User talk:Lacobrigo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lacobrigo! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. 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!

Marek.69 talk 01:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

re: your message[edit]

Hi Lacobrigo, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 23:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Information.svg Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joaquim de Almeida, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Portugal

Please do not alter the information on who's the PM of Portugal any further. The information that you have been posting is false for the moment, seeing that Pedro Passos Coelho has not yet been sworn in as PM. Thank you! --RaulCovita (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSIMAGES and WP:Galleries[edit]

Really Lacobrigo? You did read those Wikipedia guidelines on the use of images? Wikipedia is intended as a electronic encyclopedia and not a digital depository of images. Your additions of images on the Lagos, Portugal page are unnecessary. They do not add anything to the subject matter. If you read the WP guidelines (Wikipedia:MOSIMAGES#Images and Wikipedia:Galleries) you will see that excessive pagination of images is uncalled for; unless they can add to the content, there is no need to have a "Gallery". There are already many images on that page as it is. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate why you are reverting the Lagos, Portugal? The article's use of galleries and excess images goes against the above conventions, and should not remain. Can you justify your reverts? I will publish this edit-warring to administrators. You could be a little more participatory, so that I can at least understand your interventions. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
"I see no problem in having the gallery of photos of the city, i worked hard to take those photograps, they solely illustrate the city". The fact that you worked hard to take those photograbs, is not, in itself a reason for maintaining a gallery. In fact, galleries are not the standard form of presenting images, and are rarely used in favour of images interspersed wtihin the article. The content is key, not the images; as much as I commend your initiative, Wikipedia is content driven, and not image based. The conventions clearly state that image gallerys "must have encyclopedic value". Also, the convention states categorically that "Wikipedia is not an image repository". Further, one rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. The existing images on the Lagos, Portugal alreadt "describe" the theme, and the images used are more "artisitc" then descriptive. I note that, in fact, you included an image the "Church of Santa Maria", although a better image was already used in the context of the article, with caption. I suggest you stop reverting content that clearly go against the Wikipedia conventions. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to start any bad discution. I am not an expert on wikipedia like yourself, i am an amateur photographer and contribute mainly with my photographs, and not with written content. I do realise Wikipedia is content based, and not image driven, and i appologize for having made some mistakes. I did thought the page had too many photos, so i took the galery and let the panoramic view photo remain (since i have seen in many panoramic photos in city pages on wikipedia). About the "artistic" photos you mention, i disagree with you on that point. I have seen many blured photos on wikipedia, which are allowed to stay. Many of them of importance, as they are relevant to the issue in hand. A photograph has to be perceptible in order to contribute with more clearence to the understanding of a certain article. Once again, i appologize and i also thank you for the information you have given me. Hernâni Viegas

Lacobrigo. I am not without sympathy, and have seen your input in many of the articles in the Portuguese namespace, therefore I continue to encourage you to add imagery to all those articles. Regarding "artistic" photos I refer you to the "sunset" pictures (that I too have been guilty of including) since, as much as they are beautiful they add little to "describing" the content. I totally support replacing "bad quality" imagery with higher resolution, clearer quality alternatives. On this point I defer to your ability as a photographer. In the past I have seen you replace questionable imagery: I still advocate and support this type of behaviour. Further, I maintain that Galleries, although an important stop-gap, should not be the crutch of an article. I appreciate your openess on this subject and ability to dialogue, and hope to work with you in the future. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is always a pleasure to have a constructive conversation with someone, in this case, someone with more knowledge on Wikipedia than me. I do know that Wikipedia is not an advertisement website, but an informative one. I want you and ohters to understand that my intention is not to promote my city, or my photos, but to enhance the quality and perceptibility of the article in question. Even though i have literally seen hundreds of articles with HDR photo effects, clearly and truly artisic, they have remained present in those pages for years, and it lead me to believe that putting some "britghness" on some photos was armless. I gladly accept negative but polite criticism, as it helps me to better myself and my work, and i also have seen some of your contributions to Wikipedia and i think you do an excelent job at it. user:Lacobrigo

Portuguese people images[edit]

I have taken the time to find images of Portuguese people who not only show SHOW the Portuguese ethnicity but are more appropriate to be included because the people reading the article will more likely recognise them. The point of having more notable people is because they show the Portuguese ethnicity AND represent Portugal. For example, what's the point in having an image of Thereza Salgueiro when you can have a picture of Amalia Rodrigues, who ALSO shows the Portuguese ethnicity AND is more widely recognised. Furthermore, in other articles such as British people, the British people included are NOTABLE. For example, Assuncao Esteves is Portuguese and so she shows the Portuguese ethnicity but when you can have an image of a more widely known person why on earth wouldn't you be happy with that? I suggest you have a look at other articles such as British people so you can see that the images included are of NOTABLE people. What's the point in including an image of a Portuguese person who nobody knows when you can include an image of a Portuguese person who is known? As well as this, you had no valid reason to change the pictures back to your ones because the images I added STILL represent Portuguese people. I will ALSO participate your inadequate actions if you make any changes without a VALID reason because the reason you have this time was NOT valid. You said the article was to show Portuguese people ethnicity and not famous Portuguese, but the images I added showed BOTH. So you had no reason to change it. If anything, as a Portuguese yourself, you should be satisfied that I added people who positively represent Portugal, for example Sousa de Mendes - who, as a Portuguese myself, I can say is far more respected than Assuncao Esteves for example. This is what Wikipedia has to say in regards to the issue of notability in particular the words in bold:

When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

The images of Portuguese people I added have all made significant contributions to Portugal. Thank you for reading, have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthecoolguy123 (talkcontribs) 15:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cabral picture[edit]

No it isn't. That's your original research. I wrote that article and I brought it to Featured Article status. I know about the subject in discussion. You should open a discussion first in its talk page before making substantial changes. --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lisbon image[edit]

Gutsy move Lacobrigo. At one time, I tried using an image to represent the city (I think it was the Praça do Comérico) and it was eventually replaced with that montage-thingy. Knowing your image standards, I don't believe that your choice was inappropriate. I just think someone is going to replace it quickly. Here's hoping not. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portugal, 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) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Roman Empire[edit]

I feel really bad about reverting your good-faith edit to Roman Empire, and came to apologize. It's just that the image you replaced was intended to illustrate the section on Judaism under the empire, and there are no other images representing Jewish culture in any way in the article. Perhaps when the Religion section is restructured, as I hope it will be (it was put together in haste), we can find a good place for your choice. Again, I am sorry to have done it, but I felt that was best for the article overall in terms of representing as many different aspects of the empire as possible. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

But if you're interested in Roman Portugal, be sure to notice the mention of Diocles in the section Roman Empire#Recreation and spectacles. Quite a career! Cynwolfe (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Last of Us and Neil Druckmann[edit]

Hi Lacobrigo,

I'm afraid I had to undo your two edits of yesterday. The one on Neil Druckmann clearly violates WP:NPOV, the one on The Last of Us sounds like WP:WEASELWORDS and isn't notable in the first place. --Soetermans. T / C 10:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

I think your pictures are beautiful and I think its a shame you took most of them down. -Bri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.73.143 (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)