I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Lecen in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to hear that. I hope that everything ends well. Try not to disappear, ok? Right now I'm working on Pedro II of Brazil article. As I told you before, he is the main focus on anything written about the Brazilian monarchy. I just finished the article about Early life of Pedro II of Brazil. I have also ended another article, this one about Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. If you would like to know more about the Brazilian monarch, that's a good place to start. The downsize is that I am alone. There is not a single editor that can help me out. And I'm not talking about writing the articles, but fixing mistakes, keeping it according to wikipedia's style, etc... Anyway, it's good to see you back! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Paraná's father was a brother his wife's father. That is, Paraná's father in law was his uncle and also a "Carneiro Leão". When you have time or interest, take a read in the article and you will understand. Regards, - --Lecen (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Are you still capable of editing images? If yes, and if you had time and interest, could you take a look at these:

1) Marquis of Paraná - Could you turn the light brown background around the painting and turn it into white?

2) Recife - The same as above, but instead of light brown, it is a kind of a darker white.

3) Pedro II and ministers - Could you fix this one just as you fixed the independence or death picture?

4) [1] - This one, the most important of all, is the photography of Pedro II's head when he was 27 and the painting of his body when he was at the same age. Could you somehow make it look better? You know, remove the feeling that it's not a real picture. Perhaps by painting his head? He was blond and had blue eyes. Or by changing his cloth so that it could look like a photo? The photo of his head was taken from a "colored" photograph. -

You should first post on the talk/discussion pages of those articles and explain that it is unacceptable to insert statements which are not supported by references to published sources. The sentences in articles must be verifiable from sources, according to Wikipedia Policy. This is not optional. Fernandoe hasn't provided any reference to support his view, and unsupported statements should be removed, especially when those statements are in conflict with the sources cited.

It will also be best to get uninvolved editors to take a look at this situation. You can do this at the Requests for comment page.

Afterwards if Fernandoe continues to insert this kind of unsupported statement, or uses revert (or Undo) to repeatedly reinsert information which conflicts with material which is properly referenced, then this becomes disruptive editing. And then we can again ask for administrator help. • Astynax ^talk 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax is a very nice and helpful fellow. He helps me a lot with copy-editing but his focus is not royalty or history. --Lecen (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I said on Lecen's talk page: the first step would be to post a list of the bad edits to those articles at WP:NORN. Tell them that this editing is only putting personal opinions into these articles, and that the opinions do not seem to be supported by sources. They may tell you if there is something else to be done, or they may tell you to go to the next steps. • Astynax ^talk 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, since you had no strong participation on articles Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil and Early life of Pedro II of Brazil could you take a look at them and vote for or againt their nomination to good articles? You don't need to review and vote alone as you could request help from other editors too. --Lecen (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you planning on carry on with this review? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you were just adding comments as requested by Lecen. Just for future reference, clicking on the link at the talk page of a nominated article makes you the reviewer in all of the templates, so it is best to just leave comments on the talk page. I have reviewed that article and placed it on hold. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you planning on carry on with this review? –– Pyrotec (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why when it is about Brazilian royals I only go as far as 1891. After that, it's all bullshit. "Prince of Orléans-Braganza", "Brazilian Princes in the French Line of Succession", etc, etc... All bullshit. You shouldn't lose your time on that. --Lecen (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you have some time at least to fix this image: [[2]] ? --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the new format of {{Pretenders to the Brazilian throne since 1889}} is correct. I reformatted it to match the other templates in the category, and tried my best to keep the logical sectioning intact. However, I am not an expert in this field, so I was mostly just following what was already there. Let me know if you have any suggestions or improvements and I am happy to help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your best argument for "Edson" is "search in Google", then you should stop editing Wikipedia -- specially if you use the same references for "Edison" to justify "Edson"... In the movie "Pele Eterno" it is shown his birth certificate. No matter "Edson" is more known, his real name is "Edison". Please, try to use better references... --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is relevant to my life 8 days after I re-added Edison to Pelé because... Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking you to be a little bit more honest. You changed an information keeping the same sources used by the information before -- this is really bad and manaces the trustability of Wikipedia. When I decided to put that, I searched many fonts to finally understand what would be the correct thing to do. Let's be more serious. --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leading many documents to show his name as 'Edison', not 'Edson', as he is actually called.[13][14] As FAR as I can understand that line means that people name him Edson not Edison, and two very reliable sources state this fact. If that is wrong, remove them! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tonyjeff !

This has really become a cumbersome discussion. As you know, because you also contributed to the argument, I've already explained at length the circumstances involving the Edison/Edson issue on Pelé's talk page, but Doubting Thomases continue to pop up unceasingly. I'm afraid I don't know of any reference other than the Pelé Eterno film, but I should think that scarcely matters since the evidence shown there is definitive: if a birth certificate - which has never been changed, by the way - is not proof enough of one's legal name, I don't know what is. This matter should have been put to rest long ago. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Pelé. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Both deserve one, but he attacked you in Spanish, not here Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" would be you go back to school and learn to respect other users " It is an advise? I don't think so, and "ignorant" in Portuguese may not mean the same in Spanish or English. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Taichi said you on Spanish Wikipedia "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and please drop the stick. You know, Wikipedia is not a relaible source, but es.Wiki is less reliable than en.Wiki, because rules are different, there are not freedom of expression so please drop the stick. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there! None of the Brazilian princes were Portuguese princes. Even Maria II was excluded from the Brazilian line of succession in 1834 to avoid the confusion. Wikipedia has too many mistakes related to Brazilian 19th century. I was able to improve some and I have now 3 featured articles. One more (about Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies) will be raised to featured soon. I need more, however, if I want to see people learning history as it happened, not how some editors wanted them to have happened. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, there are plenty of more stuff to really hate here beside that. --Lecen (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is certainly one of the things that made me not like Pedro I. But I'm not surprised at all. Didn't he awarded an illegitimate daughter of his with the "Your Highness" treatment even though the Constitution didn't allowed?

Take a look at this new book that was launched: [3] Perhaps it explains that old confusion of whether the Orleans-Braganza are or not French princes? --Lecen (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm concerned is over the lack of interest in the monarchist reaction after the fall of the Empire. I've searching around and found out the existence of several rebellions in the eraly 1890s that are simply ignored by historians. --Lecen (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right now writing the biography of Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil and I will mention the long struggle her mother had with the Brazilian government to have her daughter recognized as a Brazilian princess. Also, Queen Maria II of Portugal was also a Brazilian princess (and believe it or not, Pedro II's heir) until 1834. --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was. Could you imagine what could he had done had he lived in time to return to Brazil in 1920, when the banishment was lifted? I only wonder how could he had such a pathetic descendance. Anyway, are there any lines (even if illegitimate) of the Braganza nowadays, not counting of the present-day Duke of Braganza nor of the descendants of Rodrigo Delfim Pereira (a Brazilian illegitimate son of Pedro I who settled in Portugal and whose descendants are since then Portuguese)? The only other line I knew was of the Dukes of Cadaval, but it became extinct. Are there others? --Lecen (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I'm talking about male-line descendants of the Braganzas. The Orleans-Braganza, for example, is not a branch of the Brazilian House of Braganza, but a Brazilian branch of the French House of Orléans. The Loulé and the Cadaval are not Braganzas, although they are descendants of the latter. --Lecen (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tonyjeff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tonyjeff. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tonyjeff. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]