Jump to content

User talk:Colon-el-Nuevo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus

[edit]

If you look at the text below the window you type in, it says all material must be verifiable. I've deleted an edit of yours which was simply making a personal argument with no references, see our policy on original research at WP:OR. Rosa doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. Talk/discussion pages are for discussing the article but NOT the subject, your edit to the talk page was just an argument about Columbus and would be appropriate on a forum but not here -- it was also original research. New users often make these sort of mistake, don't take this personally. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've asked the administrators you've annoyed to hold their hands for a moment, they don't have local knowledge of the state of study of the suject in Portugal, which does seem groundbreaking. Part of the problem you've got is that there's a liking for a form of peer review, namely that you should never post on your own work: if it holds water, someone will post it for you as a form of fame. I stopped posting myself because this is one of a number of policies which contravene all academic norms, and the admin aren't prepared to listen.
Can you contact me privately via my blog, please: postings are echoed to an anonymous e-mail and I'll contact you directly. I'm working with Laura Smoller of Arkansas Uni on Columbus' cosmological inspiration, Pierre d'Ailly - there's a link to Prince Henry the Navigator's commission, and I've posted on the alternative origins discussion page a hypothesis which meets the obvious Genoan origin to possible Portuguese Royal sponsorship. I'm interested in the local Portuguese take on the subject as it is my experience these by-the-bookers are missing ever-increasing amounts of detail only available locally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.24.114 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that got nowhere, predictably enough. Let's stop wasting time on these no-brainers, I'd still like to hear of your work: I'm now at home but still use that link if you can.

Suggestions

[edit]

I respectfully suggest that you take a good look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and also a glance at WP:No personal attacks and WP:Conflict of interest. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ClovisPt, personal attacks are what I have been subjected to for 5.5 years now, all because I have done my homework for nearly 20 years and know quite a bit about the history of the man you call Columbus. Everything that is written about me or by me is automatically targeted for deletion because some folks in this site think their "idea" of what happened 500 years ago is correct and that I am a quack and a fringe writer to be discredited. If you care to review personal attacks, then I suggest you review the contentious history of DougWeller and others with a sole purpose of keeping my edits and pages I create (such as the page I created last week replicating the Portuguese page on his wife Filipa Moniz ) out of this website. What I present are facts based on documents that any one who is unbiased and wants to learn can go read and see how the history was all wrong. The Portuguese court committed a fraud against Spain and against the world that has lasted for 500 years, using one single word by the Royal Chronicler to throw us all off the track - and that word was written by Rui de Pina in 1504. The word was COLONBO and the rest is history, albeit some fraudulent, some badly researched and much of it invented contrary tom the facts.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:COLON_book_of_privileges.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:COLON_book_of_privileges.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

Please do not edit while logged out, as you did with 152.16.51.250 (talk · contribs). It makes it difficult for people to connect the edits to the same user, and gives a false illusion of support for your position. If you did edit while logged out by accident, you should log in immediately and correct the mistake. Further, please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the subject of the article - rather, they should be used to discuss improvements to the article itself. Finally, please be reminded that continued disruption may result in your editing privileges being removed. T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

477 NEGATIVE results using DNA shows that Colón was not from a Colombo family

[edit]
Davide41, 477 NEGATIVE results using DNA shows that Colón was not from a Colombo family.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references to articles in which these studies have been published? I'd like to look into the results of those DNA-based genetic studies. I'm a Biologist specialized in Biomedicine (and Biochemistry), I guess I should be capable to evaluate whether such results deserve be mentioned in the section on the origin of Colón (according to their consistency.) Thanks. Heathmoor (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heathmoor, the DNA results were not published exactly because there was NO match. Had there been a match to the Colombos of Italy, as it was expected to happen when the study was funded, today there would be no more controversy. I have been privy to some of the information since I was one of the collaborators in these studies. However the failure to match with 477 Colombos is the first nail on the Italian Colombo coffin. http://cristobal-colon.net/Dossiers/ADNcolon_eng.htm. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Christopher Columbus for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I see you've been warned about this recently by someone else, and I've asked you to stop using talk pages as a forum for your research. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus for inappropriate discussions you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, what do you consider inappropriate discussion? I am discussing the HISTORY of Columbus something you know nothing and I am educating the readers on the facts, which you refuse to learn about. It is just a matter of time for things to change.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the history of Columbus is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. Trying to 'educate readers on the facts' is a completely inappropriate use of Wikipedia pages. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the history of Columbus is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. ??? What should we discuss then on the Columbus pages the History of spaceships? Are you for real?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we discuss the article, using reliable and verifiable sources, we do not discuss the subject in general. At the top of the page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." But you've been told this before. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, I have provided all the sources for everything I have suggested be added to the article. All the sources are there but you insist in not taking any of it into account. Here is one case. In 1487 the Court of Isabel calls Columbus portuguese. The document exists and was discovered and written about by Antonio Rumeu de Armas in EL "PORTUGUÉS" CRISTÓBAL COLÓN EN CASTILLA, There is NOT ONE other nationality the Court of Isabel EVER gives to Columbus. You keep removing this entry from the article. Why? Is the dead Professor Antonio Rumeu de Armas not impartial enough for you? Like this example I have many others of sources that I provide but you delete.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are primary sources. You need to read WP:OR. You can't use primary sources to argue a position. Also read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Again, I'm sure you've been told this before. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, I still don~t understand. Are you saying Antonio Rumeu de Armas is a primary source BUT Samuel Elliot Morison is not a primary source?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off to bed, but no, sorry, misread that. You have been using primary sources though. Avoid them. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, I think the confusion with my edits/proposed edits is that I come across as if the information that I present is my own. It is not, only a few tidbits are presented by me as a primary source, the two major ones being the document from the Order of Santiago that proves Columbus's wife was one of its Comendadoras and the proof that the Mayorazgo was falsified 80 years after Columbus died,- the majority of the information I present is gathered from trusted historians the world over and I have included those references many times in the article and in the talk pages to no avail. 71.111.215.249 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's likely. You also need to understand that you can't use a Wikipedia article to prove anything. With any contentious issue, our articles should show a balanced representation of the positions/evidence/whatever made by reliable sources. We call this NPOV, see WP:NPOV which, summarised, says our articles should represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Try not to use the word 'proof. It can be hard to get your head around, but Wikipedia articles are not about telling the truth. They're about providing verifiable information from reliable sources. We also have an acronym, WP:TLDR, which applies at times to your edits. Another thing, you keep editing logged out. I've said that isn't an attempt to evade blocks, but it confuses and looks bad. So does using other account names. But we're talking, and that's great Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have attempted a fair and balanced sourced article for Columbus's wife which gives the general idea of who she was in portugal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo

ANI dicussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Colombo Portuguese? Then Mourinho is Swedish!!

[edit]

Bastaaaaaaaaaa!! C'hai completamente rotto co' 'sta storia assurda che Colombo era Portoghese!!!!!!! Bastaaaaaa!!!! Vai a propagandare 'ste fandonie da un'altra parte!! Write an alternate history book, but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories!!!!!!!!! --Attilios (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Antillios, Colombo was not Portuguese. Colombo was 100% Genoese. A poor wool weaver who could not even pay 2,5 ducats to his creditors. BUT Colón was not Genoese. Colón was a noble with a coat of arms and very PORTUGUESE in his writings, actions, marriage and loyalty. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk)
Attilios, not Antillios! Ok. So it means Mourinho is Swedish. Strange that he left Ibrahimovic go, thus... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP - Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

[edit]

Please stop. --Davide41 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I hate bad faith.

Rumeu de Armas. p. 50-51 :

En un hombre como Cristóbal Colón, con tres patrias, resultaba siempre difícil la identificación de su naturaleza. Por el nacimiento era de Génova; por primera adopción, de Portugal (sin reconocimiento oficial), [ the famous " El portuguese" ] y por segunda adopción, de Castilla (en identicas condiciones jurídicas). Por este conjunto de anómalas circunstancias el almirante rehuyó denominarse genovés, salvo en un caso excepcional: la institución de mayorazgo (22 de Mayo de 1498), en una de cuyas cláusulas confiesa que habia nacido en Génova” (Rumeu de Armas, 1982, p. 50-51).

--Davide41 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41 misses the point. I did not write that Rumeu de Armas had said the Colón was Portuguese. I wrote that QUEEN ISABELLA's Court WROTE that he was Portuguese while paying him 30 gold doblas castellanas. Understand the difference? Furthermore, the argument that Colón "confesses" to be from Genoa is now evaporated since the "institución de mayorazgo (22 de Mayo de 1498)" is now proven to be a forgery created in 1588 by the charlatan Balthazar Colombo who wanted to inherit Colón's inheritance. The wool-weaver is now naked. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

[edit]

Take it to the talk page before you're blocked for a 3RR violation. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mr/mrs Dougweller. I understand your position. I am not fooled. Anything that I write is AUTOMATICALLY seen by you as unworthy. I have understood this for years now. AND everything Davide41 writes is of-course perfect. Even when he is writing insulting language to me. You would be the last two persons in Wikipedia I would expect any fairness from. Instead of threatening to block me, why don't you add the4 sources that I had added and Davide41 deleted? Why? Are they not relevant to a page on theories? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you added a WP:3RR to Davide41's page. How come?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, I did. I didn't threaten to block you, the warning is that if you continue you may be reported and if that happens someone may block you. It wouldn't be me. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies or misinterpreting your note. You are correct, we were both warned.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Authority Professor Samuel Eliot Morison

[edit]

To some writers this marriage appears to be a great mystery. How could a foreign chartmaker [NOTE: suddenly he is a chartmaker and not the same "LANERIO DE JANUA" wool weaver of Genoa presented in the Raccolta document XXXXI from 1472, Morison, going against the documents promoted the wool-weaver to a chartmaker? ] of low birth who had been literally “on the beach” a few years before, marry into one of the noble families of the kingdom? Already about 25 years old when she caught young Christopher’s roving eye, her mother was glad enough to have no more convent bills to pay, and as son-in-law to secure an up-and-coming young man of gentlemanly manners, who asked for no dowry. ( Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea (Little, Brown, Boston, 1942).)

THIS previous extract IS A FANTASY INVENTED By MORISON AND A BIG LIE- This is a fabrication by Morison written completely without any proof. Morison did not find anything related to FIlipa's dowry AND the truth is that Filipa’s mother was NOT paying any “convent bills” because Filipa was so privilegded that she lived at the Monastery of Santos belonging to the elite Military Order of Santiago where she had ALL EXPENSES PAID, as a "Comendadora" --just like her cousin ANA de MENDONÇA (King John II's Mistress) and her aunt VIOLANTE NOGUEIRA (nanny of King John II's aunts)-- and even participated in the management of the All-Saints "Comendary". Morison even invented that his “Colombo peasant” was an up-and-coming star, a prodigy as if the mother-in-law, Isabel Moniz, already knew in 1478, only 2 years after supposedly washing ashore penniless (and not able to speak Portuguese or even Italian) that the wool-weaver was going to be a famous STAR in 1493. FURTHERMORE: Filipa's marriage in 1479 HAD to be AUTHORIZED by King John II who was MASTER of the Comendadoras of Santiago. Contrary to what Morison and his supporters of the wool-weaver tale wrote of this fantasy marriage, it was impossible for Filipa Moniz to have married a non-noble two-bit weaver the likes of that Genoese Colombo who had supposedly washed ashore only two years prior from parts unknown with no money, no education, no ship nor even a job in that closed high-class society of Portugal—a noble society so restricted that the Captain of Madeira actually arrested his brother's noble widow for marrying a Nobleman below her station.(1) There is NO DOUBT that Filipa’s husband had to be her equal in social stature and not any wool-weaver. The whole tale invented by Morison of a peasant marrying a Noble Portuguese Captain’s daughter is a perfect example of how inaccurate have been the history books on the history of Admiral Cristóbal Colón. The motivations that bring an author to take such wild liberties with the truth are not intended to be dealt with in this book, however it is something that should alarm all readers because the established pattern had always been one of accepting the "myth of the Genoese weaver" and then twisting the known facts to fit into that tale while at the same time discarding important facts that deny a peasant birth for the discoverer..... Don Fernando Colón who wrote that his father was of noble lineage and not a peasant laborer form anywhere as others were: "Falsely calling him a craftsman ... [as such the Admiral] would not have learned so many letters or sciences ... especially the four main sciences ... Astrology, Cosmography, Geometry and Navigation ... The admiral was a man of letters and of great experience, and did not spend time on things manual or on mechanical arts.(2) Today's investigations and scientific research confirms that Don Fernando Colón was right and that his father could never have been the wool-weaver Colombo, or Pigeon but was instead a Kõlon, or Member of some special noble family."

-- (1) -«D. Maria de Noronha... foi castigada de forma violenta e cruel pelo cunhado Martim Gonçalves da Câmara,.... a encarcerou numa prisão da Torre de Belém, como a expôs à vergonha de atravessar as ruas de Lisboa entre esbirros, sobre uma mula, com as mãos manietadas». Doutor Gaspar Frutuoso, Saudades da Terra, Edição do Instituto Cultural de Ponta Delgada, 1984, página 284. /
-- (2) Historie del S.D. Fernando Colombo nelle quali s'ha particolare, & vera relatione della vita, & de' fatti dell'Ammiraglio D. Christoforo Colombo, suo padre, et dello scoprimento, che'egli fece dell'Indie Occidentali, dette Mondo Nuovo, hora possedute dal Sereniss. Re catolico. nuouamente di lingua spagnuola tradotte nell'italiana dal S. Alfonso Ulloa. Published in 1571, Appresso Francesco de' Franceschi Sanese (In Venezia)) /
--(3) Manuel Rosa in Columbus. The Untold Story.

...It is amazing that after all the research that has been published in Portugal and Spain in the lat 5 year, including the Admiral's original coat of arms, that we still insist on propping up the old fairy tale of the Genoese wool weaver as if it ever happened. Learn the real history Mr. Historian.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

[edit]

This is a friendly notice that your editing at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus are becoming problematic. You are not paying attention to the advice given you that wikipedia is not the right place to advoctae new theories - Wikipedia is a place to present what is already established knowledge. Wikipedia can mention notable theories but always mentioning which theories are currently supported by a majority of scholars. You acknowledge that the progtuguese theory is not advocated by a majority of schlars but by a specific minority. This quite simply means that according to our policies the portuguese theory should not be presented as if it were of comparable impoartance to the genoese theory. There is no way under current policy that the kinds of edits that you are currently proposing to the article can be allowed. Also your behavior is becoming very shrill, and you are repeating the same statements over and over without showing that you understand or acknowledge the validity of the arguments presented to you. This is problematic and may be considered a form of disruption which can result in sanctions. Please tone it down, respect our policies of WP:FRINGE, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:ADVOCACY. And always remember that this is an encyclopedia not a place to promote any theories or ideas that do not already have wide acceptance.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing logged out

[edit]

Please don't edit logged out as you did recently using 71.111.202.252 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk pages as forums

[edit]

Please stop this, you've been told before that talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subject of the article. Adding uncited stuff and talking about "Portuguese propaganda machine" in a thread on citations is exactly what we don't want. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, I tried to explain something that should be obvious to anyone who reads the life of Martim Behaim. That he was a nobleman, a member of the Portuguese Council of Scientists, a Member of the Portuguese Order of Christ, a secret agent of King John II, and not only lived in the Azores, but was married to the daughter of the Captain of Horta in Faial. That the Portuguese Council of Scientists had measured the globe to within 4% of its actual size. Ignorance of the facts is not a reason to not accept them. Martin's globe was not an accurate representation of what he and the Portuguese knew the globe to be. By the same token, anyone who reads Columbus's Diary sees that he measured the same measurements between the Azores and Portugal as did the Portuguese. It is not accurate to insist on what some uninformed writers have written, that Columbus believed the world to be much smaller. It is more accurate to say that Columbus wanted the Spanish to believe the world was much smaller. Maybe my words are not chosen carefully but that does not negate the information provided. t is all documented.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is a misuse of the talk page, which is not for 'information' or discussion of Christopher Columbus but for discussion of sources, of wording, of formatting, of images, etc. Not your opinions of Behaim, etc. See WP:SOAPBOX. You really need to stop using our talk pages as a platform for presenting your ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is not my idea it is what is documented of Behaim's life. Look it up.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning

[edit]

I once again reiterate - this is not the place to challenge the scientific consensus or defend new theories. This is not a forum for discussion of primary sources relating to the nationality of Columbus. It is an encyclopedic article and it must be written within the guidelines laid out in WP:NOT, and WP:V. Stop using wikipedia as a forum or a soapbox. The next warning I issue will be accompanied by a 24 hour block.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not soapbox, I am simply pointing out that the document that David41 is referring to is controversialColon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. you are doing more than that. You are clearly advocating a specific interpretation of history that is not generally accepted. 2. that the document is controversial doesn't matter. We are not here to discuss the merits of primary sources - that is the job of professional historians who should do it in a nother forum than here.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" David41 is referring to is controversial "

Blocked

[edit]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked for continuing disruptive editing at articles related to the Origin of Christopher Columbus. Please use the next 24 hours to review wikipedia policies such as WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE and WP:V. In order to continue to be allowed to edit here you simply have to realize that wikipedia cannot describe any truth about the origins of columbus that is not supported by a majority of scholars. A vast majority of columbus scholars accept the Genoese theory and this is what wikipedia will continue to write untill the consensus in academia changes. New interpretations of primary sources are not admissible in articles because of WP:NOR, alternative interpretations can only be mentioned but not described as having general acceptance. Do not continue to discuss primary sources - you can do so in a blog or on a soapbox in Hyde Park, further disruptive discussion regarding primary sources about the origin of Columbus will result in longer blocks.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning

[edit]

You have to stop using the Talkpages of Columbus related articles as a soapbox to advocate for specific theories of Columbus birthplace. This is the last warning after which you will be blocked for a considerable period of time.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating for specific theories of Columbus birthplace. I am asking people to look at the evidence.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Fringe theory. I repeat: are all primary sources. --Davide41 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same block rationale applies as in the previous block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Colon-el-Nuevo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not understand how placing factual information in the discussion page for the consideration of other editors, giving them a better sense of the subject at hand, as being disruptive. Apparently it is disruptive only because it shows the blatant contradictions contained in the article. Please unblock my account.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ana de Mendonça

[edit]

Hello, Colon-el-Nuevo. Instead of keeping on reverting Davide1941's edits, please follow WP:BRD and use the article's talk page to discuss the matter. If you're unable to reach a satisfactory solution there, you can follow WP:DR. Furthermore, please always remember to avoid making personal attacks, as you did in this edit summary. Comment on content and not on other contributors. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Salvio, thank you for the advice, but it should be noted that the personal attacks were started and have been leveled towards me over and over by user.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo

[edit]

As per your request on WP:Requests for comment/Request board I added an RfC with topic=bio to article talk page. Please watch there for additional comments/feedback. Coastside (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also advertised this RfC on the No Original Research Noticeboard. Coastside (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

[edit]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

Stop edit warring immediately. You are about to cross WP:3RR, Wikiepdia's brightline rule that forbids reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you do not stop edit warring, you will be blocked. Your edits violate 3 of our most important policies.

From Christopher Columbus:

Apply the SAME WP:3RR RULES to the other editors PLEASE.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop reverting each other and start a discussion on the article talk page. I have protected the article for 1 week, but even afterwards, please discuss disputes on the talk page, edit warring is not the solution. Monty845 00:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The easy approach

[edit]

I could go find another admin who isn't involved to block you for your soapboxing, but there's an easier approach: every time you post OR and soapbox on that talk page, I'll just remove it per WP:NOTFORUM. So don't bother. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The alternative is a block. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand what is soapbox, nor what is OR about listing what the reliable sources say?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong is that there is a long standing consensus that the mainstream position is that Columbus is from Genoa. You know this; you disagree, but you know this. Every once and a while, you decide to drop a dozen or so references on the article talk page from sources that are not in the mainstream, and that, in some cases, don't even meet WP:RS. There has never once been any indication that the community's consensus is going to change; really, until you can produce a source that explicitly says, "While the prior consensus among historians was that Columbus was from Genoa, the theory that he was actually from Portugal has been gaining support in recent years." Not the original studies that make the Portuguese claims, but rather the tertiary sources (review articles/books) that show a change among historical consensus. If such a source exists, and it meets WP:RS, then perhaps there is something to discuss. But since no such source has ever been produced, your constant raising of the same sources over and over again is nothing but disruptive. It's "soapboxing" because it's just you continually shouting out your preferred theory which does not have consensus among historians. We call this tendentious editing, because you're refusing to hear the community response to your suggestions. It's time for you to move on. If you are in some way connected to Manuel da Silva Rosa, then what you need to do, if you want to see this information featured more prominently on Wikipedia, is to make it more featured off of Wikipedia first. You cannot win the academic battle here, and your attempts to do so are disruptive. So, please, stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Colon-el-Nuevo. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long-term WP:POV-pushing and tendentious editing to the point of disruptiveness without addressing many concerns that have been raised, to the point that it is clear you are here to push The Truth and not to improve the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Given my belief that User:Kolumbski is a sockpuppet of yours, and the fact that I believe you've also edited numerous times as an IP, I've tagged your account as a sockmaster. While this doesn't change your indefinite block, it does make it far less likely that you will ever be unblocked, because, rather than showing that you want to change for the better, you're demonstrating that you have no intention to ever follow our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the English language Wikipedia should take a lesson from the Portuguese language page, because there Manuel Rosa is seen as a reliable source on Cristóbal Colón- apparently your lack of understanding of other languages besides English keeps you ignorant of the evidence presented and of what Portuguese academics are doing to rewrite the false history of the "genoese peasant weaver Colombo"- as the years go by, instead of finding more and more detractors, Rosa finds more and more supporters. His books are now being published in four countries - too bad that you insist on keeping the "Columbus" article in sub-standard form and keep insisting on forged documents like the Last Will of 1498 to keep the Fairy Tale of a Colombo alive when the discoverer's name was not Colombo but Colón. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colon-el-Nuevo&oldid=1082359981"