User talk:Lecen/Archive 15

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma

In the section "Rebellions in north and south" is the year correct for this sentence: "On 16 January 1826, he began his service aboard the ship of the line D. Pedro I, flagship of First Admiral Thomas Cochrane, Marquis of Maranhão"? It seems like the year should be 1825 or before, since on 25 February 1825, after the Confederation of the Equator rebellion, Joaquim José Inácio is promoted to second lieutenant. • Astynax ^talk 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I

Hi Lecen ! In your biography of Pedro I you wrote Heitor Lira and I think the good spelling of this author's name is Heitor Lyra. Can you verify ? Thanks, 31.39.53.205 (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC) fr:user:Konstantinos

Hello, Konstantinos. There was a major ortographic change in the Portuguese language in the 1930s, part of a treaty between Brazil and Portugal (a new one was signed a few years ago). The Portuguese language was simplified. Before that, we spelled "Nichteroy", now we spell Niterói. No more we say "telephone", but "telefone". The same goes to names. "Manoel Marquez de Souza" became "Manuel Marques de Sousa". The name of historian "Hélio Vianna", born before the ortographic treaty, but who died many decades after, is now spelled "Hélio Viana" (with one "n" only). The same goes to Heitor Lira. Of course you'll find his name as it was spelled in his lifetime in many places. --Lecen (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the explanation: I didn't know that! I found the other orthography so I thought it could be a mistake but now I understand. It's always a pleasure to speack with you. Have a nice day 31.39.53.205 (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

See this to better understand what I meant. --Lecen (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription

It is common to add it for names of foreign personalities. There is a Wikipedia standard for transcription of even English names in IPA. Lguipontes (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing that on articles about Hernán Cortéz, Perón, Bolívar, Getúlio Vargas, the French Kings, the Spanish Kings, the Italian Kings, etc, etc, etc... --Lecen (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I add them in pages of personalities I end up, such as Plínio Salgado, Dilma Rousseff, Juscelino Kubitschek, etc. It'd be nice if people native in the languages in which the respective personalities are named added IPA, though. I'm going to add for Getúlio Vargas (incidentally, a page about a Brazilian President I've never read). Lguipontes (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Dank#AFD

Hi Lecen, a new Brazilian editor left a message on my talk page. I can't help with what they want, but perhaps they'll stick around if they hear encouragement from a compatriot. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Lecen, I don't know if you noticed this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews6, but you need to reply it! :) Felipe Menegaz 02:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Expert Barnstar

		The Expert Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to Brazil-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!--Tomcat (7) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Estou cansado

Lecen,
I have been on wikipedia for some time now. You had talked before about how things can get to you here, but before I did not understand. Sadly, now I do. If only there were more editors out there like you, for those that even come to dabble in luso articles just walk around headless. I hope all is going well with you and just saying thank you for being a sort of "mentor" to me here on the wikipedia.
Cumprimentos,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The quote is not appropriate at all

This is the quote he wants so much to post there:

Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries.|Daniel Stowell}}

Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".

This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.

Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:

• The Brazilian Armed Forces blockaded Buenos Aires and caused serious economic consequences to them (Buenos Aires was basically the only place for interaction with the outside world, and the United Provinces were heavily dependent on exporting and importing United Provinces); you can read about these consequences from the Argentine themselves ("Los efectos de la guerra en la economía de las Provincias Unidas", http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm). Brazil lost some naval battles, but after the battle of Monte Santiago their navy was reduced practically to nothing, and they could no longer operate in high seas; Brazil had the naval supremacy right in front of Buenos Aires.

• When it comes to the operations on land, if Rivera penetrated the territory of the Missões, if they won some battles (Sarandi and Ituzaingó), the results were, in fact, inconclusive, since they lacked the means to repel the Brazilian Forces, so much so that the two major cities of Uruguay at that time, Colonia and Montevideo remained under Brazilian control throughout the conflict.

In short, the quote is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed.

I have posted this text on the talk page to explain why the quote should not be there.187.36.81.70 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

This is a note to let the main editors of Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 1, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 1, 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:

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil (1831–1853) was the daughter of Dom Pedro I, founder of Brazil's independence and its first emperor, and Amélie of Leuchtenberg. The only child from her father's second marriage, Maria Amélia was born in France following Pedro I's 1831 abdication in favor of his son Dom Pedro II. Before Maria Amélia was a month old, Pedro I left for Portugal to restore its crown to his eldest daughter Dona Maria II. He defeated his brother Miguel I (who had usurped Maria II's throne), only to die a few months later of tuberculosis. Maria Amélia's mother took her to Portugal, where she lived most of her life without ever visiting Brazil. Brazil's government refused to recognize Maria Amélia as a member of its Imperial House because she was born abroad. When her half-brother Pedro II was declared of age in 1840, he intervened to restore her position. Maria Amélia was engaged to Archduke Maximilian of Austria in 1852, but marriage plans were thwarted when she contracted tuberculosis and was taken to the island of Madeira to recover. Her health deteriorated, and she died on 4 February 1853. Her body was interred in Portugal's royal Braganza Pantheon; almost 130 years later, her remains were moved to Brazil. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Revolt of the Lash

Hi Lecen. I've decided to start working on Revolt of the Lash with two of my sources (Zachary Morgan, "The Revolt of the Lash, 1910," in Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century, eds. Christopher M. Bell and Bruce A. Elleman [Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003], 32–53; Joseph L. Love, The Revolt of the Whip [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012].). Scheina's two books are at home, unfortunately, but they have less information anyway. I'll also be using Google Books. Would you like to help, and/or would you happen to have any Portuguese sources? Thanks, as always, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I don't have any sources (any good and detailed sources, anyway) about it, unfortunately. Now that you asked, I stopped to take a look at my books and I noticed that. I practically don't have any book focused on Brazilian late 19th and early 20th century. All that I do have is our old acquaintance "A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados". I was taking a look at Joseph Love's book and it looks quite good and is possibly reliable. You should work on the article using the sources you already have. I'll use google books (with Portuguese sources) to add further sources.

There is one huge gap here on Wikipedia when dealing with Brazilian history. There are good articles about Brazil until 1889 and then others after 1906. A lot happened between those 15 years. You might have read somewhere about Admiral Saldanha da Gama, the leader of the Revolta da Armada. He was a direct descendant of Vasco da Gama (yes, that Vasco da Gama) and of the Marquis of Pombal. One was the most important Portuguese in the 15th century and the other in the 18th century. Saldanha da Gama was a monarchist who fought to restore the monarchy in the 1890s and died for that. His rebellions explains why Brazil stopped being respected abroad, why it became a failure in economics and politics (at least until the early 1990s) and why our navy became garbage. I'm right now working on Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma, a Portuguese-born Admiral of the Empire of Brazil, but that gap has to be dealt with. --Lecen (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: You should try to contact the authors of those books. I exchanged several e-mails with Roderick J. Barman (Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil), Jeffrey D. Needell (The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy) and Thomas Whigham (The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct). It's amazing the many things we learn from them that we can't find in the books. --Lecen (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Works for me! I'll be putting together a completely new draft at User:The ed17/Sandbox/Revolt of the Lash, as it looks like much of the existing text has been copied from my articles.

I did not know that da Gama was a descendant of Vasco, but I did know of his integral role in the 1893–94 naval revolts thanks to research for the history of the dreadnought race and doing a little work on the Brazilian battleship Aquidaba a couple years ago. I'm not used to writing biographies, though, and I suspect many of the sources—especially those on his life outside the rebellion—would be in Portuguese. If you'd be up for a collaboration... (hint, hint) ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In Joseph Love's book the Baron of Rio Branco is again mentioned. No Brazilian was more influential than him in that time. In fact, he is, along with Pedro II, usually called "the greatest Brazilian". He needs a decent article here. I'll work on that one day. Let me finish a few more articles of the imperial era and I'll be able to start working on other time periods. --Lecen (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started the article in my sandbox (see the new blue link above). Feel free to add to it whenever; I'm not known for pounding out articles quickly anyway. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Brazilliam monarchs

I didn't bold the English versions, but rather I italicized them. There's a differance & the latter is done on those example articles you gave me. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

LatinoLatino

One word of advise. There are very few editors working on articles related to Brazil (or South America, for that matter). There are even less editors working with the Empire of Brazil (you, Astynax, and I don't remember if anyone else). As a member of the Empire of Brazil task force, you should be aware of that. But now, there is a new user working on that topic. Don't you think you should be more gentle and welcoming towards him, rather than engage on discussions for such petty things? If he wants to add the provinces of the empire in the navbox, perhaps you should let him, after all it's not a very strange or uncommon thing to add. If you are semi-retired, the previous step from retiring, don't you think it would be a good idea to leave someone else working on the articles you have been working on, rather than have them rot the day you are no longer here?

Or you can risk scaring him away. It's your choice. This was just a word of advise, you can take or not, as you want. Cambalachero (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask him to be blocked. I asked someone else to do something about it. When there is a dispute about content the correct way to behave is to leave the article as it was before the disputed edit. Since he is willing to engage in an edit war, and I'm not, I won't waste time with him any longer. And no, he isn't helping. He is clearly not improving, expanding or fixing any article. He is creating a bunch of unnecessary articles that have no room to be expanded. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. What you probably are referring to is consensus. When a dispute of content is made and there is no consensus the normal procedure is to leave it as it was before the dispute. You have not engaged in dispute resolution yet as ANI is a venue for conduct and incidents, which this is not. You have, at your disposal a number of appropriate venues to address a content dispute but I actually think you both should calm down and attempt to work together first. If there isn't an extensive discussion it will not be accepted at DR/N so talk it out, use the third opinion venue or ask for an RFC. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

João V

Lecen,

Eu gostaria que você viesse à User:Cristiano Tomás/Portuguese Royalty e olhar para o meu trabalho sobre el-Rei João V. Estou a pensar terminá-lo nesta semana. Gostaria torná-lo um "good article". Seria bom para um artigo Português ser "good", né?

Obrigado,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI stuff

Don't forget to notify the 2 accoutns-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations: "(Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)" - --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ChemTerm

Given his tendentious behaviour, I can't say that surprises me very much — but thanks for letting me know. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of the United States of Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estado Novo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

José de San Martín a GA?

Hi Lecen. It is a long time since we last "spoke". Thanks very much for your comments on this article that you left on my talkpage, on Wednesday. I did almost no editing on Tuesday and none on Wednesday, so it has taken me sometime to catch up, hence the delay in responding to you.

Over nearly nine days, I spent the best part of three days reading that article from end to end, at least twice and I made a conscientious effort to read every word, plus checking the references, etc. Both times, I read the Lede (or WP:Lead) last. I must have been "tired" and missed those problems that you have found in the Lede. So, thanks for highlighting them. They are easy to fix, I'll probably get round to it after Christmas, as I have another three reviews currently under way. You are welcome to fix it yourself if you are so inclined.

You make the comment "I couldn't find anywhere any description of the man", well yes that is true. As point of interest: one of my second great grandfathers was born in about 1830, he joined the British army and fought in the Crimean war: and I am unable to answer any of these questions of yours (Was he dark-haired? Blond? Tall? Fat? Joyful? Intelligent? Stupid? Rude?) in respect of him, or his wife (Irish, I believe) or two of his children who were born and died in the United States of the Ionian Islands. His eldest son fought in the Second Boer War and I have his army record, so I can tell you the colour of his eyes, his chest measurement, his height and his complexion, but I don't know whether he was Fat, Joyful, Intelligent, Stupid, Rude, neither do I have a picture of him. I do have a picture of his wife, my great grandmother, who died in 1928, but I have no idea whether she was Joyful, Intelligent, Stupid, or Rude.

We do know exactly what an artist thought San Martín looked like in 1829 or 1827, since there is a painting of him. Here is a copy

You will also find it in the article on the top right hand side of the article. Based on that, we can rule out blond and fat. He does not appear to look stupid or rude.

I find your comments Well, the article should be at most B, certainly not a GA, unless the standards are very low nowadays... somewhat offensive. Since September, 2008 I've reviewed 467 new WP:GANs including three of your nominations: Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil, Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil and Early life of Pedro II of Brazil, in 2010, perhaps more, all of which I passed; and I also reviewed 46 articles that had been made a GA prior to 26 August 2007 (details can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps). Many of the GAs passed prior to 2007 would not be regarded as GA-material under the current rules: I failed about 15 percent of what I reviewed in Sweeps, other reviewers failed perhaps 40 percent.

If you still consider that José de San Martín is only B-class and my reviewing standards are low then refer that article to WP:GAR. Likewise, I suggest that you also refer your three articles back to WP:GAR. I will caution you that of the (more than) 500) GANs that I've reviewed only two, so far, have been referred back to WP:GAR. One that I failed twice was also failed at GAR and one that I passed at GAN was subsequently failed, so even if you do get José de San Martín failed, it will only be the second review of mine to be overturned, so I shan't lose any sleep over it. I doubt also whether your two articles would be down graded to B's. I understand that Early life of Pedro II of Brazil was for WP:FAC, I see that you never submitted it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments and clarifications. The article was written in English, by an editor who appears to be a Latin-American and a native Spanish speaker. I raised no objections to the use of Spanish sources; and I did not check if there were any English titles on the same topic. I'm English and as you know we and the Argentines went to war over some land (which has both English (plural) and Argentine (plural) names) and our relationships appears to be continuing to deteriorate for that same reason. We probably don't know enough about them and I have no knowledge of their history other than the few articles I've reviewed at WP:GAN:- Economic history of Argentina was probably the last-but-one that I did (and passed). I don't do enough editing, so re-editing someone else's lead will be good practice for me over the festive season. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went to Spain and Portugal back in September for just over one week to many of the sites (towns) at which battles were fought as part of the Peninsular war. 2010-2014 is the bicentenary and there was a lot of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington material about in both countries in exhibitions and films (but not in the UK - apart from Sharpe (TV series) being shown as "repeats"). I bought (in Spanish) a massive three-volume book La Ciudad Frente a Napoleon Bicentenario del sitio de Ciudad Rodrigo de 1810, obviously published by Ayunatamiento de Ciudad Rodrigo. To us (the British) Wellington drove Napoleon's army's out of Portugal and Spain; and the Spanish guerillas were unreliable. The war exhibitions generally supported Wellington as the victor, often with original materials such as letter from Wellington. The problem is that the Spanish school kids are told that the Spanish guerillas drove out Napoleon out of Spain and who is Wellington? Pyrotec (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)