User talk:JLavigne508

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michel Leneuf du Hérisson has been accepted
 Michel Leneuf du Hérisson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Michel_Leneuf_du_H%C3%A9risson help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing!  DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink
Shearonink (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of counts of Roucy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gontaut. 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) 06:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Report question
''Note: The first three posts below were originally posted to my talk page. Normally I reply to messages on the page on which they were posted, to avoid confusion. On this occasion, though, it seems to me that it may be more helpful for the record of this discussion to be on your talk page, so I am copying the messages here, and answering here.'' JBW (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I had posted a vandal report on Surtsicna who has recently arbitrarily removed family trees from hundreds of European Royal articles, who when was challenged on a particular page, repeatedly pointed to a "consensus" on a software template page, and issues with "sourcing" in debate, but had always put "what is relevance of these people" or "what is importance of these people" in the actual edit detail for every one of these times on the pages, seemingly deciding for themself which one is worthy to have their family trees left on the article page (it actually seems like the Royal article pages where the most people are watching, this person does not alter to avoid major push back and resistance). That does not seem to be in good faith and keeping with positive contributions to me, quite the opposite. This was apparently not found to be problematic on here by whoever reviewed the report, which I frankly find disturbing if this was all made apparent and understood when the decision was made, and I also saw a message I was not made aware of stating on Surtsicna's talk page that you yourself had not found problems with that person's editing practices and history but actually in mine, and that you were "going to look into it." I would please like to know if the edit details in the editing history of the affected pages in question (which is into the hundreds) was actually looked at, and what you are referring to in regard to my editing practices on here? Also, is there anyone in the website staff here who has a background in history that is noticing any of this and/or is a part of admin, because again, the amount of information that has been removed on a majority of the articles for Kings and Sovereigns recently by this individual is staggering? -JLavigne508 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not nothing arbitrarily. A discussion regarding the use of Template:Ahnentafel was held, quite appropriately, at Template talk:Ahnentafel, and a consensus was reached there. That you refuse to acknowledge or at least read it is nobody's problem but yours. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let the person who was asked respond first. I have read the page, this does not give you the right to do what you have done. To say these people are not "relevent" is minority opinion and does not reflect main stream academic opinion, which is the consensus that matters.--JLavigne508 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me emphasise that I knew nothing whatever about this until I saw your vandalism report about Surtsicna at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I therefore investiagted purely in order to determine whether Surtsicna's editing was vandalism. What I am about to describe, therefore, is how the matter looks to an uninvolved outsider whose focus was on the possibility that Surtsicna's editing was vandalism.
 * Upon investigating the case, I found that Surtsicna appeared to be editing in perfectly good faith. Whether what he was doing was good or bad was not the question at issue: the question was whether his editing was done with the intention of causing harm. (That is what "vandalism" means.) I saw no reason whatever to think that was so. Everything he did was, as far as I could see, done in good faith, in the sincere belief that it was beneficial to the encyclopaedia; that is to say that it was clearly not vandalism. (Whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with that belief is irrelevant.) I therefore wrote an answer to your vandalism report which you have already seen, but I quote it here for convenience of reference: If you disagree in good faith with Surtsicna's good faith opinion as to whether the material in question should be included in the articles then you may wish to explain your reasons for doing so, with a view to discussing your concerns and trying to reach agreement.
 * By the time I posted that response to your report, Surtsicna had already posted a comment, suggesting that there had already been communication on the matter, so I looked at the relevant history. What I found was as follows.


 * You have, in more than one place, explicitly indicated that you do not accept consensus reached by discussion among other editors where it goes against your own beliefs.
 * You have asked for a third opinion. A third opinion was given, and you dismissed it, on the basis that you had previously disagreed with the person giving it. Another person offered to give what would now be a fourth opinion, and in order to facilitate doing so asked for clarification of what you wanted, emphasising that what you said should be about your views and arguments for inclusion/exclusion, and not about the actions/beliefs of other editors. You declined to do so.
 * You have asked for intervention by an administrator. You did not like the outcome of that request, so instead of accepting it you have complained about it.
 * Both in discussions on this matter and in other connections, you have dismissed good faith actions of editors with whom you disagree, describing them as "vandalism", "trolling", and "defacing".
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Naturally anyone who edits here to any considerable extent is likely to find there are times when their opinion is not supported by consensus of other editors. In that situation one has to accept, albeit reluctantly, that one does not get one's way, and move on to other things. I have had to do that many times over the years, at times even though I have been convinced that I was right.
 * Wikipedia's system of accepting consensus in discussions on talk pages as binding is far from perfect, but it is Wikipedia policy, and as long as that is so you need to accept it, whether you agree with it or not.
 * If an editor asks for a third opinion then they should be prepared to accept that third opinion. Rejecting a third opinion because one doesn't agree with it negates the whole point of asking for one. Likewise if you make a request for an administrator to decide whether particular editing is vandalism.
 * Accusing good faith editors of bad faith, as represented in words such as "vandalism", "trolling", and so on, is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. It is necessary to be courteous to other editors, no matter how strongly one disagrees with them, and to abstain from accusations of bad faith without compelling evidence.
 * It is absolutely fundamental to the core principles of Wikipedia that there is no such thing as a private conversation. Anything you post may be seen by any editor, and except under exceptional circumstances any editor is free to comment on anything that is posted. It is not possible to insist that only the person one has addressed may respond to a comment.
 * I personally have absolutely no opinion whatsoever about the inclusion of genealogy tables in articles about royal people. If I did have an opinion on it, though, I would have set that aside in considering this matter. I came here as a result of a request for an administrator to review a situation, and my task was to consider the actions of the editors involved, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the particular views held by those editors on the disputed issue.
 * Much of what I have written here is repetition of points which have already been made to you. Doing that may, unfortunately, in one way be a waste of my time, because experience over the years is that editors who don't hear what is said to them if they don't like it usually continue not to hear it even if it is repeated in a different form by a different person. However, I have done it, partly because there is some possibility that you may get the point this time, and partly becasue I see a potential advantage in having the essential points collected together in one place for future reference.
 * As I have attempted to make clear above, you are, in a number of different ways, failing to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That seems to stem largely from a strong conviction that you are right, but whatever the reason you should take heed that editors who will not or cannot fit into Wikipedia's collaborative methods may be blocked from editing. I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach, so as to avoid the risk of that happening. JBW (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just let me briefly point out that first of all, if you (JBW) did take the time to look at the editing practices in question, you will see that Surtsicna started out on the specific Louis I of Bourbon dispute (edit history for Louis I, Duke of Bourbon) by violating the three edit revert rule, which I did not report, which apparently this individual was reported for before. Second of all, I was the one who upon the impass requested third opinion, which was met with by hostility by the user, and that third opinion was specifically asked for those several articles in the Bourbon early dynasty (as linked in my 30 post), not for the hundreds of other dynastic pages that I was hitherto unaware of that were arbitrarily altered by this individual as I later found out, and this was then reported upon discovering the sheer scope of what had been done by the user. Third of all, no standards or uniformity whatsoever has been carried out at all from any consensus as Plantagenet Dynasty figures and others from the same period were left alone for their family trees, while others were arbitrarily removed solely by this individual and not one other person (which is a strong indicator of personal bias in this decision making and not good faith). If that was your conclusion I would urge to consider what I have just said, and again, someone with a history background needs to look into the medieval dynastic pages to see the scope of what has been done in such a careless manner here, and if this does not meet the threshold for vandalism (I would strongly argue it was not done in a manner of good faith and the scope and manner in which it was carried out is in effect mass vandalism for this website as a whole), where can this issue be brought to? This seems almost unprecedented to me what was done in the way it was carried out so I don't even know where to take this (I understand if there was a place specifically better to reach out to, but if not vandalism then where please?), as this certainly does not seem to have been done in a manner in keeping with good faith and Wikipedia practices, for the reasons given above.
 * (PLEASE NOTE: I will not bother you with any more comments as I have already taken up too much of your time. The problems I have with what was done are laid out here, and despite all of this being undertaken on such a limited forum Template talk:Ahnentafel (not even linked to Ahnentafel page or any other article page), I have created a talk section in a related Royal Dynasty over page for polite and civil discussion to involve a consensus with the actual people involved in these articles, which should have been done in the first place) --JLavigne508 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks I thought the software only notified for posts wow.--JLavigne508 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit while logged out
Hi JLavigne508! I noticed that you accidentally edited Administrators' noticeboard while logged out a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that I suppressed your IP address for you so that the information isn't public. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Oshwah! I will definitely be more careful.--JLavigne508 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source & OR at Global silver trade from the 16th to 19th centuries
You wrote: "Coming off of the disasters of the Hundred Years War and the recurring Black Death, the economy of Europe during the Late Middle Ages went into severe depression, compounded by a major drop in the output of gold and silver due to various reasons, all resulting in lower and lower amounts of coin in circulation, culminating in the Great Bullion Famine of the mid-fifteenth century. The worsening economic stagnation and depression would spread from Europe right across the Middle East all the way to the Far East and the Ming Dynasty, which with it's extremely high population and large economy for the time, quickly developed a major shortage of silver and economic calamity immediately ensued, for all of which no clear sign of relief could be seen. This desperate need for more sources of precious metals and commodities would set the stage for the subsequent Age of Exploration and the socioeconomic changes that followed."

Please show me the text that justifies the word "culmination", and where it mentions the hundred years war or the black plague as influencing the bullion famine.

Doug Weller talk 12:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Doug Weller, the first part is a general background statement with links to other relevant articles, but you are probably right "culminating" might be too ambiguous to join the two statements together, so I re-worded it to hopefully be more precise.--JLavigne508 (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Other articles aren't sources, and your edit looks as though your source is for everything before it. And doesn't "culminating" imply time travel? Doug Weller  talk 10:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The word "culminated" was already changed, I now have broken up the statement into 2 sentences to differentiate the reference, please feel free to add to this broken and lacking article, like maybe turning the dragged on intro into separate sections.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edit to Great Bullion Famine
Here.'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Bullion_Famine&action=history]. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure I have a source to add from my small addition a few days ago but the article is locked apparently and being looked at for the main body being possibly plagiarized, when it was created a while back.


 * It seems to me Doug Weller, that it would have been more appropriate to bring these specific article references up in the respective article talk pages with links to any relevant usernames for notification, instead of a user talk page, and I would encourage people to try to keep adding sources to text freely themselves.--JLavigne508 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:VERIFY. Again, other articles can't be used as sources. Doug Weller  talk 10:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said this article is locked and is under investigation for prior plagiarism, I added a number of things to a number of articles recently, most with references, this was probably the smallest addition and the only one that didn't include a reference. If it is not locked anymore feel free to add a reference or a tag wherever you want. These two articles are very lacking and I would suggest you add to them instead of worrying about taking away from them.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)