User talk:Lecen: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:43, 11 October 2014

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Juan Manuel de Rosas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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:

provinces, since they depended on the port of Buenos Aires to export. Discontentment grew within.{{sfn|Lynch|1981|p=202} On 28 February 1839 the province of Corrientes revolted and attacked both

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Juan Manuel de Rosas. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

Your behavior of WP:CENSORSHIP towards other points of view as well as your poor use of talk page to discuss this disagreement will get you blocked. Langus (t) 00:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you've threatened me for opposing your attempts to remove sourced info and replace it with unsourced text, as well as for pushing your POV. Are you sure you want to keep doing it? --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, this is something that you are escalating and I have to confess you are doing a great job in getting on my nerves. Tomorrow I'll start a request for comments o a request in the Dispute resolution noticeboard to discuss this phobia you have with the revisionist movement. In the meanwhile, I ask you to please refrain from introducing further modifications to the article. Please, show some good faith. Thank you. --Langus (t) 01:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: are telling me not to edit the article? Are you accusing me of editing on bad faith? Are you saying that you're getting nervous because someone didn't accept your attempts to remove sourced information? --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to not to edit the article until we get this sorted out, yes. The rest of your rant is terribly wrong. BTW, this incident could've been prevented if you wouldn't have ignored me at Talk:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas#Bold_reverts. --Langus (t) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you felt ignored, and angered by that you started to remove sourced content? Is that correct? I don't know if you noticed, but I answered each of your questions. --Lecen (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. And no, you didn't. --Langus (t) 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juan Manuel de Rosas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Gore. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Glad to see you editing again. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW please check my talk page, I've come across that Langus character before and he was decidedly unpleasant. I'm sorry you seem to have attracted his attention. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, I know his kind and I won't waste time with him anymore. The problem is that peripheral articles like Juan Manuel de Rosas do not attract sufficient attention. When they do, editors with no knowledge of what is being discussed are the ones who show up. It's a shame that Langus can push his POV without impunity. But what can I do? --Lecen (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing book from Rosas aritcle

Please follow WP:BRD and do not revert without prior discussion in the TP. The book is a WP:RS as far as can tell. If you want to discuss its status as such I'll gladly do it in the TP of the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. the panda ₯’ 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

@DangerousPanda: this is not a good block. First, you've taken this action quickly and unilaterally without waiting for other administrators to see the current situation (or put another way, phrased like another editor on your talk page, you're too quick on the draw). Lecen removed the comments as soon as he realized that he posted them in the wrong forum. I assume that he will want to re-post them at WP:ARCA, assuming he doesn't just throw his hands up in the air and retire at this surprising turn of events. Second, innocent mistakes are not grounds for a block; they're punitive and serve only to drive editors off the project. You should reverse your block and allow other administrators to comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: How is it unilateral? You of course read the AE discussion that led to this? the panda ₯’ 09:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, I am in receipt of your e-mail where you complain about your block, but such complaints should be addressed through the appeals procedure linked to above. Sandstein 07:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block.&nbsp;If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals|procedure instructing administrators as follows]]: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
 :{{ping|DangerousPanda}} this is not a good block. First, you've taken this action quickly and unilaterally without waiting for other administrators to see the current situation (or put another way, phrased like another editor on your talk page, you're too quick on the draw). Lecen removed the comments as soon as he realized that he posted them in the wrong forum. I assume that he will want to re-post them at [[WP:ARCA]], assuming he doesn't just throw his hands up in the air and retire at this surprising turn of events. Second, innocent mistakes are not grounds for a block; they're punitive and serve only to drive editors off the project. You should reverse your block and allow other administrators to comment. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
+::: {{ping|The ed17|}} How is it unilateral?  You of course read the AE discussion that led to this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 09:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Lecen, I am in receipt of your e-mail where you complain about your block, but such complaints should be addressed through the appeals procedure linked to above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 07:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23