User talk:LuzoGraal

Welcome!

Hello LuzoGraal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin (t) 03:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and your welcome message. Greetings.--LuzoGraal (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Celtici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beja (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) 10:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, I understand. I will fix it. Thank you again.--LuzoGraal (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Portuguese discoveries, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Celebes and Cape York (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) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Celtici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Óbidos (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) 10:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADDING UNSOURCED MATERIAL

The material you have just added to the Portuguese Angola page is almost entirely unsourced Portuguese imperialist propaganda. There is a talk page and it would be helpful if you tried to address the issues there rather than simply adding unsourced biased material. Don't simply reverse other editors work if the article is controversial. Address the contentious issues properly.

About your unsourced material, the subject and your own: False, Mr. or Mr. Ackees. I only restored the Article to the last edits before your last interventions - and after your unsourced "hatred" phrases and sentences not properly encyclopedic and of personal or "original" character. So it is impossible for you to speak of propaganda. The issues and edits were not mine, but from the previous Authors. And knowing the history, we have not seen inaccuracies, especially in the colonial war etc.. --LuzoGraal (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::: You have now been reported for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Portuguese Angola shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Ackees (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Luzo Graal, don't let Mr. Ackees disturb you too much- he has a history of inputting biased, libelous information across a number of articles on Wikipedia. He posted the above message on your talk page to make it seem like he was an "official" of Wikipedia, but in fact, he has just been blocked for a period of 72 hours. Cheers. ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. ElliotJoyce, I was a bit away from wikipedia in the last times and I am sorry because I liked to have answered and thanked your words and your intervention earlier. I still have some inexperience on wikipedia (not contributing much yet) and I try to do one more job control of vandalism, with some based contributions (but editing in large way it will be more in the future, with more experience, and if time permits). One of my gesture is to thank the good work of the authors - your work - removing vandalism (if it is clear vandalism or bias obviously, also unfounded, without sources). I was stunned when the editor or user Ackees with his agenda (whatever that is), the only one to do it, questioned my account and good name and I have in Wikipedia. Ackees can not do it, either for his bigotry and/or "agenda" or not. I want to thank you dear ElliotJoyce. --LuzoGraal (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure that you understand that anyone can put a 3RR warning on an editor's talk page, and the warning was correct - if you'd reverted again quickly you could have been blocked. It doesn't matter who was right, there are few exceptions for WP:3RR. What you probably don't know is that by the time you replied above, ElliotJoyce had been blocked 5 times, the last one an indefinite block for using multiple accounts, what we call sockpuppeting. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of governors of Portuguese India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muscat (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) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, LuzoGraal. You have new messages at Talk:History of Portugal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Jesuits, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page João Rodrigues (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) 11:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Renaissance

My friend LuzoGraal,

I cannot thank you more for your words of encouragement on my talk page. I am ever so pleased to hear that you enjoyed the article, my true intent was to make it knowledgable and enjoyable at the same time. As per your suggestions, you are correct I have missed some key figures and pieces, and I thank you for pointing that out. Be assured that your suggestions will be added to the article, and remember that should you like, you can add material too, that's the beauty of Wikipedia. I will add your suggestions later today or tomorrow, and I thank you for pointing out the holes that I missed. If you ever need anything here on Wikipedia, let me know, I would love to help. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christopher Columbus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lombard (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) 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ethnic groups in Europe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of European exploration may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*1500-01 – [[Diogo Dias]] discovers [[Madagascar]] and reaches the gate of the [[Red Sea]], the ([[Bab-el-Mandeb]] Strait.<ref name=Morison1974/>
*1527–28 – [[Sebastian Cabot]] (explorer)|Sebastian Cabot]] explores several hundred miles up the Paraná River, discovering the mouth of the [[Carcarañá River]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of explorations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vamos, que em frente é que é o caminho!

	Bulldozer
	Welcome to the construction of this great information roadworks! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Square Rigged Caravel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bow, Masts, Hull and Decks

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Macau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahmud Shah (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) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited English Armada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (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) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Tordesillas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muscat (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) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Tordesillas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon (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) 08:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Naval artillery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

as 1496 in the Mediterranean navies, or even 1490 in Portugal<ref name="garciaresende8219-8220"/>), about a decade before the famous [[Tudor era]] ship, the ''[[Mary Rose]]'', was built.<ref name="

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Maritime history and other articles

Hi LuzoGraal. Thank you for your extensive additions to Maritime history. However I have reverted them, for three reasons.

Firstly, because nearly all your additions relate to Portugal only. Maritime history is supposed to be written from a global point of view. As the title suggests, it is intended to be a summary or overview which puts into perspective the contributions of all periods and all regions around the world. Your additions are destroying that perspective. The article is turning instead into an article about the maritime history of Portugal.
Secondly, you are not citing your additions with reliable sources. You say on your user page that "Everything here should be well sourced, of course". But you are not following your own advice. Please read wp:cite, wp:verify and wp:rs.
Thirdly, your additions do not appear to be your additions at all. Most of them are simply copied verbatim from other Wikipedia articles. You should either rewrite the additions in your own words, or say which Wikipedia articles you have copied from in your edit summary. Otherwise your additions become a form of plagiarism.

More seriously, it seems that you have been doing this for some time with many other articles. It is great that you want to develop the maritime history of Portugal on Wikipedia. But this is not the way to do it. You are not really adding anything to Wikipedia about this topic, you are merely inappropriately spamming copies of material that was already on Wikipedia into other article, sometimes damaging their balance in the process.

Rather than reviewing and maybe undoing your other additions myself, I suggest you review them yourself, and undo them when it seems appropriate. Then I suggest you return to what seems a real interest of yours, and create a new article called Maritime history of Portugal. Most of the material you have been adding inappropriately elsewhere would belong here. Portugal has an illustrious maritime history, so you should be able to produce an excellent article. However, please acknowledge in your edit summaries any Wikipedia articles you used as sources. And please add reliable sources if they aren't already present in the text. In the early days of Wikipedia it was acceptable to add material without reliable sources so long as the material was not controversial. But things have changed, and today everything should be sourced. There is a lot of accurate but unsourced legacy material on Wikipedia about Portugal's maritime past. It is easy to locate and copy bits from elsewhere on Wikipedia. The hard work starts when you set about finding appropriate reliable sources. If you use material like that in your new article, it is your job to acknowledge where it came from and cite it with reliable sources. Then you will be making a real contribution to Wikipedia. If you want some tips about finding reliable sources I'm happy to help. Best regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Epipelagic, first of all thank you. I apologize for putting on a few points just to justify myself and organize my justification.

I came to wikipedia with some knowledge I have in the Portuguese Expansion and to give a contribution in this part, but not exclusively.

The material I "repeated", and only partially, was based in good faith, and with reliable sources. But I have to review that policy, which apparently is not according with the rules of Wikipedia. Then I'll have to review it all. Of course there was a certain comfort in saving some effort, and uniting more reliability. The goal was that. And was, patially, for this article (and only on aspects regarding the interest of the article). And no,I´m not doing this in the past.

There are some contributions on maritime history, because I think were a leap in innovation in history (to put a reference text), which I think were central to history for everyone and based in consensus (in a article of naval artillery - in a recent edition - and other on maritime routes and trade winds, that I based some material already exposed by other authors). And I think they are a few exceptions in which I retreat the material (part of it - and the part connected to the article in question as happen also in the "Portuguese Colonization of the Americas", partially also) of another authors and of my own in other articles (always reliable and with good sources).

In fact, much of the material that sometimes repeated or copied partially in some other exceptional edictions (but few, I think) in the past, and only partially (that which was relevant to the new articles), in most cases, were originally also written in Wikipedia by me (already in other articles), and always with reliable sources. And in regards to this as a whole, I hope you just want to refer to a last phase of my work. I try to complete articles only, and with guarantee of quality - that was and is the goal - always. And at least in that respect me, wikipedia has a guarantee of achieving that aim and in all that was written.

The Maritime history had a somewhat incomplete and incoherent Age of Discovery Chapter (to be stylish), apart from being a great article and a great and good work of the authors in general. And I completed it with consistency, with some of the most vital expeditions - I think well. Then there was also an absence of a major aspect of the natural phenomenon of maritime routes and their discovery (for an article on maritime history) - and particularly about Portugal and Spain (especially Portugal) contributions. I added both, and more Portugal, I think coherently.

Thanks for the suggestion, I still have no interest in the of article maritime history of Portugal. Also do not understand why would now erect an article about it, emphasize certain points there (among many relevant subjects only at a national level) of relevant maritime history at a universal level, with a decisive change for the world, and with reliable sources (as in the case of Portugal and some other nations or communities which played an important role on this), and then a general article already existent (but with the same theme) with a complete absence of all those themes or points, or even in contradiction. I do not understand these contradictions in Encyclopedia. So since the start, makes the hypothetical article contradictory with other articles and meaningless. But thanks, I know your suggestion is good (maybe a good idea), constructive, and well intentioned.

Apart from that, despite my Portuguese origins - I'm not exclusive - apart from this issue. I almost went in the encyclopedia because of that (for the interest in the subject ever since and before). And even then, I think my contributions to any analysis, in which the weight, unbalanced or not (I hope not), you will not see injustice, error or no relevance the contributions. If any, which I doubt (were rare and not deliberate). In addition to completing the articles whenever I can with other nations and explorers history (maritime history is not only this of course, but on this issue). And when I see an absence or no reference to a subject, historical person or inovation, I have no exclusive nationality, neither ethnicities or religions or whatever - all the contrary in my contributions (pardon to be stating the obvious, because it is the ethics with which I am here). Albeit with more knowledge and focused on this topic matter about the Portuguese, I had the impression I was doing a very valuable job.

There is then another mistake in relation to "exclusivity" - obviously my fault. Comes from my almost sole and restricted work and small contributions to this theme (Portugal on the theme of expansion). I have more than 900 or 1000 (or more, I don´t know) articles on surveillance of prehistory, science, psychology, esotericism, geography, astronomy, natural world etc. and all authors and world communities that I have as much or more interest. And having neither the time nor the expertise in certain topics, I do not have intervened, apart from rare corrections or control vandalism.

On the Article Maritime History: I should revert? For the reliable sources (still missing it; still lack this, I know - I apologize, that was not finished - despite the article having that gap sometimes already as a whole) You said I´m not following my own advice. True, but in the case was an exception - and not completed yet. But now I'm in doubt. I should reedict? Ok tomorrow I will see. And correct me in any time, of course.

Besides this, your critique and correction is relevant, and the risk of becoming a form of plagiarism in some parts from another article, which I was unaware ( I was in good faith), in the balance as well, but there is more harder to accept, because I try to take a holistic view and seek the truth (but I have to accept); and you called my attention to this error of my own in my last edictions (and I recognize now and I will try to change, starting today) - that I thought was right - fortunately without bad consequences, in my humble opinion (pardon myself in the case of immodesty or self-conceit, I hope not). I think in terms of relevance and reliability to the subjects, my contributions are unassailable in general and not unbalanced. Sometimes were lacking in other important matters and the contribution of a community or country was higher (there is no way around it or how to omit it) but also that same comunity or country had a minor contribution in other matters of science or history, Its normal.

Apart the error (I have to correct my contributions and I have to have the humility to recognize) There was no damage in my opinion. In the matters in particular (as a whole) Wikipedia won. My apologies and thanks. Best regards--LuzoGraal (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bali may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

was lost''" - from Antonio de Abreu, and in [[João de Barros]] and Antonio Galvão`s chronicles) [http://books.google.pt/books?id=2PbNS0LHn60C&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=bali+Antonio+de+

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celtici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campo Maior. 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) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Indian Historian Ramshankar (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)===== Edit of Diego ======[reply]

Hi, thank you for your recent edit, it is true that the painting is of D.Sebastiao and was added to D.Diego. Keep up the good work

Hi, Indian Historian Ramshankar, thanks. It is I who thank you for your excellent work, and I hope that it extends in the future.--LuzoGraal (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing: did not intend to interfere with your good work in the article, of course (with the removal, temporarily(?)), just put the question in relation to the image (not yours in the case but upload by a previous editor, if I'm not mistaken), as a matter of reliability and accuracy. Or put another legend etc. Thanks--LuzoGraal (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portuguese Inquisition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Christ. 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) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Exploration may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

who explored [[St. Lawrence River]] and the [[Great Lakes]], in Canada and northern United States); and [[Abel Tasman]] (1603–1659), who discovered [[Tasmania]] and [[New Zealand]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ponta Delgada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boarding. 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) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Knights Templar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Christ. 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) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice, Count de Benyovszky

Hi! You should then remove all todays edits, as there were many changes done today - obviously not made all right - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice%2C_Count_de_Benyovszky&type=revision&diff=698983212&oldid=687029253 --Andreios (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. --Andreios (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the reminder. And thank you for your intervention and editing. Regards.--LuzoGraal (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)--LuzoGraal (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Christ. 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) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vasco da Gama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danmark. 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) 11:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oudewater

Hello, I see there has been some controversy on the page Spanish Fury as to events in Oudewater. You recently restored the statement that half the population of the town was killed, with the edit summary that this is "information of the sources". A similar statement also occurs in the article Siege of Oudewater (1575), but in neither case is it clear what these sources are. Do you happen to know what sources provide this information? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know them well (at least for now, unless I do better research on the event), I actually think it is referred to in various texts and studies presented on page of the University of Leiden. I thought that was obvious information and contained therein (and supposedly reliable, presented by the first editors) - and based on the reports and historical archives (!?), published in this literature that serves as the source (as usual, though its a much more serious case, and there were possibly two versions, different or not, as in other massacres and battles, and their scale). However, if not properly based, with your permission, it will be removed, at least temporarily. For eventual restoration (if so), with more concrete and reliable sources.--LuzoGraal (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the link at Siege of Oudewater to www.dutchrevolt.leiden.edu, thinking that would be simple enough, but the page just gives a bibliography, not the information contained in the wikipedia article. By all means restore the information if it can be sourced. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found sufficient sourcing, which is now incorporated into Siege of Oudewater (1575). Editing to add: It does occur to me that none of the sources I've found refer to it as a "fury" (furie), calling it rather a "massacre" (moord); so I wonder whether it is suitable for inclusion in Spanish Fury, if it isn't called that; but that's just me thinking out loud now. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, good work. Putting things from that point of view, initially raised me the same doubts. However the event turns out to fit that kind of acts. If it was created in the region a stereotype of "specific" chaotic behavior and terror, a word that describes it and is not applied here, strangely, is for analysis. --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battle of Diu (1509) into Conquistador. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But partly, and to fix the opponents and their links (etc.). By the way, I did it (only partially in another paragraph), including some sources and links in "North America part" (not all) - but in the case of the Ceylon. And because already revised from the point of view of the correct use of language and grammar (other artickes). I try reworking (more /or mention) if it recurs again, but I will try to avoid it - although a case, and some cases - mostly I believe - in the past (but not in the battle of Diu case, or Ceylon, as exemple), had already been part of my own (only partial in other articles, but my own work, not others) in the past (Just a few paragraphs, sentences, and some sources) But in any case, I will mention the source (article) and author(s).

I had not even thought about it, but I recognize that it makes sense - ethical sense.--LuzoGraal (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the part of the Persian Gulf, to which I contributed (completing), very partially and modestly in other articles. --LuzoGraal (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western imperialism in Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macassar. 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) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LuzoGraal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LuzoGraal. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LuzoGraal. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of explorations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of explorations, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of explorations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]