User talk:Lecen/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Lecen. I need a favor, I have been working on the Order of Christ article. I added sources, however another editor also started to work on the article. I have no way of checking the information he is adding. Do you mind taking a look to see if it is according to what you have read. I don't remember if this order is claimed by the House of Orléans e Bragança as a house order, their website is down for over a month and I can't check it, do you know anything about it? P.S. - I am checking the article of Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, it looks very good so far. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lecen, I also use the “Almanak Laemmert”; however I did not have that detailed description of the almanac of 1849, so it helped a lot, thanks. This project was financed by the Mellon Foundation almost a decade ago; I came across all these projects financed by the US, indeed the almanac is the best source out there. Today, I am impressed with the collection of Brown University, here. I don’t have a formed opinion on the Orléans e Bragança, I never heard much about them. I do think that Dom Pedro II was the best leader Brazil ever had, I also like Gaston and Isabel. I have read about some of the so called “de jure”, Grand Dukes, Princes and etc. Most of them are really not what they claim to be, one absurd case in my opinion is the branch of the Habsburgs that claim to be Grand Dukes in Italy. This is the same as claiming that Italy doesn’t exist, some of these absurd titles can be seem here, they entitle themselves with titles lost by their distant ancestors; they are also forbidden by the Italian constitution to officially use it. In the North of Italy for example, before the Republic, over three different monarchies also ruled after the 17th century, example, family of Napoleon and the House of Savoy. The so called “de facto” Grand Dukes ruled parts of it for only a few decades after an imposed agreement between Austria and other European powers. The Republic was established by a referendum, so there was no coup like it happened in Brazil. I do not know how they are doing in Brazil, but the fact that the whole family is current claiming the title of “prince” is a bit pathetic, I agree. I already found that the order only had three levels after the Grand Master (D. Pedro II) and Grand Commander (Isabel), they were: Grand Cross, Commander and Knight. The other editor insists the order had more levels. It is hard, because people just add stuff without sources to these articles, all the sources in the article are the parts that I did. Thanks again, if you find anything else or have anything to add to the article please do so. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I believe it would be nice to mention in the Viscount of Rio Branco article that he was an honorary brigadier general (Brigadeiro), as a "Dignatario" of the Order of the Southern Cross. I just remembered this reading the Almanac, here. Paulista01 (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isnt their a task force of Latin American Monarchies? Theres so much information on Latin American monarchies that i never knew about and there would be many articles in the scope of the project. Spongie555 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A task force could help expand the coverage so more users can know about American monarchies since it isn't a well known subject also I think there probably is 5 users that would join. Also have you thought of using File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg image in your Pedro II articles it's very good. Spongie555 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was a really good image of him that I nominated it to FP but the reviewers question the EV in the current article it's in as it's in a list article. They recommend maybe changing the current infobox image of him with this one but your choice.Spongie555 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the article. Also If you do recommend the task force I would join it. Spongie555 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked J Milburn to say his reasons for his oppose on the Image and this is why, he responded on my talk page User talk:Spongie555#Re:Pedro II of Brazil, I tried to expalin the EV to him on his talk page ,User talk:J Milburn/archive32#Pedro II of Brazil but i dont think i did good explaining if you would like to look at it you can. Spongie555 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If your still going to make the task force this might be helpful, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. WikiProject Former countries is pretty much inactive so they probably won't offer much help. I don't know if your making an Empire of brazil task force or a general Latin American monarchies task force but I try looking at other parent Wikiprojects instead of Former countries for help maybe WikiProject Brazil could help make it or WikiProject Latin America both are semi active I believe. Spongie555 (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Kingpin13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The headings for a section covering a long period of the history of a large country will necessarily have to trade off some precision for conciseness, if we are to avoid kilometric titles, and that's not just for Brazil. Consider the "Independence and expansion" section of United States, it spans all the way from 1776 to the mid 19th century. The Germany article presents a similar case, with a "Restoration and revolution" covering the better part of the 19th century. That's because the titles can't effectively detail everything that happened in more than a century, and if they could what would be the point of having the section? :¬) --LK (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It can have a section titled "Independence and Empire", but maybe "Portuguese colonization and territorial expansion" and "Military regime and contemporary era" are a bit too long :P--LK (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you did a great job on Empire of Brazil, I remember reading the article some time ago when it still looked like this. My most sincere compliments.--LK (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! A long complex difficult piece of work. But a great result. To see a core history topic promoted, and a high level one, with high importance, is great. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - really nicely done! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! That's a fine piece of work, and comprehensive as all hell. I only hope when I submit my next FAC that I get the number of willing contributors that you did. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on articles related to the Empire of Brazil, Thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded by me. Its a brilliant article. Thanks!! You may wish to develop my Deforestation in Brazil to FA too!! Haha.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Lecen, look at this, I believe we can load these pictures on commons. Do you know if we already have these photos here? Paulista01 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will reverse your change from "nation" to "political entity" on Empire of Brazil. The people on the talk page are not correct in disputing the term. I will comment on the talk page. • Astynax ^talk 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been absent for a while, so I haven't seen your message until now. I am sorry that your article dind't became featured, as it was a really good one. --Paliano (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i gave it a quick look and thought it was closed!

Lately I been experamenting in userbox making and i made two userboxes about the Empire of Brazil if your interested in them User:Spongie555/UserBox/PedroII and User:Spongie555/UserBox/EmpireofBrazil. Spongie555 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A reviewer has asked that a reference be given for the last sentence of Endnote I that connects Maximilian's decision with the visit to Brazil that was prompted by Maria Amélia's death. I've condensed the lead a bit and made some other adjustments which were suggested. The reviewer also asked if the reference gives a reason that Brazil's government refused to recognize her as a member of the Imperial household. • Astynax ^talk 09:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, I could not find anything wrong with the Afonso article, it looks good to me. - The sources are okay - Images are also okay - Grammar looks okay, I would have somebody else take a look at this, it is not my forte. I like the article, short and to the point, very good. P.S. I really liked the new pictures of the Count D'Eu that you uploaded to commons, nice. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, se você ler os artigos na wikipedia em Espanhol sobre a Guerra Cisplatina você vai ver que viés! A batalha de Monte Santiago é diminuída, a do Passo Rosário (Ituzaingó na wiki espanhola) é descrita de forma inadequada, e o conflito inteiro é descrito de forma errada (Guerra del Brasil na wiki espanhola). As Províncias do Prata ambicionavam a incorporação do Uruguai. Não conseguiram, mesmo com os inúmeros conflitos internos que sacudiam o Brasil naquela época. O resultado não foi vitória deles, como apregoado. O bloqueio naval brasileiro foi forte. E o Brasil, nas conversações que resultaram no acordo de paz, incorporou um bom terreno ao Rio Grande do Sul. Saudações pelo bom trabalho, principalmente na questão do Rosas. O Rosas chamou o Dom Pedro II de "su mayordomo", e o Estanislao Zeballos, além de ter falsificado um telegrama do Barão do Rio Branco, planejou a invasão e ocupação do Rio de Janeiro, mas isso quase não é falado.

Abraços Grenzer22 (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your message. i removed some of the px sizes as they were unnecessary e.g. they weren't detailed maps. i added an upright parameter on the picture of the Prince as that was quite large but the image is unfocused either way. good work on the article, keep it up Tom B (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I asked a question about the edit you brought up. I don't know if you've noticed, so I'm placing a talk back message here. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Collapsed comments, it directly relates to your FAC. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if it will help for researching articles, but you may want to sign up for one of the

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." (emphasis mine) ―Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule --Eisfbnore ^talk 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your message is a warning to Lecen or saying that he didn't break the rule. If the latter, there are four reverts in the space of an hour and 20 minutes: [1][2][3][4].

talk

) 12:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ow, not it has become personal? You want to see me blocked? Don't you have anything better to do in your life? --Lecen (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you're the one taking it personally.

talk

) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: It was the latter. And the first diff you presented was not a revert but a correction, which you reverted. Eisfbnore ^talk 13:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the policy you've quoted: 'A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.' I removed "Ma'am"; [5]. He undid that action[6]. It is consequently a revert.

talk

) 13:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Same message posted on both your user pages: I don't know what's going on here, but it's making my job at FAC difficult. It's pretty clear you two have a problem with each other; please stop talking to each other. DrKiernan, I understand the policy issue and I'll work with Lecen to fix it, I think you'll be able to see that at FAC. Lecen, I'd prefer DrKiernan not strike his oppose or make any other edits to your FAC, but if we deal with the problem, that's not a barrier to promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a chance to read over the discussion. I'm striking my support for the moment while we clear up this last point; I asked a question in my section. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You mention on my talk page, "American and British historians prefer to call Brazilian royals by their original name." The English sources in that article that I can pull up do in fact refer to them this way. Could you please give me a couple of quotes, either from the sources not available online or from other respected sources you didn't use, to back up the same thing? - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying on my talk page since you're over there. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a given that those who find a "problem" with an article will comment, while those who like it are much less likely to comment. I keep an eye on your page and always try to read your new articles, yet I rarely comment. I'm sure many, many others do the same. Keep that in mind, and please return. Your friend,

Ed, you're good and loyal person and I really appreciate all your concern. You've been always very helpful and never asked anything in return. Thanks a lot. I mean it. However, I'm very tired and I need a break. How long it will last I'm not sure but I want to be far away from the FAC for quite some time. I wish I had interesting discussions in here but all I see are stuff like "I don't like this picture, so I'll oppose until you put that picture that I like" or "I oppose because you did not fix that template at the bottom of the article [which has nothing to to with the article itself]." Enough is enough, but I'm semi-retired, not completely retired. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to take a break, but make sure you keep writing articles at some point – even if they don't go through FAC, I want to read them! (yes, that's slightly selfish. Oh well. :-) ) I always seem to have nice FACs... I dunno why yours are so contentious. Especially when they aren't even big issues...that whole template fiasco was a bit ridiculous.

[majestic titan]

04:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with all that, and I'll go further. If you like, I'll fight your battles (in the main text, I don't cover infoboxes and end sections) in this and future articles, but only if you stop making my job harder.

WP:NONENG is Wikipedia's policy, and you don't understand what it's saying. When questions come up about whether to use English and where to get translations from, please ask me. - Dank (push to talk

) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank, thank you very much for your support and the will to help me. I'm really glad to hear that.

Don't worry, I know about Wikipedia's policy. See this excelent English biography of Pedro I (Maria Amélia's father) or this oustanding English biograph of Pedro II (Maria Amélia's brother). The given name "Amélia" can also be spelled as "Amelia" or even "Amalia" in Portuguese. You can see that in this English biography of Isabel, niece of Maria Amélia. Let's take a look at three English biographies of Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico and fiancée of Maria Amélia:

• "Maria da Gloria's father, Dom Pedro, who had been Emperor of Brazil as well as King of Portugal, was twice married. His first wife, the Archduchess Leopoldine of Hapsburg, was a daughter of the Austrian Emperor Francis and thus Maximilian's paternal aunt. His second wife, Amelia Princes of Leuchtenberg [...]. Their only child was born in Paris shortly before his death. The young Princess Maria Amelia of Braganza was now twenty years old, and a girl of striking beauty as well as cultivated intelligence." Source: Hyde, H. Montgomery. Mexican Empire: the history of Maximilian and Carlota of Mexico. London: MacMillan % Co., 1946, pp.35-36
• "At his urging Archduchess Sophie entered preliminary negotiations with the House of Braganza. A tentative marriage contract was drawn up, disregarding the fact that Princess Maria Amelia was tubercular and her father, Dom Pedro of Brazil, had died of the disease. Before Maximilian could journey to Lisbon and seal the bargain, in fact, she suddenly died." Source: O'Connor, Richard. Cactus Throne: the tragedy of Maximilian and Carlota. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1971, p.47
• "Maria da Gloria's father had been the turbulent Pedro I, Emperor of Brazil, who on his own father's death had renounced his claim to Portugal in favor of his seven-year-old daughter, only to find her inheritance usurped by his brother Miguel. When a revolution in Brazil forced Pedro to abdicate, he returned to Europe and, putting himself at the head of the Liveral Party in Portugal, had reconquered his kingdom for his daughter. [...] Before leaving Brazil, Pedro had married for the second time, yet another of Ferdinand Maximilian's relatives, the beautiful and talented Amalia of Leuchtenberg [...]. From all accounts Maria Amalia must have been esquisitely lovely with that fair, transparent skin which is all too often the sign of a consumptive." Source: Haslip, Joan (1971). The Crown of Mexico: Maximilian and His Empress Carlota. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p.52

As you can see, although the historians call the other European royals by their anglicized names, they also opt to call the Brazilian royals by their original, Portuguese names. Ok, that's not the problem, but how the name "Maria Amélia" should be translated to English. You wrote in the FAC nomination: "I see a couple of English-language reliable sources for the princess's name above; does anyone have others". Well, in case you didn't notice, The Times newspaper called her "Princess Maria". Nowhere it says that this Maria is the English Maria. By seeing at the newspaper's archives, it seems that the newspaper also used to call the Brazilian royals by their Portuguese names (see here). The second "reliable" source is a book called "The Napoleon Dynasty", which calles her by the French version (not Portuguese, and certainly not English) of her name: "Marie Amelie Auguste Eugenie Theodolinde". So, this one is obviously out of question.

You might be wondering how many books about Brazilian (and Mexican where it's related to Brazil) history I own. I have plenty. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You may also want to see

Mary (given name) and Emily (given name). I can't, however, is lose my time with DrKiernan who knows nothing about Brazilian history but act as he does at the same time that he is unwilling to hear someone who does. As Ed said, this is no more than "pedantic disputes". --Lecen (talk

) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm falling asleep, I'll be back in about 12 hours. Don't worry about the article, we'll get it through FAC and it looks to me like you've done all you need to do. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your own sources above show that the name is not translated into English as Mary Emily. You may know more about Brazilian history, but I know more about the English language. You think that because Mary is translated into Portuguese as Maria that the reverse holds, but it does not. "Marie Amelie" is perfectly acceptable in English, as are the forms used by the English-language sources above. If you must include a translation, then you should use an English form that is used in reliable sources, such as one of those above or the ones I have provided.

talk

) 07:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the reverse is true. And you are wrong. Pedro means Peter. Carlos means Charles. Henrique meaas Henry. José meaas Joseph. João means John. Ana means Anna. Maria means Mary. Amélia means Emily. Beatriz means Beatrice, etc, etc... Any dictionary of names can give you that. Portuguese and English are both Western languages. We're not talking about Arabic or Japanese. --Lecen (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 14, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 14, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral (c. 1467-c. 1520) was a Portuguese noble, military commander, navigator and explorer regarded as the discoverer of Brazil. Cabral conducted the first substantial exploration of the northeast coast of South America and claimed it for Portugal. He was appointed to head an expedition to India in 1500, following Vasco da Gama's newly opened route around Africa. His fleet of 13 ships sailed far into the western Atlantic Ocean, perhaps intentionally, where he made landfall on what he initially assumed to be a large island. As the new land was within the Portuguese sphere according to the Treaty of Tordesillas, Cabral claimed it for the Portuguese Crown. He explored the coast, realizing that the large land mass was likely a continent, and dispatched a ship to notify King Manuel I of the new territory. The continent was South America, and the land he had claimed for Portugal later came to be known as Brazil. Cabral was later passed over, possibly as a result of a quarrel with Manuel I, when a new fleet was assembled to establish a more robust presence in India. Having lost favor with the King, he retired to a private life of which few records survive. His accomplishments slipped into obscurity for more than 300 years. Historians have long argued whether Cabral was Brazil's discoverer, and whether the discovery was accidental or intentional. Nevertheless, although he was overshadowed by contemporary explorers, Cabral today is regarded as a major figure of the Age of Discovery. (more...)

RE: Pedro Álvares Cabral

Because the article was listing Alvares as his name not his surname. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not obligatory, but it is informative. I just decided to add it to avoid future confusion. It's up to you. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is normal on the

I don't know a single administrator who semi-protect the TFA all its main date, on the other hand it would be protected a few hours, if the vandalism is persistent, it'll be re-protected for another few hours. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen! You may be interested by this little book by Marie de Nesles: Notice biographique sur Son Altesse Impériale Dona Marie-Amelie de Bragance (1857). You can read it on google books just here. Have a good day. Konstantinos. 82.237.218.242 (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi ! I am translating your article about Princess Aamalia and I have got a question about it. In your work, you wrote: The princess's body remained in the chapel until it was taken back to the Portuguese mainland on 7 May 1853 but you never talked about a chapel before this sentence. Could you give a little explaination about the chapel? Is it a private chapel of a palace? Or a chapel of a church of Funchal? Thanks a lot. Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I know what happened during the Good Article process because I read it everything. I am very sorry for what happened and I consider it is a great lost for wikipedia if you go... Not only because I was very anxious to read more about princess Isabel and the Brazilian imperial family. But because I consider it is very important for monarchism and for royalties to do a good job in princely biographies... When I was younger and I did not know wikipedia (probably because it did not exist !), I wanted to know about a lot of Royals and it was very difficult because books were expensive for me and I did not read other languages... Now, with wikipedia, I know I can learn and I can help people interested in royal families but who can not afford to buy lots of books... That is why I am very sorry to see you to leave... But it is your choice and I respect it... I discovered princess Maria Amalia when I read prince Michael of Greece's biography of empress Charlotte (L'Impératrice des adieux), years ago. But the book does not say a lot about the princess. So I want to tell you: multo obrigado (I guess it means merci) for giving me the oportunity to know better Maria Amalia. See you ! Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC) PS- Sorry for my awful English

No, I do not have a copy of that book. I am sorry. Best Regards. --Henry Knight (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen. Per your request, I've withdrawn your FAC. I'm not a delegate and I was involved with the review, so if you feel my close was inappropriate - or if you've changed your mind and wish to continue with the review - please let me know and I will gladly revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I don't know if you are still planning to work on the article regarding the Duke of Caxias. You may like this letter by Urquiza, published in 1852 by the Aurora Paulistana newspaper, p.4: AP18520331.pdf Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this, I hope you come back in the future. Paulista01 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, and congratulations on the article (as well as the article featured recently on the main page). I know it was an agonizing process getting Maria Amélia to FA, so I thought I'd just write a few words encouraging you to keep editing similarly great articles. Myself and I'm sure countless others consider them truly a joy to read. You could always take a break from FA and join us at GA nominating and reviewing articles. The process is decidedly simpler, and your articles won't take two months of waiting before being promoted! :) Keep up the good work, Ruby2010 comment! 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)