User talk:Lecen/Archive 1

Prince Afonso of Brazil

Well hello to you too... Pedro II of Brazil did not become King of Portugal, but his father was King of Portugal, thus making Pedro II and Afonso infantes of Portugal. Can prove that Emperors of Brazil abandoned their Portuguese title? Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's much more helpful. Thank you for explanation! Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

About Prince Pedro de Alcântara editing

Please see my talk page for my reply to your comment. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BIF

Template talk:Brazilian Imperial Family - dwc lr (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Thanks<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>, your comments on my user talk page helped a lot. I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. I also had flagged some issues in the next paragraph, similar help would be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the section Empire of Brazil#Form of Government, I'm having trouble understanding the somewhat flowery quotation from Ilmar Rohloff de Mattos (the block quotation). Could you take a look & see if you can paraphrase, either in English or Portuguese? - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

+ two more questions at Talk:Empire of Brazil#Translation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please look in at Talk:Empire of Brazil#Translation. Thanks - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, thanks for your recent edits, but there are several untranslated phrases. See Talk:Empire of Brazil#Translation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, regarding your comment on my talk page, I'll try to check and address the issue as soon as I have some time! Regards, RodC (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my edits. It was clear that the article was written by a non-native speaker, not an English speaker with poor grammar, so I'm glad you didn't take offense. I'll try to get to those other sections you asked about. Peyre (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the Empire of Brazil article some more, FYI. Peyre (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Platine War

Hi, I've just re-done the citations this page. Could you possibly check them over? I gave best guesses when I separated the titles, authors and publishers. If you want to insert a citation you've already put in, you can do it like this:

<ref name='X'/>

Where X is the reference's unique ID. There's further information here. :) Bladeofgrass (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems, it's a great article, and I'm learning lots from it. One of my first articles was John Pascoe Grenfell, and your wikilinking it to the Platine War, made me want to follow the link. It's one of the best ways to get others involved. If I've made a mistake anywhere, please correct me, I'm no expert on the region. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The only picture of Grenfell I've found is at: http://grenfell.history.users.btopenworld.com/Images/Photos/adm_j_p_grenfell.jpg FruitMonkey (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found the article in the list of those to be wikified. It seems that the Platine War was part of the Uruguayan Civil War, basically after Brazil intervened in 1851. However, a lot of the article explains the background, covering events well before 1851-1852. That material should really be moved into the Uruguayan Civil War article, I would think. Do you agree? Would you mind if I rebalanced the two articles in that way? I also suggest we should tag for an expert in military history. The military history wikiproject is very active and full of helpful people. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How little I know about 19th century Latin American history! Of course the main purpose of the articles is to clarify the history for non-experts, and if you could do help do that it would be appreciated. One thing we always have to remember is that Wikipedia can use internal links to help explain background, while written texts can't. So it might still be worthwhile reducing the amount of text dedicated to the background to the conflict, or at least putting it into one paragraph "Causes" or "Context". I can help with copyediting and wikifying, but it is one of those cases where an expert can do much more. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lecen. Many thanks for your message. I can see a few minor mistakes and I could correct them, but I think we can do better by finding someone who regularly translates from Portuguese to English and asking them to proof-read the translation. I'll ask about it on the Translation pages.Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Military History

Hi Lecen - Yes, I am a member of the Military History Wikiproject. I am not very active though... I joined mainly because I do Good Article reviews of military subjects, and would like to get into FAC and A-class reviews when I get some free time. Did you have a specific questions for me? Dana boomer (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For information on military history assessments, I would direct you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment page, which details the various ratings and provides (at the bottom) a section in which to list articles you would like assessed. As far as Brazilian military articles, I'm not really sure. There is a South American military division of the MilHist Project, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force, but it doesn't look all that active. There are two coordinators listed (at the very top of the page), or there is a list of participants, although some of them appear to be inactive. To see which of the people listed in the "Participants" list are still active, click the "contribs" button next to their name and you'll be able to see when they last edited. There really isn't all that much activity (as far as I know) in any area of South American articles, so it would be great to see someone here who is really interested in the subject and willing to collaborate and improve articles. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any further questions.

MoS

No offense intended, but the references in Platine War need some love to comply with WP:MoS. Want some help in learning the fine points of it? :) (IMHO, it's not that difficult to pick it up, but it's a whole lot easier to learn from someone else showing you than just reading all the MoS.) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

I already thought of creating a Politics of the Empire of Brazil when I was first looking for a place for that part, but as I didn't find a Politics of the British Empire or anything like that, I resorted to using a pre-existing article. I don't honestly know what this kind of articles are supposed to be named when dealing with former countries. If there isn't a naming convention, any choice you will make will be the right one.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, I noticed that you have been linking some dates at Siege of Caxias recently. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. Furthermore, there is an temporary Arbcom injunction on mass linking/delinking of chronological elements. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the impression that the above message may create, linking dates has not, in fact, been deprecated. Linking dates purely for the purpose of automatic formatting has, on the other hand, been found unnecessary in recent community discussion. However, there has not been any consensus to remove all dates from articles, and dates may still be linked should they be particularly relevant to an article. Ohconfucius is mass-pasting the above message in advance of being strongly censured by the Arbitration Committee. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Duetto

Hi. I suspected that Duetto was either the author's surname or the publisher, which is why I italicised it. If I did something wrong, I do apologize. I was trying to make the references & links clearer and simpler. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II

Please see my talk page for my most recent reply to your latest comment. Lethiere (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Respondi na sua outra página. Conversamos melhor ao vivo. Peço que se acalme e deixe que algumas alterações sejam feitas por ora. Cautela. --Tonyjeff (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quem colocou os Saxe-Coburgo nas pretensões é um partidário daquela Maria Pia e do Rosario Poidimani, ao trono português. Seu conhecimento pelo tema é parco e suas motivações são puramente políticas. Ainda que os Saxe-Coburgo estivessem na linha de sucessão, eles nunca pretenderam a liderança, apenas alguma prescedência. É verdadeiramente a casa da mãe Joana… --Tonyjeff (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelo que observo, por aqui preferem usar alguns termos e nomes no original, especialmente títulos. O delfim da França é comumente referenciado como "dauphin", em vez de "dolphin", ou "Pedro II" em vez de "Peter II". Sobre o DWC, ele é um usuário sério e renomado; ir contra ele seria um erro. Aqui, eles têm uma outra lógica para os verbetes, é preciso entendê-la e aceitá-la. O meu receio é isso acabar vazando para a lusófona. O usuário que vandalizou a caixa sucessória é muito baixo e pode conturbar os verbetes da casa brasileira em português, que já estão relativamente estáveis. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Corrections done — my apologies as I misread the relevant section on Pedro I, which I was using as my reference. Likewise I misunderstood the reference to "day 13" as the length of stay rather than the date.

Am I correct in believing that the abdication of Pedro I and the accession of Pedro II marked the point where Brazil really separated from Portugal?

Am I also correct in saying that Dom Pedro thought the same way? That he was an anachronism, born into a magnificence that he was embarrassed about. The picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fala_do_trono.jpg contrasted with the photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pedro_II_of_Brazil_1887.jpg illustrates this.

After his abdication/removal Pedro II was regarded sympathetically by his French hosts (as your piece on his state funeral testifies) and I am reasonably certain that Jules Verne's character, the King of Malécarlie, in his book Propeller Island [1] [2] — Concert à la cour — was based on Dom Pedro.

Regards

Cambridge Paul (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Empire of Brazil

Looks great! I really like the way you incorporated the tables. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That earlier request of yours

I've posted a follow-up reply on my talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Returned to Portugal"

Sorry for the inappropriate undoing. I had just read the editorial comment by the previous editor and misinterpreted it as saying that Pedro I had never been in Portugal before. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

About Dom Pedro's title

Well, it seems you decided to completely ignore WP:NOCITE and removed the "citation needed" tags, while the discussion is still going on at the talk page.

Anyway, before I add them back, let's try to discuss it here (and it can be in portuguese if you prefer), like civilized people.

The idea of those tags isn't to ruin the article, just to tag statements that have been made without referencing to a source. When you claimed that the title used should be Don, as it is the english form of Dom, you did not give any sources confirming that. And the same happened when you stated that Dom is equivalent to Sir.

It's not the first time I see people making that claim and editing either Pedro I or Pedro II articles using the honorific Don isntead of Dom. Sorry if I might have sounded rude or anything.

I can see you removed the reference to "Sir", but the statement that Dom, in english would be Don is still there, and unsourced. I could just put the tag back there, but you'll take it out again, before the discussion reaches a conclusion. So let's try to discuss it here.

As you can see, I have provided a reliable source proving thatthe word "Dom" actually exists in English, and is different from the word "Don". Merriam-Webster defines Dom[3] as: 1 \ˈdäm\ —used as a title for some monks and canons regular 2 \ˈdōⁿ\ —used as a title prefixed to the Christian name of a Portuguese or Brazilian man of rank

While it defines Don[2] as: 1: a Spanish nobleman or gentleman —used as a title prefixed to the Christian name 2archaic : a person of consequence : grandee 3: a head, tutor, or fellow in a college of Oxford or Cambridge University ; broadly : a college or university professor 4 [Italian, title of respect, from donno, literally, lord, from Latin dominus] : a powerful Mafia leader

As you can see, the meanings are different, and the titles used for different people, depending on the origin. You will never find a reliable reference to D. Pedro as Don Pedro in english literature, so I suppose this is more than enough to take that statement out of the article.

However, I see the connection you are trying to make between Dom and Don as valid, so I suggest changing the text to something like this: "As a member of the Brazilian Royalty, he held the honorific title Dom (which is somewhat similar to the Spanish honorific Don, but used in a different way)"

I suppose that ends our problems. If not I believe you have to find a source that is more reliable than mine proving that both titles mean the same.

Anyway, try not to remove the "citation needed" tags next time, unless you provide sources referencing to it or remove the statements altogether. If you do that when a sysop added them, they might block you from wikipedia.

Sorry if I sounded rude again. And the article seems pretty good. If you need any help, feel free to ask. Smertios (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history

Hi, congratulations on the article and I can certainly point you in the right direction for improving the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is a Wikiorganisation that deals with all issues relating to military articles such as this one, and they run specific peer review and A class review systems of their own, accessible via Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review, which also includes instructions for nominating your articles for their processes. I personally believe that these processes are superior to the systems in use elsewhere on Wikipedia. You don't have to be a member to submit an article, but if you are interested you are more than welcome to join.

The article you have written is very, very good - I would say that the level of sourcing in particular is of the highest standard. As you acknowledge, some work is needed on the prose, but it is far better than your message led me to expect and I am sure that you will find copyeditors who will assist with this problem during the peer review process. If you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to ask, either to me personally or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Good luck --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi sorry about the delay in replying. I suggest that in your nomination blurb you especially indicate that you are looking for assistance with your prose and make an appeal for copyeditors. I used to do this kind of thing regularly at peer review, but I've found that my available time is both limited and unpredictible since starting my job in February and although I will have a look if I can, I don't eant to commit to something I may not be able to complete. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

About Brazilian military articles

Hello! I would like to thank you for your help on the article about the Platine War and the Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil. I really appreciate your help. thank you once more. P.S.: Do you someone who could check grammar and spelling errors? - --Lecen (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, checking for grammar and remoulding the prose into an elegant form can take a while, so people generally wait until all the content is in order before doing that, otherwise if new content is added it might have to be redone again, so I think waiting until the others are happy with the content. Iw ould say Jappalang (talk · contribs) and Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) are outstanding YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the other references can be fixed wihout having good english YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help with the grammar etc. once people are happy with the structure (but as others have noted, it is a reasonably sized job). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, had a quick go at the first bit, 'Juan Manuel de Rosas dictatorship'; have a look and see if this is what you're after in terms of copy-editing; if you're content with the approach, I'll work through the rest.Hchc2009 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - what I suggest then is that I'll work through the text over the next couple of days section by section, and look to you to check that I haven't lost the original meaning (as in the Ro Grande do Sul point). I'll try to keep the sense of the text you've written throughout, without imposing my own judgement on the underlying historiography to keep the process simple! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Emperor Pedro II edits

Thank you for the clarifications regarding the section I had copy-edited. I do not have copies of the sources, and so I appreciate your corrections and have changed the two items you noted. It is a fascinating topic, and I also thank your work bringing this into English. • Astynax ^talk 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance

Today I noticed that on the picture of López it said dictator, so I changed it to "president" since that was his title. You undid it afterwards and changed it back to dictator. I'd like to change it back to president again since not only is that what he is know as in Paraguay but also that is what his wikipedia article (Francisco Solano López) states he was, but I don't want to unwillingly begin a mini edit war. So, I want to ask you the grounds or source you rely on in order to dub López a dictator. Veritiel (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that the government back then didn't resemble the concept that today we call democracy, his title was still of President. Same as Castro as you said, the way he ruled his nation could make him a tyrant, but his Title was still of President, and as such, an Encyclopaedia is supposed to refer to him by his title, not a perception which would be a subjective point of view. That is why I believe it should display president, even more so since there is an article about him which details him as President. Anyways, I'll be working on the Triple Alliance War article and the López one (beginning by López), and if you want to help I'd be very appreciative! Veritiel (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are one revert away from violating WP:3RR in Brazil, which can lead to a block.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brazil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Atama頭 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In response, what you can do is to take a step back, make your case for specific bits, and gather wp:consensus. The changes are huge. Simply reverting them over and over is probably not going to work, and will most likely simply result in either article locks or editor blocks.- Sinneed 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Lecen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Atama頭 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Atama's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Conflict on Brazil

After the last edits of User:Opinoso on this article I felt the situation has gone out of hand, and I have posted on an admin noticeboard to ask for admin intervention. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil

Lecen, please either show us where Opinoso's "dishonesty is already proven" -- "proven" -- or delete this parenthetical comment per WP:NPA. Consider deleting it anyway, per WP:Civil, since we will not be deciding based on supposed proofs of Opinoso's honesty level, nor about his allegations of what you admire. Then I'll delete this post of mine. I'd rather read about the proposed content, than read your characterizations of one another. Incivility will make consensus-building much more difficult. The value of textbooks to WP:V has been established via consensus. -- Rico 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) this] parenthetical comment per WP:NPA. Consider deleting it anyway, per WP:Civil, since we will not be deciding based on supposed proofs of Opinoso's honesty level, nor about his allegations of what you admire. Then I'll delete this post of mine. I'd rather read about the proposed content, than read your characterizations of one another. Incivility will make consensus-building much more difficult. The value of textbooks to WP:V has been established via consensus. -- Rico 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether or not it is true, you didn't have to write that Opinoso's "dishonesty is already proven" -- because we're trying to decide on what content to include in the article, and that depends on WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR, etc. (not on who's the most honest, or who has admiration for what).

Everything that may be true, need not necessarily be said. It will be very hard to get consensus on this article if the two of you won't stick to the issue of what content is the most worthy, what violates WP:Undue, what content fails Wikipedia:V -- and do it with civility, diplomacy, and mutual respect (even if feigned).

You do want to build consensus, don't you?

We can that without all the WP:BATTLE noise. Please.

In all fairness, I have also asked Opinoso to redact his characterizations of your alleged "admiration".

I can't help without some cooperation. Por favor!

I've studied Brazilan history.

If you feel Opinoso has a pattern and a practice of putting things in the article, and attributing them to a source, even though these things are not in the source -- or just that Opinoso regularly disrespects Wikipedia policies -- you can seek the assistance of an admin.

In the meantime, though, I'd like us to build consensus on the talk page, not tear those efforts down. -- Rico 20:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read that user's talk page.

I changed, "at least three editors" to "editors". Nice and vague.

I feel I've gotten nowhere regarding WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Nobody deleted anything, and now this other WP:Single-purpose account shows up, entitles a section with a user pseudonym, and writes all about that editor -- not focusing on the content.

If I'm going to just be a lone voice crying in the wind, I'm going to get another voice.

The editor, whose talk page I'm going to read now, also mention the incivility on an admin noticeboard. -- Rico 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG. It's huge. I gotta go get a cafezinho or something first. -- Rico 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Luizdl: Brazil

I followed only few comments, why? Can I help you in something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizdl (talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't think I can be helpful, I do not understand many things about history enough for discuss my opinion, I am really sorry. Luizdl (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message

Hi Lecen, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Lecen, I've left another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patience

You see patience is all that was needed? Just sticking to the arguments and not giving up. Now all is going well on Brazil? Debresser (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Pedro II of Brazil

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Brown in Brazil

Hi, about this issue, the problem of use the word Multiracial for translate Pardo, is because, as yourself and that source said, Pardo means a multiracial category that includes Cafuzos, Caboclos and Mulattoes. But what about the mixing of Asian with White? they generally do not consider themselves as pardo, neither fits on this definition, although they consider themselves as multiracial. Luizdl (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are not fit in Pardo category, but in Asian, although they still fit in Multiracial, so Pardo can't be translated into Multiracial. Luizdl (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, in the article originally was translated to "Brown", wasn't me who changed without discuss, here in the Wikipedia there is inclusive a section about "pardo" in the article Brown_people#Pardos_in_Brazil, and your source does not support that "pardo" means "multiracial", but does support that the "pardo" is a multiracial category which includes caboclo, mulatto and cafuzo. Look, I have an Italian ancestry from my mother, while my father is pardo, I consider myself as pardo because of my skin colour, but my brother consider himself as white because of his colour, so does it means that my brother is not multiracial and I am? Am not I from the same race of my own brother just because he has born white? Luizdl (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I is not my personal opinion, it the meaning of the word, who consider itself as "pardo" knew what that mean when it chose, and the anglophone Wikipedia always used this term and have a section on the article about brown people, why do you want to change all the words "brown" in several Brazilian articles (there is many article about Brazilian cities translating "pardo" to "brown" on its demography) for write multiracial? Luizdl (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello, Lecen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Hello, Lecen. On the subject of Opinoso and sockpuppetry, I know for certain that he is not above using sockpuppets to win edit wars. It also strikes me that there are always some IPs and even a few editors who keep trying to insert very dubious information into the articles Opinoso owns, thus allowing him to make and keep up a fame as a good editor who "reverts vandalism"... Ninguém (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Some reasons why no Brazilians want to edit articles about Brazil:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

A few interesting opinions that make into Wikipedia (Sicilians have nothing to do with immigration to Brazil, people do not celebrate Carnival or Festas Juninas in Mato Grosso, jesuits and slaves have nothing to do with Rio Grande do Sul's history, Tyra Banks is not African American, the IBGE's July 1998 monthly research on employment has no credibility, etc.)

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Some interesting posts on the issue of "pardos"/mulattos/mixed race people:

[34] [35] [36] [37] Ninguém (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful... Opinoso gets a lot of leeway in Wikipedia when it comes to breaking rules. Ninguém (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. That's the reason I don't edit Wikipedia anymore. He knows a few admins - Rlevse, Connoley, Protonk, Yellow Monkey, Ioeth - who are eager to block people on his request, and seems to be protected against this happening to him. Ninguém (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, no. My intention is to allow people to see what kind of sources we are dealing with. And, of course, underline that the sources brougth by Opinoso do not say what he thinks (or pretends) they say. For instance, he linked to a source that is a research on the MtDNA of Amazonian Blacks. Even they have more than 46% of Amerindian MtDMA... so how can the "parda" population be more Black than Amerindian? Ninguém (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More impressive even is his ability to make such absurds stick.

He has managed to keep the "information" that there are 10 million people of Arab descent in Brazil, that speaking German in Brazil during WWII was forbidden under the "penalty of torture", and even keeping the "information" that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil in one article (White Brazilian), while systematically wiping it out in other articles, where it has been included by other editors...

Not only that, but he has managed to take off the information that Tyra Banks is African American, while insisting that Arthur Friedenreich is "Afro-Brazilian". That is, an American Black cannot be African American, even if this denomination is quite common in the US; but a Brazilian Black must be Afro-Brazilian, even though nobody in Brazil uses such terminology.

Sometimes it looks like he is playing some sort of game (for instance, saying that "caboclo is a word that doesn't make sence", when his preferred author, Darcy Ribeiro, has a whole chapter intitled "O Brasil Caboclo"). Really impressive. Ninguém (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II signature

Hi Lecen! Of course.. just upload the file and let me know. Limongi ^(talk) 19:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Limongi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brazil

Yes I grasped that, "black is black" is an interesting position adopted for various reasons, but strictly makes us all black. Conversely there is a position that denies race exists and yet has its strongest supported among people who wish to talk about nothing but race. Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

Re Brazil

Hello Lecen, thank you for the message you've posted to my talk page. Though I appreciate the invite to help resolve the current content disputes at article "Brazil", I believe that disputes as such (especially when they involve sensitive topics such as race), are best resolved by the major contributors of the article in question, and in full cooperation with the mediating admins. I'm afraid that any comments I could possibly make, would only pose as a distraction to the real issues at hand. I do however, wish you the best of luck with resolving these issues in a satisfactory and timely manner. Regards. -- WikHead (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You may like to see this

[38] Ninguém (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[39]

[40] Ninguém (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Invoking the deity (etc)

On God, it's so hard to follow [editor]! He enters in contradiction too often!: However tempted you are to make such exclamations (or to go beyond them), remember that a major effect is to make you look hasty and emotional. If it's hard to follow somebody's argument, or if that argument seems to contradict itself, criticize the argument accordingly. Keep names out of it, and thereby help both the atmosphere and the persuasiveness of your own position. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Torture penalty

Would you help me in trying to remove the gem below from German Brazilian?

"Speaking German was banned under penalty of imprisonment and torture." Ninguém (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what this was for. And it's still there, awaiting your work. You made a good start. I don't know why you didn't finish it; but this doesn't matter, as you can finish it now. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here it goes:

"As comunidades indivíduos dessas nacionalidades passaram a sofrer no Brasil constrangimentos e restrições a seus direitos individuais. Havia o controle do trânsito, com a exigência de salvo-conduto, e a proibição de morar no litoral e em lugare estratégicos. Portar rádios e máquinas fotográficas e falar em público na língua do país de origem era proíbido a esses imigrantes." by Ana Maria Dietrich in História Viva magazine, year 6 edition 67, São Paulo: Ediouro, 2009, p.62.

Forbidden of speaking in public their languages, but not under the penalty of being tortured. --Lecen (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: This was done to hinder Nazi spying activities in the country, not as a measure against the German-Brazilians themselves. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Lecen. I am going to remove the absurd sentence from the article. I hope this does not start another edit war. Ninguém (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese, Italian, etc.

Indeed. It is also interesting to contrast this:

Strange in a country that imported over 4 million slaves from Africa, and only 6% of the population is self-reported to be Black, while the country received only 5-6 million Europeans, and nearly 50% are self-reported as White.

with his complete refusal to take into account that the small number of Arab immigrants to Brazil is completely incompatible with the astonishing 10 million figure that is kept in all articles where Brazilian demography is discussed.

In the White Brazilian Talk Page I have tried to discuss and dispell the weird mythologies that pollute the article, but it was of no avail. Perhaps we could reopen such discussion? Ninguém (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppets (or sock "poppets", like some call them)

Lecen, I would like to discuss this issue with you, but I wouldn't like to give puppet masters ideas on how to circumvent detection... do you still have my e-mail address? Ninguém (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't receive it... Ninguém (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

But it didn't arrive. Are you sure you wrote ninguennao with two "n"? Ninguém (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Without "br"... that's weird, it should have arrived. Ninguém (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Solved. I sent you one, too. Ninguém (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tonelero pass

Hi mate!! Thanks for your comments on my edits on the page. Argentine historians usually disregard the Brazilian intervention in the fall of Rosas, thus my knowledge about the matter is limited. During my school years, it was only mentioned by a clever History professor (he died some time ago) who said that the Brazilian empire sought revenge against Buenos Aires and considered the war a retribution for the loss of their Cisplatine province (now Uruguay). Concerning Mansilla's weaponry, you are right; Argentine sources also claim that the coastal batteries on the Paraná were left intact by the few Brazilian troops which landed there. Cheers!!

P/S: And yes, I love the naval stuff, but my interest is about military history in general.--Darius (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Great work on the article about the Platine War, Lecen. All I know of the other two battles between Urquiza's army and Rosas is that both of them (Battles of Campos de Álvarez and Puente de Márquez) were no more than skirmishes between scouting forces, led by Brigadier Juan Pablo López -brother of Santa Fe caudillo Estanislao López- (Urquiza) and General Hilario Lagos (Rosas). Some authors -even among English language historians- criticize Rosas decision to force a decisive battle at the gates of Buenos Aires instead of defending the west bank of the Paraná during the allied crossing from Diamante on December 1851.--Darius (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians

Take a look...

[41] Ninguém (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is "real class"...

What I find really fantastic is this math:

• 25 million "Italian Brazilians";
• 15 milllion "Spanish Brazilians";
• 5 (or is it 18?) million "German Brazilians";
• 12 million "Arab Brazilians".

To a total of 57 - or perhaps 70 - million. But, according to the same editor, the total number of White Brazilians is only 67 million. Which means no more than 10 million people are Portuguese Brazilians. Ninguém (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard or read about Dieter Böhnke? Ninguém (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The "historian and journalist" that defends the idea that there are 18 million "German Brazilians". Ninguém (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy starts the history of the "German presence in Brazil" from Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook, who was, according to him, German...

Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II translation

Thank you for the comment. I think that there is not an exact translation for the phrase. I will change to "Mr. São Vicente, just let the country govern itself and and allow any who are reasonable." If that does not say it better, please change it to something more precise. Perhaps it would be good to add the original Portuguese into the footnote to make the quotation more clear? • Astynax ^talk 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that to English-speakers, the word doctrine is used for principles of law. Although it is technically accurate to use dogma, it is very rarely found in English when discussing constitutional law or common law. It is OK if you feel it is better to preserve the direct Portuguese equivalent, but the word seemed awkward to me in a legal context. • Astynax ^talk 18:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Lecen. It is doesn't translate into English exactly. I looked at the English words which may be substituted for the Portuguese, and maybe this phrase might work: "Mr. São Vicente, the country is governed by those who have understanding and common sense." Does that say something similar to what the sentence says in Portuguese? • Astynax ^talk 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction and clarification. I have inserted 2 corrections based upon your suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 05:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now gone over both sections which you requested. I do like the subsections, which makes it much easier to read. • Astynax ^talk 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked, "Do you think the article is going into the right direction?" Yes. I think it is easy to understand. It is a long article, but that is necessary because it puts the monarchy into context with both world history and events/people in Brazil which may not be known by average readers. Once the last sections are completed, the article should be marked for a WP:Peer review to get the comments and suggestions from other editors. • Astynax ^talk 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded some of the quotations in Establishment of the imperial authority, and I think it reads better now. I like the new picture very much!!! • Astynax ^talk 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now done some cleanup for the Marquis of Paraná ‎article. • Astynax ^talk 07:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have gone over your edits for the Decline section. There is a sentence in the first paragraph quoting from Enciclopédia Barsa which says: "it had been able to sustain the level of productivity achieved in 1780..." Is 1780 the correct year? • Astynax ^talk 08:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberty of expression

= It is the truth that there are biased foreigners who control Brazilian topics. I am free to express whatever I feel to represent the truth, ok? Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

What is going on...

... is that Opinoso is again enforcing his ownership over the article, and Wikipedia rules and administrators again aren't able to stop him. It is wonderful, isn't it, to have an article that states that White Brazilians are those of European ancestry, and that ancestry is irrelevant to racial classifications in Brazil?

Sometimes I have the feeling it is a game, and that he is winning bets against his friends. Ninguém (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Geniac (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

É, acho que é por aí. A última dele, sobre ser amigável, é preciosa. Eles discutem tudo, menos o mérito do artigo. Ninguém (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nenhuma. Aliás nunca tive. Não acredito em coincidências.

Ele inverte tudo, me atribui as idéias do Opinoso, chega a ser ridículo. Além de escrever de uma forma esquisitíssima, sem pontuação, quase não dá pra entender. Ninguém (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

É, é o que eu estou tentando fazer, forçar a discussão de volta às supostas objeções dele. Ninguém (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Boa pergunta. Ninguém (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Enviei um e-mail pra vc. Ninguém (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it. Check this out. He is the one who gives conditions. I am wondering where is the whip. --Lecen (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Lecen. Many thanks! Ninguém (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is likely to become an article in the Uncyclopedia. Ninguém (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is what should be done. He is again trying to muddle the waters, making long diatribes about no definite subject. I have created a new section for his ramblings, in the attempt to keep the discussion about the lead undisturbed by Opinoso. I can only hope that Opinoso's return doesn't mean that Off2riorob's contributions are no longer necessary... Ninguém (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:your message on my page

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Brazil

Sure. But I will admit, I'm not knowledgeable of Brazil at all, and really have no experience with country articles; I tend to stick with Film articles, but will occasionally check for WP:MOS issues on other articles, as I did with Brazil. —Mike Allen 06:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

I'll take a look at things. I am thinking it is time for people not involved in the conflict to step in and try to make peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop^ (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Lecen, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's who

I don't understand why, in the Brazil talk page, you're addressing or referring to Auréola (more) as "Opn.". Perhaps this has some friendly meaning in Portuguese/Brazil; but if it doesn't, I strongly suggest use of "you" or "Auréola". -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cada uma...

When you think you have seen everything, a new low is reached... [42] Ninguém (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He is. The edit about "White" being "also mixed race" cannot be explained otherwise. Ninguém (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian marquis

I am sorry if you took offence: The person was a marquis, and thus a nobleman. As I explained in my edit note on the GAN page, many members of the nobility were also politicians, some very eminent ones (at least before the 20th century). You also of have listed a Brazilian emperor there yourself. But please change it if you like. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)