User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 1
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I appreciate your careful work on monarchist articles for your country Greenmaven (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Talkback
Message added 00:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You may be interested in the conversation. Regards, CA. ClaretAsh 00:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:User:Lumastan
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:User:Lumastan
|
---|
Category:User:Lumastan, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
Os meus artigos
Os meus artigos
|
---|
Oi, Lumastan. Vejo que é portuga. Em casa temos dupla cidadania (adivinha qual é a segunda) e não precisa me chamar de senhor, pois tenho 27 anos. Você deve ter percebido que os artigos sobre a história portuguesa estão abandonados. Não sei aonde estão os demais usuários portugueses, se é que existem. Consegui escrever e promover para FA (Featured Article) o artigo sobre Pedro Álvares Cabral. Confesso que já tive interesse em escrever outros da história portuguesa, mas a falta de apoio me desestimulou. Escrever um artigo FA requer meses. Não é algo fácil. Para piorar, o pessoal que revisa os candidatos para FA são as vezes uns verdadeiros babacas arrogantes. Sabe como é, né? "Ei, tenho várias estrelinhas no meu perfil, isso me faz melhor que os demais". Coisa de gente frustrada com a vida real. Mas enfim, faço algumas recomendações: primeiro, tire a informação que é monarquista. Numa discussão qualquer, as pessoas irão te acusar de estar agindo por pensamento político, e não baseando-se em bom senso e fontes confiáveis. Quanto as demais recomendações... bem, você irá descobrir. Não sei bem o que quis dizer com saus edições a artigos, o que quer que eu faça exatamente? P.S.: Existe algum livro em Portugal com fotografias (repito, fotografias, e não pinturas ou litografias) da rainha Maria II? --Lecen (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Disambiguation link notification
Disambiguation link notification
|
---|
Hi. In Royal Pantheon of the Braganza Dynasty, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Neoclassic (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) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of Prince of Brazil (Brazil)
Wikipedia:Speedy deletion nomination of Prince of Brazil (Brazil)
|
---|
A tag has been placed on Prince of Brazil (Brazil) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Henry, King of Portugal, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Henry, King of Portugal, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
Moves
Moves
|
---|
Hi Lumastan. Have you sought consensus about all the moves you're making? From what I understand they are at odds with longstanding agreements about articles on royalty and should probably be reverted until they can be discussed in detail. Not only that, you're also removing the anglicized versions of the names from the articles which is obviously counterproductive. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Uploaded files
Uploaded files
|
---|
Hi Lumastan. When you uploaded File:Nossasenhoradaconceicao.jpg, you claimed that the image was your own work. But I found identical copies of that image all over the web so I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim. If this is not your own work then you should ask for the image to be deleted as soon as possible. It's important for the credibility of Commons that copyright violations are taken care of quickly. Note that File:SMF Manoel II.jpg is also most definitely not your own work as are similar photographs. The fact that you scanned the image does not make it your own work. You need to make sure that such images are completely and unambiguously in the public domain before uploading them to Commons. Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Hello. I've removed this candidate from FLC as it is far from ready. You might like to check it against this checklist, ensuring most importantly that it contains professional writing, a decent lead, plenty of reliable third-party sources etc etc. You would be well advised to look at some recently promoted lists (see the summary in WT:FLC) so you can understand what we're expecting at FLC. I will also be removing the nomination for Royal Pantheon of the House of Braganza at FLC for similar reasons. If you'd like some more in-depth review before nominating at FLC, please submit these lists to peer review. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Structural changes and Galleries
Structural changes and Galleries
|
---|
Lumastan. I ask that you read the comments I made in the original revert. There were three points: first, you removed citations (resolved); second, you altered the structure of the Lisbon article (unnoticed?) and third, the issue of galleries. Regarding the two last points. Your alteration of the section on "Twinning Cities" had the affect of (or was it intentional) modifying the structure of the remaining article into a three-column format. If this was your intention, I suggest you get consensus for such a radical move. If it wasn't, then I believe you should read-up on column definitions in the WP:MOS. Regarding your issue with galleries: although Wikipedia allows galleries, the conventions do not specifically suggest that they should be created adhoc. There are specific prerequisites and conventions that state: "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text". Further, the "images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value", and not just placed together to show pride in a subject. In the past I have had discussions about this subject with administrators and editors who have illustrated this point. Regardless, the most important convention, no matter what exists on other "city articles" is Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY: Wikipedia is not an image repository (I refer you also to WP:Galleries and Wikipedia:IG for complementary information on the use of imagery). As it stands, in the past editors and administrators have removed excessive images on this page because they do not add to the encyclopedic value and/or border on abuse and nationalism. I ask you to re-read those points on image use before attempting to revert my reviews. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
House of Borgonha
House of Borgonha
|
---|
Hi Lumastan. You've just created House of Borgonha but this is just the Portuguese name for House of Burgundy. I don't really see the point of splitting the House of Burgundy article but if you do, it shouldn't be under the Portuguese title since the name is seldom used in English. Pichpich (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
Peter V of Aragon
Peter V of Aragon
|
---|
I assume you know Portuguese. Can you help translate some info about Peter V of Aragon from his Portuguese article? Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Disambiguation link notification
Disambiguation link notification
|
---|
Hi. When you recently edited Peter V of Aragon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valencia (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) 11:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
Citations
Citations
|
---|
Not to belittle your work on historical and dynastic information in the Portuguese namespace, I was just wondering where you have been getting your information? While I don't deny that your content is valid, I would offer that someone will eventually start picking apart or reverting your changes, since you don't provide verifiable sources for your edits. That is not to say that I am without fault in the past, but I just want you to be prepared for future reverts by other editors or the banners that state that the article has no supporting inline citations. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
Royal coat of arms of the portuguese kingdom
Royal coat of arms of the portuguese kingdom
|
---|
The thing you are spreading everywhere don't match with this nor with the article about Portuguese Arms of the Dictionary of History of Portugal (directed by Joel Serrão). I have already noticed the author and now I am noticing you. Do you know what are you doing? The work has no heraldic sources, so, are you the author? Or do you know from what reliable sources the author took the dates to conceive it? My best regards, Jorge alo (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
, is an incorportation of the coat of official coat of arms under the late Braganza monarchs (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/armory18/portugal.jpg), with a modification of the coat of arms into the traditional shield: With this, this shield incorporates two of Portugal's historical coats of arms into one, displaying a well-done piece of work. If you really searched, you could find examples of varients of this coat of arms, even here on wikipedia and done by other users, such as:
which uses the french moderne shield. I find it to be exemplary work, dont you? but if you find one that encompasses traditional aspects of Portuguese coat of arms in a completed form, I would love to see it. I hope we can work together in finding one that exemplifies the history of the Portuguese coat of arms in all aspects.
I think that would be exceptional. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
|
John VI or Joao VI
John VI or Joao VI
|
---|
You're wasting yout rime there discussing with them. They won't change their mind and the discussion will only make the entire move as nightmare of conflicts. Just ignore it. --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You two understand what this is really about? Americans don't understand diacritic marks. See ASCII. The overall approach they take is cultural homogenisation. Lots of xenophobia, too. Alarbus (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop feeding the trolls. That Jorge Alo guy is talking nothing but nonsense and you're falling on his trap. Let the matter rest and move on. --Lecen (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait. Let other who are not involved say something. If you and the those guys star arguing, nothing will come from it. --Lecen (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
|
A beer for you!
would be a good idea Alarbus (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Portugal & Spain near parallels
Portugal & Spain near parallels
|
---|
Wowsers, read up on the 1820's & 1830's of those Kingdoms. What was family life coming to? ambitious uncles vs their little nieces. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia's civility standards
Wikipedia's civility standards
|
---|
Hi, I thought perhaps it would be best if we continued the discussion you started at WP:WQA here. Wikipedia tries to maintain a fairly relaxed environment. Because of that, editors generally consider it appropriate to address each other as they would a friend - that is to say, they are not required to maintain very formal levels of respectfulness. SandyGeorgia's comments, while disagreeing with other editors, do not attack any other users for their opinions, and so fall in to the realm of what would be considered appropriate here. I'm not entirely sure what I can do to address this, other than to suggest you not take other editors' comments too personally. For the most part I am sure they do not mean to offend you, or anyone else. Prodego talk 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, there's some further talk about this at: and evidence may be offered at: The precipitating incident was an editor calling another a "dishonest cunt". Here: Evidence has been requested:
Enjoy the beer, Alarbus (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the founding principles on Wikipedia is to assume good faith in other editors. We can see in several of these comments that Walrasaid fails to do that, he doesn't show respect to other editors intentions. I would describe this as a failing on his part. However, Wikipedia tends to allow a great deal of leeway, Walrasaid is upset by some action and is voicing his displeasure. As long as this behavior is not a constant feature of his editing, this doesn't cause too much of a problem. Because we assume good faith, we assume that Walrasaid does not intend to upset other editors with his comments, and if he does not usually make such comments we would be justified in doing so. The ability to withstand disagreement from other editors, which can sometimes be quite vocal, is important for collaborating with others on a project like Wikipedia. Prodego talk 05:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
|