User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 2

Agradecimento
Meu caro Cristiano, o artigo Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias foi promovido. Ele agora é um FA. Muito obrigado por seu apoio. Desejo boa sorte na sua estadia na Wikipédia. Você irá encontrar alguns editores muito legais, leais e úteis. Infelizmente, irá conhecer outros que não o serão. Faça amigos aqui, esta é a minha dica. Não dá pra sobreviver sozinho aqui. Contudo, caso precise de algo, me envie mensagem. Ficarei de olho. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence
Sorry, but I have removed your 'evidence.' It has nothing to do with the current case, which (mostly) concerns a specific user and in general the civility policy and guidelines. Your contribution is a repetition of an ANI thread you initiated on a completely unrelated matter, nor was it related to the previous section, where examples of established but unpunished incivility from 2011 were called for. I'm sorry that your case on ANI didn't gain any traction, but this Arbitration request is the wrong forum. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |}

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence
Sorry, but I have removed your 'evidence.' It has nothing to do with the current case, which (mostly) concerns a specific user and in general the civility policy and guidelines. Your contribution is a repetition of an ANI thread you initiated on a completely unrelated matter, nor was it related to the previous section, where examples of established but unpunished incivility from 2011 were called for. I'm sorry that your case on ANI didn't gain any traction, but this Arbitration request is the wrong forum. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |}

It's time to stop this nonsense
This entire discussion over João/John has gone too far. I need time to write articles, not to debate at the ANI. Do me a favor, if possible, go tell Walsariad that you won't move the other Portuguese Kings named João (I, II, III and IV). Let's leave at it is and call it a draw. He can stay with 60% of John' asticles and we'll keep the other 40%. --Lecen (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, alright Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Let it be. You just got here. There is plenty more to do. I'll try to finish Pedro I of Brazil/Pedro IV of Portugal aricle and you can help me there. --Lecen (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help how I can. I have stopped working on the articles of kings and I am currently working on the article on Kingdom of Portugal and also the Kingdom of the Algarve. I am just going to try to stay away from contreversial articles. Let me know about anything I may do to help :) Obrigado Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

On our misunderstandings
Dear Cristiano,

Thank you for your kind message. And let me also extend my apologies to you, as I believe I was perhaps a bit snippy at times. However, let me be clear I never had ill will towards you, and it might surprise you to hear I have a modicum of sympathy for your argument. But these are long-established stable norms and I too have had to respect them. I have written over 80 articles on Portuguese history for Wiki - and several larger ones soon to come - and throughout I've had to work with established norms, some of which I didn't like. But I've reconciled myself with them and come to appreciate and understand why they're in place.

This is, after all, a community of editors from many different backgrounds and views, and it is very easy, particularly in issues of cross-national or cross-cultural relevance, to step on someone's toes. Nobody has possession of any articles here. These norms, while imperfect, emerged for good reason - they strike a balance which, while not perfectly satisfying anyone, is at least something we can live with, and isn't likely to lead to repeated disruptions or bruising quarrels like the misery we've just been going through. You say you are a nationalist, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. But remember that there are many nationalists of many nations here. And if everyone starts pulling on their corner of the rug, the whole edifice will soon fall apart.

The best way to raise the profile of your country on Wikipedia is not to cordon it off possessively, but rather to expand communication, write more articles, in as clear and open a manner as possible, to make it appealing for people of other nations to read and learn about it. There's a lot of areas of Portuguese history that have yet to be covered, and many that need expansion. I believe you can best serve your country, which you seem eager to do, by supplying more information about it, rather than nitpicking at how things are spelled.

I am currently working on projects related to Portuguese maritime history in the 15th & 16th C., the greatest era of Portugal's history, which, before I arrived, was in a woeful state here on Wikipedia. There's still a lot left to do. If it interests you, I look forward to see you come by. Walrasiad (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Reply
Not all. Any help is appreciated. But stop calling me sir. It makes me look old. ;) --Lecen (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * haha, deal. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Thinking of it
It's truly said that you're learning on the hard way how things work here at Wikipedia. You might be wondering: "Where are the other Portuguese editors?" There are none. Be assured that once this votation is over, the article will be completely forgotten. They don't care about it. Your new friendship with Walsariad has only on purpose, and this purpose fits his will only. --Lecen (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have patience. You'll see. Once the article has been moved back to John VI, no one will bother to make any improvements in it. It will stay as it always has been: abandoned. I saw this happen when I made a proposal months ago. They care about the name, not the article. And about Wlasariad, well, let's say that it's easier to defeat an enemy by dividing it. Napoleon tried this at Waterloo. He almost made it. --Lecen (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This policy will have to change. It's clearly outdated. Once this whole mess is over, for good or for worse, I'll open a true RfC about it. Time to change the policy. Strike the true enemy. --Lecen (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

the great worker in all this…
Should we hang you now :) Well, maybe, Christiano; is there a particular reason why you have been working on the English WP for nearly two years and have over 2,000 edits here, while your contributions to the Portuguese WP only started last month, and total just 66? Also, you’ve written about a dozen articles here, and a number of them don’t have a Portuguese equivalent. That does make it difficult to discount the thought that you have an agenda, here...Moonraker12 (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I may have had this account for two years ( I dont remember when I created it) but you will notice I really only started contributing in the last couple of months of last year
 * I have no interest in editing in pt.wiki. Just because I am Portuguese and contribute to Portuguese historical articles here on en.wiki, does that mean I should help on pt.wiki? no.
 * I write articles I am interested in, whether they have a Portuguese equivilant or not is not my concern, I write to inform the english speaking world, not the Portuguese
 * Do all these points mean I have an agenda to you? If so, then I am sorry, but that is absurd.
 * Thank you,
 * Cristiano Tomás

"Walrasiad has already call these guys (Lecen/Alarbus and Cristiano Tomás), or who was before Cristiano Tomás on the same page/talk page where he is now, a gang, of bad style. I hope Wikipedia on general, and Meta on particular, will take measures against this gang, that looks like to be very spread." After this comment by Jorge Alo (the guy who says that he is Portuguese but speak Spanish) you were still waisting your time there? Don't. --Lecen (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you see my last comment on the Joao talk page, you'll see I am not anymore. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just liek a I told you: now that the article has been moved to John, no one will care about it. They will leave it as it always has been: abandoned. --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you to be correct, its a pena. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But I will not abandon it, I am here at wikipedia to spread knowledge of our glorious past and I will do so! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I think it is more nationalism then content development. I refer to your opposition to renaming Ponte do Prado to Bridge of Prado. Where is the content development there? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And your content development? changing a name from ponte to bridge is such a development. And that was just a move I came across, I gave my opinion, to me it seems you are just mad because of my opposision. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My content development. If you looked at the article history, you would have noticed that I elaborated the content from 11 January 2012, from the previous 30 June 2011 two-sentence blurb. The jump in article size was mine. The name request, was just a after-thought inline with the English Wikipedia convention. Regarding your comment on "tone": does saying "really" constitute a tone? Then one would assume using the term "such" in italics would constitute a tone as well. ;) Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Reply
I can't vote on it, since you called me, and this would be regarded as canvanssing. The House of Braganza itself is a branch of the House of Aviz, which is a branch of the House of Burgundy. All three are branches of the Capetian Dynasty. The name "House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is correct by itself. It already means that it's a branch of something else. If it wasnt, it would be called "Dynasty", not "House". --Lecen (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |}

Amália Rodrigues
Hi there. I noticed the article you nominated for GA lacks sufficient citations and contains original research. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination for the time being to further improve the article (otherwise it will be quick failed in its current state). Thanks and I hope you continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia! Feel free to comment on my talkpage if you have any questions.  Ruby  2010/  2013  23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |}

House of Braganza
Hello. I just want to know if it is really your intention to add "Most Serene" to the House of Braganza; "Most Serene" implies that a house is lesser than royalty, but greater than most other nobility. It may have originally been called "Most Serene" when its holders were merely Dukes of Braganza, but I don't think it still applies after they ascended to the throne. Reigen (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC) |}

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited House of Braganza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedro III of Brazil (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) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |}

House of Aviz templates
Hi Cristiano Tomas,

I hope you didn't take my objections to the Iberian template too harshly. I just find that too many side-bar templates frequently mars the positioning of images and tables in articles, and often create huge empty white spaces in the text, so they should be used only sparingly.

Since you seem to have a good handle on collapsible template construction, can I pester you to help overhaul the side-bar templates of the House of Aviz? Currently, they're very big and take up a lot of space on article pages (again, shunting pictures down the pages, etc.), so I'd like to make them more compact and collapsible. I have done a little experimenting, but could use some more input on doing it properly. Interested? Walrasiad (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |}

Template:Iberian Peninsula
Hi Cristiano. From your last comment on Template talk:Iberian Peninsula, you seemed to agree with the idea of deleting the template, but you haven't requested the deletion or removed the template from the articles where you placed it. Do you intend to do that or should I go through Templates for deletion? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I am sorry. I do intend to do that, you don't need to do work for what I did. I will get it done today. Sorry, it had slipped my mind. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

|}

Commons uploads
Hi Cristiano. Some time ago, I requested that you fix various issues with many of the images you uploaded to Commons since I suspect many of them make incorrect claims of ownership. Maybe you have simply forgotten but in any case this is not a trivial matter and so I will start nominating some of these images for deletion. One question that you might want to answer is: who exactly is Nuno A. G. Bandeira? According to your userpage, he's not you but you uploaded a lot of his work claiming it as your own. Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about specific images.
 * File:Lisbon Monatage.png You claim that this is your own work. However that should mean that all the images used in the montage are also your own work. Is that the case? If not then you need to check that these images are also free of copyright and if their use requires attribution, you need to document that too. The same questions obviously hold for other collages
 * File:Porto montage.PNG
 * File:Lisboa dos tempos.PNG
 * File:Sintra - Adoroso.PNG
 * File:Nossasenhoradaconceicao.jpg You claim that this image is your own work. However it seems to be identical to the one found here
 * The first three are made from images here on wikipedia, which all say that others are freed to adapt remix, etc.
 * the fourth is completely mine, both images I took
 * The fifth I told you, or maybe I thought I told you, yes it is not mine, go ahead and delete it, I dont know how
 * Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And what I mean by Nuno A. G. Bandeira, is by his direction (like how things go on the shield) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. As far as the montage images, you probably need to give precise sources for the individual photographs you started with since many Commons images require attribution. I'll nominate File:Nossasenhoradaconceicao.jpg for deletion on Commons with a link to this conversation. As far as the Nuno A. G. Bandeira thing is concerned, I'm still confused. Who is this guy? A heraldry specialist? An illustrator? A friend of yours? What was his input in all of this? Did you produce these images using some template of his? Some piece of software he provided? Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuno is a monarchist I came to know of through my chats with other Portuguese monarchists, and he has his hobby being hearaldy, so yes he studied them. Even the User:Jorge Alo, as much as i dont like working with him, has said that they fall in line with his sources with minor adjustments that are still needed which I am actually working on right now. So after I update the coats of arms with some things I initially forgot, I plan on deleting the ones that are not accurate. Every day I learn something more for the coats of arms, so it takes time to make them, so I am sorry for the delay. Anyway, I am hoping this helps you. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about the accuracy of the heraldry since I don't have any expertise on the subject. I just want you to confirm that all these images are yours in the sense that you created them yourself (using whatever software it is that you use for this) and that you were not infringing Bandeira's or anyone else's copyrights in the process. If that's indeed the case, I strongly suggest modifying the descriptions on Commons for files like File:Coat of Arms of the Marquis of Valença.gif. And although that's a separate issue, you should probably rename File:Coat of Arms of the Royal House of Aviz drawn up by, the genius, Nuno A. G. Bandeira.png. Pichpich (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * alright I will redo all the descriptions on my uploaded images (coat of arms and montages) and then may I ask that u look at them? perhaps I may do it tomorrow, and then I will leave message on your talk to look at them? that is alright? thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I was wondering if you might teach me how to delete images, as I would, in the future, delete my inaccurate CoAs. thank you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Commons procedures but I don't think they have the equivalent of the G7 speedy deletion criterion which allows for instant deletion when requested by the author. So I don't know of anything more efficient than simply using the ordinary deletion method on Commons: go to the image you want to delete and then click on the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox on the left column. I am certain that this works but it's quite likely that there are quicker ways to do the same thing. Pichpich (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I appreciate your patience with me, as I don't always explain things in the best matter, nor am I very good at commons and such. You have been very helpful, I will alert you when I have relabeled the images in question. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. Let me know when you're done or if I can be of any help. Pichpich (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will.Thank you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cristiano. Just a quick reminder that you said you'd address the image issues noted above. Currently, there's every reason to believe that these images are not in fact your own work. If that's the case, they need to be deleted as soon as possible. If they are your own work then it should be trivial for you to update the descriptions to clarify the role of Nuno Bandeira in their creation. Pichpich (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |}
 * I am currently in school, and have no time for wikipedia at the moment. Please just delete all my coat of arms uploads and at the end of the year I will have made brand new coats of arms without help or instructions, and just by research, and upload those. Sorry, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

John I of Portugal
Why the redirects of João, when the article's name is John I, and why the mention to João I of Kongo? It's the only João on all Wikipedia en? So, is this the hoax? And, by the way, correct the tittle of the portuguese royal coat of arms, it is second the source that you gave and that one that y found since from the time of Joseph I. It's the second time I call your attention to this and I'm not going to say this again. 188.250.3.67 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese monarchy
The inclusion of the template "Portuguese Monarchy" as the leading image of Portuguese discoveries makes no sense. That is why I have reverted it once more. It would be perfectly all right in a text devoted to the Portuguese monarchy or royal family, but it is obviously not suited to this particular article one or to any other not directly concerned with the subject. If we take into consideration your recent edits and personal page, your action strongly looks like the imposition of a POV. Please understand that while you are more or less free to express your political ideas in your personal page, that is not the case with Wikipedia in general. Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Discoveries
Bom dia,

Gostaria de saber por que o amigo apagou a imagem do Padrão dos Descobrimentos que adicionei ao artigo Portuguese discoveries sem, aparentemente, sequer justificar a ação. Talvez a foto - tão pertinente ao contexto do referido artigo - carecesse dum melhor posicionamento na página, mas não vejo razões para eliminá-la sumária e arbitrariamente. Foi algo trabalhoso encontrar uma imagem em ângulo tão privilegiado e a contribuição, muito bem intencionada, conferiu ao artigo uma apresentação mais interessante e dinâmica.

Cumprimentos

Popotão (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

|}

I reverted your revert Cristiano, because the text corresponded to existing verifiable text (with citations) in the article Cult of the Holy Spirit. Ironically, it was I who originally translated this page, and correspondingly added the reference to the Azores page. The references are true in fact and practice, being a resident of the islands I can attest to these circumstances. But, regardless, the original reverter User:LuzoGraal was valid in reverting his original revert. Although the festivals of the Holy Spirit may be open to the public in some pre-defined circumstances (such as the annual public event in Ponta Delgada), the traditional experience is carried out by private brotherhoods, and usually restricted to close family (once again, this is from document sources, as well as personal experience). Finally, the reference to "milenarian dogma" is taken from the original citation. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your understanding and eloquent response. Just have to advise, I have lived in Canada the majority of life, and formal greetings or correspondence is not my thing. The reason for the revert of User:LuzoGraal edition was merely the consequence of another authors errant editing. The content I created was supported, then reverted by User:LuzoGraal without looking into the content, then upon realizing his error it was reverted to the original text. I just made light in my subsequent rollback of your revert. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Moroccan cities
Hi Cristiano,

I noticed you went about inseting a Portuguese empire template in numerous Moroccan cities. Can I ask that you refrain from doing so, except for articles on the historical entity? These are current Moroccan towns, and the template seems to suggest they are currently held by Portugal. Analogously if current articles on Lisbon, Porto, Setubal, etc. were given templates as part of the Moroccan empire.

(Moreover, several are wrong, e.g. some were only visited (e.g. Ouadane), some were never held (e.g. Ksar el-Kebir), others were independent states with only Portuguese protection (e.g. Safi).)

The template should be limited to historical articles (e.g. Graciosa fortress is fine), not current articles. Walrasiad (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just saw the links on the template and thought it only right to link them to the articles, I did not mean to cause confusion on their possession of the city. Sorry and thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * }