User talk:Lecen/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Main page appearance (2)

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 27, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 27, 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* ^{۩ ۞} 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Empire of Brazil was a 19th-century nation that broadly comprised the territories which form modern Brazil. Its government was a representative parliamentary constitutional monarchy under the rule of Emperors Dom Pedro I and his son Dom Pedro II. On 7 September 1822, Pedro declared the independence of Brazil and, after waging a successful war against his father's kingdom, was acclaimed on 12 October as Pedro I, the first Emperor of Brazil. Despite his role in Brazilian independence, Pedro I became the king of Portugal in 1826. Unable to deal with both Brazilian and Portuguese affairs, Pedro I abdicated on 7 April 1831 and immediately departed for Europe to restore his daughter to her throne. Pedro I's successor was his five-year-old son, Pedro II. Once declared of age, Pedro II managed to bring peace and stability to the country, which eventually became an emerging international power. Pedro II personally had no desire to see the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and made no effort to maintain support for the institution. Despite the lack of enthusiasm among most Brazilians for adopting a republican form of government, on 15 November 1889, after a 58-year reign, the Emperor was overthrown in a sudden coup d'état that had almost no support outside a clique of military leaders whose goal was the formation of a republic headed by a dictator. (more...)

*A long day yesterday with this article... by the way, I thought you were very patient dealing with some of the less helpful comments! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk back

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.

Congratulations on getting Empire of Brazil to the main page by the way! Great job :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

I don't have anything here, but there are some decent shots on the cover/inside the volume of Pedro in the kings of Portugual series. You might have a look at that, and if the picture is particularly old you could scan it. Sorry, most of the stuff I use is back in Portugal and I am not there for another 6 months. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Colorized

You mentioned colorizing old photos. Happened across this. Thought you might like to see it. It's more than just a colored image... the realism almost jumps out at you. JBarta (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Or this. Wow. JBarta (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

maybe?

I know you mostly work on Brazlian articles but maybe you would be interested in getting Maximilian I of Mexico article to GA or maybe FA? The Mexican monarchy has poor coverage on wikipedia I think. Spongie555 (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe going for a GA would be better since GA is less demanding then FA. Also for images have you checked the roya houses website yet,[1]. They have alot of good pictures of him and most should be in public domain also it calls him and his succsessors Don. Spongie555 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Aslo you should around at this site, [2], it's a blog of a reasercher on the Mexican empire.(I know you can't write articles with blogs). But she links to books written about the Mexican Empire and resources. She also wrote a book about the The Prince Imperial of Mexico. Spongie555 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Maxmilian of Mexico

I found a website that has all his orders of chivalry he was part of and his offical title as Emperor of Mexico, [3]. Spongie555 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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) 23:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pedro Álvares Cabral.jpg

I tried, but I could'n do it better.

result of colour balancing

PawełMM (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Renewed discussion?

Hello Lecen. As you previously participated in the discussion regarding Brazil, I am notifying you in hopes for a renewed discussion at Talk:Brazil. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Brazil: no big deal, I wasn't aware of that discussion beforehand. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I replied to you at my talk page. I don't know if you have JSTOR, but if you don't, shoot me an email and I'll send a few articles to you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotta run but I'll send them tonight. Send me an email so I can reply with the articles attached please :-) (Special:Emailuser doesn't allow attachments, probably to prevent abuse) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Pedro Alvares Cabral

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Pedro_Alvares_Cabral.
Message added MissMJ (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at MissMJ's talk page.
Message added MissMJ (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

+1 comment. -MissMJ (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as this is not the first time you've edit warred over the issue, and you consistently refuse to discuss the issue civilly. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Lecen,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Re:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Hey, I do intend to look at this article again, but I can't promise that it will be all that soon. If I haven't looked back in a week's time, please prod me again. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lecen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is unfair. I did nothing worong. See the four edits. The first thrre of them I tried to restore deleted sourced content. The fourth one has nothing to do with the previous three. I simply added another source to a variant of the name. Also, did someone actually read what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lecen reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24h each)??? That editor has been harassing me on purpose and I asked him to leave me alone. I asked for help on the noticeboard and no one cared. Lecen (talk) 2:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you restored the deleted info repeatedly. This is edit warring and is not permitted. TNXMan 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(ec) FYI, I've also blocked DrKiernan, for reasons outlined at WP:ANEW. Upon your return, I am strongly recommending that you start an RfC on a relevant talk page and invite input from a wide cross-section of the community. If edit-warring continues after the blocks, then further blocks and/or other sanctions, such as topic bans, may be employed to forcibly end the dispute. That's the worst case scenario. The best is that you avoid each other except for the purposes of the RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's still unfair! All I did was to nominate an article to FAC and he came toward me to cause me trouble. Didn't you read all I wrote? I did nothing wrong. I tried to reason i nthe talk page but he ignored. He harassed me on my talk page, on my friend's talk page. And I'm blocked? Why?! --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Two days ago he came provoke me and I asked him to leave me alone.[4] He ignored. In these two days he began editing on articles which I've always contributed on purpose to create trouble.[5][6][7] All of them which I had successfully nominated to Featured. He never had any interest at them. Just take a look at the history log of each. He also came harass me on my friend's talk page even though he was not called to be part of the conversation.[8][9] Can't you see that he did this on purpose? --Lecen (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's quite possibly the case, and something I seriously considered when deciding the ANEW report. In fact, that's a large part of my rationale for blocking him. The reason for your block is that, regardless of the provocation (which has been dealt with separately), you edit-warred in lieu of discussion and, in doing so, violated the three-revert rule, which is a "bright line" rule, violations of which almost always result in blocks when reported or stumbled upon by admins. My advice about starting an RfC tomorrow is menat sincerely, and is something you should give thought to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I could understand all the "translation" issue if the case was about two editors with different sources. This is not the case. Dr Kiernan does not speak Portuguese, he does not know about Brazilian history and has repeatedly used sources in the wrong way (like claiming that a book used an Anglicized name when in fact it is Portuguese). In other words, is like debating "2+2=4" with someone who can not even read. Even so, I opened a thread in the talk page and I tried to reason with him. He insisted on removing sourced content from a featured article and did not even went after support from other editors to his opinions, even if wrong.

And you know that this is not the worse. I never had the intention of ever running into him again. Please, go take a look at the history log of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1. You'll see that he placed a message there, then removed it and also erased it from the history log. Nonetheless he returned later only to "oppose" the nomination. After that, I asked him to leave me alone. But two days later, as I showed to you, he has been encircling me and trying at all costs to cause me harm (which he just did). I didn't look for trouble. And all I did was to restore sourced content from an article and asked over and over to discuss the matter. Once you have time, plese read what I wrote in the administrators' noticeboard. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what warranted blocks here... I feel like full-protecting the article for 24 hours could have accomplished the same result. Blocking prevents discussion. (yes, I know what the letter of the law (3RR) says, but protecting would have produced a more satisfactory result). Lecen, HJ has a point with his RfC idea – based on what's going on now, these disputes will probably continue absent a wider decision reached with outside editors. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked both of you. These skirmishes between the two of you can't continue, though. I'm hopeful that one of you will start an RfC and the wider input of that forum will allow for a consensus to be formed and in the meantime, you should both stop reverting and try to focus on the issue, not on the editor raising it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gonzaga

You are really educated in Brazilian and Portuguese history. Do you happen to know why the Portuguese and Brazilian royalties and some of the Austrian royalties in the 19th centuries have Gonzaga in their long list of names? Common sense would say because they were descendants of the Gonzaga family of Mantua, but then why would they pick such a distant relation to name their children; the last Gonzaga dukes died out 100 years before the name became popular. Here is an unhelpful answer I got out of the wiki Humanities reference desk.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. You appear to be canvassing in order to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Due to the fact that this is a continuing saga, I was prepared to block you to prevent continued disruption in this manner. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm II anglicization

I don't know what talk page this is supposed to go on, but I would be in favor of removing the anglicization. Rendering names into their English equivalents is only necessary if the original language uses a different alphabet, but German uses the same Latin alphabet as English. -- LightSpectra (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about individual monarchs, and yes, I do realize that Wikipedia's current policy is currently very inconsistent. This is my opinion: anglicizations are unnecessary unless the original name is in a language that doesn't use the Latin alphabet. So Nicholas II's page should include the parentheticals, but not Franz's or Wilhelm's. -- LightSpectra (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Again: I do realize that Wikipedia's current policy is currently very inconsistent. If it were completely up to me, then I would anglicize nothing except in what isn't in Latin alphabets. So the article would be named João VI and nothing would be said about "John", unless for some reason that name was notable for an extemporaneous reason. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lecen–DrKiernan. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias

You're very welcome! I've just been cruising around with the AutoWikiBrowser today looking for typos. If you don't have it yourself yet, I recommend getting it--great tool. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ironclad v. pre-dreadnought

Lecen, both ships are regarded as late ironclads. Most naval historians believe that the first pre-dreadnoughts were the British Royal Sovereign class of 1889. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the ship. For capital ships, I believe two of the four-ship Kongo class were built in Japan. For smaller warships, it looks like it was probably a bit earlier that that, i.e. a few cruisers were built by Japan in the 1890s. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Party (Brazil)

Heh. I sometimes wonder if anyone will notice the odd pattern of my edits; the constant stream of Russian material is occasionally interrupted by ventures into unpredictable areas: Greek history, Renaissance humanism, etc. The fact is that I am a freelance copyeditor, which is not very remunerative but exposes me to a wide variety of texts, and of course in the process of editing them I frequently consult Wikipedia. In this instance, I was editing a book on Latin American historiography, and there was a discussion of the Brazilian Conservative Party; annoyed that there was no Wikipedia page to consult, I created one myself. It's bare-bones (or it was), but I always assume it's better to have something rather than nothing, and someone who knew more would be along to add to it eventually. I'll have to revisit it to see if anyone has! Languagehat (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Requesting a favor...

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

+1 -MissMJ (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 more -MissMJ (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Chat-bubble3.jpg -MissMJ (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do try me again next time

Hi Lecen, How are you? Thanks for your note on my Talk page. Unfortunately right now I have obligations in my real life and my Wikipedia activity has been next to zero. Hopefully in a couple of months I'll be back on here more. Do try me again next time and hopefully I will be more free. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force

I have never made a task force before but I could make the main project page. The only problem if I make the task force is I don't know how to make the WikiProject templates that go on the page talk pages. Also a task force specifically on Empire of Brazil or Latin American Monarchies. I will try to make it later I'm away for a while. Spongie555 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to I have never made a task force before and im busy lately I will be experamting on how to make the task force in my sandbox, User:Spongie555/sandbox. I wanted to make sure i get it right before actually making it. I dont know if you want to help. The main wikiprojct page we can always change since i cant make it fancy but currently I dont know how to make the assesment page thing. Its the template that tells you what article your cover scopes and what quality it is. I will be using Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/HRE task force as a model of the task force for now. If you could make a assesment thing and find a way to connect it to the project banner that goes to the talk page it would be very helpful. Spongie555 (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for responding so late. I been busy lately. The assessment template is the part I'm having trouble with so I'm asking other people to help with assessment. Also that's great Maxmilian's article needs alot of work since it's in a bad state. If your looking for more editors to help with Maxmilian's article you should ask User:Dr. Blofeld I've seen him work on quite a few Mexican articles and could help. Spongie555 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know alitle about Maxmillian but I never read a book due to public library doesn't have any and I don't usually buy books online. Also I don't think you'll find many people help you with the article due to this subject is very unknown and not people know about it. You should try finding Mexican editors or editors interested in royalty. Spongie555 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The task force was created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empire of Brazil task force. We just need to tag every empire of brazil article with |EB - taskforce = yes with the banner of the former countries WikiProject. The project page doesn't look good now because it was just made it can be improved. Spongie555 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)