User talk:Gomes89

October 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. The Ogre (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. The Ogre (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The Ogre (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. The Ogre (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. The Ogre (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greater Portugal


The article Greater Portugal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Absolutely unsourced article (tagged since October 2008; the only ref presented was completely unrelated). This looks like a neologism or an invention by user Gomes89. At best it is a case of OR, trying to make coherent a multitude of contradictory ideas by very small and pratically unknown Portuguese extreme-right wing "organizations".

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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Ogre (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Greater Portugal
I removed the Proposed Deletion ("PROD") tag from the Greater Portugal article, although it is possible it may still be Nominated for Deletion (a more difficult process; it remains to be seen whether User:The Ogre, or perhaps some other party, will take that step). I Googled around a bit, but couldn't find anything useful by way of evidentiary substantiation for the article. If you do find anything yourself (which might be easier for you, in the event you speak Portuguese), and you aren't sure how best to incorporate it into the article, you can reach me via my Talk page, and I'd be happy to assist. This article, as it presently stands, doesn't really meet the standards for notability we have here at Wikipedia, although I'm sure books or other sources can be found which could be used to rectify that. Its always important to properly source any articles one writes at this site, and that is even more true when the subject is one which has a right-wing, nationalist, or otherwise politically incorrect frame of reference, as certain people (not necessarily the user I noted above) seem to have made it their personal mission to delete as many such articles as they can possibly justify (including articles that should not have been deleted, in my considered opinion). Good luck, and let me know if I can be of any help. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Greater Portugal, an invention or not
Caro Gomes89, eu vi a sua resposta ao meu comentário em relação ao artigo "Greater Portugal" e desde mais tenho que pedir desculpas pelo meu erro grosseiro que foi referir que o Padre António Vieira era um "contemporâneo" da fundação de Portugal, não porque eu não o soubesse mas sim porque o V (de XVII) ficou pelo caminho. Já quanto a sua referencia a minha tenra idade, eu penso que na idade da “informação instantânea” isso não é uma “desculpa” válida, até que supondo que nasceu em 89, apenas têm mais 5 anos. Voltando à veracidade do artigo, eu estive a ler as hiperligações que indica na página de discussão, e nenhum deles suportam de forma real o artigo.

O Lusismo apenas fala no integralismo da língua portuguesa (alias tal assunto já está a ser aplicado através do acordo ortográfico de 1990, se fizer uma pesquisa poderá reparar que este acordo foi proposto ao governo regional da Galiza), fazendo apenas uma pequena referencia ao re - integralismo lusitano de uma forma subjectiva. Quanto ao Quinto Império como eu já tinha referido na mensagem anterior não é uma ideia actual, mas sim uma ideia extinta. Quanto ao site do “Movimento Integralismo Lusitano” não tem qualquer ligação ao re–integralismo nacional de forma territorial mas sim de forma ideológica, “reúne homens e mulheres em redor de uma mesma fidelidade à tradição capital da Monarquia Portuguesa e segundo uma mesma convicção”. Eu não sei como é que pretende fundamentar este artigo, mas certamente não será com estas fontes.

Pmfap (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Se assim é como disse na sua mensagem têm que fazer alterações significativas no conteúdo do artigo de modo a fazer entender o que me disse. Mas antes de fazer algumas sugestões gostaria de saber porque razão este artigo não se encontra na Wikipedia em português? Pmfap (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

2014–15 S.L. Benfica season arrivals
What is your source for adding Victor Andrade and Talisca? Fixed4u (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Victor Andrade - http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Nacional/1a_liga/Benfica/interior_premium.aspx?content_id=892400 http://espn.uol.com.br/noticia/422555_victor-andrade-deixa-o-santos-e-assina-com-o-benfica

Talisca - http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Nacional/1a_liga/Benfica/interior_premium.aspx?content_id=892352 http://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/benfica-liga-transferencias-benfica-transferencias-talisca-benfica-anderson-talisca-talisca/53b341ee0cf26735dc72a74c.html

2014–15 S.L. Benfica season
Stop adding unofficial information to the article. Fixed4u (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC) It's not official, but it basically is... I'm just speeding up the process. Even the players already said so, and even already done the medical exams... So I don't understand why are you making such a big deal about it

Yes, Oblak has stated that he will join Atletico and Markovic was "caught" in Liverpool. You should reply in my Talk page. Fixed4u (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened to Stefan Mitrović? He's not in S.L. Benfica nor S.L. Benfica B. I will just add him back to Benfica B. Fixed4u (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

He went to SC Freiburg €1.8M. Can I update in the SLB 2014/15 season, as well as Markovic and Oblak? Gomes89 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Update when it's official. Fixed4u (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Garay transfer "€ 6M (40%)" is not right, it should be "€ 2.4M (40%). Ie, Markovic was "€ 12.5M (50%)" in a total of € 25M (100%). Fixed4u (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does "Transfer date" refer to player or money? Fixed4u (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Transfer date refers to the day the player signed or at the least was presented by the other club. Gomes89 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:85.247.90.217 removed Djaniny from transfers list. In 2013–2014 season Djaniny was playing for Nacional. This season he was sold to Santos Laguna. Did he belong to Benfica? Fixed4u (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "with the former [Benfica] retaining a share of his rights". I have moved the information to Djaniny article. Fixed4u (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Benfica received €1.2M because they owned 60% of his pass. Hence we should not remove it but maybe change the category... What do you think? Gomes89 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know how to do it, do it. Also there is a problem with Rodrigo and André Gomes. They were sold in January 2014 but now André Gomes was loaned to Valencia and Rodrigo will be next. Fixed4u (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He was loaned only until Peter Lim buys Valencia, after that he will become Valencia's player on a long deal contract, and as for Rodrigo we just have to wait I guess... Gomes89 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but information in Wikipedia should be about the present. I have updated André Gomes article accordingly. Fixed4u (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How do they know the transfer values for César, Derley, Benito and Dawidowicz? Fixed4u (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The date of some transfers is wrong. Fixed4u (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no official transfer values for those players, it's just an educated guess. Gomes89 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Source for €10.5M (70%) and €22.8M (76%)? 85.246.179.195 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary
Please don't call me a dick. Fixed4u has been blocked and since that time has returned as 85.240.138.247, 85.246.179.195, and Alltimeintheworld. When blocked editors use sockpuppets those edits are removed. What would be the point of a block if you could just return under a different name and continue the exact same behavior? Helpsome (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok I apologize, but the truth is, that in that particular article, he has been doing a good job. I understand your motives, but try to check if the content is correct or not, and than undo his chages. Thanks Gomes89 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So it is ok to circumvent a block as long as you agree with the edits? Helpsome (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying you shouldn't undo everything unilaterally, a big part of the content was made by me and not by Fixed4u. But thanks for the explanation. Gomes89 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Edits by blocked editors do get reverted unilaterally. If another editor wants to insert those edits, as you did, then those edits are fine. Helpsome (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=2oczE7SODTUnF5j_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_1RBXQepJjRLZDOR&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberalism in Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ALDE ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Liberalism_in_Portugal check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Liberalism_in_Portugal?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) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship
No live updates.--Island92 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Greater Portugal
Hello Gomes89, you participated in the deletion discussion for the article Greater Portugal and voted against its deletion. I remember having seen the article and it was good enough in my opinion, so I was wondering if you'd want to restore this article and rename it "Portugaliza", which you said is a more common name and concept there in Portugal. We can easily do this at Requests for undeletion. Are you interested? I'm asking you as you are one of the only two people who voted for keeping the article and you seemed fairly knowledgeable on the topic in your comment. Super  Ψ   Dro  12:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Super   Ψ   Dro  thanks for reaching out. I believe the term "Greater Portugal" is indeed not used in Portugal, but it doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist. As for "Portugaliza" it only refers to the union of Portugal and Galiza, nothing else. It ignores the Eo-Navian region, it ignores Olivença, it ignores São Tomé e Principe, it ignores Cabo Verde, etc... For more info on this you can check Nova Portugalidade on Google, they have some articles on this issue. When I created the article, I purposedly didn't use the term "Portugaliza" precisely because of this. But as time passed by and more users edited the article it gained that aspect to it. Even though I believe I know a great deal about the subject, I am not the most knowledgable user when it comes to Wikipedia. So I really appreciate your help. Kind regards (Gomes89 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC))
 * Then it could be solved by restoring the article under the title "Portuguese irredentism", if neither Greater Portugal nor Portugaliza work well. We already have articles like that, such as Chinese irredentism or Russian irredentism. Do you have sources for Eonavia, São Tomé and Príncipe and Cape Verde? Super   Ψ   Dro  17:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)