User talk:Kolno

Welcome!

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Principality of Pontinha, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Principality of Pontinha

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Principality of Pontinha, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested to know how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements already in Wikipedia – and, if possible, correct them. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with sanctions, which could include a block from editing. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho,

It doesn't matter whether or not another language Wikipedia has an article on a subject. The English Wikipedia doesn't have main space articles about made-up countries. There are hundreds of self-proclaimed micronations and we only have articles on any that have received substantial coverage in reliable sources.

If you have questions about this deletion, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffe Knechtle moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cliffe Knechtle 1. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonçalo Vasques Coutinho moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Gonçalo Vasques Coutinho. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico van Straten moved to draftspace

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Nico van Straten, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:Nico van Straten where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. -- Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Almoster moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Almoster. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Almoster (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Almoster and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jaozinhoanaozinho! Your additions to Kolongongo War have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Revolt moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Potato Revolt, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Raid of Carpetania for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raid of Carpetania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raid of Carpetania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Untamed1910 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Battle of Tribola

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho,

Thank you for creating Battle of Tribola.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please remember that secondary sources are generally needed to establish notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cremastra}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cremastra (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Gonçalo Vasques Coutinho

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gonçalo Vasques Coutinho, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. After making the page I found out there’s an identical one in the English Wikipedia as well. No point in holding the draft anymore Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Nico van Straten

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nico van Straten, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bento Caparica moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bento Caparica. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conquest of Conistorgis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faro. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Almoster

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Almoster, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Battle of Padang Area. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that I happened to edit the page at the exact same time someone else moved it to the draft space. When I saved my changes, it mistakenly credited me as the page creator. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Do you remember if perhaps there was an edit conflict notice that you might have missed? If you're sure there wasn't one, it should probably be reported as a bug. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so, just a few minor edits regarding grammar issues before it was moved to draft space. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Potato Revolt has been accepted

Potato Revolt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

bonadea contributions talk 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luso–Danish expedition to North America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luso–Danish expedition to North America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luso–Danish expedition to North America until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portuguese Newfoundland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Portuguese Newfoundland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese Newfoundland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe history on Wikipedia

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Luso–Danish expedition to North America. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for specific interpretations of history, nor to attempt to legitimize them by holding up fringe history as on equal footing with scholarship on the grounds of something being possible. You've created a lot of content that runs up against this in addition to your helpful editing on Wikipedia, and this is creating a workload for editors to remove. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve already addressed that in my comment back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luso–Danish expedition to North America, I’d like you to answer it. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there, though the point stands. It's clear that you, personally, believe these expeditions happened and that there's enough information to warrant articles, but the articles you've written present fringe history as a split in the mainstream understanding. Wikipedia isn't the venue to wash these ideas for general consumption by the public. Please read WP:PARITY, because you're otherwise contributing a lot of good content to Wikipedia on Portuguese history. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Da Serra–American conflict for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Da Serra–American conflict is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Serra–American conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent low-quality article creation

Can I ask you to consider involving other editors in vetting articles you’re creating? You’ve made two WP:PROFRINGE articles that are both about to be deleted and it’s pretty clear that you’re not following WP:GNG when creating new articles, and it’s creating a workload for other editors. Your older articles don’t seem to have this problem at first glance, though I do admit that a disconnect between your high quality writing and the sources used could be misleading me on that front.

Regardless, it seems you’re being a bit hasty with article creation on Portuguese history, and I imagine it’s frustrating to have that work deleted on Wikipedia. The history and Portugal Wikiprojects would almost certainly benefit from a writer of your calibre, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This still seems to be ongoing (your recently created article appears to have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues). Is there any chance you’re willing to change your approach here a bit? You’ve got quite an extended history of writing articles which are quickly nominated for an AfD. I’m not trying to WP:WIKIHOUND but there’s definitely a bit of a wider issue here that’s worth addressing if possible. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know which article you're referring to? Thank you. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch–Portuguese conflicts seems to have the same concerns as Da Serra–American conflict; there certainly is real history there, but linking them into a continuous "conflicts" doesn't appear to accord with any of the sources? The only results for "Baloch–Portuguese conflicts" are that page, again. You've had a lot of work undone on Wikipedia, and you're clearly a skilled writer. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

What I mean by "conflicts" is a series of engagements, not necessarily continuous. There are many examples of articles that do the same, such as the "Japanese–Portuguese conflicts", where there are centuries between engagements. As for the title, it's true that it's not explicitly mentioned in books, but this is also the case for many other "A–B conflicts" articles. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem here is that there's not much evidence of scholarship linking these as continuous, as with Japanese–Portuguese conflicts. It's a Wikipedia:SYNTH issue, possibly, if it's disparate events which aren't linked except geographically per WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baloch–Portuguese conflicts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hormuz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Naband for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Naband is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Naband until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI about your article creation

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Cape Coast (1562) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Cape Coast (1562) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Cape Coast (1562) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Lucanzo (1590) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Lucanzo (1590) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lucanzo (1590) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portudal–Joal Massacre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Portudal–Joal Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portudal–Joal Massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Jailolo (1550) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Jailolo (1550). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it should be submitted to AfC for further review in light of discussion at WP:ANI. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in participating in an interview study regarding LLMs?

Dear @Jaozinhoanaozinho,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join a study at the University of Minnesota! The objective of the study is to understand how large language models (LLMs) impact the collaborative knowledge production process, by investigating knowledge contributors’ interactions with LLMs in practice.

If you have used LLMs (e.g., GPT, Llama, Claude...) in the process of contributing to Wikipedia (eg. grammar check, finding resources, writing scripts...), we’d love to join the study! You will be engaging in a 45-60 min interview, talking and reflecting about your experience with Wikipedia and your perception/usage of LLMs in Wikipedia. Your valuable input will not only help us understand practical ways to incorporate LLMs into the knowledge production process, but also help us generate guardrails about these practices. All participation would be anonymous.

In addition, if you know any editor who may have used LLMs during their edits, we highly appreciate it if you could share their contact with us, as we can reach out to them.

To learn more, please feel free to start a chat with me in email or take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes or direcly sign up: https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs

Thank you so much for your time and consideration!

All the best, LLMs and knowledge production Research Team Phoebezz22 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving the Lusitanians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toledo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are now subject to an editing restriction

As per the consensus reached by editors at WP:ANI, you are now subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Specifically, you are prohibited from creating new articles in the main namespace.

If you wish to create articles, you may do so through the WP:AFC process. This restriction can be appealed at WP:AN. Please note that failure to comply with this restriction may result in any newly created articles being WP:G5 deleted or lead to a block.

Thank you. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martim Afonso de Sousa's expedition to Brazil moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Martim Afonso de Sousa's expedition to Brazil. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and please see talk page for additional discussion. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Almoster

Hello, Jaozinhoanaozinho. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Battle of Almoster".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sinking of the Nossa Senhora da Conceição has been accepted

Sinking of the Nossa Senhora da Conceição, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher). Jaozinhoanaozinho, you may not in fact create articles yourself without posting a request, since you have been banned by the community from doing that, see this post above and this ANI discussion. You're now technically able to create articles directly in mainspace, but you're not allowed to do it. I hope that's clear. Pinging SunDawn to clarify this, and also to say that I don't at all blame you for not being aware of this ban. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, thank you for your concerns and for clarifying this for me. If you don't mind me asking, will this ban be removed automatically someday, or would I need to appeal? Thank you. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above notification of the restriction has instructions to appeal, but it won't be an automatic reversal. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about a source. Ventura is marked as unreliable by Headbomb's script, which I assume has to do with the journal it was published in.

Not sure about Adam Nichols:[1] Probably squeaks by. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and felt it had identical problems as the rest, but I didn't want to AfD it after the ANI for fear of wikihounding and felt there's probably enough eyes on it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one of the references which is genuine. I'm not keen on that wordpress site reference. I'm trying to find the academia cite. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it’s a chapter from História da Marinha Portuguesa. Navios, marinheiros e arte de navegar 1500-1668. It should pass WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be written by a full University of Lisbon professor who specialised in Portuguese expansion, so seems to be genuine and it covers it. That wordpress has to go. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Wordpress one is bad, the other is fine. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you’re an admin and I think I’m well at the limit of what I can say without wikihounding anyone: it looks like poorly sourced articles are just being rubber stamped (see below) so I’m not sure anything actually has changed. Oh well, I tried. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck Agh, I'm an editor who happens to be an Admin. But I do want to know about any problems you see. I wonder if AfC people are required to use Headbomb's script. If they aren't, they should be as it's so good at showing what sources are not reliable. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And NPP. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it this morning. Nothing is shown on it. There are valid. But, there is no doubt it is badly sourced. For a article on a historical event, I would like to see multiple reference covering every aspect of it, not just the basics to pass WP:V and a decent size describing the event itself. I was planning to send it back to Afc but its past 90-day limit and it has two references, which makes it more than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 17:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Jaozinhoanaozinho. Thank you for your work on Portuguese attack on the Catherine (1618). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this message was sent to me by mistake. I did not create or submit the article listed. Kolno (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it, although its a bit late in the date. Who knows how it up ended up here. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maldivian–Portuguese conflicts has been accepted

Maldivian–Portuguese conflicts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American–Algerian War (1785–1795)

Hi @Kolno: How goes it? I would slow down on the reverts as you seem to be close to edit warring. @Nourerrahmane: has long experience of developing articles up to GA standard and would never add content without adding sources. Simply, it wouldn't be done. The dude is capable. I would slow down, collaborate more and less of the instinctual reverts. I doesn't help anybody, particular in light of the expansion he is going to do on the article. 08:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how capable someone is, content should be sourced at the time it is added. Another admin already confirmed this on the talk page. But sure I'll slow down to avoid other issues. Kolno (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kolno. Thank you for your work on Portuguese expedition to the Moluccas. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of AI in Draft space articles

Hello,

I noticed that some of the articles you put into Draft and submit for AfC are showing up as positives in GPTzero.

Can I ask to confirm if this is true? I am assuming you are Portuguese, many of the sourcing for these articles are in Portuguese.

I don't think there is any policy against using WP:LLMs, but I want to confirm you are checking that these articles don't include hallucinated details. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to "Draft:Campaign Plan No. 1(34)", which you for assumed involved LLM, I have sources to support it, I just haven't added them to the article yet, and I don't plan to work on it at the moment. As for "Draft:Ruy Germack Possolo", the article is well sourced and entirely written by me. If you're thinking of using AI to enhance my grammar, I don't do that either. For some reason, these accusations have fallen to me again, they're not true. Kolno (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just run GPTZero on some of my other drafts, ex. Draft:March to Madrid (1706); Draft:Zayyanid–Iberian conflicts and Draft:Zanzibar conflict (1503), and all say it is likely human written. Your claims seem cherry picked. I did however test the articles you mentioned, and they do show up as likely AI generated, but either way I have already explained myself above. Kolno (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are short enough that if I put them into gptzero.me, they seem to trigger. I did try a longer article of yours and it seemed to be human.

the sourcing seemed legit, though I cannot read the language. I think the longer more complex sentences are a bit awkward to read. They make people suspect it might be AI, including GPTZero apparently. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About posting on a Talk page

When posting on any Talk page, whether a User Talk Page, or Talk Page of an Article, please sign your posts by, at the end of the post, add four tildes, (~~~~). Thanks Jlktutu (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: March to Madrid (1706) has been accepted

March to Madrid (1706), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Setergh (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Banten invasion of Palembang has been accepted

Banten invasion of Palembang, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bento Caparica

Hello, Kolno. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bento Caparica, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kolno. Thank you for your work on Zimbabwean–Portuguese conflicts. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Your edit to Draft:Siege of Kweilin (1647) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Blockade of Zanzibar has been accepted

Blockade of Zanzibar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sack of Angoja

Hello Kolno,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sack of Angoja for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Sack of Angoja to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Noleander (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kolno. Thank you for your work on Siege of Cannanore (1559). Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Google search reveals that this is a valid alternative name, so a redirect is appropriate.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noleander (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kolno. Thank you for your work on Belém rebellion (1823). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

It it potentially reasonable to keep this as a separate page, although its unclear from the sources whether this was a genuinely distinct event. An alternative option would be to merge to History of Belém#19th century, then this period of conflict is discussed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bento Caparica

Hello, Kolno. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bento Caparica".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Siege of Anzele

The article Siege of Anzele has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If this were eligible, I'd draftify it. But I can't find any sources regarding this conflict, other than the single one already in the article. As such, it fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of old sources

I see you often use colonial-era sources. They are notorious for their racist spin and are not reliable sources. Also see WP:AGEMATTERS. Please go through the articles you've written and replace them with recent sources, or remove the content. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not, I'm going to have to go remove the content myself, and might escalate to ANI if you don't promise to stop doing this Kowal2701 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Using colonial sources Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please make a response at ANI. I'm not trying to get you banned, I just want this fixed Kowal2701 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]