User talk:Astynax/Archive 8

The article Acra (fortress) is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

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 November 1, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). 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^{Talk C.} 00:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Acra was a fortified compound in Jerusalem of the 2nd century BCE. Built by Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of the Seleucid Empire, following his sack of the city in 168 BCE, the fortress played a significant role in the events surrounding the Maccabean Revolt and the formation of the Hasmonean Kingdom. It was destroyed by Simon Maccabeus during this struggle. The exact location of the Acra, critical to understanding Hellenistic Jerusalem, remains a matter of ongoing discussion. Historians and archaeologists have proposed various sites around Jerusalem, relying mainly on conclusions drawn from literary evidence. This approach began to change in the light of excavations which commenced in the late 1960s. New discoveries have prompted reassessments of the ancient literary sources, Jerusalem's geography and previously discovered artifacts. Yoram Tsafrir has interpreted a masonry joint in the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount platform as a clue to the Acra's possible position. During Benjamin Mazar's 1968 and 1978 excavations adjacent to the south wall of the Mount, features were uncovered which may have been connected with the Acra, including barrack-like rooms and a huge cistern. (more...)

Pedro II - again

Astynax, another editors appeared in Pedro II FAC, would you mind answering him? I must confess that I'm getting tired of this. And I felt a little insulted by SandyGeorgia who implied that we could have been fabricating supports to our articles. FAC are problematic, I do not understand how people haven't realised that by now. We have to comply with personal tastes of every and each editor who appear there. If he simply did not like a picture, he will say "no, I oppose" or a way a text was written. And is quite common to see some who says "the text has many issues with grammar and spelling" without telling where and why. An article with so many supports would not have acchieved that consensus if it wasn't good enough.

And I sincerely do not know what to do with Pedro II's article. I imagined that people would think that it is a little odd that a monarch who was deposed is so admired with practicaly no criticism toward him. But he is an odd case of his own. People can only understand what happened if they read Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. The Republican coup was not against him, no wonder that a few weeks before it he was invited to head the coup and become the first republican dictator. He was venerated by the same men who deposed him. But as it is better mentioned in the article, the problem was always the lack of a male heir and because the ruling circles sincerely believed that there was no need for a monarch in the country - that is, the country had been long stable and at peace. Since they did not want Isabel as Empress and an Emperor was no longer truly needed, the fall of the monarchy was something very real. And lastly, what should we do? Are we suppose to say that he was mediocre? That is neutral? If they doubt us, all they have to do is to go check in Google books, write "Pedro II" and read any English-written book to see how they speak of the Emperor. And that is why we've used 32 different books as sources! I don't know, I just wanted to know your opinion and I believe you would be far better than I answering him. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: It is amazing to see that they don't read the entire article! They take a look in a few sections and think: "Nope, not good enough". --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a reply to the points raised. I am also disappointed that people raise questions which would quickly be answered by looking at the references. It is unfortunate that we are not being credited with good faith, but that is one of the reasons for all the citations, as you said. I understand SandyGeorgia wanting some absolute consensus (if there is any such thing) for the articles being reviewed, since s/he is acting alone overseeing the reviews right now. We have received some very good suggestions and corrections, but it is very frustrating for nominators to get vague and contradictory critiques—and absolutely maddening to search for a problem that isn't there, or to run around looking for policy which has been stretched too far to justify writing style or "tone" criticisms. • Astynax ^talk 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Laser brain (A.K.A.: Andy Walsh) has removed his "oppose" vote: "Update - After reviewing quite a few sources on my own and consulting a scholar of Brazilian history at the university here, I've decided to withdraw my opposition. I think what's written here is an accurate picture of the subject, at least how he is remembered and recorded in history. I'm not fully supporting yet because I'd like to run through the prose again, but I wouldn't want to hold up progress on the FAC." --Lecen (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Attn at 2x2s

Hi Astynax, could you please have a quick check of Two by Twos and see whether all or some of the edits should stay. I will be violating 3RR if I revert again. In my opinion they are merely opinions and not carefully sourced like the rest of the article, which is what led to the prior instability and general crappiness of the article. Thanks, Donama (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I could not find that the added material was supported by the existing references. I have reverted and left a note on the user's talk. If there is new material, I'm sure we all will be happy to know of it, though upon checking recent postings on some of the public discussion boards that other editors have mentioned in the past, I could find no indications of broad, new changes. Perhaps I missed a report of some new initiative, but even if so and as we both are painfully aware, we have to wait for published sources to back up statements. • Astynax ^talk 07:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An explanation and a request

Hey, Astynax. How are you? I am realy, really sorry for having disappeared for awhile. I've moved from Fortaleza to Brasília and I was not able to bring my books (except for a few ones). I'm only going to be back to my home town on December, so I won't be able to work on the Duke of Caxias' article for the moment. I managed to write two full sections in it in the last week, but I did it from memory and that's why it has no references. But don't worry, I will finish it.

I don't know if you have noticed, but I've been revamping Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná for some time. This was our first featured article and since then, I learned mor about him and acquired a few books that were very helpful on flashing his character. I believe now the reader will understand better his motives, since his background was expanded. I also removed the names given by Roderick J. Barman to political factions to keep them more neutral (that is, the way they were called in the 1830s). I'm not finished yet and I plan to explain with more precision why Carneiro Leão (or Honório, as I'm calling him now, since this is how American historians prefer to call him) supported the conciliation and what was its true impact in Brazilian politics and in the monarchy.

I would like to know if you could read it (carefully) and correct any grammar or spelling mistakes. I hardly believe that there is someone better than you around. I've finished sections "early years" to "defender of the constitution". I'm going to begin work on "Rise of the Conservative Party". Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen. That is a very big move! I have also been very busy the last 2 months, though I do check in regularly and I did notice that you were doing some work. I hope that I can read through your additions to Marquis of Paraná this weekend. I still have a couple sections in Duke of Caxias that I need to look through, but I will do the Paraná edits first. I hope the move has not been too stressful. • Astynax ^talk 18:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. I came here to study, and its only for awhile. The city smaller than Fortaleza, but more organized. But I'll be back in a few months, Take your time to make the edits. I'm still working on it, anyway. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the article. I'll continue writing in it on September 6. I'm a little busy now. Also, could you somehow change the wording of "the foreign-dominated African slave trade" (Era of troubles section). I didnt mean that foreign dominated the African slave trade (although that is correct, Portuguese were the main slave dealers in Brazil). I was talking about the Atlantic Slave trade, the one that brought Africans from Africa to Brazil. I added "foreign" to distinguish it from Honório's business (he was involved in domestic slave trading, that is, selling slaves from on town to another, or from one province to another). Could you do something about both? I don't want the reader to believe that Pedro I abolished Honório's slave trading (although it certainly harmed his business as slaves became rarer and more expensive to purchase). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a few words that I hope makes it more understandable. • Astynax ^talk 07:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm all done with Genesis of the Conservative Party, Party's leader in the Chamber of Deputies, Against the Liberal rebellions of 1842 and First presidency of the Council of Ministers. Could you work on it once you find some free time? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I should be able to do this in the next few days. • Astynax ^talk 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also done with "Praieira" section. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording of a sentence in the Empire of Brazil article. "The provincial presidents were appointed by the national government and were, in theory, charged with governing the province. In practice, they had little power or influence" became "In practice, they had limited and relative power or influence". The relative here is used as a synonymous of "existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative." Is this correct? --Lecen (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are using the term correctly. However, it is a somewhat vague term unless you specify what relative factors were involved. You could expand it to something like: "In practical terms, however, their power was intangible, varying from province to province based upon each president's relative degree of personal influence and personal character." Just a suggestion. I am still looking for a block of time that I can go through your changes and additions to Paraná‎‎, but it looks like Friday or the weekend. • Astynax ^talk 07:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In "Genesis of Conservative Party" you wrote "In May 1840, he proposed a constitutional amendment that incorporated the concept that the monarch could be declared of age earlier than he would normally assume full powers, and also included language which would limit the influence wielded by the regent and and the Courtier Faction." This is not what I meant. I reworked this piece of text and made it more clear as "In May 1840, he proposed a constitutional amendment that incorporated the concept that the monarch could be declared of age earlier than he would normally assume full powers. The naturally slow process of passing constitutional amendments meant that the Reactionary Party would stay in the government at least until 1842, when Araújo Lima's term as regent would end." If there is any error, please correct it. You seems to have jumped through "Against the Liberal rebellions of 1842" and "First presidency of the Council of Ministers". I assume you will work on it later? --Lecen (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a holiday and I didn't get to finish. I am about to do the other sections now. Your change to the sentence is good and clear. 08:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with "Platine War" and "Second presidency of the Council of Ministers". Only one section and I'll be over. Wow. --Lecen (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to go through those tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Finished "Apogee and unexpected death"! --Lecen (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A new FAC

I nominated Afonso, Prince Imperial once again. I took the liberty of adding your name as nominator. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond to some of the comments later. • Astynax ^talk 07:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

An editor asked: "What does 'mature and expansive' mean exactly, and it what way did the birth allow him to become whatever it means?" I recommend taking a look at this link [1] (see the last paragraph of page 110 and the first and the second paragraphs of page 111). --Lecen (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you check whether Barman said (in Princess Isabel of Brazil p. 23) that Pedro II's change of personality after Afonso's birth could be detected in the letter to Maria II? I do not recall how this was stated by Barman. I am still going over the responses. The reviewer seems to be hinting that original research was used in saying that a reader can detect the change in the letter. • Astynax ^talk 07:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood it. The articles says "However, it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest in the child, as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846 and written by Pedro II to his elder sister Maria II". This piece of text has no relation to Pedro II's growing maturity, but to how he regarded Afonso as the center of all attention. He barely mentions Isabel and is Afonso the main focus of his letter. Here is what Barman says (first paragraph of page 24): "The greater age of Afonso, then twenty-two months old compared to D. Isabel's five months, explains in part why he captured his father's attention, but his gender was also a factor. As son and heir all eyes focused on him, whereas a daughter inevitably took second place. At the moment that Pedro II wrote to his sister in Portugal, D. Teresa Cristina was already two months pregnant with her third child. The hopes was that she was carrying a boy, a second son to ensure the male succession to the throne."[2]

Malleus Fatuorum wrote: "'However, it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest ...'. The most interest in what?" I don't understand what's wrong with this one. Pedro II is the most interested on his son. That's pretty obvious ("it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest in the child"). Fatuorum also wrote "'... as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846'. Discernable by whom?" The answer is: by anyone who reads it. Isabel had been baptized jus a month prior, she was only 5 months old, and Pedro II barely talks about her. Most of the text he focus on his son, whom he certainly had many other moments before to talk about. This is what Barman meant. I really don't think it is needed to say "according to Barman" on this one, since there is already the source ("Barman, p.24").

There was also some remarks about the use of the word "monarchial"; Did you see them? --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to the unanswered points which the reviewers have made. You can add your comments if you think I did not fully explain or said something that is wrong. • Astynax ^talk 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. You did it all perfect as usual. I hope everything is ok with you. See you later. --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum has shown more issues he'd like to see corrected in the article. All of which I believe can be easily fixed. However, there is still the problem of with the "as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846" and "Pedro II found in the birth of Afonso, for the first time since his early childhood, the reassurance of a close and permanent bond to someone else". At first, he mentioned that the latter made no sense, then I showed him Barman's words as well as another historian in a different book which also says almost the same thing. Then Malleus Fatuorum said "I'm not sure that anything needs to be added rather than clarified". I made a few changes, see if they're fine to you. --Lecen (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've answered some of the other responses. They are mostly issues of preferences in writing style. If some of the suggested changes are made, I can see other people objecting on the same basis (i.e., "it is not how I would have written it"). I should be able to look at the other points later. • Astynax ^talk 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep that up and my oppose will stick. Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, but fine with me. • Astynax ^talk 06:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not quite right. I was questioning who was doing the discerning. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has passed, in less than a week. Remember when we nominated articles which had more than eight supports but were kept there in the list for months and months? All you need is to get the support from a few of the delegates' sweethearts (which are always the same) and you'll be fine. N owonder there are fewer and fewer reviewers there as time passes. Why bother if only the very few usual reviewers are taken in consideration?

Anyway, I awarded Dank with a banner. He deserved, I have no doubt on that. This is not the first time he helps us and he has been very professional. Malleus Fatuorum was[3][4][5][6] and still is [7][8][9][10] nothing more than a jerk: rude, agressive, hostile, shortsighted and arrogant. He thinks too much of himself and appears to sincerely believe that people should lick the ground he walks on or should thank him for being a prick. I would never use this kind of language to describe another person, but after what he wrote in Dank's talk page about me, I felt obliged to. The FAC has worsened too much. That's sad. --Lecen (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If I can butt in here as a friend with some advice... John has been a consummate reviewer/copyeditor on a couple of my articles, so I'm more inclined to think you had an unfortunate but uncommon occurrence with him. On the other hand, plenty of people have problems with Malleus; you're far from the only one. He's quite blunt and will frequently rub people the wrong way. He's also a very good copyeditor who will spot problems you've completely missed, and from what I've seen, it's certainly possible to work with him. That's why I'll be as happy as a clam if he looks at one of my articles – I know that his review, no matter how it is phrased, will result in a better article. Stay calm and back up your points with evidence (cited if possible); if any reviewer (including Malleus) still disagrees with your conclusions, and there's no way to compromise, that's all you can do. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, ed. You're great as usual. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Paraná

Astynax, could change the wording of "Paraná presented a bill to reform the Code of Criminal Procedure (which had previously been reformed along with the Additional Act in 1840 and again in 1841)"? The Interpretation of the Additional Act passed in 1840 and the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure occurred in 1841. They were not passed together in 1840 and again 1841. I also made a few changes to this section. Could you loook at it and see if I made any mistakes? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I intend to go over it again this evening. • Astynax ^talk 17:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with "Legacy". You'll notice that the second paragraphy is very large. I did it on purpose. I was not sure if I would be able to explain it with my own words so I opted to simply copy what the historian said. Could you try to shorten it and simplify it? If you don't understand something, tell me. Lastly, if you've not checked the Endnotes sections, you may do it too, I'm finished there. P.S.: Also done with the lead. --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to summarize the long quote from Needell. Correct if I got anything wrong. • Astynax ^talk 09:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You did it far better than I expected. It's perfect. There is only one issue: you wrote "Despite any inkling Paraná may have had as to their soundness, the insidious effects on politics caused by his policies were not apparent during his lifetime, and only became apparent over the long term". It is the contrary that happened. The ill effects were noticed even before the reform ennactment (since the Saquaremas opposed it because they knew what would happen). However, as time passed, historians have gradually ignored the consequences of the reform and praise it as "a great stride foward in the Monarchy's progress." (Needell, p.194). They saw the reform on what it proposed in theory, not on what it did in reality. --Lecen (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence per your correction, and finished going through the lead section. I also left a note on the talk page regarding capitalization of words. It can be very confusing to English readers when words like "liberal" or "conservative" are used. We understand a "liberal" or a "conservative" to denote philosophies or general movements. When these are capitalized as "Liberal" or "Conservative", it means that they are describing a more organized party (or a faction within a party), rather than just a general adherence to certain ideals. Similarly, I think we need to standardize the capitalization for bodies such as the "Chamber of Deputies" (properly capitalized) and "Chamber" (properly capitalized when denoting the Chamber of Deputies). Same for institutions, as when "Imperial" is used specifically for the Empire of Brazil, rather than generic empires or empire-building. So in the latter, we would have "Imperial family" for the ruling family of the Empire of Brazil rather than "imperial family", etc. The Manual of Style is somewhat vague, because there are exceptions to those rules, and authors writing in other publications (including some of our sources) write under different manuals of style/stylistic conventions. This is a minor point, but I thought it would be good to leave a note to avoid other editors changing capitalization just because it was done another way in another section or article. • Astynax ^talk 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really, really sorry if I made changes that were unnecessary. Feel free to correct anything you might believe that should be fixed. For that sentence I asked you to take a look at, I changed it again since I believe it still did not look the way I meant. I also added a little bit of info into legacy section. I noticed that I had completely removed any mention of the saquarema as "ultraconservative" (the name we used in Empire of Brazil and Rio Branco's articles), although they were in reality called "puritans" and "reds" back then.

For my surprise, while reading a history journal published in 1957, I learned that there are two surviving photographs of Paraná in the National Library of Brazil. Why no historian has bothered to use them so far is beyond my knowledge. I sent an e-mail to it asking if they still have them and what would be necessary to get an digital copy of both. I hardly believe they will bother to answer or help, but it would be wonderful if we could add never seen before photos of Paraná. the article would become truly unique. --Lecen (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't say that any changes were or were not necessary. I was only explaining that it is unclear to me sometimes whether the sources are talking about a philosophy (lower case) or an organized faction (upper case). You are better able to make that determination. It will be wonderful if the National Library can give you the photos!!! • Astynax ^talk 01:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just got an answer from the National Library. I would have to actually go there and search for it myself and ask for a reproduction. Trying to imagine someone travelling from Washington D.C. to Miami for a couple of old photos? No? Exactly. I would find rather easier if they simply charged me for it. Since there is no one from Rio de Janeiro around here who could help us... Im' going to start working on Duke of Caxias in a couple of weeks. I'm amazed to see how many articles we made. They were simply awful before we started working on them. Good to see that we've done such a great job here. P.S.: I asked an editor on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to take a look at Paraná's article to see if there is something wrong. I want to avoid that people in the FAC to complain and accuse us of having worsened the article. --Lecen (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is sad that they are not able to give you a scanned copy. I know the British Library will provide scans of old items for a small price, and the U.S. Library of Congress can also do this for many (but not all) items in their collection. Can your local library get copies from them? My local libraries can sometimes get copies of things (at no charge) from other libraries that I cannot get myself. I have had several very bad experiences with Copy Edit requests where the articles were made much worse. I have not gone through the latest edits to the lead in detail, but I have noticed that it is now 5 paragraphs, which violates MOS:LEAD#LENGTH. The lead section seemed fine to me, but I will check the other edits made there later. • Astynax ^talk 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe asking another library to get copies will be possible. Since I'm now living in my country's capital, I'll try to go to the National Library (not to confuse with the one located in Rio) and ask if they could do something about it. About the copy-editor, we should let him do his work. Once he is done, we may simply revert or change whatever we think he did wrong. After all, we don't need his "support". --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD of article you contributed to

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil in the Paraguayan War

Astynax, could you change the name "War of the Triple Alliance" in Pedro II's life infobox to "Paraguayan War"? I already changed the title of the article to Pedro II of Brazil in the Paraguayan War. The article about the war itself is now called Paraguayan War and not War of the Triple Alliance anymore. --Lecen (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. • Astynax ^talk 07:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't much trouble to you, could you take a look on "birth" and "education" sections (as well in the endnotes) in Maximilian I of Mexico? --Lecen (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to look tonight or Monday. • Astynax ^talk 18:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I finished the "Education" section. --Lecen (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be on a short trip until Sunday night, and should be able to go through it either then or Monday. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a few addition to Honorio, Marquis of Parana's article. I believe they will flash out more his character. I hope you don't mind. Could you see it and fix anything that might be wrong: All that is left are a few pictures that I add once I'm back to my home town on Christmas. I also got some of my books back and now I'll be able to finish Caxias' article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my pleasure, and I have finished making small changes to make the sentences flow a bit better. • Astynax ^talk 06:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan has shown up again, this time in Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. I placed the Portuguese word "Dona" in italics since the MoS says "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English". He rverted it saying that two editors opposed it in the article's nomination to featured status. Isn't it funny? I can't add "Alphonse", a simple translation because, according to DrKiernan, the MoS does not allow, but he can ignore the MoS when suits him. Double standard. --Lecen (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Let it be. Once I saw one of them saying that Latin words are in fact English words it became clear that we are wasting our time there. It's the same small groups of editors who back each other anytime one of them need help. No wonder the FA nominations are so awful. --Lecen (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You should really ignore that. Changing subject, I finished "balaiada" and "Liberal rebellions of 1842" at Duke of Caxias. --Lecen (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems ahead

You might remember Malleus Fatuorum. He is that rude "reviewer" (yes, with the "") who made Prince Afonso's FAC an unnecessary nightmare.[11][12][13] He is also the same one who became angry because I awarded Dank with a medal and not him.[14][15] Because I dared not to award him he called me a "dickhead".[16][17]

It's quite obvious that his opinion in the talk page will be biased. In fact, the reason DrKiernan called three good friends of his it's because he was well aware of what would be their opinions. This is about the "Dona" issue.

Now moving to Prince Afonso's Alphonso, DrKiernan has reverted a fifth time the article.[18] Still, nothing happens him. In fact, judging from what I saw in the Administratos' noticeboard, we (you, me, Paulista01 and Tonyjeff) are being accused along with DrKiernan of edit warring. You might have noticed by now that there are a lot of people protecting him. --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a new picture of Maximilian in princess Maria Amelia's article. Could you do me a favor and add an appropriate alternative description, please? --Lecen (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the above request, please. I finished all three subsections within "Quelling rebellions" subsetion in Caxias' article. Could you take a look once you have some time available? --Lecen (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I should have time later today or tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 08:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

map_caption

When adding a map caption on the "Infobox ancient site" template, the template inserts the same caption above and below the map. The one above is centered and the one below is aligned left. Is it possible to correct it by removing the above caption and centering the one below? Thanks. (also posted on template talk page)...MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias

Better to leave this subject in its appropriate thread. Well, thanks for having improved the text as I asked you to. However, I found a few issues:

1) You wrote: "Francisco de Lima wrote to his son with news of Reactionaries' demand that Pedro II's majority be immediately declared..." Not the Reactionaries, but the Liberals. The Reactionaries (who would later be known as saquaremas and lastly, as conservatives) opposed the proposal.

2) You changed "He had chosen to be a Reactionary from the moment he accepted to deal with the rebellion in Maranhão even if at the time it was not so clear" to "He had cast his lot with the Reactionaries from the moment he accepted the appointment to put down the rebellion in Maranhão, even if the change in his allegiance was not clear at the time". It's almost perfect. The problem is "even if the change in his allegiance was not clear at the time". Readers will probably presume that he belonged to his father's Liberal Party, which is not correct. His entire life he opposed his fahter and the Liberal Party, even though he had no connection to any Political Party. What happened after 1841 was that he effectively joined a side. Perhpas you should removed the "the change in"?

I'm also done with "Platine War" section. The article looks good. When I return to my home town in December, I'll add more pictures to it. --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I finished the lead too. --Lecen (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the 2 items mentioned, and will have a look through the new material when I get a chance. • Astynax ^talk 08:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done with "Conciliation cabinet" and "Failed presidencies of the Council of Ministers". --Lecen (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a little more and changed a few other parts but the main body of text is finished at last. All that is left to do are notes. --Lecen (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job. I'll try to read through the changes this week. • Astynax ^talk 08:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Just a doubt: I divided one section of Marquis of Paraná's article in two. I chose as title "Struggle over the electoral reform". Is it correct? "Over"?

It is OK, but I removed the word "the" as in this instance it isn't necessary. • Astynax ^talk 07:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I added all pictures that will be part of Caxias' article. All that is left to do is to finish the footnotes section. Once that's done and you've been through everything, I'm going to ask for a peer review in the military wikiproject. I want to avoid those nightmares in the FAC process. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That will be good, as the WP:MILHIST peer reviews seem to be much better quality than the general peer reviews and those of most other projects. I will do the image alt text and a few other things later. • Astynax ^talk 09:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia called "Jerry1250" made a few changes to Caxias' lead which I consider erronous. He changed "Caxias was largely forgotten" for "Caxias's exploits were largely forgotten". Well, it was Caxias himself, his person who was forgotten more than whatever he did. He also changed "which commemorates the Brazilian army" for "recognises the contributions of the Brazilian Army to the nation of Brazil". I really don't know if that's the meaning of this commemorative day. The day of the solder it's the day of the army, that's all. Just like there is a day of medic, or day of lawyer, etc... Celebrates instead of commemorates? Perhaps I'm complaining too much. --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it is under peer review, we can wait a few days for more comments/changes. If changes or suggestions are not correct and/or do not accurately reflect what the references say, then we can always go back and make the sentences more accurately match what the source has said or not said. • Astynax ^talk 22:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I added moreinfo into the footnotes. Could you look at it later? I believe I will remove most of it and place it in the talk page in case someone in the future has any doubt, because the artile is already too large as it is now. An editor made a few remarks in the peer review page. --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the new info. The page size is not a big concern yet ("readable prose size" is 55 kB according to the page size tool, which does not require splitting). When we determine page size, we only include the text of the main article (footnotes, pictures, captions, tables, wiki codes, formatting, etc. are not counted). • Astynax ^talk 16:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it's under 100kb, but the article was overly detailed in a few points. It helped make its closer to articles such as Paraná's, but it would be probably regarded as too detailed by a casual reader. Since I don't want to lose anything, I moved part of the text to the talk page, since it might be useful in the future in other articles. P.S.: I added a new footnote. --Lecen (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)