User talk:Astynax/Archive 9

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.

Sorry, I was gone for the past week. I did make some changes to the template. Hopefully this fixes the problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias/archive1? I fixed almost everything the reviewer asked to but I couldn't fix the "Kraay and Whigham" broken ref.[1] I tried to do just as with other similar double author reference that can be found in Empire of Brazil but to no avail. Are you able to fix it? --Lecen (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot look now, but will try to see what I can do later tonight. • Astynax ^talk 20:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is now fixed. • Astynax ^talk 11:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is now a FAC. Nikkimaria made a few comments. I answered most of them, but I left there to you:

• Please review MOS:QUOTE for formatting and other relevant guidelines regarding quotations
• Note C is missing the closing quotation mark. Please check for other omitted punctuation
• Lyra 1977b: spacing

Sorry about it. You are far better than I on these kind of things. --Lecen (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, I'm moving to Pedro I of Brazil. Once you're available, could you take a look on its first two sections (birth and education)? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will try to look tonight or tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 17:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is something that has been bothering me on Pedro II's article. Is the the following passage: "I also understand that useless expenditure is Nation theft." Is this correct? "Nation theft"? If not, I believe "I also understand that useless expenditure is to steal the Nation" could also be used. --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea comes across, but it might be clearer as either "I also understand that useless expenditure is stealing from the Nation." or "I also understand that useless expenditure is looting the Nation." I didn't have an opportunity to go through Pedro I yesterday, but will try to do so later today. • Astynax ^talk 08:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I did it as you suggested. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You translated the word "aio" as "custodian". That is not correct. "Aio" is the male equivalent to "aia". It is the person who guided the prince's upbringing and oversaw his education. The word chosen by Barman was "supervisor" [2]. You seems to have preferred "governess" for "aia" but it's certainly not "custodian" (or "guardian" as you also called both aio and aia on the same paragraph). P.S.: I'm done with "first marriage" section. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Preceptor" is extremely obscure among English speakers, and even for those who know the word, it is more used to describe a tutor or godfather figure. "Custodian" is the equivalent of a warden (a person placed in charge of another). Perhaps the word "governor" would work, though I thought that some readers might confuse it with the political office of governor. "Warden" is also often used in American English to describe a person in charge of a prison (though in British English, they use "governor" and elsewhere "superintendent"). I would be happy for a better word, but was not able to think of something more suitable. • Astynax ^talk 21:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The aio, or aia, was mostly a tutor. In fact, a kind "chief tutor", since he/she was in charge of supervising the other teachers, but also the princes' ubringing. I'll leave the name Barman used, but I added a little bit of info explaining what they did. --Lecen (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Supervisor" is fine, and the addition is helpful! • Astynax ^talk 23:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I added back a paragraph I had removed from Caxias' article. I believe that now the following paragraph is easier to understand and that the text flows better. --Lecen (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a minor changes to make it even a bit simpler. • Astynax ^talk 10:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've finished two other sections in Pedro I's article: First marriage and Liberal Revolution of 1820. Please taek a look once you have spare time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have time to look this weekend. • Astynax ^talk 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. I hope you're enjoying your free time with your family. Have a nice holiday. You're a great guy. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is almost the New Year and I hope that you enjoy both the holiday and less frustration in the coming months. Stay safe! • Astynax ^talk 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, I just expanded the article on George Went Hensley and I was wondering if you could take a look at it and maybe do some copyediting? I'd like to try to make it a Good Article. I saw that you created the article on the Latter Rain movement so I thought you might be interested in the article, Hensley was one of the more colorful characters in early Pentecostalism. No rush though, feel free to take your time. Thanks and Happy New Year, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. • Astynax ^talk 06:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough copyedit! I really appreciate it; it's hard to find good copyeditors these days. Having done some copyediting myself I realize that it is not always easy. I hope the rest of your weekend goes well. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, my friend. No matter what a few may say, we deserved it. The article is amazing. Thank you very much for everyting you did for me here. This is something that I am simply not able to repay in any possible way. We were a good team. Help others as you did to me. You're a great person. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Without your effort to push improvements to the sketchy articles about Brazil's history, the quality would have remained poor. I thank you for your patience with me, and for gently correcting some of my own misconceptions by pointing me to better sources and translations. I hope the standard of the articles continues to be maintained, and that students and others may find better understanding of a truly rich and complex heritage. Perhaps someday the editing process will not be so wearying and contentious. • Astynax ^talk 07:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. A user called Walrasiad (who oposed the move of João VI) has made some harsh accusation towards ed17 and us in general at the ANI. Plase take a look at it. --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole Joao/John nonsense made me decide to stay a little longer. But just a little longer. I'm done with "Independence or Death" section on Pedro I of Brazil. Could you take a look once you find some free time? --Lecen (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! I will do that. • Astynax ^talk 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've worked on this. I've had talks with Lecen about revisiting references and am starting on this article. I expect you've noticed me on some other pages you've both done. Best wishes, Alarbus (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the references into the easier-to-maintain templates! • Astynax ^talk 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Got more that need it? Alarbus (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I finished "Constitutional Emperor" on Pedro I's article. Could you take a look later? --Lecen (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, I can do this tonight or tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a reply to your message there. --Lecen (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a little bit of information to Princess Maria Amélia's article. See here. Could you improve it if necessary? I also posted your brilliant message above my first one in Paraguayan War's talk page. MarshalN20 erased it, even though another editor reverted him. If you don't have a problem with it, please tell it there. --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably be able to get to this tonight or Monday. I have no problem with a comment of mine being moved to a more appropriate place in a discussion. • Astynax ^talk 10:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm back and I'm done with "Portuguese dynastic affair" at Pedro I of Brazil. Could you improve it? --Lecen (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you active again! I will try to go over the section tonight. • Astynax ^talk 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for all your work on the Hensley article, especially all the tedious stuff with references. This has turned into a fun project. I haven't worked with the sfn templates before, I'll look into using them more. So do you think the article is near featured quality? I have a few more details I would like to put in, maybe 10 sentences or so, shouldn't be too time-consuming. After that, I guess I don't see any reason not to nominate it. (I think you deserve co-nom status on this.[3]) I have an article I co-nomed on WP:FAC already, but I think a user can be a co-nom on two pages at a time. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• And we're live at WP:FAC. Hope this goes well! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hi again, hope your weekend is going well. If you get a change, could you take another look at the prose? On the FAC page Sandy just mentioned that she found some "cumbersome", "confusing", "change[s] in tense" in the lead and suggested that the body be checked for similar issues. I'll try to go through and look but it will be good to have a second set of eyes on this if you can. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe ArbCom has ruled that dashes should not be changed unless there's a good reason to do so. What good reason is there for the mass dash-changes you've been making? Unless you have an exceedingly good rationale, please stop -- this type of edit is not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixing such dashes with Advisor.js is entirely ordinary and per MOS:WP:DASH. Alarbus (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between hyphens and dashes, and MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:DASH still make the distinction. I've only been doing a replace in articles where one or more hyphens are improperly used. • Astynax ^talk 09:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You were doing fine; I stopped back to correct my comment, above; you were using User:GregU/dashes.js. They complement each other in some ways. See my .js User:Alarbus/common.js for more tools. Alarbus (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll like this. That's a member of ArbCom using the very same script to do the same sort of dash fixing. Rock on.

Also, see User talk:Mark Arsten#George Went Hensley and CITEREF; seems I should have asked you. I've worked on most of the Brazilian articles I know of, but could use a few links to things you think need help. I think I've done most of Wehwalt's coins (although there are a few further bits I'm aware of; need to do a full second pass across them all; same for the Brazilian ones). Alarbus (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it got archived due to the no supports for 3 weeks rule--I'm inclined to re-nominate though, I think it was improved a lot during the FAC and is pretty darn close to Featured quality. Thanks again for all the work you've put into it thus far. Do you think we should go through another peer review or just wait the obligatory period (two weeks, I think?) and then renominate? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the FAC when you get a chance? If you could weigh in on the glossolalia vs tongues thing I'd appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I will attempt to do so later. I've also responded via email. • Astynax ^talk 19:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Latter Rain Movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latter Rain Movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RichardMills65 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As a contributor who was not notified of the discussion taking place this may concern you. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, in this edit] you appear to be loosing information. I would suggest that the missing fields be added to the new template before removing the old one so that things such as the OS Grid Ref are not lost. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also left on your talk: The information is not lost, and clicking on the coordinate link displays the GeoHack tool which lists the coordinates using different systems, including the UK and Irish Ordnance Survey coordinates. Neither of the suggested replacement templates contains fields for the UK-only or Ireland-only geo-coordinate systems. If it is important for these to be included in either of the suggested replacement templates, then editors may suggest on those templates' talk pages, or (as do several of the aritcles) list that information within the body of the articles. I have left comments on each of the pages noting the original OS grid coordinates to make it easier for editors to reinsert them should they wish. • Astynax ^talk 02:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Much better if templates were not merged until all fields were available in the merged to template. Keith D (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that you added the image to Snake handling, thus preserving it from deletion! I really think a Fair use rationale could be crafted for the George Went Hensley article. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would at least like see a legitimate reason given that it should be deleted, rather than just blanking it because it isn't currently being used. I'd like to have it placed back into the Hensley article, but understand Mark Arsten's not wanting to deal with it while that article is in FAC. • Astynax ^talk 17:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We did it! That sure took a lot of work, thanks for sticking with it for so long. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! I was going to check earlier and give YOU the news, but I overslept. Congrats and thanks for herding this through! • Astynax ^talk 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Astynax, would you mind taking a look at this (see "disruptive editor" section)? --Lecen (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone else has addressed the issue. If the person wants a map with certain features, then he should make it as a new file, and not overwrite a file currently in use without discussion and consensus. I think that on the question of other borders (Columbia-Venezuela, Columbia-Peru, Paraguay-Argentina, etc.) it would be good to place a note on the image's page that the map of the Empire is shown in relation to the modern borders of other South American nations, or those lines could be removed. Many of those frontiers were more theoretical than actual in the early 19th century. • Astynax ^talk 18:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I asked another editor at the Graphic Workshop to create two new files without the Hispanic American republics' borders. Still, that wasn't the worse: the editor who kept uploading the misleading files removed huge pieces of Brazilian territory without a good reason. Anyway, it seems that, for now, the matter has been settled. I'm trying to find time and patience to finish Pedro I of Brazil, but as I grow older, time seems to run shorter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You said "Of course there were a lot of hits from the redirect, given the many yet-to-be-disambiguated links that had hung around in other articles since the title change—which I suspect that Lecen was merely making an attempt to correct..". It's indeed true. Beyond Paraguayan War,[4][5][6][7] I was fixing other articles links too, like Pedro II of Brazil,[8][9][10] Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias,[11][12] Francisco Solano López,[13][14][15] Cisplatine War,[16] etc... But do you know what is truly funny? Except for Cambalachero and MarshalN20, no one else bothered about it. None of those edits on links regarding the Paraguayan War were reverted or are being challenged, neither by Paraguayan editors, nor by Uruguayan editors, not evenby other Argentine editors! Don't waste your time dealing with those two, they aren't worthy it. You must have noticed that no one has taken them serious so far (not even at the ANI, nor at the move request, etc...). And you aren't the one editor who saw who they are, another one said "Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and Wee Curry Monster have been tag-teaming him [Lecen] for months" and has warned others already. Enjoy the weekend, my friend, there are other things more useful and healthier you may do instead of talking to them. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against correcting a true PoV claim, but they are objecting against titles that look very neutral from the world outside of those involved in those wars. Rather than arguing titles or seeking to remove information that is neutrally presented and backed by sources, the articles would benefit far more from that energy being used to add more details, backed by reliable English-language references. The current links that have not yet been disambiguated is also a problem, and those links need to be piped directly to the article and not to the redirects. The links should have been fixed at the time the articles were moved, but strangely were not. I will try to do that soon. If someone wants to also accuse me of acting like a "bot" for following policy guidelines, then so be it. • Astynax ^talk 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't answer them. No one is taking them seriously and in mere 24h their threads will be archived by a bot (if they stop adding unnecessary messages, of course). --Lecen (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm back working on Pedro I of Brazil. My goal is to be as straightfoward as possible, thus avoiding a large article as Pedro II's. I added a full sentence taken from Roderick J. Barman that I wish you could take a look into it. Perhaps there is no need to remove the quotation marks, since this pece of text is very good by itself to explain the Emperor's character. However, you would need to work on "key to D. Pedro I's psychological makeup" since he is not "Pedro I" yet. Perhaps changing the wording of this piece and moving the quotation marks ahead? I'll leave it to you, since you'll know far better than me how to handle with it. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will look at it this evening. • Astynax ^talk 22:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"As a result of the highly centralized State created by the Constitution, rebels in Ceará, Paraíba and Pernambuco seceded from Brazil and united in what became known as the Confederation of the Equator." (Pedro I, "Constitutional Emperor" subsection, last paragraph) Could you change the piece in bold? It will look like those provinces managed to secede like the U.S. states that became the Confederate States of America and that's not true. The provinces themselves did not secede, although the rebels declared their secession. They never took the cotrol of any of them. Perhaps something like "--Lecen (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)declared there provinces seceded from Brazil and united into the Confederation of the Equator"? --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording. Make it right if the change doesn't seem correct to you. • Astynax ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's great, thanks! --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"War and widowhood" section is unfinished. I realized that I'll have to buy Neill Macaulay's English edition of Pedro I's biography. The Google books online version doesn't show some of the pages I really need to check and the edition I own is in Portuguese. That means that we'll need to leave the article as it is for the time being, until my copy arrives. Nonetheless, could you the little I added there? --Lecen (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have finished a copy edit. Change anything that you don't like. • Astynax ^talk 08:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you see this and improve it if necessary? --Lecen (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that both "held in a minor account" and "minimized" are wrong. You see, Caxias became this kind of "General Lee of Brazil" only later, but neither he nor his accomplishments were ignored. It was just that Marshal Osório was the "Brazilian General Lee" until that point. Perhaps you should change the entire sentence from "For decades after his death and during the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy, Caxias' achievements were minimized. His reputation was slowly rehabilitated over time" to something like "For decades after his death and during the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy, Caxias' reputation was slowly heightened over time" Lastly, is "during" correct? Caxias died in 1880 and the monarchy fell in 1889. His reputation suffered after 1889 and recouped by the 1920s. --Lecen (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Before we say that his reputation was enhanced or rehabilitated, we must established that his accomplishments were depreciated or ignored. Otherwise, it sounds as if his accomplishments were not appreciated until recently. I'm not certain of the word that would be best. I agree that "during" is unnecessary. Perhaps something like "For decades after his death and the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy, Caxias' achievements were underappreciated. Historians gradually began to reappraise his career, introducing a far more respectful assessment of his reputation."?

Still not good, because he was not disrespected, it was just that there was someone else (Osório, the Marquis of Erval) who was far more idolized than him. Caxias merely replaced Osório as time passed. Perhaps "...Caxias' achievements were not revered as they would later be. His reputation was slowly heightened [greatened?] over time." --Lecen (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I tried again. Some of the words that mean the same as "heightened" or "greatened" sound odd in an English sentence. If it is still not correct, I can try again. • Astynax ^talk 06:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's perfect! I'm sorry for the trouble. The authors nowadays claim that Caxias was completely forgotten at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century. However, I started reading books from that period and that claim doesn't make sense. The centennial of Caxias' birth was celebrated with much fanfare by the army, and an equestrian statue of him was opened in the late 1890s (and its still there in Rio de Janeiro). There is a 2-volume book about the generals of the Empire published in 1906 which is still used today as source by many historians. There are only two generals in these books who have their pictures in it and both have far more pages devoted to them than all the others. Guess who they are: Erval and Caxias. Present-day historians are certainly exaggerating Caxias second place status and he was certainly not almost completely forgotten. I thought we should correct it, that's all. Thanks a lot. --Lecen (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I was reading with far more careful Wikipedia MoS and I was quite surprised with a few things I saw. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) says: "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources." That's funny, since I checked books in English between 1987 and 2012 and found out that with the sole exception of King João III/John III, all other Portuguese kings are usually referred by their names in Portuguese, not English. Don't worry, I won't propose another move request, it would make me look like a bad loser. At least I don't wish to do it in the near future. The greatest issue in those failed move requests was the "You want to turn English Wikipedia into Foreign Wikipedia" accusations. Instead of wasting time discussing with editors with absurd and baseless accusations, we should have had simply voted and ignored them as we did in the Platine War/Cisplatine War move requests. Anyway, this is only a comment, nothing more. --Lecen (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think too many editors are using older references, especially things like Encyclopaedia Britannica, where the British imperial-era anglicizing tradition still lingers. The change began occurring in a big way over 40 years ago, though it started even before in U.S. scholarship, which is why we refer to Juan Carlos I (not John Charles), Beijing (not Peking), etc. Some of the old English books I've come across even refer to Louis XIV as "Lewis XIV"—imagine the outcry if we insisted on naming the Juan Perón article to "John Dominic Peter". I'm glad that the article on Kaisers Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II have finally been changed from "William I" and "William II" (which were rarely ever used in American English), though the article on Kaiser Friedrich III has been left anglicized. Wikipedia is very confusing and inconsistent on naming for this very reason. I'm not certain why some people want to defend to the death an outmoded tradition of anglicizing, or even if there is still a difference between U.S. and U.K. sources that they are continuing to argue. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a small addition to the Duke of Caxias' article: see here. Could you improve it if necessary? --Lecen (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Although four States were involved in the struggle, South American historians are unanimous in giving the strife which broke out in 1864 the name of the Paraguayan War." See here. I should have ssen this before. One day, when I start working on all those wars I'll read the books more carefully. --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even though it is an old book it documents that the term "Paraguayan War" has been widely used and for a long time. And although Koebel died in the 1920s, he was careful about his facts, and his work is still cited in scholarship. • Astynax ^talk 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, I reverted the changes to the other article as well and posted HELP! messages on wikiprojects Israel, Palestine and Ancient Near East. I don't do a lot of editing these past few weeks, but I'll try to help as much as I can. Poliocretes (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have also been busy doing things outside of Wikipedia. The articles contain good information that is not covered anywhere else on Wikipedia and it can be understood, even if the text is difficult in places. Eventually, someone will update them. I intend to restore the references and do a bit of cleanup on the Crusader Period article, although my Hebrew is extremely rudimentary. • Astynax ^talk 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a question about Portuguese sources on Lecen's talk page, you read Portuguese, right? If so, feel free to comment. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My Portuguese is very rudimentary. Even so, I can see that some of the text is poorly translated (e.g., "impermeable coats" is normally translated as "raincoats"). It is very strange that the article in its present iteration leaves out any mention of ufo conspiracy theories, as that would be the main thing that makes the article WP notable. I would post my halting translation, but am unsure whether this would be a copyright violation. • Astynax ^talk 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, that's a good point. This one may not go to far, but hopefully a little could be done. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to stay out of the talking on Teresa Cristina, as I believed that by allowing others to share their thoughts I wouldn't suffers unfair accusations. However, my patience disappeared and I had to talk.[17] I thought DrKiernan had somehow changed and was eager to help us, but it's clear that he hasn't changed at all. I can't believe that he and Surtsicna can insult everyone else on the room and still claim that they are the ones who were offended. The ongoing debate is leading nowhere and it's nothing mroe than an old case of "I don't like this and I'd like to see it removed". --Lecen (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am the same as I ever was, it is your perception of me that has changed from good to bad to good to bad. I was willing to help, but there is little point in me offering you my help when you refuse it or fling it back in my face as unwelcome. DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop stalking me, stop checking my history log. --Lecen (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you. I'm not checking your history log. DrKiernan (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"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". You said it all. --Lecen (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

;) I migrate watchlists... so noticed this. Surprised I didn't notice the linked discussion. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

It doesn't appear that this attempt to bypass consensus is working. I'm not certain why s/he insists that no one responded, when several of us gave our reasons for retaining the information. Thank you for bringing the dispute to my attention. • Astynax ^talk 02:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Astinax, I finally added three much needed pictures (see here) into Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná's article, thus filling the gaps. Could you add the alternative text and improve/correct the descriptive text? --Lecen (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done • Astynax ^talk 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)