User talk:Lecen/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lecen. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

WP:3O

Hello. Regarding this, I'll accept your reversal, but let me tell you —like I said in my edit summary— that the third opinion tool is not a review process. However, as an Argentine I'd love to have an article for a controversial person like Juan Manuel de Rosas as accurate as possible. Hope you'll get the feedback you look for.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Lecen! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Poe image

Hi there! I swapped back the main image on the Edgar Allan Poe article (though I didn't change your other image edit). The new version you put in was oddly off-centered and somewhat washed out. I like that it had the original daguerreotype color but those other factors seemed to ruin it. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you disagree. I don't think this scan is exactly as it looks in real life. The original daguerreotype is actually squarish; the oval shape is from the container or frame it's in. In this scan, it happens to have shifted to be off-centered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being stubborn... But you have to admit the image was not framed properly. The centering is not representative of the full image; certainly, you must see that's the case. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the edit summary

Interestingly, had Go Phightins! not left a note on MarshalN20's page, I would have. He should not have posted what he did on your talk page; however, Help:Edit summary makes it clear that you should not attack or complain about other editors in your edit summary. This was a personal attack, don't let it continue. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Juan Manuel de Rosas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Viscount of Maua

The article does state the following:

"Mauá defended free enterprise, liberalism, industrialization and the abolition of slavery."
"the Viscount of Mauá (1813–1889) was a Brazilian entrepreneur, industrialist, banker and politician."

This would qualify him for the Empire of Brazil infobox as either a politician or abolitionist. Unless both attributions are incorrect, which would mean they should be deleted from the article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Maua was also one of the wealthiest South Americans, and his economic position and exploits are certainly notable. Under the Wikipedia definition for Politician, he would qualify as a notable politician. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Juan Manuel de Rosas, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juan Manuel de Rosas, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mediation for Juan Manuel de Rosas article

Hi Lecen, thanks for giving me a few days to complete some background reading. The mediation will be on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Manuel de Rosas/Mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma

It is now nominated here. • Astynax ^talk 04:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for only stopping in briefly during the past 3 days. I seem to have contracted influenza and the high fever makes it very difficult to look at the computer screen. I'm hoping to be better in a day or two, based on what other people have experienced. • Astynax ^talk 07:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Rainha D. Maria II

Lecen,

I remember that once you asked me if I knew of a photograph of Queen D. Maria II, but I was unable to find one. I stumbled upon this image (the one on the left) today. It does not look like a outright photograph, but perhaps a prototype or based on a photograph, because it looks so to me, but I have no knowledge of the area. Either way, the image is ruined by the text in the corner, but I thought I would share it with you.

Abraços,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Cristiano, thank you very much, but none of them are photographs, but lithographies. There is only one known daguerreotype (photograph) of Maria II. The first edition of Luís A. de Oliveira Ramos's "Dom Pedro, imperador e rei" says: "Estojo contendo um daguerreótipo, o único conhecido, de D. Maria II".[1] I own the second edition, which has no pictures in it. --Lecen (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC Disruption

I was not disrupting the RfC. There was no necessity for the claim that discussions held in the other places were "all in vain". Plenty of comments were done in favor of a balanced view of Rosas, which is positive to at least one side of the discussion. In any case, thank you for removing the claim.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "engage in discussion". I simply expressed disagreement with the claim that the prior discussions were "all in vain", and presented the opinions of other editors which I deemed valuable. If any of those editors feel that their comments are taken out of context, then (surely) they can express such a view in the discussion.

Also, instead of the RfC, you could have also tried to directly talk with me (given Cambalachero's lack of time) about your improvements for the article. I have (time and again) shown support for several of your ideas with regards to the article. The only point which I disagree with you is the overall weight that should be given to one point of view over another, and even with that regards we could have reached a good agreement. Time still exists for that, but I sense that you are simply interested in "winning" the discussion to work on the article by yourself. I hope to be wrong. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus, and removing or modifying others' posts from talk pages is not permitted.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Line of succession of Brazilian throne

I agree to clean up the Petrópolis line, but desagree on the removal of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza. Their position is supported on avaliable sources quoted on the article. And please, stop changing Luiz' name. There isn't reliable sources call him "Luís". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Você ainda usa seu antigo e-mail que começa com fl e termina com seu sobrenome? Se sim, veja lá, ok? GNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Li o que escreveu aqui. Você não irá se manifestar sobre a questão na talk page? Espero sua contra-argumentação. De qualquer modo, o artigo, tal como está, está errado. Se entendi o que foi decidido, qualquer mudança que eu fizer será tratada como vandalismo? A propósito, já lhe mandei e-mail e convite para amizade no Facebook. Pelos velhos tempos, acho que eu mereceria uma resposta, mesmo que esta seja para parar de "incomodá-lo", se assim o quiser. Obrigado, Geovani N. Torres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Portugal

Hi. I just noticed that the Alerts page Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal/Article alerts, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil/Article alerts isn't activated. Is WikiProject Portugal dormant? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's worse: they are both dead. --Lecen (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, it's just you and me then :). I'll see if I can activate the bot for Alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Imagens de D. Pedro I/IV

Lecen,

I was going trough the retratos of the Portuguese museum institute on here and I found some images of D. Pedro IV that I thought you would be interested in. Perhaps you have already seen them, but if not I hope they are a help and nice find for you.

Abraços,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S.
I also found this image, perhaps of some use to you:

Retrato da princesa D. Francisca, filha de D. Pedro II

Thank you very much, Cristiano. I was already aware of that website and I even uploaded some of those paintings. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is my pleasure, I'm always here to help. Also, on a second look, could the portrait of D. Francisca, is it actually Infanta Francisca Josefa of Portugal? At first I thought it was the daughter of Pedro IV, but that they confused it with his son Pedro II of Brazil, but checking the dates, could it be the daughter of Pedro II of Portugal? I think it is, but I value your professional opinion. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's actually Princess Francisca of Brazil, daughter of Pedro IV (see the painter's lifetime in the link you provided). --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So you don't think it's a later day imagination of the Portuguese Infanta? Like

. I don't know, the name Pedro II resonates with me. But if you're sure, I will take your opinion. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The infanta was not an important royal. The painting of João had a purpose in 19th century Brazil: to show that the roots of the Brazilian monarchy were far older than 1822. --Lecen (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess Francisca of Brazil

Caro amigo,

After looking at Princess Francisca of Brazil, I noticed her date of birth and had a question. Because he birth was before the 1825 treaty of Rio de Janeiro, was she, for a time, an Infanta of Portugal? Just a question. I was looking at the infante of Portugal template and wondering wether she should be there or not.

Thank you,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See [[2]]. Although the treaty was signed in August 1825, the Independence was dated from 1822. Thus, none of Pedro IV's children (except Maria II) should be in the template you mentioned. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help this user

Posso pedir um favor? Can you perhaps intervene in Portuguese and explain to User talk:Tibullus how to move via a WP:RM as he has been told to do, so he doesn't needlessly get blocked again. As instruções não são tão simples. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Let him be blocked. Next time he crosses the line, you should report him at the ANI. --Lecen (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Lecen; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

I have finished going through the lead section. Please look to see if I made any errors. There also needs to be a reference given at the end of the first paragraph in the Aftermath section. • Astynax ^talk 19:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like didn't quite finish the nomination; don't forget to add it to WP:FAC. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Maralia. I had forgotten about that last step. --Lecen (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–1812)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–1812) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eeekster (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lecen, I was going to leave a note on his page about the quick speedy, but there was a half-hour difference between creation and speedy nom. Maybe next time you could get a workable article together in your sandbox (say at User:Lecen/Sandbox/Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–1812)) and then move it into the mainspace? It might help you avoid these sorts of issues. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No doubt;)

Sure thing- I'd be glad to help you. Thank you kindly for the compliment:). I'll get to it as soon as I have some spare time. Cheers Hoodinski (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at this. Hoodinski (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Corrections done. Sure I'd like to help you with maps- I love cartography:D. Hoodinski (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It'd be my pleasure, mate:). Hoodinski (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing mate. I'll get to it as soon as I've got a moment. Hoodinski (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There we are- Uruguayan War and Territorial disputes. Hoodinski (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the Apa R.- that was actually a conscious decission since the river on the original map isn't well distinguished- I'm not sure where exactly does it start and end; also not sure whether it flows to Parana or Paraguay. I tried consulting with google maps but was unable to establish anything final. Hoodinski (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, mate. As I said before- I really like maps. So if you'd need some more of them just shoot. It'd be my pleasure. Cheers Hoodinski (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Argentine history

Your statement is excessively long and needs reducing. You should indicate to the Arbitration committee why they should take the case; should it be accepted you will be given ample opportunity to provide evidence and produce workshop proposals. Please refactor your request using this guidance, or myself or another clerk will do so. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)