This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

people of Brazil
Thank you for collaborative contributions to quality articles on noble people of Brazil, such as Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil, in Wikpedia spirit, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I got quite a few excelent books about Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator of the Argentine Confederation. I wanted to bring his article to FA standards. However, I'm quite sure Cambalachero will a serious nuisance. He has been whitewashing Argentine history on Wikipedia since he first appeared. Historical figures who supported Liberalism and Democracy, such as Bartolomé Mitre and Sarmiento, are put aside while dictators like Rosas and Perón are turned into heroes. Since it seems that the Argentine Wikiproject is just as dead as the Brazilian wikiproject, I have little faith that other Argentine editors could step in and hold him back. I wanted to hear your opinion, if you believe it is worth the trouble or we should focus on something else. --Lecen (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. This pretty much answers my doubt. He will be a nuisance. --Lecen (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If he would only be concerned to let the references speak for themselves, then he might be constructive. Instead, my memory is that he argues for imposing his PoV and uses personal attacks. It can still be done: e.g., do the entire article in a sandbox and then bring it before the entire MilHistory and/or other project for consensus before replacing the existing article. Still, there may be people who see any elevation of the article's status as anti-Argentine and will make things difficult. • Astynax ^talk 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be too much trouble for too little and you know it. It would take time, long and sterile discussions and in the end the article would have been butchered beyong recognition. Once I'm done with Inhaúma, I wanted to focus in the Platine War. Most of the articles about key characters in that conflict are FA (Pedro II, Caxias, Porto Alegre, Paraná, etc...). Rosas was one that I wished to see in a good shape. --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Astynax, I'm sorry for having taken so long. I'm done with the section called "Conservative politician" in Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. --Lecen (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a problem. We all have important things (and sometimes even taking a break is important for me) that we must do. I will try to look through the new text tonight or tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is something in Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias that has been bothering me. There is a passage in "Commander-in-Chief" that says "His first measure was to dismiss Vice-Admiral Joaquim Marques Lisboa (later the Marquis of Tamandaré and also a member of the Progressive League) and appoint fellow Conservative Vice-Admiral Joaquim José Inácio (later the Viscount of Inhaúma) to lead the navy". This is not correct. He lacked the authority to do that. Only the minister of navy could do something like that. Of course it was Caxias behind the choice of Joaquim Inácio's name, but he did not appoint him directly. I added "was to convince the government". It became thus: "His first measure was to convince the government to dismiss Vice-Admiral Joaquim Marques Lisboa..." Is this ok? If not, feel free to improve it. --Lecen (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the original wording gives the wrong impression and your change was for the better. However, I have changed it slightly, because "convinced" seems to be too passive, unless Caxias had to engage in a protracted argument to obtain the dismissal. In wartime, civilian governments usually give their top operational commander what is asked for, at least until they lose a major battle. • Astynax ^talk 08:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with the lead. Right now (and for quite some time) I'm having trouble with the final part of the article, precisely the legacy part. I'm having trouble finding more information regarding the prevailing view about him. I mean, I know that he is regarded one of the great admirals, but that isn't enough. In fact, the lack of information regarding his life (as well as many other military officer of Brazil) tells a lot about my country's lack of interest in military affairs. --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the legacy section can be brief, since there is not much material. You could include something like:

• Although the Viscount of Inhaúma ranks as the Brazilian Navy's most distinguished figures, his reputation was eclipsed after the fall of the Empire. Only 2 recent histories have covered his life in any detail.(reference might be: http://www.revistanavigator.com.br/navig9/dossie/N9_dossie4.html) The Brazilian-designed Inhaúma class frigates were named in his honor in the 1980s and 1990s.(reference might be: Jane's Information Group, Jane's Fighting Ships, London, U.K.: Sampson Low, Marston. 1989, p. 55)

It might be good to mention his son Antonio Carlos de Mariz e Barros who died in the Paraguayan war. The son also had a destroyer named for his memory in the 20th century. • Astynax ^talk 09:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I added one brief sentence to "navy commissions" section ("Joaquim Inácio later complained: "In which part of the word... has the navy minister a general officer as an adjutant...") and I'm also done with "Conservative politician" (most of it which was moved to "navy commision"). Also, all pictures now in the article will be kept. So feel free to add the alternative descriptions to them. --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to go through the new material tonight. • Astynax ^talk 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the main photo in Pedro II of Brazil. It was taken around the same time as the previous one but it has a far greater quality. If you believe the other one was better, let me know and I will revert to it. --Lecen (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It always bothered me the pictures of Pedro II and of the Viscount of Rio Branco in the article about the Empire of Brazil: File:Pedro II of Brazil 1851 edit.png and File:Paranhos01.JPG. I wanted to keep the article less personal and more focused on the Brazilian world of the 19th-century. I wanted to change the first one for a daguerreotype of Recife, the capital of Pernambuco province (since the section talks about the Praieira revolt). The second one would be replaced by a picture of slaves and their children. I believe it's more fitting to the subject (Free Womb law). Are you against the change? --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Those changes sound like they would be good. People can always click on the names of the people to go to those articles if they want to see how they looked. Also, I started an article about the Dom Pedro aquamarine that is now on permanent exhibition, and so far nobody is calling it the "Lord Peter aquamarine". • Astynax ^talk 06:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made the changes in Empire of Brazil. I also took the liberty of adding another daguerreotype to Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. The older one, with a view from the port with ships I'll keep in Inhaúma's article. Thus, we avoided having the same daguerreotype in three related articles. Once you have time, could you add an alternative description? P.S.: I wasn't aware of the existence of Dom Pedro aquamarine. I'm going to look for books in Portuguese at Google books that might have further info. --Lecen (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Done with "Commander-in-Chief". Two more sections to go now. --Lecen (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good news: done with "Operations in the Paraguayan river" and with "Illness and death". You can also check the lead. All that it's left is the legacy section and a few more words at the end of the lead. --Lecen (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The article about Juan Manuel de Rosas looks worse as time passes. You might remember how much Cambalachero (then-called "MBelgrano") gave us a lot of trouble when we wrote Platine War because he refused to accept the word "dictator" to describe Rosas. Since then I acquired an even greater knowledge regarding Rosas. Every single book published in English in the past 25 years call him a "dictator" and his regime a "terrorist" one (yes, that's the word). I asked for a third opinion and the the volunteer sided with me. I later went to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard but the discussion became a mess as Cambalachero and his fried MarshalN20 (you certainly remember him from those past move requests) started commenting anything until the point the thread became unreadable. Other editors suggested that I should go higher and request mediation. That's what I plan to do but I wanted to ask you a favor. Could you take a look at the message I will post and improve its wording? I want to be sure that I will be perfectly understand there. Since you're far more familiar with Wikipedia rules you could also add some of them to back my point of view. That's "all". I'm not asking you to take an active part in the discussion. I also want to make clear that I don't want to waste time discussing with Cambalachero in there. I want to present one good piece of text and let others decided. The key issues are:

• Rosas is a dictator or not? Every source in English says that yes, including the best biography written about him (used as source including by Britannica Encyclopaedia). Cambalachero argues that he was a democratic elected governor and that he represented a democracy.
• What are the sources that the article should use? I argued that there are plenty of English-writen sources available. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Cambalachero has insisted on using books written in the 1950s and 1960s by historians called "revisionists". That's where the greatest problem is located.
• The Argentine revisionism appeared in the 1930s and it represented the historiographic wing of a political movement called "nationalism". Now you're going to get scared: the Argentine "nationalism" was the national equivalent to German Nazism, Italian Fascism, Brazilian Integralism, etc... All that you can imagine is there: from the support to authoritarian governments to anti-semitism. The books used by Cambalachero are from people from this era. I argued that for its political nature Argentine revisionist books are unreliable and non-legitimate. Is Mein Kempf allowed to be used as source when writing about the history of Jews on Wikipedia? I don't think so. But I'm not entirely sure what Wikipedia policy supports my point of view about this.

The good news is that there are two sources in English that deal directly with Argentine revisionism (which means that we have sources):[1] and [2] So, what do you think? --Lecen (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I forgot something important: what I disliked at the Dispute Resolution board was that the arbiter suggested that we should write the article like this: "Rosas was a dictator to some, while to others he was not" I opposed since it would give an unreal equality between points of views. After all, the revisonist sources should not be taken as a legitimate "alternative view" for the reasons I gave above. They should be mentioned, but in a section called "Legacy". I couldn't write the article with sentences like "Rosas executed thousands according to some historians, but none to others." Or "He was a brutal dictator to some but a nice guy to others". WHat is that? The reader would have a headache asking himself "what is truth, then?" The editor who volunteered as third opinion made a useful remarked: "If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority". --Lecen (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are on firm ground and have done a good job of identifying the problem. There is no reason to give any undue legitimacy to a fringe viewpoints. Cambalachero's references would be OK for an article on Argentine revisionism (if backed by reliable secondary sources that have commented on it), but not for a mainstream article such as this. I have made some small clarification to your list of points below:

You do need to supply citations, diffs and links to instances to show support for your point (I indicated a few places above). This will make it easier for them to concentrate on applying policy, rather than searching for what you mentioned. They will already be aware of the policies, and both you and Cambalachero need to avoid being drawn into personal issues, although it is OK to link to instances where tenditious edits have been made repeatedly. They will be able to read and decide. • Astynax ^talk 20:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am almost finished. I still have to write about Revisionism, but you can see the whole text in here. I believe 99% of it are direct quotations. If you have time and patience, I wish you could improve the wording in "So, what is the problem?" and "What should it be done, then?" --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good case. I have made a few minor changes. • Astynax ^talk 09:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done with "What is the Argentine Revisionism?" Let me know if you believe something is missing. --Lecen (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a few minor changes. Excellent. • Astynax ^talk 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at what one of the members of the Mediation Committee told me. In other words, Wikipedia has no procedure to resolve content disputes. --Lecen (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

He may be correct, sadly, as administrators tend to give each other more leeway (it is not supposed to work that way, but it often does). That does not mean that you should not continue with the process, however. • Astynax ^talk 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But I can't continue with the process. The mediation is the last avaiable procedure to deal with the kind of matter we are dealing with. And that administrator made it clear that unless Cambalachero and his friend accepted the 'invitation' nothing else could be done. Wikipedia has no possible way to resolve content disputes for real. I was completely unaware of that. --Lecen (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Astynax. How have you been? I decided that my next project will be Uruguayan War. Are you interested in helping me out? I finished the first two sections: "Blanco–Colorado strife" and "Liberating Crusade of 1863". I am sorry if it's mostly straight quotes from the book, but I felt it would be better for you to rephrase it after seeing the original text and not missiing any point. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I will plan on going through the sections tonight. Hope you have also been well. • Astynax ^talk 00:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Finished "Paraguay and the Uruguayan crisis". I believe that the article will at most four more subsections (three for the war itself and one for the aftermath). And they will be short. --Lecen (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try to go over the section later tonight. • Astynax ^talk 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I left a message at Viridae's talk page regarding what's been happening at Two by Twos. Two tags had been added since you last edited; I restored the article to where it was before the tagging. I don't expect it to stay that way long. Would be nice to see this stop. It's more than frustrating. Winkelvi (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. • Astynax ^talk 16:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, as other editors have indicated, some of the issues I have raised on the two by twos talk page have escalated to a point where it is appropriate that I speak to you personally about this. As it appears that the various times I have pointed out your vigorous ownership and protection, and unethical policing of the article has continued, please accept this as yet another gentle request to improve the way that you interact with other editors, and stop the dishonesty in the way that you edit the article in respect to being true to what the sources say, or how accurately the article follows the source. Another thing you also need to be aware of is your strong determination to avoid participation in general discussion, especially when you have an inclination that someone could be referring to their own personal experience. Please be aware that the editors who have discussed their own personal experience have not added this information to the article, but simply used it as a point of discussion to reference real and current information, and measure it against the sources used in the article, a majority of which have an obvious bias, and are generally hostile to the group. I suggest that instead of continuing your rage of unreasonable demands, of which you do not by and large comply with yourself, that you instead assume good faith, and enter into productive discussions about whether the information other editors are presenting is in fact correct and true, a minority view, pure lies or otherwise. Your repetitive and aggressive refusal to discuss personal and primary sources is not conducive to calm and rational topical discussion. I also point out the amount of reverts you have conducted on this article and ask you to question for yourself if you are really over protective of what you appear to consider "your" article. Also you need to think of the many edits that have essentially been a waste of other editor’s efforts in that you have reverted them. Believe me when I say that I don't mind if you are undoing edits that need to be undone, but considering how many of my edits have been undone with very weak or dishonest reasoning, please understand why I wonder how many other quality edits have been reverted just because you don't like people changing "your" article. You will see here another editor expressing his disappointment at your ruthless reverting, and there are many more cases just like this. I suggest that it is time to take a step back from the article, to calm the zealous passion you have towards this subject, and you may come back with a clearer and more constructive mindset, and this will make you a valuable participant within a group of editors sharing a common desire to create an accurate and informative article. Failing that, as other editors have suggested, this may need to be taken to a notice board and before an administrator. Take this as a warning to correct your behaviour from this point on. I look forward to further discussions with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0oToddo0 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors you cite: if my behavior is actually as you describe (and I disagree with your characterization in all points), then your recourse is to report me. I will not be dropping out because of threats or accusations. • Astynax ^talk 17:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me commenting on this, Asyntax. Yes, Todd, report Asyntax if that's truly what you feel is happening in the form of ownership and wikipolicing. In fact, while you're at it, why not report any of us you believe are engaging in same? Neither Asyntax nor myself will be dropping out due to threats or accusations. Winkelvi (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. I added a few things to the lead and the legacy section but I can't do no more than that. Maybe I'll find more information in the future and I might add it as I did with the Count of Porto Alegre and with the Duke of Caxias. Anyway, once you've corrected any errors in the text, could you open the FAC? --Lecen (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to do this Thursday evening and Friday. • Astynax ^talk 06:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am doing another reading and then post the nomination shortly afterward. • Astynax ^talk 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't worry about that, my friend. So far the FAC is going fine, all reviewers are treating us well. Have a good recovery! --Lecen (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You must have noticed that I made quite a few changes to Pedro II of Brazil. As you remember, it was one of the first articles we wrote together and back then there was a huge gap in relation to the history of Brazil on Wikipedia. Since then we wrote several more articles that helped fill that void. What I did to the article was mostly the removal of several unneeded information (see the talk page), which is why it went from 103,000 bytes to 95,000. I also toned down some sentences. Here are few examples (in bold what was removed):

• "A few decades after his death, his reputation was restored and his remains were returned to Brazil as those of a national hero. This reputation has lasted to the present day" to "were returned to Brazil with celebrations nationwide."
• "The Emperor rode within rifle-shot of Uruguaiana to demonstrate his courage, but the Paraguayans..." to "The Emperor rode within rifle-shot of Uruguaiana, but the Paraguayans..."
• "After his fall, Brazilians remained attached to the popular Emperor whom they regarded as a hero and continued to perceive him as a national symbol, the Father of the People personified..." to "After his fall, Brazilians remained attached to Emperor, who was still a popular and highly praised figure."
• "Surprisingly strong feelings of guilt were manifested among republicans..." to "Strong feelings of guilt were manifested among republicans..."

Overall, the article is mostly the same. However, I made a few additions to two sections which I'd like to ask you to take a look at: "Total victory and its heavy costs" and "Decadence" (the third paragraph). There is one large quotation taken from Barman in "Total victory..." that talks about a "Faustian bargain". Could you rewrite it with your own words? You may write it shorter too, if possible. --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look now. • Astynax ^talk 19:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I added a few mentions to the Marquis of Paraná, Caxias, Rio Branco and Ouro Preto. Now the article looks far more related to the other ones than before. --Lecen (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I took so long to improve Uruguayan War. I'm done with "Empire of Brazil and the civil war". --Lecen (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please leave the questions about Inhaúma being a mate and why his ships kept sinking to me. I'll check the sources and see what they say. --Lecen (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will look up the MOS guideline about titles such as "agriculture minister". • Astynax ^talk 09:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Astynax. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you were willing to work on Juan Manuel de Rosas. I believe it's an article with a lot of potential and can be easily brought to Featured Article level if done right. In case you're interested, you could start by improving the sections entitled "Birth" and "Estanciero". --Lecen (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. Cambalachero has already butchered the article beyond recognition. --Lecen (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That article has become ever more misleading. It is incredible that the obvious PoV-pushing is not able to be addressed. Maybe we should rewrite Benito Mussolini to make him look like a misunderstood guy who some historians criticized. • Astynax ^talk 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Astynax, I'm done with "Brazilian ultimatum". I'll try to work faster on the rest. --Lecen (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Finished "Alliance with rebel Colorados". --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done with "Sieges of Uruguayan towns". --Lecen (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Finished "Army of the South in Paysandú". --Lecen (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Further operations" section is finished. --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Fall of Montevideo" as well. --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to do it tonight. I also noticed that Doratioto's Maldita Guerra: Nova história da Guerra do Paraguai is no longer used in any of the citations. You may want to remove it if you will not use it in the article. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Finished "aftermath". I'll work on the lead now. --Lecen (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Finished the lead. --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't forget the missing source. I'm right now looking for a decent map with Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. I'll replace the one in "Liberating Crusade of 1863" with it. I also asked an experienced editor to create a new (and more professional-looking) map with the army movements during the war. --Lecen (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's all done:[5] After you make all needed corrections and we add the new maps the article will be ready to become a FAC. --Lecen (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Good! I hope to have time to go through it for consistency and any small errors tonight and tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 19:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple of maps to the article. The map on "Liberating Crusade of 1863" is provisory until Hoodinski (who made the second one) can create another tha looks better. --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's now a FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive1. --Lecen (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. It is now on my Watch list. • Astynax ^talk 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on Platine War. Please keep an eye on it. --Lecen (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Astynax,
Notwithstanding the apparent disagreements we have over the content of certain articles, it would be helpful if you (and Lecen) could please stop referring to Nazis and Adolf Hitler when developing an argument. Even if Cambalachero's sources are from individuals with political views in favor of fascism, which from my perspective do not discredit them (per ad hominem), that does not make them Nazis. Moreover, all insinuations of me (or Cambalachero) being partisans to such a political viewpoint (fascist or Nazi) should also be avoided, for the sake of Wikiquette (added that I doubt any of us has ever declared partisanship to such viewpoints). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in my comment, the illustration used was a "hypothetical" case, and nowhere did I say or insinuate that anyone (other than the fictional neo-nazi editor being used in the illustration) was pro-Nazi or Fascist. Even Lecen referred only to the revisionist writers as "Fascist", which is what they are called in the source material he cited. You need not take offense, as none was given. • Astynax ^talk 07:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In this diatribe by Lecen ([6]), your buddy writes about the promotion of "a Fascist political agenda" by fascist editors. Within the context of the statement, he is clearly referring to Cambalachero and me. I can provide further diffs, if you desire, but the point here is not to exacerbate tensions. Regardless of your acceptance or denial of the facts, my comment is simply a friendly request for both Lecen (who has your page on watch & can view this statement) and you to stop these unfounded accusations. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My exact words: "...there are two editors writing several articles using books written by Fascists. Books written for the sole purpose of advocating a political agenda in the 1920s-1940s when authoritarian regimes were on the high." That is, (I thought it was obvious) those are books written by Fascists who advocated a political agenda. You and Cambalachero are using them as sources. Nowhere did I say that you or him were (your words) "fascist editors". Astynax has replied just above your last comment that he never accused you or Cambalachero of being Nazi or Fascists. Of course you know that. Of course you know that I didn't call you a "Fascist". The sole purpose of your message to Astynax (including the reply) is that you may use it later as diff to show how you asked in vain for me and Astynax to stop calling you a "fascist". We won't fall on this ridiculous trap, Marshal. It's precisely because of this behavior that you managed to convince the Arbitrators of the necessity of an Arbitration. You were able to convince them when I and everyone else failed. Thank you. Now leave Astynax alone. --Lecen (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(The same arbitrator also said: "ArbCom looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues." When an editor uses Fascist sources to promote a Fascist political agenda at the same time he removes anything said by mainstream authors (the ones who are legitimate) is not considered "conduct issues"?).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good news here. I'm working on Portuguese invasion of the Eastern Bank (1811–1812). Would you be willing to help me out? I'm already done with the first three sections. I believe that the article will require three more sections to be completed. --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I won't have much time this week, but should be able to work on it beginning on Sunday, after I finish a couple of projects. • Astynax ^talk 07:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 12, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert and links. • Astynax ^talk 08:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, would you mind taking your time to improve José Luís Mena Barreto (1817–79)? It has only four paragraphs but it's fully sourced. He was one of the main commanders during the Uruguayan War. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have time to do it later today. • Astynax ^talk 01:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a new and far larger picture to Empire of Brazil. Sorry for having done it yet again. This one is far larger and of better quality than the other one. Could you add an alternative description to it? --Lecen (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done • Astynax ^talk 00:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have little faith that the Arbitration case may end in a positive way. Not because of the Arbitrators, but because of how the other party is acting. I can't respond to editors who misrepresent sources and use diffs out of context to "prove" their point. Now several of their friends have shown up mysteriously out of nowhere to make statements, even though none of them had ever bothered to improve any of the articles mentioned nor to take part in any of the previous discussions. There is absolutely no way I can work through all that. I have no other choice but to sit back and let it be. They will probably get away. --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope that the committee will look at the evidence and not be diverted by side issues. The behavior you described is certainly not limited to a single article/topic, and other editors practice it also. Even though WP:IDHT and other disruptive tactics are obvious, it is difficult to illustrate such cases in dispute resolution unless the topic is very popular and the sources/issues are well-known. It is also difficult to convey the utter and maddening frustration that editors experience when these tactics are employed over weeks and years to circumvent policies designed to encourage and protect accuracy—it's very destructive, and I've seen constructive editors disappear from other articles because of them. You are correct that there is little left to do but answer any questions directed to you during the next phase. I'm certain that the committee will try to untangle the issues, and we will see whether they can also grasp what is happening. I still hope so, despite the people from the past who have popped up with side issues that won't encourage a clear statement that will help with future instances. • Astynax ^talk 09:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)