User talk:Lecen/Archive 13

Signatures

Hi Lecen,

I have done signatures [1] and [2] according to your request. Cheers PawełMM (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas‎

Hard to tell which paintings are better, but the most interesting are those in which he looks kind of like Liberace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Or "separated at birth", as some call these odd doppelgangers, never mind that they lived about a century away from each other. But I wonder if old Juan had any talent for playing the piano. It's apparent already that he was a spiffy dresser. Truth to tell, though, I'm not sure if Rosas looks more like Liberace or like the Liberace-like character played by William Campbell in a Star Trek episode. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The portraits tend to vary quite a bit, and apparently he never sat for photos. This one seems especially similar-looking to the old candelabra guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: A doubt

I'm not quite sure about this, but I think you can move it yourself. Before doing that, it would be prudent to inform the members of WikiProject Former Countries at its discussion page. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 01:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

psst ;

My old user page is back. It's tricky (it changes).  Br'erRabbit  12:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, I have made darker signature for you.

PawełMM (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maria Isabel de Alcântara Brasileira, Countess of Iguassú

Lecen, I added Maria Isabel (the second) to the list of legitimized daughters of D. Pedro I. Do you have any sources regarding Iguassu? She appears in the diaries of her brother D. Pedro II. I have to confirm but I believe that D. Pedro II was her legal guardian. She also received a pension from him as a member of the Imperial family. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at this, interesting and funny, from D. Pedro II diary (Vol 09):

12 de Junho de 1862 - ... Depois procurou-me o Carrão 292 que se queixou de parcialidade e desídia do presidente de S. Paulo 293. Eu recordei-lhe o procedimento do Mendonça quando deputado e acrescentei que a ocasião era própria para discutir os atos do Mendonça julgando o governo à vista das razões apresentadas por ambos os lados. O Carrão pareceu querer que bastassem as acusações que já tem aparecido; mas disse que a imprensa era parcial.

Disse-me que a marquesa de Santos desejava que o Iguaçu ficasse alguns anos em S. Paulo; pois não queria deixar a condessa sozinha na cidade de S. Paulo nem ela podia acompanhá-la para as fazendas, e que sabendo que eu dava 500$000 ao conde poderia esta soma ser dividida ao meio com a condessa a quem o marido nada dava dessa quantia. Eu respondi que não proibira ao Iguaçu que ficasse em S. Paulo, e que estava pronto a aconselhá-lo que não deixasse a mulher a não ser em companhia da mãe dela; mas que eu partia sempre do princípio que o marido é quem deve mandar em casa. Carrão disse que o Iguaçu podia com a mulher mais do que a mãe desta que tinha gênio alterado; mas não o creio 294. Despedindo-se pediu desculpa de se haver, aliás por obrigação segundo ele o pensava, encarregado de semelhante missão.

Paulista01 (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, nice work with the section about the children of Dom Pedro I. You are correct, it is amazing the lack of proper sources about all of them. I was reading this article from the magazine of the Biblioteca Nacional, the author of the article also complained about the lack of good sources. It is amazing how nice Amélie of Leuchtenberg was to the daughters of Dom Pedro and Domitila. The Duchess of Goias lived in the Murnau castle in Germany after her marriage, apparently Amelie fixed the marriage for both Goias and Iguaçu. The Count of Iguaçu and his brother, the Viscount of Barbacena were always asking favors of Dom Pedro II, he did not like it. Paulista01 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

• wrong note mechanism ;/

I'm fine with notes, just don't use that deprecated old mechanism, use {{efn}}. See Wikipedia:Footnote3 for the evil-templates to eschew. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I

Why did you remove the years of death on two of Pedro's illegitimate children?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm using books as sources, not pt Wikipedia nor any other website in the internet, which aren't reliable at all. --Lecen (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How about these books for Isabel Maria's death and Cartas de Pedro I à Marquesa de Santos for Maria Isabel's death.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've translate most of the article on Maria Isabel II and used some of your text from Pedro's article on that page.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I oppose the creation of any article about Pedro I's illegitimate children, since I know they will be no more than only stub articles. Having an article for the sake of seeing the date of birth and date of someone makes no sense. But that's how I see things. I'm sorry, but the first link you gave only shows the Portuguese article about her and ther second shows nothing. --Lecen (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree since I think the some articles on the Portuguese wiki should be translated as you seen with articles like John VI of Portugal and Amélie of Leuchtenberg translated by Jmabel which are on par with some of your articles. And the article on Maria doesn't just show dates and probably deserves as much a place on wikipedia as the stub articles on the Princes of Beira. I was going to translate her older sister's article but there are too many Portuguese translation that makes no sense to me, so I decided against it. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A question

Hi Lecen! I was wondering if you know exactly what kind of family links existed between dom João Henrique de Orléans e Bragança's mother and Ismail Shirin ? If you know anything, please contact me: I would like to know more about that. Regards, 85.68.112.48 (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC) fr:user:Konstantinos

Thanks a lot for your help: it interests me very much! Regards, 85.68.112.48 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC) fr:user:Konstantinos

Portuguese wikipedians

Hey Lecen: yes, long time. Ironically, I haven't met too many active Portuguese Wikipedians. I may refer you to the User:PedroPVZ, who has recently been active in pre-history of the Castro culture of Portugal, but who also has elaborated content primarily on the municipality of Póvoa de Varzim. Other then that, there is always the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal group, although I have barely heard anything from them in a long time. Most of these users have either dropped out of active editing, or gone on to complete editing in different genres and subjects. As you know, I am actively working on geographic, historical and architectural information for Portugal, and support the Wikipedia:WikiProject Portuguese geography group (I believe, all by myself). Regardless, I was curious as to why you are looking? Planning a project? ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I kind of remember seeing a book on one of the Queen Maria's here: can't remember if it was Maria Francesa or Maria da Gloria. Yes, I understand your frustrations on the naming conventions. I have tried to avoid these naming issues, principally because they stir-up a lot of controversy. I once suggested a similar name change, and got some pompous response when I suggested that people should be accepting of cultural influences. There are very strong-willed individuals around, that will not concede or collaborate, and will likely negate the principals of Wikipedia, owing to their point-of-view. I don't believe it is an environment hostile to foreigners, just a more rules-based environment then in the other Wiki language groups. Unfortunately, theses rules are somewhat contradictory, and rely on eloquent speakers to promote their own will on the subject. But, you know that. Returning to the issue at hand: Bertrand Liveiros has two books on Queen D. Maria II, which, unfortunately, neither of which I have. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My local

Caro Lecen, While I have moved to the United States, thankfully I get to return to my Patria every Summer. I am currently in Lisbon area, going around taking hundreds of pictures of landmarks and edifices so that I may give them to wiki, haha. May I ask why you ask? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lecen,

My friend, of course I will do all of that. While this trip is not only to ease my saudades, it is also an opportunity for me learn more and aquire more so that I may, in return, allow the world to learn more. I have definately been looking for more books for my collection and if I find them i most definately will buy them, they look to be treasures. I, in fact, just bought a book called D. Maria II: Tudo por um Reino, and I most defintaely am looking for more. The coach museum, I must sadly say, will be harder to do. You see, the museum is currently moving to a new horribly ugly modern beheamoth of a building that has yet to be opened to the public. They are currently transfering items between the old Royal Riding School and the new "scar on the face of Lisbon". I am unsure if it will be open, and if it will be whether ur piece will still be there, but I most certainly shall try. Best wishes and let me know if I may help anyway. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:A Brazilian editor?

Oi, Lacen. Sim, sou do Brasil, mais precisamente do Rio Grande do Sul. É impressionante o número de artigos que destacou aqui, parabéns. Obrigado pelas boas vindas e boas contribuições.Érico Wouters ^msg 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eu adoraria, mas quais são as tarefas? Vou me inscrever.Érico Wouters ^msg 12:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting my contributions out of spite. You may choose to hate me, but bringing out that hate by deliberating obliterating my contributions is simply evil. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: SIgnatures

All done as you requested. PawełMM (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: " Pedro I of Brazil"

Hi Lecen, glad to see you actively contributing content again! Concerning my edit, I was referring to their titles. You (quite rightly) listed two of them as Princes of Beira, but left the princesses without their titles through marriage. I'm not aware of any policy on this, so it's mainly a personal preference thing to better help inform readers. No worries for reverting it, but I like consistency and always try to list the titles they were known as in their lifetime (see infobox in Prince Jean, Duke of Guise for another example). Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

This is a note to let the main editors of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 16, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (1819–1880) was a politician, monarchist, diplomat, teacher and journalist of the Empire of Brazil. In 1871, Rio Branco became the President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister) for the first time. He would become the Council's longest-serving president, and his cabinet the second longest, in Brazilian history. His government was marked by a time of economic prosperity and the enactment of several necessary reforms—though they proved to be seriously flawed. The most important of these initiatives was the Law of Free Birth, which granted freeborn status to children born to slave women. Having become one of the main leaders of the Conservative Party, the passage of this law increased Rio Branco's popularity. However, his government was plagued by a long crisis with the Catholic Church that had resulted from the expulsion of Freemasons from its lay brotherhoods. After more than four years heading the Cabinet, Rio Branco resigned in 1875. Following a long vacation in Europe, his health swiftly declined and he was diagnosed with oral cancer. Rio Branco died in 1880 and was widely mourned throughout the country. He is regarded by most historians as one of Brazil's greatest statesmen. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Aerospace1

I'm not sure this user is doing any harm. If you want to draw attention to his or her account, {{spa}} is probably a good way to go. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Congrats

Congrats on getting the Viscount of Rio Blanco to the front page. Even though im semi-retired from wikipedia I still enjoy reading your articles on Brazilian history. Spongie555 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, precious again, awesome Wikipedian of 23 May 2012, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

saw your question to Raul, look a bit higher on that page to find part of an answer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

História do Brasil

Bom dia Lencen, primeiramente sou da wikipédia lusófona e não vou me atrever a escrever em inglês por que não é la dos melhores. Enfim, acabei conhecendo seus ótimos trabalhos sobre História do Brasil, e me interessei a traduzi-los só que como disse meu inglês não é muito bom. Pelo que eu vi, você edita alguns artigos por la corrigindo falhas nas traduções e fiquei em dúvida por que você mesmo não traduz alguns artigos? acho que você é a pessoa mais indicada para isto.(=

É que eu fico chateado em ver alguns artigos da wikipédia lusófona num estado daqueles como Pedro I e Império do Brasil.

Estou muito interessado em ajudar com alguma coisa, um abraço e parabéns pelo seu trabalho.--Caverna06 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing note

Should this note be a Reference instead of a nota bene footnote? I am done going over the article for today. • Astynax ^talk 06:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on Pedro I

The article is now promoted. I think this was the fastest yet, and should make it easier to get it on the front page in time for the 190th anniversary. • Astynax ^talk 15:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Coming as requested, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Control you ego

I came here because I want to use this as an evidence that I had warned you about your behavior. No one has support your claims and you still revert them. If you don't stop I will have no other option than to report you at the ANI and ask for your block. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning?

Why not surprise me that only now, after a year and a half, you "deign" to reply directly, and even so Not to talk civilly directly, but only to guard yourself in sight of people who you consider "interesting" to your purposes, and with this kind of threat?!

Also, no surprise that you instead of counter-argument, use (again) of your network to enforce your biased view.

Now, answer me, since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts over 1 and half year, which you did not refute (even because on the evidence presented above, there is no way), is to insult someone?

Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions,

because in your case, it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence,

anyway...

Cybershore (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It has lasted for more than a year because you insist to re-add your content over and over when no one seems to notice. If you listen t owhat the others are saying things wouldn't have got so far. --Lecen (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That is Not "MY" content Lecen, as I don't consider the present version "YOUR".

So much case for a thing that "nobody" seems to notice, hum?

If your posture (as my one, but in response) was not so aggressive, things wouldn't have gone so far.

What, again in the case of a guy with your level of intelligence, is a waste of talent

Anyway, if you're willing, I'm willing to reset everything and start from zero a direct dialogue with you, exposing my points, one by one, calmly, and hearing your considerations about, as long as you also keep a civilized stance

Cybershore (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not willing to discuss anything with you. Even more after you went after other people to accuse me of bein part of a "cabal". You must understand, once and for all, that no one has supported the inclusion of your text. No one. Not a single human being. Everyone has OPPOSED it. I don't know why is so hard to understand that, but it's not my problem. I already warned you. If you revert it again or if you insult me again I will report you. --Lecen (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Everyone else has agreed with me." "Everyone has OPPOSED it."

Not really. Omit, is another story.

"Even more after you went after other people to accuse me of bein part of a "cabal"."

If you had seen the timeline of my page conversation, would have noticed that the term was brought to me for free. But really, if you want to wear the cowl, who am I to say to the contrary, go ahead. Even more so now, that shows you (once again) be averse to dialogue.

I do not fear threats or unfair blocks, as you already should know at this point. And since you want to keep your offensive behavior, including playing the victim, and try to impute to others your own practices; here we go again!

In the sequel, on Brazil Talk page, once again I'll remind about the spurious character of present edition above mentioned

Cybershore (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

War of the Ragamuffins

Please beware of this and remember that edit warring is no solution whoever is right or wrong, and using edit summaries to communicate does not help either. That said, ANI is the wrong forum, take it to WP:DRN if you can't resolve the issue through talk. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sobre um e-mail

Olá, Lecen, tudo bem? Vi que você me enviou um e-mail há um mês perguntando se eu ainda contribuía para a Wikipédia; é que o e-mail veio parar numa caixa de entrada que eu quase não acesso mais...tenho que mudá-la. Mas então, eu estou sim contribuindo ativamente pra Wikipédia ainda, tanto em inglês quanto em português. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 01:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)