User talk:Lecen/Archive 10

Afonso
It appears that your prediction about the article was correct. It wasn't failed, but it was archived along with others that didn't get input from enough editors. I did not want to implement DrK's suggested addition simply because I wasn't sure what he wanted to say about epilepsy (or that there was anything else which made a good case that it was epilepsy that caused the siezure). If he wanted to add that info, I think that he should have added it himself outside the FAC process. It may be best to wait until more editors come back from summer vacations in N. America and Europe before trying to renominate the article. &bull; Astynax talk 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw your note about creating Empire of Brazil wiki project
Thanks for your invite, but I'll pass on this one. I'm a bit a fraud to get into discussions on Brazil, as I have little knowledge and no expertise. I chimed in because I had read The Epic of Latin America, by John Crow, years ago. He gave the last emperor more press than I normally see, and gave him credit for ending slavery in Brazil, without a bloodshed like the US civil war. However, I've also seen noted that Crow's account of the 19th & 20th centuries, though a good read, was strong on opinion.Catrachos (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maximilian I of Mexico
Per here, I noticed a rather strange sentence in the lead of the article. Something else I wonder is whether or not Maximilian ever had any mistresses or any known illegitimate children, which apparantly was more rule then exception in his days. Pierlot (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Guerra da Cisplatina, etc
Olá Lecen,

Obrigado pela resposta. Não concordo que possa se caracterizar o resultado como derrota do Brasil, a não ser que se diga que também as Províncias Unidas foram derrotadas. O objetivo delas que era incorporar a Banda Oriental não foi alcançado, e eles não tinham meios militares para alcançar isso. A Armada Brasileira controlava a foz do Prata, destruiu a Marinha Argentina, e Montevidéu e Colônia do Sacramento ainda estavam sob o controle do Brasil.

Suas contribuições são excelentes. Nossos artigos precisam de pessoas como você. Também encontrei muitos cretinos nesses artigos da Wikipedia, a maior parte estrangeiros da Europa. Se não tomarmos cuidado, uma versão completamente distorcida da realidade do Brasil será apresentada aqui, o que já acontece com a mídia internacional, etc. Felizmente, aqui um pouco da nossa voz pode ser ouvida.

Saudações e parabéns pelo seu trabalho! Grenzer22 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A guerra da cisplatina
Caro Lecen,

Tenho visto suas excelentes edições sobre o Império do Brasil na Wikipedia. Quanto ao tópico Império do Brasil, embora não seja um assunto que tenha para nós tanta importância, observo que a Guerra da Cisplatina é no geral tratada sob o enfoque Argentino na Wikipédia, sendo esse assunto normalmente apresentado por eles, com a versão deles, o qual se reveste de importância maior que para nós. Para grande parte da historiografia deles, eles ganharam a guerra, "em todas as frentes", e somente em razão da diplomacia e da intervenção Britância o Uruguai teria sido criado. Isso não é verdade. Os artigos Argentine-Brazil war e Battle of Ituzaingó até que estão próximos da verdade. Fiz algumas edições em Battle of Juncal e Battle of Monte Santiago, pois o tom lá é tão parcial que desnatura toda a visão do conflito, fico surpreendido com tanta parcialidade quando vejo excelentes artigos em Inglês e Português sobre assuntos militares.

É importante destacar alguns pontos quanto a esse conflito:


 * A Armada Brasileira bloqueou Buenos Aires e causou sérios prejuízos a eles, o que teve papel decisivo no resultado do conflito (http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm); o Brasil perdeu algumas batalhas navais, mas com a de Monte Santiago a marinha deles foi reduzida a praticamente nada, não poderiam mais agir em alto mar; o Brasil tinha a supremacia naval e controlava o fluxo naval dentro da própria região da Foz do Prata em frente à capital deles Buenos Aires;


 * Quanto às operações em terra, se o Rivera penetrou no território das Missões, se ganharam algumas batalhas (Sarandi e Passo do Rosário/Ituzaingó) os resultados foram, na verdade, inconclusos, já que não tinham meios para repelir as forças Brasileiras, tanto é que as duas principais cidades do Uruguai, Colônia do Sacramento e Montevidéu permaneceram debaixo do controle do Império do Brasil durante todo o conflito, e isso convenientemente deixa de ser explicado por eles;


 * Quanto às baixas, não há fontes precisas, nem Brasileiras, nem Argentinas, mas eles fazem questão de colocar os números mirabolantes deles, induzindo a crer que houve algum tipo de vitória espetacular, o que não foi o caso.

Em resumo: com certeza o resultado foi mais um empate do que qualquer outra coisa. As Províncias Unidas não ganharam o conflito. O Brasil bloqueou Buenos Aires (bloqueio naval). As escaramuças militares tiveram resultados inclusos. E a solução final não foi a que pretendiam as Pronvíncias Unidas: a incorporação da Banda Oriental. Da maneira como o conflito costuma ser representado na historiografia Argentina, as Províncias Unidas tiveram uma vitória espetacular e por uma questão de sorte os Britânicos intervieram e impuseram uma solução inadequada, o que é falso. O conflito foi muito parelho, e as Províncias Unidas não tinham meios para incorporar a Banda Oriental, o bloqueio naval imposto pelo Brasil a Buenos Aires e a possibilidade de conflitos terrestre no futuro, faziam com que isso não fosse posível. O estado tampão Uruguai foi o caminho encontrado para colocar um fim ao conflito, uma solução intermediária.

O Moniz Bandeira trata muito bem desse assunto no livro "O Expansionismo Brasileiro e a Formação dos Estados na Bacia do Rio da Prata". No artigo em inglês sobre as relações Brasil-Argentina diziam que a Inglaterra interveio por ser aliada de Portugal e do Brasil. Sem razão. Portugal e Brasil já estavam separados. Os interesses principais da Inglaterra estavam relacionados ao equilíbrio de poder na região e ao fluxo regular do comércio. Não permitiram ao Brasil continuar o bloqueio, o que traria consequências ainda mais nefastas aos Argentinos no longo prazo. Por outro lado, como o próprio Robert Gordon, embaixador Britânico no Rio de Janeiro, escreveu a Lord Ponsonby: "Los recursos de este Imperio parecen inmnensos y creyendo como yo que Brown -grande como es- no puede con sus goletas aniquilar a la armada brasileña, simplemente tendrá Ud. al bloqueo restablecido con mayor vigor".

Gustavo Barroso bem colocou a questão em seu livro "o Brasil em face do Prata":

"Em virtude de antagonismos raciais e de graves interesses contrariados, uma das partes na contenda teve sempre necessidade de turvar as águas claras da história, a fim de que o Brasil aparecesse nesse período como imperialista, como militarmente vencido e como humilhado por ostensiva intervenção inglesa. Tudo quanto diz respeito à famosa questão da Cisplatina, de que resultou, independente, a atual República do Uruguai, vivamente interessa os espíritos brasileiros, sobretudo aqueles que amam de verdade seu país".

Abraços Grenzer22 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Source question
Lecen, what is the source of the image of Antônio Carlos Gomes in File:Brazilians 000.JPG? I was wanting to copy the image to Commons but the source is missing on that one particular photo. I'm sure it's PD but just want to get the documentation straight. Thanks! Kelly hi! 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kelly  hi! 01:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like we will also need to find authorship and publication information on File:Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis portrait.jpg. Kelly  hi! 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugle Op-Ed
Hi mate, as a last-minute op-ed for the August Bugle I penned a brief recollection of September 11 for the 10th anniversary. I agreed with Ed that perspectives from various nationalities would be appropriate if people can manage it in time (have to be in the next 24 hours or so!) and your name came up as one who might be interested. Here's what's there at the moment, pls feel free to add or comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
I've made a few edits to the lead following my comments at this article's FAC; the whole thing just didn't seem to gell for me for some reason, but if you don't like what I've done then feel free to revert it. I'm not quite ready to support the article's promotion, but I don't think I'll be opposing it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gratz on your new FA! - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work Lecen! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your note at User talk:Dank. I am sorry if you found me vague or anything I said inappropriate. What you did in submitting an article to FAC was fantastic and I congratulate you on it. Having one's work evaluated by others is always stressful. I'll try to be nicer the next time I do a review. --John (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

South American dreadnought race
Hey Lecen, is there any chance of you getting back to Martins' book in the near future? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be looking for anything major that the article is missing. If you are up to it, I'd like to double-cite as much as possible, but no worries if you don't want to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple weeks is fine – thanks very much! Works taken by Brazilian Navy sailors should be okay; use PD-BrazilGov on Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! I wondered what happened to the NGB after it disappeared from Poder Naval Online. Thanks very much Lecen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná
The use of his first name is a bit too informal. I'm not that familiar with Brazilian naming conventions. Should he be referred to (prior to becoming the marquis of Paraná) as Carneiro Leão, Carneiro, or Leão? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Very odd. We don't refer to Washington as George, so, unless you have an objection, I'm going to go with Carneiro Leão. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another example then: Franklin Roosevelt is still Roosevelt, regardless of Teddy and Eleanor. Using first names when last ones aren't confusing is, to my mind, somewhat disrespectful. That being said, it's "your" article, and it's one less thing for me to do. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just leave it as it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar. I see you left saquarema uncapitalized. That seems right, as it wasn't an official party name. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Question
Do you still want to change the title of the Afro-Brazilian article? If so, what title should it have? I'm curious. B-Machine (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Sorry i was on vacation for a month then came back but was extremely busy and only fit in minor edits from time to time. As For the task force I havnt been as active with it but if you have ideas to improve it im all in. Spongie555 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Names
We don't add english translations to articles unless they are in use for that particular individual. See, for example, Juan Carlos I of Spain, Felipe, Prince of Asturias, and Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona, etc. Pedro II of Brazil have them because that individual is often called Peter II in reliable english-language sources. The names given in the lead should be the names of that individual found in reliable sources, not simple translations for the sake of including a translation. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "messing" with articles. I still don't understand your animosity when I'm trying to help you improve the articles. DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

CSA article improvement - organization
Following your interest in organizing the article, I took a stab at it at Confederate States of America, and added some off-the-shelf Wikicommons illustrations. I'd like to know what you think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Time ago...
you told me to not gave up the FAC process; I didn't answer to you because I didn't have a good reply. But today I have one and is that I am a "hard-working editor [who is wasting his time for nothing "]. If all of them think this about me I prefer to not have my work recognized with a star. I hope you understand why I'll never be on FAC again. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  06:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks; ping
You have lodged a personal attack on my talk page against another editor; I expect you to remove it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian System of Honours
Hi Lecen! I am working on a System of Honours for WikiProject Brazil. It is based on real Orders, Medals and Decorations such as Canada's. As you are interested Royalty and Nobility, and those awards are based on Royal standards, would you like to help me to develop it, in order to recognise people's efforts on subjects related to Brazil? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. Well, I will continue to develop this project in order to reactivate and organize WikiProject Brazil. Perhaps this will encourage more people to actively participate in the drafting of articles about Brazil. I really appreciate your work towards Featured status to Brazil-related articles, thank you for that. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil
Should be on the mainpage...if it is alright with you, I may set aside some time this weekend to do a little copyediting. If not, I won't. I've managed to read it over and all looks decent but I think we could improve the sentence flow some. It is an interesting subject and a storyline I was not familiar with.--MONGO 03:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lecen, I have now e-mailed MONGO, and realised I couldn't cc it to you as I don't have your e-mail addy. (Stupid Bishonen strikes again.) If you care to send it to me via the "e-mail this user" feature, I'll forward my message to you. Bishonen | talk 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Lecen...I'm going to make this easy for everyone...Bishonen pointed out a few things to me so I'll adjust those issues and a few I saw myself and maybe by early next week we can see if that's enough to get it mainpaged on the date you wish...if not, perhaps you can repost it for consideration at another time...Bishonen is pretty busy with things other than Wikipedia currently but I sure appreciate her insights and perhaps we should pester her no further. Thanks.MONGO 21:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No
Please don't make gratuitous sexual comments, as you did here. It doesn't matter who the comment is addressed to or what your disagreement is with them, those sorts of references are highly offensive and inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amelia
Hi Lecen ! Just in case... I don't know if you already saw it, but when I translated your work about Princess Maria Amelia, I also did some personnal investigations. Then, I found that an opera about the princess (Orquídea Branca) was written and played in Madeira for the anniversary of the island, in 2008. I don't know if you think it is an interesting point, but I put on the french article (at the end)... Have a nice day, Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
This article is within the scope of WPConservatism. We have just launched a Review Dept and we may be able to provide editors to participate in the Peer Review. You can make the request here: WP:WikiProject Conservatism/Review. Good luck! – Lionel (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

FJ PHOTO
Now imagine someone copies some of your great texts and posts them elsewhere without asking you, telling you it's info you can find anywhere. And YOU are calling ME selfish? How funny. I do share my photos, even some rare ones, with all people, I post them for all to see and enjoy. That's why I have a public account. I put much effort, time and money in finding, buying and collecting them, in categorizing them and get the background info behind it. And all I ask for is to let me know when and where a photo is going. Because I am interested in that, too. And if asked, I won't say no. And now you can delete this post, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeautyOfThePast (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Charlotte of Spain?
I thought there was a standard to translate the names to English, like John VI of Portugal. I even thought that the article Pedro II of Brazil was, actually, Peter II of Brazil. I supported the request because it seemed legitimate. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 17:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

r.e. lee pic replace
I think your answer to the image deletion is the best WP answer. I did not mean to reopen a closed conflict. Instead of pittling on one another's shoes, out-research the blanker and answer their objections, in this case, replace the picture of a mother and young son with a father and older son. Although I am an oldie-newbie, my guess is, the road to Featured Article status lies in implementing a sustained campaign of your successful strategy. I'll be back. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil
I just read through Empire of Brazil. It is an area I have little background in. But I found it interesting, and I really enjoyed it. Great illustration and maps support. That had to be fun to research and write. Nicely done. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Claret Ash  00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Os meus artigos
Caro senhor Lecen, estiva ler alguns dos seus artigos sobre o Imperio Brasileiro e queria saber se voce teria a oppurtunidade de ler e redactar alguns dos artigos que eu escrevi. Se o senhor tiver a disponibilidade de me enviar a sua critica sobre os meus artigos, eu agradecia-lhe imenso. Artigos: Muito obrigado, cuprimentos, (Cristiano Tomás, O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Portuguese nobility
 * List of titles and honours of the Portuguese Crown
 * Template:Portuguese Monarchy

Muito obrigado
Viva seu Lecen, Muito obrigado pela sua resposta. Tambem Só gostaria a sua opiniao sobre os meus artigos, se estão num nível bom ou mal? Entretanto, não lhe quero chatiar porque sei que esta a trabalhar nos seus artigos. Espero, com a sua ajuda, e se o tempo permitir, poder revitalizar os artigos sobre a historia Portugesa.

Cumprimentos, Cristiano Tomás {Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)}

P.S. Também tenho dupla cidadania (Os EUA e Portugal) e vivo hoje nos EUA, mas acho que sou mais Português que Americano (pois não tenho sangue Americano, haha). Além disso, vou procurar se tenho um livro com fotos da Maria segunda.

Files of Pedro II of Brasil & Teresa Cristina
Hello Lecen,

I have improved File:Pedro II of Brazil by Rugendas 1846.jpg and File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853 edit.png. The file is bad and I have tried to improve it only, so you can revert it, if you didn't like it. Greetings PawełMM (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Martins
Hey Lecen, would it be possible for you to add in Martins' assessment of the dreadnought race to South American dreadnought race in the next few days? I have about a three-week window to FAC this before my next semester of university starts, so I'd like to get it done. :-) Thanks so much. You don't know how much I appreciate what you've done for me and this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)