Hello, Eymery, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Merci Victuallers (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I translated the French George Wickham article, which you did a lot of work on, to the English Wikipedia here: Draft:George Wickham. The person who reviewed it has said that the article has original research, which is hard for me to fix without having the books you cited in the original French article. I think part of the problem is that the English Wikipedia seems to be stricter about having sources at the end of a sentence. Could you please have a look at the translation and help me fix the problems with it? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read english but I am not at all fluent in english writting. Mais si vous me traduisez, vous devez pouvoir me lire en français! Le plus simple est de supprimer les références en milieu de phrases, les déplacer en fin de phrases ou de couper les phrases : see corrections in "Genesis of the Character"

J'ai utilisé une édition Bentley de 1853 en ligne pour les références (Pride and Prejudice). Vous utilisez P&P on Wikisource, il ne faut pas mettre 1853 mais 1813 et peut-être une référence plus précise que le chapitre : indiquer la ligne, par ex pour "a readiness at the same time perfectly correct and unassuming" (ch 16, 112-113)

Il n'y a rien d'original (=TI sur fr:wiki), tout est sourcé ! Mais j'ai cherché des sources en français (Lydia Martin, Massei-Chamayou : Thèses de doctorat édités). Il est vrai que les articles sur en:wiki sont plus courts, moins détaillés, moins "littéraires" que sur fr:wiki. Alors cut, cut, cut, if you like !-Eymery (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response and the corrections you've made to the draft article! My concern with the references being in the middle of sentences is that the text in Draft:George Wickham must come from the right source. I would not like to move the references myself, because I have not read many of the books.

I wasn't sure how to reference the original work - I only have an e-book, no pages. It would be better to reference the exact page, but I hoped that by linking to the chapter on Wikisource, people can easily read it themselves.

Thanks for confirming that everything in the original article is sourced. I think that perhaps the objection to the article being 'original research' is due to the less literary style of the English wiki, and how the article retains some flourishes of grammar that are being read as 'puffery'. Perhaps a bit of cutting is needed.

I added "Elizabeth looks forward to his sparkling conversation, not realising the imprudence of believing a man who is a master of conversation" to the draft because I looked to see if there was any other articles, and I found one written by a scholar named Lynda Hall. I felt that her article added to the clarity of the matter - that Wickham is too good, too silver-tongued, to be true, and Darcy, who is more awkward in his speech, is an honest man. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your efforts thus far. When I translated the article, I checked the online English references myself and moved them to the end of sentences, as is preferred on the English wiki. It would be very helpful if you could put your effort into checking the books that have been used as sources and moving them if they need to be moved. That way, you're not checking what I've already checked, and the work is less. I think that a lot of the Jane Austen articles on the English wiki aren't what they could be. It's interesting how the work of translation can change the meaning of a text - and bravo for your work on the articles, giving good information on the original text as well as the translation! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWo men named Pierre Goubert who both study Austen? Thanks - I never would have picked that up. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information about Pierre Goubert. From your additional information, I was able to find an article about him in VIAF, a library system. I've added a short post to the article's talk page explaining that there is more than one Pierre Goubert, and the one with the Wikipedia article is not the one we're citing. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source that you might find useful for the French article is as follows: Robert Mai (Winter 2014). "To Forgive Is Divine—and Practical, Too". Persuasions On-line. 35 (1). Jasna.org. Retrieved 2015-05-28. It talks about how important it is for Elizabeth to forgive Wickham for his actions, so that they can move forward as a new family, even if Wickham is kept at arm's length. I have used it here in the caption for the image of Elizabeth and Wickham talking after Wickham's marriage. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that my draft can help you update the French article. The portrayal of George as being outright abusive to Lydia in the LBD was something that I found freshly shocking, and it's discussed in the Zerne article as being a creditable way that the LBD puts Lydia in danger, even though running away with a young man isn't as ruinous as it would have been in Austen's day. It notes, too, that this way, Elizabeth becomes closer to her sister, seeing how putting Lydia down has hurt her, and rebuilds their sisterly bond. Do you know if any critic of Austen has described the first scene where Lizzy, Jane and Mr. Collins meet Bingley and Darcy in the street, and Wickham bumps into them? Although we describe the scene as "The first appearance of Wickham in Meryton allows the narrator to bring the four male protagonists together and cover Elizabeth's eyes with a halo of mystery.", that has been pointed out to me as an example of original research, because we're interpreting the author's intentions. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a lot of the discussion of Tom Jones from the article - the sources don't seem to connect those aspects directly to Wickham. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, and thanks for all your patience, too - I'm trying to be cautious so that I don't accidentally delete something useful. I came across a couple of interesting points in The Cambridge Companion to Pride and Prejudice - that Wickham's womanising spree is a form of revenge against gentlemanly society, and that Wickham's Northern post at the end of the novel is a way to atone for his past by being useful.

I've found another passage that needs more explcit sourcing: "Mais il est le plus dissolu et le plus cynique de tous les séducteurs décrits par Jane Austen, et il utilise sa bonne mine et la bonne éducation reçue pour faire illusion. Il a des défauts beaucoup plus graves que les autres mauvais garçons des autres romans : redoutable manipulateur du langage, il est aussi le seul qui joue imprudemment gros jeu, le seul qui pratique la calomnie avec autant d'impudence ; et il tourne plus mal qu'eux, qui ne finissent pas bannis de la bonne société, au contraire." Is that possibly from Massei-Chamayou? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your assistance in sourcing that passage. I've found a useful paper which discusses Wickham as a stock villain here, and argues that Lizzy's original attraction to Wickham is shallow. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for following this up with Azurfrog. It seems the more that I ask how to improve the draft so that it can be accepted, (in the wikipedia IRC chat) the more problems are found. I'm currently trying to find some scholarly sources discussing the part where Lydia elopes with Wickham - her feelings, etc. Maybe if I translated her portion in the French Wikipedia I might find some useful sources there.

In particular, people seem to object to an entire article for a "minor character", despite the scholarly discussion of Wickham. Thanks again for your help.  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a bit of trouble getting Vivien Jones' edition of Pride and Prejudice from my local library (as for some reason, all editions of the work are joined together in their database). If I could source some elements of the plot from her (or Tanner's) commentary rather than the original text of the work, that might be helpful to reduce the "original research". There's no preview of the commentary available that I can find - do you have the Jones edition of P&P on hand? I think that much of the 'puffery' was due to the original reviewer reacting to the 'French tone' of the article. Hopefully I've managed to make the text a bit more 'English style' and plainer. I've completely changed the order of the lead, so hopefully that will help the draft's "first impression". ;) I don't think there's much more pruning to be done - just fixing up Jones, and perhaps a double-check on what Lydia's feelings were. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for providing the quotes from Jones, and the additional books. I've just resubmitted the article - hopefully it will be more successful this time around. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eymery. 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)[reply]