User talk:BBird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Goa 2 Convite 3 Biography Collaboration 4 Age of Discovery 5 Mach numbers and speeds 6 AfD 7 I don't know why either... 8 Featured article 9 Image Tagging Image:Ccsignature.jpg 10 Image Tagging Image:First portuguese flag.jpg 11 Wiki:pt 12 See also portuguese newspaper about their pretender

[edit] Goa

Hi. You made a modification on the Goa page. Could you also cite some references to that edit? Thanks User:Nichalp/sg July 7, 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Hi regarding your note on changes to Goa article-- my changes were

1. Removed the note where Goa was cited as the most important Portuguese

colony. This is nonsense, as the Portuguese possessions included large territories as Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, just to name the largest in a large number of territories.

2. The Portuguese were not expelled from other territories in India by the Dutch or

British. The Portuguese presence in India was always localised. The Brits took possession not from the Portuguese but from Indian states/territories. Only Bombay (Mumbay) was given to the Brits as a wedding gift of Catherine of Braganza.

I did not change the mentions to the forcible conversions etc., although I believe they are exaggerated. Anyway, the inquisition was in full force (in Portugal) only during the reign of the Spanish kings Phillip(s) I-IV (1580-1640).

Thanks and all the best, --BBird 7 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced of the fact that the Portuguese possessions were localised. The World Book encyclopedia 2003 (CD) has a map showing Portuguese possessions in the 16th century. Almost all of India's and Sri Lanka's coastline are shown under Portuguese occupation. So what happened to these areas? Were they not lost to the British? And why was Goa granted the same civic privileges as Lisbon? Were Angola/Mozambique also given this status? Regards, User:Nichalp/sg July 7, 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good explaination. From the WB, it mentions that the Portuguese had control over only the coastal strips of India, not the entire country. From what I've read, the shortage of Portuguese manpower could not keep up with the conquests, so the empire collapsed internally. Thanks and regards. User:Nichalp/sg July 7, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

[edit] Convite

Olá BBird! Não quererás participar nas discussões em curso em Talk:Timeline of the Muslim Occupation of Spain e Talk:Roman Spain? A questão que aí se coloca, como poderás ver, é a da utilização da palavra "Spain", com todo o que isso implica, para designar toda a Península Ibérica em qualquer momento da sua história. Participa como te aprover! The Ogre 11:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Collaboration

Just to state that Fernão Mendes Pinto is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want, go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 00:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Discovery

Thanks for the typo correction. As for the content, I believe it is correct. The meridian set by the Tordesilles treaty cuts the American continent more or less in half. (i don´t know the exact longitude). That's why the Portuguese got Brazil (which technically crosses the meridian anyway), and the Spanish the South and North American west coast, plus central America. The remaining area was the Pacific. This is the reason why the Spanish presence in Africa and Asia was so limited.--BBird 14:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My question is mainly about whether "west coast" is correct, as against just "western part". I realize that the lines of ultimate settlement don't line up neatly with the treaty, but both Argentina and Venezuela are both on the east coast of South America, and many areas settled by the Spanish are hardly "coastal" (Bolivia, Ecuador). -- Jmabel | Talk 16:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mach numbers and speeds

Regarding your recent edit on the Concorde page, Mach numbers are relative to the local speed of sound, which varies. Thus an accurate conversion between Mach numbers and velocities cannot be given. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the thing is that Concorde does not achieve those Mach numbers at ground level! Only at high altitude. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I listed Rosario for deletion (3rd time!) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Cheers, muriel@pt 13:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Foi uma excelente ideia! Nem sabia que se podia fazer isso, de marcar o usuário como vândalo. Mas, dos 2 anos de experiência que tenho de lidar com ele, vai acontecer o seguinte: ele vai desaparecer durante uns meses e depois: pimba! outra vez. É preciso estarmos atentos porque o tipo é meio maluco e pior: é articulado e persistente. Cheers, muriel@pt 10:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know why either...

I started out by giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. I ran an independent search about the subject in question, and it turns out there was an article written about him. I wasn't going to help him write any article, but felt that the Guardian article should be brought to light. I have given up on him, as he cannot seem to receive email. I don't take his claim seriously, and have not visited his website (I kinda hate spam), but thought I'd let him know anyway. I now just think it's funny and the smallest bit sad. Oh well, no one can say I didn't try. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

Obrigado pelo teu apoio na candidatura do artigo History of Portugal (1777-1834) a featured article. Já agora, se fôr do teu agrado e se tiveres tempo, gostaria de contar contigo na construção de History of Portugal (1834-1910). Muito obrigado. Gameiro 02:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Ccsignature.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ccsignature.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:First portuguese flag.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:First portuguese flag.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it isn't your area, but you might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II, an article on the pretender to the throne of Iran. Iranian monarchists seem to want to ensure the article is an OTT hagiography and don't like even mild criticism being added in. The article needs professional salvage. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki:pt

[edit] See also portuguese newspaper about their pretender

Hi, also one of the most famous newspaper in Portugal "Destak" [1] of today 14 July 2006, in the page 5, tells about the portuguese succesion and mentioned dom Rosario Poidimani as pretender and Dom Duarte Pio as an illegitimate pretender for his exclusion from the last monarchic Constitution. This affirmation was an affirmation of the president of the P.P.M. The only Moanrchic Party in Portugal. So please again reinsert Rosario Poidimani as a true pretender,Maria Pia as true pretender and Duarte Pio opposition in his page. Please reply Manuel de Sousa, 14 July 2006 (UTC)82.54.244.85 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)