like, and it contains in-line citations. Now, compare it with the Catherine of Aragon article. Which one should receive FA status?--jeanne (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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).

You think that Anne Boleyn article is boring? Wow. Anyway, Chloe, just like a person needs air, food and drink to survive, this encyclopaedia needs sources to survive, otherwise it would turn into a blog. FA is an article that's considering excelent by the Wikipedia community and you can't say so what because it's disrespectful. Catherine of Aragon article certainly loses every structure when you add those unencyclopaedic and unnecessary details. The articles have to have important facts, not only the facts you consider not boring. I have translated Anne Boleyn article for my language wiki (here is the article) and it's been chosen for September's featured article, which is why I look forward seeing en.wiki's Anne Boleyn article on the main page. I am sorry, but I am not going to let you ruin it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 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)

It should contain only basic and important information which people need to know and it must not go into details - that's the point of this project! Why should we care whether something is interesting for you? The articles are not written for people who know a lot about the subject - they are written for those who know very little or nothing about it. You can put info and you have the same rights as other users, but other users have right to challenge your edits and to revert them if they agree that the edits are not constructive. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chloe, details which go into an article- especially one that is almost FA, have got to be carefully evaluated as to importance, relevance, etc. You are adding information to the aforesaid Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon articles in a reckless, haphazard manner, without regard to spelling, grammar or content. Surtsicna and I cannot keep up an eternal vigil against your sporadic forays. As I said before this is not a personal attack against you, but Surtsicna, myself and others don't wish to see the Anne Boleyn article ruined. Your opinions as to it's entertainment value count for nothing against the quality of the article.--jeanne (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)