User talk:Paulista01/Archive 2011

Marquis of Paraná

Hello! Yes, they were related through marriage. Almost all of them were in someway or another. Caxias' wife was a Carneiro Leão, a distant cousin of the Marquis of Paraná. The other main Conservatives were also related through marriage. Here [1] there is a full tree. Enjoy! --Lecen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm always glad to help!

Once it reaches the bottom of the list, the FAC delegates will see if the Empire of Brazil will or not be promoted to Featured category. The way it is now, I belive it won't, since there is no one else having interest in reviewing it (the article is huge, and has information about everything). I tried to invite some editors to review it, but no one was interested. I also made invitations in Brazil wikiproject and Former countries wikiproject but no one appeared. I have no idea what are the other Brazilian editors doing around.

I want to take a break from all this. It was never my intention to write articles about the Brazilian imperial history. Originally, I had in mind improving Pedro II's, Getúlio Vargas' and Ernesto Geisel's articles so that readers could have a look in Brazil history from 1831 until at least 1979. But once I started at Pedro II I noticed how badly written and full of mistakes were the articles related to Brazilian imperial history and decided to improve them too. The problem is that the more I work on them, the more I notice how much they are lacking. And trust me, I get no "thanks" around here. I was called a racist, monarchist, etc... Great, huh? --Lecen (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he is. However, the FAC delegates only take in account the reviews from people they know and trust. And this list is very small and quite arbitrary. It should be someone with whom I never had contact before and have a substantial history at Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this to know what I was talking about. --Lecen (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MBelgrano is an Argentine stalker who follows me around Wikipedia. You might remember him from the Cisplatine War naming dispute. Sometimes he appears for the sheer pleasure of pissing me off. You must have also noticed that none of the editors who oppose the move were capable of being polite and reasonable. To them, it doesn't matter if the Portuguese/Brazilian monarchs' names remain a complete mess. They neither suggest a full list with only Portuguese names nor with only English names. This is the kind of people we have to deal in here. Now you know why I'm so unmotivated. --Lecen (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. He's not worth it. I tried from the beginning to be reasonable and discuss each point no matter what. But forget it, keeping the name or not is not that important. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil

Responded in full on the talk page. Cheers. Cripipper (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luso-Brazilian History

I thought about that. But, if the Brazil wikiproject is dead, one even more restricted in focus and with less members, whou could it survive? And I've been working on these articles for quite sometime, and I believe that you are the only one who knows about Brazilian history. I don't know... Perhaps one focused solely on the Empire of Brazil? But we don't have members who could work on it nor editors who know about Brazilian history. But I'm open to suggestions. --Lecen (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since ed17 joined the conversation, I answered in my talkpage. --Lecen (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Paulista, since you've shown interested on all these articles, I believe you should join me and Astynax. We've just finished Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil and will nominate as soon as it is possible. Take a look in it, review it, correct anything you believe it's needed. P.S.: Take a look at Talk:Peter V of Portugal#Requested move. --Lecen (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps is better not to waist your money buying his books. They are a bunch of crap. 1822 is an absurd from the first page to the very last. Saying that Pedro I was mounting a mule (when everyone else was mounting horses) when he was an excelente horsemen is ridiculous. He claims that the word "besta" used by eyewitnesses means "mule". Nowadays it might be, but not then. "Besta" meant a large animal. It also meant "mare", that is, a female horse. And this is how historians call the animal which Pedro I was mounted. The author also says that the famous painting "Independência ou Morte" is a mere copy, as the wntire episode was not real. Pedro Américo might have taken another painting as a model, but the episode did exist. Lastly, the author claims that Pedro I kicked his wife Leopoldina, and her death was a murder. All nonsense. And this kind of shit sells. Unbelievable. If you want a good book about Brazilian independence, buy this one. --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist historiograph had an enormous impact in this... "fashion" among historians to try to tell the "truth" about historical moments. And truth means to make everything look like a huge and absurde farce. Ow, Marxist also influenced the ridiculous view that everything in history occurred according to economic reasons or class struggle. The practice you mentioned, of simplying moving on an erroneous information is due to sheer incompetence. Or bad faith. I had to read an American historian to learn the true history of the Brazilian Conservative Party (this one). --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's far more common than you imagine. The usually mistake the name of Royal and Imperial Houses for last names. See Royal house. --Lecen (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I'm starting to work in Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil's article. You'll understand why she was not accepted because of her gender. --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe that the nightmare if finally over. I hated this FAC nomination. Too much time was lost over too little. But it was worth it. I believe that, for the very first time, now anyone has broad article about Imperial Brazil in the internet. Had I the time, I would write about the Military Dictatorship and Vargas Era. But someone else will do it. Thank you very much for the banner, it's good to see our work aknowledged. I'm right now trying to create the courage to start improving Isabel's article. I'd like to have you as a co-nominator. --Lecen (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well deserved, it is an excellent article and you worked very hard. Yesterday, I was reading a book published in 1845 by an American traveler in Brazil, by Daniel Parish Kidder, I was thinking to myself: it is such an amazing historical period and yet we don't have enough information on the web about it, I believe that Wikipedia is beginning to help with this void, in great part by your work. It will be a pleasure to co-nominate the Isabel article. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Christ (Brazil)

Irei escrever em português pois estou com um pouco de pressa. É inadequeado pois o correto é se falar em inglês mesmo entre pessoas que saibam o português. Mas acho que desta vez é perdoável. Antes de mais nada, confesso que sinto uma profunda simpatia pela monarquia parlamentarista. Não me considero um monarquista pela simples falta de um pretendente ao trono. Com a extinção da Casa de Bragança com a morte de Pedro II (último descendente legítimo masculino), não consigo imaginar a possibilidade de uma campanha viável para a restauração da monarquia. Aliás, o meu pensamento não é nem um pouco diferente do de Joaquim Nabuco, Machado de Assis, Barão do Rio Branco, dentre outros. Deixando tudo isto bem claro, acho um absurdo esses "Orléans e Bragança" (note que eles sequer aportuguezam para "Orleães"), que não são nada mais do que um bando de incompetentes que fazem parte de um ramo brasileiro da Casa francesa dos Orléans, terem a cara de pau de usarem as ordens honoríficas do Império como patrimônio familiar. Nem o direito de concneder títulos de nobreza, nem o de concender ordens honoríficas erma pertencentes a Casa Imperial, mas ao Imperador. E quando digo Imperador, me refiro a instituição, ao cargo, a posição, e não a pessoa.

Por isso respeito Pedro II, que logo que foi deposto, e até a sua morte, se chamou sempre e unicamente "Dom Pedro de Alcântara". Ele nunca saiu por aí se chamando "Imperador Dom Pedro II". Sabia muito bem que não havia um Impérioe a clara noção do senso de ridículo de sair por aí se chamando de "Príncipe" ou "Imperador" quando o país é uma república.

Portanto, não faço a mínima idéia de como a "Casa" de Orléans e Bragança utiliza a ordem honorífica. Contudo, posso te ajudar com informações sobre a ordem histórica, utilizada no Império. De longe, a melhor fonte é o renomado "Almanaque Laemmert". Tratava-se de uma espécie de "livro-tem-de-tudo" publicado de 1844 até 1889. Tudo que você imaginar está lá. Quem era membro da Casa Imperial, ou quem era simplesmente aparentado. Os nomes completos. Quais as ordens honoríficas existentes no Império. Quem eram os nobres. Quem tinha quais ordens. Quem eram os membros da Corte. Quem eram os funcionários e títulos da Corte. Existe um website com todas as edições on-line. Aqui está. Você irá perceber que enquanto as irmãs de Pedro II são tratadas como "S.A.I" (Sua Alteza Imperial), seus filhos, por outro lado, são tratados como Altezas reais. Ou seja: não faziam parte da Casa Imperial do Brasil e não estavam na linha de sucessão. A partir desta página está a descrição das ordens e quem eram os membros em 1889. Nesta edição de 1849 existe uma descrição ainda mais detalhada, com histórico e como eram as medalhas, etc... Espero que isto ajude! P.S.: Os membros da Ordens do Império eram nobres. Nobres não-titulados. Mas ainda assim, nobres. Faziam parte da base da nobreza brasileira. --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMRI

Hi Paulista01! Thanks for the rephrasing, but I still have a little (but friendly) chip on my shoulder :) because I cannot understand why the tags (cit. needed or dubious) are so eagerly removed from the article text. First, the principal editor Chrisieboy removed the citation needed tag and told me to "google it" and now the link to the talk page (dubious) has been removed. I simply tried to attract the readers' attention to the fact that the Italian usage is disputed and discussed. In my opinion, the sentence seems to indicate that the post-nominal letters are in general use in Italy. As I said in the talk page, I cannot get hold of the article in the Linguist for now, so if you could be so kind as to boldly cite the Linguist here in your own talk page so that I could have some more information about this. --Pxos (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pxos, I changed the phrase, like I told you, it is not like in England but you do see it. Here is one case where it is used, Official Website of the Province of Viterbo. Sometimes it is used in front of the name, sometimes in the end like this: Giovanni Russo, Cavalieri O.M.R.I., you may also see this: Cavalieri O.M.R.I. Giovanni Russo Another example: The Melbourne University calendar Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that we are talking about two different things: post-nominals and abbreviations. In the Viterbo example "O.M.R.I." is simply an abbreviation of the name of the Order and the same goes for the Melbourne Calendar where it is listed that the person is Cavaliere OMRI = Cavaliere dell'Ordine al Merito della RI. I think that the sentence should really be further rephrased to tell us that OMRI is the (official) abbreviation of the order's full name - not that the letters may be used as post-nominals. What do you think? --Pxos (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have seen it being used as post-nominal letters before, however I don't have the time to look for more sources now. It is normally used after the name of the person that received the honor, to me this is post-nominal, after all the "British" format is also nothing more than abbreviations. I am fine with your suggestion though, feel free to rephrase the text. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just noticed the banner that you dropped on my talk page. Thank you for the encouragement. • Astynax ^talk 05:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm late

I am very sorry for not having answered earlier. I seldom appear here anymore. My last FAC nomination was a clear revelation of how wrong the FAC process is. It gets a moment when you notice that all your effort is not appreciated and that you're losing your time. DrKiernan is somekind of "favorite guy" there. Seeing my article with eight supports staying for oever 2 months stucked while his has only four and is promoted after 2 weeks is too much for me too. I don't know if I ever will come back here to improve the articles. i'm very sorry. --Lecen (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi, Paulista01! I have recently nominated a new article to FAC: Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlike others I nominated before, this one is very short. This, I don't believe it will be a tiresome read. Anyway, I'd very glad if you could take some time to read it and share your thoughts about it. In case you're willing, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lecen. Good to see that you are back. I will look at it, I am having a busy week, but I will try to look at it soon. Kind Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to give Wikipedia a new chance. I'm trying to finish Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I'm thinking of creating a task force or something similar to American Empires. I'd like to gather everyone who is interested in the subject. What do you think of it? --Lecen (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I read some of your work on Caxias, great work. My opinion regarding the task force remains the same, I think this is a great idea. I would be glad to be part of it. Paulista01 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Blanc

See WP:EN for guidance, the accepted English name is Mont Blanc, and that is the mountain's article title. Disagree? Then get the title changed. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Perhaps you missed my comment at User talk:Lecen/Archive 10#Names? We don't add english translations to articles unless they are in use for that particular individual. Juan Carlos I of Spain is not translated as John Charles, Baudouin I of Belgium is not translated as Baldwin, etc. The names given in the lead should be the names of that individual found in reliable sources, not simple translations for the sake of including a translation. DrKiernan (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Natal!

Paulista, queria te desejar um feliz natal. Agrdeço por toda a ajuda e apoio que sempre me deu e pela confiança que depositou em mim. Você é um bom amigo. Um grande abraço! - Licínio "Lecen" Miranda, --Lecen (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]