User talk:Pignoof

Lingua portuguesa
Pignoof, figeche exactamente o mesmo que eu e recebeche a mesma resposta: apagar qualquer referência à Galiza no processo de formaçom da nossa língua. É absurdo. Obedecem ao mito nacionalista português cacarejado desde sempre e a Galiza simplesmente incomoda. Nom deixes de ler a resposta da pessoa que removeu a minha e depois a tua correcçom: mistura alhos com bugalhos, mitologia, política e linguística, e nom está aberto ás ideas novas. Susomoinhos (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pignoof penso que o importante é ler algo acerca disso e verás que está discussão é ridicula. A Galiza não incomoda nada, pelo contrário, as pessoas têm pena da situação. O que o susomoinhos está a fazer tem a ver com o nacionalismo galego e os problemas proprios da Galiza. No século IX já existia Portugal era um condado (por vezes era mesmo tido como reino, as coisas na idade média, não eram tão claras como hoje em dia), já tinha foros de pais e o processo de formação do portugues continuou até bem mais tarde e já estava criado o reino. Antes de Portugal (ou do Norte), há apenas uma dependencia linguistica, que é a relativa à Republica Romana/Império Romano. Não tenho acompanhado o artigo, não está na minha watchlist, mas assim que o visitar vou reverter, pois estou farto de ler barbaridades. --Pedro (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pedro, Susomoinhos, don't forget you are editing a page on the English Wikipedia! I guess most users who will go to the page "Portuguese Language" do not know the history of Portugal and may have never heard of Galicia... The introductory paragraph must be acceptable to all and understandable by all!
 * Pedro, acho que não é preciso exagerar. Ha de lutar contre edicoes partidarias da wikipedia mas sem se insultar. Para reverter a nossa discussao, estava a procura de encontrar uma formula que nao mencionasse a Galiza e por isso qualquer suspeita "partidaria" dai a minha pregunta relativa ao "reino das Astúrias"... Não respondeu directamente? Isto seria tambem uma "barbaridade"? Ja li muito, não se preocupa, eu não intervenho nas muitas discussoes animadas que encontrei na Wiki quando não tenho minhas referencias proprias, ate porque para isso e preciso muito tempo e não o tenho.
 * Voltando a sua afirmacao que "No século IX já existia Portugal era um condado", ou tera que editar a pagina Condado Portucalense ou deve admitir que este condado dependia "do reino das Astúrias/Leão/Galiza". Afinal de contas, ha outra maneira de dizer "Portuguese is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal" (which I find inaccurate)? Check the version in the article History of the Portuguese language: "Galician-Portuguese was originally the native language of the medieval region of Kingdom of Galicia, which at the start of the High Middle Ages included the northern part of present-day Portugal." All this cannot fit in the introduction of the article.--Pignoof (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gostaria de saber porque acha o surgimento do Português no Norte de Portugal "inmnacurate", e com que base advém essa afirmação? ou é simplesmente algo que desagrada? pensar uma forma para retirar a Galiza? não há nenhum problema com a Galiza. O Português pode ser visto como um processo de contrução que pode ter começado no seculo IX e foi sendo amadurecido, já com influencias do Sul de Portugal.
 * Penso que a menção do Reino das Asturias é uma barbaridade, não sei onde leu tal coisa. O melhor é passarmos à frente disso.
 * A questão da Galiza é complexa, é questão de ler a respeito, não é o nome Galiza que apavora... A wikipedia pode ser alterada assim que qualquer um entenda, e ainda há pouco a suposta lingua galician-portugese era dada como lingua oficial do Reino de Portugal... coisas da wikipedia. tem vantagens e tem defeitos. -Pedro (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Portuguese language". Thank you. --Susomoinhos (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Macau - autonomous territory
Thanks for your concerns. I just wished to explain the reasoning behind us making this edit.

In the past, users have tried more than several times to edit the Hong Kong wiki page (in the same situation as Macau) to include the fact that it is an autonomous territory "of China". Despite such a fact being absolutely true and relevant, other users reacted strongly to such edits, and were vehemently opposed to adding any reference of its relations to China beyond the necessary minimum that was needed. This is in no small part due to the complicated history that the two entities and its people have with each other. Today, the HK wiki page remains this way without the direct mention of China. To prevent the Macau wiki page from being similarly mired in this trivial but heated issue, having no direct mention of China in its status as autonomy territory would minimize any controversy while fully upholding its accuracy.

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
 * Taishan, Guangdong
 * added links pointing to Guangdong music, Heshan, Shenjing and Chixi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)