Guise

Welcome

Hello, Guise. Welcome to Wikipedia. I am Mlpearc, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links and information to help you get started. You are welcome to leave questions, comments on my talk page at anytime here.

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia If you need help. You can try our live IRC help, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. You can create your own "Test" page by clicking on this link > User:Guise/test < This will open an edit window on a page with that title, add something in the edit window and scroll down and click the Save page button and you've just created your first page. Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references. Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Mlpearc (open channel) 21:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, Mlpearc. The author, Mark J. Ferrari, sent his acceptance email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org adding the following to the subject bar of the email: Ticket#: 2016011410010654 - File:Frodo_by_Mark_Ferrari.jpg... but maybe a problem occurred ? I'm going to ask him if he can send the email again in order to ask for the file to be undeleted. Besides, could you check if the author of this other file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dwarf_by_BrokenMachine86.jpg, Ticket#: 2016012110017214) send his acceptance email, please ? Best regards. Guise (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, I have reviewed VRTS ticket #  and there is not enough information to clear permissions. I have sent an email to the sender requesting the information, upon receipt, I will have (or another OTRS member) the file reinstated and tag it with permissions received. If in the interim you require updated information you can ask at the OTRS noticeboard or on my talk page, please be sure to include the ticket number with your query. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you know the Frodo image has been restored and permissions applied. Thank you for your contributions. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! Best regards. Guise (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Guise. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Guise. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Guise. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pierre Laval

Nice find for the image you added at Pierre Laval. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Charles de Bourbon

Hi Guise,

Many thanks for the correction, I did wonder why French wikipedia wasn't using that image for him as it seemed cleaner! Now I know :)

19:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Sovietblobfish (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais

Hello Guise,

I am very interested in your current redevelopment of the Gilles de Rais article. It seems you have already elevated it massively, easily one of the best articles on a marshal of France now. sovietblobfish (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sovietblobfish ! Actually, I was concerned that the English article hadn't yet taken advantage of the best French sources about Rais, more readily available to contributors living in France, of course. So I've tried to synthesize the huge article in the French Wikipedia that I've been writing for far too many years now (I'm the king of procrastinators). :-)

However, the French article still lacks the biggest chunk on the secular and ecclesiastical trials, with developments on the testimonies of the parents, the confessions of Rais and his accomplices, the nature of the remaining archives, and so on. I hope to finish it all this year in order to translate these passages.

By the way, because of my limited mastery of English, I'd be delighted if you could correct some of the inevitably awkward turns of phrase.

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I too am a terminal procrastinator. I have been planning to write articles for the individual French Wars of Religion forever, but they're such formidable projects I've been too scared to start them and have continued my march through biographies. Anne de Montmorency took me around two months haha, and that's just one man! Let alone a whole war.

I can try to look over the article at some point, however my English may not be much better than yours. sovietblobfish (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

AI upscaled images

Just to let you know that the English Wikipedia has (relatively recently) decided against using AI upscaled images in its articles, and that any such manipulation should be noted in the caption. The image Manual of Style now says:

AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

Belbury (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

De Rais Serial Killer

Hello Guise, just wanted to explained my edit. although we may never know if he was an actual serial killer, the reports, testimony and the many some odd confirmations from historians that I have seen paint a pretty good picture. As to my edit, it was only for the fact he was convicted and another point in the lead paragraph can add the whole arguments section, which also needs to be expanded considering there was a lot of scholarship and whatnot for both sides which are quite fascinating. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Paleface Jack !

Although I am inclined to believe that Gilles de Rais is guilty, the Wikipedia article must reflect the nuances and uncertainties expressed by certain medievalists, notably Jacques Chiffoleau, whose essential studies have strongly influenced recent historiography on the character. This historian does not claim to demonstrate Rais' innocence or guilt but he carefully maintains a critical distance from the trial proceedings, given the particular context of inquisitorial procedures.

I'm afraid that the introductory summary is already too long, but you're right, a small additional paragraph (as in the French version) would be useful to address these questions.

Furthermore, Chiffoleau's latest study (to be published in Micrologus in 2024) takes a long look at Rais' trial proceedings, which will make it possible to improve the Wikipedia article accordingly.

Best regards.

--Guise (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the combination or a figure such as him and blending that with the fact he was an evil killer of children is a very fascinating topic. as for me, my work on Begotten and some more film projects has kept me swamped. The fact that Begotten is nominated for FA and not really any reviews for it that are support or against is a little frustrating. I gotta hand it to you for expanding the De Rais article and cannot wait to see the finished product. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:16, 19 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais

Your edit to Gilles de Rais returned a link to the disambiguation page Jean Chartier, which is not ideal. I changed it to Jean Chartier (chronicler) to match the usage on the disambiguation page and to make it clear that the English article needs to be written. Leschnei (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I really appreciate your dilligent contributions to the Gilles de Rais article. On behalf of all of those interested in the matter, thank you. DrDesterro (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Charles de Bourbon

Hello Guise,

I came across a portrait today of the last duc de Bourbon that I had never seen for him before. This was one in the article on the Italian War of 1521-1526.

Apparently this is a portrait 'from the French school' from 1630. I am confused why the treasonous duc de Bourbon would have been the subject of such a nice portrait at that time. Especially given his conduct in Rome.

Further, I went through to the Christie's listing which served as the source of the image and it says the follows:

"Portrait of a nobleman, traditionally identified as Philip I, King of Castile, half-length, in a gold-embroidered doublet and plumed hat, with a fur-lined mantle and a hat badge showing a white hart, holding a letter"

What is the basis of interpreting this image as one of the duc de Bourbon? sovietblobfish (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello sovietblobfish,

You're right, we must always be wary of dubious identifications and uncertain dating relating to these presumed portraits.

The drawing (16th century)

There is a clumsy drawing dating from the 16th century and captioned “Monsieur de Bourbon”. It's clearly the same character as the one depicted in the above-mentioned painting (physical features, costume and headdress, profile posture). Besides, the drawing was used as the cover illustration for historian Denis Crouzet's biography of Charles III, Duke of Bourbon [1].

Nevertheless, historian Alexandra Zvereva always warns against the late addition of captions to this type of portrait drawing (even within the dispersed collection of portraits of contemporary personalities kept by Catherine de' Medici, who was fond of this kind of work). Consequently, there is no guarantee that the inscription “Monsieur de Bourbon” is accurate.

The painting on display at Château de Beauregard (16th or 17th century ?)

Fortunately, we also have another derivative portrait (16th century? I'd say 17th century, but I'm not sure) on display at Château de Beauregard. This painting clearly identifies the person depicted as the Constable of Bourbon. Contrary to Christie's interpretation about Philip the Handsome, we can therefore affirm that there is indeed a traditional identification about Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, albeit perhaps erroneous.

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Postscript: To take another example, I relied on a traditional identification for this other portrait, but it seems that the person depicted is Jean de Thou and not Albert de Gondi [2], contrary to what I originally wrote in Commons. Just goes to show that we should always question ourselves and continue our research! :-)

Ah yes, I can certainly see the similarities with the cruder sketch. I should have noticed the similarity, as Crouzet's biography is sitting on my floor!!

Unfortunately it does not seem the publishers of books are always too reliable in the pictures they use. The book 'Anne de Montmorency: Grand Maître de François Ier' by Thierry Rentet (very good book to be fair) has a portrait on the front cover that is now (by my understanding) considered to be one of Philippe Chabot!! Quite a funny state of affairs for such a recent book.

I am disappointed to learn the portrait of the duc de Retz is an incorrect attribution, as it was quite a lovely addition to his article.

It seems the only picture we can reliably describe as being of the duc de Bourbon is the rather dirty and damaged non-contemporary one. :( sovietblobfish (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, sovietblobfish: the cover illustrations of historical biographies sometimes contain errors, due to outdated identifications made by the author-historian (or the publisher?). I'm thinking in particular of Thierry Wanegffelen's biography of Catherine de' Medici [3], whose cover shows a portrait of Margaret of Valois [4].

On the French Wikipedia, contributor Châtillon was particularly rigorous on these iconographic issues. Less active today, he still maintains two fascinating blogs devoted respectively to the last Valois [5] and the evolution of historical fashion [6]. If only it could be edited, it would make excellent secondary sources for us!

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm interested to read that Wanegffelen biography, hadn't quite realised the cover mixup, though it makes sense, as again, never seen that portrait for Catherine before!

I have crossed paths with Châtillon, or their work on occasion. I shall give these blogs a look!

I leave you with perhaps the funniest 'wrong image' on cover story I've encountered in my time with medieval and early modern French history. A biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine with a portrait of Eleanor of Austria on the cover.

Happy editing! sovietblobfish (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais

Thanks for the corrections regarding the Val Morgan book. They weren't typos on my part, as I copied and pasted the info from somewhere. I'm new to Gilles de Rais (apart from having read Tournier's book some years ago, and I've just read Ruth Antosh's new biography of Huysmans), and I added Morgan's book only because the title seemed interesting. I took your advice and added it to Cultural depictions of Gilles de Rais. I didn't remove it from Gilles de Rais because I don't know about the controversies surrounding Edwin Mellen Press or why they might warrant removing the book. Like you, I'll leave it to other editors, more qualified than I am on the subject. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC) (I didn't word my last sentence felicitously; I didn't mean to imply that you are not qualified) Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Vendôme

I didn't expect to be back so soon after my last visit, but I would like to lean on your expertise for early modern aristocratic portraits. I am currently rewriting the article of Charles, Duke of Vendôme and was perusing French Wikipedia to look at their article. I observed a new infobox portrait that was not there last time I visited. If this portrait is truly of Vendôme it would be infinitely preferable to the awful 19th century one we are using currently on English Wikipedia, even if it is likewise non-contemporary.

I am not sure if I can trust the image however, it was uploaded from man8rove, which makes my eye twitch, as I believe that's a genealogy website which have habits of dodgy sourcing.

What's your take?

sovietblobfish (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've found a captioned reproduction of this that describes the figure as being Vendôme, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything about the original, as we discussed vis-à-vis Bourbon,[7]

The wikimedia attribution claims its part of the collection Gaignière, but I can't see it in the BnF collection of portraits. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, sovietblobfish.

This portrait is in the style of Louis Boudan, typical of the Roger de Gaignières collection [8], [9], [10].

Of course, we know nothing about the identification details available to the copyist concerning the original lost painting. But in the absence of contradictory information, we might as well rely on the title of this gouache on parchment, as in Henri Bouchot's old inventory (description no. 873).

In any case, the costume typical of the reign of François I and the collar of the Order of Saint-Michel are closer to an "authentic" portrait than this late work depicting an anachronistic ruff.

In short, I think it's better to indicate the original Gallica source than the genealogical website in the Commons file page, for the credibility reasons you mention. And regarding the infobox of Charles, Duke of Vendôme, I totally approve of replacing the late painting with Boudan's copy! :-)

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this speedy and thorough work, I shall update Vendôme's infobox presently.

sovietblobfish (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)