User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 3

Joan, Princess of Portugal
Your revertion of my edit in the article above was certainly a mistake, as the present leading picture has a much better quality and resolution than the previou one. I hope it won't cross your head to do it again. Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Prince Royal of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John VI (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) 10:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited Portuguese Inquisition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council (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) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.


 * Manuel Inácio Martins Pamplona Corte Real, 1st Count of Subserra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Santarém and Elvas


 * Francisco Xavier da Silva Pereira, 1st Count of Antas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Valença


 * Rui Gomes da Silva, 1st Prince of Éboli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Pastrana

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Hello
You wrote a good new article on Palace of the Counts of Penafiel! However, there is already an older one on this topic: Correio-Mor Palace. I put a note on the Talk page of your article for you to consider combining them. Keep up the good work :) -- Ultracobalt (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, but they are two different palaces. Though they sometimes share a common name, they are distinct and deserve two different articles. Thank you. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Your contributed article, Sceptre of the Armillary


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Sceptre of the Armillary. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Portuguese Crown Jewels. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Portuguese Crown Jewels - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. TheLongTone (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * }

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. When you recently edited João de Sousa, 3rd Marquis of Minas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viana do Castelo (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) 10:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
The introduction to the term Hispanic in the English language Wikipedia should say something along the lines that it originally denoted a relationship to "Spain, especially ancient Spain, comprised of modern Andorra, Portugal, Spain, and the territory of Gibraltar" with citations to its etymology. For what reason would the latin term replace the true etymology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y26Z3 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The latin name is the proper name used in English, that is why it is what must be used. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to these sources, latinphrasetranslation and babylon, in addition to the one given above, "Spain" is the proper name used in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y26Z3 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe something similar to this would help add clarity to the term: Hispania means Spain, thus the way to describe or define the term Hispanic is Spanish, still referring to Hispania. (Y26Z3 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

Very rude
Hello, Cristiano Tomas. I must first tell you how rude you are. A person with basic manners would say hi and attempt to discuss before threatning and accusing of vandalism. Such behaviour is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. I am merely undoing unilateral, unexplained edits made last month. Those edits cluttered infoboxes with trivial information and made them inconsistent with a bunch of other infoboxes. I clearly cited Template:Infobox royalty/doc, which says that the fields "predecessor" and "successor" should not be used for titles that are not entirely and directly hereditary. Some of the edits I reverted even contained factually incorrect information and bad orthography. I fail to see why I deserved such treatment from you. Sincerely, 92.36.146.6 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you choose to ignore the link I keep reposting and revert my edits? That is not only rude - it is actually vandalism. The edits I reverted were all made on 12 April by an anonymous user. Those edits were not a result of any discussion. That was the change done without the consensus. Therefore, it is not true that hundreds of editors ignored the change, as only a handful had the chance to see it. I am not sure that your personal opinion counts more than years of use of this template, as documented on Template:Infobox royalty/doc (Predecessor: For use in succession whose titles are entirely and directly hereditary). Besides, many of my edits also included spelling corrections. Are you going to undo that too? Is cluttering the infobox with trivia more important than correct spelling? 92.36.146.6 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that I should remind you that IPs are human too and that being registered does not make you a more valuable editor. Removing incorrect information you inserted is most certainly not vandalism - it is simply not correct that Catherine was succeeded by a woman who had died 15 years before her. That is simply not possible. I hope you are not going to argue otherwise. I have not removed the dates of tenures of queens consort; I agree with you, they should stay. However, the predecessor and successor fields are in those cases purely redundant trivia. 92.36.146.6 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Your recent editing history at Catherine of Braganza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 21:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Prince Pedro
Hello Cristiano. I found that you are a dedicated monarchist, so I hoped that you could provide me with some insight. I am currently working on a revision to the article on the civil parish of Lalim, and pulled some info from Portuguese Wikipedia. It referred to the fact that the "illegitimate son of King Denis, the Count Pedro, lived in Lalim". I noticed that King Denis had two sons named Pedro Afonso (per Wikipedia EN). Second, only one was a count: the Count of Barcelos, to be specific. But, I am unsure whether this Pedro Afonso was a legitimate or illegitimate son, and/or if the Count of Barcelos wrote the Livro das Cantigas, credited to him in Wikipedia PT. While your answer may not answer the question, definitively, it may help my direction of investigation. Any help? ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I figured it out. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * }

Catherine of Braganza
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Oxfordwang (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, you are not exempted from 3RR because it is not clear that you are right and the IP is wrong. You are still mandated to follow 3RR. Oxfordwang (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hey Cristiano, is there a Portuguese equivalent to the Royal Spanish Academy that regulates the Portuguese language? Thanks, (Y26Z3 (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you. I'm finding that it is common for local libraries in the USA to only carry Brazilian Portuguese dictionaries, which is somewhat disturbing. Although Brazil has a larger population, the education per capita in Portugal is higher than in Brazil. I will look further into Lisbon Science Academy of Letters. While we're talking though, isn't Lusitanian mainly only used in Portuguese in poetry or in a poetical sense? Thanks again, (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Hi!
Hi! I see that you have been editing articles about Portuguese monarchs quite a lot. Can you please take a look at Talk:Maria II of Portugal? Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

/* A kitteh for you! */ new WikiLove message
 Br'er Rabbit has given you a "kitteh", who will bite folks shrewdly on the ass on your behalf. Hopefully this will make your days better. Kittehs are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittehs by giving someone else a bitey kitteh, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a cloned-kitteh; I just left this for Mally. You see that I'm "back"? (and as "elsewhere";) Alarbus 04:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Order of Christ
Hello Cristiano, I have a recommendation, I believe it would be better to create a new article regarding the current secular Order of Christ, this order in my view has little to do with the ancient Order of Christ. After the Liberal reforms the order changed, in fact the Order of Christ was the highest and most traditional order of knighthood of Portugal, not the Order of the Tower and the Sword, which was revived by Dom João VI in Rio de Janeiro. Things changed after the reforms in 1834 only. Before this date, knights of the Order of Chirst were professed knights and received a special habito, having responsibilities connected to both the Catholic Church and the King of Portugal. I hope this helps, it is good that you are trying to improve the articles. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kongo
Hi Cristiano. I am writing about the Kingdom of Kongo article. I'm not sure how much you have researched that particular subject, but I see you insist that it should be portrayed simply as a vassal of Portugal. I disagree, because Kongo didn't become a vassal state of Portugal until way into the 1800s. I see you claim that Portugal dominated Kongo and brought religion, trade and administration. I will grant you that Portugal influenced Kongo in all these things, but it did not bring them to Kongo. All of these things existed there before the Portuguese arrived. Kongo was never formally or informally dominated by the Portuguese. There were never very many Portuguese there and much of what the Kongo royals used from Portugal was simply overlayed on top of Kongo institutions. Lastly, Portugal was in no position to dominate or dictate anything to Kongo until at least the 18th century. Aside from a one or two battles, Portuguese soldiers and their dependents regularly were trounced by Kongo forces. I just don't see Kongo operating as anything other than an independent state until the 1840s. If there is something I missed, please let me know. I want to discuss this and not make it an edit war. I respect your opinion. I will change the status back to kingdom; however, until you can make me believe otherwise. Thanks for your time.

Scott Free (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing Question
Hi Cristiano, how do you report vandalism or otherwise prevent a user from making incorrect or uneducated edits to an article? Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC))

Also, by the way, this regards the user Goodsdrew on the page for Hispanic and Latino Americans and involves an issue with the usage of hispanic. (Y26Z3 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Helder Antunes


The article Helder Antunes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No reliable, independent references. Awards are from Cisco, thus doesn't count.  managing director of Cisco is not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox versus Geobox, etc.
The use of Geobox in the context of Portuguese "settlements" is an issue of extent rather localization. Portuguese settlements, as you know, can not be delimited in terms of the North American context: a city/town (North American definitions) can not be used to imply the politico-administrative divisions of Portugal, primarily since cities are extra-territorial, while the Portuguese hierarchy is based on defined regional area boundaries and legal definitions. For example, although Lisbon the "city" extends across several parishes (both within and without the municipality of Lisbon), the governmental entity (the Câmara Municipal of Lisbon) is only responsible for management of those areas within the predefined borders. The use of Geobox, rather then Infobox settlement, is more practical since it is a regional extent rather then a point data element. I'll refer you to the example of Obidos, Portugal and Óbidos Municipality, two different subjects (one using the Geobox for extent, and the other Infobox for localization). The Portuguese namespace has several of these type of articles: NUTS II, NUTSIII Subregions, Districts, Municipalities, Civil Parishes and THEN settlements, of an extra-territorial nature (cities, towns, etc.). The creation of two levels of articles, one for municipalities (area) and other for cities/towns (point) was established by early by editors who saught to differentiate the legal entities from the contextual reference: just like in Sintra Municipality versus Sintra, Portugal or Braga Municipality versus Braga, Portugal.

Another note on your edits to Lisbon, I suggest you re-evaluate the terms your are using: Demography is "the science of vital and social statistics, as of the births, deaths, diseases, marriages, etc., of populations.", while Demographics is the statistical data of a population,especially those showing average age, income, education, etc. Since the content is about the population statistics and breakdown of the population, you are referring to the demographics and NOT the science of demography. As much as it is well intentioned, the terminology is wrong on those pages who use this subtitle.

Also, you can not place the civil parish breakdown under "Demography" (or "Demographics"), since it is not about statistics: it is a list of the politico-administrative territories at the LAU, and not a demographic.

Further, why use a long script for the column listing of these parishes, since the "column div" function is quick and efficient, and only relies on changing the number of columns. Using the "wikitable" is, using your expression, "messy". Is it really necessary to place line-work around columns? I have to admit, that beginning this response, I was erked about your comments. I have tried to promote the Geobox usage (and no, I do not find there use complicated), and your comments tend to fall in line with the other naysayers. If anything, I thought that you were well intentioned in most of your edits (some of which I have disagreed with publicly or to myself). I have debated your comments about consistency, and should note that WP:Consistency was abandoned, and the Infobox versus Geobox debate has occurred many a time. I lost track of the last debate on eliminating Geoboxes, but it was suppressed with a majority consensus. I will try to look it up, when I have time. But, regardless, I have an open mind on this subject, I hope you do to, since we seem to occasionally cross paths on many subjects (I refer to geography, history and architecture).

I suggest, that you complete a revision of the Lisbon Infobox: I will support your drive for consistency if you can replace the Geobox with an Infobox that reproduces ALL content. I am not referring to issues of style (I'll have to cry in my room on that one), but specifically include ALL the content therein. My point is that the Geobox conveys all the necessary geographic contexts more reliably then the Infobox settlement.

Afterwords, I suggest that we (or group of Portuguese Wikipedians) deliberate the context of naming geographic places in Portugal and/or eliminate the need for TWO articles on the same place, but yet retaining the distinction between urban area and administrative area.

Look forward to your reply on these points. That's all. I am sorry for such a long-winded "conversation". ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, regarding your comment about "alienating" Portugal: that was a little too nationalistic. If anything, I find that the Portuguese Geobox was more distinct, then the plain-Jane Infoboxes, stylish, and ordered then the "all-over" nature of the Infobox organization used by the other "major" cities. You know: one mans lemon, is another's lemonade. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)