User talk:BBird/Archive 1

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Treaty lisbon dec07.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Treaty lisbon dec07.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Povo mfa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Povo mfa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

engano

Olá BBird, tambem sou participante convicto da wiki em diversos assuntos e linguas. Pedia-te se poderias ajudar a resolver a questão do artigo do pintor Carlos_Botelho pois está marcado para apagar por consideram haver um homónimo "bom" (morto) e outro mau(vivo) n.1964. obrigado 87.103.49.250 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- ja vi o tema -- mas o seu pedido nao vem assinado; era melhor. --BBird (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança

Hello! Why are you deleting information as birth place, name of children, etc., of Maria Pia's article? If you read the WP-PT, you can find sources and references that proves it. Please, do not practise vandalism on the Maria Pia's article, because all pretendants have the same rights and their articles should present all information about their claims. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please name yourself (and not a last minute name) -- go preach nonsense elsewhere not in wk. --BBird (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Madeira work group

Hello! I see you are a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal. You may want to come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Madeira work group and participate / help. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes Store

Please discuss controversial edits on the relevant talk pages. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of the Algarve

I have placed new information about the coat or arms of the Algarve on the Talk:Algarve page. You may be interested in looking at it. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convite

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

Biography Collaboration

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

Age of Discovery

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

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

Mach numbers and speeds

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

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

AfD

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

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

I don't know why either...

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

Featured article

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

Image Tagging Image:Ccsignature.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:First portuguese flag.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wiki:pt

Olá BBird,

Eu reparei que está contribuir em artigos relacionados com a lusofonia e gostaria de convidá-lo para participar na Wikipédia em português, actualmente temos mais de 135 mil artigos. Sua ajuda será muito bem vinda.

Se por acaso tiver algum problema ou dúvida deixe uma mensagem na minha página de discussão.

Continue com esse bom trabalho,

Rei-artur 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ourladyschoenstatt.png

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Ourladyschoenstatt.png, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image, and that, just as with all of your text contributions, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can be of assistance or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. BigDT 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Location_Lisbon_Europe.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Location_Lisbon_Europe.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG ² 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]