User talk:PL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mother Shipton's Prophecies[edit]

Here, for those who doubt it, is (temporarily) an OCR of the 1881 Heywood reprint of the complete text of the original, 1641 edition of Mother Shipton's Prophecies. Please indicate the bit that talks about the end of the world?...


THE PROPHECIES OF

MOTHER SHIPTON

In the raigne of King Henry the Eighth.

FORETELLING THE


DEATH OF CARDINAL WOLSEY, THE

LORD PERCY, AND OTHERS,

As also what should happen in insuing time.


London, printed for Richard Lowndes, I641.

2

The Prophecy of Mother Shipton in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth.

WHEN she heard King Henry the Eighth should be King, and Cardinal Wolsey should be at York, she said that Cardinal Wolsey should never come to York with the King, and the Cardinal hearing, being angry, sent the Duke of Suffolk, the Lord Percy, and the Lord Darcy to her, who came with their men, disguised, to the King's house, near York, where, leaving their men, they went to Master Besley to York, and desired him to go with them to Mother Shipton's house, where when they came they knocked at the door, she said come in, Master Besley, and those honour able Lords with you, and Master Besley would have put in the Lords before him, but she said, come in, Master Besley, you know the way, but they do not. This they thought strange that she should know them, and never saw them; then they went into the house, where there was a great fire, and she bade them welcome, calling them all by their names, and sent for some cakes and ale, and they drunk and were very merry. Mother Shipton, said the Duke, if you knew what we come about, you would not make us so welcome, and she said the messenger should not be hanged. Mother Shipton, said the Duke, you said the Cardinal should never see York. Yea, said she, I said he might see York, but never come at it. But, said the Duke, when he comes to York thou shalt be burned. We shall see that, said she, and plucking her handkerchief off her head, she threw it into the fire, and it would not burn; then she took her staff and turned it into the fire, and it would not burn, then she took it and put it on again. Now, said the Duke, what mean you by

3

this? If this had burned (said she) I might have burned. Mother Shipton (quoth the Duke) what think you of me? My love, said she, the time will come when you will be as low as I am, and that7s a low one indeed. My Lord Percy said, what say you of me? My Lord (said she) shoe your Horse in the quick, and you shall do well, but your body will be buried in York pavement, and your head shall be stolen from the bar and carried into France. Then, said the Lord Darcy, arid what think you of me? She said, you have made a great gun, shoot it off, for it will do you no good, you are going to war, you will pain many a man, but you will kill none, so they went away. Not long after the Cardinal came to Cawwood, and going to the top of the Tower, he aBked where Y9rk was, and how far it was thither, and said that one had said he should never see York. Nay, said one, she said you might see York, but never come at it. He vowed to burn her when he came to York, and told him it was but eight miles thence ; he said that he will be soon here: but being sent for by the King, he died in the way to London at Leicester of a lask; and Shipton's wife said to Master Besley, yonder is a fine stall built for the Cardinal in Minster, of Gold, Pearl, and King Henry, and he did so. Master Besley seeing these things fall out as she had foretold, desired her to tell him some more of her prophesies. Master, said she, before that Owes Bridge and Trinity Church meet, they shall build on the day, and it shhall fall in the night, until they get the highest stone of Trinity Church, to be the lowest stone of Owes Bridge; then the day will come when the North shall rue it wondrous sore, but the South shall rue it forevermore; when

4

Hares kindle on cold hearth stones, and lads shall marry ladies, and bring them home, then shall you have a year of pining hunger, and then a dearth without corn; a woeful day shall be seen in England, a King and Queen, the first coming of the King of Scots shall be at Holgate Town, but he shall not come through the bar, and when the King of the North shall be at London Bridge his tail shall be at Edenborotigh; after this shall water come over Owes Bridge, and a Windmill shall be set on a Tower, and an Elm tree shall lay at every man's door, at that time women shall wear great hats and great bands, and when there is a Lord Mayor at York let him beware of a stab; when two Knights shall fall out in the Castle yard, they shall never be kindly all their lives after ; when all Colton Hagge hath born seven years Crops of corn, seven years after you heard news, there shall two judges go in and out at Mungate bar.

Then Wars shall begin in the Spring, Much woe to England it shall bring : Then shall the Ladies cry well-away, That ever we liv'd to see this day !

Then best for them that have the least, and worst for them that have the most, you shall not know of the War over night, yet you shall have it.in the morning, and when it comes it shall last three years, between Cadron and Aire shall be great warfare, when all the world is as a lost, it shall be called Christ's cross, ,when the battle begins, it shall be where Crookbackt Richard made his fray, they shall say, To warfare for your King for half-a-crown a day, but stir not (she will say) to warfare for your King, on pain on hanging, but stir not, for he that goes to complain, shall not

5

come back again. The time will come when England shall tremble and quake for fear of a dead man that shall be heard to speak, then will the Dragon give the Bull a great snap, and when the one is down they will go to London Town; then there will be a great battle between England and Scotland, and they will be pacified for a time, and when they come to Brammammore, they fight and are again pacified for a time, then there will be a great Battle at Knavesmore, and they will be pacified for a while; then there will be a great battle between England and Scotland at Stoknmore; then will Ravens sit on the Cross and drink as much blood of the Nobles as of the Commons; then woe is me, for L~don shall be destroyed for ever after; then there will come a woman with one eye, and she shall tread in many men's blood to the knee, and a man leaning on a staff by her, and she shall say to him, What art thou? and he shall say, I am King of the Scots, and she shall say, Go with me to my house, for there are three Knights, and he will go with her, and stay there three days and three nights, then will England be lost, and they will cry twice a day England is lost; then there will be three Knights in Petergate in York, and the one shall not know of the other; there shall be a child born in Pomfret with three thumbs, and those three Knights will give him three horses to hold, while they win England, and all Noble blood shall be gone but one, and they shall carry him to Sheriff Nutton's Castle, six miles from York, and he shall die there, and they shall choose there an Earl in the field, and hanging their horses on a thorn, and rue the' time that ever they were born, to see so much bloodshed; then they will come to York to besiege

6

it, and they shall keep them out three days and three nights, and a penny loaf shall be within the bar at half-a-crown, and without the bar at a penny; and they will swear if they will not yield to blow up the Town walls. Then they will let them in, and they will hang up the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen, and they will go into Crouch Church, there will three Knights go in, and but one come out again, and he will cause Proclamation to be made, that any may take House, Tower, or Bower for twenty one years, and whilst the world endureth there shall never be warfare again, nor any more Kings or Queens, but the Kingdom shall be governed by three Lords, and then York shall be London; and after this shall be a white Harvest of corn gotten in by women. Then shall be in the North, that one woman shall say unto another, mother, I have seen a man to-day, and for one man there shall be a thousand women; there shall be a man sitting upon St. ~ames Church hill weeping his fill, and after that a ship come sailing up the Thames till it come against London, and the Master of the ship shall weep, and the Mariners shall ask him why he weepeth, being he hath made so good a voyage, and he shall say, Ah! what a goodly city this was, none in the world comparable to it, and now there is scarce left any house that can let us have drink for our money.

Unhappy he that lives to see these days, But happy are the dead Shipton's wife says.


And that's all! --PL (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick query...[edit]

Hi PL,

I notice you reverted my edit regarding Pepys' reference to Nostradamus's exhumation - I'm not complaining about that, it's just given rise to a quick query in my mind. Your reason was that it repeated info in the 'Alternative Views' section. The exhumation mentioned in 'Alternative Views' took place during the French Revolution in the 1780's, whereas Pepys was writing in 1667. The exhumation - and plaque discovery - referred to by Pepys took place (according to him) "60 years after Nostradamus' death", so presumably in the 1620's. Did each exhumation generate a separate story of a plaque/medallion being found bearing the dates? Or has a legend from the 17th century become transposed onto a subsequent 1780's exhumation? Butcherscross (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now that's interesting! The date hadn't clicked with me. Apologies. I would think your last idea is probably right -- though I find it hard to believe that he was actually exhumed at the time, given that the tomb was in a presumably still viable Franciscan chapel. Couldn't we somehow fit your insert in (stressing the date) after the existing reference and linking to it? --PL (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, PL! Your edit is great - I've replied more fully under the message you posted on my own talk page! Butcherscross (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Please read WP:RS - you can't use blogs, self-published books (Derwen Press is just a printers, not a publishers, I believe) and sources should discuss the subject of the article. WP:NOR is worth reading also. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Doug. Derwen Publications (sorry -- got their name wrong!) is indeed a publisher -- their printer is Lightning Source. Re specific complaints made, I would have thought that pointing out that films previously listed are full of misleading suggestions is very much 'the subject of the article'. Meanwhile I notice that the rules say 'largely' in respect of blogs, and would point out that my blogs are designed as semi-permanent web-pages (as suggested by their host), not running blogs. They further state: 'Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' My (distinctly sober!) works on prophecy (and particularly apocalyptic prophecy and Nostradamus) have indeed been published by Element, HarperCollins, St Martin's, New Page, Bauer, Elsevier, Piatkus et al under the name 'Peter Lemesurier' (as you can check on Amazon etc.), and I am widely regarded (rightly or otherwise!) as the leading English-language expert on Nostradamus, the alleged theme of the series. So far I don't recollect including any original research. --PL (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, but although Derwen Publications is a publisher (unlike the other company, which does exist), it's still as you know self-published. So if you were challenged, you'd need to go to WP:RSN to justify using it - same applies to personal webpages/blogs. You'd probably succeed, but who knows? More comments below. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Of course I could go through it all with a fine-tooth comb, substituting actual published titles for 'blog' references wherever possible, but ironically that would make the research (which, for the most part, is taken from the titles!) less accessible to readers, who would be denied the opportunity to assess it for themselves directly online. (What do you think?)
My '2012' book (not written until 2011) was published via Derwen simply because, with 2012 looming, major publishers felt that there wasn't time for them to grind through their normal production process and sell enough copies against the hundreds of other books on the subject -- and that it would by definition have a short shelf-life! --PL (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, forgot original research. Basically anything contentious or that is likely to be challenged should be sourced according to our criteria at WP:RS (and see WP:FRINGE. Hard sometimes for an expert to distinguish what might be challenged I guess. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I may have anticipated that. A section on 'alternative views' was included in the Nostradamus article, for example, in response to a specific request. The whole thrust of my articles is that, as the rubric puts it, 'an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea': much to the fury of the Nostradamaniacs, they are precisely devoted to what established scholarship (as opposed to popular journalism) reveals. But if anybody wants to question my sources, fair enough. So far they haven't done, by and large... --PL (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

I also realised someone should point you to a discussion about your edits at WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't previously seen this -- pretty recent, I believe. As I understand it, it is acceptable for recognised experts in the field to include references to their own reputably published works (faute de mieux!). Whether I have overdone it as a recognised author on the 'Nostradams effect', I leave you to judge -- though if you remove them, there might not be much left! I'll take a look at my latest edits to see whether I can suggest more independent sources -- though, alas, not too many books have yet been published refuting the History Channel's suggestions re 2012! Please bear in mind that references to my works are often added by other people. Re the 'Nostradamus effect' page (the most recent one that I have edited), perhaps you would care to undertake any 'thinning out' that you deem necessary?--PL (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the pike in quatrain I.28 ?[edit]

There is a certain risk of an IRANIAN REVENGE AGAINST MIAMI NUCLEAR REACTOR...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Dear Mr. Lemesurier;

IRANIAN lear-jets and other small jets do often depart from CUBA in their route to VENEZUELA
They carry Iranian oil industry engineers, politicians and other high ranking personnel.

They depart from IRAN, do intermediate stops in MINORCA/MAYORCA or in CANARIAS ISLANDS,
then they overfly Atlantic Ocean and land in CUBA and after two hours of flight they arrive to
VENEZUELA (where there is plenty of them, lately I have been every year to Venezuela...
I was born there in Maracaibo, Zulia State, in 1964).

But in order to penetrate the Nuclear Reactor Dome... you need something DENSE and LONG...
like a BAR, a BIG PIKE or something like that... made in LEAD, IRON or better TUNGSTEN.
You could put it at the nose of the airplane... but will be immediately noticed and will
change a lot the baricenter of weight of the plane.

The best thing for this criminal purpose is to stripe the plane from seats, baggage and passengers.
And accurately secure a dense bar of tungstene to the central axis of the airplane...
this will be perfect for late penetration of the reactor dome, and the plane will look perfectly normal.

Was this BAR or PIKE predicted by NOSTRADAMUS? ... YES, BUT BAD FUTURE CAN BE AVOIDED...

QUATRAIN I.28

"LA TOUR DE BOUCQ CRAINDRA FUSTE BARBARE,
UN TEMPS,LONG TEMPS APRES BARQUE HESPERIQUE,
BESTAIL,GENS,MEUBLES,TOUS DEUX FERONT GRAND TARE,
TAURUS ET LIBRA,QUELLE MORTELLE PIQUE?"

My interpretation[edit]

  • BOUCQ = is a marine town in France, but You know, Nostradamus likes to hide future places with the names of french towns.
  • LONG TEMPS = NOSTRADAMUS meaning "AFTER YEAR 2000"... the time of the LONG COUNT END? The Time of the "LONG" = CHINESE DRAGON!
  • TEMPS = not immediatly, but after some time.
  • BESTAIL = Is a LINK to another quatrain... de GENTS et BESTES (after worlwide radiation damage there will be the spread of AVIAN FLU)
  • FINAL RESULT OF ALL THIS WAS PREDICTED BY BENJAMIN SOLARI PARRAVICINI...

THE ISLAND OF CUBA COMPLETELY DEVASTATED (BY AMERICAN NUKES?) AND COVERED BY WATERS (6 METERS TO 60 METERS DEEP)

  • Giancarlo --REDTURTLE 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


La Tour de Bouc is an ancient lighthouse just off Marseille: I have published a photo of it. --PL (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And Chiren...[edit]

  • Is a She and is an airplane pilot!. She will be forced to combat because male pilots will survive no more than 100 days in service!
Nobody at the time thought so. Chiren was a well-known and much-used anagram for 'Henri(c)'. --PL (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: 2012 phenomenon[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of 2012 phenomenon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Inscription in the Mesoamerican Long Count

The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs according to which cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on 21 December 2012. This date is regarded as the end-date of a 5,125-year cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae have been proposed as pertaining to this date, though none have been accepted by mainstream scholarship. A New Age interpretation of this transition is that this date marks the start of a time in which Earth and its inhabitants may undergo a positive physical or spiritual transformation, and that 2012 may mark the beginning of a new era. Others suggest that the date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe. Scenarios suggested for the end of the world include the arrival of the next solar maximum, an interaction between Earth and the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, or Earth's collision with a planet called "Nibiru". Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nostradamus[edit]

I have raised some concerns about Nostradamus on the article talk page. As Sandy Georgia kindly informs me that an FAR is premature, I'd appreciate some input on the talk page and some ideas on how to improve it first without delisting.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Denial - longest river in Africa[edit]

PL, if you continue to research this you will continue to find more and more evidence corroborating the statements in the Long Count article that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun and examples of inscriptions both on monuments and the codices. The classic Maya civilization collapsed in about 900 AD so no five place Long Counts were written after the 10th bak'tun. This is why there are no five place Long Counts written with a bak'tun of 10-19. Many inscriptions exist that refer to dates in the past and future using various systems of distance numbers like the ruler's inscription at Palenque. The ones that go far enough into the past and future to need piktuns use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. You keep saying that the converse could be true but are unable to cite any sources. Science is the quest for truth - what can be proven by the evidence to be true, not what could be true. You believe that the abundant evidence must be wrong. For example the ruler's inscription at Palenque and the Dresden codex (written by THE classic Maya) must be wrong. You are in denial. The way to proceed after making a mistake is admit that you erred, correct your mistake and go on, not delude yourself irrationally with denial. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

There you go again... 'wrong'... 'wrong'... 'wrong'... I am denying nothing, merely asking for any appropriate uncertainty to be reflected in the article. If it's 20, then somebody has to explain why the 'previous age's' piktuns were evidently limited to 13 baktuns... And why this private approach, when the topic is of interest to all? Kindly publish it on the article's discussion page, where it belongs (before I do!).--PL (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An Award for You![edit]

Nostradamus by Cesar.jpg The Seer's Award of Diligence
For your efforts to find page numbers and source Nostradamus. I'd love for you to write other articles on wikipedia, leading expert in English on Nostradamus or not Peter!! Perhaps you'd be interested in writing some related articles with me. Maybe related to churches in France or something related to the 2012.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but I'm getting a bit long in the tooth for that!

Why did you remove those books from the bibliography though when they're still cited in the article. If you dispute them replace with your refs, as it is you've left notes without books, Cannon etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of! I'll check through again, but perhaps you'd do the same? Can you point me to any I've missed? --PL (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Later: OK, is that better? (there are, of course, loads of other sources for most of these refs, but it seems sensible to quote the most recent only -- those that aren't purely derivative, that is -- given that they themselves usually refer back to and bibliographise the earlier sources).
I shall now have a long sleep... ;)

--PL (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Nvvchar is almost as old as you..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But I bet he's not trying to edit (and protect) the Nostradamus articles in English, French and German, as well as running four Nostradamus discussion groups (including NostradamusRG) and at the same time getting a new book off the ground (see http://englandsqueensandkings.blogspot.co.uk/)! --PL (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are You ready for this?[edit]

Are You ready for this?


--REDTURTLE 12:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your work on Nostradamus[edit]

I have just replied to your post today. Before replying I read your 'Reference statement re Nostradamus article' on your user page and reflected on how much time and energy you have given to getting the balance right in what must be a very problematic page. Although no editor owns the wikipedia pages they work on, I think it would be foolish to wrestle further on such a minor point, so I stood back and decided that what would be gained from pushing that point further was probably going to be detrimental to the interest of the page overall. I think I should thank you for considering my comments as much as you did, but agree that it has probably been explored as much as it needs to for now. I am happy to trust to your judgement in this and wanted to say thank you for helping to keep that page so informative, helpful and free of controversy. Regards, Tento2 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are most kind. Yes, the article needs to reflect all the documented evidence, weighing it impartially, as well as being as all-inclusive as possible. Re your photo, despite my reservations about it, I propose not to suggest removing it for now, at least until we can see whether its municipal assertions cause any misapprehensions among readers! Best --PL (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nostradamus and Creative Commons[edit]

Hi PL. it seems that the dispute you were in on Nostradamus has turned nasty, which is unfortunate. Contributors with your expertise are a valued resource, and the project has been extremely lucky to have your involvement. Unfortunately, though, the Creative Commons license under which contributions are released is irrevocable. If it could be readily rescinded, it would make the project as a whole untenable - and would cause significant problems for reusers of Wikipedia's content. Accordingly, I've had to revert the article back to its previous state. I'm happy to try and help with the problems, but I'm not sure I fully understand the issues you have been having. Is the major concern the external links section? - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, the external links section has been the main concern. Aquillion started by deleting the link to the only site featuring Mario Gregorio's actual facsimiles of Nostradamus's prophecies, without which the whole project falls to the ground. Then he substituted a particularly crass 'Sacred Books' site which, as I pointed out, is riddled with disinformation from beginning to end. Then he questioned my reliability or reputation as a source, until I deluged him with third party references on which he has chosen not to comment. He is still questioning Mario Gregorio's reputability. And now he is picking to bits the text of what he has only just realised is a Featured Article of eight years' standing. And all that from a Wikipedant who knows next to nothing about Nostradamus, his language, his prophecies, their publishing history or subsequent attempts to interpret them -- and appears not even to have read and understood the Wikirubric which uses terms such as 'generally' and 'common sense'. Frankly, I've had it up to here, and as far as I'm concerned he can use somebody else's research. Best to you, however!

His latest, BTW, is 'Removing external links to blogspot, the yahoo group, and prophecies.it, per my reasoning in talk' -- long after all this has been settled as per the Talk page (q.v.) The man clearly doesn't understand the points at issue (let alone Nostradamus!), such as that the Yahoo group is being referred to not as an authority, but as a piece of information for any readers requiring such a group (and who, unlike him, are not spooked by the word 'Yahoo'!).

He seems determined to pull the page apart in any way that he can, without reference to reason or common sense.

--PL (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to catch up on this until tonight, but I'll do my best to see what has been going on as soon as I get a chance. It looks like I have some reading to do. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite a bit, I'm afraid! To understand where he's coming from you're going to need to peruse all our correspondence on the Talk Page. But note especially where it starts (fake site included), and what he's now trying to resurrect in the article. Re his charges against the prophecies.it site, BTW, see this: I suspect he has been fooled by commercial sites pinpointing fake 'problems' and offering to sell him 'solutions' -- if indeed he's not just inventing supposed objections one after the other to try and devalue the article's factual content. --PL (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your photo of the birthplace of Nostradamus[edit]

Dear PL, Thank you for making this photo available via CC 3: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nostradamus_birthplace.jpg. I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to also email me with written permission to use it in a television show? My email is JEN(at)COMMITTEEFILMS.COM . Also please let me know if you'd like to be credited as something other than PL. Best wishes to you and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best, Jen --50.194.196.193 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. You may use my photo of Nostradamus's(alleged) birthplace, though that doesn't necessarily mean that he lived there. Mothers-to-be normally went home to their mothers' to give birth. Please credit me as Peter Lemesurier, and cite the work from which it is taken: The Unknown Nostradamus, by Peter Lemesurier, O Books, UK, 2003.--PL (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nostradamus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and the surname "Nostredame" (Our Lady), the [[saint's day]] on which his conversion was solemnised).{{sfn|Leroy|1972|p=24}} Michel's known siblings included Delphine, [[Jean (c. 1507–77), Pierre, Hector, Louis, Bertrand, Jean II (born 1522) and Antoine (born 1523).{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, PL. 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)


Interview[edit]

Hi PL, Would you be available to do an interview sometime? I'm not sure if you are still around, but we used to collaborate on some articles here about 10 years ago. I wasn't sure what the best way would be to contact you, so I thought I would give it a shot messaging you here. Let me know what you think.

Thanks, Chris