User talk:LVDP01

Pot calling the kettle black edit war on Croats
Hello, what was "rebuked" exactly? We are still talking about ethnic Croats so i don't see where is the supposed "switch". And their numbers are definitely too small to warrant an inclusion into the infobox. They could/should be mentioned in the rest of the article but if we add them to the infobox then we can basically put any religion because there is no criteria. This would just paint a wrong picture and ruin the point of infoboxes to be a brief overview of the topic. SerVasi (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct &mdash; we are talking about ethnic Croats. Croat Muslims, Orthodox Croats and Protestant Croats are and remain ethnic Croats, regardless of wether they are Croatian citizens or not (Croat Muslims in particular had a great influence on the Ottoman Empire and Croatia in the long run). This also disregards literal dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of other ethnic infoboxes that also contain religious minorities (as part of a brief overview of the topic, like you said). I do not see the problem. LVDP01 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why havent u added any jews,hindus etc then? Ur setting a way too arbitrary and inconsistent cut off line. Also saying "other things have bad so me no fix this bad" is just bruh. SerVasi (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You can also say that to me without the aggressive-sounding undertone. Regardless, as it doesn't look like we can convince the other, it might be worth getting a third opinion. LVDP01 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah maybe we should. And i suppose we will still keep the inserted info during that time? How convenient. Also don't play the victim, I was as direct as you at best. SerVasi (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Answering the 3O. From the 2011 census it seems that there is a large gap between the majority religion, and minority religions. Less than 1% of Croats fall in any of the other categories. If a minority is mentioned, it should probably be irreligion, which is 10x as big as protestantism. Pinging as the discussion here is a bit old: @SerVasi. Femke (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And remember to WP:focus on content :). Femke (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So we done? SerVasi (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are. LVDP01 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Scull and crossbones
Not a big issue really but where are you seeing the scull and crossbones used to denote executed? I've never seen it used that way. Netanyahuserious (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's an actual template: -- Template:Executed.
 * Quoting the template page:
 * "This template is used to indicate commanders who were either captured or surrendered, and were subsequently executed. Use in and similar infoboxes."
 * LVDP01 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on Roman and Byzantine lists
Hello there, I hope you are fine. Well, I think it's about time to discuss this. Do you think we should have two separate lists for Roman and Byzantine emperors? I guess my position here is pretty obvious, yeah, I would support a merge. This is a discussion that has been going on, albeit with some breaks, for several years. The last discussion on the matter ended with all Byzantines being added to the Roman list, something which was also applied to the list of Roman ("and Byzantine") empress.

The Byzantine list has varely changed in the last 10 years, with the only notable difference with the Roman being that "notes" section. These are supposed to be consice lists of rulers, not a list of small biographies. I mean, I think this is the only list with such format. Ok, let's say that we summarize the biographies... then we'll just end up copying the "life details" of the Roman list, almost certainly with the same sources (PLR, ODB, PBW, PLP). My solution would be to redirect "Byzantine emperor" to the "Later eastern emperors" (I don't mind if the section is renamed as "Byzantine emperors"), which would need to start with the Justinian dynasty, since Justinian is mostly known as a Byzantine emperor... I remember that one of the conclusions of the last discussion was that "At the moment, we have two good lists", which is no longer accurate since one of them is clearly (and by far) much better.

Another option would be to revert back to the original status quo. Have the Roman list end with Romulus or Anastasius, and have all the Byzantines moved to their respective list. I would prefer a merge, but I would understand if the final outcome is this. L

What do you think about the matter?. Tintero21 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello there, thanks for reaching out to me.
 * Personally I agree with you on merging the lists. Byzantine emperors are also Roman emperors, and like you said, the page List of Byzantine emperors is largely redundant now because all Eastern emperors are also on the List of Roman emperors. The former page is essentially just a selection of emperors from the latter with more details about their life, which I believe is unnecessary on this page. So I support your proposal in full. LVDP01 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'll wait a few weeks (or even months) before proposing the merge. I was really hoping to reach Ichthyovenator for help (he started the redesign of the Emperor list), but he's been mising for months and I doubt he'll show up again. Tintero21 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All good, take your time. Feel free to let me know when you propose the merge. LVDP01 (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Iazyges has already started a discussion on the matter, if you are interested. Tintero21 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Tintero, Happy New Year to you. Thank you for letting me know – I have left a comment on the discussion in question. LVDP01 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Louise Fusil
You did not check the reference after the next sentence. Just lazyness.Taksen (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to declare that a source is supposedly "a pleasant read of real interest", which is a fully subjective assertation. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia – we only write reliable facts and hypotheses, not opinions of people on how pleasant something is to read. Your passive-aggressive reaction to this ("just lazyness" here; "how is your french, did you try to read it?" in the edit summary) is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia, which instead prides itself in hosting constructive and civil discussion between users. LVDP01 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Heraclius
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I take your point about the coins and the exarchates, and I will review my edit accordingly. Of course, I didn't say that the process started under Heraclius, only that it culminated with him. But to say that he didn't do anything would require a source, given that we already have a source which says he did. Richard75 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. Thanks for the response and the edit. LVDP01 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estado Novo (Portugal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)