Welcome!

Hello, Nicolas Perrault III, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! By the way, good catch on the incorrectly labeled Confederate casualty on the American Civil War page. That's been mislabeled since upload, and those of us who see it every day didn't ever think to look further. If you need any help yourself don't be shy, visit my talk link. BusterD (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salut,

La photo que tu as ajouté est bien mais redondante avec celle en bas de l'article. Pierre cb (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allo,

Oui, c'est vrai, mais ne trouvez vous pas que cette page ait besoin d'une photo principale? De plus, j'ai lu qu'a photographies équivalentes, on préférait celle dans le domaine public...alors pourquoi ne pas l'échanger?

12:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

La photo dans l'article est dans Commons, conforme aux licences acceptées par Wikipédia et donc publique. Je n'ai rien contre un remplacement de cette photo par la tienne mais elle y était antérieurement et a donc préséance à mon avis. Pour ce qui est de la mettre au début de l'article, le modèle qui est utilisé ne semble pas comporter de place pour en mettre une et l'ajout que tu avais fais faisait plutôt bancal avec trop d'images/tableaux. Pierre cb (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Arthur Mignault Newspaper.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't go inserting results you think are best in articles. The current is a result of long standing consensus.Tirronan (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicolas, you did advocate putting into the War of 1812 infobox - result - British Victory. Personally, I agree with you, I think it was a British victory, however this is irrelevant... the article must reflect the view of historians and their written sources, and some historians say it is a British victory, whereas others say it is a stalemate. Certainly most Canadians think it was a British victory..as they aren't part of the US now!. *However* the infobox must reflect the article, and I think the Infobox should reflect the fact that some historians think it is a British victory, and some say it was a stalemate. So what I am saying is, yes you have a point, and I will debate it.

As for the banner, while we shouldn't be arguing about who won or lost the war (which is an endless debate), you can debate about whether the infobox accurately reflects the article, that is another thing entirely. Anyways, just thought I would give you some words of encouragement.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arthur Mignault, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sarah (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:LEAD. So long as there are sources in the article, the lead doesn't need sources as well. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Nicolas,

I tried to clarify some more that Chart at the List of ancient Egyptian dynasties. Hope you like it. :) Y-barton (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salut!

Why did you add those "citation needed" templates smack-bang in the middle of the section titles, which looks plain ugly and is completely counter to established practice? More importantly, what exactly do you think needs citations at all? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about adding an edit comment to clarify this within the article? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a sensible idea to me, but I don't have any strong opinion about this and do not intend to enter Egyptological turf. You could be WP:BOLD and rename the sections accordingly, noting in the edit summary that this might be problematical as original terminology, so you welcome others' opinions on your proposal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of undiscovered ancient Egyptian things, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Nicolas Perrault III. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "List of undiscovered ancient Egyptian things".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: ((subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of undiscovered ancient Egyptian things)), paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word "to" after "awarded" is not necessary. "Awarded to" is generally used for a prize or a medal. "Awarded" is often used for wages, prison sentences and so on. It's correct. Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - just saw your Navbox - i think it is a good idea. The subject is very complex. Even editors get confused by the mass of related articles, let alone the actual reader. All the Best. Wikirictor (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw it too. Excellent idea! That kind of organization is extremely helpful, especially for laypeople like me! Mvblair (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx. That was a pretty obvious change, to me. (I was inclined to del Cz entire, but...) That said, can you do the same for Belgium (if it was France at the time)? I'm feeling too lazy right now... ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx again. I had no idea. I've got enough trouble wrestling with finding sources for an Altereds page to want to go looking for that bit of info, too... (You wouldn't be a drag racing fan, perchance? :p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx. I always ask. ;p Coverage of hot rodding, customizing, & drag racing on WP is so bad, it makes me cringe... Any help I can get with those subjects, I take. ;p Consider yourself invited. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Nicolas Perrault III, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Hi you recently created the above redirect but I think it would be better to create a disambiguation page as there are quite a few hits for Mode III as a fracture [1] notably here [2]. Domdeparis (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Mode II, Nicolas Perrault III!

Wikipedia editor Domdeparis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

as per your message on my talk page I created the DAB

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Domdeparis (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Nicolas Perrault III, thanks for creating Willendorf in der Wachau!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add clear sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...Hitler named Donitz to be President and Goebbels to be Chancellor. My error, and my apologies. I've corrected the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad it's sorted Beyond My Ken, cheers. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Nicolas Perrault III,

I'm new to creating articles for Ancient Egyptian topics, and was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at Nebdjefare and see if any changes/fixes are necessary. Cheers. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iazyges: Hi Iazyges, thanks for dropping by and for creating an article on Nebdjefare, I believe all pharaohs or possible pharaohs ought to have an article. Not all of the existing pharaoh articles will adhere to the following points, and some Egyptology editors might disagree. But since you're interested, I would like to highlight the following:

• Dates are usually not known to the year and different authors will present chronologies that can be decades, sometimes centuries apart. The reason the dates appear precise to the year, that they are written as "c. 1694 BC" rather than "c. 1690 BC" or "c. 1700 BC", is that the ages are calculated by the reign of the pharaohs. For example, a modern scholar might decide that one pharaoh started reigning in 1700 BC and the ancient texts say he ruled for 6 years, so the next pharaoh would have started reigning c. 1694 BC. It is a good idea to give an approximation first, followed by the exact year according to a given scholar. For example, you could write that Nebdjefare appears to have ruled "during the early 17th century BC, with various scholars placing his reign at c. 1694 BC (Smith 1978)[ref] and 1672 BC (Gonzalez 1995).^[1]

  Done. I'm glad I referred to you for this; I usually work with Roman Emperors, where most dates are known down to the month, and differences of dates are rarely more than a year. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Iazyges: But that's not the case for some Roman usurpers ;) Nicolas Perrault (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• With pharaohs that are only known from a few sources, it is better to treat their existence as probable, rather than factual. The few sources we have, after all, could be wrong. Instead of writing he ruled, I would write he appears to have ruled.
•  Done
• Are there synonyms for this pharaoh's name? A search on Google Scholar turns up very few results.

  I was unable to find any synonyms. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Fourteenth Dynasty appears to have ruled from Avaris at the same time the thirteenth dynasty was ruling from Memphis. Because both Avaris and Memphis are in Lower Egypt and Avaris is to the north of Memphis, I would suspect the pharaohs of the fourteenth dynasty, rather than ruling Egypt, were ruling only the north of Lower Egypt.

  I'll look to see if I can find a source to include this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Because the months and days section of his reign on the Turin King List are gone, he seems to have reigned between 12 and 24 months. It seems that Egyptologists have averaged "12" and "24" to say that he probably reigned a year and a half. But it is probably better to simply claim he ruled between 12 and 24 months, for there seems to be no reason to favour a reign of 18 months over one of 12 or of 24 months.
•  Done
• It seems that a number of scholars treat the Fourteenth Dynasty as part of the Second Intermediate Period (e.g. Ryholt 1997, whom you cite). It would therefore be desirable to briefly mention this in the lead of the article.
•  Done
• This is purely personal taste: with subjects on which we know virtually nothing, I like to emphasise our ignorance right away. If the first thing the reader reads is that we know virtually nothing, every tiny scrap of information presented thereafter will be valued. For example, in the article on the Second Dynasty of Egypt, one reads in the second sentence: "Save for the time of its last ruler Khasekhemwy, it marks one of the most obscure periods in ancient Egyptian history." This brings value to the third sentence of the article: "Though archaeological evidence of the time is very scant, contrasting data from the First and Third Dynasties indicates important institutional and economic developments during the Second Dynasty.[2][3]"
•  Done
• If you can, you may want to add the name of the pharaoh in hieroglyphs, as it appears on the Turin canon.

  I have them under the "Royal Titulary" part of the infobox. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting everything together, I would write the whole article as follows:

"Nebdjefare is an obscure pharaoh of the Fourteenth Dynasty of Egypt, known only from the Turin King List. He would have ruled the north of Lower Egypt between 12 and 24 months in the early 17th century BC. Scholars have variously placed the beginning of his reign c. 1694 BC (Smith 1978)[ref] and 1672 BC (Gonzalez 1995),^[1] a time usually considered part of the Second Intermediate Period or of the very end of the Middle Kingdom. At the time of his reign, the Thirteenth Dynasty would still have been ruling the rest of Egypt from Memphis.

(Turin King List section)

Knowledge of his reign comes from the Turin King List, a badly damaged papyrus that recorded the names of Egyptian Gods, and the reigns of pharaohs from the First through the Seventeenth Dynasties. Because of the extensive damage to the papyrus, while the section giving the length of his rule as being one year is preserved, the section of months and days is lost. He therefore would have ruled between 12 and 24 months. Nebdjefare is the seventh pharaoh of the ninth column on the Turin King List. Due to papyrus damage, his nomen has not survived.[4]"

I hope that helps, and welcome to the Egyptology section of Wikipedia. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does, thank you very much! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iazyges: My pleasure, don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Nicolas, please have a look here and leave your opinion if interested. Thank you. Herbmuell (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Nicolas. I agree that the current map is better, as it includes all the sites. The problem is that, the dots are imperceptible and I didn't even notice them until I read the edit summary. A map with more visible dots would be better. Puduḫepa (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Puduḫepa: Hi Puduḫepa, and thanks for your message. No problem, I'll make the dots bigger. Might be tough in places where they are highly concentrated. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Puduḫepa: Hey buddy, hope you like it. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks clearer and more informative. Thank you. Puduḫepa (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for correcting the coin image of Olybrius. Sorry I hadn't realized it was fake. Avis11 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Avis11: No problem, thanks for dropping by. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Nicolas. In 2017, you added the following information to the article about Gibraltar 2 fossil, without providing a reference: "More recently, new decontaminated radiocarbon dating (from the same Oxford laboratory that published the late date in 2006) suggests Neanderthals had vacated Gibraltar by 42,000 BP, earlier than elsewhere in Europe."

Do you have a reference for that? I tried searching but couldn't find it. I found some articles casting doubt about the datings in Gorham’s Cave, but none providing a more accurate dating. I also didn't find any reference to this 2006 Oxford laboratory analysis, I think you may have mixed up with this Nature article? Their samples were analysed by Beta Analytic lab.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Central and North Asian Neanderthals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]