User talk:Espadeiro

Portuguese Monarch Edits
Just wanted to say thanks for grabbing the section I didn't revert on the Portuguese Monarchs article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhillinbl (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

José Pinto Coelho
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: José Pinto Coelho. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Espadeiro (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeronimo de Sosa and Stephan Kekulé von Stradonitz
Salut ! Your English is as good as mine! Your new articles look perfect to me. Nice work! Charvex (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria I of Portugal
Thank you for your correction of my genealogical list. It appears that my reliance on a website of descending genealogy is the cause of the mistake. It lists as "da Gloria" both Portuguese Queens with the name Maria. Fortunately there is no mistake in the sequence of Infanta Antonia of Saxa-Coburg-Gotha-Bragança (#9 in my genealogy), who was the great-great-great daughter of Maria I (#153).

I look forward to hearing any other observations on my list that you might have.

Thank you again,Nerissa-Marie (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution. I did introduce the links at the names you introduced (I noticed you wrote the names very correctly in Romanian-congratulations.) The reason I was reluctant to write down the Portuguese and Spanish part of the genealogy is that I know that the names appear many times in the genealogy (the kings of Spain are famous for the way they marry within their family) and I would not like to repeat any name. This is why I go slowly and carefully; I know that once I make a mistake, it's really hard to catch it. I also introduced the names of the infantas as close as possible to the spirit of the Romanian language. (In fact, it wasn't that hard, as these languages are quite similar.) Thank you for the offer of indicating to me other sources--that would be good for comparing data. I have currently two main sources: euweb.com and geneall.com. The first one shows the descending genealogical lists I mentioned to you before, and which led me into error re: Queen Maria II of Portugal. I really thought that Maria II da Gloria means simply Maria II the Glorious, like in, e.g., Louis XV the Beloved of France. A closer look to the English and Portuguese pages of the Queen shows otherwise, however. To come back to the question of sources, the reason I still like euweb, in spite of many typos I found there, is that it gives me a synoptic view of the lineages I look for, and I can use one list for a whole patrilineal lineage (up to six or seven people). I did not find yet an occurrence when a generation was skipped; this would be a serious error, with very serious repercussions on my list, and this would make me reconsider using it any further. For mistakes in names, I try to check with the wiki pages, and I also have to confess that I rely on a future peer review, for I realise now that this is a very serious project. I did not think how serious and time-consuming is back in February this year, when I started it. Thank you again for your help, Nerissa-Marie (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Espadeiro, I answered you on my Romanian page. Thank you, Nerissa-Marie (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your good work. Only when I started to look for bibliography did I realise how much you covered. I only have an objection: I myself try not to write again the repeated lines, and write : "Same as ..." except for the tenth generation. The reason for that is that I am trying to calculate the "implex" of the King, and for that I need, in the tenth generation, all the people that are not the same. Thus, after I will (we will?) end writing down all the ancestors, I will start counting all the names in that generation, and apply the formula at the article Implex. So, even if a set of ancestors appear in previous generations, they must be copied verbatim in the last, as long, of course, they don't repeat in that generation too. (This does not apply in other generations, so the formula "Same as..." can be used even if a set of repeated ancestors appear in a different generation. It's only to be able to count correctly the ancestors who will give the implex.) In applying this rule, it might be possible that in the tenth generation children and parents appear together, for if in a generation of King Michael appear parents and children, or, more common, uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces, this perpetuates until the tenth generation, and the children, or nephews/nieces will have the last visible generation as their parents and aunts/uncles respectively last but one visible generation, and there is the temptation to write "Same as"; however, according to the definition of the implex, the people appearing under the label "Same as ..." are different from their parents, and should be there for counting. This is why I rewrote #610-611 again at #1226-1227. It's kind of confusing, but it's the only way to have all the people that are not the same in the last generation. Thank you again, Nerissa-Marie (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did had to revert the replacement of "612.-613. Aceiaşi cu...", because I only keep repeated names if the above mention sends, in the tenth generation, to people in previous generations. This would make me lose names in this last generation, which it would be incorrect for the calculation of the implex. This is not the case with people that repeat in generations other than the tenth, and in that case the mention can be used. I have kept, however, the other correction. Thank you,Nerissa-Marie (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro V's death
Hi Espadeiro, How are you? I have a small question for you: Of what did Pedro V of Portugal die? The English page of Wikipedia says he died of cholera, the Portuguese page, that he died of typhoid fever. Can you help, please? Thank you, Nerissa-Marie (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some tips to help you out!
Hi, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps.  Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type  on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple references
These require two parts;


 * a)

Chzz is 98 years old.

He likes tea.


 * b) A section called "References" with the special code " ";

Named references
Chzz was born in 1837.

Chzz lives in Footown.

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates
You can put anything you like between, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals.

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!
Hi there ! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)