 | This user is an alternative account. This notice confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts and that this account will not be used for sockpuppetry. You may discuss this account at User talk:JPratas. See contribs— page moves— all logs— block log |
We already decided that centralized discussion will take place on the talk page of Fascism in Europe, for all those articles. Removing mention of the National Union (Portugal) from various articles, then, on the basis that it is not linline with that article is not an acceptable reasoning. Once consensus is reached, it will apply to all articles, including but not limited to the main NU page. Please keep that in mind and resist the need to put the cart (mainspace edits) before the horse (talkpage discussion). El_C 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear El_C, thanks for letting me know this. Can I suggest you to please make a similar heads up to other editors that are editing the article without consensus being reached? I also suggest that the main discussion should take place on National Union (Portugal) talk page. Fascism in Europe will never have more than a paragraph on Portugal.-- J Pratas ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think everyone already knows. And no, we are not going to change venues: the RfC's conclusion will apply to all articles. I would think that while consensus is still ongoing, that the last older version before your changes is the status quo ante version and it's the one that should be up in the interim. El_C 21:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- El_C The problem is that some editors, for obvious lack of knowledge, are mixing up the Estado Novo with Salazar and with the National Union. While some Portuguese historians label the regime as fascist (which is not in line with what non-portugues historian say) you will not find any source saying that the National Union was a fascist party or movement, quite the contrary. -- J Pratas ( talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- A distinction you're encouraged to make in the discussion — all part of resolving this dispute. El_C 22:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C I have two asks for you
- 1) On April 6 after a consensus hade been reached in the Salazar's article talk page I've delete a simple, unsourced, sentence from the article Fascism in Europe. This triggered an edit warring. I have now tried to reinstate that very same sentence, with which I do not agree, but accept as the sentence pre-edit warring. However the reinstatement is being reverted. If we are going to wait for consensus shouldn't the pre-edit-warring statement prevail?
- 2) There is a disruptive group of IPs from city of Fortaleza in Brazil that have been maliciously removing sourced content from several articles and replacing it with unsourced content. Most articles are related with the Portuguese Estado Novo. The group of IPs has received several warnings and blocks in the talk page but the mutant IP keeps coming back. I think it would be good if you could please also please protect the following articles: List of fascist movements, Blue Division , Category:Fascist parties and List of fascist movements by country
The suspicious IPs are:
- ,
-- J Pratas ( talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I already mentioned, all those items have been expanded, so putting back a bare-bone one does not seem to enjoy consensus. But I fully-protected the page for a second time and you may now expect me to be outright draconian when it comes to undiscussed edits pertaining to this dispute. The time for being
bold is long passed. Regarding your semiprotection request, I have semi'd two of the three articles and rollback'd the IP.
El_C 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello JPratas. Thanks for making the list at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1#Disruptive IP. I went ahead and put new semiprotection on Estado Novo (Portugal) and List of fascist movements. Let me know if you see any further problems. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Agostinho Lourenço.
User:MrClog while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
Please make sure to read MOS:CAPS (you make some mistakes on that part) and to add wikilinks to your article.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MrClog}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
MrClog ( talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear JPratas, care to explain why you undid my changes to the Salazar page? Have a nice weekend! 178.9.136.118 ( talk) 09:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Salazar`s page is heavily sourced and has been quite scrutinized and debated, if you want to delete content you should first use the article's talk page. If you think citations are needed, feel free to ask for them, but when doing so have in mind that according to Wikipedia's guidelines there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. For example, an editor should not demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand. The same goes for the statement that in the 1970s several state-run universities were open across mainland Portugal (the Minho University, the New University of Lisbon, the University of Évora, and the University of Aveiro). Anyone can very easily check when were these universities founded. You can easily check either going to the article University of Aveiro and see for yourself or you can go to the University's website. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.-- J Pratas ( talk) 07:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oki, thanks! 178.9.56.196 ( talk) 07:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please follow WP:BRD. --Asqueladd ( talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Asqueladd ( talk) 20:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that if bold edit gets reverted, one must seek a consensus for adding content, not to continue reverting. But in this case my bold editing was reverted without any explanation, and Wikipedia:Consensus policy also says that edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring. Unexplained revers are not helpful. J Pratas ( talk) 09:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You have reverted my edits on the National Union article two times, I would like to avoid edit warring and all that pointless fighting, so I want to ask you what exactly are you objecting about my edits? I mostly just corrected spelling and removed some repeated content, so I'm really curious. -- 187.114.156.151 ( talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have already explained that you have removed text such as the sentence "as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo". The sentence was in the lead section and in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary, so there is no harm in a sentence being repeated in both the lead section and the article. But you removed the sentence from both palces. You have also removed the word "Portuguese" from the sentence "Portuguese scholars". If you want to make this kind of changes you need to use the talk page and achieve a consensus. J Pratas ( talk) 10:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I removed the sentence but I replaced it with another one, as for the word "Portuguese", I removed it simply because it is biased to state that only Portuguese scholars consider the Estado Novo fascist, pretty sure we already taked about this back in the dispute we had regarding the Estado Novo, there's no need to start a dispute over something like this, anyway, are there any other sentences which I removed? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- There you go, you are providing the answer to your own question, you've removed a sentence (twice) and have inserted a new one that has nothing to do with what you've removed. If you want to remove sentences, ie. remove content, from an article that has been stable for months, and your editing is being reverted, you will have to take it to the talk page and first find consensus in the talk page. J Pratas ( talk) 17:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Except that is not a relevant sentence at all, what is the point of starting a dispute over this? But since you're insisting, as a sort of compromise I'm thinking about maintaning the sentence in the lead, but also adding that he adopted many Fascist characteristics (which he did), while removing the second sentence, because of grammatical questions, what do you think about this? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think about it though? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Would you mind if I made my proposed edits in order for you to check first? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no reason to start a discussion in the talk page over something that is not relevant to the article, once again I didn't remove any information you added, as such this is a more appropriate place to discuss. -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 00:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
António de Oliveira Salazar into
Spanish Civil War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk) 12:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, thanks for the heads up. In this specific case the content in António de Oliveira Salazar was introduced by me. So I am not sure if it makes sense to recognize my own work-- J Pratas ( talk) 15:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aristides de Sousa Mendes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Fernandes. 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) 07:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, could you intervene on the Portuguese's corresponding article (and also here : pt:Lista de partidos políticos em Portugal and pt:Ação Nacional Popular) to revert the changes of Ribeiro2002Rafael and Upoorde in particular and to align the Portuguese version with the English version (in which you remove far-right label against other editors) ? Ribeiro2002Rafael describes this change as being operated by "fascists and Nazis" who would like to whitewash the party.
PS : If you have the time and the possibility, I would appreciate it if you could intervene on the Spanish and French Wiki to remove the far-right label as you did on the English's corresponding article. 193.51.163.253 ( talk) 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Fascism in Europe; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:Verifiability, do not add information and then "add sources later". Add the information with the appropriate sources. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Beyond My Ken: I've only noticed this message now. I believe I've clarified this. My apologies if it looked like edit warring. I was just adding the sources incrementally. Thank you for your patience. Let me know if there are sources you think are still missing. J Pratas ( talk) 23:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- It did not "look like" edit warring, uit was edit warring, and now you're doing it again with another editor. Please stop edit warring, or I'll have no choice but to report you.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Beyond My Ken: Your help in reaching a consensus would be much appreciated. A consensus had been reached the "another editor" is basically deleting sourced content on Francoist Spain, and formatting, but he is arguing about Portugal, without citing any source whatsoever. Does not seem to make much sense J Pratas ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It did not "look like" edit warring, uit was edit warring, and now you're doing it again with another editor. Please stop edit warring, or I'll have no choice but to report you.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to
Portugal and the Holocaust 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Cite errors in Revolution of 1934
The article has some errors in the references. Can you please fix? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to
your common.js page.
- Article cites "Payne 1993, p. 219" but no such work is listed in the bibliography
- Article cites "Payne 1999, p. 228" but it is unclear which of the two 1999 books by Payne it is referring to -- Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 or Spain's First Democracy?
- Article cites "Payne 2008, pp. 100–103" but no such work is listed in the bibliography
- Article cites"Preston 2012, p. 269" but no such work is listed in the bibliography -- or is it referring to ref #17 (which should be converted to a
{{ cite book}}format)?
Thanks, Renata• 3 00:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Francisco Franco. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Violations of WP:TALK guideline
I'm going to assume good faith and presume that you missed my edit summaries
here and
here. Per
WP:TALK: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
Using formatting to BLUDGEON the discussion is highly disruptive. Just state your argument in the same format as everyone else. Thanks,
Generalrelative (
talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Generalrelative This is a guideline, not a policy. But I am happy to follow the guideline. Thanks for the heads up.-- J Pratas ( talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
In your recent edit which reinserted disputed content into the article
Francisco Franco, your edit summary read See Talk page - argumentum ad hominem, attacking attributes of the author making the argument, ie attacking Hayes, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. What Hayes says is widely accepted in the academia
. I want to make it clear that this is not a valid argument for ignoring
WP:ONUS. Criticizing the biases of sources is something we do all the time when determining the
reliability and
due balance of sources. Discussing these matters is absolutely not an ad hominem attack. Further, it is clear that the majority of those who have weighed in disagree with you here. Three separate people have cut this content since it was highlighted on the article talk page (Aquillion, AugusteBlanqui, and myself). Continuing to reinsert this language therefore constitutes a clear case of edit warring. You will need to actually persuade others that this content is DUE if you think it belongs in the article.
Generalrelative (
talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Francisco Franco. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Generalrelative this warning applies to yourself. You have been already reverted by me and Rjensen. You are deleting text just because you think that Hayes is biased. That is not enough reason, Hayes is a RS and you have not presented a single argument about the substance of what Hayes said. With that argument we would delete Payne (often accused of being fond of Franco), we would delete Preston (often accused of hating Franco), etc.. In this particular case eliminating the text does not make much sense because what Hayes wrote is not even controversial, as you can see in the additional sources I've provided. You should try to be a bit more constructive instead of behaving like an eraser. J Pratas ( talk) 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, this is false. I was at no point reverted by Rjensen. I believe you're confusing me with Aquillion, who, along with AugusteBlanqui, has also edited to remove this undue material from the article. At this point, counting those who have either edited to remove this content or expressed on talk that they agree with its removal, the two of you are clearly in the minority, and will need to actually persuade others if you believe this material belongs in the article. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Francisco Franco 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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) 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Portugal and the Holocaust. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. If another editor objects to your content, please go to talk and explain why your view is correct. Do not simply re-do it and then try to bury it beneath other edits. Otherwise, you push the article towards an edit war. Please read WP:BRD as previously asked. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 08:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Brigade Piron I took this to the article`s talk page. I suspect you misunderstood the use of primary sources. They are being used as complement to the secondary ones. And the issue is not contentious. J Pratas ( talk) 15:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Talk:Francisco Franco. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Here is the diff: [1]. If you think that people who disagree with you are "polluting" the page then you are not here to build a collaborative project. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stop trying to censor people. Stop trying to threaten people. Stop showing fascist tendencies. It is ridiculous. Trakking ( talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Generalrelative what you are pointing is by no means a personal attack. What I said is that the discussion has been polluted. This not a personal attack. The fact is that there are editors in the talk page that instead of focusing the discussion on the sources and the merits of the sources have been providing their personal opinions, have been quoting sources that say the opposite of what they claim, etc... and this behavior has been polluting the discussion. The discussion is not a person. So not personal attack here. I get the impression that you feel uncomfortable when a solid source like Paul Preston says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
J Pratas (
talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, you said
this discussion in this talk page has always been polluted by a bunch of editors that dont want to understand what Preston said, dont want Wikipedia to be sourced on good academic sources, but rather seek the easy insult.
Not only did you use inflammatory language to describe those who disagree with you (if you know anything about the history of fascism, you know the rhetorical weight of terms like "pollution") but you explicitly accused us of acting in bad faith. I get all kinds of impressions about people like you, but per Wikipedia's policy of civility I keep them to myself. I suggest you do the same. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)-
Generalrelative, you are trying to turn into personal something that is not personal. A discussion is not a person. And yes there are have been a bunch of editors misquoting sources and yes there have been editors arguing with their personal views instead of sources, and yes, that has been disrupting, it has been polluting and contaminating the discussion. And no saying that the discussion has been contaminated or polluted is not a personal attack or inflammatory language.
J Pratas (
talk) 02:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- See my comment below. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. I will not continue this discussion but advise you to drop the stick before this becomes a disciplinary matter for you (again).
Generalrelative (
talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Generalrelative I did not name any editor, I said a bunch of editors, which is different, you are the one taking it personally. You came to my personal page and accused me personally of using inflammatory language. And for me "inflammatory" falls into the same category of "polluted". The difference here is that I did not accuse any specific editor and you are the one that made it personal. J Pratas ( talk) 12:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- See my comment below. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. I will not continue this discussion but advise you to drop the stick before this becomes a disciplinary matter for you (again).
Generalrelative (
talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Generalrelative, you are trying to turn into personal something that is not personal. A discussion is not a person. And yes there are have been a bunch of editors misquoting sources and yes there have been editors arguing with their personal views instead of sources, and yes, that has been disrupting, it has been polluting and contaminating the discussion. And no saying that the discussion has been contaminated or polluted is not a personal attack or inflammatory language.
J Pratas (
talk) 02:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, you said
-
Generalrelative what you are pointing is by no means a personal attack. What I said is that the discussion has been polluted. This not a personal attack. The fact is that there are editors in the talk page that instead of focusing the discussion on the sources and the merits of the sources have been providing their personal opinions, have been quoting sources that say the opposite of what they claim, etc... and this behavior has been polluting the discussion. The discussion is not a person. So not personal attack here. I get the impression that you feel uncomfortable when a solid source like Paul Preston says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
J Pratas (
talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions in the talk page for Franco.
It is quite interesting, don't you think, that the same people who pretend to oppose fascism and who label non-fascists fascists are the same people who use fascist tactics like censorship and threats.
"The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists…" Trakking ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Trakking, thanks for you support. It is sad that the discussion is not on what the sources say and how important are those sources. And claiming that one saying that a discussion is polluted is a personal attack, is absurd. A discussion is not a person
J Pratas (
talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- See above. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Trakking, thanks for you support. It is sad that the discussion is not on what the sources say and how important are those sources. And claiming that one saying that a discussion is polluted is a personal attack, is absurd. A discussion is not a person
J Pratas (
talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
António de Oliveira Salazar into
Portugal and the Holocaust. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 21:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, thanks for the heads up. In this specific case the content in António de Oliveira Salazar was introduced by me so I don't think attribution applies here.-- J Pratas ( talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
| This user is an alternative account. This notice confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts and that this account will not be used for sockpuppetry. You may discuss this account at User talk:JPratas. See contribs— page moves— all logs— block log |
We already decided that centralized discussion will take place on the talk page of Fascism in Europe, for all those articles. Removing mention of the National Union (Portugal) from various articles, then, on the basis that it is not linline with that article is not an acceptable reasoning. Once consensus is reached, it will apply to all articles, including but not limited to the main NU page. Please keep that in mind and resist the need to put the cart (mainspace edits) before the horse (talkpage discussion). El_C 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear El_C, thanks for letting me know this. Can I suggest you to please make a similar heads up to other editors that are editing the article without consensus being reached? I also suggest that the main discussion should take place on National Union (Portugal) talk page. Fascism in Europe will never have more than a paragraph on Portugal.-- J Pratas ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think everyone already knows. And no, we are not going to change venues: the RfC's conclusion will apply to all articles. I would think that while consensus is still ongoing, that the last older version before your changes is the status quo ante version and it's the one that should be up in the interim. El_C 21:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- El_C The problem is that some editors, for obvious lack of knowledge, are mixing up the Estado Novo with Salazar and with the National Union. While some Portuguese historians label the regime as fascist (which is not in line with what non-portugues historian say) you will not find any source saying that the National Union was a fascist party or movement, quite the contrary. -- J Pratas ( talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- A distinction you're encouraged to make in the discussion — all part of resolving this dispute. El_C 22:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C I have two asks for you
- 1) On April 6 after a consensus hade been reached in the Salazar's article talk page I've delete a simple, unsourced, sentence from the article Fascism in Europe. This triggered an edit warring. I have now tried to reinstate that very same sentence, with which I do not agree, but accept as the sentence pre-edit warring. However the reinstatement is being reverted. If we are going to wait for consensus shouldn't the pre-edit-warring statement prevail?
- 2) There is a disruptive group of IPs from city of Fortaleza in Brazil that have been maliciously removing sourced content from several articles and replacing it with unsourced content. Most articles are related with the Portuguese Estado Novo. The group of IPs has received several warnings and blocks in the talk page but the mutant IP keeps coming back. I think it would be good if you could please also please protect the following articles: List of fascist movements, Blue Division , Category:Fascist parties and List of fascist movements by country
The suspicious IPs are:
- ,
-- J Pratas ( talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I already mentioned, all those items have been expanded, so putting back a bare-bone one does not seem to enjoy consensus. But I fully-protected the page for a second time and you may now expect me to be outright draconian when it comes to undiscussed edits pertaining to this dispute. The time for being
bold is long passed. Regarding your semiprotection request, I have semi'd two of the three articles and rollback'd the IP.
El_C 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello JPratas. Thanks for making the list at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1#Disruptive IP. I went ahead and put new semiprotection on Estado Novo (Portugal) and List of fascist movements. Let me know if you see any further problems. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Agostinho Lourenço.
User:MrClog while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
Please make sure to read MOS:CAPS (you make some mistakes on that part) and to add wikilinks to your article.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MrClog}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
MrClog ( talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear JPratas, care to explain why you undid my changes to the Salazar page? Have a nice weekend! 178.9.136.118 ( talk) 09:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Salazar`s page is heavily sourced and has been quite scrutinized and debated, if you want to delete content you should first use the article's talk page. If you think citations are needed, feel free to ask for them, but when doing so have in mind that according to Wikipedia's guidelines there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. For example, an editor should not demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand. The same goes for the statement that in the 1970s several state-run universities were open across mainland Portugal (the Minho University, the New University of Lisbon, the University of Évora, and the University of Aveiro). Anyone can very easily check when were these universities founded. You can easily check either going to the article University of Aveiro and see for yourself or you can go to the University's website. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.-- J Pratas ( talk) 07:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oki, thanks! 178.9.56.196 ( talk) 07:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please follow WP:BRD. --Asqueladd ( talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Asqueladd ( talk) 20:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that if bold edit gets reverted, one must seek a consensus for adding content, not to continue reverting. But in this case my bold editing was reverted without any explanation, and Wikipedia:Consensus policy also says that edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring. Unexplained revers are not helpful. J Pratas ( talk) 09:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You have reverted my edits on the National Union article two times, I would like to avoid edit warring and all that pointless fighting, so I want to ask you what exactly are you objecting about my edits? I mostly just corrected spelling and removed some repeated content, so I'm really curious. -- 187.114.156.151 ( talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have already explained that you have removed text such as the sentence "as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo". The sentence was in the lead section and in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary, so there is no harm in a sentence being repeated in both the lead section and the article. But you removed the sentence from both palces. You have also removed the word "Portuguese" from the sentence "Portuguese scholars". If you want to make this kind of changes you need to use the talk page and achieve a consensus. J Pratas ( talk) 10:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I removed the sentence but I replaced it with another one, as for the word "Portuguese", I removed it simply because it is biased to state that only Portuguese scholars consider the Estado Novo fascist, pretty sure we already taked about this back in the dispute we had regarding the Estado Novo, there's no need to start a dispute over something like this, anyway, are there any other sentences which I removed? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- There you go, you are providing the answer to your own question, you've removed a sentence (twice) and have inserted a new one that has nothing to do with what you've removed. If you want to remove sentences, ie. remove content, from an article that has been stable for months, and your editing is being reverted, you will have to take it to the talk page and first find consensus in the talk page. J Pratas ( talk) 17:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Except that is not a relevant sentence at all, what is the point of starting a dispute over this? But since you're insisting, as a sort of compromise I'm thinking about maintaning the sentence in the lead, but also adding that he adopted many Fascist characteristics (which he did), while removing the second sentence, because of grammatical questions, what do you think about this? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think about it though? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Would you mind if I made my proposed edits in order for you to check first? -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no reason to start a discussion in the talk page over something that is not relevant to the article, once again I didn't remove any information you added, as such this is a more appropriate place to discuss. -- 177.134.144.213 ( talk) 00:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
António de Oliveira Salazar into
Spanish Civil War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk) 12:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, thanks for the heads up. In this specific case the content in António de Oliveira Salazar was introduced by me. So I am not sure if it makes sense to recognize my own work-- J Pratas ( talk) 15:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aristides de Sousa Mendes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Fernandes. 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) 07:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, could you intervene on the Portuguese's corresponding article (and also here : pt:Lista de partidos políticos em Portugal and pt:Ação Nacional Popular) to revert the changes of Ribeiro2002Rafael and Upoorde in particular and to align the Portuguese version with the English version (in which you remove far-right label against other editors) ? Ribeiro2002Rafael describes this change as being operated by "fascists and Nazis" who would like to whitewash the party.
PS : If you have the time and the possibility, I would appreciate it if you could intervene on the Spanish and French Wiki to remove the far-right label as you did on the English's corresponding article. 193.51.163.253 ( talk) 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Fascism in Europe; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:Verifiability, do not add information and then "add sources later". Add the information with the appropriate sources. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Beyond My Ken: I've only noticed this message now. I believe I've clarified this. My apologies if it looked like edit warring. I was just adding the sources incrementally. Thank you for your patience. Let me know if there are sources you think are still missing. J Pratas ( talk) 23:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- It did not "look like" edit warring, uit was edit warring, and now you're doing it again with another editor. Please stop edit warring, or I'll have no choice but to report you.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Beyond My Ken: Your help in reaching a consensus would be much appreciated. A consensus had been reached the "another editor" is basically deleting sourced content on Francoist Spain, and formatting, but he is arguing about Portugal, without citing any source whatsoever. Does not seem to make much sense J Pratas ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It did not "look like" edit warring, uit was edit warring, and now you're doing it again with another editor. Please stop edit warring, or I'll have no choice but to report you.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to
Portugal and the Holocaust 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Cite errors in Revolution of 1934
The article has some errors in the references. Can you please fix? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to
your common.js page.
- Article cites "Payne 1993, p. 219" but no such work is listed in the bibliography
- Article cites "Payne 1999, p. 228" but it is unclear which of the two 1999 books by Payne it is referring to -- Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 or Spain's First Democracy?
- Article cites "Payne 2008, pp. 100–103" but no such work is listed in the bibliography
- Article cites"Preston 2012, p. 269" but no such work is listed in the bibliography -- or is it referring to ref #17 (which should be converted to a
{{ cite book}}format)?
Thanks, Renata• 3 00:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Francisco Franco. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Violations of WP:TALK guideline
I'm going to assume good faith and presume that you missed my edit summaries
here and
here. Per
WP:TALK: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
Using formatting to BLUDGEON the discussion is highly disruptive. Just state your argument in the same format as everyone else. Thanks,
Generalrelative (
talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Generalrelative This is a guideline, not a policy. But I am happy to follow the guideline. Thanks for the heads up.-- J Pratas ( talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
In your recent edit which reinserted disputed content into the article
Francisco Franco, your edit summary read See Talk page - argumentum ad hominem, attacking attributes of the author making the argument, ie attacking Hayes, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. What Hayes says is widely accepted in the academia
. I want to make it clear that this is not a valid argument for ignoring
WP:ONUS. Criticizing the biases of sources is something we do all the time when determining the
reliability and
due balance of sources. Discussing these matters is absolutely not an ad hominem attack. Further, it is clear that the majority of those who have weighed in disagree with you here. Three separate people have cut this content since it was highlighted on the article talk page (Aquillion, AugusteBlanqui, and myself). Continuing to reinsert this language therefore constitutes a clear case of edit warring. You will need to actually persuade others that this content is DUE if you think it belongs in the article.
Generalrelative (
talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Francisco Franco. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Generalrelative this warning applies to yourself. You have been already reverted by me and Rjensen. You are deleting text just because you think that Hayes is biased. That is not enough reason, Hayes is a RS and you have not presented a single argument about the substance of what Hayes said. With that argument we would delete Payne (often accused of being fond of Franco), we would delete Preston (often accused of hating Franco), etc.. In this particular case eliminating the text does not make much sense because what Hayes wrote is not even controversial, as you can see in the additional sources I've provided. You should try to be a bit more constructive instead of behaving like an eraser. J Pratas ( talk) 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, this is false. I was at no point reverted by Rjensen. I believe you're confusing me with Aquillion, who, along with AugusteBlanqui, has also edited to remove this undue material from the article. At this point, counting those who have either edited to remove this content or expressed on talk that they agree with its removal, the two of you are clearly in the minority, and will need to actually persuade others if you believe this material belongs in the article. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to
Francisco Franco 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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) 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Portugal and the Holocaust. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. If another editor objects to your content, please go to talk and explain why your view is correct. Do not simply re-do it and then try to bury it beneath other edits. Otherwise, you push the article towards an edit war. Please read WP:BRD as previously asked. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 08:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Brigade Piron I took this to the article`s talk page. I suspect you misunderstood the use of primary sources. They are being used as complement to the secondary ones. And the issue is not contentious. J Pratas ( talk) 15:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Talk:Francisco Franco. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Here is the diff: [1]. If you think that people who disagree with you are "polluting" the page then you are not here to build a collaborative project. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stop trying to censor people. Stop trying to threaten people. Stop showing fascist tendencies. It is ridiculous. Trakking ( talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Generalrelative what you are pointing is by no means a personal attack. What I said is that the discussion has been polluted. This not a personal attack. The fact is that there are editors in the talk page that instead of focusing the discussion on the sources and the merits of the sources have been providing their personal opinions, have been quoting sources that say the opposite of what they claim, etc... and this behavior has been polluting the discussion. The discussion is not a person. So not personal attack here. I get the impression that you feel uncomfortable when a solid source like Paul Preston says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
J Pratas (
talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, you said
this discussion in this talk page has always been polluted by a bunch of editors that dont want to understand what Preston said, dont want Wikipedia to be sourced on good academic sources, but rather seek the easy insult.
Not only did you use inflammatory language to describe those who disagree with you (if you know anything about the history of fascism, you know the rhetorical weight of terms like "pollution") but you explicitly accused us of acting in bad faith. I get all kinds of impressions about people like you, but per Wikipedia's policy of civility I keep them to myself. I suggest you do the same. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)-
Generalrelative, you are trying to turn into personal something that is not personal. A discussion is not a person. And yes there are have been a bunch of editors misquoting sources and yes there have been editors arguing with their personal views instead of sources, and yes, that has been disrupting, it has been polluting and contaminating the discussion. And no saying that the discussion has been contaminated or polluted is not a personal attack or inflammatory language.
J Pratas (
talk) 02:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- See my comment below. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. I will not continue this discussion but advise you to drop the stick before this becomes a disciplinary matter for you (again).
Generalrelative (
talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Generalrelative I did not name any editor, I said a bunch of editors, which is different, you are the one taking it personally. You came to my personal page and accused me personally of using inflammatory language. And for me "inflammatory" falls into the same category of "polluted". The difference here is that I did not accuse any specific editor and you are the one that made it personal. J Pratas ( talk) 12:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- See my comment below. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. I will not continue this discussion but advise you to drop the stick before this becomes a disciplinary matter for you (again).
Generalrelative (
talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Generalrelative, you are trying to turn into personal something that is not personal. A discussion is not a person. And yes there are have been a bunch of editors misquoting sources and yes there have been editors arguing with their personal views instead of sources, and yes, that has been disrupting, it has been polluting and contaminating the discussion. And no saying that the discussion has been contaminated or polluted is not a personal attack or inflammatory language.
J Pratas (
talk) 02:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, you said
-
Generalrelative what you are pointing is by no means a personal attack. What I said is that the discussion has been polluted. This not a personal attack. The fact is that there are editors in the talk page that instead of focusing the discussion on the sources and the merits of the sources have been providing their personal opinions, have been quoting sources that say the opposite of what they claim, etc... and this behavior has been polluting the discussion. The discussion is not a person. So not personal attack here. I get the impression that you feel uncomfortable when a solid source like Paul Preston says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
J Pratas (
talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions in the talk page for Franco.
It is quite interesting, don't you think, that the same people who pretend to oppose fascism and who label non-fascists fascists are the same people who use fascist tactics like censorship and threats.
"The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists…" Trakking ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Trakking, thanks for you support. It is sad that the discussion is not on what the sources say and how important are those sources. And claiming that one saying that a discussion is polluted is a personal attack, is absurd. A discussion is not a person
J Pratas (
talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- See above. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
-
Trakking, thanks for you support. It is sad that the discussion is not on what the sources say and how important are those sources. And claiming that one saying that a discussion is polluted is a personal attack, is absurd. A discussion is not a person
J Pratas (
talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
António de Oliveira Salazar into
Portugal and the Holocaust. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 21:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, thanks for the heads up. In this specific case the content in António de Oliveira Salazar was introduced by me so I don't think attribution applies here.-- J Pratas ( talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)