User talk:Leicchaucer

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Leicchaucer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --GreenJoe 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester University Law Society

Well, to be perfectly honest and nice, this is a Wiki, so just go to the article and fix it? GreenJoe 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact the admins at WP:RAA. Good luck. GreenJoe 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Prime Minister of Lower Saxony a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to resolve your differences with User:Josh Gorand. In the meantime, please use the Cut and paste move repair holding pen to have the revision histories of the two pages merged. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minister-President

How could anyone get anything other than Minister-President from Ministerpräsident? Kingjeff (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to have a vote on the topic? Kingjeff (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd very much prefer a vote on the issue, rather than having a discussion on who was wrong first...what do you think? Leicchaucer (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is going nowhere. I think a vote is the only way to go. I think the four options are Ministerpräsident/Ministerpräsidentin, Minister-President, Prime Minister and Premier. I think the vote should happen on WikiProject Germany since there will probably be a wider turnout. Kingjeff (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you 100 per cent. Doing it for the WikiProject Germany will prevent an unrepresentative sample or one person imposing their unsourced theories on the entire community. I find Josh's conduct to be only a bit short of scandalous and unbecoming.Leicchaucer (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you agree with me on all 4 names? Kingjeff (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second round of voting has started. Kingjeff (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted back Josh Gorand's talk page. Don't let him manipulate you into an edit war over his talk page over some comment you made to him. We both know Josh Gorand is manipulative and he will drag you into a block. Kingjeff (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please remember that the discussion did not reach any consensus and the votes were even slightly in favour of "Minister-President". That's why I have restored the term in the Gerhard Schröder article. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged - I will respect the current consensus. However, I would suggest that interested users try to thrash this terminology issue out as soon as possible. There is a case to be made that we should be using accurate English terms here on Wiki.Leicchaucer (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed ad nauseam on Wikipedia and I'd like to point out that there's quite a number of respected writers and organisations using the term "Minister President" such as the Economist Intelligence Unit [1], Joseph Conrad [2], the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences [3], or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [4]. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one see absolutely no reason to restart such a discussion and on the other hand I could show sources from the governments of Saxony Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg Western Pommerania, as well as from the German federal government (embassy to the UK) or other sources like CeBIT, the University of Heidelberg or the Spiegel magazine who all use variations of Minister President. Add to that 500k Google hits for "minister-president site:be". Consensus can change or in this case consensus may eventually be established first of all but in my eyes this term is already well-established in Europe and so we don't need to change anything. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On that note you might want to consider the words of the admin who closed the last vote/debate: "This issue has used up far more time and energy than warranted by its objective importance. All participants are asked to consider stepping back from the issue and just leaving it be. There is no indication anywhere here that either the one or the other wording is factually wrong, against policy or otherwise damaging to the project.". De728631 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Mayawati, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Mayawati. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mayawati. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be adding the requisite sources underpinning the assertion of an authoritarian style of leadership made.Leicchaucer (talk) 07:21, 18 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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]