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. |
Hello Lecen. I noticed you removed the subprojects template I added to the Empire of Brazil. I was adding them to the WikiProject in order to facilitate easier navigation. I replaced it for the purposes of homogeneity across the WikiProject. Do you have any specific objections to the Template? If so, please let me know.-- Xuxalliope ( talk) 01:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lecen, this post is unacceptable and frankly disturbing. I would have blocked you for that already, but having seen some of your comments over the past few days I'm not sure I can be objective here, so I'm going to report it to ANI and see what action those there think is needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Lecen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd like to be allowed to edit my user page only, so that I might add a "retired" banner. After what I saw today, I see no reason to be here anymore and I don't believe Wikipedia needs my contribution. Please tell Manning Bartlett that I appreciate his kind words and also that I had no intention of using words that sounded like legal threats. Sometimes the translation of Portuguese to English might cause misunderstanding. Alarbus, you're free to remove my comment. And remember: "First they came for..." Lecen ( talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request seems to have resolved; per the discussion below. Kuru (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2012 (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.
Lecen, please take a breath. And then please ask me to remove the thread from my talk. Thanks, Alarbus ( talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
… once that is done the issue with Sandy Georgia will be examined fairly and impartially. Manning. Please just take one step back and then they can talk about /her/ battleground mentality. Alarbus ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) No, please don't retire, again. Thanks for leave to remove it from my talk and the clarification that no legal theat was ever intended. Alarbus ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Go out and work out and try not to think about this stuff too much. TCO ( talk) 04:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see this, although I didn't see it in time to take care of it. I'll restore the rest if you like… Best wishes, Alarbus ( talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I fixed a typo out there; smiled at it though. Don't forget to fully restore your user page. I had some questions about a few articles, but am not recalling them ATM. Watcha thinkin' o' workin' on? Alarbus ( talk) 03:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brazilians 000.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Brazil has again been proposed for deletion from the article Potential superpowers. I would appreciate your input at the article's talk page. Limongi ( talk) 00:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You had no justification to alter the image of Pedro Álvares Cabral. Since the one i have posted is widely the most recognized engraving of Pedro Álvares Cabral.
Hello Lecen! I am working in the organization of Category:History of Brazil and I would like to know if you can help on Category:Monarchic history of Brazil. Since you are an expert on the field, your help would be greatly appreciated. I found Category:Brazilian monarchy a bit confusing. I was about to making changes, but I thought it best to consult you first. I was thinking in a structure like this:
But I don't know were to fit categories such as Category:Regents of Brazil. Hope you can help. Kind regards; Felipe Menegaz 18:19, 8 April 2012 (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. Cambalachero ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I been gone for a while I have been very busy with school right now. But I'm Actually on vacation right now but when I get back I can help the task force more. I should be back in a couple days. Spongie555 ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Best wishes for the Holiday. Jack Merridew 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Felipe Menegaz 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lecen. I tried to remove and replace, but red links came back too. My guess is that it's a cache thing with the Cluebot III. If the redlinks don't go away in day or so, we'll see if we can find someone to help. I might know a couple people familiar with the auto archive stuff. — Ched : ? 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
O que ando fazendo? Aprendendo história do Brasil. :) Suas edições são valiosas, continue. Grenzer22 ( talk) 12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Obrigado pelo convite. Já me inscrevi na task force. Grenzer22 ( talk) 22:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Lecen, I have a link that may be helpful: Almanaque 1838 (p. 31)
Are you adding to the list only generals raised during the empire? Dom Joao VI appointed a few generals, both in the colonial time and the United Kingdom, although they were in theory Portuguese officers some were alive after independence and living in Brazil. Cheers, Paulista01 ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think that ten editors are enough to start. If we had to discuss all the topics with lots of editors, it would had lots of conflicts and would take too long... Also, Carioca did not sign, but he will certainly help. We can do it. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 23:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm Brazilian (sim, sou brasileiro). Cordialmente, Joao Xavier ( talk) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm Brazilian. I'm a rather amateur Wiki editor, to be honest. I didn't even know if I was supposed to answer your here or in my talk page. I've added it to my watchlist and I hope I can add some information regarding themes I'm more familiar with. -- Smcf92 ( talk) 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Lecen. I am back from my trip. I will be working on some articles this week, including the article of the House of Braganza. I have collected some sources, including a decree signed by Dom Pedro I referring to the dragon, according to him, the symbol of his house. I also found a vast amount of sources, I will add it to the article. Cheers, Paulista01 ( talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lecen, do you think there are enough sources out there to do a decent expansion of the Lead Masks Case? I'm not finding a whole lot in terms of good sources on google books or scholar in English, though there are a few old news reports on google news. Do you know if there's much written about it by reliable sources in the lusophone media? Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Lecen. Hope this message finds you well. The Bugle is going to start a semi-regular series called the "Article writers' guide", and the fist subject is biographical articles. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here, and adding any questions you feel are necessary? Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Brazilian mothers | |
Thank you for your profound coverage of Brazilian topics, culture and especially people, such as the Mother of the Brazilians, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
fyi ;) Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 01:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Lecen! Of course I do not mind. I am, however, curious as to why the article should not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (the page title should be the subject of the first sentence). Doesn't it make more sense to make the article, as well as other articles about Brazilian royalty, consistent with articles about royalty in general rather than treating them differently? See, for example, a fellow featured article, Alexandra of Denmark. The articles about consorts generally start with their "full name" (Name of State) per MoS, while those about monarchs don't because it would create redundancy such as: "Pedro II of Brazil was Emperor of Brazil". Same for the infobox. I fail to see why the article about Theresa Christina should stand out from articles about other consorts, including her own predecessor, Amélie of Leuchtenberg, as well as queen consorts of Portugal.
I have also been unable to find a source that refers to Gaston as emperor. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The phrase is not important enough for me to argue about this. You are correct that it can be used (and is used) in English for both Spanish and Ibero-Italian monarchs, and DrKiernan is correct that it is not universal (though that is not the word he used). I don't see how that this is important to the article, whether it is kept or deleted. There is nothing like an appearance on the Wikipedia front page to get editors, both the good and the vandals, throwing up changes that they otherwise never would consider making. • Astynax talk 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
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. |
Hello Lecen. I noticed you removed the subprojects template I added to the Empire of Brazil. I was adding them to the WikiProject in order to facilitate easier navigation. I replaced it for the purposes of homogeneity across the WikiProject. Do you have any specific objections to the Template? If so, please let me know.-- Xuxalliope ( talk) 01:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lecen, this post is unacceptable and frankly disturbing. I would have blocked you for that already, but having seen some of your comments over the past few days I'm not sure I can be objective here, so I'm going to report it to ANI and see what action those there think is needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Lecen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd like to be allowed to edit my user page only, so that I might add a "retired" banner. After what I saw today, I see no reason to be here anymore and I don't believe Wikipedia needs my contribution. Please tell Manning Bartlett that I appreciate his kind words and also that I had no intention of using words that sounded like legal threats. Sometimes the translation of Portuguese to English might cause misunderstanding. Alarbus, you're free to remove my comment. And remember: "First they came for..." Lecen ( talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request seems to have resolved; per the discussion below. Kuru (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2012 (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.
Lecen, please take a breath. And then please ask me to remove the thread from my talk. Thanks, Alarbus ( talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
… once that is done the issue with Sandy Georgia will be examined fairly and impartially. Manning. Please just take one step back and then they can talk about /her/ battleground mentality. Alarbus ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) No, please don't retire, again. Thanks for leave to remove it from my talk and the clarification that no legal theat was ever intended. Alarbus ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Go out and work out and try not to think about this stuff too much. TCO ( talk) 04:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see this, although I didn't see it in time to take care of it. I'll restore the rest if you like… Best wishes, Alarbus ( talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I fixed a typo out there; smiled at it though. Don't forget to fully restore your user page. I had some questions about a few articles, but am not recalling them ATM. Watcha thinkin' o' workin' on? Alarbus ( talk) 03:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brazilians 000.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Brazil has again been proposed for deletion from the article Potential superpowers. I would appreciate your input at the article's talk page. Limongi ( talk) 00:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You had no justification to alter the image of Pedro Álvares Cabral. Since the one i have posted is widely the most recognized engraving of Pedro Álvares Cabral.
Hello Lecen! I am working in the organization of Category:History of Brazil and I would like to know if you can help on Category:Monarchic history of Brazil. Since you are an expert on the field, your help would be greatly appreciated. I found Category:Brazilian monarchy a bit confusing. I was about to making changes, but I thought it best to consult you first. I was thinking in a structure like this:
But I don't know were to fit categories such as Category:Regents of Brazil. Hope you can help. Kind regards; Felipe Menegaz 18:19, 8 April 2012 (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. Cambalachero ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I been gone for a while I have been very busy with school right now. But I'm Actually on vacation right now but when I get back I can help the task force more. I should be back in a couple days. Spongie555 ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Best wishes for the Holiday. Jack Merridew 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Felipe Menegaz 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lecen. I tried to remove and replace, but red links came back too. My guess is that it's a cache thing with the Cluebot III. If the redlinks don't go away in day or so, we'll see if we can find someone to help. I might know a couple people familiar with the auto archive stuff. — Ched : ? 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
O que ando fazendo? Aprendendo história do Brasil. :) Suas edições são valiosas, continue. Grenzer22 ( talk) 12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Obrigado pelo convite. Já me inscrevi na task force. Grenzer22 ( talk) 22:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Lecen, I have a link that may be helpful: Almanaque 1838 (p. 31)
Are you adding to the list only generals raised during the empire? Dom Joao VI appointed a few generals, both in the colonial time and the United Kingdom, although they were in theory Portuguese officers some were alive after independence and living in Brazil. Cheers, Paulista01 ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think that ten editors are enough to start. If we had to discuss all the topics with lots of editors, it would had lots of conflicts and would take too long... Also, Carioca did not sign, but he will certainly help. We can do it. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 23:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm Brazilian (sim, sou brasileiro). Cordialmente, Joao Xavier ( talk) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm Brazilian. I'm a rather amateur Wiki editor, to be honest. I didn't even know if I was supposed to answer your here or in my talk page. I've added it to my watchlist and I hope I can add some information regarding themes I'm more familiar with. -- Smcf92 ( talk) 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Lecen. I am back from my trip. I will be working on some articles this week, including the article of the House of Braganza. I have collected some sources, including a decree signed by Dom Pedro I referring to the dragon, according to him, the symbol of his house. I also found a vast amount of sources, I will add it to the article. Cheers, Paulista01 ( talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lecen, do you think there are enough sources out there to do a decent expansion of the Lead Masks Case? I'm not finding a whole lot in terms of good sources on google books or scholar in English, though there are a few old news reports on google news. Do you know if there's much written about it by reliable sources in the lusophone media? Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Lecen. Hope this message finds you well. The Bugle is going to start a semi-regular series called the "Article writers' guide", and the fist subject is biographical articles. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here, and adding any questions you feel are necessary? Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Brazilian mothers | |
Thank you for your profound coverage of Brazilian topics, culture and especially people, such as the Mother of the Brazilians, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
fyi ;) Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 01:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Lecen! Of course I do not mind. I am, however, curious as to why the article should not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (the page title should be the subject of the first sentence). Doesn't it make more sense to make the article, as well as other articles about Brazilian royalty, consistent with articles about royalty in general rather than treating them differently? See, for example, a fellow featured article, Alexandra of Denmark. The articles about consorts generally start with their "full name" (Name of State) per MoS, while those about monarchs don't because it would create redundancy such as: "Pedro II of Brazil was Emperor of Brazil". Same for the infobox. I fail to see why the article about Theresa Christina should stand out from articles about other consorts, including her own predecessor, Amélie of Leuchtenberg, as well as queen consorts of Portugal.
I have also been unable to find a source that refers to Gaston as emperor. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The phrase is not important enough for me to argue about this. You are correct that it can be used (and is used) in English for both Spanish and Ibero-Italian monarchs, and DrKiernan is correct that it is not universal (though that is not the word he used). I don't see how that this is important to the article, whether it is kept or deleted. There is nothing like an appearance on the Wikipedia front page to get editors, both the good and the vandals, throwing up changes that they otherwise never would consider making. • Astynax talk 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)