User talk:Jeaucques Quœure

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

I have chosen the title meticulously. Here is the reference from

talk) 05:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I undid the move, as it was not correctly done (per Dr Dobeaucoup), is out-of-sync with the parent

WP:RM. DMacks (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

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

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

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

• I did NOT perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
• 3 Revert Rule. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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)[reply]

I consider that Lascivious behaviour is

pleonastic than the much simpler Lascivity. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DMacks were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about

reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The two references are to 13 pages of a textbook and to an entire 800+ page textbook, and are identified as supporting just one small aspect, application, or underlying idea. There need to be multiple secondary refs specifically discussing this article's topic itself rather than appearing as

WP:NEO

. Google has many hits specifically stating that there actually is no such thing.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• 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)[reply]

Hello, Jeaucques Quœure! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DMacks (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]