Jeaucques Quœure

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)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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

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)

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

References

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)

Page moves

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)

August 2023

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)

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)

September 2023

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

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)

November 2023

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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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)

February 2024

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)

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:

• I did NOT perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
• Reverting my own actions ("self-reverting") dœs NOT violate the 3 Revert Rule. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

---

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

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:

• Google Books Ngram Viewer, lascivious behavior vs lascivity: about 20 times more common;
• Google Search "lascivious behavior" vs "lascivity": about 989000 results vs 331000 results where I am (as of 19 March 2024); moreover, for "lascivity" the first page of results are almost exclusively dictionaries — not actual uses of the word.

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)

I consider that Lascivious behaviour is pleonastic than the much simpler Lascivity. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lascivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lascivious behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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

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:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Center of charge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DMacks (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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)