User talk:FilipeS

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


Welcome! to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello FilipeS, this is Exir Kamalabadi, and I hope that you are having fun with Wikipedia. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar, or formatting, then fix it. Don't be afraid. Be bold! If you do something wrong, there is always someone who will clean up the mess.

Here are some links that you may find helpful:

Here are also some tips that you might find useful:

Finally, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page when you need help!

Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I am glad to help you. Feel free to post on my talk page when you need help. Also, here is a useful link: Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Hope you enjoy wikipedia!--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 11:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Exir. :) FilipeS 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


[Moved here by myself] Hi. Thanks for rewriting the intro to grammatical gender. I think it's very clear now, and more accurate. --Drmaik 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I put my comment on your user page, not here. Anyway, thanks for reworking the gramatical gender intro. --Drmaik 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I award you...[edit]

The exceptional newcomer award!--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 01:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I award you the exceptional newcomer award, for the amount of edits that you made, and your contribution to the structuring and grammar of articles.--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 01:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • também tenho visto o seu trabalho. Parabéns pela qualidade e isensão. --Pedro 12:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Obrigado. :) FilipeS 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Olá, Filipe, não sei bem se posso deixar cá uma mensagem para você. Apague-a quando achar oportuno. É a respeito da palavra "Terça-Feira" no artigo "Spanish language" que você acredita melhor de o traduzir como "third fair". Eu acho melhor "third day", pois ainda que hoje "feira" tem o significado que tem, a palavra não é interna do português, ela é que patrimonial do latim, tertia-feria, onde ai "feria" não tem o significado de feriado mas de festividade (religioso), como na expressão "feria V (ou V feria) in parasceve", por exemplo. Com certeza que do latim "feria", sem acrescentar número, é que dá hoje "feira", mas é outro caminho diferente. Na altura, São Martinho do Dúmio, bispo de Braga no reino suevo da Galiza, é que criou esse cômputo exclussivo naquele reino para banir os nomes pagãos da semana, e dai é que passou para o galego-português. Não tem assim relação com as feiras, mercados, vacações nem feriados (pois, Sábado é ainda Sábado e Domingo também). O exemplo está para além procurado para amostrar diferenças e interferências entre as línguas peninsulares, e nesse aspecto, mesmo hoje, "Terça-feira" mais significa "terceiro dia" do que "terceira feira".

Muito obrigado pelas suas correções e peço-lhe desculpas por ter-lhe escrito cá.

Olá. Repare no que diz o Merriam-Webster online acerca de "fair":
Main Entry: 5 fair
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English feire, from Old French, from Medieval Latin feria weekday, fair, from Late Latin, festal day, from Latin feriae (plural) holidays -- more at FEAST
Quando escrevi "fair" em vez de "day", foi para salientar esta origem comum das duas palavras, bem como o seu sentido festivo original. No entanto, pensando melhor, a palavra "fair" pode ser mal interpretada. Que tal escrever "third feast", em vez disso? FilipeS 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for portuguese phonology[edit]

i wanted to thank you for your work on the phonology article, and for helping me in the talk page.

BTW i write a pronunciation guide of brazilian portuguese in the hebrew wikibooks. it's not as thourough as the phonology article here, but it's more practical for people who have only the very basic linguistic knowledge (of junior high) and want to learn portuguese. i don't use there terms like "allophones" or "phonemes". --itaj 23:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


perharps you are right even æsthetically. I alredy fixed it up. Ciacchi 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 16:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical number[edit]

Your last edit to Grammatical number made no sense; I'm guessing your browser screwed up? Either way, I've reverted it; care to try again?


Ruakh 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for the warning. I think it's O.K. now. :-) FilipeS 13:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


I am a native speaker of Portuguese, but I do not recognize the word tombu. I guess it could stand for tombo, but I do not see how that could relate to "title". Unless what is meant is tomo, and even then it seems a bit of a stretch. This should be checked. FilipeS 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In one of the references it says it is derived from Tombo from archive to store. Land titles were archive or stored in the colonial Kantor or office thus the natives called the titles from the word to archive or store such titles RaveenS 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Section headings in edit summaries[edit]

Hi, just a technical note: if you type your edit summaries in this form:

/* section-heading */ what was done

then wherever your edit summary is displayed, it will look something like this:

section-heading - what was done

and people can click the arrow to go straight to the section you edited.

(I mention this because I see that you've been typing them in this form:

/* section-heading: what was done */

which results in a non-working link.)

Just so you know. :-)

Ruakh 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! FilipeS
Any time. Ruakh 00:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese Language[edit]

A Request for Arbitration is made upon your hunting on my contributions. I'll be accusing you of extreme disrespect and persecution to my contributions. Your conduct is miserable and your behaviour unpolite. You don't discuss and act as you own Wikipedia and you are beyond arrogant and even accusing me of vandalism. I won't allow myself to be stomped by your dictatorship and contemption. Check arbitration request. I'll be indicting you this way, it seems the only method that works with you.

--Richard George 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard, it's not exactly courteous of you to edit articles, reverting correct information into incorrect information, without citing any sources, or discussing the changes in the Talk pages first. FilipeS
Have you cited Your sources to revert my edits? You were the first to be unpolite, now be prepared, for I'm going to prove that you were the first unpolite by simply stomping on my humble edit.
"I would sure love to see what sources he based his edits on." You will, and I'll love to see your mystical sources that don't need to be proven. --Richard George 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FilipeS — I don't know how arbitration requests work, but if you need a character witness or something, let me know. — Ruakh 12:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And here I thought an accuracy dispute would settle this... FilipeS 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr.Ruakh, in my peaceful country, Portugal, unlike in bellic countries, people have a traditional saying "Quem está de fora não racha lenha", which stands for "The outsider does not inteferes in third party quarrels". --Richard George 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Who asked for your opinion? FilipeS
Who asked you for your questioning? --Richard George 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't surely asked for your opinion on my edits, mr.FilipeS, I've told you once I tell you twice, you have no morality to judge others. You still haven't justify your edits.
Mr. George, in my pragmatic country, the U.S., unlike in poetic countries, people have a traditional saying, "Be careful what you wish for: you just might get it." When you explicitly ask for third parties to intervene in your quarrel, you've no business complaining when they do just that. Ruakh 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As for mr.Ruakh, I don't admit clearly biased third parties to peek a boo. In poetic countries, we don't take eye for an eye, nor we have sanguinary visions of the world. Don't persist interfering. --Richard George 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have half a mind to delete your latest musings from this page, Richard (it is my user talk page, after all), but I think I will let them stay for the time being. They might come in handy during the arbitration. FilipeS 14:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand, I've been learning how evil pragmatic minds work. Mind the other half that you will not win this. My conversation with you is over for now. You better make backups and prints: I don't regret anything I've said, each and every word since your first arrogant surreptious attack to my humble truthful contribute was but an euphemism. --Richard George 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Não sei a que referência se refere, mas quando escrevi nesse artigo usei tantas referências online (muitas vezes noticias que tinham acabado de sair) e offline que a maioria já não faço ideia, na altura não haviam os <ref>. Como é obvio quando vi as % de falantes a maioria era de Internet, mas há uns tempos andava à procura do site q tratava dos falantes na Namíbia que tem causado alguma surpresa por parte de algumas pessoas, mas que não mais achei, era de um site de emigração. De qualquer forma, o artigo Portuguese language está a ficar demasiado tecnicista e pouco abrangente (afunilado), logo precisa de ser todo revisto e ao se fazer a revisão arranjar referências na net ou livros. E, actualizar o número de falantes, que já deve ser diferente. Há outros países africanos onde o português é mto falado: Malawi, Congo (Zaire) e Zimbabwe, mas nc achei qualquer percentagem e outros em que o número deve ser menor, logo está aí uma área para pesquisar. Mas explique melhor o que quer dizer que não percebi.--Pedro 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ha! Já não existe era para as contagens de falantes! É melhor apagar.... --Pedro 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to say you're doing a great job with the Wikipediaing and keep up the great work. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear FilipeS[edit]

You have asked me of a contribution to [Grammatical gender]. I have fulfilled your request, spending MANY hours on refining the article. But it means nothing for you, but only you have the right to make any changes to it. You think you are the owner of this article. You have just destroyed all my work, and you have scoffed at al the time I spent. Which is more, I have explained why the article's name should be "Noun class". I have cited needed sources for this. I have shown that other sources do not identify those two notions. And basing on this, I have put the request of renaming the page.

But you have destroyed it all. Of course, the request of renaming does not make sense in the present state of the article. Thank a lot, pal!

It was all your decision. You must be sure that all my remarks to the article are incorrect, even my remarks about inconsistencies in the text. If you are sure that you are right, this is the end of the discussion between us - unless you revert the article to my version immediately! Please read the talk page as well.

22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Grzegorj

It's the end of the conversation between us — but read the talk page. That's funny. Have you read the talk page lately? It doesn't look like it. FilipeS 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, it would be better if we united our knowledge. But you have removed ALL what I have changed in the page, also things which reall are obvious and you must agree with the changes. Simply there is nothing to discuss if the same information is repeated, in two different versions by the way. If you just remove all my work, it means that you say "no" to ALL my changes, also to these which are really OBVIOUS. So I am pretty sure that this is not the way.

If you really think that such or another information given by me is wrong, just ask about sources, and not remove my work, OK? Or show me your sources first. And I am pretty sure that if my sources show my version, and your sources give support for your version, then there souyld be the information about both approaches in the article. And I say "yes" to this even if my opinion abourt one of the versions is completely negative (but it is wiki, not my private site, and it is not a place for presenting only priovate opinions here).

Namely, MOST of linguists insists that genders and noun classes are two different notions (see SIL for example). Have you written a word on it? This is the most populart opinion - and have you written a word of it, I repeat???

If no, why you have removed my version? Answer this!

I hope we will come to final agreement. But please, show a little more respect to my knowledge in the future. I really do not write anything unless I am sure that other sources write the same. If you are shocked, just ask, and not DESTROY, OK?

23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Grzegorj

The fact that your changes were reverted (twice, and not just by me, but you've decided to pick on me only, apparently -- but I digress) is not critical. As ProhibitOnions has explained to you, your changes can be recovered at any time. But first you have to defend them in the Talk Page.
P.S. I would appreciate it if you used a less rude tone with me in the future, O.K.? FilipeS 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, accept my apologies. I was shocked when you had asked me of contribution and then removed my many-hours work completely, hence the tone. Anyway, it is not my aim to make war with you. --Grzegorj 09:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not wish to argue, either. Please have a look at a proposal I made in the Talk Page for Grammatical Gender, and tell me what you think about it. It's just some general guidelines, but I think we should think a little about the structure of the future article, before proceeding with a rewrite, since the article is already quite long, and editing without some prior planning can create a lot of confusion. Regards. FilipeS 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


I noticed your comment on User talk: When an edit isn't obvious vandalism, I usually go with an edit summary of just "revert" (or "rv"). -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This was an embarassing mistake. I hope the editor is not upset. :o FilipeS 00:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin vowels[edit]

I like the vowel table in the Differences between Spanish and Portuguese but I noticed you put the lowering diacritic in the Classical Latin column. Are you/linguists sure about such specific phonetic detail? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can find a source. FilipeS 00:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I saw your edits on "Digraph". May I suggest to use the "view" button to see your progress instead of saving every few minutes. −Woodstone 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominative case[edit]

You removed the Portuguese and Spanish informations in the article nominative case. Both Portuguese and Spanish have two grammar cases, caso reto and caso oblíquo, but not all words declinate. Just like English, the personal pronouns are the only words that declinate. For example, "eu" declinates, and becomes "me", "mim" and "comigo" in Portuguese. LipeFontoura 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In languages where only the personal pronouns decline, it is not customary to speak of cases. That term is generally reserved for languages with extensive noun declensions, which does not happen in Spanish or Portuguese. FilipeS 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has information about nominative case in English, that, like Portuguese and Spanish, has cases just for personal pronouns. And, in fact, the term case is used in Portuguese - "caso reto" and "caso oblíquo". What's weird about Portuguese is that Portuguese-speaking linguists agree there are cases, but the term "declension" is absolutely never used. Anyway, nominative case (Portuguese: "caso nominativo") is the same thing that the "caso reto" of Portuguese, Spanish and Galician. LipeFontoura 00:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia collaboration[edit]

Hi there. This fortnight's Indonesia Collaboration is > > > Indonesian language < < <. Please contribute! Please nominate for the next collab here. What about choosing one the shorter Indonesia stubs this time? kind regards Merbabu 15:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


I'd put that because the 'a' symbol is not correct in my transcriptions and I was hoping someone would fix that for me. Zigzig20s 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Zigzig20s 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese language FAR[edit]

The article Portuguese language is up for featured article review. The article has been nominated because it is believed that it no longer fulfills the FA criteria. You are invited to help discuss the issue and to bring the article back up to FA status.

Peter Isotalo 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Latin Pronunciation[edit]

Fair enough! :) Incidentally, do you think the Latin Pronunciation article could do with a section on the various Mediaeval pronunciations of Latin in the Middle Ages? InfernoXV 18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Umlaut (diacritic)[edit]

Your log message is not very informative. Please explain your rationale.

I know the difference between an umlaut and a diaeresis. There pinyin ü describes the same kind of sound change as the German umlaut. What is your rationale for abusing the word "diaeresis", which is a totally different thing? Do you mean you consider the Finnish ü also a diaeresis?! Do you know what a diaeresis is? Maybe you should reread the article too. Or perhaps you should take out a dictionary and see what a diaeresis is, since Wikipedia articles are so untrustworthy.—Gniw (Wing) 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to read my comment on the article’s talk page; I know it’s a mess and it’s hard to read. Sorry for the mess.
I know that in Finnish (and most other European languages), ä and ö are considered letters in their own rights and not accented letters (you might have known that if you checked my user page). But if you have to call the diacritic that is technically just part of the letter, you will have to call it an umlaut because that’s what it is. It is not a diaeresis.
You are confusing the symbol with its linguistic meaning. In modern Spanish, for example, the diaeresis mark normally does not represent a diaeresis in the phonological sense. Yet it's still called "diaeresis".
“Any other use is a diaresis” is wrong. I don’t know why you trust this part of the article so much, but this statement is false, and I have support from the Merridiam-Webster. Please do not use this article itself to prove your point; according to current Wikipedia practice, the part of the article you are using is lacking citations and I have reasonable grounds to say that what it says is false.
(For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that "any other use is a diaeresis". You said “By extension, the same word is used in languages that have borrowed the umlaut mark from German due to German cultural influence”. What does this mean? This means “indicating a more front or central articulation” (the 2003 Webster’s definition), which is precisely what the Mandarin pinyin ü is. Even according to your own reasoning, the pinyin ü has an umlaut, not a diaeresis.)—Gniw (Wing) 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not what umlaut means. Popular dictionaries are not reliable sources for specialized linguistic terms. Look, the plain fact of the matter is that only German and languages that have been influenced by German use the word "umlaut". Everyone else call it "diaeresis" or "trema" (in English the three words are used). I have no idea what it's called in Chinese, but you can't justify the name "umlaut" on the grounds that its value in Chinese is analogous to the one it has in German -- it isn't. FilipeS 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what will convince you, but English of course calls it a diaeresis, because in English the diacritic is used to divide vowels, not to indicate a sound change.
It's also called "umlaut", sometimes.
In French it's the same situation. It's a tréma because it is used to divide vowels, not to indicate a sound change.
Not always.
It's very unfortunate that "everyone else" that matters (e.g., Finnish) don't consider the mark a diacritic but part of standalone letters. But it makes absolutely no sense to call them "diaereses". They are simply not. They don't serve the function of diaeresis.—Gniw (Wing) 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
See my comments in the talk page of the article. FilipeS 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto—Gniw (Wing) 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I can begin my attempt in my research in 2 week's time (which I don't expect to yield any results, but will do) and get back to you in 3 week's time, I wish to ask you a question.

You accept that a diacritic can be called an umlaut if it is a result of German influence.

You do not accept that a diacritic be called an umlaut if it simply represents the same sound values as the German umlauted letters.

The questions is: For any language (Chinese included) to choose a diacritic, there has to be a certain rationale. Suppose "German influence" is not the reason behind the choice. What other reason would there be for any language to choose the exact same diacritic as German, to represent the exact same sounds as German?

Thank you very much

PS: Please don't copy everything back to my talk page. It's very confusing, and I won't miss your reply because if I ask someone a question I'll watch the talk page. Thank you—Gniw (Wing) 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. You are confusing the umlaut with umlauted letters. Umlauts are diacritics. As such, they do not represent a sound on their own. It's only when they are combined with a letter that the letter-umlaut combination represents a sound (or more).
  2. The differentce between an umlaut mark and a trema/dieresis mark is minimal. In most cases, no distinction is made. So, of course each language is free to call "umlaut" or "dieresis" to any two-dots-above diacritic it may choose to use, in principle. The decision of which name is the most appropriate should therefore be made on the basis of tradition and typography -- has the diacritic traditionally been called an "umlaut", and represented with the two dots closer to each other than in a dieresis mark, or not? That is all; usage should determine everything. The value of the diacritic when combined with other characters should not be a determinating factor, because the phonetic value of diacritics, or even of specific letter-diacritic combinations, typically varies from language to language. See for example the following articles: Acute accent, Ogonek, Caron. FilipeS 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Indonesia - February Newsletter[edit]

Hello there! Please click here for the latest edition of the Wikiproject Indonesia Newsletter.

We hope it gets you interested in the some aspect of the project. Please contact Indon or Merbabu if you have any comments or suggestions (or do not want to receive this newsletter). regards Merbabu 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Latin vowels[edit]

You wanna revive the discussion on Latin vowels? I'm heavily leaning toward having the earlier transcription where the symbols are the same since there's no proof that they were different. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been on the back of my mind, but I will need some time to check the sources. I've been rather busy lately... FilipeS 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Felipe! Learning my way around Wikipedia. I'd never seen a talk page before. Wow. I see that you have had your share of arguments, and been called rude, and been accused of removing things from articles, etc. I also see, as I suspected, that you are a linguist, not a philologist (of course some scholars are both), and that you are not a Latinist. All adds up. Feel free to delete this. It's in the nature of thought police. Then again, you could be the first to say something on my talk page. You know what you have? It's not erudition, it's chutzpah! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ripcohen (talkcontribs) 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

My, what an ego! FilipeS 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have only one; you seem to have multiple egos. 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc
At least I don't have multiple accounts, as you do. FilipeS 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. I use several computers, maybe that's what you're referring to. But if you don't think 'insult' is a special kind of speech, and deny that its use in the article on Galician-Portuguese is justified, why put it here? Why not 'Satire'?!

So, when you're short on rational arguments, you switch to personal attack. How typical. FilipeS 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? Can you cite me sources showing that 'personal attack' is a technical term of philology or linguistics ;-) The above remark is about words, and it was meant to show you that your objections to my formulation of CEM (insult, mockery, scorn) are unfounded.sloko 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)rc

at non effugies meos iambos

As palavras leva-as o vento. FilipeS 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
quae cuncta aerii discerpunt irrita venti —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ripcohen (talkcontribs) 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I have now been told on the cantiga d'amigo discussion page that I cannot read Portuguese or spell the name of Camoens, that I am not aware of the geographical location of the city of Lisbon or the relationship of the Tejo to the Atlantic, that what I say is ridiculous, irrelevant and pedantic,etc. I do not consider this verbal behavior in any way civil. I have tried to improve an article that was atrocious when I began, and I have done so by providing accurate information and a major reference work to back it up. Both you and the anonymous writer who attacked my work are using language and tone that should not be tolerated in these pages. If neither of you has anything worthwhile to contribute to the article or the discussion, at least allow me to do my work without being insulted.--Maurice boaz 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


The article on A-mutation, which you have also contributed to, is up for deletion unless someone declares an interest in it. We shouldn't let it go by default - let's have a conscious decision about whether we want it or not. --Doric Loon 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Help:Show preview[edit]

Hi, do you know Help:Show preview? Maybe you have your reasons to make so many edits live, or maybe you don't. Whichever way, don't take offense. --maf (talk-cont) 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nippo Jisho[edit]

Hello. Would you please clarify this [change]? I have both books and the original titles are Arte da Lingoa de Iapam and Arte Breve da Lingoa Iapoa. I was about to revert it, but I recognize your name and know that you have made many valuable contributions so I am seeking clarification first. Regards. Bendono 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. All I did was update the spelling. The book was written at a time when the letters I and J, and U and V, were not distinguished from each other in the Latin alphabet, but nowadays we would write Arte da Lingoa de Japam, Arte Breve da Lingoa Japoa, and so on. Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was probably spelled with an "I" in its original edition, too, but we don't do that anymore. Still, I understand that this may be arguable... FilipeS 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

About the NPOV tag on the Race article[edit]

Please stop calling "censorship" any removal of the NPOV tag on the article. A NPOV tag may be removed if the reason for its addition is not appropriately explained on the article's talk page, which was the case until late yesterday. Now that it's been explained, I won't be removing it again, at least not me. Please understand that it was previously removed because the reasons for its addition weren't properly explained, which was stated time and again. It is the responsibility of the editor placing the tag to give a proper explanation of the reason for placing the tag.--Ramdrake 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Yes I agree. I think at some stage it will have to go to mediation because the establishment is uncompromising.Muntuwandi 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

focus on[edit]

"Language Information

The following information sources were used to compile the linguistic and geographic sources of languages."


Filipe, hi,

Thank you for the kind words. I do not like editing that article because of the amount of polite venom some people can inject, but I got a real shock when I started going over it just for ease of comprehension for the average well-informed reader. So I will try to at least get the article to the point that the individual sentences at least mean something.

One of the things I have noticed is that people who have real points, even points that some of the more persnickety contributors admit is a real point, get ignored. If they try to fix it they will get reverted. If they will hope that somebody else fixes it, it will just sit there.

Best, P0M 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Style note[edit]

Hi. Just a small note. The references section should be after the "see also" section, and before the external links section. A small thing, but worth knowing. :) And just to repeat myself from the above, the edit summary is a very useful thing. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to keep that in mind. FilipeS 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

mju:-mu: mixup[edit]

I've seen in the dictionary that µ is indeed pronounced mu:, and not mju: like you say. It may be pronounced mju: in Britain or Redneck Country, but the vast majority of English Speakers live in the USA. I am changing it back to mu:, whether Brits like it or not. 20:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Both pronunciations are used. See here. FilipeS 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Miranfree is back![edit]

Hello FilipeS. I am writing just to tell you that lunatic User:Miranfree is back trying to push his PoV fantasy that the Mirandese are a different nationality other than Portuguese. He is also presente at the Commons, under the name Mircommons, where he uploaded a supposed flag of the Vale de Miranda, a flag, present in his Wikipedia user page, he tried, and I am sure will try again, to place at the Terra de Miranda article. Thought you might be interested. Cheers! The Ogre 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese language in Equatorial Guinea?[edit]

Hi, you asked for a source confirming that Poruguese is spoken in Equatorial Guinea. Well, it was declared the third official language very recently [1] for political reasons, but it is highly unlikely that any significant number of E.G. citizens speak it. So I'm not sure if this should be included in the Portuguese language infobox. --Targeman 20:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Diferenças entre o português e o espanhol[edit]

Parece que você é o mais interessado na edição do artigo, portanto peço a você que altere o trecho

"Todo insecto tiene seis patas. (Spanish) Todo o insecto (or Todo inseto) tem seis patas. (Portuguese) Every insect has six legs."

A única forma correta é "Todo inseto...", já que "todo o inseto..." tem o sentido de "o inseto como um todo...", se referindo a apenas um único inseto. -- 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Em Portugal, escreve-se "todo o insecto". FilipeS 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please stop reverting my edits, Filipe. There's nothing wrong in placing a "citation needed" notice, such procedure is in fact encouraged in order to force content to conform to WP:V/WP:RS. I think it's clear what's the part I'm disputing. "Portuguese speakers will usually need some formal study of basic grammar and vocabulary before being able to understand even the simplest sentences in those languages (and vice-versa)" is not only a self-contradictory sentence, as the "simplest sentences" part is blatantly untrue. I shall remove the content quoted above if it remains unsourced for some time. Regards, Húsönd 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's self-contradictory. Rather than asking for a cite, why not rewrite the sentence? I agree that it's excessively extreme. FilipeS 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Any particular reason for erasing my comment above? I came here to reply to your message on my talk page and was puzzled with its disappearance. Anyway, I've followed your suggestion and rephrased the sentence that I was contesting on Portuguese language. Please have a look there and tell me if it's okay with you as it currently is. Regards, Húsönd 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Learning Portuguese[edit]

As a native Portuguese speaker, I'm sure you have made much better changes to articles on the various dialects/accents of Portuguese than I ever will. I am an American female college student wishing to learn both EP and BP so I can do news reporting for radio and Internet radio/podcasting. Is it most effective to learn both versions of Portuguese to be most understood in the whole Portuguese-speaking world? For instance, do you know both EP and BP or just one version?

I've read almost all the articles pertaining to Portuguese language and culture around the world. It's amazing the amount of information Wikipedia holds!

learnportuguese 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

language acquisition[edit]

I am impressed at your English skills! Where did you learn English? It's sad that Americans (meaning people in the United States) are not required to learn a foreign language. I think that we should be able to pick our language, but that it should be mandatory for all Americans to learn ONE foreign language to better navigate the world, instead of forcing English on everyone else.

I think you misunderstood; :) I'm not trying to learn both EP and BP at the same time. :) I'm going to try and learn BP first, then if I'm able to, EP. It's just because there's a Brazilian girl at my college, NOT because of any prejudices I have against Europeans. Is it difficult to understand BP if you speak EP? Is it difficult to understand EP if you speak BP?

learnportuguese 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

another message from LearnPortuguese[edit]

Hi, FilipeS. I wanted to ask you how to get my signature correct. I type four tildes; the signature and time appear, but they don't link to my user page. Can you do something?

learnportuguese 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

third message for today from LearnPortuguese[edit]

I found a website called Let me know if it's accurate or not. They even have a section called Compare Accents. I bet a lot of Portuguese-speaking Wikipedians could contribute to this site, depending on their dialect. Check it out. By the way, if you DO record a sound file for them, they will NOT give out your name. They'll just say if you're a male or female, and the city, region, and country you're from. You're left completely anonymous.

learnportuguese 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

question about language acquisition[edit]

Why do you think it is Brazilian Portuguese that is most understood throughout the Portuguese-speaking world?

learnportuguese 19:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you know when to say sou or estou? That is so confusing to me. There is ser and estar, which both mean to be. That is the most difficult part of Portuguese for me. I am on a level somewhere between beginner and intermediate. How did you learn English? Your English is very very good.

learnportuguese 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


I need a peer review to check my POV since issue is controversial. As major editor of the article and maybe Galician speaker (or pt), I need your peer-ance just to check the way I changed the expressions in order to respect POV. Thanks. Hope I did not very bad. Sobreira 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


FilipeS, User Wildie is also helping me. Is it difficult to understand Brazilian Portuguese as a native European Portuguese speaker?

learnportuguese 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


learnportuguese 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my QUESTION FOR PORTUGUESE SPEAKERS section on my talk page? I'm trying to start a discussion there by users who are from the Portuguese-speaking world. Check it out. It's a separate section.

learnportuguese 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, FilipeS. Yes, I have enabled email from other users. Go ahead and use this feature. Sorry if my questions fell outside Wikipedia.

learnportuguese 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm glad to subject this matter to a proper discussion. I'd be grateful for you to visit the talk page and see if I haven't given an acceptable rationale for keeping the palaeographic e caudata separate, as it is historically distinct from e-plus-ogonek (and the term "ogonek" is not correct for it, except perhaps in some very generalized sense as modern typographical jargon). I would be glad to see all the usages properly parallel to the other letters-plus-ogonek merged into ogonek, and in fact I agree that this is good for consistency. Wareh 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronouncing Portuguese[edit]

How would you say that you're very particular about pronouncing Portuguese? I'll need to know that so people don't think I'm trying to make fun of them.

learnportuguese 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You might say something like Sou exigente com a minha pronúncia do português, literally "I'm demanding with my pronunciation of Portuguese". But I wouldn't be, if I were you. Pronunciation is usually a difficult part of a language to get completely right, and it's also something that you can refine along the way. FilipeS 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find really hard to master in Portuguese is how to write the words why and because. I know they are almost the same. Is there a way I can remember to tell them apart?

learnportuguese 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not surprising. You see, even native speakers can't reach an agreement on how they should be spelled, an then there are regional variations in how the words are pronounced (between Portugal and Brazil, mostly). :-)
So let's be pragmatic. "Why" can be spelled porque (Portugal), porquê (Portugal), por que (Portugal and Brazil), or por quê (Brazil). The Brazilian rules are perhaps the simplest: use por quê at the end of sentences, and use por que everywhere else.
I must tell you, though, that in my opinion the talk pages of Wikipedia are not the right place for learning a language. I have tried to send you other suggestions by e-mail, but it didn't get through. I will try again when I have the time, but that may take a while.
Finally, a request: please don't delete the little colons ":" in the talk pages. They make the discussions easier to follow. Regards. FilipeS 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also tried to email you, and it didn't work out. learnportuguese 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

my decision[edit]

I think I'll start with learning European Portuguese (not because I have a problem with the rest of the Portuguese-speaking world) because I want to live in Portugal first. Then I'll go to Brasil. Then I'll go to Spain (but Spain is a whole other story). I figure European Portuguese has more sounds to master, so I'll get the harder accent out of the way first. Like I said, I want to achieve as near fluency as is possible. I want to be able to switch my accent between that of Portugal and that of Brasil. :-) learnportuguese 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Olá. Yeah, I'm definitely going to read information about Brazilian Portuguese also. Like I always say, both versions are equally valid. Like I said, the only reason I want to live in Portugal first is because I find that European Portuguese has the more sounds than Brazilian Portuguese. The two grammars are also quite different. OK, bom fim de semana...... learnportuguese 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Apostrophe?[edit]

Please make a renewed case for this tag at the talk page. Tony (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Galla Placidia[edit]

Hi Felipe; I know that the image has changed, but my question is: is it the right image? It's derived from a glass portrait of Galla, Honoria and Valentinian. It's obvious which one's Valentinian, but of the two women do we know for sure who is Galla and who is Honoria? The Wikimedia Commons link takes you to a page where the other woman is captioned as Galla (as do several other language wikis). Now the woman with the pearls looks older to me, but on the other hand she is depicted alongside Valentinian. Is it a known fact which one is which? Djnjwd 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I understand the relationship between the three people depicted on the original plate, I'm just querying whether it's known which is which given the confusion that seems to exist between the images of Galla and Honoria. Djnjwd 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that the three people are Honoria, Galla and Valentinian; but you see what I mean that there is some confusion as to which woman is which. I was just wondering if some knows for sure, or whether the identification of the women has always been subject to assumptions (the assumption being made by some people that the woman at the top centre must be the Galla the mother because of her positioning on the plate, and by others that [to a modern eye] the woman to the right with the pearls must be Galla because she looks older). I'll see what I can find out. Djnjwd 20:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, and a lot of third party websites like this one [2] agree; but before changing anything, I wanted to ascertain whether is was a citable fact that Galla was the woman on the right. In this day and age, young girls such as Honoria was at the time don't wear pearls, so is that colouring not only our perception here on the wiki, but the perception of every modern commentator who has looked at the original plate? Incidentally, the Commons image is narrated "Galla_Placidia_(rechts)_und_ihre_Kinder"Djnjwd 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Filipe, that's cleared that up. It's a real shame in many ways, as I had the pictures of Galla and Honoria fixed in my mind! Djnjwd 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reconstructed conjugations[edit]

First, thank you for adding this table. I'd been meaning to do something similar for some time. :-) FilipeS 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, but it's not my table. I merely copied/translated it from the german wikipedia article. (MJDTed 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Infinity Article[edit]

Flippe in the discussion I posted about infinity, I meant for it to be more of an inquiry, then how you obviously took it. Therefore I am asking that if you know something on the subject, if you would come to my talk page and tell me why, infinity cannot equal 1/0. Also the reason I wish to know is just to be enlightened not to start a scant feud about a subject I know little about. Therefore I would greatly desire if you would enlighten me. (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)(ARedens)

Artificial scripts and alphabetic scripts[edit]

Why did you move alphabetic scripts under artificial scripts? Was there a discussion somewhere? It's not logically true; there are artificial scripts that are ideographic and syllabic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And there's nothing stopping Category:Artificial scripts from also being categorized under other types of scripts. Nevertheless, many artificial scripts are alphabetic. FilipeS (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If a page is in a category that's in another category, it should logically be in the first category. Otherwise there's no reason to remove it from the first category. Category Alphabetic scripts should contain all of the alphabetic scripts (including under subcategories) and only alphabetic scripts. Many men are black, but that doesn't mean that the category men should be a subcategory of black people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm letting the Shavian issue drop; Category:English spelling reforms is more or less properly a subset of Category:Latin scripts.
Wikipedia:Categorization says that "Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies"; if Category:Artificial scripts does not contain only alphabetic scripts, it's not forming a proper taxonomy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Why did you change the corrections I made to gringo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gringo. FilipeS (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Number system[edit]

What was wrong with the Table Numeral Systems template in the Numeral system article? Krajcsi (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Most of the articles in the template are about ancient or non-western symbols for numbers. These correspond more closely to the linguistic/historical notion of "numeral". Still, I accept that there is some overlap between the two... Regards. FilipeS (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, first half of the article discusses many historical notations. Number names article is only about the linguistical notation. Still I believe that the tamplate should be included in Numeral systems. Krajcsi (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to including the template in both articles... FilipeS (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


You are very good in the study of languages!

Brazilian Portuguese[edit]

I've come across an article on the phonology of (non-standard) Brazilian Portuguese in Journal of the International Phonetic Association (volume 34 issue 2) by Plínio A. Barbosa and Eleonora Albano. I'm not sure, however, how I should include its information into Wikipedia. Should I somehow add it to Brazilian Portuguese or should I put it in Portuguese phonology? Since you seem pretty well versed in Portuguese and could better fit it in the context of Portuguese overall, I thought I might direct you to the article but I didn't get it through a free source. Could I email it to you? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the European examples come from Cruz-Ferreira (1995) (possibly identical to Cruz-Ferreira 1999). The BP source says:

"A large list of oral diphthongs can be formed by combining the stressed oral vowels above with the offglides [ɪ̯] and [ʊ̯], *[iɪ̯] being the only impossible diphthong in the dialect illustrated here... Nasalised diphthongs are formed by combining [ẽ ɐ̃ õ ũ] with the offglide [ɪ̯̃]. With [ʊ̯̃], on the other hand, the only possibility is [ɐ̃ʊ̃]." (230)

I was hoping to make a table of comparative diphthongs (like with English here) but I'm not sure how to represent the BP ones. What do your sources on BP say? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Europe Brazil
anéis /ɛi/ //
sai /ai/ //
sei /ɐi/ //
mói /ɔi/ //
moita /oi/ //
anuis /ui/ //
viu /iu/ //
meu /eu/ //
véu /ɛu/ //
mau /au/ //
cem /ɐ̃ĩ/ //
anões /õĩ/ //
muita /ũĩ/ //
mão /ɐ̃ũ/ /ɐ̃ʊ̃/
Thanks for helping with the table. I've actually been using Cruz-Ferreira (1995) (which, I believe is identical to the IPA handbook coverage of EP) to incorporate European Portuguese information but considering that both articles don't make up more than five pages of information, I shouldn't be deleting too much information. Most of what I've been doing is reorganizing, citation requests, and some consolidation of information. If there's a loss of information, feel free to put it back in. We'll figure out the sourcing eventually.
Oh, before I forget. What's an example word with BP /ɐ̃ĩ/ and how would this sound be transcribed in EP? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Muito obrigado pela ajuda em "language secessionism"[edit]

Sou a pessoa que contribuiu nesse artigo. Ainda não tenho um usuário na wikipédia em inglês (tenho em galego e em espanhol:[3]. O numero de reintegracionistas é quase imposível de saber. Mas posso dizer que são poucos por diferentes questões: são nacionalistas (nas eleições o único partido com representação no Parlamento de Galicia conseguiu um 17% dos votos), mas dentro dos nacionalistas os reintegracionistas são poucos (de facto conheço muitos nacionalistas, mas nenhum reintegracionista). Existe também un reintegracionismo 'soft' que considera o português e o galego linguas diferentes, mas acham que uma norma mais parecida com o português era melhor.

Finalmente, desculpa o meu fraco português e o meu péssimo inglês.

De nada! Boas festas. :-) FilipeS (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish morphology[edit]

Hi Filipe. I have a question. I do not agree with you putting Irish morphology in Category:Numerals. While that article does mention something about numbers, I think following your logic we should put any article about languages mentioning numbers in Category:Numerals. So, can you please explain your reasoning? (By the way, it is good if you use an edit summary when you do something, explaining what you change.) Thanks. You can comment here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, it seems we've been going back and forth with this in that article. It wasn't intentional, I just forgot I'd done the same before. I can understand why you feel the article shouldn't be in the Numerals category. I will do my best not to forget it. FilipeS (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I removed the category for now. Another reason I am uncomfortable with that category is that my bot adds all the articles in Category:Numerals to list of mathematics articles, and Irish morphology, well, doesn't look very mathematical. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on punctuation[edit]

Hi Filipe. Just a note, regarding this diff. Per WP:MSM and accepted mathematical practice, there must be a period at the end of any formula if the formula is at the end of sentence. I know that this can look odd to some people, but these are the conventions. I'll put the periods back. You can reply here if you have questions. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the rule. Thanks for the heads-up. FilipeS (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Olá. College term starts January 10 and so I won't be on Wikipedia nearly as much. I thought I'd let you know. Just put my pages on your watchlist and you can start new discussions if you want. I think it's excellent what you have contributed so far! :-) User:Learnportuguese 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tempura. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Filipe. Please, read the talk page in tempura. Hopfully we can find an agreement. I respect your "portuguese theory", but I say that there are at least another theory, the "spanish" one. I´ve added sources that have being deleted, dont know why. I don´t think we sould make a nationalistic issue here. If the origin was portuguese, good. If spanish. good too. If japanese or mixed, great. But since we are talking about only theories, no evidences, I think we can´t ignore the theories that we just don´t like. I hope you agree, and if that´s the case, I´m more than happy if you want to add the "spanish theory" at your way. Portugués o español, la tempura esta buenísima, y de todas formas, para comernos unos deliciosos peixinhos o estupendos rebozados, no tenemos que irnos tan lejos, los tenemos bien cerca. Perdona que no pueda falar portugués, muito obrigado.--Pinaster (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The theory is not mine. I was not the one who added it to the article.
  • The reason why I removed your contributions from the article was plain and simple, and not at all nationalistic: they were unsourced. In Wikipedia, any doubtful claim can be removed from any article if it's not properly sourced. FilipeS (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I thaught we could understand each other... silly me. Obviously is not your theory, still can get that. And obviously, you were too busy to read the talk page, and of course, much more busy to think...So I take your answer the way it is. Good, no place for discussion, only pety and pompous haughtiness. See you later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaster (talkcontribs) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) --Pinaster (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

what it was[edit]

this wasn't done properly, but it probably wasn't intended vandalism - those changes did in fact offer better representations of the way the names of those letters are pronounced in modern Israeli Hebrew. Dan Pelleg (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Can you explain how the Africa prefecture is related to Spania administratively? And if so, why not put it in the article text somewhere instead of those vague "See also" sections? Same goes for Hispania. I don't want to get into an edit war, but the "See also" section is, in my opinion, completely redundant: either the links in there should appear in context in the article (b/c they are important) or they are unimportant and should appear nowhere. I see no middle ground for links that have no place in the text to be even mentioned in a "See also" section. Srnec (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Mestizo/Mestiço[edit]

2 subjects:
1st, English is not my main language, so, if you say that the Spanish word mestizo is also used in English, I believe it. But I think that the articles in Wiki should talk about the meanings rather than the cognates or related words. If I am right, the article Mestizo should talk about mixed Spanish and Amerindian only, but a note (with the corresponding link) should be made about the words Mestiço and Métis. But about Mulatto, you are probably right, if the article talks about mixed black and white people, perhaps Mestiço and Métis shouldn’t be there, since they have a broader meaning (as you know, the term mestiçagem in Portuguese is not applied just on human beings, it applies to other animals as well). But does the English language have a word for a simple race mixing, no matter what race?
2nd, Don’t you want to bring up your arguments about Hispanosphere in the talk page? It would be interesting to see the opinion of other people.
Ten Islands (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire[edit]

Your 100% correct on your views, and please dont let some wikipedians, who obviously do not know what they are talking about fog your mind. Check out my page, and some of the Holy Roman Empire arguements I have had to go through, with obviously ignorant hill-folk. -- (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Check out the Romano-Germanic culture page, please let me know what you think about it. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello Filipe. As you are a native speaker of Portuguese, do you know why names of places such as Moçambique and Açores are spelt with a Z (as with Spanish) in English? It strikes me as a bit weird, Thanks, BalkanFever 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Suffix, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger in Castilian Spanish and Names given to the Spanish language[edit]

Hi. I see you proposed a merger for those two articles. As I explain at the Castilian Spanish article talk page, I don't think the merger is a good idea. I'd like to remove the merger banner and bring some contents over from Spanish Wikipedia (notably es:Dialecto castellano septentrional). What do you think about this? Greetings, Cvalda (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

White Brazilians[edit]

Hi, I saw your discussion in the White Brazilian article and I agree with you. I would like to propose that article for exclusion because its very existence is racist and as a result I believe this article is unencyclopedic and go against Wikipedia principles.

--Mhsb (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I've been doing some changes to some articles you've been involved with as well (especially about the mediopassive and reflexive verb). I'm happy that you've felt free to continue working on and improving my changes as well. I have realized that you've sometimes got into some rather animated discussions in doing so. I guess it's only too human to feel strongly about one's opinions sometimes, and that most of us can get upset when somebody else doesn't agree with what seems obvious to us; so I just wanted to reassure you that only happy with and grateful for your continued contributions, especially as I realize you have great compentence in these areas. And isn't collaboration in order to reach a general consensus rather than just presenting one individual's view the very heart of Wikipedia?

I was considering making suggestions to the article about grammatical gender as well. The talk page, however, made me realize that my issues have been worked over quite extensively already. Specifically, I'm currently leaning towards the position that the most useful definition of gender of nouns would be based on congruence/agreement (since it's not necessarily a system revolving about biological sex, even if it has become so in parts of the Indo-European family). I then noticed a short comment from yourself that you originally took a similar position, but have come to change it during your work here. So I thought I'd come here to ask you if you might get the time at some point to make me a short note about what really made you change your mind? It might be a short cut to making me feel more comfortable with the current state of the article, saving everybody a lot of time; rather than me starting up again a lot of work and discussions that have already been done.

In any case, thanks again, and all best wishes. Bantaar (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pahlavi and Rotokas[edit]

Your note in Rotokas alphabet that Pahlavi has a similarly small alphabet is interesting, but maybe misses making the point that Rotokas has 12 letters representing only 12 phonemes, whereas (Book) Pahlavi uses its 12 or 13 letters to represent 24 phonemes. -- Ngio (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I misread the history. -- Ngio (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin[edit]

I kind of agree with you about reinstating the words someone deleted on the grounds that they have descendants in modern Romance languages. The salient point being made is that words from Classical Latin that were the unmarked (normal) words for the concepts they represented were replaced in Vulgar Latin by words that were borrowed from elsewhere, underwent a semantic shift, or at least weren't previously the unmarked words for those concepts. That doesn't mean that the words that were replaced didn't continue down other paths, either by becoming marked or by shifting meaning. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation wanted[edit]

Hi. Can you please not only add a template to an article as you did here but also explain why? You should always explain on the talk page of the article why you think there is something contradictory, immediately after inserting the template, otherwise the template gets unuseful. Please note that I will remove the template if you can not justify it. --Thogo (Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tables (board game) and French Trictrac[edit]

Hey. I remember reading about the game "trichetrach" in Machiavelli. I'd like to contribute to the Tables (board game) article, specifically by discussing the connection to Italian trichetrach and French trictrac. There is an article on French WP at fr:Trictrac, but alas, I know very little French. I would appreciate your help with translating some of the information from the French article, if you are interested. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

American English pronunciation[edit]

Hi Felipe,

I read this online about a pronunciation tendency in American English named "T-flapping" or "T-tapping":

Do you happen to know in what region(s) of the US this pronunciation is most common?

I wrote to the author of that web page, but it turns out he passed away in 2004.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by José 5343 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Realis and Irrealis[edit]

Hi fella!

Just writing to ask you to have a look here - what's your opinion? Ta! Nic. (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Got an answer for ya :-) (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender GA Sweeps Review: On Hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gender and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin[edit]

Hello FilipeS,

I saw your comment about Vulgar Latin and thought this may interest you.

There is a section on vocabulary that shows Classical Latin nouns transformed into Vulgar Latin nouns, which appear in modern day romance languages.

Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finitoultero (talkcontribs) 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support for deletion of celebrity pictures from Mulatto article.[edit]

I note that you also feel it is inappropriate to use celebrity names or photographs as examples in the Mulatto article. My feeling is that the recent use of the images of Barack Obama and Halle Berry perpetuates the idea that the word is used in common parlance and that they are willing representatives of the term as defined in the article. I believe the article should avoid labeling any person as mulatto unless there is compelling evidence that they self identify using this term. Short of such evidence, references to or pictures of individuals should be removed. The article has a contentious editing history and I hope I can rely on your assistance in keeping the article free of pictures or references to people who would not self identify as Mulatto. Thanks -- Rydra Wong (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request[edit]

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

English grammar[edit]

As a frequent (>20 edits) contributor, would you like to weigh in at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

Re a proposed merger of Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory into History of thermodynamics.

IMO, this would not be a good move. See Talk:Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory#Proposed merger and Talk:History of thermodynamics#Proposed merger. Jheald (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I support the merger of Introduction to entropy into the main entropy article. The idea actually had come up with the introduction article was nominated for deletion awhile back. However, I would like to hear your rationale for merger on one of the relevant talk pages so we can at least get a consensus on it one way or the other. CopaceticThought (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Volume Integral[edit]

I couldn't find the merger discussion and seeing that it's a year old, would it be safe to assume the discussion is dead and have the tags removed? Thanks Mapletip (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Gender-inclusive language[edit]

I have nominated Category:Gender-inclusive language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Gender-neutral language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Decline of Roman Empire[edit]


I see that a month ago you made an edit to the Decline of the Roman Empire article, changing a passage that I had written from

The decline of the Roman Empire was not a single event but a gradual process that lasted several centuries. This process was characterized by increasing economic inequality, incompetent political and military leadership, foreign invasions and political instability resulting in repeated usurpations and all-out civil war. On the other hand, under some strong emperors, the Empire enjoyed stretches of respite from its woes.


The decline of the Roman Empire was a process lasting many centuries; there is no consensus when this process might have begun but many dates and time lines have been proposed by historians.

, with the comment removed POV; the causes for the decline are debated.

I kinda liked the previous passage because it gave some details I consider important; can you please explain what particularly striked you as POV or debatable about it? I'm a bit at a loss here.

Maybe it'd be better to say 'This period saw' instead of 'This process was characterized by'?

Thanks and waiting to hear from you.

Bazuz (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Generic Mood in German[edit]

Can you look at my question in Talk:Realis_mood? Your input may help clear things up, since you wrote the piece I'm talking about. --Okj579 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

English orthography[edit]

Hello - I didn't think your contribution to Talk:English orthography was particularly helpful and actually was offensive! I agree with the idea sophistry was in evidence and a bad thing; a tense balance between reflecting and ruling on spelling and language has always been part of the cultural negotiation and flow but English is what it is! And it belongs to all its users! Standard English and beautiful regional and international diversity in constant development and newer paradigms of internet and technology-based linguistics - it all is what is and a culturally-produced artwork and historical - if frustrating to learn! I suggest you delete and replace with a better response Kathybramley (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Empire GA review[edit]

There is a community review of the GA status of Roman Empire at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1, to which you may wish to contribute.--SabreBD (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Subjunctive mood and past subjunctive[edit]

Have you noticed this statement on the Subjunctive mood article?

The terms "present subjunctive" and "past subjunctive", such as appear in the following table, refer to the form and not to the time of action expressed.

This seems to be right up your alley. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"independent" letters[edit]

Hi -- I thought you might be interested in this discussion I started about the concept of diacritics producing "distinct" or "independent" letters, as you seem to have been a principal actor in building that distinction into the article. Joriki (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, FilipeS. 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)