User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 11

Nomination for merging of Template:European nobility
Template:European nobility has been nominated for merging with Template:Nobility by nation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference
Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Art + Feminism 2019
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bust(s)
Hello! Please see my note at Talk:George Washington (Fairbanks). If sourcing cannot be added soon, I plant to revert to the previous version of the article. Thank you! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Cristiano Tomás. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Horasis
Hello Cristiano Tomás, thank you for the clarification regarding the COI question to avoid misunderstandings. However, and please take this as constructive criticism, your edits to this article are not fully neutral and encyclopedic. I'll briefly list some main concerns:


 * 1) Unsourced indiscriminate speaker and conference lists: Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Such "internal" information is not encyclopedic and should be hosted on the topic's own official site. Of course you can briefly mention particularly noteworthy conferences or speakers, if their attendance has been covered in independent reliable sources as a significant highlight of such an event in some detail. But such mentions should be done in prose with sufficient context, not as trivial list.
 * 2) WP:PEACOCK terms and subjective assessments should be avoided at all costs, even for a think tank with high-profile conferences. For example: "business leaders" are just business people, a "famed" resort town is just a resort town, etc. The addition of such flowery qualifiers only distracts from the mere facts. PR statements from the organization itself should almost never be re-used (not even as quotes).
 * 3) Images should provide substantial encyclopedic information, not be merely decorative and promotional. Just showing random prominent speakers adds nothing substantial to the article - unless their attendance has been noteworthy and covered in independent reliable sources.

I'll work on removing most of the extraneous content (but will try to keep the factual updates intact), but wanted to explain the issues in a bit more detail as - hopefully - constructive feedback. Your editing in such articles is greatly appreciated, but edits should be more succinct and neutral. Also, the usage of independent reliable sources for additions will generally help to avoid biased language or undue weight on minor or routine information.

If need be, we can discuss particular content-related issues on the article's talkpage to improve the article with encyclopedic information. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Matt Johnson (neuroscientist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Johnson (neuroscientist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Matt Johnson (neuroscientist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fascism in Europe
Why did you revert without an explanation? Please do not disrupt the article with unexplained reversions — join the discussion on the article talk page, instead. El_C 00:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edits of a contentious editor who is going contrary to the consensus reached on Antonio Oliveira Salazar's talk page, concerning the topic of defining the portuguese regime and its relationship with fascism. It is the IP that was disrupting the article, not I. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. But you should be made aware that consensus is being attempted on the article talk page, at Talk:Fascism_in_Europe. El_C 01:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Grammy Award into The Recording Academy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richmond, The American International University in London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Student union ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Richmond%2C_The_American_International_University_in_London check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Richmond%2C_The_American_International_University_in_London?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Castelo de Sao Jorge
Muito obrigado por tua ajuda, infelizmente pessoas desavisadas fizeram que um momento tão importante do nosso Portugal fosse considerado Moorish, in many YouTube videos is possible to see people repeating the mistake of this article. So I'd like to get a consensus with you about the text. My suggestion is: "São Jorge Castle (Portuguese: Castelo de São Jorge; Portuguese pronunciation: [kɐʃˈtɛlu dɨ sɐ̃w̃ ˈʒɔɾʒ(ɨ)]; Saint George Castle) is an ancient monument with a presumable date of construction in the year 48 BC (reference), when a fortification was made at the place that is currently known as Castelo de São Jorge. This date coincides with the period in which it was granted to Lisbon the category of Roman municipality, following the conquest of the city by Rome after centuries of battle to dominate the region". Tomei como referência o a cronologia ofical do castelo disponivel no site dos monumentos históricos portugueses http://www.monumentos.gov.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SIPA.aspx?id=3128. De acordo com a cronologia ofcial lá disponível a história do Castelo não começa na idade medieval, mas em 48 a.C. O que faz muito sentido, pois na idade média foi apenas uma das vezes em muitas das que o Castelo foi reconstruído, o que vemos hoje é na verdade a última reconstrução que foi feita por Salazar. Assim, podemos dizer que ele tem estilo medieval, tal como o site mesmo evidencia na primeira linha, mas que ele data de 48 a.C. ano de sua primeira construção. Peço-te que considere minha sugestão, peço publicá-la? Obrigado pela ajuda em consertar o terrível erro sobre o belo castelo de nossa Lisboa. Aguardo tua resposta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Translation help requested
Hi. Since you created José of Braganza, High Inquisitor of Portugal, I thought you might be interested in helping with this request I made to translate the Portuguese section of Grand Inquisitor. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polanco, Mexico City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cartier and Bally ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Polanco%2C_Mexico_City check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Polanco%2C_Mexico_City?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Horasis in Cascais
Hi. There are many organizations that hold meetings in Cascais and it would be pointless to list all of them. I do not see what is particularly special about Horasis but if you feel that it is a notable organization then it would seem more appropriate to mention it in the text. It certainly looks like blatant propaganda as a photo caption and detracts from the subject of the photo, which should be the hotel not the Cocktail Party. A paragraph in the Economy section saying that Cascais hosts regular events such as the Ironman competition, the Harley-Davidson Owners Group and Horasis would be better. Roundtheworld (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there. There are indeed many organizations in Cascais, but to equate the notability of an event that attracts foreign heads of state annually (horasis) to a Harley group is intellectually dishonest as one is obviously far more notable. Just as numerous other city pages have images with captions referring notable events held there, from Davos and the WEF to Las Vegas and CES, there is nothing out of line in referencing the horasis meeting in the Cascais article. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of George Washington University alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Courtney Cox ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_George_Washington_University_alumni check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_George_Washington_University_alumni?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Latin music invitation
I've noticed your edits to music from Portugal and thought you might be interested. Erick (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Justification on my edits on the "Willem van der Haegen" page.
Hello Cristiano,

I'm writing this to justify my latest edits on the "Willem van der Haegen" page. The previous version of the article was based on research of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and had since been found out inadequate and outdated. The source I cited, although singular, is a transcription, as well as translation into modern Dutch of medieval manuscripts (in old French and Flemish) dating from the 15th century, which are contemporary to Willem's lifetime and that provide very strong and compelling evidence that his real surname was De Kersemakere (De Keersmaeker). This is particularly relevant because all the previous sources on this person derived from Portuguese and Azorian sources and not from the archives of Bruges (Willem's hometown). I am a native speaker of both Dutch and Portuguese and as such was able to sift carefully through the evidence. Added to that, André L. Fr. Claeys' genealogical research was first published on a page from the official website of the Azorian government (www.bparah.azores.gov.pt) which unfortunately has been offline and unavailable at even the way back machine. Nevertheless I have a stored copy on my computer and also found the online copy that I have linked in the article. Last but not least, I have not changed the whole article's narrative but instead added light to this new information on his true origins.

Kind regards,

Frida Antonia Arlon.

--Frid.antonia-arlon(talk) 01:04, 21 May 2019 (UCT)

Justification on my edits on the "Willem van der Haegen" page.
It has been proven that this person's real name is Willem De Kersemakere. The source I cited is not simply scientific literature but it contains an original contemporary document (manuscript) citing the referred person, which is dated from April 2nd 1470 (doc. number 104) of the archives of Bruges. In addition to that, the will of the subject's wife, Margarida de Sabuya, dated from September 14, 1510, also refers to Willem as Guilherme Casmaca. This information is all detailed in the source I cited. The other sources do not provide such great deal of evidence and are based instead on oral tradition, firstly documented in the 16th and 17th centuries. It does not matter it is a single source. If a thousand people publish tales calling Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Johanna II but you have her birth certificate as proof that she is named Elizabeth, would you start referring to her as Johanna? Furthermore, as I said André L. Fr. Claeys' research is endorsed by the government of the Azores.

With kind regards,

Frida Antonia Arlon.

--Frid.antonia-arlon(talk) 01:44, 21 May 2019 (UCT)


 * The validity of your statement is highly subjective, as it is, as I have said, only one source. Please do yourself the trouble of reading up on Wikipedia's policies such as WP:Sources, Reliable sources, Consensus, Conflicting sources, No original research, What_Wikipedia_is_not. Aside from that, that Claeys research was published by the Azorean government is wholly irrelevant as: a) the government does not take official positions on history and has published numerous conflicting studies because it is merely a medium to promote study into the history of the Azores and b) whether a government says a history is true or not is completely irrelevant to whether that historical narrative is in fact true or not; government is for politicians, history is for historians. Your personal fervor for subject does not translate into reliability of information nor consensus amongst scholars, which are both necessary for the type of changes you are proposing to the article. I recommend writing a subsection on origins. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)



> The validity of your statement is highly subjective, as it is, as I have said, only one source. It does not matter the number, as the source is a direct attestation, contrary to other sources which are based on oral tradition.

> Aside from that, that Claeys research was published by the Azorean government is wholly irrelevant (..) Alright, I'll agree to that point. Nevertheless as I said many times, those are original medieval manuscripts, in opposition to oral tradition research.

> Your personal fervor for subject does not translate into reliability of information nor consensus amongst scholars, which are both necessary for the type of changes you are proposing to the article.

My personal fervor has nothing to do with it. There is no consensus among the scholars because no one is debating the subject. The sources before Claeys died at least 100 years ago or based their publications on the previous literature. Therefore, there has been no scientific research on this before Claeys, his research is the most recent source and the only one who has bothered to check the archives of Bruges. All the other sources (on this Flemish person) are from Portuguese and Azorean authors or from people who consulted the aforementioned authors. History must not be unilateral, it must consider all the available sources including the archives of Bruges which had not been previously considered or researched. New evidence must not be ignored because there is a majority of old outdated sources.

--Frid.antonia-arlon(talk) 02:23, 21 May 2019 (UCT)


 * There is no need to ignore evidence, you can add a subsection as I have stated numerous times. You will not, however, be allowed to completely revamp the article based off of, and I must stress this, one source (no matter its purported status as a "direct attestation"), as its validity, origin, and accuracy are all debatable without peer confirmation. You are more than welcome to write a subsection on the subject if you are so inclined. You do not have license to wholly reidintify van der Haegan as "De Kersemakere" on the basis of only one source. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lisbon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estado Novo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lisbon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lisbon?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)