User talk:Rbraunwa/archive 1

This is the first archive of my talk page, from February to September 2006. Please do not edit it. The current talk page is here. Later archives are here (#2) and here (#3).

Eliza Acton
Hi Arniep, The list at is a good source, in spite of its goofy domain name. It's also the only source I've found for her birth and death dates, so they are unreferenced since you removed the citation. Rbraunwa 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't remove the link, I just moved it to the external links section. Cheers Arniep 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Arniep. Is it better to put references in the External Links section, even when they reference just one or two specific facts?
 * Rbraunwa 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Isaac II
Hi Adam, I realize the Isaac II Angelus Britannica article at can't be viewed in its entirety without a subscription. But it was the reference for the date I added, and the beginning of the EB article (including the date) is publicly visible. I'm not going to put it back, but you might want to, since the date is unreferenced now. I guess I could cite the Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD, which I own, or the paper edition, which I don't own but presumably has the same information, but those are less accessible. Rbraunwa 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really think it's necessary to give a reference for a date like that. Maybe if there was some particular controversy about his dates...and in any case, we'd just be referencing another encyclopedia. How do we know they are right? Where did they get the date from? Adam Bishop 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

request dates
Do you have the birth/death dates for August Willich? thanks. --DelftUser 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, He was born November 19, 1810 in Braunsberg, Prussia and died January 22, 1878 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Here's a link:. If you are working on Civil War generals, this is a good site. --Rbraunwa 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey
Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

your message
Hi Gryffindor,

I've been posting the various articles on Spanish viceroys of New Spain, most of them new. It's nice to see someone reading them!

However, I would like to point out something about the use of titles in the Spanish reference works I've consulted. Lists of viceroys are sometimes given with the name and title, and sometimes with the name only. But in encyclopedia-like articles, the title of the person is never given in the title of the article (Enciclopedia de México, now part of Britannica, for example). Literally never in all the works I have access to. They are all Mexican, so I can't be sure the same conventions are used in Spain, but I have no evidence that they aren't. So moving a link in an alphabetical category list to the title rather than the name means it won't be in the place where Mexicans will look for it. Rbraunwa 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

hi Rbraunwa,

thank you for your message. It's amazing how much work you have done already, so I congratulate you on that. Yes I was actually going to come forward to you and ask you what the situation with all the titles is. Wikipedia has a policy where nobles are listed with their titles. Maybe if you are not familiar with it yet, I can recommend you this link Naming conventions (names and titles), under the point "Other non-royal names". with kind regards.. Gryffindor 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor,

Thanks for the link to the non-royal names conventions. I'd had trouble finding that before.

Putting a nobleman's title in the title of an article would not be my first preference, but obviously it works either way, and I understand the desire for consistency. I don't have a problem with that usage. However, alphabetizing a viceroy's entry under his title rather than his name is more problamatic. As I mentioned, in chronological lists of viceroys in Mexico, the title is frequently given after the name, but not always. However, in alphabetical listings, the viceroy is always found under the first of his surnames, never under the title. So listing these individuals in alphabetical category lists under their titles is making them more difficult to find. And I don't think this applies only to Mexican historians. I think it applies to English-speaking scholars of Mexico as well. What the situtation in Spain is, I have no idea, but in Mexico these individuals are thought of by name, not by title. It seems to me this is not far from the example of Bertrand Russell given in the "Other non-royal names" section. Rbraunwa 17:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. Well maybe we can work together on this topic. If you say that they are normally listed under their family names, and not their titles, then I believe you because you are obviously the expert since you wrote these articles. With the listing itself I have no issue and trust your expertise. And the last thing I want to do is to interfere into your good work. But when someone has multiple titles, it can get very confusing which one should the article carry, so maybe you could help there a little in pointing out which one should be used? Your help and effort is greatly appreciated... Gryffindor  00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Work !
Hello ! I was looking throught your work on Viceroys of Peru and New Spain, and I thought I'd drop a quick note to say "Hurrah !", "Well done !" and "Thanks very much !". I've thought on reading up on this field before now, but I never came across a book that seemed very useful, and I don't really read Spanish. It looks like I can stop looking for that book now. Thanks again and best wishes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the kind words, Angus. I have three very good sources in Spanish, and I've just been reading those, then writing new articles in English. Unfortunately, though, my sources cover only Mexican viceroys. What information there is on the viceroys of Peru was already there before I added information, or was sketchily mentioned in passing in my sources. I would like to write on them too, but there is no more about them in Mexico (where I live) then there is in the U.S. (where I'm from). Oh well, maybe I'll get to Peru sometime.
 * Rbraunwa 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

S y G
Thank you for starting the article. It has been on my to-do list since I joined Wikipedia. It is much appreciated!--Rockero 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockero, thanks for the kind words on the article. I came across Sigüenza in the course of writing a series of articles on viceroys of New Spain. He definitely seemed like someone who deserved an article in an encyclopedia with a million articles, so I read up a little on him. It sounds like you have some more information to add. I'd love to see it.

I agree that English Wikipedia needs much more information on Mexico and Mexicans. Probably on Chicanos, too, but that's not something I can contribute to. I have some good Spanish-language books, and I think I can add quite a few short Mexican articles. Anyway, I'm going to try.

Rbraunwa 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I came across him during my research on Our Lady of Guadalupe. In fact, I had no idea he was so accomplished, but I'm not surprised, because anyone who's anyone in Mexico has at least commented on the "miraculous apparition". When I get around to it, I'll add his take on the V de G to his "works" section, or some such. I've noticed your tweaks on the List of Viceroys, too. That seems like a small nightmare, what with the multiplicity of honorifics and surnames. At any rate, your efforts are appreciated, and as we say in French, bon courage!--Rockero 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockero, I thought you might be interested in this new article I just uploaded: Lorenzo Boturini Bernaducci (because of its Virgen de Guadalupe connection). Rbraunwa 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockero, thanks for all the work on the Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora article. Interesting material, and I'd never seen it before.

I have one minor question. Was his father really born in America? I knew Carlos was, but I had assumed his father was from Spain, because of the royal tutoring.

Rbraunwa 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The oversight can perhaps be attributed to haste. My sources mention nothing abut his birthplace, but a Continental birth is much more likely, given the timeframe and his position. I changed it to peninsular, only to discover the deficiencies in that article.
 * I presume you are referring to S y G's theories about the origin of the Olmecs and the evangelization of Thomas when you say you found the new material interesting? Such theories were actually quite common, and it appears that SyG was one of the first to come up with them, or maybe just the first to popularize them. The Mormons were way behind. 8)
 * One final note: I'm guessing that "book examiner" is your translation of "corregidor general". Is this correct? My English-language sources make use of the term "censor", which I can only guess is one and the same as corregidor general. I have added Censor (Catholic Church) to the censor dab page, in hopes of composing an article on the post, but refrained from linking it from the SyG article. If I am in error, please correct me. Thanks for your comments, and the pic looks great, --Rockero 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I remember correctly he was listed as corregidor general, but I'm away from my encylopedias now and can't definitely verify that. I'm sure I can find a copy of Enciclopedia de México in a library here (I'm in Los Angeles now), but it may be a little while before I get to that. "Book examiner" wasn't really my translation. I had no idea what the original term meant, but I found him referred to as "book examiner" on a web page, and I identified the two. I think it's safe to assume all three terms refer to the same office.
 * --Rbraunwa 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article titles
Hi, me again. I've been mucking around Naming conventions (names and titles), Manual of Style (biographies), and Manual of Style (titles) to try to figure out what exactly the convention for biographies of marquis, etc. is. Needless to say, I haven't had much luck. What I have found is that there is a grest deal of inconsistency (some article titles include royalty-type titles, some don't; some articles translate titles such as "Duque" and "Marqués" to "Duke" and "Marquis", while others dont; etc.) It seems you have been including titles as part of article names, and leaving them in Spanish. At least you're being consistent 8). But I would think that we should prefer English for titles when they are available, being that this is the English wikipedia. Maybe we can come up with a standard, at least for Spanish nobility/sub-nobility, and propose it as a convention? I just hate to see so much inconsistency. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter.--Rockero 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockero. Thanks for the note. The article titles on the viceroys are not mine. My preference would be to make the article title the man's name, without any of his titles, and that's the way I originally uploaded them. However, Gryffindor contacted me, and we had some discussions about consistency with other projects. (I don't think there's much, but he is working on it with some other people.) He is also working on translating the Spanish titles into English, but slowly and cautiously. I'm a lot more interested in the content than the exact title, so I'm not taking much of a part in this. But perhaps you should contact him and let him know your thoughts. --Rbraunwa 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks.--Rockero 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Huitzilíhuitl comments
Hi, Madman. The information you removed from the article was good information, at least if my sources are correct. (But I'll double-check what they say about the relationship to Matlalcihuatzin; maybe I misread it.) I wonder why you removed the information, especially the part about making the position hereditary. That seems like an important point to me. Do you have some information that contradicts my sources? --Rbraunwa 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Every other source I have reviewed indicates that the position of tlatoani (or hueyi tlatoani) was never hereditary. For example, ,  Encarta, and the Aztec article here in Wikipedia, which says "The Nahuatl title, Huey Tlatoani (plural Huey Tlatoque), translates roughly as "Great Speaker". This office gradually took on more power with the rise of Tenochtitlan. By the time of Auitzotl, the title of Emperor had become a more appropriate analogy for this office, although as in the Holy Roman Empire, the title was not hereditary."


 * Similarly, I did some checking about the relationship between Huitzilíhuitl and Matlalcihuatzin and all the web references referred to her as his daughter.


 * Overall, I was attempting to use bring your additions in line with the "style" we've been using for the Aztec-related articles (which is one reason I substituted tlatoani for "ruler" and particulary "Lord", and completely removed the term "cacique").


 * However, I am puzzled about your insistence about translating Huitzilíhuitl's name into Spanish. He wasn't Spanish, never met the Spanish, and this is not the Spanish language Wikipedia.


 * In any case, really enjoyed your addition to the article. There is no doubt that the Aztec ruler articles need beefing up.  Thanks for addressing this and I look forward to any other Aztec-related articles you may be working on.  Thanks, Madman 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Madman,


 * I wrote these paragraphs before I had a chance to see your comments, but they pretty much cover my reasons for the material you removed.


 * First, I think it is reasonable and useful to include the Spanish translation of the name Huitzilíhuitl as well as the English, because this turns up often in Spanish sources. And most of the sources on this individual are in Spanish.


 * Second, the sentence you changed to a generates an orphaned footnote number, but no footnote, and the information it contains does not appear anywhere unless you edit the article. I agree with what I assume you meant &mdash; the dates 1396-1417 are more likely correct. But the other dates do appear in some good published sources, and it makes sense to acknowledge that fact in our article.


 * Third, it is important to give some information about the location of Tenochtitlan in the article, even though that is described in the separate article Tenochtitlan. This is so that a reader who doesn't click on all the links knows at least where this person lived and where these events occurred. So I put back the parenthetical note on Mexico City, but I changed it a little to emphasize that it's not reasonable to say the two cities were the same, only that they shared a geographical location.


 * Fourth, and this is the most important point I think, is that it was Huitzilíhuitl who made the position of tlatoani hereditary. The best discussion of this is in Fernando Orozco Linares's Gobernantes de México, one of the sources I cited in the references. Orozco says "[F]ijó la sucesión familiar real, asegurando el reinado permanente a su casa". Orozco is a good source, and I have no reason to doubt this information. And it's one of the two most important actions Huitzilíhuitl took as tlatoani, so it should be mentioned. Do you have a source that contradicts it?


 * Fifth, I rechecked my sources concerning the relationship between Huitzilíhuitl and Matlalcihuatzin. One says she was his sister, and one says she was his daughter, which is what you changed it to. However, I think daughter is very unlikely, based on the following reasoning. Huitzilíhuitl was 16 when he ascended to the thone. Under the more likely dating of his reign, that means he was born in 1380, give or take a year. It is unlikely he was married to a close relative of Tezozómoc, a more powerful lord, before he became tlatoani, because until then his prospects were uncertain. So in all likelihood his first child would have been born no earlier than 1396, probably no earlier than 1397. Matlalcihuatzin's son Nezahualcóyotl was born in 1402. If she was Huitzilíhuitl's daughter rather than sister, she would have been only 5 years old (give or take 1 year) when her son was born, perhaps younger. Even under the less likely dating of Huitzilíhuitl's reign, she would have been only 11 (or younger), give or take a year. And Huitzilíhuitl himself would have been 22±1 or 28±1, quite young for a grandfather. Thus I think the source that says sister is almost certainly right, and the other an error.


 * I should also mention that nothing I put in the article is unsupported by the sources I cited. Of course I don't assume that every sentence in every source is correct, but these are good general sources and I do assume they are correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence, I would be glad to see it.


 * Since reading your reply:


 * It is true that two of my sources don't explictly say the position was hereditary, although they imply it. The third source states it outright, as I quoted above. But perhaps there's no contradiction here. We are dealing with an unwritten constitution, and it's possible the position was hereditary (at least in the sense of remaining in a single family) without there being any statute, etc. to justify it. You're right, without more information about the exact state of affairs (which may not exist), it's probably better to omit this.


 * I still don't see how Matlalcihuatzin could have been his daughter.


 * I understand the stylistic changes, and have no problem with them. In fact, thanks for doing that. I wasn't happy with "cacique" myself.


 * I'm not an expert on the Aztecs, but my sources have interesting, short articles on them and on some other Indigenous rulers. My field, though, is colonial Mexico. I've just finished the last article on the viceroys of New Spain today. --Rbraunwa 17:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sister/daughter relationship, I believe that we need to go with the consensus opinion on the matter, and every source that I've seen says "daughter". Now, these are all web sources, but nonetheless can you find a web-source that says "sister"? Yes, if the 1380 birth date for Huitzilíhuitl is correct, then it would be difficult for Matlalcihuatzin to be his daughter.  But these dates like this are notorious inaccurate. Tezozomoc, for example, was said to live to be over 100 years old.


 * If you want to pursue the hereditary nature of the office of Aztec tlatoani, I suggest that you (we) open a discussion on the Aztec talk page.


 * Thanks again for your contributions, Madman 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Madman, you're right &mdash; every Internet source I can find, in English or Spanish, says she was his daughter. My only source for sister is the Enciclopedia de México. That's a good source, but not infallible; I've found mistakes before. I will defer to your judgment. However, I still have a couple of questions. The dates and the relationship still seem to me to be in conflict. If it's the relationship that is more secure, why haven't scholars used it to revise the dates? That seems like exactly the kind of information one would use to narrow down date possibilities.


 * Perhaps the scholars have written papers on this -- we just don't have access to them. : )  Or maybe it's so obscure that no one really cares.  Dunno, really.

And shouldn't the article include some mention of the date conflict, so that a person who calculates the dates from the given information won't appear to find a contradiction?


 * I think that that conflict should indeed be mentioned in the article, perhaps in a lengthy footnote (you've already written a good deal of it above). Madman 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Me, again. I'm thinking that perhaps the birth date of 1380 for Huitzilíhuitl is incorrect.  I have been unable to find any source giving his birthdate, and I'm thinking that you backed into his birthdate based on the data that he was 16 years old at the time of his coronation.  Perhaps that "16 years old" data is incorrect.  Just a thought, Madman 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's certainly possible. I don't have any idea which piece of data is incorrect, just that it's likely one of them is. I have seen the age 16 "fact" repeated in more than one place, though.
 * Rbraunwa 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More than 1 place, eh? Drat!!  Back to the drawing board.  Madman 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As for my contribution, do you think this was helpful? Should I go ahead with some other Tlatoque from my sources? (I'm still working on some colonial articles, so it might not be right away.) --Rbraunwa 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, please do!!! Definitely.  As you can no doubt see, the biographies of these guys are quite lacking.  Madman 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr B, I moved your comments concerning Huitzilíhuitl to the Huitzilíhuitl talk page. You raise some good questions, and I thought that they would be better recorded there. Thanks, Madman 13:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Me again. You did some great work on Acamapichtli. Per your request, I did some copyediting. In particular, I tried to standardize the Mexica/Aztec/Tenocha terminology, per the recent comments from a reviewer of the Aztec article. I also tried to tone down some of the unverifiable rhetoric that so many earlier historians used ("Fearing death, Acamapichtli . . ."). In any case, thanks a lot. This was excellent and much needed work from sources not available to your average researcher (e.g. me). Madman 15:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

JGI
Was wondering if there is anything you might be able to add to Joaquín García Icazbalceta?--Rockero 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockero, an excellent article as always. I can't add anything (at least at the moment) because I am travelling for a few months and away from my encyclopedias. I did add an interesting exteral link, though, although I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail. --Rbraunwa 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

V de G
Hi Rockero, just a quick question that I couldn't find the answer to in the article. How long was it between the apparitions to Juan Diego and public interest in them? Did this happen immediately, in December 1531 or shortly thereafter? Rbraunwa 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is a difficult one to answer. Legend places the apparition in 1531, a scant decade after the conquest, and characterizes Juan Diego as a 50-something convert. This combination of circumstances is highly unlikely. I think the question is, "how and when did the cult of Tonantzin become the cult of la Virgen?" Archaeology dates the (Christian) chapel to 1550, so some devotion must have existed by that time. But virtually every writer on the subject traces the popularity of the cult to the 1648 publication of Miguel Sánchez's Imagen de la Virgen. In 1666, depositions relying on oral testimonies of elderly devotees were taken to affirm the longstanding nature of the apparition tradition as part of the process to obtain official recognition from Rome.

I have been trying to add this information into the article, but progress is very slow. I usually only touch it at the end of a long night of wiki-ing, and I haven't been staying up as late recently. Some of it is contained in the subarticles about writers about la V. But you are correct in that it should all be in her main article.

In the meantime, I have begun a Timeline of Guadalupan events, but my knowledge of html is severely lacking, which has thus far resulted in a very messy timeline. In it, I hope to chronicle all the major works, statements, Catholic actions, etc. pertaining to la Virgen. Hopefully it will add some clarity to a very long and muddlded story.--Rockero 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Baiting
Hello, if you are interested in reading some more information, I could scan the relevant pages quoted in the reference section and email them as an attachment to you. The Wiki articles are just a brief encyclopedic summation the books are much more in-depth chalk full of interesting information. The first time I read these books the stories floored me. As there is not much info on the Internet I decided to share this obscure history through Wikipedia. I find it offensive when people attempt to deprive information to the general public due to sour grapes. I was the sock sniffer that found User:Hipocrites sockpuppet account User:Hpuppet and turned him in. Check the page history to see my name. Hence his attacks on the articles in question he knows I helped to write. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sir Isaac, I would like to see that. Thanks. I only accidentally got involved with these articles, but they are interesting. And I almost never want to see valid information removed.
 * Rbraunwa 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The books are quite large and full of information, is there a particular subject to narrow it down? SirIsaacBrock 11:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No way I can spare the time to read through the two books, but I would like to see the pages that support your articles, and maybe the bibliographies. Thanks. Rbraunwa 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * +Tags
 * It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if you would be interested in reverting the article page in future I would be obliged.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tolsá
Hi. That's not ridiculous at all, although I admit I should have cited a source for it. It's not my opinion, but an opinion expressed in several of my sources. (I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that question.) Here is one source:

"It is one of the finest in America, and, according to [Alexander von] Humboldt, second only to the statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome." 

The original Humboldt quote is "M. Tolsa, professor of sculpture at Mexico, was even able to cast an equestrian statue of King Charles the Fourth; a work which, with the exception of the Marcus Aurelius at Rome, surpasses in beauty and purity of style everything which remains in this way in Europe."

I actually toned that statement down somewhat to allow for the passage of time, for one thing. Both of the statues mentioned in the quote are used as illustrations in the Wikipedia article Equestrian statue.

Here is a quote from Frances Calderón de la Barca's Life in Mexico:

"We spent a long time here examining these antiquities; but we have seen nothing in Mexico to equal the beauty of the colossal equestrian statue in bronze of Charles IV, placed on a pedestal of Mexican marble, which stands in the court of the University, but formerly adorned the middle of the square. It is a magnificent picture of sculpture, the masterpiece of Tolosa, remarkable for the noble simplicity and purity of its style, and was made at the expense of an ex-viceroy, the Marquis of Branciforte."

My intention was to show the level of artistic achievement in Mexico at the time. I think that is an important point to make. I plan to put the direct quote from Humboldt in the article. I don't see how there could be any objection to that. But please let me know what you think. Rbraunwa 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should respect WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. The best way would be to say that Humboldt considered it one of the two finest equestrians in the world, or something along these lines, without dubious generalisations. Otherwise, Étienne Maurice Falconet would feel offended :) -- Ghirla -трёп- 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I put the Humboldt quote in the article. Thanks for adding the other image, by the way. Rbraunwa 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As for the image, I'm not really sure that the chapel, of all the hospital structures, was designed by Tolsá. It would have been great to check. -- Ghirla -трёп- 11:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Luis Brión
Hi K4zem, Can you take a look at this article that I posted yesterday: Luis Brión. I would appreciate any additions or corrections you have. I read Spanish but don't write it too well. But you can write to me in Spanish, on my talk page or here. Rbraunwa 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Disculpa que te escriba en español yha que mi inglés es muy precario, sobre el articulo que hiciste lo he leido, está muy bien y muy completo. Bye. --K4zem 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bernardo de Gálvez et José de Gálvez (fr)
Thanks for doing the translations of these articles. Rbraunwa

Hi Robert, It has been a true pleasure to translate your great work about these people. As I visited several times Galveston, Texas, I was curious to know a bit more about Bernardo de Gálvez ... Reading it, I could not refrain translating it and doing so I had to translate José's article as well and now it's Matías turn, and who knows where this "virus" will lead me.

Concerning José de Gálvez, did you find something about his last years and death ?

Thank you for your great articles and best regards PhilFree 06:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi PhilFree. Thanks for the kind comments. I've really enjoyed working on the viceroys and other figures from colonial Mexico. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything on the later years of José. I just checked the Spanish Wikipedia, which wasn't one of my sources. (I intend to add a few things from there, but haven't gotten to it yet.) But they don't have anything on his later life.


 * I've never been to Galveston, but there are some other cities in Texas I like, like Laredo. I'm originally from Seattle, though, and that's still my favorite U.S. city.


 * Thanks again for all your translating work.
 * Rbraunwa 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been busy with the translations. I wish I could read French. 65.101.143.232 27 juillet 2006 à 18:05 (CEST)


 * Hi Robert, thank you for your post on my page in french. Translating your articles, I better see the great work you did on the Viceroys of Spain, so I keep translating and maybe one day the french readers will have on hand all the work you did. Best regards PhilFree 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Any info on Chimalpahin et al.?
Mr B, I've noticed your impressive corpus on colonial Mexican figures and I am wondering if you have any information you can add for the following historians:


 * Chimalpahin
 * Juan Bautista de Pomar
 * Fernando Alvarado Tezozómoc - a new article
 * Fray Juan de Torquemada
 * Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl

I have made reference to all of these folks at one time or another in my articles, actually started the Torquemada article, and added to the other 3, but to be honest biography is just not my cup of pulque. So I thought I'd turn to an expert. Any help would be appreciated. Madman 03:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Madman. I'm travelling and away from my Enciclopedia de México, so I can't get to these right away. They are good suggestions, though. I will definitely look them up when I return to Oaxaca (but that may be a couple of months). Alternatively, I might be able to do some work in a U.S. library before then, but I'm not sure when. I also want to see if I can add anything on Joaquín García Icazbalceta, as per an earlier note.


 * That's a good start for Torquemada, by the way.
 * Rbraunwa 13:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I must give credit to Fuhghettaboutit, who added the best parts. Madman 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for photographs of Olmec artifacts
Me again, with another request. I have been writing quite a bit on the Olmec but I feel that the articles are hampered by the lack of photos (as are many Aztec articles for that matter). If you ever get a chance to photograph Olmec artifacts (or any artifacts for that matter), it would be a wonderful addition to Wikipedia. In particular, the National Museum of Anthropology and History has some well-known exhibits.

Thanks again, Madman 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Madman. I expect to return via Mexico City and I'd like to visit the Museum of Anthropology again. If I remember correctly, they allow photos, so perhaps I can add some from there. It probably will be a couple of months yet, though.
 * Rbraunwa 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Antonio de Mendoza
Hi Robert,

I noticed a problem in:


 * Mendoza was the sixth child of don Iñigo López de Mendoza, conde de Tendilla. He came from a distinguished family of military officers and statesmen.

But:


 * Iñigo López de Mendoza (1398 - 1458) and Antonio de Mendoza (1495 - 1552)

I have serious doubt on the paternity of Iñigo López de Mendoza.

Can you help me on this point ?

Best regards.

PhilFree 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that! It came from the Spanish Wikipedia, and I didn't double-check it. I suspect either there were two Iñigo López de Mendozas, or the names were similiar and became confused. And it's surprising that a sixth son would inherit the title. I'm just going to remove the reference to the father, at least until we can find more information.
 * Notice that I changed him from "2nd conde" to "3rd" to agree with the Spanish article. That's worth double-checking yet, but I'm travelling and away from some of my sources.
 * Thanks again.
 * Rbraunwa 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Robert, have a nice trip. PhilFree 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting unblocking of autoblocks
I get autoblocked a lot. Usually it lasts for only one click; refreshing the page will make it go away. However, it happens over and over, many times a day. This is very annoying. I have done nothing to warrant blocking, and as far as I know, nothing that could be misunderstood as something that might warrant blocking. Is there a way I can eliminate this problem, or do I have to keep refreshing pages I want to edit? Rbraunwa 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox contents: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Curps for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "TwixDawg". The reason given for TwixDawg's block is: "vandalism".

Do you work at Google? That might be the issue since it appears the IP originates from there. --Pilotguy(roger that) 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I'm in Los Angeles. The alleged malefactor for the last two days is new, however. Before that there was no name, just an IP address, and I didn't write the IP address(es) down. Rbraunwa 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

unblock|Repeated incorrect autoblocks This is happening again. It started yesterday and has happened at least a dozen times. It's true clicking "Refresh" usually solves the problem (temporarily), but I don't understand why I keep getting singled out. This is at least the fourth series of these events, and at least the 12th time I have received the block message in this series.

Infobox contents: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by RadioKirk for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Sithsidious". The reason given for Sithsidious's block is: "WP:POINT".

Your IP address is 64.233.172.2. Rbraunwa 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you use google web accelerator software, this ends up using some proxy server run by google hence which can alter from edit to edit, hence the symptoms you are getting. I've removed the autoblock you mentione. --pgk( talk ) 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks pgk, I do use that. Now I'll have to decide whether to remove it. Rbraunwa 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures Luis de Velasco and Luis de Velasco, hijo
Hi Robert,

Pictures for father and son are the same in your articles, do you know who is represented on it, father or son ?

Best regards. PhilFree 12:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The image was of the son. I can't find one of the father, so I removed it there.


 * Thanks, again. Rbraunwa 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I created a media category in Wikimedia Commons. Maybe it can help.


 * There is a picture of Luis de Velasco (father) here: http://www.famousamericans.net/luisdevelasco/ . Do you think we can use it ?

PhilFree 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw http://www.famousamericans.net/luisdevelasco/, but I thought it looked very much like Antonio de Mendoza, the viceroy that preceded him. (See http://www.coas.uncc.edu/latinamerican/latinhistory/Colonial/Ruling/Ruling2.jpg). That wouldn't be an especially difficult mistake to make, so I was hoping for a different image. (Too bad I can't make out a single letter in the signature.) However, on reviewing this, perhaps they are different men. They were near-contemporaries, so we can't conclude anything from the similarities in dress and beards. What do you think?

Good work on the categories. José de Gálvez wasn't technically a viceroy &mdash; he outranked the viceroys. However as the highest colonial official in New Spain, perhaps it's worthwhile including him in the category.

Rbraunwa 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right with José de Gálvez but I had no idea where to put him. PhilFree 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found a picture of Luis de Velasco (padre) in a printed publication, and it's the same as the one you found on-line. I'm going to add it to the article. Rbraunwa 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hola
Sólo escribo aquí para felicitarte por el impresionante trabajo que estáis realizando con los virreyes de Nueva España. Vosotros sí que merecéis un monumento :). Me he quedado impresionado de que hubiera tal profusión de datos en una enciclopedia en inglés. He usado algunas de esas toneladas de información para ampliar un poco el artículo de New Spain, que estaba muy desangelado. Eso es todo. Te escribo este mensaje en español, porque lo escribo mejor que el inglés, y tú pareces dominar ambos. --Gimferrer 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hola Gimferrer. Muchas gracias para tus palabras felizes sobre mi trabajo. Pero no puedo tener mucho crédito — tengo fuentes buenisimas. Casi todas mis fuentes son de español, pero los artículos de inglés son nuevos, no son simplemente traducciones. Me gusta hacerlos, porque mucha información es nueva en inglés. También escribí artículos sobre virreys de Perú, pero son más cortos y peores, porque no tengo fuentes tan buenas.


 * Bueno trabajo en el artículo New Spain. Tenía la intención cambiarlo, pero prefiero hacer biografías, y por eso no he empezado.


 * ¿De donde estás?


 * Perdoname para mis errores de Español, pero puedo leer mejor que escribir.


 * Rbraunwa 14:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahora no tengo mucho tiempo, pero prometo leer algún día tus artículos sobre los virreyes del Perú y tal vez ampliar gracias a ellos el artículo sobre este virreinato. Este virreinato parece más complicado, debido a sus posteriores divisiones. De todos modos yo no soy ningún experto, pero mis paseos por esta wikipedia despiertan mi curiosidad, amen de ayudarme a mejorar mi inglés. Ah, y no te preocupes, puedes escribirme en este idioma. Creo poder leerlo bastante bien, y me he atrevido con algunos libros en inglés, sobre todo de poesía (Shakespeare, Poe, Walt Whitman, Lowell, etc). Y soy de España. En fin, mucha suerte con tu fantástico trabajo. --Gimferrer 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the offer to expand the articles on the viceroys of Peru, Gimferrer. They definitely need more work. I haven't been able to find much about them in the United States, in Mexico, or on line, and I've never been to Peru. I haven't written on all of them yet, but I've got a good start and will probably be getting back to them soon. Most of the articles are fairly short.


 * Poe is not one of my favorite English authors, but the other three you mentioned are. I would think Shakespeare might be a little difficult, since English has changed since then. I know I had trouble reading Bernal Díaz del Castillo for an article I was working on. Did you mean Robert Lowell or Amy Lowell? Both of them are fine poets in my opinion.
 * Rbraunwa 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * En cualquier caso, tu amor a las fuentes bibliográficas es digno de elogio. Y ciertamente estás por encima de lo que se realiza en la wikipedia en español.


 * En cuanto a Shakespeare, lo que me compré fue una edición biligüe en inglés-español de su poesía completa, así que no tuve problemas con los arcaísmos :). Y es a Robert Lowell a quien he leído (aunque sólo una antología porque no encontré una edición completa en español). Y aunque esto sea salirnos del tema, ultimamente procuro leer ensayos y libros de historia (The Decline of the West, en este preciso momento). A estas alturas de mi vida, no recomiendo la lectura de la poesía. En mi modesta opinión, genera una sensibilidad exacerbada, algo neurótica, poco apta para enfrentarse a la cruda realidad :). Leaves of Grass es el único libro de poemas que me llevaría a una isla desierta, porque a pesar de que Whitman sea tan idealista, tan fraternal, es uno de los pocos poetas que procura difundir siempre una visión esperanzada y optimista, voluntarista, de la vida. En su "Oda a la alegría", Pablo Neruda parece hacerse eco de su admirado Whitman cuando canta:
 * "porque aprendí luchando
 * que es mi deber terrestre
 * propagar la alegría.
 * Y cumplo mi destino con mi canto"
 * Bueno, ya no te entretengo más. Perdoname si me he me extendido demasiado. Carpe Diem :)
 * --Gimferrer 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, conde de Alba de Liste
Hi Rbraunwa, how are you? quick question, should we move the Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, conde de Alba de Liste y marqués de Villaflor to "Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, 9th conde de Alba de Liste". I thought it better to ask you first since you are directly involved with these fine articles. sincerely Gryffindor  10:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Gryffindor. I don't believer we've included the numbers in the article titles so far. But you're right, Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, conde de Alba de Liste y marqués de Villaflor is quite long. What about moving it to Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, conde de Alba de Liste? Rbraunwa 03:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Thomas Boulsover.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Thomas Boulsover.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Philippines governor generals
good fix you made to all these 'viceroys'. Do you think all these governors would fit properly into Category:Governors-General of the Philippines. Or maybe make two subcategories of it, one for Spanish governor generals and one for U.S.? Thanks Hmains 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hmains. There is already a List of Governors-General of the Philippines, so I think a category is unneeded. But what about Category:Spanish colonial governors? There are at least a few others around; I know I wrote an article on a governor of New Granada just this morning (Diego de Villalba y Toledo), and I'm sure there are others. It would make an interesting category, I think. Let me know if you set the category up, and I'll hunt around for some other articles.
 * Rbraunwa 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know. There are many instances of having both lists and categories for the same set of people; there are benefits for each type of organization.  I would think that Spanish Colonial governors could best be a supercategory, that includes subcategories for each governed area, such as Philippines, Cuba, wherever else.  Having just one category with no breakout would not be too useful, in my opinion.  Thanks Hmains 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Diego Fernández de Córdoba, Marquis of Guadalcázar
Hello Robert,

Yep, it's me again...

Concerning this Viceroy, I found another Diego Fernández de Córdoba or Diego Fernández de Córdoba y Arellano (maybe the father or uncle of the Viceroy) who was twice Governor of Oran in Algeria (1st time 1510, 2nd time 1517), you may have a look at this french article Liste des gouverneurs d'Oran. I found the name here http://us.geocities.com/jdcastro_99/VirreinatoNavarra.htm and here http://www.answers.com/topic/colonial-heads-of-oran (this last source made a mistake with the link to "our" Viceroy) as well.

Do you have any information in your sources regarding this other Diego Fernández de Córdoba ?

Best regards.

PhilFree 08:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Philfree. It's nice to hear from you again. You've been busy I see.


 * This can't be the father or uncle, because the dates are too far apart, but it's very likely an ancestor. The governor of Oran took that office in 1510, so he was born before 1490. And the viceroy of New Spain was born in 1578. It looks likely that the elder Fernández de Córdoba was the same one who was governor of Navarre (your second reference link). That would be interesting to confirm, because the Navarre list also gives a title that the Oran list doesn't.


 * As for your third link (http://www.answers.com/topic/colonial-heads-of-oran), that is a mirror of the English Wikipedia, so the original mistake was ours. I corrected it, and I assume that means it will be updated in the mirror sooner or later.


 * Spaniards apparently "reused" names this way. I've run into some problems with sorting them out before. See, for example, here: Talk:Luis de la Torre.


 * All this is leading up to the fact that I have no additional information on the elder Fernández de Córdoba. My printed sources are pretty exclusively about New Spain-Mexico. I haven't tried an Internet search, but you've obviously done that exhaustively. If you find anything else, I would be glad to hear it. Or if you need anything translated from Spanish, let me know. It sounds like an article on this individual would be an interesting addition to the Wikipedias.


 * --Rbraunwa