Jump to content

User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by O.Waqfi (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 4 December 2008 (→hello: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill (prof) 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire

None of your recent changes are sourced, and some are rather dubious. You have been reverted several times by several editors now. Please make your points on the talk page and provide references for your changes. Per WP:V, the onus is on you as the person adding material to provide references. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you specify which ones ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs)
For starters, dating the Spanish Empire from 1402; claiming that "Spain however improved her damaged prestige by intervening in the American Revolution on the side of the american rebels." (poorly written, incidentally); changing the 1898 date to 1899. You are changing longstanding text here. You should discuss first on the article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

Also, this [1] is unacceptable behaviour and will only undermine your credibility. Please read WP:NPA. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Hi EuroHistoryTeacher!
We thank you for uploading Image:Spanish Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms.png, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: 3RR Rule

Please read the rules at WP:3RR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have ignored this message and reverted yet another two times, I have now reported you. [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Spanish Empire. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spanish empire?

hello, could you say me why the spanish possesions in europe as the spanish netherlands were spanish and ruled by Spain? weren't they on the habsburg rule? i read that the southern netherlands were reconquered by spaniards with Alexander Farnesio as captain. Catholiced by spaniards and the country ruled by Spain or the Kingdom of Spain. Kingdom of spain (castile/aragon) means spain i suppose? or mean ruled by habsburgs too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosialscastells (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry SineBot hehe :) --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation and Capitalization

When you use a comma, there should be no space before the comma. Like this, but not , like this. If you use an adjective derived from a proper noun, then that should be capitalized ("American" not "american"). I've seen you make these mistakes in many of your edits - please take care to use proper English. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per the Wikipedia manual of style, section headings should not begin with "The". But I reverted your heading change as it was unnecessary. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok i type too fast thats for sure , then whatever i'll edit with mistakes im sure you can change it right ?:) ferrick DID YOU EVEN READ why i changed that subheading?! use the discussion part next time please and i dont know if you hold a personal grudge agaisnt me but there is a section named "The wealth of Brazil" , how come you attack me but not the editor of that section?please no personal grudge anyways thanks ferrick--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal grudge, and I did not "attack" anyone. You changed the heading so I noticed it - I have it in my watch list. Just because there are other headings beginning with "The" which I have not noticed does not mean that it's not OK for me to point this out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok im sure you didn't notice the other ones , anyways please at least even read the discussion ok? thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing you should avoid is language that adds no information. I'm referring to your good faith addition which I reverted here [3], not because of any grudge, but because language like "the sun finally had set..." is not encyclopaedic language. Ask yourself what information it imparts. If you are trying to say that the empire ended, then say that, don't use flowery language like this. Also "end of an era" - you describe this as "romantic", but this is an encyclopaedia. There is no need to be romantic about it. I do agree about "wealth of Brazil" though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this today User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. It provides advice on how to write good articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what would work best for that section! You have any ideas? At first I thought something along the lines of Brazilian Independence, but that doesn't work because it covers over 100 years before that happened. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both your suggestions make sense. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the infoboxes. These things cause more trouble than they are worth. A flag and a map is sufficient. Attempting to summarise sprawling global empires that lasted hundreds of years is bound to fail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realmss.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-HispaniaGlobus.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish/Portuguese Empires

I've already pointed you to many sources which do not show Portuguese colonies as Spanish. And, that newest version of the map you made is ridiculous. Spain had no colony in Japan. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the map so drastically, please propose it first on the talk page with accompanying references so other editors can comment. Also, please note that the current colouring and wording was the result of a discussion with various editors in 2007. I realise you have recently discovered Wikipedia, but you need to respect previous discussions before making such drastic changes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whats so "drastic" about putting up a correct map?

Deshima was Spanish? You might want to check your facts there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, statements such as "clearly above your intellectual level" are not merited here at Wikipedia and, frankly, childish. Please treat others with the respect they deserve. You may think you know what is correct, but everything here has to be verifiable, which means providing reliable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrick im tired of explaining this to you , you obviously dont seem or dont want to understand history and facts , for which reason i will cease discussing this topic of Portugal in the Spanish Empire--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious here, is this just a coincidence or did your edits begin at just around the same time that Red4tribe's ended? [4] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

You still haven't read the policy pages, have you? So I will outline some important points from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

  • "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
  • "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia"

I advise you to seek out books rather than Google for references. You usually can't go wrong with books.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Facts are facts" is not how Wikipedia works. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not add the infobox and I think it's downright silly what you are doing there. Can you imagine what the length of the languages and religions list would be for the British Empire? What possible value does this add for the reader? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing this the wrong way round. You should be starting with reliable sources before you make changes, instead of making changes and then scrabbling around to find the sources that concur with your view. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

Please read WP:NPA. Suggesting that other editors are unqualified to edit the article because they lack the insight that you do is entirely the wrong attitude to have at Wikipedia, not to mention misguided. You may be surprised at my educational history, and my area of expertise, so do not cast aspersions or question their insight simply because someone disagrees with you or asks you to provide sources. You may also be interested to know that I have an entire bookcase on European colonialism built up over several years, and I meticulously use these sources for all my edits. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok sure Ferrick , but english books should not be taken into account for everything , anglo-saxons writers have written a very biased history of Spain throughout the years , read some books in portuguese or spanish for more information . One more question can we request somebody else instead of you ? Im not the only one who disagrees with you , all of the wikipedia editors on the discussion page in the spanish article do, with the exception of portuguese editors , most notably Ogre and Camara...weird isn't it?and clearly against the rules of wiki, not tagteam please .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who edit the page are the editors who edit the page. You can't request someone "instead" of me, as I have as much right to edit the page as anyone else. And let me assure you, having dealt with a multitude of editors in the past who come and go, and who, like you, tend to upload information without reliable sources (whilst attacking me for "not understanding the facts" etc), I'm very strict about ensuring that they adhere to Wikipedia policy. My guess is that you're fresh out of university, and you're interested in this field, both of which are great, but you have to understand that there are policies here and you need to adhere to them. It's a very different style to writing papers at university.
On the subject of non-English language sources, please see the policy at WP:NONENG: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you are admin of something? you are the only one blocking the release of the correct information on the SE article . yes people come and go because after a while they get tired of discussing with you and just leave , you are clearly a hispanophobe no doubt about that , you just can't accept the facts , im not going to waste my time explaining this subject (which i clearly dominate over you), i think you are the kind of person who's hobby is to read books about this topic and now you think you own the TRUTH , well..not exactly friend , you are not the only one who owns this , and you should be more open to other's opinion .im done arguing with you , i read the many correct sources people has given you over the past months and you dont want to accept them , well what can i say? remember the neutral point of view ok? bye --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you're continuing to make personal attacks, despite me referring you to WP:NPA and making polite requests that you respect other editors, I've filed a "wikiquette" alert here [5]. I'm notifying you per the instructions on that page. My intent is only to have you realise that this is supposed to be a constructive community (with policies). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever Ferrick but remember one thing : neutrality and sophistry--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please make sure you read Wikipedia:Etiquette. As it says "Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia." You will find other editors easier to work and more likely to take your views into account if you are civil and refrain from personal attacks. Remember to contribute on comment on content, not on the contributor. I hope this helps. --neon white talk 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you find yourself involved in a dispute over article content, there are ways provide to resolve it such as a third opinion provided by a non involved editor. These can be found at dispute resolution. As this issue seems to be about neutrality another good place to ask for advice would be the neutrol point of view noticeboard. Using these processes should provide solutions to dispute before tempers flare. --neon white talk 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello

No, I'm still interested in the matter. But I've decided to wait and see what Ogre does. SamEV (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea! Truth be told, I don't even know if Ogre is indeed working on it. He may be busy with other things. I haven't spoken with him in many weeks. SamEV (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there's no recent news of Ogre... I guess I'll drop by the article one of these days. Not sure I can/will tonight. Saludos. SamEV (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher, could you give me a summary of the dispute(s) of the last month or so? I admit being reluctant to even look in the talk page! SamEV (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I see it's the same dispute, then.

Y sí, yo hablo español. Pero lamento decirte que es secreto de estado lo demás, hasta cierto tiempo ­­¡en el 2009! (Es una semi-broma, ja ja.)

I've kept the article on my watchlist, so I've seen what's been happening; but I've kept off the talk page.

And I read the discussion on the noticeboard. Interesting. SamEV (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this discussion. I'll read the comments since last evening. SamEV (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should indicate your sources on the map page. SamEV (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPANISH EMPIRE

english books should not be taken into account for everything , anglo-saxons writers have written a very biased history of Spain (autor Henry Kamen still do it per example, every historian disagree with him) throughout the years , im tired of saw every day a different spanish map.

i said the same , anglo-saxons should not be taken into account--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

map

that guy called redhat changed the map again... somebody could BAN him from wikipedia? how i can report him?Cosialscastells (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

how are you? is it ok if you can't talk arabic! :) .what is the message was about? . regards.--O.waqfi (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EuroHistoryTeacher&oldid=255909905"