User talk:Lecen/Archive 2

Carneiro Leão
After you have looked at my latest changes, I think we can put in the tag to request a peer review from the Biography project. This will find corrections we have missed and give us suggestions before we try submitting for GA or FA. &bull; Astynax talk 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lecen - I got your peer review request, and I'll try to take a look at it, but I won't promise anything; I seem to have less time to work on articles than I used to. Steve Smith (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian people
Em vez de você colocar aquele aviso sem graça, que acaba depreciando a página brazilian people, que creio eu que você também faz parte desta categoria, pelo menos está na sua página inicial de seu usuário que você faz parte. Então BUSQUE LOGO as fontes que tu achas que falta lá, porque ninguém vai fazer isso por vossa alteza, e delete de vez aquele aviso de carência, que é um escândalo logo na principal página do Brasil, pois não existe país sem um povo! (User:Hentzer)

Re:
Hello. Though I am quite interested in history and politics in particular, I have no particular interest in 19th century South American history. I am just reading now a book about various dictators and authoritarian leaders and López is prominently featured there. - Darwinek (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you can get some help from other editors working in related WikiProjects. If you look for some sources, I can try to look for them. - Darwinek (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then. Good luck with your articles. ;) - Darwinek (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding earlier. Why not look under the category Brazilian Wikipedians to see if there are any editors who might be able to help you with your articles. Good Luck!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey
The Brazilian War of Independence article has been vandalized. B-Machine (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On the change of tides…
Fala, amigo! Continuo passando por uma situação turbulenta, e precisei afastar-me de tudo, inclusive da Wikipedia. Mas adorei aquela foto do juramento de Isabel que vc colocou e reparei no monograma de PII acima. Resolvi desenhar da melhor maneira possível. Quando tiver um tempo, bem que poderia salvar o verbete de D. Teresa Cristina, na WP:PT – tá muito triste aquilo… Abração!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Só uma correção no Paraná: os primeiro e quarto quarteis de seu brasão são as armas dos Netos, família de sua esposa, não dos Leões (diga-se, ele se associou à família da mulher para ascender socialmente). Parabéns pelo fantástico trabalho!!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Não sabia sobre seu pai – mas mesmo assim, aquele quartel é a arma da família Neto, pode confiar =). Assim que possível, vejo as imagens. Abs!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter II of Brazil
In Brazil, Peter II have last names. your mother was an arquiduchess of Austria, and her name was Maria Leopoldina von Habsburg-Lothringen. His father, Peter I of Brazil and IV of Portugal, have the last name Bragança of his father Dom João VI of Portugal (de Bragança) and Borbón or Bourbon of his mother, Carlota Joaquina de Borbón y Borbón. I think that you are creating problems for nothing, there are his last names: Bragança, of his father and Habsburgo of his mother!!! Regards! --Fernandoe (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Claro que o comentário acima só pode vir de alguém com total desconhecimento sobre a nobreza. Pedro II não tinha sobrenomes, nem sua mãe nem seu pai, mas obviamente é querer demais que certas pessoas entendam o básico – especialmente quando acreditam que achismo é conhecimento. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Translation of Tonyjeff's message: "It is clear that the above commentary could only come from someone with total unfamiliarity on nobility. Pedro II did not have last names, nor his mother nor his father, but obviously it is too much to desire some people to understand the basic - especially when they believe that "wrong belief" is "knowledge". --Lecen (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sobre o cidadão acima, é conhecido na WP:PT por inventar títulos nobiliárquicos prussianos, inserir informações cujas fontes não são fiáveis e inventar brasões para famílias, enquanto tenta conhecer as coisas da nobreza lendo sítios de Internet. Foi capaz de bloquear verbetes apenas para fazer valer seu ponto-de-vista, e por ali só pode ter crédito porque a WP:PT está realmente em um nível muito baixo, e qualquer pessoa despreparada tem seu devido crédito por administradores que preferem tratar das políticas do projeto. Veja aqui para ter uma ideia de aonde chega sua incapacidade. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here...
Ninguém (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Premature arbcom filing
It seems like you are relatively new around here; you seem to understand what much of the dispute resolution process is, but not have a practical grasp of how to use it effectively yet.

The Arbitration Committee is more or less the final step in long, drawn out, very severe incidents. You have done the right thing asking for the other editor to work it out, and then asking an administrator for assistance, but the next step isn't immediately taking it to arbcom.

Usually, one asks on article talk pages for help, then other editors and administrators after the first, then would post on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents with a request for help. Typical incidents which end up at arbcom are 10 times more serious and have been going on for 10 times longer, and been discussed in 10 times more places.

I am an administrator but I don't unfortunately have the time this weekend to get involved and try to help you directly. I do suggest that you ask other administrators and editors for help; if that is not successful, post to WP:ANI.

Your Arbcom filing wasn't wrong in the sense of abusive or inappropriate. But it's almost certainly going to get turned down with a recommendation to try the other avenues for dispute resolution, finding more help, that I outlined above. Hopefully you can go try those venues and move forwards effectively.

Good luck with working this out, with or without other help. I wish I could help more than providing this brief advice; if it still hasn't progressed anywhere by next Monday I may be able to help then.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
Olá, já que você é brasileiro podemos nos falar em nossa língua-mãe. Não entendi qual foi o problema em minha edição no artigo Brazil, eu apenas troquei algumas imagens por outras de melhor qualidade. A imagem anterior de Pedro II é de péssima qualidade, de São Paulo só existe uma imagem do museu da língua portuguesa e aquele trecho da Rodovia dos Imigrantes não está localizado no município de São Paulo, além do mais não vejo qual é o problema em manter uma imagem do Presidente Lula e do Presidente Obama, já que esses são os atuais presidentes de seus respectivos países e a fotografia ilustra bem a seção onde está localizada. Sua reversão me parece preconceito contra o que você considera ser um editor "novato". Cumprimentos cordiais. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dom Pedro II DO BRASIL
Como o Heitor Jorge, de cima, falou... Já que você é brasileiro, posso falar com você em nossa língua-mãe.

Eu acho que você está se achando DONO DA WIKIPÉDIA, QUANDO NÃO É!. Segundo o Livro de estilo, não se pode apagar edições dos "colegas" quando as informações são verdadeiras. O dicionário citado, escrito por Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, é uma obra de muita importância mas tudo o que eu coloquei no artigo está correcto. Desde quando a WIkipédia é uma cópia desse dicionário. Se isso vigorasse, a Wikipédia perderia a sua individualidade e passaria a ser uma simples cópia de outras obras. Se é dessa maneira que é feita a "ENCICLÓPÉDIA LIVRE", posso copiar de outra obra importante sobre Pedro II do Brasil, um perfil biográfico escrito por outro autor de importância superior, e assim transcrevê-la para a Wikipédia. Acho melhor VOCÊ se acostumar que a WIkipédia, é um enciclopédia livre e que todos, contribuindo de forma verdadeira, podem editá-la. PARE DE PALPITAR QUANDO O ARTIGO NÃO LHE PERTENCE! --Fernandoe (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Platine War
As you have probably noticed, the Platine War article was quickly failed for GA without discussion. Even though the editor did not give any chance to address his/her concerns before failing, I think that some of the suggestions are worth exploring. You might wish to use something like the Encyclopedia Britannica for adjusting the parts which are contested. I see that he inserted a tag for globalization, so we will see if anyone responds with other resources and perspectives. &bull; Astynax talk 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi; could you give your opinion here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do. &bull; Astynax talk 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the same person fails the article once again, and in the same manner, you can ask for a more in-depth look at Good article reassessment by someone more neutral. &bull; Astynax talk 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A tip: try to eliminate all the red links in order to get them nominated. The new articles do not have to be too much complete for now, just to eliminate the red links. Cheers! --Tonyjeff (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso behaves arbitrarily. Trying to own Brazilian topics
Just to let you know that Opinoso has once again started deleting messages posted by others (me in this case), without justification. I posted genetic studies different from the ones he posted, along other with other information, all of them correct. He has opened a thread against me now. Grenzer22 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

War edits
Since this is happening to multiple articles, I would first ask for more ideas at WP:NORN. Fernandoe is not providing references for disputed information which he is repeatedly putting into articles. If you post at this place, you should put a notice on Fernandoe's talk page so that he can respond to the discussion.

The information he is inserting into the articles seem to be only his opinion or position, rather than something sources have said. Wikipedia isn't about editors' opinions, personal knowledge, beliefs, etc. Instead, it is about reflecting what the sources say. Fernandoe needs to understand this and see that it is a policy, not an option.

The reason you should get comments from editors about this is that there must be some effort made to educate new editors, and to show that it isn't just a dispute between a few editors. In this case, however, a Wikipedia Policy is being violated and you need to make sure that point is clearly made. Editors from the WP:NORN page will be able to help.

This editor has already been warned. If he more than 3 times within a period of 24-hours re-inserts or reverts information into a single article, then you can report this at WP:AN3. This will probably get him warned again and banned for a longer period. Make sure that you do not violate the 3 Revert Rule yourself. Tell me if you do not understand the instructions. If the editor is disruptive, but does not violate the 3 Revert Rule, you can request that an article be protected at WP:RFP. This sometimes results in a break so that people can consider again whether they are editing correctly.

And if either of those steps do not cause the user understand that he cannot insert his own opinions or research without also providing references, then you can report to WP:ANI. The administrator who looks into the case will want to see that the user has been given an opportunity to discuss the bad edits with other editors of the article, and that everyone is being treated fairly. You should be courteous and notify his talk page if you send a complaint about him/her to administrators. &bull; Astynax talk 23:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a series of corrective steps posted at WP:DDE. It is not complete, not all steps can be applied to every situation, and some of those have already been tried with Fernandoe. But it does show that Wikipedia prefers that editors first try to engage an editor who edits disruptively. You probably have already read that page. But you should read it if you have not. &bull; Astynax talk 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fernandoe and louisphilippecharles
I think that it is more than evident that fernandoe and louisphilippecharles are one in the same given their writing styles, penchant for unilateral actions, and insistence on assigning surnames to royalty and nobility belonging to the houses of Braganza bourbon and Orleans. (I'm responding to you from my iPhone so I apologize for typos and lack of links within my text). I suggest there be an inquiry that runs the check for sock puppetry to find if fernandoe and louisphilippecharles are in fact the same user. I have already gone to the arbitration committee to settle my grievances but the committee denied to rule on the matter. If we can prove sock puppetry and the user's unwillingness to participate in the conflict resolution attempts, I think we would have a better chance of combatting this nuisance once and for all! We need an organized list of users with grievances against the two (or one depending upon the sock puppetry check). The arbitration committee is our. Last resort. I cannot keep reverting their arrogant and ill sourced edits to articles we have all worked so hard to collaborate on and build. I am away from my MacBook at the moment and will not be home for a few more hours so please feel free to follow the links I posted in my comment on the talkpage for gaston Comte d'eu. I will participate more in these processes as soon as I can. Thank you for keeping me in the loop! Caponer (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration committee and sock puppetry
The link to those pages were what I was referring to on the gaston comte d'eu talkpage. Call me at 202 657 7977 with any additional questions. Thanks! Caponer (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Afonso
No problem; anytime this weekend you get to it is fine. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná
The article Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg-Braganza
Lecen; by what I was able to research recently, the novel about Carlos Tasso and the Saxe-Coburg-Braganza branch is really suspect. Until Tereza Cristina of Saxe-Coburg, great-daughter of D. Leopoldina and great-great-daughter of D. Peter II, they were ALL Austrians and they DID NOT have "Braganza" in their "surnames" (but Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, instead). Only with Carlos Tasso, suposedelly, they started to use "Braganza" and reaquired Brazilian nationality. To make things stranger, Carlos Tasso's brothers and sisters – children of Tereza Cristina of Saxe-Coburg-"Braganza", were only Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Carlos Tasso also has incorporated, somehow, "Dom" with his name, something that cannot be seen with any of his ancestors.

It seems that the Monarchic Club of Rio Grande do Sul has some close contact with him – maybe we could reach them to find more answers. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunatelly, you're right. =) I'm affraid I may not do too much for that image… it is a little weird – seems to be an assembly… let me try. --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Early Life of Pedro II
Early life of Pedro II of Brazil is now GA. Congratulations! The reviewer left a suggestion for advancing it to the FA. That is more difficult, but very nice to hear someone else who thinks it has that potential. &bull; Astynax talk 09:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
You deserve some recognition for your efforts in bringing better information to the English Wikipedia…

You may want to copy this banner to your user page or elsewhere if you don't want it to get lost when your page is archived. &bull; Astynax talk 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Decline and fall of Pedro II
The book that Andrews wrote, and which contains the quote Barman used, is now viewable on Google Books here.

I noticed that some of the books cited in the Footnotes do not have matching book titles listed in the References section: When you have time, please take a look to see if you have bibliographic information for these books. There is not a rush, but because there are many footnotes, I want to eventually link together the Footnotes subsection to the References subsection. &bull; Astynax talk 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Carvalho (1990)
 * Carvalho (1993)
 * Carvalho (1999)
 * Doratioto (2008)
 * Silva
 * Vasquez (2003)


 * In the second paragraph of the The last year section, there is no page number given for the reference to Topik's book. I am now going to look at the lead. This will be the longest article you have submitted to GA, so I think that it may take a bit longer for a reviewer to come along who will not be intimidated by it. I have also asked a person familiar with WP:NPoV issues to have a look at the Marquis of Paraná article to make certain that there are no sentences which would be flagged as PoV. I do not know when or if he will be able to do that, however. &bull; Astynax talk 16:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I made a mistake. I meant to say that it was the Platine War article I asked the editor to see if he could find any PoV issues. Sometimes they are very subtle, and it is difficult for me to see these when I have helped in writing. The Decline article looks good, and we'll see what a reviewer has to say. &bull; Astynax talk 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil
Please read QUOTE. The opinions of the writers can be written in text too. "A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both." -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have any more queries, please let me know. Glad to help. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacement for See also list?
The reviewer of the "Decline and fall" article had suggested that the "See also" section be replaced with something else. I have adapted a timeline template and placed it in the Pedro II of Brazil consolidation article. If you don't like it, you can try making it better or just undo the edit. &bull; Astynax talk 02:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We probably could do something similar to the Joseph Smith articles. We would need to create a new template, and not just adapt that one, however. I think if a new template, then we should allow specifying a unique image for each article. Do you want to do the template, or should I? &bull; Astynax talk 17:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It may take me a few days to do something. I need to make certain that there is not already something available which isn't as restrictive as the Joseph Smith template. If I come up with something new, I will let you know when it is available.

I also nominated Legacy of Pedro II for the Wikipedia front-page DYK section. It doesn't interfere with the GA nomination, and the article expansion is recent enough to qualify. &bull; Astynax talk 21:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put a new infobox which contains navigation to the other articles on both the Legacy and Consolidation articles. I will also try and work on the suggestions from the reviewer on the Legacy article later tonight. &bull; Astynax talk 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil
The article Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be awarding GA-status soon; I'm still checking the citations. I like the new navigation box, but I still think an infobox like in Pedro II of Brazil and Pedro I of Brazil would be desireable (with the current new navigation box below it) - but its not a GA requirement, so I can't delay awarding GA for that reason alone. Pyrotec (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Pyrotec (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note of appreciation. I've completed 261 of these in the last 18 months (and three still in progress). I would not be doing them if they were boring; but thanks for the complement. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)