User talk:Jorge alo

Hi! You contacted me on "my" page (it is a shared IP-adress) regarding the article of Beatrice of Portugal. The issue is, that on Wikipedia, everything must be written as neautrally as possible; no valuating terms must be presented, the text must not be taking sides in a disputed issue, just neutrally present what speaks for, and what speaks against a disputed issue. This, in turn, must not be written like a discussion, just as a neutral presentation, such as the one you may read in a dictionary or an encyclopedia. This: "Another question that is always forgotten by the actual few defenders of Beatrice, or of John I of Castile and Beatrice as legitimate sovereigns of Portugal, is the question of the people, and that without subjects there are no kings. For this historic current, it is secondary that the Portuguese people did not accept them as monarchs" , is not good, because it a valuating term, an oppinion. The fact is, that the oppinion of the people did not matter according to the law. Many monarchs have been hated ny their people, but they have still been monarchs. In the article, there should only be facts, no valuation. Also: by saying that the "defenders" of Beatrice are few and forgets facts, the article is not neautral. It is better to say: "Beatrice is recognized as monarch by some, and not as monarch by others. What speaks for the possibility is that (fill in the reasons), and what speaks against her being a monarch is (fill in the reasons). A neutral text takes the oppinion of both sides in to consideration. What is missing now is the reasons given by the side who beleives that she was queen. So you see, the problem with the text was that it was not worded neutrally, both took sides, and it also put values in the text instead of facts. But now, after your last edition, the article is much better. --85.226.42.215 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous action

Please finish this infantile game. And please tell me what is your problem. This article does not hurt anyone, there exist sources for his existence your sources are uncertain, and I think, because you do not know me you cannot have any problems with me, with my personality. Please accept the existence of this article which does not hurt your personality and for you is also better to agree instead of querrel here and in portugese wiki.21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Borgatya (talk)

I also can tell you that you have total misinformation, because you eliminate those sources that prove this existence, if you are right, you mustn't delete my sources but confront these sources. Eliminating Europäischen Stammtafeln is total dilettantism.Borgatya (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my article and my sources with cool head, calmly. Your state is one state, your truth is halftruth and history falsification.Borgatya (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, both of you, stop reverting and accusing each other. Jorge, as an outside admin, right now, I am finding this difficult to judge. Could you explain a bit more why you think this is a hoax (rather than, say, an error? Or, even, possibly correct, with the other sources being mistaken?) I'd recommend taking the thing to Afd rather than requesting more speedies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both of you broke WP:3RR multiple times over at Beatrice of Portugal. From your conversation in the edit summaries there, it becomes quite clear that neither of you was vandalising; both of you seem to have some sources to point to, but disagree about which of them are correct. That is not vandalism, and edit-warring over it is not on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you know the alphabets and you can read, but you do not know the real meaning of words or you only pick the words that favour to you but one says: this is halftruth and dilettantism.Borgatya (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borgatya, stop it. No matter which of you is ultimately right or wrong on this, further personal attacks like this will not be tolearated. Cool down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go to the discussion page of the deleted article in question. I think I will take 15 minutes to write the informations I just collected. Jorge alo (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Beatrice of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santarém (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) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, machine, for the warning. Jorge alo (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jorge"

In the John VI discussed (before it was closed) you wondered aloud if there were any "Jorges" before 1400. After a quick cursory search (nothing elaborate), I have to admit I can't find any. Earliest I get is Jorge de Castro (son of Alvaro de Castro, Count of Monsanto) from the battle roll of Alfarrobeira (there are a few other Jorges there, but that's the most prominent one I can find). Of course, the Castros are of Galician-Castilian descent, so I wonder if they got it from there? On the other hand, the c.1400 generation of the Castros were closely involved with the house of Aviz, e.g. Castro's grandfather, Fernando de Castro, was the governor of Prince Henry's household, so it might be an imported Anglicism, as you conjectured (although it wasn't really a popular English name at the time, was it? Off of the top of my head, I can't really think of a Plantagenet or big English noble called "George" at the time. Edward (Duarte) doubtlessly yes. And Henry may have helped the revival of Henrique. But George/Jorge?)

There is also a possible Italian connection. There were many Genoese immigrants in Portugal during the 14th C., and George, the patron saint of Genoa, is a much used name among them. As a curiosity, Italian portolan charts of the 14th C., like the Dulcert map of 1339, the Laurentian-Medici Atlas of 1351, the Pizigani brothers chart of 1367, etc., as well as the Castilian Libro del Conoscimiento, already indicate the name of the island of Sao Jorge in the Azores as "San Zorzo", a name 14th C. Genoese navigators spread around to many locations (e.g. Romania, Black Sea and prob. Azores). Walrasiad (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - On a still more irrelevant side-note, since you seem to be interested in dragons, you might find it curious to know that dragons were very frequently used in Venetian iconography to remind and express hatred of Genoa (as the "enemy" of St. George is the dragon). I am sure there is no connection to between the Portuguese & Venetian dragons. But you might want to remember that next time you contemplate a dragon - he is your enemy, Jorge! ;) Walrasiad (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brasão de armas de Portugal

Ó Senhor Jorge,
I think your idea of the combination of all 3 of the coats of arms is a wonderful idea and I will get to work on it. I think it may take sometime, though. I will alert you when I am finished.
Abraços e obrigado,
A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senhor Jorge,
Eu decidi que não vou fazer o brasão de armas que o senhor propôs. O senhor pode fazer o que o senhor quer fazer. Tu me-ofendeu nas suas mensagens na "Talk Page: D. João VI". É uma pena, porque eu tenho certeza que nós poderia ter criado um brasão de armas incrível.
Obrigado,
Cristiano Tomás A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perdao

Earlier I brashly wrote rudely to you here because we were in disagreeance in a differant place. Now that I have cooled down, I can tell you that I am creating the brasao by the standards we discussed on my page. I am sorry to have been rude, I will alert you when I post the revised coat of arms. Obrigado Cristiano Tomás (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brasão de armas de Portugal completo

What do you think? anything else to add/take away? Obrigado, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Anselmo Brammcamp description, and, as I think you know, the ermine with purpure is well on the image on the French list of the Portuguese kings, and are also well the standards on the two dragons; the dragon above the Crown could be a little smaller, the elmet under the Crown, as I think you also know, it's open. «Sobrepujado da Coroa» means, as you know by the almost perfect reconstitution you made on the french list, that the Crown is above: «é a Coroa que está sobrepujada». You can also demand, on Wikipedia po, the avice of Tonyjeff]. Meanwhile, if you are also user Trasamundo and user Andreas Herzog, I think you must read this.

To me, but only to me, you never need to ask pardon, you are always pardoned (I come from rude places), and you even gave me, if you are who I think, a good help on my studies, puting a lot of very good questions. But it's time, if you are user Trasamundo and user Andreas Herzog, to come out of «the dark side of the force». If you are not, don't pay attention to what I'm saying on this paragraph on normal letter. Salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will change/add the following elements:

The crown ontop of the helmet
Purple Ermine
open helmet
smaller top dragon

tell me anything else (I cannot open the pdf document you linked to my talk page because of my computer), and I assure that I am no but my self, Cristiano Tomás, not trasmundo or andres herzog. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's work: P. e V. are: Paquete and virol, on portuguese, and I think they are put around the helmet. Maybe they are very difficult to represent, and, if so, we can say on the legend that the reconstitution don't include the Paquete and Virol around the helmet. By Braancamp's description, we do not know if the dragons look each other or are turned outside (but in the representation from the time of Joseph I, they are as you have put them on your work to the french list). So, the best is to do our best and, then, ask the opinion of the Portuguese Institute of Heraldic.

The purple robe with ermine is behind all the rest, with a second crown above, for example: [1]. And surely you are right on your work for the french list: the dragons are turned one to the other, to the inside, supporting the shield.

The part more interessant, to us, of the pdf text:

«No Século XVIII o dragão vai caindo em desuso como cimeira real. Parece ser nessa época, aliás,que as armas reais começam a aparecer tendo como suportes dois dragões, evidentemente derivados do timbre. Os monumentos mais antigos de que tenho conhecimento são do tempo de D. José I (1750-1777). Numerosos casos se encontrarão até ao fim da monarquia.À rainha D. Maria I (1777-1816), por exemplo, é atribuída a seguinte composição, de evidente inspiração francesa: escudo, elmo, coroa, suportes dois dragões de ouro, cada segurando uma bandeira,

a esquerda, branca com as cinco quinas (o chamado "Portugal-antigo"), à direita, vermelha com sete castelos de ouro (as erradissimamente consideradas armas do reino do Algarve), colar da Ordem de Cristo, pavilhão vermelho semeado de quinas e castelos, encimado por um dragão de ouro. Escrevendo pouco depois da proclamação da república, o historiador e eminente heraldista Braamcamp Freire na sua excelente Armaria Portuguesa, descreve as armas do rei de Portugal, "de 1826 a 1910": "Brasão completo": de prata, cinco escudetes de azul em cruz, cada um carregado de cinco besantes de campo; bordadura de vermelho carregada de sete castelos de ouro. Elmo de ouro, aberto, posto de frente, sobrepujado da coroa real. Timbre; dragão alado nascente de verde. Paquife e virol de prata e azul, ouro e vermelho. Suportes: dois dragões alados de verde, cada um segurando um estandarte de prata, hasteado de ouro e carregado dos cinco escudetes das armas. Manto de púrpura forrado de arminhos e sobrepujado da coroa real. Grito de guerra: "SAN JORGE".Claro que não foi só no território europeu de Portugal que se fez uso do dragão real.»

So, you can already alter your description of the image on the list of Portuguese Kings (WP en) to: representation of the portuguese arms with two dragons on suport. the first monuments known are from the time of Joseph I (1750-1777). And, like this, the work you have done is true and is complet. Then we can put on the legend our pdf source. I will take care of that. Best regards, Jorge alo (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, it may take some time, though. I well let you know when I am done. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brasao de Armas.png

This one? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begin to be good, The little dragon has wings and can be put forward, maybe just with his head turned. The purpure mantle with ermine is a kind of tent or pavilion, surmounted by the crown (another crown, so, a second crown), behind all the rest. Jorge alo (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will let you know when I am done. regards Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cedovim

I am having trouble with the Cedovim hypothesis. Unless you're talking about a different "Cedovim" (the only one I know is in Guarda), the track followed from Guimaraes to Toro doesn't seem to go that far south. The explicit order followed - Vinhais, Braganza, Çadavi (sic), Outeiro da Miranda - is much further north. Unless Cedovim was taken by a different Castilian force (maybe a detachment?) it seems like a big detour. Unfortunately, Lopo de Ayala is not helpful, since he only mentions Braganza. Walrasiad (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

I am going to assume that you are the ip adresss that wrote on my page. I dont like your tone, and just be quiet. I am taking down all my coats of arms and you can go create your own CoA. And use logic for goodness sake, the Joao I's name is that, Joao I, the title is in english but his name is joao and there is another joao I. Please, dont contact me, im taking my CoA uploads down, and hopefully that will end our corispondence. good bye, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited John I of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santarém (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) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi machine, thank you again.Corrected. Jorge alo (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the John I of Castile‎ article

I appreciate your intentions, but most of the edits you made are not in dispute; I'm saying they were unnecessary. I think you are missing some of the nuances of the English language. For example, to say that "Leonor ordered the acclaim of Beatrice, although John I of Castile hadn't expressly recognized her as the Regent. This was done first..." does not mean that the order was actually carried out. It means simply that the order was made.

In the same context, to say "The proclamation was made", does not mean it was accepted. Perhaps some of the confusion arises from the difference in English between "acclaim" and "proclaim". I only used the word "acclaim" to retain some of the flavor of the Spanish text. Perhaps I should change it.

Also, it is redundant, that is, needlessly repetitious, to say "John I of Castile assumed the title and coat of arms of King of Castile and León and Portugal" since that fact has already been established.

It is not editorially neutral to say "the Treaty of Salvaterra was unfair", though it may well have been void at the time.

Since I have put so much time and effort into the translation, would you please do me the favor of discussing any changes you'd like to make to my text on the article's talk page?

Thank you for your interest in this.

Best regards,

Carlstak. Carlstak (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited John I of Castile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese (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) 10:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.