User talk:XPTO/Archive 1

Cabrilho

 * PS: I reveresed your move of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo to João Rodrígues Cabrilho. The latter name may have been the usbject's birth name, but he is best known to the English-speaking world under the former name. Per our naming guidelines (WP:NC) that is the name we should use. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Ceylon
Hello! There is a discussion going on at Talk:Portuguese Ceylon that may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spain/Iberia
It is not necessary to change every pre-modern reference to "Spain"/"Spaniard"/"Spanish" to "Iberia"/"Iberian". The word "Spain" is the common designator for Christian Iberia (or all Iberia) before the advent of the united Kingdom of Spain under the Catholic Monarchs. Portugal was a part of Spain and it was Spanish until a country called "Spain" (which included Portugal 1580–1640) cropped up and stole the Latin-derived name of the entire peninsula for itself. Any given work of history will refer to "Spain" before 1516 and will refer to the entire (Christian) peninsula this way. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Several things
Hello XPTO! I see you have made an edit to Military history of Portugal. I'm on my way to try and complete the expansion I began - not an easy task! If you have input I would welcome it.

Also, in a totally different subject, I believe we do have a problem with the fact that Srnec (Señor Nec?!?), a very good editor overall and very well sourced in things historical, insists that we can call Spain to the whole Iberian Peninsula because, that is what they generally and wrongly do in the English historiographical tradition, etc, etc. I have had discussions with him before - see for example Talk:Imperator totius Hispaniae. What can we do? See you! The Ogre (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to enter into a discussion with one user on another's talkpage, but I was checking to see if XPTO responded to my statement above when I noticed this. I'll try to be brief. The English historiographical tradition is not wrong for three [that's an arbitrary number] reasons:


 * 1) "Spain" is etymologically related to the original words (in more than one language, but including Latin Hispania) for the entire peninsula now known as Iberia (which can be ambiguous w/o the qualifier "peninsula", thus making it clunky).
 * 2) Before the advent of the Kingdom of Spain, there was no political entity called "Spain" and the word was completely politically neutral. Also, in this era, before the standardisation of languages that took place much later, "Spanish" was not a associated only with Castilian-speaking areas and it need not be. "Christian Spain" is a common term for all the Christian kingdoms of Iberia in this period, including Castile-León, Navarre, Aragon-Valencia, and Portugal.
 * 3) Correctness of usage is partially at least determined by consensus of usage. If the scholarly consensus says Iberia is "Spain" in the Middle Ages, we cannot say otherwise. My sources usually use "Spain" to refer to the entire peninsula, just like "Hispania", its etymological antecedent, did.
 * Srnec (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) ("Srnec" is my surname. It is Croatian, but I am Canadian. I can speak Spanish at an intermediate level but don't know Portuguese, which I nevertheless recognise as one of the most mellifluous languages I've heard.)

Good catch
Congratulations on your quick fixing of Pedro I of Brazil. --Wloveral (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

XPTO (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire Map
Hi there. I am glad that you have weighed in on this debate. With Ogre disappearing, and this militant EHT chap appearing, I was getting outnumbered. I agree with you 100%. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Red hat ferrick this debate is NOT ABOUT NUMBERS is about references like it says Portugal belonged to Spain, etc...--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * References like these, right?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No like the ones the thousands of references users have provided over the years. Ah thanks for letting me know, you are tag-teaming with Ogre which is clearly against the rules , i'll be thinking of reporting you--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous, EHT.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sifilis122 edits
You may be interested in going to WP:ANEW - Sifilis122 reported by The Ogre. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this User:Sifilis122 is another new account of the confirmed sockpuppeteer User:Cosialscastells, a permanently blocked user after abusing other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPTO (talk • contribs)
 * A case against him is now open at Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A doubt
Are you defending that existed a portuguese throne before Afonso Henriques? Cordial salutations, and my sorries for my bad english, Jorge alo (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello - Yes, I agree with the existence of a portuguese throne prior to Afonso I. His mother Teresa styled herself as Queen of Portugal, even the Pope, her sister, and the King of León referred to her as Queen. Best regards. XPTO (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

-

Where, in what documents, the Pope, her sister and one (who?) King of León referred to her as "Queen". It's truth that she tried to be queen, but her sister Urraca didn't consented. A thesis of a portuguese throne before Afonso Henriques it's a new "historic criation". And I began to be tired and bored of attempts of "recriation" on History of Portugal  by some Wikipedists more imaginative. So, if you want to proclaim new thesis and kings, or queens, in portuguese history, please, give a very good account of your sources. My best regards and a great salut for you, Jorge alo (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I´m not proclaiming or "recreating" anything. You asked me one thing and I replied, I'm not trying to impose anything on that subject, I didn't do it in the past, and I´m not intending to do it in the future. It´s just a very light and personal view that I have about that particular question, that to be honest, doesn't even interest me allot. Best regards.XPTO (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history project
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
==License tagging for File:Emtrada do exercito del rey de Castella, governado por D. Ioam de Avstria, no reino de Portvgal, com sette mil cavallos, doze mil infantes e vinte pessas de artilharia... 1663 ou 1670.jpg== Thanks for uploading File:Emtrada do exercito del rey de Castella, governado por D. Ioam de Avstria, no reino de Portvgal, com sette mil cavallos, doze mil infantes e vinte pessas de artilharia... 1663 ou 1670.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Abd al-Haqq I
Hello. A group of us are trying to clear the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The page of the above name is one of the several thousand articles lacking Sources that were tagged in October 2006. Can you help in finding good Sources for the facts in the article? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Campaignbox of the War of the Castilian Succession
A tag has been placed on Template:Campaignbox of the War of the Castilian Succession requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. Mhiji 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving John VI of Portugal to João VI of Portugal
XPTO, since you are a Wikipedian who works in articles related to Portuguese history I thought you would be interested in the present-discussion over changing the name of John VI of Portugal to João VI of Portugal or not. You can find it in Talk:John VI of Portugal. Your opinion is important. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Cayenne (1809)
Dear XPTO.

I´m writing you this message to discuss your edits on the article Invasion of Cayenne (1809), where you removed several pieces of text mentioning the colonial brazilian participation in the conflict.

There is a topic in the talk page, where many of the article´s main contributors stated the necessity to highlight and further explain the role of the colonial brazilians in the Invasion, in order to give a full NPOV scope of the conflict in question.

In the Brazilian historiography and worldwide brazilianist historiography, the Invasion of Cayenne is interpreted as the moment of birth of Brazilian colonial identity and the baptism of fire of the Brazilian Marine Corps. It´s of great significance to brazilian history studies and an important issue in modern historiography.

As stated in the article, and in the talk page, Brazilian colonial forces had a predominant and decisive role in the invasion of Cayenne, comprising almost the entire ground forces and most of the naval forces in the conflict.

Brazil also had a fairly decent level of authonomy within the Portuguese Empire, having an authonomous central government and distinct status from other portuguese colonies, which would be further expanded in 1815, when the colony of Brazil was elevated to the rank of a Kingdom and by the same law the separate kingdoms of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves were united as a single State under the title of The United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (as can be seen in the linked article).

Considering those facts, i edited the article (based on the debate on the talk page) to insert a good ammount of missing information (such as the colonial brazilian naval vessels, the regiments and units participating, etc) and to distinguish the participation of brazilian colonial subjects of the portuguese crown in the event.

Being that explained, i would like to ask you not to revert that edition withou a propper discussion, as it would be disrespectfull to my work and the work and debate of others before me.

I understand you have quite an impressive ammount of contributions related to portguese historiography (and i admire that), and considering this background, you most likely have some knowledge of brazilian and brazilianist historiography to understand the importance and the studies made by them on the subject discussed and can understand why i made such and edition on the article.

I thank you for your attention and bid you farewell.

-187.38.162.214 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Toro
Hello XPTO I can see that you have high quality knowledge about Portuguese History. Among many other contributions I appreciated your intervention in the battle of Montijo or the huge diversity of Portuguese military history issues.

I contributed to wikipedia for the first time with a new article (Battle of Toro, 10 and 11 August, Hispanicultur). Your critical opinion about this article would be very important and useful to me. Can you help me?

At last I ask you to approve the article (if you agree with it of course) - I don’t know how these things work. I would be very grateful. Thanks.

PS: Can you answer me to my email (in English or Portuguese)? evoefernandes@yahoo.com (I don’t know how to work with templates and so I have/had to ask someone to do it for me). Thank you again! --Hispanicultur (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Spain vs. Iberia
Hi XPTO,

I've noticed that you've recently gone around the many pages related to al-Andalus and substituted "Iberian peninsula" for "Spain". I know my appeal is likely to fall flat, but is it possible to persuade you to refrain from doing so? I appeal on the point of aesthetics and manner of speech. On the speech front, I know what you are trying to do. You believe the term "Spain" might mislead people to imagining it refers only to the modern country of Spain, which might imply exclusion of the modern country of Portugal, which was also part of al-Andalus. But your correction misleads another way - since al-Andalus did not cover the Iberian peninsula, but just part of it. So that misleads people into imagining all was part of it. Moreover, in other ways, "Iberian peninsula", being a cold geographical term, is too narrow - a lot of the events and activities involve the Balearic islands or the Narbonne corridor, neither of which are part of the Iberian peninsula. I know you are trying to be precise, but you are correcting one imprecision with another imprecision.

Given that both terms are, strictly speaking, incorrect, I can only hope to appeal to aesthetics and traditional usage to leave it as "Spain" and refrain from substitution, except where there might be clear cause for confusion. Personally, from an aesthetic angle, I find "Iberian peninsula" to be a rather cumbersome and ugly term - a matter of taste which you might not share, of course. But it is a coldly geographic term - like calling Italian lands the "Appenine peninsula". It has none of that simple fluidity and recognizability of simply "Italy". The term "Spain" can similarly be used in the pre-modern classical sense, the "Spain" or "Hispania" of antiquity, the popular name of the peninsula before the formation of the modern country. Just as one might use "Germany" or "Italy" as the geographical area that existed before the formation of countries with those names in the 19th C., "Spain" referred to the entire peninsula (Portugal, Castile, Aragon, etc.) before the 16th C. And that is the epoch which is being referred to here.

In both writing and reading the text, "Spain" simply works better as a general way of usage - more compact, less aesthetically jarring, and directly recognizable, with sufficient flexibility, ease and usage ("Abd al-Rahman landed in Spain", "the African commanders quarreled with their Spanish counterparts", "Spanish and Sicilian freebooters partitioned Sardinia", etc.) to make it much more preferable (IMO) than "Iberian peninsula". As mentioned, where there is cause of confusion (e.g. delineating boundaries), it might merit inclusion for precision. But where it is just a manner of speech, can you leave the "Spain" be? It is imprecise yes, but so are references to "North Africa" ("Maghreb" =/= "North Africa" but only North Africa west of Egypt - or, more precisely, west of Baqra - but it would be cumbersome to point that out every time).

I know you have grounds to disagree. All I can hope for here is to appeal to your aesthetic and usage sense. Walrasiad (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Walrasiad! And what about Hispania? I'm fine with this designation of "Spain", and is also used in several medieval articles to differentiate it from the modern state of Spain. Are you ok with it?XPTO (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Siege of Porto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grijó (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) 11:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Francisco de Sá de Miranda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sá (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) 11:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Aleixo Garcia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (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) 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Magellan, Faleiro
Greetings! I see you have removed all categories linking Rui Faleiro to Spain and 16-th century Spanish people from Magellan. However, I think it is generally agreed in Wikipedia that people who do not ethnically belong to a certain country (in that case Spain) should have categories linking them to that country if they had served it, as is the case of both men. See for example Jácome Ratton or Louis-Emil Eyer. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)