User talk:Paulista01/Archive 2012

Caxias is a FA

Meu amigo Paulista, muito obrigado por apoiar a nomeação do artigo do Caxias. Ele foi promovido. Agradeço também pelo voto de fé que sempre me deu. Infelizmente, estou de saída da Wikipédia. Mas a vida continua. Mas sempre que quiser, me envie mensagens. Não vamos perder contato. Um grande abraço, e mais uma vez, obrigado. --Lecen (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious accusations towards us at the ANI

Paulista, please take a look at this. Those are serious accusations and must be met with the appropriate answer. --Lecen (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joao/John RM discussion

No, it isn't a blatent personal attack, but your comment is entirely about other editors. Perhaps you could replace it with a comment explaining why the page should or shouldn't be moved? Otherwise it should stay in the collapsed section. Prodego ^talk 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation on that page is delicate, and your comment does not provide reasons for a particular page title. As seen by the response to it, it is disruptive and led to (and likely will continue to lead to) personal attacks that will derail the consensus generating process. Absolutely any comment you want to post about the page is acceptable. But you may not post about other editors. I suggest you either reword your comment, or move it back in to the collapsed section. Prodego ^talk 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Paulista01 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed once more. This is your last warning about this, please keep your comments about the discussion at hand, or you will be blocked. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for stating my opinion? without any personal attacks? Can you do this? Really? If you say you can, Wikipedia will lose another editor that has been giving a lot of time in the last few years. I see somebody not involved in the discussion mysteriously reverted it already, I see what is going on, that is very low. This is my last message today, I am busy with other things in my life, but if you want we can talk tomorrow. Paulista01 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be blocked for disrupting the RfC. You can post your opinion about the title of the page, absolutely no one is contesting that! But you can't post comments attempting to devalue the comments of other editors because of who they are. Consensus isn't a vote, it is an analysis of the strength of arguments, no matter who makes them. Prodego ^talk 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no RfC, but a votation. The RfC is being ignored. --Lecen (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that whomever closes that RfC/RM (whether it is me, or someone else) will carefully examine the arguments on both sides, and not simply count up "votes". That's why we need to encourage editors to leave comments about the page, because if they do not that adds nothing useful to the discussion. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

That administrator, although not impartial, is still nonetheless an administrator. You don't want to be blocked because of this stupid discussion, no matter how unfair it is. --Lecen (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block for what? For stating my opinion, I don't care if he is an administrator, they are editors just like us, they are not suppose to abuse their tools, remember, I will not stand for this kind of undemocratic behavior. Paulista01 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will be blocked and no one will do antyhing about it. It's not worth fighting. He ignored me and kept talking with the other side the entire time. He has no interest on being "impartial". Why do you think there are so many voting in favor of John VI? Just like this, out of nowhere, several editors became interested in the life of King João VI of Portugal? You know how this will end. Let it be. --Lecen (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dragon

Paulista, the Braganza's symbol isn't a dragon, but a Wyvern, a kind of reptile, quasi-dragon creature without legs. See Early life of Pedro II of Brazil#Majority and coronation and you'll have a good source. --Lecen (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Lecen, I just read an academic paper calling it a dragon. I will check it out, I thought it represented the old patron of Portugal, Saint George. Thanks Paulista01 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be surprised. Many believe that the Dragões da Independência came from the mounted infantry type, the Dragoons (in fact, you'll find them here on Wikipedia described as such!). The name Dragões da Independência was created by historian Gustavo Barroso (kick-ass historian, but unfortunately, highly anti-semitic), who made the mistake of believing that the wyverns on the top of the helmets of the Emperor's Guard of Honor (their correct name) was a dragon. --Lecen (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I saw a different source calling it a grifo, I don't believe it is one. It looks like a Wyvern. Strange Lecen, do you know anything else about this? I am doing some research now. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I never really liked this heraldry stuff. Not even the royalty/nobility stuff either. --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, I checked some sources on Google books. I will also check some library books later but the vast majority calls the symbol of the Braganças a dragon, to me this would make more sense since we have a historical connection to St George. The Wyvern is normally connected to Wales, to complicate the matter, in certain regions of Italy and Iberia they used to portray the dragon with only 2 legs (ex: Paolo Uccello). I still believe we need a note regarding the Wyvern theory since Schwarcz is a respectable historian. I am still doing some research. Thanks for pointing it out. I enjoy heraldry, it will be fun to look it up. Paulista01 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Please, take a look at this (see "disruptive editor" section). --Lecen (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk page, please. --Lecen (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Brazil

Hi Paulista! Do you have a Skype account? If not, you can download it here and follow the steps to register. I'm looking forward to a direct communication between all editors interested in the reactivation of WikiProject Brazil. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not talking about audio conversations but a service of instant messages, because it would facilitate the discussion between the many editors. Felipe Menegaz 21:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Braganza

I'm glad to hear that you're back. Did you see the Empire of Brazil task force? We have new members. I'm packing my stuff and moving back to Fortaleza (at last!), which will alow me to finish Pedro I' article, as well as the Count of Porto Alegre and the Viscount of Inháuma. So, the symbol of the House is a dragon, not a wyvern? --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, very good. Now it will be easier with the taskforce. Good to hear that you will write these articles. I will send you an e-mail this afternoon with some stuff that I found. Back to sunny Fortaleza, lucky you buddy. Paulista01 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Augusto da Silva?

Hi, Paulista! I saw an article about Rodrigo Augusto da Silva in which you made major contributions. I'd like to warn you that you misidentified the person in this photo. It's not Rodrigo Augusto da Silva, but a man called "José Carlos de Carvalho" and he is identified as such. He was an engineer, member of a scientific commission sent by Pedro II to retrieve a meteorite. You should remove the photo and ask for its deletion, or correct the mistake. Whatever it's best for you. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, thanks for letting me know. Great, I have been looking for a source. I saw a report by Jose Carlos de Carvalho a few months ago, I was also in doubt regarding this picture. The quality of the image is not excellent so it was a little hard to confirm. Can you check in your source if Antonio Prado is in this photo? There is a guy that also looks a lot like him. Question for you: Have you ever seen a good version of this image? I will add it to the article. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The people in the photo are identified by the count of Eu himself. Not all are identified, and the name "Antonio Prado" doens't appear. Unfortunately, I don't have any book with that picture. I have several wonderful books with photographs of Brazil from the 19th century, but none of them have pictures of famous people, except for members of the Imperial House. I own a few books with paintings, but they are usually focused on a single painter, like Debret and Taunay. I'm still dreaming of the day someone will actually care to publish a book with good quality versions of famous paintings, such as Pedro Americo's Grito da Independencia, which I only find either in small and awful versions or too large, but old and poor quality versions. --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately Brazil has very few iconographic sources, excellent museums and collections, but few publications. Paulista01 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna

Surtsicna has reported us at the ANI for not sharing his views. See here. I also reported him here. He insists on removing the piece of information that Teresa Cristina of the House of Bourbon was a direct descendant of King Louis XIV, the most famous Bourbon. It seems he~s willing to go the very end to acchieve his goal. --Lecen (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. This whole thing is so silly; immature users can make Wikipedia a pain sometimes. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordem Cristo

Sr. Paulista, I think you are correct that a sperate article is needed. Perhaps an article titled: History of the Order of Christ should be suitable for the ancient order and its history and the current Order of Christ (Portugal) may be used for the current ordem. What do you think? Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Cristiano. I think it is a good idea. I will look for some sources to help you with the article. Paulista01 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sr. Paulista, I just did the move of info and replaced a simple history for the current ordem. I would very much appreciate any and all critique you have for them. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prezado Cristiano, thank you, I will read the new article. Here is a good source for the article: The book of orders of knighthood by Sir Bernard Burke. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]