User talk:XPTO/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:XPTO. 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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 Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portuguese discoveries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corvo (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) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 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 Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: Portuguese names in the article Campaign of Danture
Dear friend,
I would appreciate if you can look in to the Portuguese names (probably need to be spelt with tildes e.g. “Dom João”?) in this article. It recently underwent a copy edit.
Thanks, Nishadhi (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure Nishadhi, I will gladly give it a look. XPTO (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.:-) Nishadhi (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited João Ferreira de Almeida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia (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) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For writing Portuguese São Tomé and Príncipe; it's rare to see such a brilliantly-referenced article on colonial topics :). Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
|
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 Nick-D (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paio Peres Correia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silves (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, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I need your help
Dear XPTO, I apologize for this and for the long message (You can remove now or later if you want, of course, its your page and I understand) but looking on wikipedia and I see you are experienced in History themes like the expansion, empires, fixing edits etc. and also the Portuguese discoveries I believe, so I turn to you.
I edited the article Timeline of European exploration. It was already done, but for tis afternoon or day. Obviously I'm aware that was not complete, and tonight or soon, when I'm able to fix it, I will fix it. Some timelines had to be summarized, the grammar improved, some forms were in the past, some timelines had to be summarized, the grammar improved, some forms were in the past tense, "incoherent" with the rest, small details, among other needed corrections, lacking higher synthesis or sometimes better grammar I believe.
Appeared a new User account on wikipedia NewFoundGlory1492 created exactly an hour later and it seems to me only to remove my Edites in that article (very strange indeed) I have my suspicions for one or two important articles related to European discovery etc.. articles types of ships here in wikipedia etc, such as usernames "respectable" Usernames/accounts alternated with IPS, correcting the same personal editing or making new edits (talk-pages or the Articles themselves) Feels a Sockpuppet, but I have a horror of suspicions that one can not prove, and more horror, on innocents, since only the Adm. at the wikipedia can investigate and ascertain this, sometimes, I imagine with difficulty.
About the Edits: Incidentally, it is convenient to put the question of the extension of the first voyage Gonçalo Coelho (or André Gonçalves) and Vespucci (1501-02) ... but certainly as doubt (and so are that way in other articles, but is there, by various editors...as doubt!). Due to the acount of Vespucci, the Pireis maps and other maps, including the Pedro Reinel map, which gives a relatively detailed description of the Patagonia coast and the Falklands Islands in its correct position, although the Magellan Expedition (which has not gone through them) was still ongoing at the time of this map, in its way, and in the service Spain, therefore no news for so much of the Argentine coast yet. Only Frois and Lisboa before, but to maps like Pedro Reinel at the time...so they went more far that it is believed -maybe other expeditions like them before, as many historians believe; and "private-secret" like them, but without the luck of a Flemish or Florentine spreading the news in Europe, for such a map already exists. But there is.
He removed the expedition of Pedro Teixeira. Remember that Pedro Teixeira made substanceial new explorations and recognitions, first in the Xingu River, and then in Madeira or others, where the first descent Spanish expeditions of the river could not explore. Then was the first to make full uo and down simultaneously, which is important, and it was important for colonization.There are few parallel cases in that chronology-article, not necessarily equal, but also to add and foward beyond the geographical prior enterprises.
It is curious that the "new brand" and very convenient User under the new nickname NewFoundGlory1492 appearing and created shortly after and only for my edits in that article, did not remove the expedition of Juan Diaz de Solis - and I´m glad he did not remove, by the way (until the nineteenth century was regarded as the most concrete to Plata, remaining so until recently and even nowadays in encyclopedias, many history texts on the subject, through genneral ignorance of a fundamental and direct document of the time and one or two indirect Spanish and Portuguese sources of the time that complement it - already known, by the way, for many decades in modern times, after was re-discovered) the expedition of experienced Solis (it seems an old experienced navigator of the India Armadas and under Vasco da Gama, before abandon Portugal to Castile) which was inspired by a previous expedition, and having made the same as the first or even less (but still important to Argentinian history, and I mantened it, as I allways do), which is not the case Teixeira (it is not "repetitive" of the previous voyages down the river). But he removed one, and not the other.
Then he removed Raposo Tavares, as well repetitive. He only travaled for some areas already explored by Missionaries or other. Tavares made the longest exploration of the Americas, more than Coronado or MK Kenzie, around 10.000km or 12.000 km. First of all he joined Brazil and the rivers of the Plata Basin, to the Andes and the Amazon for the first time in history. He explored and discovered large parts the vast Mato Grosso states before any other, around the Pantanal as a pioner also - he and his men, of course, the first Europeans and natives but as serving European pioners (regions not mentioned there, in the article, btw, to synthesize, but are very important, should be there, since the other itens/explorations there have small rivers, much small regions a cape etc., the difference of importance is huge...but he removed...) Before any European he crossed entirely the huge and vast Rio Madeira to the Amazon and joined several major rivers and thousands of miles. As can be Repetitive others? Is this a bad joke?
Also removed the arrival in the Sargasso Sea, proven on the map of Bianco and other sources in the fifteenth century as "Nonsense". I admit that can not be in that context of land, rivers and gulfs achieved of the article to some opinions (is such critera)), but it is of great importance, geographically, linked to the discovery of Volta do Mar, N. Atlantic Gire at the time, Volta do Mar around the Sargasso Sea itself, mostly east, south, north and west of it. And to history, as you know.
Was it an accident that appears just approximately one hour following this same night, an 175.37.113.164 (possibly the same person of another accounts? Yes?) To edit the article Sargasso Sea. And that article in that way? that article, now? A few time after the other? Coincidences? Or am I seeing things?
I am Portuguese, I have formation in history (but I have for another professional area) a subject that I love, the Discoveries (all) and the Portuguese Discoveries among it. And it was an area of study and passion on my part, and before that, of previous readings, navigators, Conquistadores of the Americas etc. - I was fortunate to have some books too early in home - but that does not matter here for any editor (whatever their academic discipline, degree or area of study they have or without any academic area or no degree, don´t matter) that matters here is to learn, to know and seek to have the knowledge, providing credible sources. I try to be honest and truthful and avoid any BIAS or POV. I'm here to you all correct my errors. Recently I edited the List of explorations (has a different meaning of the Timeline of the European Exploration, not only chronology itself, and not all, abut has other semantics and sense also). I added a 6 or 7 major Spanish expeditions (only were one or two before, very baddly edited, some time before), also some British who seemed to be lacking, among others, carefully to give an overview an important key geographic points.
I'm not "queixinhas", and I try not to be - and I do not like complaints (never did here, if I remember), but frankly I lack experience in wikipedia to deal with it. It is not an already registed User, of respectable behavior, simply to re-edit again in normal tone, discussing with him in that Article Page Talk-etc. But I want to restore. Maybe you can do it in a better way when you have time? I have no war with anyone here nor I want bring you on them. So I do not know if I did well bring you this question, but I need some help from someone more experienced and of good faith like you. Can you tell me what I should do. Can you help me on the issue? Thank you. --LuzoGraal (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello LuzoGraal, maybe you should try to use the talk page of those articles explaining your edits and always giving credible sources. Avoid the use of websites as a source tough, as they may be seen as unreliable by many users, and when editing the Timeline of European exploration article try to be more concise. After all this, if he ignores you and continues to remove your edits, and if you suspect that he his the sockpuppet that you talked about maybe you should present a case against him at Wikipedia.XPTO (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)