User talk:Leroji

Hi Leroji! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Alexander Alexandrovich Volkov (politician)

added a link pointing to Alexander Solovyov

Konstantin Kosachev

added a link pointing to Nikolay Fyodorov

Lyudmila Narusova

added a link pointing to Aleksandr Petrov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustav Stresemann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Schmidt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bismarck cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Maria von Radowitz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cuno cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johann Becker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Leroji –I've noticed your work on the info boxes and tables of ministers in the articles on the Weimar Germany cabinets and wanted to thank you for what you've done with them. There were some conspicuous holes, and you added some good features besides (like the legislature status bar). I especially like the fact that you' changed the end dates to include the caretaker periods. That definitely needed to be standardized.

I've (coincidentally) been working towards improving and standardizing the content of the articles for a while now, so you helped me out quite a bit. There are a two things I would have done differently in the info boxes, though, and I'd like to get your thoughts on them. Re caretaker periods – the majority of cabinets had one, and they were total non-events for the German governments and people, so I wonder if they're significant enough to include in the info box. I'm modifying the introductory paragraphs to always include the dates of caretaker periods along with the dates of formal resignation.

I would also drop the Roman numerals (Wirth I, Marx III, etc.) They're of no particular significance, so I would drop the one at the top ('Wirth I' doesn't add anything to 'First cabinet of Joseph Wirth'). I'd also use the 'First X cabinet…' format in the successor and predecessor fields, since that matches the articles' titles.

Let me know what you think. I'm willing to do the modifications as part of my content updates if you're OK with the ideas. I'm pretty much ready to go with most of the 20 articles. I've been holding back for now so we don't get in each other's way.

Thanks again, GHStPaulMN (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you very much for your comments. I'm glad I was able to help in some way. There are a couple of aspects (like the Roman numerals) that I only included -I must admit- because I saw them in the Federal Republic cabinet articles. I only intended to preserve some degree of continuity between them and the Weimar articles (although I totally get what you mean and agree).

Regarding the caretaker periods, at first I just thought "You're telling me Germany simply did not have a government at various points in time?" so I looked it up on both the German Wikipedia and the German Federal Archives, realizing that had, in fact, not been the case. Since the Bundesarchiv had records of cabinet meetings being held after resignation dates, caretaker governments must have been a thing. I also saw that modern cabinet articles included those dates, so I did. I'm glad you agree and support that.

In any case, I thank you for your efforts to improve the articles. I don't really have the time to help more in regards to writting, but at least I wanted to work on the info boxes. Again, thank you and sorry for such a long message! Leroji (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nicoya (canton)

added a link pointing to Spanish

San Carlos (canton)

added a link pointing to Spanish

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello - re the first/second round votes, can you explain how it works. There is a popular vote to elect electors, then they elect the president? Why was the first round vote (in which Esquivel got 549 votes (71%) not enough to be elected? Cheers, Number 57 14:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as my understanding goes, which I believe should be enough for this case, elections before 1913 worked generally this way: There was a "first round" (or first grade/phase) in which voters (male and only those who met conditions that changed over time) directly chose "electors" (like in the US), who also had to be male and follow specific conditions. These electors, in the second round (grade/phase) THEN chose the President of the Republic and the deputies (legislators) to the Constituctional Congress (unicameral legislature under the 1871 Constitution) and most likely also municipal councillors (but that's an entirely different topic of which I am no expert). Therefore, Ascención Esquivel (and any candidate prior to 1913 to that effect), didn't technically "win outright" during the first round, as male voters chose just those who would in turn choose the officeholders. Nobody voted "for Esquivel" in the first round, but rather for his pledged electors.

Now, the *number* of electors changes from one round to another primarily because of an interesting scenario: the electors chosen by the voters in the first round could very well vote differently during the second round, not necesarily for the candidate/party to which they belonged or were thought to belong to. We must understand that the "popular vote" did not yet work as it started to from 1913 onwards, much less as it does today in Costa Rica. But for the sake of illustrative purposes, the popular vote granted to the "lists" of electors is presented as if directly casted for the presidential candidates (like in the US).

I hope this made things a little clearer. Leroji (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

So I'm a bit confused by the 1902 election – how did Yglesias receive only 29 votes but end up with 87 pledged electors? Or are the figures in the middle column an incorrect version of the second round figures? They appear to come from the Salazar source (which I can't access). Would it be best to remove them from the article and just have the popular vote (from Molina) and the electoral college vote (from the TSE)? Number 57 16:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe the most reliable source regarding the vote count in this election (as opposed to the broader topic) is the one by Professor Dr. Iván Molina, which I cited in the article. I have also sought the source by Dr. Orlando Salazar (which is a book I can confirm exists, but haven't been able to obtain yet).

As for the issue with Yglesias and the apparent lack of votes, that is a mystery to me as well and one which should be studied further at some point. It most likely has three possible explanations: either the data obtained by Molina is incomplete (which he admits in his article); or the disparity between votes can be explained by the lack of data from two key provinces; or there were more electors siding with Yglesias initially than votes cast for them. As I explained before, elections in Costa Rica during the early 20th century had not yet matured or evolved into political parties that were permanent, ideological and stable, but rather personalistic and somewhat fleeting.

Therefore, it's plausible that some voters chose electors not strictly pledged to Esquivel (chosen as candidate by initiative of Yglesias, as explained in the wiki article), they cast an unknown amount of votes for other electors. It's documented that in the first round, 15 electors from Cartago supported Yglesias (although the specific breakdown from Cartago is unclear) and 72 from Guanacaste, likely due to loyalist National Union Party electors initially aligning with Yglesias before acting upon the "Transacción" deal and ultimately supporting Esquivel. Leroji (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. With regards to the table in the article, would the middle column be better labelled 'Electors elected' and the third 'Electoral College vote'? Number 57 14:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for expanding this article. Could you provide a source for the seat figures? Nohlen only has votes. Cheers, Number 57 00:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1942 Costa Rican parliamentary election, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manuel Mora was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Leroji. Thank you for your work on Fernando Castro Cervantes. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources and footnotes and establish notability as per WP:BIO. Please also fix the error in footnote 2. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Fernando Castro Cervantes, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 00:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm JTtheOG. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)