User talk:Lecen/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lecen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Lecen. 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)
Far-right politics
Hello Lecen! Could you please have a look at this and this? A few inexperienced editors are trying to make it right but don't have the arguments to deal with the big guys. Since the 2018 Brazilian general elections, they've been desperately trying to populate the Category:Far-right politics in Brazil that was once almost empty. Cheers --Snoutriver (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
RFC Request
Dear Fellow Wikipedian
I would like to invite you to my RFC request on the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.
Kind Regards
Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The War of the Triple Alliance/Paraguayan War
I want to hear about why you prefer calling the war a certain way. I agree both are names ascribed to the historical conflict in different countries. However, in the majority of countries involved in the war, it is called the War of the Triple Alliance. It is only mainly called the Paraguayan War in Brazil. Therefore, I do not see why we should be choosing the latter as the principal name of the historical conflict. I hope we can have a civil discussion about this. Looking forward to your response Mr. Nunes de Miranda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgredg (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I can also find sources which describe the conflict as the War of the Triple Alliance in the English speaking literature. What measure are you using to prioritize one name over the other? I don't know how to sign, but this is also Redgredg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgredg (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- This has been debated over and over on the article's talk page and it has been a settled discussion for years. On Wikipedia in English, you use what the literature in English mainly employs. Even Chris Leuchars, who called the conflict as "War of the Triple Alliance" in his book, admits that it's better known as "Paraguayan War." I'd strongly suggest that you move beyond narrow nationalistic point of views and don't try to push your preference about a settled discussion on a stable article. Also, use my user name when referring to me, not my real name. I don't know you, I'm not your friend, and I don't care for fake users who created their profiles with a single purpose (in your case, to be involved in a petty edit war over an equally petty subject). Now, if you wish to further discuss the issue, I'd recommend using the article's talk page, which is the appropriate venue. --Lecen (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, where can I read on the debate Lecen? Are you just talking about the edit page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraguayan_War&offset=&limit=500&action=history
Also, the fact that I just started editing does not mean that I made this profile for just this purpose. This is the first time I honestly saw something which I found questionable, and I will admit you have a reasonable source and will happily let it be. If I find something else where I feel informed to contribute I would still use this username, no need to make assumptions. --Redgredg (talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
Any reason why you are repeatedly/disruptively removing the valid date format tag? See MOS:DATEUNIFY. GiantSnowman 12:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I do care that you remove commas separating dates. The article is stable for years and I won’t accept that someone who hasn’t moved a finger helping turn it the Featured Article it is today come over and cause troubles. I don’t appreciate your behavior and I don’t like that you have repeatedly reverted to your version, instead of the previous stabler version, nor that you did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article’s talk page. I won’t mind pursuing sanctions against you if it’s needed. --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Read WP:OWNERSHIP. I didn't purposefully remove the comma, that was a script, and I saw nothing amiss when I checked. Don't be so precious. GiantSnowman 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Paraguayan War
Dear user, Thanks for your truly great work on articles about South American History! It's an topic that does not interests me much, but after reading that article, I saw it was very describing and I proposed it for Good article status (see here). As you are the second most contributing editor to the article (the first seems that he retired in 2010), I thought I could ask your assistance in adding inline citations from the references in Bibliography section (I have no access to these books). As this was the only complaint from the reviewer, your assistance in that could be very helpful. You can also tell your opinion on the link I provided before. I await your reply, Eni vak (speak) 12:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Patience, perhaps?
You seriously need to wait more than 6 minutes after someone says they are going to make a Talk comment before leveling threats. Agricolae (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (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 |
Possessiveness in Empire of Brazil (WP:OWN)
It's great that you made important contributions to the article and led it to the main page, but that doesn't mean there has to be a deliberation for others to edit or improve things as basic as adding internal links for other relevant articles. There is no such thing as a status quo of an article, and Wikipedia is about constantly improving pages collaboratively.
By the time you wrote that paragraph preceding the Paraguayan War, we didn't have articles such as William Dougal Christie and Christie Question, but now we have. It's overly stupid to revert edits that link to the new articles where users could find more information about the subject just because you want to maintain the original look. Remember: the article is not yours. You simply can't decide that the text you originally wrote will be there forever with minimal change. It can and will be changed. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 17:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Eight years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2020 (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 |
reverted edition
I would like to know WHY you decided to reverse my edition in the Rosas article, since you did not give any reason, and it seems quite arbitrary for me.Arxtuby (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| I just want to say I love all the work you've done. I understand you've stopped writing for Wikipedia, but I hope you come back. Keep it up (if you ever do return)! FredModulars (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
Precious anniversary
| |
| Nine years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Well Wishes
Caro Lecen,
It's been many years, but I recently saw your comments on a talk page recently and remembered fondly of how often we worked together on articles in the past (and equally how often we defended edits against detractors on talk pages haha). Só queria deixar aqui um pequeno alô e espero que está tudo bem contigo.
Abraço, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Removal of Edit.
Why did you remove a sourced edit made on Pedro II of Brazil and then falsely claim a copyright infringement (Literally impossible considering all I did was share words) on me? Clearly you are invested in pushing a false, propagandic narrative and are willing to use underhanded tactics and blatant lies to do so.
According to other comments on your profile here, I'm not the only one you've done this to, either. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The two Pedros
No. I'm -not- trying to cause any trouble. On a side note, I do find that you still have ownership issues with both Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil articles. But, that's another topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course I still care about the articles that I wrote. There was nothing before me, or after No more articles about Brazilian history since I stopped working on them, because I had to focus on my career as historian and mainly because I had to deal with troublemakers such as yourself. When will you write an article? Read several books, write drafts, then work on the final text and so on?--Lecen (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're missing the point about WP:OWN. It doesn't matter who has or hasn't devoted the most time & energy to any article. Simply put, you're not the boss of those two articles, just because you may have put the most time & effort, into them. Anyone can edit Wikipedia (including those two articles) & it's time you stop acting like you were the boss, there. PS - Your edit summaries & posts, recently at those articles, aren't helpful. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 20 August 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 |
Good article reassessment for Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil
Hello. I have come to notify you of an ongoing discussion on the reassessment of Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil/1. I am delivering this on behalf of SaturnFogg who, to my knowledge, has not notified you as of yet. FredModulars (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – 2.O.Boxing 16:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2022 (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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,