User talk:Astynax/Archive 2

Diskus

Not sure if you mean the article linked to or not. If you do, honestly, I would go to WP:RSN and see if it is notable and reliable itself. I tend to think that Diskus probably would count as a reliable source, given the apparent credentials of the people behind it. I will check around for the journal you mentioned though. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Socking

If you have a concern that a particular individual is socking at Christian Conventions, you should file a request for investigation at WP:SPI. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To those who have been following the talk pages over the last year, it has been rather obvious who this individual is, and he has admited to being the person behind edits the ID's. There may not be any malicious intent behind the multiple identities, but editors coming to the article might easily assume that there are more that share his views and rants than is the case. I only mentioned it because to newcomers it looks like this editor has less of a history than is the case. Toting up the edits of Slofstra, RSuser, 64.7.157.40, 64.7.159.121, 67.43.136.72, 67.43.136.134, 67.43.140.21, 67.43.140.124, 206.130.91.149, 67.43.140.124, 206.130.91.154, 207.34.161.133, 209.162.236.195, 209.162.236.197 shows that he is actually very active, being the editor having made the most major edits (a majority of which he claims have been blanking material which he sees as "wrong"), and second most active if you include minor edits. Moreover, he has dominated the talk pages, equalling the number of posts of the next 5 most active talk page editors combined. But when this editor has done so much unsupported blanking, insisted upon editors adopt his viewpoint without offering on any sources to the point that drives other editors to despair, mischaracterized sources, argued that all available sources are non-RS and SPS without offering any backup, has argued for AfD'ing this and related articles, etc. The multiple ID's make it difficult for someone looking at the article and talk to put his edits and talk page points and rants into context, or to realize that he continually brings up the same, unsupported charges in any venue he can find. • Astynax ^talk 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't use that many IPs. Only two - one at home, one at work. Let each comment made stand on its own merits. I see no point in working on the article without consensus on reliable sources and have made very few non-minor edits in the last year. If I've done something wrong I sure don't know what. Meanwhile no one knows who you are. You have dodged questions about your past involvement as a researcher and author. In addition, you're dodgy about your association with the group; were your parents in the movement? I did try to create a new user because I wanted to stop using my real name, but you and nemonoman began referring to me as realname/username. I think it's not right to play guessing games like this invading my privacy. Wiki allows anonymous edits and that is how I choose to operate. Who cares if I come across as 1 user or 4 users. Again, there is a historical transition in user IDs; I never used the names simultaneously. 206.51.24.208 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A formal objective investigation should be done, and while we are on this subject Astynax, is "Astynax" the only account you have ever used here on wiki? I ask because it seems unusual to me a brand new editor would start two brand new articles on their first day [1], three months later edit the William Irvine article, then be inactive for three years. The edits and especially the redirects to the CC article this year (with less than 50 contributions of experience -> [2]) indicate someone who knows exactly what they are doing on wiki, how to use redirect pages to guide internet search engines to a specific wiki page, and has what looks like very personal experience with the friends and workers fellowship, i.e. "involved" in a COI way just as much as any of the other "involved" editors.

~

To all;

"JesseLackman" is the only account I have ever used here and is also my real name. So information is available about me to anyone willing to do a google search.

I didn't think this kind of game playing is supposed to be part of the wiki experience but if it is it certainly can be played both ways. As always please contact me with questions or concerns. thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well JesseLackman, you are free to request an investigation if you think something malicious is going on. I doubt his behavior rises to the level which admins would consider sock puppetry, but I may be wrong. My main concern is that multiple ID's make it extremely difficult to track who is saying what in the talk, and who edited what and where.

This is my only editing ID, though I doubt that will allay your suspicions. My first article(s) came about simply because I was looking up something that wasn't covered, so I added it (more as a try-out than anything else). And putting up content for a red link does teach you a bit about linking, doing redirects, etc. As for there having been a gap, the answer involves lack of time and irregular internet access. I read over every bit of the article and talk history before doing my first edit on the CC article, which at the time had a single reference cited (a website link to a Geo. Walker letter, which is still in there somewhere). I was already familiar with some of the "players" because of that, and made an effort to remove or tone down statements which had been hotly disputed—especially those for which I found no ready sources. But, when some people cannot find truly questionable statements to contest, they'll pick fights over just about anything (as the talk pages show). I have a large extended family which includes Catholics, Jews, agnostics, Mennonites, Pentecostals, non-affiliated or non-belivers, members of mainline denominations, and even an neo-gnostic or two. And yes, there are a sprinkling of CC members and former/non-practicing memebers scattered in the mix—none of whom are anything like as contentious or disingenuous as some who have appeared on the talk pages. And when we get together, religious talk happens. That does give me some familiarity with the group, and in being challenged to search for more sources for statements in the article, I've come across much more information (both pro and con) than I ever suspected existed. And that's actually more than I want to say, and more than you have any right to ask online. If there's a game going on, I'm offended that no one let me in on it.

Sources do not have to be NPoV, editors do not have to be NPoV, but the articles have to be based on sources (pro or con) and written to be NPoV. Surely you've already gotten the point (I certainly have). • Astynax ^talk 05:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax, what do you do with your other IDs? JesseLackman (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Very, very good what you did on Pedro II of Brazil article. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful your edits. Thanks a lot! However, there is a sentence I'd like to discuss with you: "Mr. São Vicente, just let the country govern itself and give the argument to whoever has it." What he meant was that whoever was correct, or right should govern the country. That's why I translated into "reason" (which you changed to argument). I don't know if "argument" it is the correct word to express what he said. Is there any other that would be better? What do you think? --Lecen (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is not an exact translation for the phrase. I will change to "Mr. São Vicente, just let the country govern itself and and allow any who are reasonable." If that is not better, please change it to something else. Perhaps it would be good to add the original Portuguese in the footnote to make it more clear. • Astynax ^talk 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

About the dogma or doctrine: if docrtine is better, feel free to change it! About the other sentence, here goes the original version: "Sr. São Vicente, o país que se governe como entender e dê razão a quem tiver." It would be something like "Mr. São Vicente [Saint Vincent], let the country govern itself as it pleases and consider it right [or correct] whoever is." --Lecen (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Lecen. It is a difficult sentence to translate to English. Looking at the English words which may be substituted for the Portuguese, this phrase might work: "Mr. São Vicente, the country is governed by those who have understanding and common sense." Does that say something similar to the sentence in Portuguese? • Astynax ^talk 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Deodoro met with Ouro Preto, who agreed to personally deliver to the emperor a list containing names of those whom Deodoro intended to serve in a new cabinet." That i'ts a little mistake, because what happened was that Deodoro said to Ouro Preto that he (Deodoro) would deliver a list with names to a new cabinet to the Emperor himself. Ouro Preto was arrested but released a few hour later so that he could talk with the emperor. But he was arrested again and sent to exile a day later. About Pedro II's reply to the Marqus of São Vicente: when he said "country" he meant "nation" or "Brazilian people" or simply "people". He was saying something like "The people is free to rule themselves and chose whatever they want [Monarchy or Republic]." or "Let the nation rule itself as it pleases and call upon whoever it considers right [the monarchists or republicans]." --Lecen (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction and clarification. I have inserted 2 corrections based upon your suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 05:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You might have noticed that the sections in the article are quite large. Well, my idea when I was writing the text was to make every section ("Apogee", "Exile", "Legacy", etc) an article of its own. In its place would be put a synopsis of the longer text. There are two subsections that I haven't finished yet: "Victory" and "Later years". I am trying to work now on the text of "Coronation". Once I end it, I will try to finish those two subsections. --Lecen (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added two subsections: "The Courtier Faction" and "Majority and coronation". Could you take a look at them? Also, I split the subsection Education in two. Yhey have no pictures at the moment but I will scan a painting of Pedro II studying with his sisters and a photo of the Imperial Palace. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have gone over both sections. I do like the subsections, which make it easier to read. • Astynax ^talk 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am over with the coronation subsection (could you takre a look in it?). Now I will move on to "marriage" subsection. I have to explain how Pedro II got rid of the "Courtier Faction" and resumed full powers. But i don't know, perhaps I should try to end the subsections about his decline? --Lecen (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will look over it tonight. I think you can work on whatever you feel like doing first. You have spent a great deal of effort so far, and have done a good job. It is very interesting to read more about d. Pedro II as you add more material! • Astynax ^talk 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am done, at last with the subsection "Marriage". When you have a time, please take a look in it. Regards! --Lecen (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now gone over the Marriage subsection. • Astynax ^talk 08:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the article is going into the right direction? is it easy to understand? Someone who has no idea of Brazilia history could understand it? --Lecen (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed is to large. But as I told you before, I did that on purpose: the idea is to take every section ("growth", "apogee", "decadence", etc...) and take its text to make an article of its own. With all sections "completed", it would be far easier to make small summaries with its texts to allow the article to have the standard style in Wikipedia. Why I am having all this trouble? Well, because the other Brazilian articles about the subject are awful. Pedro I's article has so many mistakes that it's not worth the reading. The hitory of the Empire of Brazil is also terrible (with excepetion of some sections from the beginning that I wrote with reliable sources). And so once Pedro II article is done, any editor could take it as guide to write about this period of Brazilian history. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Well, I added the section "Establishment of the imperial authority". Could you take a look at the first, third and fourth paragraphy? Ignore the second, I haven't finished yet. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. Did you want me to paraphrase some of the Barman quotations? • Astynax ^talk 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel free to do it. I was kind of lazy this time. I only used one source and made too many quotations in one section. Thanks again! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S.:I've hcanged the main picture (the one that can be seen in the box) for another one when he was younger. It's in fact a photomontage of a painting and a daguerreotype of his. Don't know if it's good enough but at least gives him a 'monarchical' appearance. Do you know of someone who has some photoshop skills that could enhance it?

I'm going to work on that second paragraph that is left (it will explain exactly what was the Aureliano tutorship and what happened with Antônio Carlos and Martim Francisco de Andrada). Meanwhile, could you make me a big favor and take a look in the article Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná? if you don't want to, there is no problem, don't worry! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil, part II

Well, I added new text into the article. See here. Should I explain in a small sentence why Brazil fell behind other countries in the first half of the 20th century? Because I have the impression that anyone who reads the text will wonder why Brazil did not become a major global player earlier. The reason was the anarchy, quite similar to the regency, that was the first 40 years of Republic of Brazil, with widespread corruption, economic depression due to irresponsible economic policy, rebellions, coups, etc... Meanwhile, Japan and Germany were growing, as was USA. --Lecen (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a sentence or two giving a brief explanation would be good. It also gives an opportunity to link to a future article that explains the bad times during the first part of the Republic. • Astynax ^talk 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's 1780. Thanks a lot! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I don't know if you celebrate Christmas, but even if you don't, I'd like to wish you happiness and joy today. Thank you for all the help you gave me, my friend! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Baris, Acra & Antonia

Hi Astynax, I wanted to thank you for writing up the Hasmonean Baris article, as well as the contribution to the other related articles. I've made a few edits to your recent addition to the Acra article. The funny thing is that Josephus' account and 1 Maccabbes' account of the demolition of the Acra are in fact contraditory. Josephus claims that Simon razed it, 1 Maccabees says that he actually occupied it, and the latter is actually the more reliable source. I nevertheless removed the reference to 1 Maccabees until the (hopefully not so distant) day when I intend to completely overhaul and expand the Acra article. Glad to see at least one other person cares about Hellenistic and Hasmonean Jerusalem :-). If you're up to it, I'd love your input on another article I've recently overhauled, Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period. Poliocretes (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Simon might have both occupied it, then later razed it once he no longer felt it useful (as it would have been inside other fortifications)? If Ben-Dov has identified the correct foundations, then it does seem to have been razed during that general period (overbuilt with a residential quarter in the Hasmonean period, which was later leveled by Herod for construction of the street and plaza in front of the new Temple platform extension). But, whether leveled by Simon or afterwards, I haven't seen any published finds narrowing the destruction date beyond "latter half of the 2nd century BCE".

The Second Temple Period article has been sitting on my watch list for some time, as I had been thinking of contributing to it myself. I was very relieved to see you contributing a good number of edits to it, as I haven't had time. • Astynax ^talk 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Simon did indeed occupy the Acra, and may have even resided in it himself (1 Mac 13.52), but the problem is that 1 Maccabees does not mention its ultimate fate. Dequeker (Dequeker L. 1985. The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem. in: Lipinski, E (ed). The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilization. Leuven. pp. 193-210.) suggests it fell out of use and was taken apart when the Hasmonean Baris and Palace in the upper city were built. It had been built to harass the population of Jerusalem, but the site offered very little to the defence of Jerusalem against an external threat. This places its end around the end of the second century. However, I find Bezalel Bar-Kochva's theory (Bar-Kochva. 1989. Judas Maccabeus, pp. 445 – 465. Cambridge) to be the most convincing. The Acra was still standing in 139 BC when Antichus VII demanded it back from Simon (1 Mac 15.28), along with Jaffa and Gezer. Simon is willing to discuss the two cities but makes no mention of the Acra. It was at this point that he must have sealed the its fate, as a way to deny the Seleucids any future claim or hold on Jerusalem. Thus, when Antiochus subdued the city during Hyrcanus I's reign (Jewish Antiquities, 13.216), each and every one of his demands were met - except the one demanding the stationing of a Seleucid garrison in the city. Hyrcanus may have been able to reject this demand (and Antiochus relented) because there was no where to billet the garrison - the Acra was probably no longer standing. This places the razing of the Acra somewhere in the 130s BC. Poliocretes (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a plausable scenario. Supported by references, that would make a great addition to the article. • Astynax ^talk 21:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Platine War and Afonso, Prince Imperial

Hello, my friend! I am working on the last empty section's text in the Marquis of Paraná's article. I have to read a few books first. Could you, meanwhile, take a look at this two articles, please:

• Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
• Platine War

They are 100% done, except perhaps for copy-edit or some style issues. both are deeply related to the articles about Pedro II and the Marquis of Paraná that we've working for quite some time now. Also, what should we do next about them (platine war and Afonso)? Should we request a pwwer review? If yes, how is it done (if you want to do it by yourself, feel free to it)? Thank you very much! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've finished going over Afonso, and will look at the Platine War article later. • Astynax ^talk 12:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've requested assessment over prince Afonso article to be considered or not a good one. Let's see what will happen. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

After I look at the Platine War article, I can mark its talk page with the Peer Review tag to get input and suggestions from outside editors. It is a longer article with more potential for comments and corrections. The peer review will help decide how to proceed for the next step. • Astynax ^talk 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok!--Lecen (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New doctrine additions

It's the right thought, but it's expressed fairly harshly. Can you look for words other than Paucity? Your frustration is showing...not that I'm surprised; not that I blame you. --Nemonoman (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My dear fellow, you are worthy of praise. Thanks again and hats off to you. --Nemonoman (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of John Carter's sentence was there, and I didn't want to tweak it too much so as not to provoke.

For the record, here is Carter's original suggestion: "The lack of any sort of official documentation or statements by the group makes speaking about its beliefs difficult. Some critics of the group and former members of the group have made statements about its beliefs, although these points have rarely if ever been responded to by anyone actively within the group." (he also suggested mentioning the hymnal)

Some in authority have made statements on the record, though not often. As at least a few of these are referenced in the article, so I was attempting to amend it to reflect that. I just didn't want the sentence to say "the lack of any sort of official documentation or statements" when the sources cited in the article demonstrate that a few such statements have been made. Thanks for taking a second look. • Astynax ^talk 06:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know?

"I thought this thread on TMB posted by the IPuser was interesting. Other than he and Mr. Lackman, several CC members actually seemed to agree that the article was fairly accurate (before the thread wandered into areas not dealt with in the article)."

astynax, I'm curious, who are the CC members replying on that thread and how do you know who they are?

Thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they've said (in that and other threads) that they still attend meetings regularly. You've been around there long enough to have noticed who those people are. • Astynax ^talk 00:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Marquis of Paraná

Hello, my friend! I'd like to make a few comments about your edits in the article about the Marquis of Paraná, if you don't mind. The first one is about he dictator Rosas, who in reality had been trying to create conditions to annex the Brazilian province of Rio Grande do Sul since the begining of the 1830s. You wrote: "and he now sought to annex that Brazilian province". The 16,200 strong Brazilian army commanded by Luís Alves de Lima e Silva crossed the border between Uruguay and Brazil on 4 September 1851. You wrote: "to Uruguay, which arrived on 4 September 1851." Is that correct? With the excetion of these parts, everything else you wrote is perfect as usual. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I defer to the better sources which you have available in Portuguese. I've changed the text which will hopefully be more accurate. • Astynax ^talk 16:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now it's ok. I believe I will end writing the remaining section of this article by this weekend (then I will return to Pedro II article). What do you believe we should do next? Ask for a peer review? --Lecen (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a peer review would be next. It would probably be faster to request the review by Project Biography. After any corrections are made which were identified in the peer review and any suggested improvements are made, we can then nominate for GA status. • Astynax ^talk 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Astynax, there are two sentences you wrote that aren't quite good, if you don't mind me telling you. The first one was "they had little in common with liberal ideals as espoused in Europe". The Brazilian "Liberals" adopted the European Liberalism, but the problem is that they did not hold the same ideas about it. For example, liberal group A followed Liberal ideologue X's ideas, while liberal group B followed ideologue Y's ideas, and liberal group C fllowed ideologue W's ideas and do on. That's why they had so little in common, because even their vision of liberalism was different among themselves. In fact, they are gathered in a "party" ("Liberal party") b y historians only to simplify. The other issue "is which was the main reason behind opposition to the former emperor having any role in government". Did you mean that the emperor shouldn't have any role in the government? Well, that's true in a part. But what the original text meant was that provinces had little autonomy. It had, but not much. There weren't any provincial chamber of deputies capable of passing laws, discussing improvements for it, having a budget, etc... Although there were municipal assemblies that had quite a lot of autonomy. Things gotr worse because the orovincial presidents (governors) were appointed by the emperor himself. So, you must wonder why the Liberals opposed the emperor and why they did not simply made ammendments to the Constitution to give more autonomy for provinces? That's a little more complicated, but I could say that that was the Liberal's fault as they were not used to parliamentary procedures, to work as politicians, to debate, to create laws, etc... They were unhappy and thus they chose a target (emperor) and hit on it until it fell. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I will make changes to see if I can make it clearer. If it still does not agree with what resources have said, please go ahead and make corrections in the article. I will not be offended, and respect the work you have put into getting English-language articles into Wikipedia on these important subjects. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I added a new section. Feel free to change anything you want to. Now what is missing is the text of one section and the last paragraph of another. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit was perfect, nothing to complain, except that you wrote that the image is dated from 1843 when in fact it was made in the end of the 1850s, when Paraná was already dead (the artist probably used a photograph or paiting from 1843 to make the drawing). As usual, your work was perfect. Thank you! --Lecen (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the sections "Into the Moderate Party" and "Defender of the Constitution"? I've finally ended them. Now there is only one section left (that goes from 1832 up to 1842)! --Lecen (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, good news! I've finished the article, at last. All it's left is to write a four paragraph-lead. Could you take a look at sections Party's leader in the Chamber of Deputies, Early years and Against the liberal rebellions of 1842? Feel free to change the text in any way you prefer! And if possible, to shorten or make it more focused on Carneiro Leão. What do you think of the article? Does it stand a chance to be considered featured? --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at the article this weekend. I still think a peer review would be best before submitting this article for a higher review, since GA and FA reviewers can be hyper-critical. So it will be better to first do a peer review and get opinions from other biography editors. • Astynax ^talk 17:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

One note: Carneiro Leão's father and his father-in-law, who was also his uncle (as he was a brother of Carineiro Leão's father) were taken as hostages, not a "brother of his father-in-law". I am sorry if I didn't write more clearly. Everything else is perfect as usual! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot how complicated is his family. Thanks for looking over and correcting! • Astynax ^talk 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just asked for peer review. It will take some time until its review for good article begins, so I don't believe it will harm somehow. Let's wait now! Have a good night! --Lecen (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cabral...

I had a look through the relevant US laws on this last night. From what I can see, it is possible for some turn of the century artists to be dead for 70 plus years and still have a live US copyright on their work. Excluding for this possibility, though, is almost impossible. Worse still, if you wish to prove that something was published pre-1923, under US copyright law you would also need to prove it was published legally - ie the artist or their family were paid for it or otherwise authorised its use. Otherwise it would not count as publication for the purposes of copyright. Achieving proof of this would be next to impossible in most cases.

For what its worth, I think you've a strong argument that a "balance of probabilities" case needs to be made for your pictures, provided some basic due diligence has been carried out, perhaps through the online US copyright search databases.

Hchc2009 (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'll answer on your talk page. • Astynax ^talk 08:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are freaking out now due to the recent issue with copyright infringement. They will adopt highly restrictive policies as consequence. Which is ironic, by the way, since that will make even harder to casual editors to contribute somehow. In the end, they will turn Wikipedia into something completely different of what was build for: from an open encylopedia for all to an experts' private club. I've been trying to argue with some editors that if the "death of author plus 70 years" is useless, why does it exist at all. However, all of them act like they are powerless or clueless. No one knows nothing and suggest me to go after someone else. As you said, we are are like balls in a football game. --Lecen (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I expect that Wikimedia's legal counselors have approved the strong statements about both "death+70 years" and about if copyright expired in the nation of origin then WP considers it expired here. The interpretations and arguments by Wiki editors can be too restrictive or too loose, and nobody knows their true qualifications to make those judgements. Even the IP lawyers I have known will not say definitely about IP questions without a lot of expensive research, and often not even after that. I agree that it is very burdensome to contributors and editors, and it discourages contributions if we can't use tags which clearly fit material that is uploaded—and without demands for additional bits of detail that are difficult or impossible to provide.

Either what Wikimedia's lawyers have approved should be good enough for any image, or they need to come up with some other system. But in my opinion, this is something for Wikimedia's legal counsel to decide—anonymous editors, and even bureaucrats, should never be making or interpreting these sorts of rules (the old saying is: "He who acts as a lawyer in his own interests has a fool for a client"). Where the tags and guidelines aren't working, then the legal counsel needs to make them better. If research on material submitted needs to be done, then they need to provide average editors with easy-to-use tools to do that. That is something that will have to be decided by people with more influence than us. • Astynax ^talk 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Jappalang has become a type of a God of image copyrights around, there is no way except to deal with him. FAC nominations are becoming the feud of a few editors with their will compared to dogmas. Take a look at his talk page to thr last maessage I sent him. I made a few changes to the tags that exist in those images. If that's not what he wants, I will have no remaining alternative. --Lecen (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I read over and over the PD-art tag help page. I believe that the older tags we were using (that is, simply PD-old tag) were not so... precise in Jappalang`s eyes. If with the new tags he still demand from us somekind of proof that the descendants did not renew it then he will be going against the Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs page. Or Commons` policy is wrong or he is. Let`s wait from an answer. --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the best we can do. If there is information that an active copyright exists, we would be happier. But it is an impossible standard to require eliminating every remote possiblity (and I think that "remote possibility" is even doubtful). "If angels sat on pins, how many angels could sit on a pin?" • Astynax ^talk 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang told me that he will review then once more soon as he has time to. If they do not pass this time, we will remove the nomination. Since it is in your name, I believe we should leave you open to nominate other articles you might want to. Also, I made a few additions to Teresa Cristina's article. Could you improve "Rivalry with the Countess of Barral" and "Legacy" sections? All that is left is one section and the lead. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I will have very limited time on the computer for the next 3 days, but I can go through Teresa Cristina when I can get back. We can see about the FAC nomination afterwards. Have a good weekend. • Astynax ^talk 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, hurry. Have a good weekend you too. --Lecen (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news: I've resolved the last remaining issues with Cabral's article. It should be passed soon. Also, I request the opinion of 2 editors who are administrators at English Wikipedia and also at Commons. You'll enjoy seeing it: [3] (look for the last section, "Re images of Pedro Cabral"). P.S.: I was wondering if we could nominate Pedro II of Brazil to "today's featured article" for 2 December. It will be the 185th anniversary of his birth. --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to request Pedro II of Brazil at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for 2 December. If they do not put it on the front page today, it can be nominated again next year. I did not finish the Legacy section at Teresa Cristina, but intend to get that finished tonight. • Astynax ^talk 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Cabral is now passed. The bot will likely update its page tonight. Congratulations, though it certainly was a rough road. • Astynax ^talk 18:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know just as I do all the hard work we had to deserve it. But I'm not very happy. It took us too long. Anyway, I'm done with Teresa Cristina's article. All that is left to do is the lead, which I paln to finish tomorrow. Also, take a look in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#December 2. I wonder if you can be aknowledged as a nominator too? It is good to see that the article we've worked in are always very well received. --Lecen (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't needed for me to be nominator. You did a good job with the request, and I think it will make a great front-page article. Progress on the Rio Branco review is also being made after a new reviewer started. I will look at the Teresa Cristina article when I have a bit of time. • Astynax ^talk 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but since you were just as responsible for the article as it is today as I am, I wanted that to be recognized. --Lecen (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done with the article, at last. Is "Teresa Christine" a correct translation to English of "Teresa Cristina"? Also, pieces of the lead are simply copy and past sentences from the main text. You might want to change it a little bit and even shorten it. --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The spelling does not matter in modern English. If there are any alternate spellings that do not already have redirects, they should be created. • Astynax ^talk 18:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Robinson's Arch on WP:GA

Hi. I was going through your and Lecen's FA/GA list looking for stuff to put on WP:SA. Is there a specific date when it was rediscovered, or some other important day? Is there a day I could use for Joseph's Tomb? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The association of the tomb with the Patriarch Joseph is an old tradition, so there was no datable discovery. The traditional date for Joseph's birth is 1 Tammuz, which in 2011 will fall on 3 July (the traditional calendar is lunar, so the date varies from year to year). The date for his death is variously assigned to 1 or 28th Tammuz. Unfortunately, those are the only dates that I can think of which might apply.

I cannot find an exact date for the discovery of Robinson's Arch, only the year 1838. Although the buildings on the Temple platform were destroyed around 29–30 July in the year 70, it is thought that the arch was destroyed prior to that to block an entry point onto the fortified Temple Mount. (I will copy to your talk page.) • Astynax ^talk 04:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request comments

I request your comments about the notability of Religious typification section on Jehovah's Witness talk page. Thank you--Logical Thinker:talk 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Might you take a look?

Thank you for your work on this, Astynax. The quality of the article is due in large part to your painstaking activity of academic attribution. (And yes I noticed this consolidation of citations for one sentence being done in other articles; it probably is a good way to go, especially in an article like this). I had a quick skim through your changes and nothing caught my attention as being dodgy or incorrect. I will put a proper reading of the article and citations/referenes on my 'serious things to do' list. In the meantime I think another crack at applying for WP:GA status would be worthwhile. What do you think? Donama (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Paranhos

I'm a little sick now and won't be able to do any significant work in here for the next days. I did notice that the editor who uploaded the picture seems to be inactive for around 2 years now. I don't know if I'm going to remove the picture or ask help at the Spanish-Wikipedia. I'll remove it if I'm not able to deal with it before the reviewer is over. --Lecen (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll be fine until the end of the week. --Lecen (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, look at this: [4] 10,000 hits on 15 November just because he was featured on "On this day...". Can you imagine what will hapen if he becomes the main featured article on the main page? --Lecen (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That is great. I hope that it inspires some teachers to say more about Brazilian history. All kids in the United States know something about Brazil, but mostly about the Amazon, that it is an important country, or about Rio and Mardi Gras. Too few know about its past. Maybe Hollywood needs to make a movie about Pedro II? • Astynax ^talk 03:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardly believe that might happen. As you said yourself, little is taught about Brazil. Too much exposition is given to the Amazon rainforest and the Brazilian carnival. That end up leading people to believe that a continental-size country such as Brazil is one gigantic forest (try to imagine people thinking of US as one huge desert of Nevada and you'll get the point) when in fact it has very different regions. The northeast is where the Amazon rainforest is located. The northeast is a dryland with a more green environment at the coast (and where the famous Brazilian beaches are located). The southewest (where Rio de Janeiro is located) is composed of hills and mountains mainly. The center-west has fields and more fields and that where our huge grain producer farms are located although in its southern tip (located in the are bordering Paraguay) it is covered by jungles similar to Vietnam (yes, the War of the Triple Alliance was fought in an enviroment similar to the Vietnam War, but with 19th century technology and military tactics). The south, the region bordering Argetnina and Uruguay is cold, very similar to Europe.

Even the Brazilian people looks different depending on the region you might go. If you visit Manaus, capital of the state of Amazonas, the people is very brownish, rounded face and Indian looking features which make them very similar to Mexicans, for example. In fact, what American consider "Latinos" (and they mistakenly consider any Portuguese and Spanish-descendant a "Latino"), that is, the stereotypical short person, with tanned skin, rounded head (and with a mustache, if it is a Mexican), it is in fact not someone with Portuguese or Spanish blood, but someone of mainly Indian ancestry. If you go to the Brazilian south, people are almost all whites, where blond hair and blue eyes are common. Although the average white Brazilian is white, with dark eyes and hair, similar to Italians, Spanish and Greeks (the Mediterranean people). Go to Rio de Janeiro, and you will see a mix of white people with a strong population of mulattoes and blacks. There you will find the famous "samba" dancers. It is a people very different but at the same time... alike. Same religion, same language, same laws, same heroes, culture, history. Why? Because of Pedro II. If he had not kept the country united (along with politicians such as Paraná, Rio Branco), there would be no Brazil, but several small nations as in Hispanic-America.

Carnival? I have a New Yorker friend who believe that Brazilians walked naked and went to parties all day long. I asked her: "Do Americans have cowboys in New York?" Jokes aside. The famous Brazilian carnival, with those practically naked women dancing around occur in Rio de Janeiro (and for some year now also in São Paulo) is in fact a parade. Several samba schools compete against each other, with their songs, dance, etc... and people go watch. The problem is that they way the foreign press covers it might look like the Brazilian people go dance naked around the streets. Try to image that picture in New York avenues and you'll get it, ha ha ha ha...

On Pedro II: if so little is known about contemporay Brazil, even less is known about its past, although many of the best books written about Brazilian history (which I use them a lot in here) are written by... American historians. But I do not blame on the American people. I blame on Fidel Castro. ha ha ha... If it wasn't for him, taking the spotlight for so long, the Americans wouldn't perceive the entire Latin America with all those stereotypical views of guerrila revolutionaries in jungles and poor countries ruled by ridiculous generals always dressed in military uniforms.

But speaking seriously now, I've noticed that Wikipedias really enjoy the articles related to Brazil Imperial history. Pedro II's article has 9 supports and no oppose. Other articles nominated to "today featured article" always have a little of support and some opposes. I believe my next article will be on Pedro I, who, as I told you before, is a far more interesting figure than his son, and certainly far more heroic. --Lecen (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Just nominated the article to featured. i took the liberty of adding your name as a co-nominator. Hope you don't mind. I also added a new photo. Could you write its alternative text? --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. • Astynax ^talk 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, could you take a look at Hchc2009's coments in Rio Branco's article? I believe you are far more able than I to deal with the issues raised by him. However, he asked why the bishops were prosecuted. That happened because they were public servants, paid by the government, and from the moment they refused to obey the government, they commited a crime as per the laws of that time. It would be the same as if a military officer refused to obey a superior, or similar. --Lecen (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I will try to address his/her points later today. • Astynax ^talk 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, please, don't forget about Teresa Cristina's article. You still haven't reviewed the latter sections. Once you find some time and patience, please take a look at it. --Lecen (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If I do not get to it by the end of this week, please remind me again. I did intend to go over the whole thing again. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Might you take a look?

Thanks for those Astynax. For when I get time... Even if I don't get much time to analyse them I promise I'll at least check to see if I can find any of those sources locally. Donama (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent developments

Well, after a bad start, the Paranhos' article is going fine and everything seems to indicate that we shall have another featured article soon. Also, the reception to Pedro II`s article as a today featured article was better than I expected. Not only there was no opposition, but it got more nominators than any of the other articles nominated, which seems to indicate that readers really do enjoy the subject. Next 2 December we'll see many clicks on articles related to Brazilian history in the 19th century. Lastly, I'm back writing Empire of Brazil. I know that I told you that my next project would be Pedro I, but I'm tired of leaving unfinished articles behind. Cheers, my friend, --Lecen (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It will good to see Pedro II on the main page. Unfortunately, the extra exposure means that there will probably be a lot of vandalism on the article that day. I have temporarily been busy with a non-Wiki archive project the past few days, but I still try to look in on Paranhos during the day. Does WP:WikiProject Brazil know about the upcoming main page feature? I don't know if they keep track of that accomplishment. The bots which collect the history about related articles seem to be broken for several of the projects. • Astynax ^talk 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WikiProject Brazil is dead for a long time. --Lecen (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)