User talk:Lecen/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Argentine history on Wikipedia". 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 2 April 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. 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil

Will you PLEASE stop pushing your ownership on those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI. Since you're mentioned. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

He is what I call the typical "unhelpful" editor. He doesn't help at all. But thank you very much for providing the link. My day became brighter once I saw the hilarious "gremlin" part. --Lecen (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 12, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Lecen. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Argentine History Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 3635 words and 48 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 18:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: New requests

Ahoy mate. I'll be glad to help but this time you'll need to be a bit patient 'coz I have a helluva lot to do workwise right now. I'll try to get to it as soon as possible. cheers Hoodinski (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodinski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure mate. I've changed the spacing between the lines of the striping- it's more clear now. CheersHoodinski (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied on my page - Manning (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

José Luís Mena Barreto

Congrats on your superb history work! I blue linked José Luís Mena Barreto. Afraid I don't speak Portuguese, can you proof read and improve it? Cheers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're amazing!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Argentine history on Wikipedia, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Juan Manuel de Rosas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Isla Paraguaya

Hi Lecen, actually I am Greek and I live in Montevideo for the past few years. When you posted about Isla Paraguaya in WPUruguay, I did search for info but I found no hint. But since you said "northeast" I was looking mostly in the Rio Uruguay for it, and thought it might have been a former name of Brazilian Island or maybe one of the islands that form today Vizcaíno Island (see map). I will take a look also in the area between Melo and Santa Teresa, but I am not sure what you mean by "the old Fort of Santa Teresa". Was there another one under the same name elsewhere? Hoverfish Talk 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems logical that they would travel alongside rivers where possible, so we are talking about some land formation in the twists and turns of Rio Tacuari or Rio Cebollati. Such formations are not very steady in time, some join one of the banks eventually or another splits off the banks. Rio Cebollati with all the rice plantations might even have changed drastically during the last century. So we may be looking for a land formation that no longer is at it used to be then. As for "asking the locals", I am under the impression that at those times, the Portuguese were more familiar with these parts than anybody else (save the indigenous people), so it might have been a name they only used and not so much the Spanish. Hoverfish Talk 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, regardless if your sources are very old or unclear about some names, can you please mention them as references in the article of the Portuguese Invasion? I would be glad to remove the citation tag from it, but we need to show that there are some books behind what we state. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see now there are two articles. I saw you renaming of Portuguese conquest of the Banda Oriental and found it to be lacking citations and tagged it, so I was referring to this one. Hoverfish Talk 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the conflict, but the reason i stay out is because my personal knowledge on the issue is too limited to have an opinion. Your argument sound logical, in that before 1822 there was no Brazilian nation. The thing is that I do not know how the school books and university texts here in Uruguay have it. If I did, I would state my opinion according to the most KNOWN name of these historical events in Uruguay. Hoverfish Talk 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Lecen. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Argentine History Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1702 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 23:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Brazilian mothers
Thank you for your profound coverage of Brazilian topics, culture and especially people, such as the Mother of the Brazilians, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 132nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style,

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Lecen. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Argentine History Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1702 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 03:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this - the bot has been moved over to the Wikimedia Labs, and I forgot to copy its warning logs over. This will be the last warning you'll get for this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems in Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Hello, Lecen:
Do you speak Portuguese? I'm Brazilian, and I don't communicate well in English. The article "Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil" was problems. Respond in my talk. Thanks You.
Berganus (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Olá, Lecen:

em primeiro lugar gostaria de desculpar-me por ter demorado em responder sua pergunta. Feito isto, partirei para a questão que levantei acima. Traduzi o artigo para o português no fim de 2012 e, nesse processo, percebi que a influência da morte prematura dos dois filhos varões do imperador D. Pedro II foi abordada de modo sobrestimado. Como exemplo, leia o trecho abaixo, que encontra-se na intodução do artigo em questão:

"He became careless about the effects of his policies on the monarchy, provided his daughter Isabel with no training for her role as potential empress, and failed to cultivate her acceptance within the country's political class. Pedro II's disinterest in protecting the imperial system ultimately led to its downfall."

Note que o trecho acima pode dar a entender que se, um dois dois filhos não tivesse falecido prematuramente, ou mesmo se a Teresa Cristina tivesse dado à luz um outro varão, a monarquia não teria caído em 1889. Claro que as mortes dos herdeiros teve influência naquilo que culminaria com a Proclamação da República; mas vale ressaltar que a Questão Religiosa e a abolição da escravatura, entre outros fatores, foram mais decisivos para os eventos de 15 de novembro. Sugiro que o artigo seja revisado e trechos como o apresentado acima, repensados. Podes também consultar a versão lusófona, que é uma tradução do inglês e também é destacada, e mesmo traduzir algumas passagens dela.Um abraço.
Berganus (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Vamos por partes:

1) A falta de filhos homens influenciou fortemente Pedro II a não lidar com os militares insubordinados, a não dar mais espaço para sua filha Isabel, dentre tantos outros fatos.

2) A Questão Religiosa não teve papel algum no fim da monarquia. Livros escolares podem até falar isso, com também falam que Pedro I declarou a independência do Brasil enquanto estava com dor de barriga. Os clérigos não tiveram papel algum no dia 15 de novembro. Nem poderiam e nem desejariam: os Positivistas eram declaradamente anti-Igreja Católica, pois o próprio Positivismo é uma religião em si.

3) A abolição da escravatura não teve papel direto no 15 de novembro. Nem Deodoro da Fonseca e nem Benjamin Constant acordaram na manhã do dia 14 de novembro desejando dar um golpe por que alguns donos de escravos estavam descontentes com o fim da ecravidão. A abolição explica o por quê de uma vez o golpe ter ocorrido a elite cafeeira do Rio de Janeiro ter aceito pacificamente a República.

4) Se um dos dois filhos homens tivessem sobrevivido seria ele quem teria liderado as forças armadas brasileiras na Guerra do Paraguai, ao invés do estrangeiro Conde d'Eu. Seria ele quem teria assinado a lei do Ventre Livre e a Lei Áurea. Seria ele quem teria participado do Conselho de Estado e tido papel influente nos rumos políticos da nação.

5) Por último, todo o artigo é baseado em fontes. O problema da falta de herdeiros pode ser visto em todas as biografias de Pedro II: a melhor de todas, Citizen Emperor, de Roderick J. Barman, passando por Pedro II: Ser ou não ser de José Murilo de Carvalho, e cegando a História de D. Pedro II de Heitor Lira. --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

Sorry I've neglected this Lecen. Picking up where I left off:

Brazilian ultimatum

• "... with the expectation that only a more stable regime would be able to carry out a settlement with Brazil." I'm not sure what "carry out" means here. To reach a settlement with Brazil perhaps?

You are correct. I changed that. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "A member of the opposition party, Paranhos, was used as a scapegoat by the Emperor and the government and was recalled in disgrace to the imperial capital. The accusation proved unfounded." What accusation?

Eric Corbett 13:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "But public opinion quickly changed for the worse when newspapers began running stories painting the convention of 20 February as harmful to Brazilian interests, for which the cabinet was blamed" This. The cabinet and the Emperor took the blame away from their own shoulders and placed it on Paranhos'. This is why the text says "the accusation proved unfounded. Not only had Paranhos managed to settle all Brazilian claims, but by preventing..." Perhaps it could be reworded to something like "The accusation that the convention had failed to meet Brazilian interests proved unfounded." --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  I think your suggested rewording would do just fine, and that's me finished now. Good luck at FAC. Eric Corbett 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it. --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine History: Proposed decision posted

Hello Lecen. I am sending you this message to let you know that the proposed decision of the Argentine History arbitration case in which you are a party, has been posted and is now being discussed by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, I know you well enough to know the topic bans are going to put you in a good mood :) Friendly advice: avoid taking any actions yourself concerning the other two, apart from giving notice wherever appropriate if they're participating somewhere they shouldn't be. This is an issue WPians take seriously, and it's perhaps not obvious: when someone has been banned or blocked, people consider it distasteful for the "winners" to continue to make their case, when the issue has already been decided. In particular: I see Marshal just reverted my edit in your FAC; we'll get that sorted out in plenty of time ... please resist the urge to revert him or make the case why he should be reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, right now all I'm doing is enjoying the feeling of knowing that, after a long time, I was able to prove that I was correct. People saw the problem and thought that it was all about a few users (each with legitimate point of views) discussing about content. It took a lot of my time. But I was right. But now? Why would I trouble myself by dealing with them again? Let them be forgotten. But thanks for the advice, Dank. I really appreciate it. --Lecen (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a pleasure working with you, your articles on the history of Brazil are excellent. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Portugal

Licínio,
Estou voltando para Portugal no próximo mês e queria dizer-te que se você precisar de qualquer informação, livros, pinturas, etc, é só me avisar.
Eu vou estar perto de Lisboa e vou ser muito próximo aos palácios reais e os museus nacionais.
Grande abraço,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Agradeço pela disposição. Tenho um pedido sim. Há algum tempo tenho a vontade de escrever o artigo sobre Maria II of Portugal. Sempre fiquei curioso em saber se existem fotografias da rainha. Do pouco que pude encontrar, parece que é um daguerreotype (é um tipo de fotografia primitiva) dela. Pode haver nos seguintes livros:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

O que eu preciso: se você puder, confirme se há de fato uma fotografia de Maria II em um desses livros. Este meu pedido não é fácil. Provavelmente o único lugar que você irá encontrar todos os três livros num canto seja na Biblioteca de Lisboa ou algo semelhante. Por não ser algo simples, peço que o faça somente se for realizar uma visita do tipo. Além disso, não precisa. Não quero que seja trabalhoso. Um abraço, --Lecen (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed

An arbitration case regarding the article Juan Manuel de Rosas has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Cambalachero is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
2. MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
3. Lecen is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)