User talk:Lechatjaune

Welcome!

Hello, Lechatjaune, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

And don't forget, the edit summary is your friend. :) – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pt.wikipedia

Thank you for welcoming me here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will likely limit my activity to minor housekeeping but, time permitting, I may also try some translation (probably from pt-wiki to en-wiki, at least initially). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monumento ao Bombeiro

Você já deve saber, mas não custa nada avisar que encontraram fontes. Tosqueira (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entendo. De qualquer forma, se você tivesse que fechar a votação na pt-wiki, teria que prorrogar pela descoberta de fontes, não? Enfim, só não quero ser injusto. O monumento realmente existe e existem fontes que comprovam que tem alguma importância. Só não encontrei quem é o autor. Mas entendo sua posição. Tosqueira (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AfD

Pelo o que entendi, aqui valem os argumentos, não a quantidade de votos. Tenta-se chegar a um consenso, mas sempre com argumentos baseado nas políticas. Vide Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Mas não sei bem ao certo, acho que depende também do julgamento do administrador que fecha a votação. Vou procurar saber melhor. Tosqueira (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pelo que vi é basicamente isso: os argumentos que estão de acordo com as políticas são contados. Os que não são baseados, descartados. Se faltam fontes, mas alguem as encontra, os votantes que utilizaram esse argumento terão de encontrar outro argumento para apagar o artigo. Em teoria só é pela contagem de votos quando a esmagadora maioria vota para apagar ou manter. De qualquer forma, vou ver com um administrador daqui para ver se o que estou falando é correto ou se necessita de mais alguma informação. Tosqueira (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Olá. O utilizador Tosqueira contactou-me e pediu-me para transmitir algumas informações acerca da forma como são conduzidas os AfD na Wikipédia inglesa. De facto, na Wikipédia inglesa as AfD não são votações, mas dim discussões. Por regra, a posição defendida por uma larga maioria de utilizadores prevalecerá aquando do encerramento do AfD, mas não obrigatoriamente. O administrador que encerra o AfD pode não considerar as posições de certos utilizadores se estes não apresentarem argumento, ou se o argumento for considerado inválido, irrelevante, ou contrário às políticas e práticas da Wikipédia. Na falta de consenso, o artigo é mantido. Espero que tenha ajudado. Cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 10:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelo menos por aqui as políticas são respeitadas. É só ver: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Magalhães Herrmann. Não tem nada de achismo. Talvez seja uma boa idéia pensar em uma proposta parecida no futuro, baseando-se nas políticas. Tosqueira (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Olá novamente. E igualmente prazer em conhecer. :-) Eu boicoto a Wikipédia lusófona e é raríssimo passar por lá, infelizmente é um projecto que necessitaria de profundas alterações para eu poder participar nele. Realmente, o processo PE da Wikipédia lusófona seria incompatível com a Wikipédia inglesa, onde é o consenso que determina tudo e votações no estrito sentido da palavra não são permitidas. Certos processos podem se assemelhar com votações, mas nunca o são na realidade. Nos AfD (o equivalente aos PE na Wikipédia inglesa), os utilizadores costumam aceitar o resultado determinado pelo administrador que os encerra. Geralmente, o encerramento corresponde à posição defendida pela maioria dos participantes, mas nem sempre (especialmente quando os argumentos de alguns participantes forem contrários às políticas da Wikipédia e, claro, se se verificar alguma espécie de fraude ou tentativa por parte de um ou mais utilizadores de influenciar o resultado de alguma forma contrária à formação natural de consenso). Quando um utilizador acha que um AfD foi mal encerrado por um administrador, pode sempre levá-lo ao deletion review, onde a comunidade vai analisar (e apoiar ou revogar) o encerramento do respectivo AfD. A falta de consenso para revogar a decisão de um administrador resulta em não-revogação. Administradores cujos encerramentos de AfD sejam frequentemente levados ao deletion review poderão ver questionadas as suas credibilidade e capacidade para determinar consenso. Espero que tenha esclarecido bem como funciona este processo nesta Wikipédia. Qualquer questão ou pedido de novo esclarecimento, não hesites em me contactar. Cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Eu creio que um dos principais problemas da Wikipédia lusófona é o seu total estado de estagnação, inutilmente defendido por alguns editores mais antigos dentro do seu próprio círculo de influências. Um comportamento eficaz para atingir os objectivos de alguns, mas insensatamente prejudicial para um projecto que cresce apenas com o esforço voluntário de uma comunidade que não precisa de receber ordens ou ser enxovalhada por aqueles que pensam de maneira diferente. Na Wikipédia inglesa, por outro lado, fomenta-se o respeito pela diversidade de opiniões e a cooperação entre todos os membros da comunidade. Enfim, uma abordagem que infelizmente não deverá chegar à Wikipédia lusófona num futuro próximo. E sim, eu sou contra a convivência dialectal das variantes do português dentro da mesma Wikipédia. Acho que duas Wikipédias funcionariam e cooperariam muito melhor do que uma Wikipédia híbrida onde se tenta em vão forçar uma convivência inadequada (e visualmente aterradora) do português europeu e brasileiro. Visitei a discussão sobre a eventual aplicação do acordo ortográfico na Wikipédia lusófona. Acho que, se aprovada a sua aplicação, seria o golpe de misericórdia no projecto. Quase ninguém se identifica na aberração de uma quasi-unificação do português, rejeitada pelos falantes que por sua vez rejeitariam um projecto que se lhe associaria. Aliás, à semelhança da política de convivência dialectal que é imposta na Wikipédia lusófona, o acordo ortográfico é outro típico exemplo de como no século XXI não se podem forçar os falantes de uma língua a reaprender a ler, escrever, e se identificar com a sua língua. Insistir é fútil, impôr é nocivo. Apenas a indiferença e rejeição poderão alcançar as políticas desastrosas e irrazoáveis de convivência dialectal e ortografia amalgamada. Espero que um dia alguém consiga fazer alguma coisa para as reverter. Se é que ainda é possível reverter o mal que já foi feito. Cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevância

Não sei se já viu essa votação: pt:Wikipedia:Votações/Relevância. A proposta é uma tradução de Wikipedia:Notability. Tosqueira (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello

Really!? Why? Bisbis (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!

Bisbis (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUL request on pt.wikipedia

I hope this account is good prove to you :) Kind regards, --Conquistador (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lechatjaune. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

EduWiki Conference 5-6 September in Leicester, UK

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2012 interview

Hi Fabio,

Did you receive my email? I am currently editing and it's important to me that I represent you accurately, and very much want to let you remove parts of your video that you do not want public BEFORE I am well into editing the video. Please let me know as soon as you can!

Thanks again for your interview!

Victor Grigas vgrigas@wikimedia.org Vgrigas (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy–Littlewood inequality

Hello.

Please look at my recent edits to Hardy–Littlewood inequality. Notice in particular:

One shouldn't indiscriminately italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation. Variables get italicized; digits and punctuation don't. Thus I changed f(x) to f(x). See WP:MOSMATH for more on this.
The title now has an en-dash rather than a hyphen, per WP:MOS.
I identified the two people that the inequality is named after. They're now linked in the first sentence.
"align" rather than "array" is a better environment for the sort of "displayed" mathematical notation where you used that. For one thing, there's no need for \displaystyle when you use "align". "align" was designed for just that sort of situation.
I changed $\displaystyle \int _{R^{n}}$ to $\displaystyle \int _{\mathbb {R} ^{n}}$ . I.e. $R^{n}\,$ was changed to $\mathbb {R} ^{n}\,$ . I also changed things like

\int \int (\cdots \cdots )dxdy

to

\int \int (\cdots \cdots )\,dx\,dy

with dx and dy separated by small spaces from what surrounds them.

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lechatjaune. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lechatjaune. 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)[reply]

Atenção usuários da Wikipédia

Quero uma arbitragem nesta questão. Usuário Chronus afirma que eu o insultei. Onde e quando ocorreu isso? Apenas disse que ele está promovendo uma perseguição às minhas edições e isto É VERDADE, E QUE ISTO PARECE PESSOAL, o que eu também acredito./ O usuário apagou todas minhas mensagens dirigidas a ele. Insiste em apagar minhas edições, e afirma que estou promovendo uma guerra de edições contra ele. Solicito a arbitragem de um editor sênior para confirmar suas alegações.

Usuário:SanSilva 21h20min de 7 de fevereiro de 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanSilva (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lechatjaune. 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)[reply]

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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frederick Zweifel moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Paul Frederick Zweifel. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it currently would not pass the notability tests, please see talk page. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Frederick Zweifel has been accepted

Paul Frederick Zweifel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]