User talk:Lecen/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Jewett

The article has been expanded with additional material on Jewett. Thought you might be interested. It needs a little work but its getting better. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just done a copy edit on the Brazillian Navy section, wondered if you would have time to give it the once over. I would appreciate any help you could offer in fixing the links and a copy edit. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Obrigado

Olá Lecen. Obrigado eu. Valeu. Continuação de um bom trabalho. Um abraçoRui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC),

Eu que agradeço. Colaborações para melhorar artigos, mesmo que "featured", são mais que bem-vindas. --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

olá

Caro Lecen,
Meu velho amigo, como estás? Espero que você esteja bem. Só queria dizer olá.
Um grande abraço,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of 4 May

Thank you for the translations and locating the reference for me to expand subject article. I could not have done it without your help. Thewellman (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't thank me. I feel sorry to be unable to provide further information regarding the subject. For some reason, Brazilians have a remarkable lack of interest in military history. There are few biographies of noteworthy generals and admirals, and even less of wars and battles. And the few books we Brazilians have are... in the United States. Go figure. You did a great job there. I am the one who should be thanking you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral

My apologies for having put here instead of the talk page. I'll explain why. I do not understand! Honestly, with respect and sincere bewilderment. All of these sources put the phrase (and the same pharses). I think it was a distraction in your zeal in good faith in order to protect the page of changes. Thats why I write here on your page, instead of the talk page as you asked. But I should put direct quotes in the sources below in the Article? Lecen, you perhaps refers to this lack? (although the direct links to them, but not the direct quotes there)Is that? It was just a curiosity but also a milestone in human history. And remmenbered by historians. Apart from the question of Eurasia, and Europe and Asia as a continents. But it is well accepted by geographers and historians. There was a plethora of many other works of history as sources. But we can not put endless sources.

About the exemples: Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415-1580, Diffie and Winius, "Cabral: Captain Who Touched the Four Continents" - the phrase is the title of Chapter 13 itself. continuing: "But his voyage tied together the trade of four continents - Europe, Africa, America, and Asia" ​​(page 191). Paul Lunde, London University's School of Oriental and African Studies: "Pedro Alvares Cabral touched four continents" the phrase in in the sub-title of the article itself. "The leader of the first naval expedition that united four continents - Europe, America, Africa and Asia - would eventually would retire to Santarém ..." (in the "Great Portuguese explorers."(page 167)). "... The Commander of the largest fleet ever armed by Portugal for ocean voyages, and initiator of the India run as regular route, and leader of the first naval expedition that linked four continents:. Europe, America, Africa and Asia" in Navegações Portuguesas, Instituto Camões (the first in direct english, the two last ones translated from the Portuguese, which I believe, no need translation to you. "tracciava la rotta per "legare i traffici do quattro Continenti - Europa, America, Africa e Asia". this from the magazine of Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa (Universitiy of Lisbon - Colóquios etc.)

I ask that you to remove this message (if you desired) and to replace the phrases in the article, is not decisive to the matter of the article, even if important as a mark and a open milestone in exploration and global trade. I hope to have feedback or a move from you on that. With all respect and solved the misunderstood in our edits, can I replace it? Best regards --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that I took it wrong. I am sorry. Good editing. --Lecen (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your editing in the article and for answering me. I also apologize to you by any possible form of editing or re-editing without justifying myself properly earlier. And many thanks once again. You do not need to apologize, of course. Your care and vigilance are perfectly understandable: It's just two sentences, but the introduction is a very important part of the article (and a short part) and any new note or part should be checked. Another thing: I also need to improve my editing of sources (place them correctly - I think are acceptably, though). It was absent and I think it is an important reference in history (albeit obvious and already indirectly underlying the article before), but putting it now, do justice to Cabral and to an important expedition in the history of Brazil and Portugal (in terms of amplitude, despite your great work and of all the other editors, to you all, who made the article, perfected or oversaw it, is of great quality, and therefore, needs nothing to the matter already there - was therefore, just an addition), and linking a important event in the foundational history of Brazil and world navigation, to another global milestone.--LuzoGraal (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Footnote at Juan Manuel de Rosas

Lecen, could you please check that the footnote you're talking about is indeed in the article?

I've looked for it before making the change and just now, after your revert, and I cannot find what you're referring to. The Footnotes section is in fact empty. --Langus (t) 21:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replied in my talk page; we'll continue there (please add it to your watchlist). Cheers! --Langus (t) 13:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Which Pedro are you talking about: Pedro II or Pedro de Alcântara, Prince of Grão-Pará? If it's Pedro II, he just lost the throne because of the Republic, his descendants can still claim the throne if Monarchy is restored; if it's the Prince of Grão-Pará, OK, we can exclude the Petropólis branch. But please explain your point of view, because I've already got a warning about an edit war (!?). --2.83.179.204 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,323 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 22:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened?

Why have you retired? BedsBookworm (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request declined

The arbitration amendment request (Argentine History (Lecen)) involving you has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Joaquim José Inácio

Hello Lecen, how are you? I proposed the article Joaquim José Inácio, you've highlighted here on the English Wikipedia, so Featured on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Sorry to bother you, but I think there's article can be Featured, so I have a doubt. If you can, send me a message on my discussion to talk. Good editions.

Sou eu o Zoldyick, a gente já se falou na Wiki-pt. Estou com dúvidas quando a um trecho do artigo. Sdç. --Zoldyick (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Missed

Consider, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Better come back soon! Or else! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Precious again

Brazilian mothers
Thank you for your profound coverage of Brazilian topics, culture and especially people, such as the Mother of the Brazilians, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 132nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

150 years

I nominated Uruguayan War, your help would be appreciated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

for TFA, precious again, - and the quotes on your user page: true. I mention you on top of my talk today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Maria II of Portugal

This is the only photographic image that I know of Queen Maria II of Portugal, who died three years after it was taken. The photograph is very likely a daguerreotype, taken around 1850. It is of poor quality. It belongs to the private collection of members of the house of Hohenzollern and you can find it on the book Das Furstliche Haus Hohenzollern ISBN 978-3-8392-1222-6. The book can be bought in Amazon. For further help, email me ---. --Miguelemejia (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Warning

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

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)

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

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)

Hello

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

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)
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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yuan Yao (painter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penglai. 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) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
@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)
Not one person was in favor of blocking until Sandstein's comment. Lecen realized his error and removed his offending post, presumably with the intention of going to too proper forum (ARCA) after the AE concluded. For whatever reason, you decided that now would be a brilliant time to jump in (without any other administrator commenting) to hand out a punitive and completely unwarranted block. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre accusations - especially considering my OWN suggesting of a 1-month block prior to Sandstein's recommendation. If you'd been willing to discuss properly, I would continue - but immediately assuming bad faith means I'll happily ignore you from now on. You're also making bizarre assumptions about the remove post that don't hold water. I'll be happy to hear from Lece - but it better not contain bullshit about "accidental" posts, etc. the panda ₯’ 10:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure. You, the outlier. Sandstein, after Lecen's comment. Lecen removes comment. You block. Bad faith? No, simple facts.
Now, bullshit? Did I stutter? I wrote that Lecen wrote and saved the post in a genuine misinterpretation about the purpose of AE vis a vis ARCA. Even one of the commenting administrators noted how they are easily misunderstood: "Despite this page confusingly being a subpage of WP:Arbitration/Requests, it is actually run by rank-and-file admins, not ArbCom." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Also: you say "I'll be happy to hear from Lece [sic]". I would check your email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The ed 17, I appreciate your kindness in supporting me. I really do. But let it go. It's only a block.
"DangerousPanda" said he would "be happy to hear from Lecen", implying that I never reached him. I sent him an e-mail, which he only bothered to reply today, after The ed 17 pressured him to do so. An administrator who uses words such as "but it better not contain bullshit", "fuck you, that's inappropriate", "The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric", shows that he highly unfit for the position. I do admit that I'm quite a bit surprised to see that no else sees his behavior as reproachable.
Regarding, Sandstein, he was well aware that I made an honest mistake there, as I did that time when he blocked me for a month. Still, he failed to remove his comment asking for a week-block, and failed as well to reproach DangerousPanda's behavior. That's the kind of administrators we have around to pursue and environment of fairness and good behavior?
Let me take a rest for a week. Let Sandstein and DangerousPanda play "petty tyrants" as they do. They find fulfillment doing that. --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 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.  Sandstein  07:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Lecen, I am not sure if anyone has told you about this, but there is a discussion about this at WT:AC. One of the things about arbitration is that it is very difficult, near impossible, for arbitrators or ArbCom to unilaterally take action unless someone actually approaches them in the correct venue. The Ed raised this at WT:AC which brings it to our attention, but we can't take formal action there. What was needed was for you or someone to formally appeal this following the procedure. Waiting out the block is your choice, of course, but if everyone did that nothing would change. If admins acting at AE do overstep the mark, there needs to be ways for ArbCom to formally review that. At the moment, we have to wait for multiple stages of an appeal process to work their way towards us. This is in some ways intentional, in that it prevents frivolous filings, but in cases where a filing would not be frivolous, it can be frustrating. I was half-following what was happening at that AE request, and was waiting for a WP:ARCA filing about the whole situation following the point where you (correctly) removed the text that you shouldn't have posted there. But things were then short-circuited by DP's block of you. This should all have gone straight to WP:ARCA and the block has (IMO) been largely a waste of time, partly because it was made in the first place, and partly because the way it was appealed failed to really work. Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Carcharoth (Thryduulf and HJ Mitchell), if you don't mind, I'd like to raise a few points:
1) The ed17's "block and run" allegation is actually correct. The moment I was blocked I sent an e-mail to both Sandstein and DangerousPanda (I wasn't aware that I could still edit my talk page). Sandstein replied here that he couldn't do nothing about (although he could have told DangerousPanda that his request for a week block made no sense anymore, but he only did so... yesterday). DangerousPanda, however, simply ignored me. It was only after The ed17 pressed the matter at the ArbCom talk page that DangerousPanda bothered to reply, and he did so only a day later. DangerousPanda is not being truthful on this matter.
2) DangerousPanda said that I "then became insulting". That's not correct as well. From the very beginning I tried to reason with him, explaining the situation. I got replies such as "You are the harasser", "You have been meticulously harassing the other party for months", "If you want to properly address the block, without bullshit about punishment, and without bullshit about what the other party did", "you have lost the ability to make further comments, even related to a case", "Address your behaviour. be an adult about it", "someone had to take off the kid gloves and tell you the truth bluntly", "If you refuse to follow my‎ directions and suggestions to help you, I will ignore all further emails", etc... not to mention what he wrote in the ArbCom talk page, such as "fuck you, that's inappropriate", "The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric", etc...
3) As you can see above, DangerousPanda is overly aggressive, insulting, partial and patronizing. He refused to moderate his tone ("My tone is helpful", according to him) and admitted that he had been following me for some time ("I've followed your behaviour on this case"), which means that he was far from being an impartial arbiter. After my fourth e-mail, I simply gave up and accused him of having napoleon complex. (if DangerousPanda allows, you can see the e-mail exchange by yourselves)
4) I have to accept his aggressive behavior and keep my head down? He is an administrator, he is supposed to be cool-headed, neutral and be a role model. He lacks all those qualities. How could you ask me to appeal my block to a person like him? It's unfair from the start. Carcharoth and HJ Mitchell have both requested him to unblock me, but he hasn't done so far. He says that "[t]here was general consensus that some form of action needed to be taken". A generic desire to resolve the problem and he believed that it meant that I should be blocked? Read the ArbCom enforcement page: no one asked for my block, they only said that something should be done about my relationship with the other two editors. He also said in his last message: "Sandstein suggested a week [block]." Sandstein had just replied that his suggestion didn't matter anymore, and DangerousPanda still keeps me blocked! He's blatantly disrespecting anyone else and acting on his own. Why is he an administrator?
5) I'm sorry, but today is already Tuesday. My block will expire in a couple of days. You were all slow to react and I can see that nothing will be done regarding DangerousPanda's actions. I know that you're all good meaning, and trying to resolve the matter. I appreciate that. But you all seem rather impotent, unable to put an end to DangerousPanda's arbitrary actions. Why should I keep asking for anyone to be unblocked when it's obvious that the block itself was unfair from the beginning? I can't even defend myself there, at th ArbCom talk page. You should all be talking with DangerousPanda, not with me.
Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I can see above, something does need to be done about what happened here. I think ArbCom does need to review the e-mail exchange between you and DangerousPanda to see exactly what happened. But the person that needs to initiate that is you. I am an arbitrator, but I can't unilaterally act here. You need to request action from ArbCom as a whole. If you are happy to wait your block out, then do that and when you are ready to present your request for a review of what happened here, you should do that. If you want a clarification regarding the original arbitration case, you would go to WP:ARCA. If you want to complain about the e-mails you were sent by the blocking administrator, you would write to the arbitration committee mailing list, or if both you and the blocking administrator agree to publish the e-mails on-wiki, you would raise it as a new request for arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I'm afraid I won't do that. It's painfully clear by now that the ArbCom is slow and timid to react. The last thing I want is a vindictive administrator like DangerousPanda going after me if I report him. Who will protect me from him? The ArbCom? Clearly not. I regret the day I decided to warn the community of what Marshal and Cambalachero were doing. I came out of it as the bad guy and I all had was one headache after the other. --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lecen: The main issue is that the appeals part of arbitration is quite complex, and ArbCom itself is bound to its own rules, which means that they cannot act out of it without getting significant backlash. I'd still recommend to bring this matter as a request for arbitration. There are some serious points ArbCom should look into, but it has to be presented to them on that page for them to act properly. → Call me Hahc21 00:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me address a few things:
  1. "Block and run" - no. I've made it very clear that I keep Wikipedia things on Wikipedia. I did not respond to the email from Lecen - first, because of the time of day it arrived, and second because Wikipedia appeals, etc need to remain on Wikipedia. I only replied to their email after being harassed into doing so by another editor
  2. "insulting" Yes, the emails show that for themselves, and I will be pleased to send the entire email exchange to ArbComm.
  3. "not impartial" Yes, I have indeed followed Lecen's continual behaviour surrounding the ArbComm case. That does not make me impartial. I did not go out of my way to block Lecen. I've never been aggressive, nor disrespectful
  4. "disrespecting everyone else"..."not cool-headed" Quite clearly no. I've posted two elements to the discussion today alone, neither of which have been replied to. If someone shows me I'm wrong, I'll happily unblock, and fully apologize for the a) error in reading consensus, and b) the error in the functioning of AE if that's the case. Flat out, honestly and truly unblock and apologize with true remorse. In terms of not being cool-headed, I'm sorry, but I changed my username intentionally because of privacy and harassment. For a frickin admin to refer to me TWICE using that username is unethical, and unacceptable from an admin - I believe that when my security is threatened, and the security of my family, that I'm permitted to become a little angry, no?
  5. "arbitrary actions" Again, this all gets resolved very easily. My goal from the start has always been to get this unblock, and to get all parties back to Wikipedia work.
I will not stick around when I see flat out lies, and again, I will release all emails in their entirety to ArbComm if needed - the above snippets taken out of context certainly to not paint a complete picture of what was said, and by whom, and indeed falsify the entire exchange. the panda ₯’ 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@4, I've apologized for using your former username on the AC talk page, but I'll do so again here. I certainly wasn't intending to use it out of malice or spite. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@The ed17: You can obviously understand that you escalated the entire situation right from the very beginning, rather than help it. I believed that you were a better person than to have done that, and I was flat-out shocked - indeed, it's sat there for days (not even sure if you actually redacted it like you should have). Indeed, without that escalation, I'm certain this whole situation would have been resolved days ago - Lecen was unfortunately emboldened by your own lack of respect for me. There are no angels in this whole thing, but 3 humans with pride and emotions the panda ₯’ 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've redacted the name now, but I have to take issue with your "emboldened" statement. I suspect that Lecen was even more outraged than I was by the block, so I don't think I played a role in the emails between you two. But yes, certainly many individual's perspectives and emotions are feeding into this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. There remain 2 ways for this block to be over right now, and I'd be happy to be the one to remove it. The first one, Lecen knows - agree to actually live by the terms of the existing WP:IBAN, which he declined to respond to in the email exchange. The second is still awaiting response on the AE talkpage. If someone can actually show me I was wrong about the process of AE, I will - as promised - undo the block with full apologies, and true remorse. Hell, I'm not happy to have placed the block in the first place, so have I felt remorse up until now? Yup the panda ₯’ 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
... and WT:AE has been busy overnight with contradictory statements from people - some suggesting the block was fine, and the process was fine. However, I'm going to go with the comment from Arbitrator Salvio, and issue this unblock. Lecen, this unblock is not due to a GAB-compliant request, it's due to one Arb's suggestion that if you did, indeed, remove the offending post of your very own volition, then it should be held that you changed your mind about the content. As such, this block should not have occurred. I am sincerely sorry to have ever made this block, based on Salvio's interpretation. Salvio does go on to suggest, however, that the post you removed does provide an opportunity to warn - and I believe that the warning was rather inherent in our email exchange, but I will make it clearer: you IBAN prevents you from making certain types of posts, and the community takes Arb-imposed IBANs extremely seriously. My personal view is that you do much better work on Wikipedia when you ignore the altercations - those altercations have got you in trouble more than once, and if at all possible, stay away from the drama that occurs during interpersonal conflict: as other admins have noted, you tend to personalize those conflicts, which leads to bad judgement. Speaking of personalizing, I myself personalized a statement by a fellow admin, which a) changed my judgement after this block, and b) may have interfered with proper exchange of information between us. I would hope that you are as apologetic as I am about that situation. At this point, I can do nothing but apologize for the block as enacted - please know that it was never done with malice, but was a good faith response to the discussion, and to the actions I saw. the panda ₯’ 09:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Lecen, maintain your dignity, appealing this block was never going to lead anywhere. When you come back we can start work on your latest article. Eric Corbett 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Doubt

Carcharoth, I'd like to ask the ArbCom to review:

  1. Marshal's allegations that I have routinely called him a "fascist, racist, etc...". Do they have a foundation or not?
  2. My two blocks to decide whether or not they were fair.

What is the correct procedure? I'd like to do that only once, and at the same time. Also, I want to be clear that I have no intention of seeing anyone sanctioned. All I want is a simple and direct statement from the ArbCom regarding the points raised above. --Lecen (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've passed the above on to ArbCom. It may not be possible, but I'll try and get an answer. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lecen/Archive_19&oldid=1143130970"