Jump to content

User talk:CuriousColonal

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

November 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.


Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Davide41 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Davide41 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Davide41 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have reliable sources, Manuel Rosa is an amateur historian. Your opinion is not enough. Stop. --Davide41 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rosa is not my source, my sources are clearly indicated just like yours are. Stop being stupidCuriousColonal (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. 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=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — GorillaWarfare talk 22:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Crist%C3%B3bal_Col%C3%B3n#Col.C3.B3n_La_historia_Nunca_Contada ( Book of Manuel Rosa )

Write an alternate history book, but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories. This is an Encyclopedia.

Some historians ( Columbus - Genoa )

In addition to Ballesteros Beretta and Manzano, the following historians have recognized that Columbus was Genoese: the Spanish Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Serrano y Sanz, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Morales Padron, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Consuelo Varela, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, and Milhou; the French D'Avezac, Roselly de Lorgues, Vignaud, Sumien, Charcot, Houben, de la Ronciere, Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, and Braudel; the English Robertson, Johnson, Markham, Brebner, and Bradford; the Belgians Pirenne and Verlinden; the Germans Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, Streicher, Leithaus, and Breuer; the Swiss Burckhardt; the Russian Magidovic; the Rumanian Goldemberg; the North Americans Irving, Harrisee, Winsor, Dickey, Thacher, Nunn, Morison, Parry, and Boorstin; the Cubans Alvarez Pedroso, Ramirez Corria, Carpentier, and Nunez Jimenez; the Puerto Ricans Aurelio Tio and Alegria; the Colombians Arciniegas and Obregon; the Argentinians Molinari, Levillier,a nd de Gandia; the Uruguayans Laguarda Trias and Marta Sanguinetti; and the Japanese Aynashiya among others. Encyclopedia is not Fantasy. There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers. You can not write your opinion. You can not write that Columbus was Portuguese ( ! ) --Davide41 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write that Columbus was Portuguese, you fool, I wrote that Pedro Diaz de Toledo wrote in 1487 that Columbus was Portuguese and that Columbus's place of birth has been a controversy since 1487. This is a documented fact. Go read it and stop trying to deny the documented fact that there is a controversy over Columbus's identity.CuriousColonal (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --Davide41 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41, everything you accuse me of, it is YOU who has done it. You write below "This user is deleterious." then you say No Personal Attacks. Please, you would do better to go read more carefully what has been written about Columbus by the different historians. Then you would understand that there is a controversy and you are a part of that controversy.CuriousColonal (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still more significant is the testimony of ambassadors of the period.

  • Pedro de Ayala, Spanish ambassador to the English Court, writing, on 25 July 1498, to their Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella about the discoveries of John Cabot, affirms Columbus' Genoese birth.
  • Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the court of Spain, made an address to the Spanish monarchs in April 1501, praising them for having discovered hidden and inaccessible places under the command of Columbus, "our fellow citizen, illustrious cosmographer and steadfast leader."
  • Angelo Trevisan, chancellor and secretary to Domenico Pisano, the Venetian Republic's envoy to Spain, writing to Domenico Malipiero, member of Venice's Council of Predagi, notes that "I have succeeded in becoming a great friend of Columbus," and goes on to say: "Christoforo Colombo, Genoese, a tall, well built man, ruddy, or great creative talent and with a long face."
  • Gaspare Contarini, Venice's ambassador to the courts of Spain and Portugal, reporting to the Senate of the Venetian Republic on 16 November 1525 on the whereabouts of the island of Hispaniola (Haiti), spoke of the Admiral who was living there. The Admiral was Diego, Christopher's eldest son. Ambassador Contarini describes him thus: "This Admiral is son of the Genoese Columbus and has very great powers, granted to his father."

91 Testimonies. Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese. This is an Encyclopedia isn't Fantasy. --Davide41 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s, at a time when the last of the absurd hypotheses and comical fantasies were still circulating. Go read the book ! --Davide41 (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2010 (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).

CuriousColonal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am simply trying to make a contribution relevant to the Columbus article. However user Davide41, for some reason begun an intetional GorillaWarfar just so that I be blocked from adding relevant information that apparently goes against his own beliefs. Even though I am a new editor, I realize that Davide41 has been hoarding the Columbus edits to himself as if he is the authority and thus creating an unbalanced page by adding dozens of quotes and names irrelavant to the substance of the article. All I tried to do was add more relevant material. I had tried to get some arbitration for this dispute by placing an entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents but none one came to arbitrate. Therefore the wiki readers are the ones who lose with Davide41's actions.

Decline reason:

I don't see this as vandalism, but clearly an edit war and a breach of WP:3RR - I will reduce this block to the norm for a 3RR of 24 hours. I would suggest in that time you read up on WP:3RR and WP:DISPUTE, so that you know what you want to do when the block expires, and thereby avoid any more blocks. Notes placed on Admins noticeboards will be read, but don't always expect instant results - there rarely is a need for urgency in editing any page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (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.

An appeal to the administrators: This user is deleterious. Biased. Caution [ Columbus Portuguese (!) ] Hi. --Davide41 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html "Our whole understanding of Christopher Columbus has for 500 years been based on misinformation. We couldn't solve the mystery because we were looking for the wrong man, following lies that were spread intentionally to hide his true identity," Mr Rosa told The Daily Telegraph. Mr Rosa claims to have proved that a last will dated 1498 in which Columbus wrote "being I born in Genoa" was forged 80 years after his death by Italians with the name Columbo who wanted to lay claim to his inheritance. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CuriousColonal&oldid=1074424151"