User talk:Stut63

Welcome!
Hello, Stut63, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hi Stut63! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Duarte Pacheco Pereira that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What we call original research is a common problem for new editors
See WP:NOR, especially the nutshell statement that " Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." I see statements such as "It makes little sense that he would also be making claims of much less import than military glory or scholarly achievement. Secondly, his claim is very well documented in the 'Esmeraldo':' - these statements need to be directly sourced and probably attributed to the source. As do quotes, which shouldn't be in italics. I suggest that you ask for help at the Teahouse where there are editors who have the time to guide you through the morass that can be Wikipedia.

Writing an article here is very different from writing an essay, a PhD thesis, or a peer-reviewed article. Here we just reflect what reliable sources say about a subject - how we do this is discussed at WP:NPOV. I hope you will now take the time to refine your edits - the effort is much appreciated and I think you have a lot to contribute. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Duarte Pacheco Pereira. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor needs help
I don't think this editor has found their talk page as they haven't responded at all. Their edits are essay style with quite a bit of OR and statements in Wikipedia's voice that would need attribution. I found at least one bit of copyvio and there may be more from Portuguese sources. I was going to block to get their attention and ask for a block review at ANI, but then I decided to find people either living in Portugal or interested in it. I know at a few of you speak the language. I'm hoping that someone will help this enthusiastic editor to learn how to edit properly! thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I could help here. The editor seems to be able to communicate fluently in English, but simply hasn't responded to the messages left here. Can you make it clearer what assistance you were expecting, Doug Weller? Cheers, --Waldyrious (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi, Stut63. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for lack of communication. I don't think you have found this page; the purpose of the block is not to drive you off Wikipedia, but merely to help you find your talkpage — this page. Please respond to the notice "What we call original research is a common problem for new editors" above, below that notice, and you will be unblocked as soon as possible. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC).


 * Hi everyone, my apologies for the prolonged silence - One thing is to find the Talk page, another to realise there is no reply facility anywhere, you just edit the page as everywhere else... sorry for the delay, I've spent more time on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction (looking at editing and referencing) than on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages - this is because to find the Talk help, I had to go into the editing area (and as I was not trying to edit your entries, I didn't... :-p).
 * I took the point from the initial comments from Doug Weller, and have been trying to adjust the writing style to the criteria (ok, ok, with varying degrees of success...). It is not an issue of having personal views or original research here; I'm trying to convey a body of opinion based on the well established academic work of others, although I certainly presented my 'original synthesis' of it, which later I tried to undo and specify the sources for each statement, leaving the conclusions or synthesis to the reader.
 * I'm unsure why the transcript of an original source (Esmeraldo)was removed (History of Brazil) - after considering Doug's comments, I merely presented the original evidence without comment, but this was removed as well...? (the quote from Boxer is not mine, I did not make any comment on Alvares Cabral voyage; I wonder if I moved the paragraph, but I did not modify it). On Duarte Pacheco Pereira my last edit had direct attribution of respected and published sources for all claims, but was removed as well; this leaves a largely unknown Portuguese historian (although well-known as journalist and politician) unchallenged, when there is a large body of well respected Portuguese historians who actually specialised in the period, most notably Gago Coutinho.
 * My aim here is to make use of my bilingual abilities (Portuguese born living in the UK for 25 years) and bring some well respected published Portuguese sources into the English discussion of Portuguese history, making use of the primary sources when available. I am stating my aims clearly here so that any misunderstandings on my part regarding their suitability to Wikipedia may be swiftly addressed. Believe me, I have no inclination to waste anybody's time, including my own! :-)
 * I look forward to your reply(ies). Best wishes, Stut63 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Stut63, thank you for responding. You need to follow the sources much more closely, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source — it summarises secondary sources. An essay-like addition outlining alternative opinions to that of Duarte Pacheco Pereira, as you did here has no place in a Wikipedia article, however appropriate and helpful it might be in scholarly publishing such as a doctoral dissertation. You need to cleave much more closely to the subject of the article. I hope Doug Weller will also comment here, he knows more about the subject than I do. But you and your expertise are most welcome to Wikipedia. As a gesture of trust, I have unblocked you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the reply, and for unblocking. I am not clear on your question with alternative views: I quote several sources with a different view to that published. As it stands, the article is not representative of scholarly opinion. If the issue is to directly contradict the opinion, then I'll be glad to substitute simply by:
 * "Other authors take for granted the secrecy of the Portuguese Crown regarding such explorations. possibly a consequence of the disappointment caused by Diogo Cao's erroneous announcement of finding the route to India on his first voyage of exploration (1485). During the last decade of the 15th century, the documents relating to the supplying of ships, and the ordering of sun declination tables for the southern Atlantic for as early as 1493-1496, documented several more voyages and explorations, with no announcements being made by the Crown. The historian Admiral Gago Coutinho studied at length the systematic nature of the explorations undertaken at the end of the 15th century , specifically addressed this secrecy in his 1942 lecture to the Portuguese Academy of History, and also in 1946 to the Navy Club ."
 * Would this address the issues you raise? You will see I take care to reference each statement, specifically and solely addressing the issue of lack of announcement of new explorations. My point is that, if Diogo Leite's objection to the secrecy is relevant to the article, then the views of authors who recognise secrecy is also important. Please do let me know. Best, Stut63 (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does Correia say "other explorers"? What's the source for "possibly a consequence of the disappointment"? Of "no announcements being made by the Crown."? We wouldn't say "studied at length", that's editorial comment. Doug Weller  talk 17:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug Weller; it's quite true that editorial comment tends to creep in. Trying to get the text closer to the requirements:
 * "Other authors take for granted the secrecy of the Portuguese Crown regarding such explorations. after the disappointment caused by Diogo Cao's erroneous announcement of finding the route to India on his first voyage of exploration (1485). During the last decade of the 15th century, the documents relating to the supplying of ships, and the ordering of sun declination tables for the southern Atlantic for as early as 1493-1496, documented several more voyages and explorations, with no announcements being made by the Crown   ."
 * in short: moved the reference 'Nautica dos Descobrimentos' to the initial statement, rather than repeating that it also supports the secrecy argument at the end; removed the 'consequence' inference, and merely state that the secrecy comes after the 'big announcement' well documented on page 87 of the reference; removed one of the Gago Coutinho references as superfluous and not fitting the rearranged text. The 'no announcements made' is discussed along with the secrecy by all three authors referenced here (that being the point of 'secrecy'). I wonder if I'm moving in the appropriate direction. Please do let me know.
 * Best, Stut63 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks like it. Remember, sources must directly discuss the subject, and see WP:Words to watch. Doug Weller  talk 13:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)