User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 1

Talkback
You may be interested in the conversation. Regards, CA.  Claret  Ash  00:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:User:Lumastan
Category:User:Lumastan, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * }

Os meus artigos
Oi, Lumastan. Vejo que é portuga. Em casa temos dupla cidadania (adivinha qual é a segunda) e não precisa me chamar de senhor, pois tenho 27 anos. Você deve ter percebido que os artigos sobre a história portuguesa estão abandonados. Não sei aonde estão os demais usuários portugueses, se é que existem. Consegui escrever e promover para FA (Featured Article) o artigo sobre Pedro Álvares Cabral. Confesso que já tive interesse em escrever outros da história portuguesa, mas a falta de apoio me desestimulou. Escrever um artigo FA requer meses. Não é algo fácil. Para piorar, o pessoal que revisa os candidatos para FA são as vezes uns verdadeiros babacas arrogantes. Sabe como é, né? "Ei, tenho várias estrelinhas no meu perfil, isso me faz melhor que os demais". Coisa de gente frustrada com a vida real. Mas enfim, faço algumas recomendações: primeiro, tire a informação que é monarquista. Numa discussão qualquer, as pessoas irão te acusar de estar agindo por pensamento político, e não baseando-se em bom senso e fontes confiáveis. Quanto as demais recomendações... bem, você irá descobrir. Não sei bem o que quis dizer com saus edições a artigos, o que quer que eu faça exatamente? P.S.: Existe algum livro em Portugal com fotografias (repito, fotografias, e não pinturas ou litografias) da rainha Maria II? --Lecen (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eu não saberia comentar ou te ajudar nos artigos que você me pediu, pois o meu forte não são os aspectos da monarquia, mas a história em si. Assim, não saberia te dizer se os artigos estão bons ou não. Recomendo que vá aqui e procure artigos semelhantes para se basear. Estou atualmente trabalhando em Pedro I of Brazil, que também foi Pedro IV, o Rei Soldado. Já tive a vontade de melhorar o artigo de Dom João VI, mas detesto nome "John VI" e os editores portugueses aqui na Wikipédia adoram americanizar (ou mais precisamente, anglicizar) os nomes de seus monarcas. No fim fica algo um tanto ridículo, como "John VI", filho de Maria I, pai de Pedro I e Miguel I. Acho que os leitores devem ficar se perguntando quem foi esse rei inglês que por ventura caiu em Portugal. Tentei modificar o nome, mas não recebi o apoio devido e no fim, o artigo cotinuou como está, uma porcaria. --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * }

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Royal Pantheon of the Braganza Dynasty, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Neoclassic (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) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * }

Speedy deletion nomination of Prince of Brazil (Brazil)


A tag has been placed on Prince of Brazil (Brazil) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Henry, King of Portugal, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Henry, King of Portugal, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * }

Moves
Hi Lumastan. Have you sought consensus about all the moves you're making? From what I understand they are at odds with longstanding agreements about articles on royalty and should probably be reverted until they can be discussed in detail. Not only that, you're also removing the anglicized versions of the names from the articles which is obviously counterproductive. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lumastan, I see you have undertaken a mass editing job today. I don't see that you sought, much less obtained, consensus for any of these moves.  This is very disruptive.  All these edits must most certainly be reversed.   Walrasiad (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, could you please explain this edit. To me it appears to be deliberate removal of information for the sake of nationalistic pride. The use of multiple names is helpful to readers since sources outside of Wikipedia use the various names. Pichpich (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the edit above, the names of of the Portuguese monarchs in a differant country should not matter on an article pertaining to the monarchs in Portugal.
 * They do matter because usage in outside references use these variations. What you think about the editorial choices made by these sources is irrelevant: what you're doing is removing potentially information because you don't like it. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * }

Uploaded files
Hi Lumastan. When you uploaded File:Nossasenhoradaconceicao.jpg, you claimed that the image was your own work. But I found identical copies of that image all over the web so I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim. If this is not your own work then you should ask for the image to be deleted as soon as possible. It's important for the credibility of Commons that copyright violations are taken care of quickly. Note that File:SMF Manoel II.jpg is also most definitely not your own work as are similar photographs. The fact that you scanned the image does not make it your own work. You need to make sure that such images are completely and unambiguously in the public domain before uploading them to Commons. Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that, refering to File:SMF Manoel II.jpg, because I own a real life copy of the image and put it on the internet, and the fact that it is at least 100 years old photograph, that it would be mine, but if not, please delete it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot delete these images since I'm not an administrator on Commons. Details on how to request deletion of your uploads are available at Commons:Commons:Deletion policy. For files which are indeed in the public domain, you should update your uploads and make sure that all your claims are correct (the rules tend to be a little complicated so don't hesitate to ask around). Pichpich (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lumastan. I see that you have not yet taken action regarding the above problems. I find it disappointing because it's a lot more work for everybody if you're not collaborating with the cleanup. But at the very least you should avoid uploading new images with dubious claims that they are free as you did with File:Isabel de Braganca.PNG. Pichpich (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lumastan. You don't really seem to care but it is not ok to upload images and claim that they are free without providing definitive evidence that it is indeed free. File:A Matria.jpg is a very nice image but since you don't know who the author is, I'm not sure how you can guarantee that it's cc-by-sa-2.5. The fact that it's most likely a collage of free images does not make it a free image. And once again, I'd kindly ask you to settle the issues with the images listed above. Pichpich (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

List of titles and honours of the Portuguese Crown at WP:FLC
Hello. I've removed this candidate from FLC as it is far from ready. You might like to check it against this checklist, ensuring most importantly that it contains professional writing, a decent lead, plenty of reliable third-party sources etc etc. You would be well advised to look at some recently promoted lists (see the summary in WT:FLC) so you can understand what we're expecting at FLC. I will also be removing the nomination for Royal Pantheon of the House of Braganza at FLC for similar reasons. If you'd like some more in-depth review before nominating at FLC, please submit these lists to peer review. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see that a Portuguese editor voted against the move? This is something I can't understand: the Portuguese editors here love everything English. --Lecen (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

|}

Structural changes and Galleries
Lumastan. I ask that you read the comments I made in the original revert. There were three points: first, you removed citations (resolved); second, you altered the structure of the Lisbon article (unnoticed?) and third, the issue of galleries. Regarding the two last points. Your alteration of the section on "Twinning Cities" had the affect of (or was it intentional) modifying the structure of the remaining article into a three-column format. If this was your intention, I suggest you get consensus for such a radical move. If it wasn't, then I believe you should read-up on column definitions in the WP:MOS. Regarding your issue with galleries: although Wikipedia allows galleries, the conventions do not specifically suggest that they should be created adhoc. There are specific prerequisites and conventions that state: "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text". Further, the "images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value", and not just placed together to show pride in a subject. In the past I have had discussions about this subject with administrators and editors who have illustrated this point. Regardless, the most important convention, no matter what exists on other "city articles" is NOTREPOSITORY: Wikipedia is not an image repository (I refer you also to WP:Galleries and IG for complementary information on the use of imagery). As it stands, in the past editors and administrators have removed excessive images on this page because they do not add to the encyclopedic value and/or border on abuse and nationalism. I ask you to re-read those points on image use before attempting to revert my reviews. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * }

House of Borgonha
Hi Lumastan. You've just created House of Borgonha but this is just the Portuguese name for House of Burgundy. I don't really see the point of splitting the House of Burgundy article but if you do, it shouldn't be under the Portuguese title since the name is seldom used in English. Pichpich (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * }

Peter V of Aragon
I assume you know Portuguese. Can you help translate some info about Peter V of Aragon from his Portuguese article? Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you incorporate your translation onto the page instead of posting it on my talk page? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, I shall do it when I am completed with my current project. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Peter V of Aragon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valencia (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) 11:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |}

Royal coat of arms of the portuguese kingdom
The thing you are spreading everywhere don't match with this nor with the article about Portuguese Arms of the Dictionary of History of Portugal (directed by Joel Serrão). I have already noticed the author and now I am noticing you. Do you know what are you doing? The work has no heraldic sources, so, are you the author? Or do you know from what reliable sources the author took the dates to conceive it? My best regards, Jorge alo (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The coat of arms, I assume you speak of:

, is an incorportation of the coat of official coat of arms under the late Braganza monarchs (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/armory18/portugal.jpg), with a modification of the coat of arms into the traditional shield: With this, this shield incorporates two of Portugal's historical coats of arms into one, displaying a well-done piece of work. If you really searched, you could find examples of varients of this coat of arms, even here on wikipedia and done by other users, such as:


 * So we have as source for your good work this: ? And, as José I is after António Caetano de Sousa's book mor or less 50 years (and is reign isn't from 1640), your good work is only in contradiction with an article of António Machado de Faria, member of de Academia Portuguesa de História? Finally, have you any reliable source of the same degree (more or less) of A. Machado de Faria's article? Jorge alo (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, now we have sources of equal or superior degree here and here. We already have the two green dragons justified, but there are at least six elements missing of the arms between 1826 to 1910 (a elm, a little green dragon coming from the crown, above it, two standards for the dragons with the five quinas). If this it's impossible to do, the only thing we can say, about the work, is what you referred and is true, that it's from the time of José I, when the representations with two dragons began to appear (but they were not the most common representation). So, what you propose to do? Jorge alo (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Meu caro Senhor, you and I both know that the coat of arms of Portugal has been changing ever since its early origins. From 12 castles to 7 and the cruz de Aviz in the back, and the crown has differed every century it seems, haha. I chose to use this coat of arms because I believed that it took in the traditional and complete shield of Portugal and shows the shield with supporters (something that is not common when it comes to Portuguese coat of arms). It encompasses all these things to create a clean and complete coat of arms, one that is true to the traditional shield, unlike

which uses the french moderne shield. I find it to be exemplary work, dont you? but if you find one that encompasses traditional aspects of Portuguese coat of arms in a completed form, I would love to see it. I hope we can work together in finding one that exemplifies the history of the Portuguese coat of arms in all aspects.


 * What do you think of a combination of:

I think that would be exceptional. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And with this, caríssimo A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa, and with your hability, I think the work will be perfect. Don't forget, please, that the "sticks" are in gold, and, if I'm not in error, the elm is open. There is also a P. and V. " of something", but you surely are familiarized with the terms and, anyway, in the first pages of Anselmo Bramcaamp there is an explanation. Then, we can put on the Commons our magnificent sources and the period proposed by Braancamp (1826-1910), and, if we add on the discription «reconstitution of the royal coat of arms, with all their elements, for 1826-1910», we will not fool anyone and we will be reel good enciclopedists. With my best cumpliments, Jorge alo (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

John VI or Joao VI
You're wasting yout rime there discussing with them. They won't change their mind and the discussion will only make the entire move as nightmare of conflicts. Just ignore it. --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: In fact, you should remove your last comment. It will only add further fuel to the fire. They will make their replies and so this will never end. --Lecen (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mas, there must be a way. Eles precisam de respeitar outras culturas e idiomas. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You two understand what this is really about? Americans don't understand diacritic marks. See ASCII. The overall approach they take is cultural homogenisation. Lots of xenophobia, too. Alarbus (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This xenophobia must end. If we are to be productive (or better, if I am to be productive) I must know that what I am writing about is correct in all manners possible, the name being one of the manners. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would help. Help on-wiki, too. A hundred-odd years ago when many were emigrating to America, they were routinely required to change their names to something "acceptable". FWIW, I d your post on the requested move discussion. Alarbus (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I wish everyone liked it enough that they would change the name. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * . Best wishes, Alarbus (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is wonderful! Justice and Knowledge have won this fight! Best wishes as well to you! A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop. John VI is not John I or John II or John III. A single poor administator's decision without consensus, which I am currently appealing. Don't change any more pages. Walrasiad (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki; we edit pages. Alarbus (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you move the articles John IV & John V? GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop feeding the trolls. That Jorge Alo guy is talking nothing but nonsense and you're falling on his trap. Let the matter rest and move on. --Lecen (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have stopped contact with him, but how am I "feeding the trolls"? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ill give you an example: Those guys who have opposed the name João are now making a big deal of the matter. They don't care about the article. They have never contributed to Portuguese royals' articles. In other words: they are not there to help. If you waste your time dicussing with them, nothing will happen. They won't change their minds and the article will look like there is one serious dicussion about it. Which there isn't. See Troll (Internet). --Lecen (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you can rest asured that I am no longer going to fight in the endless battle, it just angers me. I see that it angers you as well, but I hope that you will "un-retire", Wikipedia is lucky for what you have done for it. Abraços, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Let other who are not involved say something. If you and the those guys star arguing, nothing will come from it. --Lecen (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * alright Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Portugal & Spain near parallels
Wowsers, read up on the 1820's & 1830's of those Kingdoms. What was family life coming to? ambitious uncles vs their little nieces. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * pardon?Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Miguel vs Maria II & Carlos vs Isabella II; Great reading. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Wikipedia's civility standards
Hi, I thought perhaps it would be best if we continued the discussion you started at WP:WQA here. Wikipedia tries to maintain a fairly relaxed environment. Because of that, editors generally consider it appropriate to address each other as they would a friend - that is to say, they are not required to maintain very formal levels of respectfulness. SandyGeorgia's comments, while disagreeing with other editors, do not attack any other users for their opinions, and so fall in to the realm of what would be considered appropriate here. I'm not entirely sure what I can do to address this, other than to suggest you not take other editors' comments too personally. For the most part I am sure they do not mean to offend you, or anyone else. Prodego talk  05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly say that Walrasaid's comments were not rude? honestly? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think several of his comments were disrespectful. Perhaps you could again link particular comments that you find problematic here (just a link would be fine), and we can go over them. Prodego  talk  05:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's usually up to the user . I've been talking Cristiano for several days, while you're new here. (Cristiano, you're free to restore the links). Alarbus (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Albarus,

Interestingly, there's some further talk about this at: and evidence may be offered at: The precipitating incident was an editor calling another a "dishonest cunt". Here: Evidence has been requested: Enjoy the beer, Alarbus (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence
 * illustrating obviously uncivil behaviour on the part of an experienced editor on an article talk page or on any page in the Wikipedia namespace that appears to have gone completely unaddressed.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence

As much as I did not compile them, these are perfect examples: (beg my pardon for the delay) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "...there they go, triumphantly reversing all the monarch pages within minutes of your terrible decision. I am now going to have to reverse them all. Thanks a lot for messing things up" (message written to The ed17, the administrator who made the move)
 * "...I've heard your pátria is the língua portuguesa [I've heard that your fatherland is the Portuguese language; that is, the Wikipedia in Portuguese]. Wouldn't that be a natural place for you to be editing?" (kind way he found say "get the hell out of Wikipedia" to Cristiano Tomás, the user who requested the move)
 * "...flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings." (How he sees the Portuguese language)
 * "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names." (if he wants "John VI", we have to accept it. But if others want "João VI", he won't accept it. Double standards. Why anyone should respect anything, then?)

One of the founding principles on Wikipedia is to assume good faith in other editors. We can see in several of these comments that Walrasaid fails to do that, he doesn't show respect to other editors intentions. I would describe this as a failing on his part. However, Wikipedia tends to allow a great deal of leeway, Walrasaid is upset by some action and is voicing his displeasure. As long as this behavior is not a constant feature of his editing, this doesn't cause too much of a problem. Because we assume good faith, we assume that Walrasaid does not intend to upset other editors with his comments, and if he does not usually make such comments we would be justified in doing so. The ability to withstand disagreement from other editors, which can sometimes be quite vocal, is important for collaborating with others on a project like Wikipedia. Prodego talk  05:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If only all the editors conducted themselves in the manner you do yourself now. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You do how to win the Kobayashi Maru test? You have to cheat. Please don't paper-over what's really going on here, which is huge amounts of hostility. Alarbus (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * what? ahaha Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia seems to be trying to help you, working with her if you have issues like this might be very helpful. As for Walrasaid, all I can say is that there are users like him who you may find difficult to deal with. To some extent we just have to try to put up with them. If they make that impossible, then you can be sure that some action will be taken to ensure that they are held to the standards the majority of editors expect. Prodego  talk  06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia has not even posted here, how is she trying to help me with this issue? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, she asked me to talk to you in more depth after my response at WP:WQA. She wanted someone to help explain all of this to you, but she was worried that because she might have offended you, that she couldn't do it herself. I don't think she would have asked anyone, particularly me as I almost always disagree with her views on civility, to help you if she wasn't on your side to some extent. She also invited you to talk to her about it, so she can explain what she meant. All of that tells me she had no intention to cause trouble. If there is anything I can do, do let me know on my talk page. Prodego  talk  06:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I'd really appreciate it if you'd let me know if there is anything you think I could have done better here. And again, if there is any way I can assist you, feel free to ask. Prodego  talk  06:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You performed yourself quite exemplarily. Thank you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Got an hour and a half?
 * http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682
 * That's a video of the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation speaking in November. She talks about the 'hide' wikis develop, about hostility and lack of openness. More:
 * Foundation:Resolution:Openness
 * March 2011 Update
 * Editor Trends Study, Editor Trends Study/Results
 * The PDF, at right, talks about increasing diversity. Some people hate that idea.
 * Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview — The Gardner interview
 * Good luck, this place it's toxic. Alarbus (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lumastan, hang in there, you are not alone. :) Please do consider participating in the arbitration case? This is exactly the kind of issue we are discussing in a larger forum right now. Obrigado! --Elonka 06:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Everybody, I do not wish to continues causing work and hassle for you. Please just the leave the situation alone. I have taken things as they are, thank you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, now I can see the problem more clearly. I'll be present on that article talk page, to try to work to calm this situation. If there is anywhere else my presence is needed, let me know. Prodego  talk  08:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }