User talk:JPratas

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi JPratas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aristides de Sousa Mendes 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:

• to enter Portugal and were sheltered there. In Portugal, they were assigned to a specific places (( [[Ericeira]], [[Figueira da Foz]] and [[Caldas da Rainha]] by Salazar's secret police, PVDE,
• . More than a 1,000 visas are being counted as live-savings. The counting starts in September 1939 (e.g. ABRAMAVICIUS, Base (Visa # 1510) ABRAMAVICIUS, Davidas (Visa # 1511), ABERBACH, Isidor Robert (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, JPratas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Buster Seven Talk 14:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

Hello JPratas,

A content dispute is not vandalism. I see lots of editing in the past two months but no talk page discussion. Please use the article's talk page to try to resolve your disagreement about the article. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aristides de Sousa Mendes 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:

• Salazar knew about his Jewish forebears and was proud of it. See ERENSIA SEFARDI, WINTER 7 (1997) (quoting from manuscript by Albert</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Friendly greeting

Hello. Could you kindly refrain from sending me unsigned threats on my Talk page. It's much better to exchange views on the article Talk page. Thank you very much! Beebop211 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BigCat82 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. You are right. Does not make sense. Will not do it again and will wait for dispute resolution. I will delete some of the materials I've introduced. Hope that is not considered war. JPratas (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your editing

Hello JPratas,

I would like to draw your attention to a statement by the Arbitration Committee:

"Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Cullen328. I fail to see the point of this remark when I’ve stopped editing and pledged to accept your supervision. Some time ago I started introducing minor facts on the article. They started to be deleted by an user called the Sousa Mendes Foundation (which I’m convinced shifted to the account to Coimbralove and most probably is connected with Beebop211) in the process of trying to balance untruthful accusations I recognized that along the iterative editing I was out of mark. But I did ask for the support of another editor and since he was not interested I’ve asked for yours. I already recognized that some of my editing was out of mark and I have diligently accepted your suggestions and freely deleted my own material. What more proof do you need of my willingness to contribute to a neutral article?JPratas (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My perception of your editing is that you believe that the existing group of accepted reliable sources are too favorable toward Sousa Mendes, and therefore your goal is to try to counteract those "errors" you perceive by editing his Wikipedia biography and related articles to better reflect "the truth" of his personal flaws as you see things. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You could instead write an article for a peer-reviewed historical journal making that argument, as original research is welcomed in such venues.

The San Francisco incident illustrates this point. When you "summarized" what Avraham Milgrom wrote, you used far stronger and more inflammatory language than he did.

Milgram says that “the incident reached the press in the form of insults”. Rui Afonso says that “Sousa Mendes handled the issue with lack of diplomacy” and says “a statement so undiplomatic was seen as anti-american (“uma afirmacao tao pouco diplomatica foi vista como francamente nao Americana”). Maybe “insult” is more neutral than “attack” but my English does not reach that level of sophistication. I am perfectly fine with Milgram’s language. You can also add that he gathered a hundred people that supported him and even made a rally, (as he explains in his letter) but that was exactly one of the reasons why he was expelled, he was deviding the community. JPratas (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Consistently, you read a source document, and you extract and emphasize the content that reflects poorly on Sousa Mendes, while downplaying and minimizing the content that reflects well on him. That's what is called "cherry picking" in the English idiom. And then you use inflammatory language not present in the source material.

You are right about cherry picking. But most of the times I did it because presenting a fact (e.g. admission to the bar association) neutralizes a false accusation. This is what the article said before I edited.

“He saved an enormous number of lives, but lost his career. In 1941, Salazar lost political trust in Sousa Mendes and stripped the diplomat of his title, subsequently ordering that no one in Portugal show him any charity.[6] He also found he could not resume his law career, as he was blocked from registration, and he was forced to surrender his foreign-issue driver's license.[4] Just before the war's end in 1945, he suffered a stroke that left him at least partially paralyzed. In his later years, the formerly much-honored diplomat was abandoned by most of his colleagues and friends and at times was blamed by some of his close relatives.[7] Aided by a local Jewish refugee agency — which had begun to feed the family and pay their rent upon discovering the situation — the children moved to other countries in search of opportunities they were now denied in Portugal, though all accounts by them indicate they never blamed their father or regretted his decision. His wife, Angelina, died in 1948. Stripped of his pension, he died in poverty on April 3, 1954, still in disgrace with his government.”

But If you read any secondary reliable source (e.g. Fralon, Rui Afonso and Scholar Douglas Wheeler) they all say he was receiving a salary. Rui Afonso even says that his salary was 3 times the salary of a teacher. Rui Afonso also dedicates 20 pages to a detailed description on how his second wife ruined him, and describing all her unreasonable spending and even her character flaws when dealing with SM’s children and how his children hated her and blamed her for making the last years of their mother’s life so miserable. I have no idea why Rui Afonso dedicated 20 pages to the description of this despicable scenes when his purpose was to glorify Sousa Mendes and he is probably the man that most fought for his rehabilitation.

What I would not like to see in the article is, unsourced, defamatory paragraphs as the ones above that denigrate Salazar, Teotonio Pereira, Texeira de Sampaio, Count Tovar, Paula Brito, etc.. Most of them also have children and grandchildren and also denigrate my country.

Issues as the salary or the admission to the bar are not strong views. Are facts.JPratas (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It has become clear to me that Sousa Mendes was a man with significant personal flaws. And it is fair to include some limited neutrally written biographical information about those flaws. But his notability derives only from the fact that he helped save a lot of people's lives, and that must be the undisputed core of the article. Your attempts to downplay the grave crisis faced by European Jews in 1940 in order to advance your case is entirely unsupported by modern scholarship and deeply offensive to the survivors and the descendants of the victims of one of history's most horrific crimes, as well as to all people of good will. You point to the article on Oskar Schindler which mentions his arrests for public drunkenness, and his affairs. The article also mentions his spying, his Nazi Party membership and his war profiteering. But the article does not give undue weight to these aspects of his life story. They are described neutrally, there is no original research or reliance on primary sources, and the English prose is clear, neutral and fluent. There is nothing tendentious or argumentative in the prose, and no hint that it seeks to puncture myths, but rather to accurately summarize the scholarship. The entire article is properly referenced to high quality sources, and that is why it is rated as a Good Article.

The language I used to describe the list of incidents is almost copy&paste from Fralon’s book. If I can be accused of anything would be infringing copyright policies, which I tried to avoid using quotes. In this point I have to disagree with your obeservation.JPratas (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am an editor who happens to be a Jew, but I am not an editor who specializes in Jewish topics here. I think only about 2% of the articles I've actively edited have to do with Judaism, and I have written articles on Hindu and Russian Orthodox topics as well. I do not claim to be an "expert" on the Holocaust or World War II, and do not spend a lot of time in those areas either. I am a generalist who has done major work on about 300 articles on a very wide range of topics.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing on Wikipedia other than to try very hard to downgrade Sousa Mendes' reputation. That is my sincere and deeply held personal opinion based on my review of your edit history. You may protest that this is not the case, but as matters now stand, I can't bring myself to trust any assertion you make and have to insist on seeing irrefutable proof of anything that you say. In my experience interacting with hundreds of other editors, I have concluded that the vast majority who come to this project with a single-minded goal end up being a net negative for the encyclopedia. You are clearly intelligent enough to be a positive contributor but I fear that your determination to pursue your goal at all costs means that you will not go on to be an indisputable asset to the encyclopedia. I invite you to prove me wrong.

Answer to this has been given on my first paragraph. I haven’t seen a similar comment made to Beep221JPratas (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia for the enjoyment that comes from writing and expanding articles about what I see as interesting topics. The more I delve into the recent history of this article, the more stressful it becomes for me. This I do not need, but I will not simply take it off my watch list. If you will not agree to edit neutrally going forward, I will ask for the assistance of editors far more experienced than I in dealing with such controversies. I await your response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent initiative to bring more experienced editors to contribute. I also do this as a hobby. I think that both you and Beep221 have become too emotional about this article. I regret I haven’t been able to switch you to a more cooperative mood. I myself will be stepping back for a few day and may occasionally return for comments. Even though I resent some of your comments I thank you for responding to my request and thank you for your time and dedication to the article JPratas (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Warnings

User Beebop211 an account less than one month old, created February 26, 2014, that most likely is a either a sock puppetry or meatpuppetry from Coimbralove and Redmoon660 formerly named “Sousa Mendes Foundation” has been consistently deleting the following warnings from the article’s talk page.

JPratas (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to undo the damage you are continually doing to this page. I don't really think you are the appropriate person to be posting warnings, in view of what neutral editors have observed about your editing patterns. I know that you like to issue warnings, such as the unsigned threat you posted on my Talk page. Beebop211 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Long story short. If there are reliable independent sources explicitly saying he was a hero, any editor can put that information into the article. If there are reliable independent sources questioning it, or even calling him traitor, instead of deleting the content saying he was a hero, the additional information should be added to achieve NPOV. Note that if most sources say he was a war hero and only a few saying he wasn't, it is acceptable to include only the majority view and avoid giving any undue weight to the minority views. I didn't follow everything from the beginning as the talk page is getting too lengthy atm which makes it quite difficult for a third party contributor to follow, but it does seem to me that JPratas you are trying to push some controversial information into the article as the sources you quoted seem to be less reliable and hard to verify. I may be wrong as I haven't followed the dispute. BigCat82 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say BigCat82. That is exactly what I have been striving for.JPratas (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

JPratas (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war - please stop immediately

Your recent editing history at Aristides de Sousa Mendes 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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.
Any further violations of the policy against edit warring on Aristides de Sousa Mendes WILL be reported for administrative action. Cease and desist immediately! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for this warning since I have NOT been editing the article for a long time and I have been diligently using the article's talk page. JPratas (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The article's edit history show that you edited the article eight times on March 13 in a long time, ongoing edit war with Beebop211, who has also been warned. Please cease and desist from your edit warring immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not so. Cullen328 I have not edited the article. I've limited myself to include a POV tag and direct the dispute to the article's talk page, exactly as the warning recommends. JPratas (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did not exactly put a POV tag. I believe that the POV tag was included by you. I just reinstated it. Do you think the article is Neutral and that the tag should be removed?JPratas (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding or returning a tag to an article is editing the article. Repeatedly reinstating a tag to an article over and over again is edit warring. Please stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/meatpuppet accusations

Hello JPratas,

Accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry are taken very seriously here on Wikipedia, and require a formal report with convincing evidence. Have you filed an official report against the editor in question? Please provide a link to your formal report, and notify the other editor as required. If you lack such evidence, please cease and desist from such accusations. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do.JPratas (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Gee, I can't wait. Beebop211 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess the next account will be "Poo-wip"JPratas (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop poking at each other, and start negotiating compromises to build consensus and the neutral point of view. JPratas, unless you have evidence to present to a sock puppet investigation, please stop even hinting at sockpuppetry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328 I am all for cooperation and I have been giving all the signs that I am. But I am tiered of wasting my time with someone that is here for POV. I have reasons to believe that all these accounts are connected with the Sousa Mendes Foundation. I’ve triggered the SPI. I have no wish to block the account because all the POVs are important and the Mendes Foundation can add value to the article. And the fact that someone has a POV does not mean this person is bad. But if Bebop is somehow connected to the foundation she should not be editing the way it has been editing and should have disclosed the CI.JPratas (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328 It seems that the SPI was confirmed. I am not saying this to battle with anyone nor do I wish other editors to be banned. I will not “hooray”. But I think it does make a difference if we know that we are talking with someone that not only is fighting for a view but also is in a COI situation. You’ve been asking me to compromise and try to achieve consensus and I have been giving every signs that I am willing to do so. I have been sharing all my sources and I have restrained myself from editing, while watching the article being twisted towards a popular literature POV. I do recognize that lately you have been trying clearly aiming NPOV and I am appreciative of your interventions. I hope I will be able to earn your respect, you deserve it. If it makes a difference I will ask to the administrators not to block Beepop. I also hope the new editor helps us with the challenge (it might be a coincidence, but we got another musician) JPratas (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moisés Bensabat Amzalak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sol (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) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Serious concerns about your editing

When editing a controversial article, please do not make a long series of changes in a single edit. This imposes a serious burden on other editors who may agree with some, but not all of your changes. I encourage you to self-revert this edit and discuss these changes one-by-one on the talk page. If you fail to do so, I will revert and request protection of the page. I am very unhappy with your actions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328 I will certainly edit as you are requesting. I apologize for the inconvenience, but allow me to explain that I did it in one single edit only because I was told by an administrator that I should try to minimize number of edits (to save server space – due to all edits being saved). May I expalin that in this last edit I’ve limited myself to: 1) Formatting references using the same format used in the Oskar Schindler's article, as per your suggestion, 2) Reinstating well referenced material that had been recently deleted by a new account; 3) Clarifying that the statement that the dictatorship “had been greeted with delight" is a statement made by Sousa Mendes (to a Spanish Newspaper) exactly as cited by Fralon 4) And finally corrected an erroneous statement that had been written by me and that another editor had asked to be referenced. – Having said this, I believe reverting would be detrimental to the article quality at least to the ref formatting improvement and I also believe that the minor edits, well referenced, should not be controversial. But if you want I can provide full explanations on the article’s talk page. I agree that this article should be protected. New accounts keep on being created to delete referenced material. Looking forward for your feed-back.JPratas (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

After your explanation and careful consideration, I decided to let your edit stand. Whichever administrator told you to minimize the number of edits to "save server space" was either joking or mistaken. There is no practical limit to editing activity. In the future, I encourage breaking down your edits into easily understandable chunks. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Signature link

Hello. I notice you are using a signature without any link to your user page nor talk page nor contributions page, as in the linked example talk page entry. The absence of any link makes it more difficult for other editors to contact you, so I ask you to consider changing you signature to include such a link. Please check: Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links. Thank you - Nabla (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Obrigado - Nabla (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Nabla. It is I who thanks you for letting me know about a problem that was annoying other editors. By the way, since you are and administrator could you please take a look at the Raymond Henry Norweb article I’ve just created?J Pratas (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine overall, I say. It has a huge warning for possible copyright violation, though. I guess that is your concern. If you check the copyright reports (follow the links in the tag) you'll see that it is a 'weak' warning - the second report says there has a low (30%) chance of it being a violation, and both show that it only has few duplicated sentences (and then a few bits of sentences that inevitably would be repeated, as there is not a million to say them, as "from Harvard in 1916" or "secretary to Ambassador William G. Sharp"). You could, and should, rephrase the other. In general, and mostly when using English sources to write in English as it is not my - nor our, I presume - native language, I try to read the text, then "forget" about it for a few minutes, and only write the ideas I captured; typically I avoid any copy paste, so not to have the exact same sentences. Maybe that would work here. - Nabla (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Canada‎‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz Thanks for the heads up but I dont think I am or will be involved in edit warring. I did only one editing. The other 2 are just placing a tag which technically is not exactly editing, is it ? And if it is I did not edit 3 times within the 24h period. Relevante sourced historical contente is being removed disregarding the NPOV fundamental policy Can you take a look at the talk page a provide an opinion ?.J Pratas 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sentiment. You're right, I could be wrong. It has happened many times in the past. Based on previous exposure in the mediation channel and watching others (and myself) be blocked for this behaviour, it appears that you are in an edit war. The root cause is that you want a specific POV to heard in an article and consensus is against you. Here's how it unfolded.

1. 2015-08-15T08:55:56‎ unexplained change in ‎Etymology section that added {{POV-section}}, was cleaned-up by AnomieBOT and was removed four hours later "as per note this should be tlaked about at parent article.. no need for tag here... been over this many many times. You started a discussion at this time and none of the editors agreed with your assessment of the situation.
2. 2015-08-15T16:19:01 “been over this many many times” is not an argument. The NPOV policy is not negotiable and cannot be superseded by editor consensus. In the middle of discussing, you took it on yourself to correct the situation again. I stepped in and reverted, stating The source is evident. We don't indicate "stated via Twitter" or other such nonsense. I was willing to hear you out on the theory but singling out sources is just poor writing style, but the theory was fringe.
3. 2015-08-16T18:28:44 Again, unexplained tag. This time, thirty hours after your first edit. Making the same point as the first. In fact, reverting it to the first position. A third editor reverted and stated, one editor thinking there is a 'POV' problem because his pet theory is not included is not a POV problem. Move on.

There is a category of long-term edit warring that this falls under. Based on your edit history, I could see an admin taking exception to this behaviour and slapping a long block on you. Feel free to ask if either statement (longer-term EW or whether you would get a long block based on your behaviour) at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring or at Wikipedia:Village pump. It's taken me a few years to realize that if an article has been some specific way for a while, it may take time to convince other editors of the problem. It may also not be a valid problem. However, discussion is the right way to go, not constantly editing the article to address your concerns. So again, while you're technically right that we were not reverting, it still is an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz I resent all this text and the tone. Why are you battling? This is supposed to be fun. All this could be an interesting debate that could end being beneficial for the article and ourselves. I do not have a "pet theory" nor did I ever defend or attack any theory nor wish to do so. I just think the article could be somewhat closer to the serious work done by Olive Dickason on the origin of the word Canada. That is all. If we just present one view and ignore the centuries of interesting debate around the subject, wikipedia becomes poorer.J Pratas (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't mean to set-up a battlefield mentality. I'm glad you're having fun. You create a battlefield and resent when others reflect that. That's clearly amusing to you. You push a POV but claim it's neutral and then when others indicate you're pushing POV you claim we're creating a battlefield and ruing your fun. You have a pet theory. That has been shown in the talk on the Canada article. It's based on your interest in Portugal and Portuguese topics. You have now pushed a theory of that the name of Canada has come from a Portuguese source as bearing similar weight to that of first-hand sources claiming it's a bastardization of an Iroquois term. That's a novel. Sorry. If it's not your "pet theory", it's clearly one you place a lot of stock in. My wording was poor. But you have defended the theory, several times. The correct place, as I stated in the talk:Canada, to discuss all of the theories is in the article on the etymology of Canada, not the article itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz if you want my opinion (you have been digging for it) the Iberian theory will gain strength if someone can show a map, prior to 1535, with "Ca Nada" written on it. I have heard there are ancient maps with the word "cabo de nada" and "promontorium nihili" but I have not seen any so far. Therefore the theory cannot be verified. So please do not say that I am defending this theory, I am not. I am just saying it exists. And has existed for centuries. We should not deny this simple fact. Did you know that there is a book on Canada titles "Ca Nada" ? With poems. Showing how wrong the first explorers were? J Pratas (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Labrador 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:

• ''Terra de los Ingres'' [Land of the English], and ''Terra de Lavorador de rey de portugall'' [[Land of the Lavrador of the King of Portugal]. Further south, we notice ''Terra de corte reale de

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Biography about Salazar

Hello,

I had never heard of Salazar until recently and I find the character fascinating and quite interesting. Do you recommend a biography in particular? I can read in english and in french. I just bought Paul Sérant wrote about him in "Salazar et son temps" (1961), I guess there are more up-to-date work now.

Thanks in advance,

Loic2L (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The bibliography in the article already provides you with an extensive list of readings. If you are looking for a modern biography on Salazar, in English, probably "Salazar: A Political Biography"(2011) by Filipe Ribeiro de Menezes is the only modern one available. However beware that Menezes' book has some major flaws. One example is the Aristides Sousa Mendes episode often used to denigrate Salazar. Menezes says that due to Salazar Sousa Mendes "without work with a large family to look after Sousa Mendes quickly sank into poverty". Menezes either ignores or omits that due to Salazar Sousa Mendes kept on receiving a generous salary until he died in 1954. The fact is that Sousa Mendes died in a difficult financial situation (not poverty) mostly due to Andrée Cibial his ex-lover.

In my opinion the most unbiased works, in English, are 1) Hugh Kay's biography and 2) "Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience" by Howard J. Wiarda J Pratas (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Henry Norweb

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Raymond Henry Norweb, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/04/obituaries/r-henry-norweb-89-former-us-diplomat.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Portugal during World War II

Hello friend! So, first you deleted my edit on an historical fact, because it had no sources, then i gave different types of sources, with investigations about this issue(some based in a master's thesis), and you deleted again, because a few hundreds of portuguese volunteers that participated in the second world war in the eastern front scenario(in battles such as the siege of leningrad), has nothing to to with Portugal in the II world war?? ahah sorry my friend, but thats a joke and a non-sense.

Portugal=portuguese

And the historical facts are here, portuguese people from all over the country fought for the axis, in 1941-42-43 and even further, inside the Blue Division.

best regardsIsildurada (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JPratas. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JPratas. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JPratas. 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)

Salazar

Do you support Salazar and the Estado Novo regime?