User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Helder Antunes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Chambers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lisboa e Queluz

Given that there are few editors who seem to be dedicated to improving the Portuguese namespace, it is likely that their personal "visions" will likely come into conflict on more then one occasion. Having said that, I welcome your assistance on the improving the National Palace of Queluz article at the time that I submit an update. I agreed that the FA-status article is poor in more then one way, not just history. In fact, although well-written, it seems to be more of an editorial/review of the building. But, I will likely differ to your critique after I integrate my content elaboration.

While I will not likely agree with many of the edits you may make, I will not make a point of systematically countering your edits. The changes you have made on the Lisbon article, although structurally different, then my own on the parishes and municipalities of Portugal, are not invalid. I have already noted my disagreements with you on the use of the wikitable for civil parishes (unnecessarily complicated) and the choice of "demographics" versus "demography" (which, I see you accepted).

As a Masters in Geography, there are other things that make me feel awkward. First, breaking-out "Demographics" as a section equivalent to "Geography" and "Economy", for example, seems an error. As a practical subset of "Demography" (the science), "Demographics" is a subset of "Human geography" (Population geography, specifically), and not a world apart. Further, with "demographics", because of the wiki-markup, there is a presupposition by the reader, that the "metropolitan area" is a subset of "demographics", when, in fact, it is a socio-political (Political geography) context on par with civil parishes and districts (albeit at different levels based on size). Also, the socio-political context (civil parishes, districts, demographics, etc.) are all part of this aspect of geography, so it does not make any sense to structure the content as you have done so. In this respect, it should be broken down to: metro, civil parishes and the "districts" (and even that term creates confusions since there are already the Portuguese Districts of Portugal). Okay, those are my critiques of your work. And, that is not including the comments about Geoboxes. I hope you will consider them in your revisions in the future.

Yes, we both want high-quality, NPOV elaboration of Portuguese articles, and I believe both of us have been more committed to this cause recently then others. I whole-heartedly support your drive for consistency, and hope that we can reach a consensus, primarily since we are BOTH doing the same type of research and editing. It is likely that my revisions to Queluz will take some time to complete, at that time I invite you to do the same and critique my contributions. No edit-wars necessary. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kongo question

Hello. It's me again. I guess we are not going to agree on this dispute about the Kingdom of Kongo page. Too bad. I still can't find a way to your logic and have to stick to my guns. I just wan't to warn you that this isn't my first rodeo when it comes to conflicts over African articles, and I've never lost. You can keep tagging the page with the vassal statement if it makes you feel bettter about Portugal (you seem to be a big fan of them). But I will continue to oppose you EVERY SINGLE TIME. You will get bored with this and leave to take on other things. I will remain. You don't know much about Africa and probably could care less about its history. And that is why you will loose. I care about history, especially African history. I want that page to be as accurate as possible. The information you want to include is just repetitive of stuff already in the infobox. Give up now and walk away. I'm a junior high school teacher and I doubt you have more patience than me.Scott Free (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with your recent edit. Good solution. Scott Free (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon. I don't agree with the the language thing. Portuguese is not native to Kongo. It was used; but the infobox is asking for the native langauge. I will have to change that one, but I will wait for your response beforew I do so. Scott Free (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I understand that Portuguese was used in documents and official business after they became vassals. In fact, just about all written documents from Kongo before and after the vassal period are in Portuguese. However the infobox is not asking for official language. It's asking for native. I'm going to change that portion back and ask that you concede that point on good faith. Scott Free (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki links of templates

Hi, why did you this? --188.142.193.35 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Gyantusz

Okay, I corrected the link. Thanks. --188.142.193.35 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Gyantusz

Where are you now?

Cristiano, if I'm not mistaken, you once told me that you were living in the U.S. Ate you still there or did you return to Portugal? --Lecen (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd like to ask you for a favor. Two, in fact. If possible, in case you go to the Museu Nacional dos Coches in Lisbon, I'd like to ask you to take a photograph, a good one, of the painting of Dom Pedro IV by the British John Simpson. In case you're wondering, this is the painting I'm talking about. The problem is that this is not the full painting. You'll see it.

The second favor I'd like to ask is: if you go to a shopping mall or similar, go to a bookstore and search for this book and this one. They are both from the same author. I want you to take a look at them and see if they have photographs of Queen Maria II. I repeat: photographs, not lithographs or paintings. Actual photographs. I'm not asking you to buy them, only to take a look at them. If any of them has photos I'll order a copy for me. There is a very good bookstore in Lisbon called "Bertrand". So, could you do it? --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you should forget about the museum. If you're able to tell me if those books have indeed the photos I'll e more than pleased. This book about Maria II that you mentioned, is it a novel or a history book? --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I

You ask "How am I helping"[1]:

by adding information[2][3]

by correcting information[4][5]

by adding attribution[6]

by correcting typos[7][8][9]

by correcting language[10][11][12]

Don't belittle my contributions. Don't insult me. DrKiernan (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Queluz

Queluz

Good day Cristiano. I have a request. I have elaborated the content on the National Palace of Queluz considerably on my sandbox, and being a compatriot on this subject (and obviously the motivator for my elaboration), I was hoping you could take a look at my revision. I will shortly be going on vacation (for three weeks) and will likely be incomunicado. Since the work is long and, unfortunately, incomplete, I was kind of hoping someone with a passion for the subject could "finesse" the article in the meantime. As I mentioned, it is incomplete, without citations (which I will elaborate) and heavily biased on historical (somewhat sterile) context. In addition, there are several lines of Portuguese text after the External Links section, which I still have not translated (which I request you leave for now). It was daunting getting it to this point, but definitely expands the cursory explanation of the historical context significantly. I hope you have some time for this request. Being summer, I realize that there are other pursuits more gratifying on the continent. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Caro Zeortmer, I am so very happy that you have taken the noble cause of inproving the article of the patrimony of our country. I will gladly go over it and, with your permission, copy it to my sand box to make edits of my own, for I wouldnt want to change something and you not agree with it on your own page. I think we can really create a masterpiece here, thank you. Cuprimentos, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Cristiano. I would rather that you edit in my sandbox, that way, there aren't too many versions lurking about. I have no problem with you editing it: the collaborative process suggests that working on it in a centralized location is more productive then creating different versions. Since I began the editing, it made sense for this revision to remain centralized here, since it was a semi-complete revision of the original article, rather then working on it peace-meal on the original article-space. But, having said that, I am amendable to having you transfer the content to your sandbox. Ah, yes, and disagreements on content is part of the process. The only thing I could probably disagree with, would be removing the Geobox. I am a strong proponent of this type of infobox, for all architecture, as it provides rich content. I refer you to the Padrão dos Descobrimentos, Belém Tower and Jeronimos Monastery to support this claim. After that: I am easy. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Iberian union

The entry is correct. There was not a spanish crown but a House of Habsburg with many crowns. If you have a problem let me know on the talk page. 46.50.6.10 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Diogo Rodrigues

Stop messing the contents, STOP changing without any knowledge or research. You may suggest. User:Historic Discoveries 07:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Messing the information again. Refrain from deleting, you may suggest and if not accepted, proceed and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historic Discoveries (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi CT. The "Diogo Rodrigues" page on my watchlist keeps flashing on & off. There seems to be some sort of edit war raging with some disconcerting name-calling. I took a look through the history, but I am not sure I understand what's going on. Given that you seem to be quarreling with an apparently new editor, perhaps some patient explanation on the talk page there is warranted? Walrasiad (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited List of palaces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estremadura Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Spain

Hola Cristiano te he revertido porque:

• La unión matrimonial de Aragón y Castilla no eliminó los reinos que forman España.
• Las independencias de hispanoamérica no tienen nada que ver con la guerra de Cuba del 98.

Acude al talk--Santos30 (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nova Lusitania

Hi CT. I removed your insertion at Name of Brazil. "Nova Lusitania" was a term Duarte Coelho Pereira invented only to refer to his captaincy of Pernambuco. As I noted in the edit summary, there were fourteen other captaincies in Brazil with other names. Moreover, the "early names" section is only about names prior to the emergence of the "Brazil" term (i.e. early 1500s). "Brazil" was already established as the name of the whole by the time of the partition into captaincies. I hope that makes sense. Walrasiad (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

CT, I took the trouble to explain my edit to you here. You could have at least been so kind as to reply to it before reinserting it. I have given my reasons for removing your claims. If they were not clear, let me repeat:

• (1) it is not a name for Brazil, it was a name only for Duarte Coelho's captaincy of Pernambuco, used in no other location nor in any chronicle or document I know besides that. There were fourteen captaincies, each having their own names. Indeed, Duarte Coelho's first act upon landing was precisely to set down a marker separating "Nova Lusitania" from Itamaraca of Pero Lopes de Sousa.
• (2) The section "first names" refers to the names used before the term "Brazil" emerged, that is, the early 1500s. The whole was already referred to as "Brazil" by the time of the captancies.
• (3) To add a third error, Nova Lisboa was NOT in Duarte Coelho's captaincy. It was in Joao de Barros's captaincy. And not founded until much, much later. Coelho's captaincy contained the settlements of Olinda, Igarassu/Vila Cosme and Sitio do Marco.

I wrote this article, and am quite familiar with literature and original sources (as you might be able to deduce from the references I carefully assembled there, many from original primary documents). If you have a reference for your claim, I would be happy if you could point it out, for it seems I am missing it. Walrasiad (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince of Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures without information, source nor authors.

Cristiano, you must stop once and for all uploading pictures without any kind of information. Writing "o rei" does not mean anything. You are also not providing any information regarding the source nor author of any picture you're uploading. --Lecen (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah Lecen, I am sorry, adding the source has slipped me, but I asure you I have a source. I will add them to all the images at once. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I just added all the sources. Sorry for the confussion. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if an administrator had seem them as they were he would believe that they were a typical case of copyright infringement and he would erase them all. All your hardwork would have been for nothing. Thanks for correcting it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see your point exactly my friend. Thank you for enlightening me on the problem. Do let me know if I can be of any help, Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Name of Brazil

Please take this to the article's discussion page and try to come to some sort of agreement there. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

I was amazed and outraged once I learned that Qwyrxian closed the move request for Pedro III of Portugal claiming lack of consensus.[13] Twelve editors supported the move and only four opposed. I complained to him about how unfair and absurd was his action and that he should accept the will of the vast majority or at least reopen the move request. I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about it on his talk page. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to His Excellency and Pombal

Afonso de Albuquerque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Order of Christ

His Most Faithful Majesty's Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to His Excellency

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Brazil

Hi, Cristiano. We've met before; I was User:Alarbus. Please see:

• User talk:Br'er Rabbit#List of monarchs of Brazil

Lecen asked me about those templates and I recommended against them. He said to go ahead and make wikitables, which I did. Those templates do exist for a reason, but they are not good reasons. All uses should be removed, really. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Move

Stopping moving article without requesting them. You are not allowed to include multiple titles as you have done with Maria of Aragon and Castille, Queen of Portugal and Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias and Portugal or translate names and changed the title completely like you did with Isabel of Aragon and Castille, Queen of Portugal. Miguel da Paz has been moved and removed and finally settled upon the present title, you can request it but I will oppose it. No one doubts his position as Prince of Asturias, but we might as well call him Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, Portugal, Girona and Viana. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Translating the name is not the solution. I advise you not to move Miguel's page, again. Because we are at the limit of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Unless you want to be blocked, please request it.

Joan, Princess of Portugal

Once again you have replaced a high quality image of the painting with a poor quality one, with no apparent rationale. Please behave, this is not a battle field. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joan, Princess of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aveiro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Last thing before you go

Well, well, thank you very much! The painting is not as large as I wished, but it will be useful for the time being. Perhaps in the future we might find a larger version. The painting looks very dark. It probably requires a restoration, but I hardly believe the museum will take its time to do it. About me, all I have to say is that I'm taking a very long vacation from Wikipedia. It seems that there are more people around who could contribute more than I do (I'm being ironic). Isn't it frustrating to see these users who fight like there was no tomorrow to change the name of an article but who at the same time do absolutely nothing to improve that same article? That guy from the War of the Ragamuffins is insulting everyone and he should have been blocked a long time ago but I rather prefer ignoring him. Since I still have a FAC (Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre) to keep an eye on, I'll be around for this week and probably the next one too. Thus, feel free to call me in case you need it. Regards and thanks a lot for the good time we spent together. You're a great guy, Cristiano. --Lecen (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)