User talk:Lecen/Archive 18

Cruzada Libertadora de 1863
Hi Lecen. Sorry, I am afraid I do not know too many details about the "Cruzada Libertadora"... Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just asked this question - please keep posted. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not my opinion
At PT-Wiki this resulted in a long war, because they have a lot of communist editors who want to use Wikipedia to do a propaganda of this word. I will just ask you one thing: are you a United Statian? Because this is the mean of "estadunidense". This word sounds ridiculous and sarcastic in portuguese, and, I guarantee, just people who hate USA use it. This VEJA source proves it too: http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/sobre-palavras/consultorio/americano-norte-americano-ou-estadunidense/. Rauzaruku (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm Brazilian. Please respond on the article talk page. There is the best place to discuss it. --Lecen (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not even waste my time arguing with the mentally ill from Wiki-PT. Rauzaruku (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're making the same mistake people do in the Portuguese wiki. You won't convince others with insults. And trust me, in here, tere is almost zero tolerance with insults. Go to the article talk page, bring sources. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is up here, please read it. And I'm not offending you nor the publishers of Wiki-en, which is 1000 times more intelligent than the Wiki-PT, which if closed would not miss any to the project. I do not care to discuss with the clique of psychopaths of the Wiki-PT. Rauzaruku (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At the VEJA source says clearly: ANTI-AMERICAN WORD. Who is anti-american? Left-side politics and communists. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
It has been promoted after the second look. Congratulations. &bull; Astynax talk 16:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
Sorry, I thought the Santa Mônica farm was in Valença. Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of Brazil
Hey Lecen! I'm starting to gather information on the territorial evolution of Brazil and I confess it hasn't been easy. I would like to know if you have any sources [specially online] about this in the Imperial era (which would further explain things like: and ). My goal is to produce a chronological series of maps and a list like Territorial evolution of Canada. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 17:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a small thing
I fixed the section headings in regards to your AE request (you were supposed to changed the USERNAME to the name of the editor you're seeking enforcement against). This is letting you know that (and nothing to do with my comment to the discussion section).- Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Case amendment request notification
I have filed a request for amendment to the Argentine History arbitration case which would affect you at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Please visit this page to review and comment on the request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee interaction bans
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568855646#Motions motion] to:


 * Indefinitely prohibit and yourself as well as  and yourself from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
 * Should one of you violate this restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited José Luís Mena Barreto (1817–79), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Catarina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
This is a note to let the main editors of Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (1803–80) was an army officer, politician and monarchist of the Empire of Brazil. He fought against Portugal during the Brazilian War for Independence, and thereafter remained loyal to the emperors Dom Pedro I and his son, Dom Pedro II (to whom he became a friend and instructor in swordsmanship and horsemanship). He commanded forces that put down uprisings from 1839 to 1845, including the Balaiada and the War of the Ragamuffins. He led the Brazilian army to victory in the Platine War against the Argentine Confederation and in the Paraguayan War against the Paraguayans. Caxias was promoted to army marshal, the army's highest rank, and was the only person made a duke during the 58-year reign of Pedro II. A member of the Reactionary Party (which became the Conservative Party), he was elected senator in 1846 and served as president (prime minister) of the Council of Ministers three times. Historians have regarded Caxias in a positive light and several have ranked him as the greatest Brazilian military officer. He has been designated as the army's protector, and is regarded as the most important figure in its tradition. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the peacemaker! (Look for "peace" on my user page.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's map the future, pave the road forward
Hi Lecen. I would appreciate if you could take the time to read through my lengthy post at Talk:Empire of Brazil. Thank you and best regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

List of last surviving World War I veterans by country
Did you not read the article? "Veterans, for this purpose, are defined as people who were members of the armed forces of one of the combatant nations up to and including the date of the Armistice."

If you want to challenge that definition, you're certainly welcome to take it to the article's talk page and seek consensus for your POV.   Ravenswing   05:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=576992734 your edit] to Giuseppe Garibaldi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * way to the Empire of Brazil. Once there he took up the cause of Republic of Rio Grande do Sul in its attempt to separate from Brazil, joining the rebels known as the Ragamuffins in the [[

Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
Hi there, I saw the recent re-write of this article, and have switch to opposing it at FAC at present. You might drop in to the FAC page and comment on my brief identification of some issues. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias
You removed the pronunciation at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias again, this time with no explanation. You were previously reverted with a note referring you to Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation. Is there some reason you oppose clueing in the English-speaking reader that the name isn't pronounced or somesuch? It's widely-established consensus that it's helpful to include the pronunciation of foreign-language names not immediately pronounceable by the native English speaker. Where there is a stable English pronunciation, it's perfectly acceptable to include it, but otherwise the foreign form will do. If you find this problem problematic, by all means raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have replied at Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, as that will be a better place to have this discussion. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please reply to the relevant questions that have been posed by fluffernutter and Xyzzyva to you on the Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias page. I know you're frustrated, but answering these questions may resolve the dispute. Thanks!--Drickfire (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for death dates for Pedro's daughters
This says 5 de setembro de 1896 for Maria Isabel and all these sources for Isabel Maria. I will add them if you refused although my referencing might not be bit off.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20 clarification request
Courtesy note: Please see the arbitrators' comment section, where I have asked why you have violated your interaction ban. You are not permitted to comment on Marshal except in amendment/clarification requests relating to the interaction ban between you. AGK [•] 00:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
There is a discussion involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cambalachero (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your interaction ban, you have been blocked from editing for one month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. 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.  Sandstein  19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Your retirement
Hi. I'm just  letting  you  that  a discussion  is taking place at  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, a project  whose goal is to  better understand why  editors leave Wikipedia. I cannot  opine on  your block or the circumstances leading  up  to  it, but  we cannot  afford to  lose users who  who  make your kind of valued contributions to  content  and FA. You may  wish  to  either appeal  this block  in  the manner described above, or to  sit  it  out. Whatever you decide to  do, I  do  hope that  you  will  reconsider your retirement  and return to  regualr editing. Kind regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)


 * I sincerely hope that Lecen will do what I would do, which is to sit it out rather than beg for forgiveness. Lecen and I haven't always seen eye to eye, but it would be a great shame to lose his contributions to Brazilian articles. The thing that WP doesn't seem to understand is that you can't treat your top editors like naughty children. Eric   Corbett  03:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is honestly just one of the many ways I have see AE and sanctions against an editor being used in an abusive manner by other parties in a case. I understand Lecen agree's with or at least doesn't care about the block but I for one am tired of seeing Sandstein allowing others to manipulate him and AE into decisions like this. Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Extending any sort of ban to include within directly related Arbcom discussions seems beyond bizarre to me. Too bad Lecen was worn down past the point of caring to contest the block. Some of us have persuaded Lecen to come back in the past after being gamed by PoV-pushers, and hopefully he will feel able to contribute at some point in the future. If not, it is certainly understandable given the current Wikipedia environment where it seems to be OK to work against its own policies and goals. &bull; Astynax talk 23:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History
The Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 00:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Main Page appearance: Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná
This is a note to let the main editors of Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 11, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 11, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná (1801–56) was a politician of the Empire of Brazil, widely regarded by historians as one of the most influential statesmen of his time. He was elected in 1830 to represent Minas Gerais in the Chamber of Deputies. After Pedro I abdicated in 1831, the regency created to govern Brazil during the minority of the Pedro II soon dissolved into chaos. Paraná formed a political party in 1837, and he and his party's provided a stalwart defence of constitutional order. As president of Rio de Janeiro province, he helped put down a rebellion headed by the opposition Liberal Party. In 1843, he became the de facto first president of the Council of Ministers, but resigned after a quarrel with the Emperor. After years in opposition, in 1849, Paraná was appointed as president of Pernambuco province and then helped to forge an successful alliance in 1851 with Uruguay against the Argentine Confederation. In 1853 Paraná was again appointed president of the Council of Ministers. His electoral reforms caused severe harm to the system of parliamentary government and led to a virtual split in his party. He died unexpectedly while still in office. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

David Jewett
I see that you have a great track record on Brazillian history. I've noticed at David Jewett that the editor User:Cambalachero has been editing to introduce some misleading material eg. I've currently removed that claim noting that Sarratea came into office after Jewett had sailed. My main purpose in contacting you was to ask your help in expanding the coverage of his service in the Brazilian Navy, as I understand he was something of a founding father of the Navy but the material in the English language is limited. BedsBookworm (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I'm currently under a mutual interaction ban with Cambalachero and thus I'm not allowed to talk with him or about him. Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough sources about Jewett. I know that Emperor Pedro II regarded him of his personal heroes and that he had an illustrious career in the Brazilian navy, even becoming a Brazilian citizen. There is one book that might have a good info on him: Nossos Almirantes, a nine of ten-volume series of books by Henrique Boiteux with biographies of several admirals of the Brazilian navy. I don't have access to them. You could find them on these libraries. If you live near them, you should try to take a look. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have the language skills to follow Portuguese text. It seems a pity that the article doesn't reflect his full career.  Thank you for your help I will keep trying.  BedsBookworm (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Brazil
Excuse, but the other case that you refer is other question (and in the two articles where I discussed with the other user, the majority give me the reason). The only change in the article of Pedro I is a phrase and in the article of Pedro II I don't see the wrong of put a featured photo in a featured article.--EeuHP (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Lecen, while I'd be opposed to including a featured picture in Empire of Brazil just for the sake of including a featured picture, there's only one photo of Pedro II in the article, and it's rather indistinct. It might be useful to the reader to include another, even if it isn't the FP. On a similar note, given the indistinctness/age of the images in that article, they could definitely benefit from an forced increase in size over the default thumbnail! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was at the beginning a photo of Pedro II and one of the Viscount of Rio Branco. Astynax and I decided to make the article more impersonal and focus more on the country, on that period, than on specific famous people. We removed both pictures and replaced them with a photo of Recife, capital of Pernambuco, in 1851 and one of a large group of slaves in the 1870s. There are plenty of photos of the emperor on other articles. In fact, there are SIX articles focusing on Pedro II. That's an overdose of Pedro II. --Lecen (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, those are good reasons. :-) Thanks for the explanation, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)