The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of your recent changes are sourced, and some are rather dubious. You have been reverted several times by several editors now. Please make your points on the talk page and provide references for your changes. Per WP:V, the onus is on you as the person adding material to provide references. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you specify which ones ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs)

For starters, dating the Spanish Empire from 1402; claiming that "Spain however improved her damaged prestige by intervening in the American Revolution on the side of the american rebels." (poorly written, incidentally); changing the 1898 date to 1899. You are changing longstanding text here. You should discuss first on the article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this [1] is unacceptable behaviour and will only undermine your credibility. Please read WP:NPA. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EuroHistoryTeacher!
We thank you for uploading Image:Spanish Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms.png, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rules at WP:3RR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have ignored this message and reverted yet another two times, I have now reported you. [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Spanish Empire. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello, could you say me why the spanish possesions in europe as the spanish netherlands were spanish and ruled by Spain? weren't they on the habsburg rule? i read that the southern netherlands were reconquered by spaniards with Alexander Farnesio as captain. Catholiced by spaniards and the country ruled by Spain or the Kingdom of Spain. Kingdom of spain (castile/aragon) means spain i suppose? or mean ruled by habsburgs too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosialscastells (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry SineBot hehe :) --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you use a comma, there should be no space before the comma. Like this, but not , like this. If you use an adjective derived from a proper noun, then that should be capitalized ("American" not "american"). I've seen you make these mistakes in many of your edits - please take care to use proper English. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per the Wikipedia manual of style, section headings should not begin with "The". But I reverted your heading change as it was unnecessary. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok i type too fast thats for sure , then whatever i'll edit with mistakes im sure you can change it right ?:) ferrick DID YOU EVEN READ why i changed that subheading?! use the discussion part next time please and i dont know if you hold a personal grudge agaisnt me but there is a section named "The wealth of Brazil" , how come you attack me but not the editor of that section?please no personal grudge anyways thanks ferrick--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal grudge, and I did not "attack" anyone. You changed the heading so I noticed it - I have it in my watch list. Just because there are other headings beginning with "The" which I have not noticed does not mean that it's not OK for me to point this out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok im sure you didn't notice the other ones , anyways please at least even read the discussion ok? thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing you should avoid is language that adds no information. I'm referring to your good faith addition which I reverted here [3], not because of any grudge, but because language like "the sun finally had set..." is not encyclopaedic language. Ask yourself what information it imparts. If you are trying to say that the empire ended, then say that, don't use flowery language like this. Also "end of an era" - you describe this as "romantic", but this is an encyclopaedia. There is no need to be romantic about it. I do agree about "wealth of Brazil" though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this today User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. It provides advice on how to write good articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what would work best for that section! You have any ideas? At first I thought something along the lines of Brazilian Independence, but that doesn't work because it covers over 100 years before that happened. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both your suggestions make sense. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the infoboxes. These things cause more trouble than they are worth. A flag and a map is sufficient. Attempting to summarise sprawling global empires that lasted hundreds of years is bound to fail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realmss.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-HispaniaGlobus.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed you to many sources which do not show Portuguese colonies as Spanish. And, that newest version of the map you made is ridiculous. Spain had no colony in Japan. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the map so drastically, please propose it first on the talk page with accompanying references so other editors can comment. Also, please note that the current colouring and wording was the result of a discussion with various editors in 2007. I realise you have recently discovered Wikipedia, but you need to respect previous discussions before making such drastic changes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whats so "drastic" about putting up a correct map?

Deshima was Spanish? You might want to check your facts there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, statements such as "clearly above your intellectual level" are not merited here at Wikipedia and, frankly, childish. Please treat others with the respect they deserve. You may think you know what is correct, but everything here has to be verifiable, which means providing reliable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrick im tired of explaining this to you , you obviously dont seem or dont want to understand history and facts , for which reason i will cease discussing this topic of Portugal in the Spanish Empire--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious here, is this just a coincidence or did your edits begin at just around the same time that Red4tribe's ended? [4] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't read the policy pages, have you? So I will outline some important points from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

• "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
• "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia"

I advise you to seek out books rather than Google for references. You usually can't go wrong with books.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Facts are facts" is not how Wikipedia works. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not add the infobox and I think it's downright silly what you are doing there. Can you imagine what the length of the languages and religions list would be for the British Empire? What possible value does this add for the reader? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing this the wrong way round. You should be starting with reliable sources before you make changes, instead of making changes and then scrabbling around to find the sources that concur with your view. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. Suggesting that other editors are unqualified to edit the article because they lack the insight that you do is entirely the wrong attitude to have at Wikipedia, not to mention misguided. You may be surprised at my educational history, and my area of expertise, so do not cast aspersions or question their insight simply because someone disagrees with you or asks you to provide sources. You may also be interested to know that I have an entire bookcase on European colonialism built up over several years, and I meticulously use these sources for all my edits. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok sure Ferrick , but english books should not be taken into account for everything , anglo-saxons writers have written a very biased history of Spain throughout the years , read some books in portuguese or spanish for more information . One more question can we request somebody else instead of you ? Im not the only one who disagrees with you , all of the wikipedia editors on the discussion page in the spanish article do, with the exception of portuguese editors , most notably Ogre and Camara...weird isn't it?and clearly against the rules of wiki, not tagteam please .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who edit the page are the editors who edit the page. You can't request someone "instead" of me, as I have as much right to edit the page as anyone else. And let me assure you, having dealt with a multitude of editors in the past who come and go, and who, like you, tend to upload information without reliable sources (whilst attacking me for "not understanding the facts" etc), I'm very strict about ensuring that they adhere to Wikipedia policy. My guess is that you're fresh out of university, and you're interested in this field, both of which are great, but you have to understand that there are policies here and you need to adhere to them. It's a very different style to writing papers at university.

On the subject of non-English language sources, please see the policy at WP:NONENG: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you are admin of something? you are the only one blocking the release of the correct information on the SE article . yes people come and go because after a while they get tired of discussing with you and just leave , you are clearly a hispanophobe no doubt about that , you just can't accept the facts , im not going to waste my time explaining this subject (which i clearly dominate over you), i think you are the kind of person who's hobby is to read books about this topic and now you think you own the TRUTH , well..not exactly friend , you are not the only one who owns this , and you should be more open to other's opinion .im done arguing with you , i read the many correct sources people has given you over the past months and you dont want to accept them , well what can i say? remember the neutral point of view ok? bye --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you're continuing to make personal attacks, despite me referring you to WP:NPA and making polite requests that you respect other editors, I've filed a "wikiquette" alert here [5]. I'm notifying you per the instructions on that page. My intent is only to have you realise that this is supposed to be a constructive community (with policies). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever Ferrick but remember one thing : neutrality and sophistry--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please make sure you read Wikipedia:Etiquette. As it says "Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia." You will find other editors easier to work and more likely to take your views into account if you are civil and refrain from personal attacks. Remember to contribute on comment on content, not on the contributor. I hope this helps. --neon white talk 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If you find yourself involved in a dispute over article content, there are ways provide to resolve it such as a third opinion provided by a non involved editor. These can be found at dispute resolution. As this issue seems to be about neutrality another good place to ask for advice would be the neutrol point of view noticeboard. Using these processes should provide solutions to dispute before tempers flare. --neon white talk 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm still interested in the matter. But I've decided to wait and see what Ogre does. SamEV (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea! Truth be told, I don't even know if Ogre is indeed working on it. He may be busy with other things. I haven't spoken with him in many weeks. SamEV (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there's no recent news of Ogre... I guess I'll drop by the article one of these days. Not sure I can/will tonight. Saludos. SamEV (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher, could you give me a summary of the dispute(s) of the last month or so? I admit being reluctant to even look in the talk page! SamEV (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I see it's the same dispute, then.

Y sí, yo hablo español. Pero lamento decirte que es secreto de estado lo demás, hasta cierto tiempo ­­¡en el 2009! (Es una semi-broma, ja ja.)

I've kept the article on my watchlist, so I've seen what's been happening; but I've kept off the talk page.

And I read the discussion on the noticeboard. Interesting. SamEV (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this discussion. I'll read the comments since last evening. SamEV (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should indicate your sources on the map page. SamEV (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estoy de acuerdo con tu decisión de quitar a Indochina. Recuerda, mi idea era que se mostrase como un área de operaciónes militares españolas, una tercera categoría. Si algún día aparece una mejor fuente, talvez hasta un mapa (que no es necesario), pues bien. Pero por ahora, mejor que se quede afuera. SamEV (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the map on Pat's page. All that was missing was a light pink or purple shade over at least part of the Pacific. :) SamEV (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apoyas la idea de poner el mapa de la "unión" en la intro, junto al tuyo? SamEV (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No es la solución óptima (dos mapas), pero es la única que Pat ha aceptado. A ver. SamEV (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Para estar seguro, me refiero también a que si aceptas que el mapa permanecerá hasta que llegue el de Ogre, y no sólo por tres semanas como recientemente sugerí, ¿sí? SamEV (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sí, veamos que tal. SamEV (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

english books should not be taken into account for everything , anglo-saxons writers have written a very biased history of Spain (autor Henry Kamen still do it per example, every historian disagree with him) throughout the years , im tired of saw every day a different spanish map.

i said the same , anglo-saxons should not be taken into account--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that guy called redhat changed the map again... somebody could BAN him from wikipedia? how i can report him?Cosialscastells (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how are you? is it ok if you can't talk arabic! :) .what is the message was about? . regards.--O.waqfi (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

To examine in detail a few points that are made in that statement:

• "verifiability, not truth": You may think something is true. You may be utterly convinced of it. You may think anyone who disagrees with you is a complete moron for not seeing the truth. But that is not the threshold for inclusion. The threshold is whether it is verifiable.
• "published by a reliable source": You are not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. Works by authors who are considered experts in the field and whose publications are peer reviewed are reliable sources. By providing reliable sources, you demonstrate that your contributions are verifiable. (You have not provided a single one for that map.)
• "provide a reliable source...or the material may be removed": This is exactly what I am doing, I am removing your map because you have not provided a reliable source for it.

You must, must, must get familiar with these policies at Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR) or your contributions are likely to be reverted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of the sort of references that you should be looking for. You claim that "Union with Spain" is not the right term. So, I give you this reliable source The History of Portugal by James Maxwell Anderson (chapter 6 is entitled "Union with Spain") to show that it is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ALREADY GAVE YOU SOURCES AND FACTS WHICH YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT , THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept my plan, as explained on the article's talk page? Specifically, I asked for a cease fire, and I'd like your cooperation in providing sources. SamEV (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Please learn how to indent your postings on talk pages, so it is clearer for everyone to read the flow of the conversation. You do this with the use of colons (:). More colons means more indents. When you reply to others' posts, you should indent them like this:

you reply to me

I rely to your reply

you reply to my reply etc etc

• 2. Please do not remove tags like the original research one when discussions are in-flight.
• 3. Please learn how to update your map instead of creating new files.
• 4. Please do not say to people "don't even ask for any more references". The discussion you are engaging in now is how Wikipedia works. Material is challenged, references are provided, references are discussed, consensus is reached. This is how the quality of Wikipedia is

maintained. We have already made some progress: I have accepted some of your references, and you have updated the map based on some of my suggestions. We are moving forwards, but we are still not there yet. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. i could care less about that.

2.It was a new map so i had to remove the TAG because that was directed at the old map not the new one i posted.

3.Again i could care less about this , i dont even know how to "update" , so i just create a new file.

4.ok i wont say that anymore but it seems to me like you want to waste my time . People already gave you sources , which i had to RE-POST for you because at first you didnt want to accept them.

ahhh....references for what now? Borneo? New Guinea?...?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't care less? That is not a very polite reply, and it certainly does not make you look like an editor who is here to be constructive. Please read these guidelines on editing talk pages Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice. They are not my rules. Two points which particularly apply to you are "Avoid excessive markup" and "Keep the layout clear". Having edited Wikipedia for over four years now, I can tell you that people who don't abide by these simple guidelines on talk pages are taken much less seriously than people who do.

You should also understand that one editor asking another to provide references is not wasting your time. If you really think I am wasting your time, or behaving in a bad way, why don't you post a complaint about me at the administrators' noticeboard? You can find it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Please be aware that your posts and behaviour will also come under scrutiny. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because unlike other users im a very busy person , i dont have that much time to edit but i try to put as much info as i got in a short time , so if its taking me a long time i have to do it quicker .Your behavior is unnacceptable sometimes (rudeness, sophistry...) but i wont report you , thats bollocks . Thats also a double-standard to me.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would be double standards, as your latest post shows, your rude comment about "high school books". I realise you have just graduated from the University of Florida - congratulations for that. I myself am a graduate of one of the Oxbridge universities in England, quite a few years before you. It is a little harder to get into the latter than the former. So please dispense with the insults on that front. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes im so sure you went there. But you clearly have not spended as much time or had a class on Spanish History , i even know the spanish language!

You are a hispanophobe (no attack) , no doubt .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The past participle of the verb "to spend" is "spent", not "spended". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha you reach pathetic leves sometimes Ferrick :)EuroHistoryTeacher

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you email me I have a pdf PhD thesis on this which details the French-Spanish politics of it which I can email to you and anyone else. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the idea of include the posessions of the spanish king charles V is a nice idea, make that map man, it could be great :-). Cosialscastells (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , but im not going to represent the whole of the Holy Roman Empire , just the Haspburg lands within the HRE at the time of his reign. Greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English is not the same as Spanish. It is "Spanish" not "spanish", "French" not "french", "English" not "english". You can write what you like on talk pages, but when you edit articles, please take care to use correct English. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you are funny sometimes Ferrick :) but like i told you before if i make some changes you can correct my spelling --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is funny about writing correct English? It would be pretty arrogant of you if you continued to deliberately write bad English in articles after it's been pointed out to you twice, and expect others to clean up after you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea don't be so serious about that, if i had as much time as you apperently do i would triple-check my edits , but unfortunalely i don't, you are the one wikistalking me so you should look out for my errors in my edits eh? thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of time? You are the one spending his evenings making maps. And I not Wikistalking you. I am monitoring your edits to (a) ensure that you do not upload unreferenced information and (b) because the quality of your writing leaves a lot to be desired. Quite apart from the fact that it is factually wrong (creoles were already plotting independence before the return of the Spanish king), there is a problem with virtually all of this sentence:

• "After Napoleon's armies were expulsed from Spain," - expulsed?
• "the spanish king" - capital S
• "came back to the throne but only on the condition that he accepted the liberal constitution which led some conservative criollos across the Atlantic, who fearing they may lose their power in colonial affairs, to declare indepence from Spain." - garbled, does not make sense, and "independence" is not spelled correctly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL i already explained to you in your user page about the maps.

yes it is called wikistalking Ferrick , you follow me everywhere i go , don't even lie , sometimes just to change insignificant stuff.

yea well you know what words i intend on tipying , i just dont have time to triple check like you for errors.

it can be garbled but im sure you can change it or at least please do because this is what happened and not "questioning of their subordination to a distant and weak country"

the only thing Spain was to its colonies was distant , weak it wasn't . Weak was like the french losing Haiti or the brits losing the 13 colonies. Spain was owning the 3 american parts : south central and north. --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the British Empire article. Look at how many references are there. Virtually every single claim is referenced (I should know, I wrote the bulk of this article, sitting next to a huge pile of books on the subject). And for the unreferenced bits, I am working on referencing them. This is what verifiability is about. The reader is able to check each statement to see that it's not original research. Yes, it's damned boring having to ensure that everything you add is from a reliable source, but that is how good/featured articles are written.

As to your edit on the Spanish Empire, words like "humiliating" need references. Who decided that it was humiliating? By way of analogy, the Suez Crisis was humiliating for Britain. Look at the sheer number of references in that section British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath. The fact that the Spanish Empire article is poorly referenced (not to mention poorly written) at the moment is no excuse to add more unreferenced material. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Providing references" does not involve pasting the contents of another Wikipedia article on someone's talk page. (a) Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself and (b) when you have found a reliable source you need to provide inline references using the ref tag like this ^[1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you really need to learn and abide by the rules/standards/etiquette here. I've dealt with many an editor like you in the past, who comes here, refuses to adhere to policies, uploads a lot of information that they are determined constitutes "THE FACTS" (usually with lots of capital letters and emphasis on my talk page), gets all frustrated and angry why their edits are getting challenged and/or reverted, then they get bored and eventually leave. (It took a couple of months of hard work with Red4tribe to get him to understand the policies, eventually he seemed to get it, but he seems to have disappeared now). This is a community with rules: if you are serious about being a long-term contributor, you should take the time to learn them. And if you don't like the rules, you shouldn't be here! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you serious (ownerships issues) , anyways i already gave you sources and emphasized so you can read better. No im not mad/angry either--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that another editor has filed an alert that concerns you on the informal dispute resolution page. Eusebeus (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why am I not surprised :)?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that article leads are not the place for excessive detail. You are adding far too much information to it. I am going to trim down the excessive detail. The fact that a minor battle was humiliating for the British is not appropriate for the lead section of the Spanish Empire. Please read WP:LEAD. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MINOR?! It was the most costliest adventure that UK had ever engaged on , 30.000 soldiers and 186 ships (armada of 1588 had 126 ships) , it was so embarrasing to UK that it was never published and even today the battle is not widely known there because of your revisionist historians, don't try to fill me with your anglophilic-hispanophobe propaganda, i know better.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pienso que tu posición sobre "Latin nationalism" es al menos 50% mi culpa. ¡Yo no había verificado a Google! Suele ser lo primero que hago en cualquier disputa... Te pido me disculpes.

Y que tal Pat? Yo también lo creo probable que su intención original no era pura, si no sólo la de llevarnos la contraria. Pero sí resultó positiva al final. SamEV (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

«¿Qué tal Pat?» Estoy muy bien gracias. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. SamEV (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reafirmé mi voto en contra, porque el concepto me parece demasiado nebuloso: ¿un nacionalismo pan-latinoamericano, o diferentes nacionalismos en Latinoamérica? ¿Y que tal de los supuestos nacionalismos "latinos" en Europa? Así que nó, no creo que deba existir ese artículo. SamEV (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Si el solo lo hizo para darnos (darme) la contra, siempre haze esa mierda lol. Si el articulo es una porkeria no deberia existir , en europa tambien hay latinos! los verdaderos latinos!

¿Los verdaderos? Prefiero que les llamemos los originales nada más... SamEV (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Si disculpa :) los "originales" , por que en america latina hay personas con la sangre latina , y la mayoria ahi son latinos por que tienen la sangre latina-europea en latinoamerica--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya está, amigo. Mira. SamEV (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿No the gusta el mapa? ¡No hay problema! Arréglalo, haz otro, lo que sea. Pero dime que sí apruebas de la idea de tener los dos mapas. ¿Sí? Es que si nó... ay, ni lo quiero pensar. SamEV (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ese mapa podría reemplazar a los otros dos, ¿no crees? A ver que piensa Pat. SamEV (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y edité la descripción en lo referente a las colonias portuguesas. SamEV (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mira otra vez. SamEV (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veo que mostraste el mapa allá en la página de discusión de el artículo. Mala idea, EHT. Debiste haber esperado a que nos hubiéramos puesto de acuerdo. SamEV (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sí, de las palabras es que hablo. SamEV (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno, precisamente porque sabía el lío que desataría es que hubiera preferido que esperaras. SamEV (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Entonces no te parece redundante los dos mapas de ahora? SamEV (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que no. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol ferrick are you sure you know what you are saying? i thought you wouldn't want this --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know in the interests of fairness, here is my post at WP:ANI: [6] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excelentes. SamEV (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claro que sí, a todo. Pero cuando dices "Quisieras que ponga todo en verde que fue portugues en el mapa de SE?", ¿te refieres a mostrar lo que fue portugués en morado, no?

¿Y que tal de los océanos? ¿Y de la Renania? SamEV (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"claro en morado"

Eso es lo quería oir. Es que dijiste que ibas a poner lo de Portugal en el mapa del SE, y quería estar claro de que cuando dijiste "SE" no te referías al imperio español propio (lo de rojo y rosado), si no al mapa en general: lo de Portugal en morado. Mi pregunta tenía solo el fin de evitar algún malentendido más, no causarlo (!).

Sobre Renania, mira los enlaces que puse en Talk:Spanish Empire. Es solo la parte oeste de Renania.

Y añade tus fuentes al mapa. EHT: eso es de suma importancia. Empieza ya, no vaya a ser que luego le pierdas el rastro a algunas de esas fuentes (uno nunca sabe). SamEV (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuentes

Mira, EHT. A lo que me refiero es que indiques tus fuentes en la página misma del mapa; para que cuando a alguien se le ocurra cuestionar las fronteras (y ten por seguro que alguien/algunos lo hará/-n) le sea fácil a quien sea el defenderlas, sin tener que volver a reunir fuentes...

Nada aquí es final. Y este asunto no está "resuelto": nada está "resuelto" en Wikipedia.

Entonces, amigo, te recomiendo que hagas eso, también para que cuando alguien lea el artículo Spanish Empire y pulsée el mapa, pueda ver en la página del mapa las fuentes de este. SamEV (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y recuerda que "Spanish" y "Portuguese" se escriben con mayúsculas (en "Description" [7]). SamEV (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aunque veo que no esta mal poner las fuentes en Talk:Spanish Empire. Tal vez en una sección titulada "Map sources", y con instrucciónes de que esa sección nunca sea archivada. También se podrían poner en la página de discusion del mapa mismo ([8]. Pero el problema es que cualquiera puede vandalizar las páginas de discusión y cambiar los enlaces de internet o títulos de los libros... Por eso es mejor que aparezcan en la página del mapa. SamEV (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esa área en el sur canadiense fue posesión plena, como parte de la Luisiana, ¿no? Por lo que debe estar en rojo. SamEV (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hola EuroHistoryTeacher,

While I would like to compliment you on the aesthetics of the map, I do have a few questions regarding some of the ascribed possessions. Specifically, I am concerned about the the portuguese possessions in india that have been highlighted. You show virtually the entire kathiawar peninsula of gujarat as well as the entire western coast under portuguese rule, which was not the case. Although possessions in gujarat did exists such as daman and diu, not to mention goa in the konkan, portuguese enclaves certainly did not extend throughout the coast. Would it be possible to simply denote the individual enclaves whether they be goa or hughli, rather than sweeping the entire coast? Moroever, I feel that it is important that we distinguish between mere trading posts and actual portuguese possessions where apparent. Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your consideration.

Hasta Luego

Devanampriya (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments i'll answer your doubts :

You show virtually the entire kathiawar peninsula of gujarat.

• No, i didn't , if you look closely not all of the peninsula is shaded.

...as well as the entire western coast under portuguese rule, which was not the case.

• Well if you look at the map of the portuguese emnpire most of the indian west coast and significantly big parts of the eastern coast is colored.

Here is a source from the Ministry of Education of Spain [[9]] , they even show a bigger swathe of western india being portuguese.

In that time it was hard to define between trading (private most of the time) posts and crown lands.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EHT,

Thank you very much for your response and for answering my questions. I understand the sourcing from the Ministry of Education, however, that projection deep into gujarat alone is not in line with the consistent boundaries of the sultanate of gujarat. More notably though, this depiction does appear to be in conflict with the comprehensive map of portuguese possessions in India: [[10]] . I was wondering whether if at least on those grounds we could amend the map. I know it might be a bit of an encumbrance for you, but I do feel that it is important. I hope you can understand. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:English people for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Plus inflammatory messages immediately after a warning to an ip editor and others about using such language on a talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "last warning"? this is my first time writing a SINGLE SENTENCE not even on the article itself but on the TALK PAGE, and what in the world were the disruptive edits?! if you come with these kind of messages that resemble a verbal threat and therefore a personal attack , i will make sure to report your abusive talk.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) Your talk page is littered with warnings and advice about improper language being used. The message you posted was immediately after a quite inappropriate message from an anonymous editor using quite unacceptable language, to which I warned everyone not to use such language, and yet you immediately posted a message which made use of similar inappropriate language. The warning is in my opinion, quite justified, and no hyperbole which attempts to cast it in the form of a "threat" can avoid that.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see the message from the user above me , so don't blame me and next time you come in this user page with this attitude please ask before making yourself look not so smart--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the discussion first then, otherwise you may find yourself in a similar situation in future. Unacceptable messages are always unacceptable, and your message was unacceptable in isolation without any need to read the preceding messages; though you compounded your error by not reading them. I suggest you take more care in future and listen to the advice you have been given by other editors on other occasions on this very talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Since you stated that you were going to report my "abusive talk", but I do not see that you have anywhere, and yet you have chosen to engage in what I believe is further inappropriate language on this and my own talk page directed at myself, I have asked for another administrator to look over the discussion. You can read my report here.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like your report backfired lol--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only partly, and your response just now speaks volumes about your attitude.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No i just think its funny you come to my page angry,putting hand signs like "Halt"!, giving me last warnings and then you go report me and you get shot down, i dont know i find it comical.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call it being shot down alone, when your own actions were criticised as well, with a strong suggestion that you should not have used the language you did in the messages I warned you about, or the language you used subsequently, in fact. I would rather say that was a draw rather than the "success" you seem to think it was for you.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I dont think this was full success for me, i just say it backfired and it did, your objective was to get somebody to talk to me and that didn't happen, so indeed it backfired . I call it a tactical victory for me.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me habías preguntado sobre Georgia. Inclúyela. Hombres como Hernando de Soto explaron el sur de Estados Unidos. España emprendió la colonización de los territorios al norte de la Florida. En las Carolinas intentaron, al final sin éxito, Lucas Vésquez de Ayllón, Tristan de Luna, Angel de Villafañe, etc. SamEV (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luego podré buscar con mayor detenimiento. Pero chequéa estos enlaces: [11], [12] (contexto), [13]. SamEV (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs)

Podrías escanearla. O dime el título del libro. Pero sobre todo: si es la misma imagen del enlace, entonces olvídalo, ¡porque ya la ví! SamEV (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usando un image scanner. Pero una camera digital es esencialmente el mismo aparato.

"Yo escribi el titulo y codigo del libro en la talk page del SE"
Pero de nuevo, te exhorto a que muestres todas tus fuentes en la página misma del mapa. SamEV (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfecto.

Acorde a este mapa, se pueden colorear unos puntitos en Carolina del Sur: [15] (contexto). Pero tengo dudas sobre la confiabilidad de la fuente. ¿Que te parece?

Y te quiero pedir un pequeño favor: que dejes de decir 'jod-'. ¿Qué tal si substituyes "ave maria?" :-) SamEV (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bien. Gracias, y gracias. :)

Y oye, lee el último mensaje de Trasamundo en mi página, y mi respuesta en la de el. SamEV (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quizás anaranjado o amarillo u otro color rojizo sería mejor. SamEV (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the link about the reformation later. I'm about to sign off.

And I think Pat wants to take a break from the article. Let him. We're not done with the map, and his taking a break means one less distraction for us to have to deal with. SamEV (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should switch the pink and orange areas: let the orange be the Spanish claimed, explored, influenced, and trading areas, and the orange pink for the Portuguese Empire. What do you think? SamEV (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on Adrar.

But I've change my mind on the new color scheme. It's too difficult to tell the red from the orange. Could you try and find different shades of red and of orange that contrast more with each other? Or use these colors: red = actual possessions; pink = claims, explorations, etc; yellow = Portuguese Empire. SamEV (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like it.

Next time, when you have time, please put up the yellow so I can judge. A strong yellow has to work. I'm sure of it.

Anyway, thanks for your patience! SamEV (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. Thanks. See you later. SamEV (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, though, I'd like you to make it a reddish yellow (but not reddish enough to make it orange, of course, as we'd be back where we were). It's a map of one empire, so it should be as monochrome an possible. SamEV (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué tal?

Debemos cambiar Portugal de rojo a amarillo.

Y de nuevo, ¿qué dices de darle un matiz rojizo al amarillo? SamEV (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that :) sorry i just forget sometimes! cheers Sinebot--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Land claims about 1700.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Land claims about 1700.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Land claims about 1700.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:File:Land claims about 1700.jpg]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:File:Land claims about 1700.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:File:Land claims about 1700.jpg]].

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you.

Te recomiendo el artículo Latino, en el que puse mucho esfuerzo; Está plenamente referenciado. También mira las fuentes de Hispanic and Latino Americans, como esta. SamEV (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yo entiendo eso..."

¿Entonces, amigo? Si entiendes que las fuentes así lo indican, ¿para qué quieres que las contradígamos? Violaríamos las reglas de Wikipedia.

Lo cierto es que la oficina del censo no incluye a estadounidenses brasileños ni estadounidenses haitianos como latinos. Y es de estadounidenses que se trata el artículo; no es de "latinos" en el resto de América ni en todo el mundo, tampoco. Así que es central lo que esa agencia del gobierno estadounidense ha declarado. SamEV (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ok the americancentric view :)"

No comment. :) SamEV (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.

Speaking of practical jokes: I'm plotting my revenge for that "You have new messages" one with which you got me twice. First on your user page, then here. SamEV (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spanish empire.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Y próspero año nuevo! Para tí y tu familia. SamEV (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

feliz navidad para ambos :-) Cosialscastells (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pienso que no sería lo correcto. Tenemos que hacer constar la otra tesis que dice que el IP (Imperio Portugués) no era parte del IE (Imperio Español). Eso significa que tenemos que indicarlo en la capción. Y si mencionamos al IP en la capción, tiene que aparacer en un color que le permita al lector el distinguirlo. De nuevo: no podemos ignorar WP:NPOV. SamEV (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have left Wikipedia, but unfortunately I see not. Anyway, that map is completely wrong. The Portuguese never controlled virtually the entire coast of Africa. Let's begin with the Cape Colony. Show me a single written source that claims Portugal controlled it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why do you need a WRITTEN CLAIM when you have a image from a very accurate source, that is to say the ministry of education of Spain oh and btw any second comment like that, implying that i leave or related to it, i will make sure to report you next time.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I find you very difficult to work with here. Could you tell me the year that Portugal captured the Cape Colony then, if this source is accurate? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your buddy Trasamundo has made a far more realistic and accurate map than the one you created: File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png. He has my (and SamEV's) full support for its use. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also find you very difficult to work with but that doesnt mean i will throw dumb and senseless (and distasteful) insults at you, that's not how i work.

Yes i understand that cape and some indies islands were not under full portuguese control during the years 1580-1640 thats why im making a new map showing portuguese claimed/possesions/explored, etc. btw you calling Trasamundo my "buddy" is kind of disrespectful, as if you are implying we are a gang or some kind of thing that group to overcome people, just keep it cool please ferrick, your a nice kid, keep it that way.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, do us all, including yourself, a favor and adopt a cooler tone. I believe EHT will reciprocate. SamEV (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cooler tone? I presume that only applies in English? It's OK to say in Spanish that someone ("you know who it is") with whom they disagree is a jihadist? [16] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EHT was wrong to say that, and I think he should take it back. SamEV (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmnnn... the fact that you instantly assume im directing that at you, seems like a guilty consience, but let's not forget and remember who fired the first shots Ferrick, im acting in self-defense.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think I am an idiot who can't read Spanish. Wrong on both counts. Also, please stop this stuff about the hispanophobia - that is also inappropriate. It's already been raised on the wikiquette board (not by me) that you might be a single purpose account, and your habit of editing only Spanish articles whilst complaining of hispanophobia only serves to show that you have some sort of "agenda" here to rectify your (mis)perceptions of anti-Spanish bias. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or thought that you were an idiot, the fact that you raise this up shows me some insecurities about yourself. I don't think you cannot read spanish, i never said this, maybe you can , maybe you can't but let me tell you Google Translate works horrible sometimes lol . You ever thought....i don't know...like the only reason i edit mostly spanish-history based articles is because i STUDIED SPANISH HISTORY??!! c'mon think ferrick, think! spanish history is my shield here, is the most im good at.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For chrisake reffick i didnt say jihadist because you DISAGREE with me but rather because of the way you post in talk pages, you never give up (senseless sometimes) and you always want to be right, its like a never ending war from your side.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it like working for a newspaper. You wouldn't be allowed to have anything you like published: your work will be fact checked and edited. That ensures what gets published is accurate (otherwise you end up publishing rubbish. Same goes for WP, mate. I'm just keeping you in check. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't post any bullshit in wikipedia, all is sourced, its not what i like, its what history says and neutral historians say.Why don't you just stay off my page until tomorrow? what do you want? why do you always want to start trouble? i dont want to do anything with you except on the talk pages , not here. Just go in peace Ferrick, take your warmonger (if you say this is an insult i don't know what to think now) habits to somebody elses page, you give me headaches "mate". If is not on the talk page please dont try to come in here with your insults, i can only spend time listening to you on talk pages not here.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pero no estoy de acuerdo con tu observación: te aseguro que todo marcha bien por allá. SamEV (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the legend. Red is the Council of the Indies, green is the Kingdom of Castile. It is actually an accurate depiction of the different administrative divisions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you leave the two maps up there? a little confusing if you ask me.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for you at P.E. [17] Please stop changing the map: your reason for changing it is completely wrong - you totally misundertand it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your reasons on the talk page first. Simply reverting because there has been no discussion is not a valid reason to revert. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to you it is [18]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. On that basis, I've also reverted your Iberian Union map which you did not allow anyone to discuss on the respective talk pages before posting it there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on your basis :)

What map i didn't let people discuss in the PE article ?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your replacing of File:Iberian_Union_Empires.png with File:Iberian_Union_Empire.png The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: British Empire has a much higher foot traffic than Portuguese Empire. About ten editors watch it regularly and frequently you will get comments within minutes if they are displeased. (I can assure you that the stuff you get up to at Spanish/Portuguese Empire would not wash there - the only reason you are able to get away with the behaviour you engage in is that you happen you edit some low traffic and low interest articles). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dude i didnt even notice the difference between those 2 maps in the PE page until now. Btw this map File:Iberian_Union_Empires.png is WRONG and innacurate, the portuguese lands werent limited to the angolese and mozambique coast, they extended much further north and south (in portuguese east africa for example the portuguese reached the Horn of Africa (somali horn).--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon ! stop the bs, nobody cares about these "Imperial" articles except us history lovers, the rest of the pop. dont ever read this, another reason is that the BE article as you say is watched regularly and i can get away with some stuff (WHAT STUFF?)because this is the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA (LOL), in the spanish wiki the SE article must be heavily guarded too, the same for the portguese empire in the portuguese wiki! lmao--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can leave it and discuss it on the talk page, can't we? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do any more reverting at Portuguese Empire. You have already reverted 3 times in 24 hours - see WP:3RR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the rest of the pop. dont ever read this"? If ever you want to see how many people are looking at an article, you can use this tool. I don't believe that 35,000 hits a month means noone cares about the article. Though perhaps they were all you, repeatedly pressing "refresh" to marvel at your map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i wonder how many ppl read wiki? 36.000 is really a lot ? I don't believe so or is it?

No not all me, maybe half of the view tho (lol jk) but please adapt a cooler tone pat.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by this - "what i meant was the SENTENCE ONLY , it said the nertherlands returned brazil to portugal" What sentence? What does that have to do with the correctness of the map? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow you are pretty confused, the sentence has nothing to do with trasamundos map, but trasamundo's map is very innacurate also--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the 3RR rule (which, should you make another revert, will be in violation of). I have sought feedback and it was positive for the new map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes i know about that 3 rule , but please discuss in PE page not the british empire article, i left messages there for you--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I have made a post regarding you at [19] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks "mate" I aprecciate it :) --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EHT, el hecho de que un área haya sido poblada ligeramente no es importante. Mas aún, la versión anterior resolvió diferencias con el usuario Pfly, lo cual ayuda a tener un mapa con mayor aceptación. Si no la viste, mira la conversación. Hasta luego. SamEV (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tú estuviste ausente durante ese tiempo. Yo entiendo, EHT. SamEV (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desde luego, tendríamos que discutirlo con Pfly. Pero... déjame pensarlo un día o dos. SamEV (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "joke" "You have new messages" prank banner from the top of this page. As a joke, it is not that funny, and it is disruptive to the project, and wastes the time of other editors. In my view, it is vandalism. Since I previously removed it and you promptly replaced it and told me to "go away, please" I have raised the issue of its presence at the ongoing discussion of your activities at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 180#Advice on a user who doesn't follow Wikipedia policies.Edison (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for removing it rather than asking you to. I was under the impression it was a policy violation. Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[20] made on January 9 2009 to Portuguese Empire

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EuroHistoryTeacher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well I think this is unjustified because user:red hat of pat Ferrick edits were not accepted by the fellow editors in the Portuguese Empire article, all he did was to keep inserting the map (in the article) he was proposing but apparently he forgot to ask his editors, oh wait no he didn't, he did ask the editors but they said No until that map is further developed (there are way too many errors on his proposed map) and i agree with them, the map is too faulty.I was the only one standing up for the other editors who did not agreed with him yet I'm the one blocked, that's not fair, according to wiki rules he should discuss big changes and work it out with his fellow editors not just do whatever he thinks is best. also i was writing this in the admin noticeboard when i was blocked: "Shouldn't you guys at LEAST inform me about this so I can give my side of the story? *First I'll talk about User Red Hat Pat Ferrick. :Since I got on wikipedia he has been insulting me and reverting almost every edit i made, sometimes I understand why, others he just does it just to go against me, which seems kind of childish If you ask me. He has thrown many insults at me, some implying that I leave wikipedia forever and he called me a sockpuppet in numerous ocations ( 5 times at least ), one time he said he issued some kind of check to find out if I was a sockpuppet and he said he would apologize if I wasn't (and i wasn't), yet i never heard a 'sorry' from him. A lot of users have many issues with him, Im not the only one and he has been accused of ownership issues (he revert almost everything and wants a fact for everything, wiki rules say you don't have to cite the sky is blue). :I agree I shouldn't have called him a 'jihadist' but that was just in my defense because I felt offended just one minute before when he implied that I leave Wikipedia forever. :Also when I said "Oh c'mon ! stop the bs, nobody cares about these "Imperial" articles except us history lovers, the rest of the pop. dont ever read this" I still cannot understand how this got perceived in the wrong way! First I was talking about AN ARTICLE (which as Pat ferrick referred to "...low traffic and low interest articles...") and NOT Wikipedia. :That's not my "unwillingness" to show sources its just that most of the time I show him sources but he is always asking me for sources as if he wants to bother me. Once i showed him a map from an atlas from the 1930s i think and he said it wasn't a legitimate source, but once I saw him use a map for some facts in the British Empire page, do you know how old his map was? from '97, not 1997 (!) but rather 1897!! you see his POV? In the Spanish Empire article (which he claims is not a important page) he was saying to this anon user who was discussing against him how he would be taken much more serious if he created an account, etc but when an anon user came to support his view, he had no problems agreeing with that anon user, POV it is. It is correct only when he says that I copied and pasted some large paragraphs but when he reverted my edit I had absolutely no problem at all with that, I completely understood that, so I don't know why he is complaining about that. * Now for User Edison : :About the German Army issue I think (and perhaps correctly) that a section labeled "War crimes" was not needed in the article because it would mean its POV, there is already an article about the crimes of the German Army, it would not be fair if it's included in the article itself, read the paragraphs and it will be easy to convince yourself this was the work of POV editors in many parts [21]. In fact I proposed to include a 'War Crimes' section for the US military article (I'm an American patriot if there are any doubts) but was turned down by my own countrymen because it would be POV, etc [22] and it is funny that the only two armies I saw including 'War Crimes' sections for were the German Army of WW1 and the German Army of WW2 (!!), is germanophobia still around? I think there needs to be a War Crime section for the Spanish Armed Forces, the British Armed Forces, the Soviet Armed Forces (the soviets were brutal, just as brutal as the SS), etc not just the Germans, this would not be fair. :The practical joke banner: As out of nowhere he came to my page and removed my practical joke banner (which I thought was good to relieve the mood in this tense environment), he didn't even ask me just for courtesy, he just came and removed it and naturally I had a problem with that and i reverted his edit and told him to "go away please, its a joke nothing else" not a cold "go away" as he (dubiously) said. *For User:ddstretch: :He came to my user page and gave me a "final warning" for no big reason, in fact it was senseless. All I said that day was a topsy remark about the ancestry of the English (that they came from Spain and Portugal, indeed they did) and so he came all mad (mad as in angry not crazy as it might be perceived in British English) and templated me (I think that's what it's called in here when they put a picture or related to it), so then he started writing messages as if he was trying to pick a fight with me (I really hate these kinds of arguments/fights, I just want to be left alone), so after a while when I suggested he stop using the word 'suggest' (that was the level of my seriousness when he was ranting at me, in fact I was just replying to have the last word ) and told him he was 'mad' (as I said above I meant mad as in angry not crazy) he reported me and the admin told him to calm down and that if he kept getting disturbed by the post I made he would not "have a successful Wikipedia career", in fact I have no problem with him other than the fact that he is trying to make me look like I am a unruly person. ::That having said (and now I'm blocked apparently without even having a chance to defend myself) I leave a nice smile to light everyone's day :)"

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)|decline=I'm sorry, this is far too long to expect volunteer administrators to have to read through, and from what I skimmed, most of it doesn't have to do with you asking to be unblocked anyway. Please shorten your request; you may want to review WP:GAB for some tips. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)}} This is funny lol If you haven't read it, how would you know what I'm trying to say? That probably has 2000 words which one should be able to read in 2 minutes but i understand, perhaps non-volunteer admins should review this (if there was but there isn't). No let's just leave it at that, I don't feel like writing another reason im just going to make it quick:[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EuroHistoryTeacher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well I think this is unjustified because user:red hat of pat Ferrick edits were not accepted by the fellow editors in the Portuguese Empire article, all he did was to keep inserting the map (in the article) he was proposing but apparently he forgot to ask his editors, oh wait no he didn't, he did ask the editors but they said No until that map is further developed (there are way too many errors on his proposed map) and i agree with them, the map is too faulty.I was the only one standing up for the other editors who did not agreed with him yet I'm the one blocked, that's not fair, according to wiki rules he should discuss big changes and work it out with his fellow editors not just do whatever he thinks is best.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, EuroHistoryTeacher, you need to learn how to cite references if you are going to continue to edit Wikipedia. When you make edits to the article, you need to provide inline references. This means placing the reference next to the material you have added, like I have done here [23]. It is not enough to place a link to Google books on a talk page. This is how Wikipedia works, and you need to start following our policies, or - again - you will end up being blocked. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are perfectly acceptable titles, and it is not a matter of British v American English. If they were not acceptable titles, then British Empire would not have reached FA status. You can also satisfy yourself that it is perfectly acceptable English by searching for it in Google books. Please stop changing this wording wherever you see it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not a big deal but just to globalise the view of the article "Height of the Empire" sounds better. I saw a sentence around there saying in british english "the silver from the mines in Peru and Mexico enriched Spain and made spaniards think they need not work for a living..." this is not what an American is used to and I'm sure there are more Americans in wiki than there are English/British users, well why am I even arguing about this? this is not even important lol get your way Pat--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting this map please, otherwise I shall be filing another report on you. I bowed to your objections on the green map (despite the fact that I had sought input and had mostly positive feedback on it). Note that you don't have to revert more than three times in 24 hours to be in violation of the spirit of that policy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even discuss much (or anything at all) in the PE TALK PAGE about not including claims, etc.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLLLLLLLLLLLL.... My revenge plan worked to perfection! Now I can take the message down. It worked sooner than I expected!! ROTFL.

The maps

Desde luego que son dudosos estos: [24] y [25]. No indican fuentes terceras y confiables, como mandan las reglas. Pero el de Shepherd ([26]) sí es válido. SamEV (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it could have happened! I put it up there to get you but i got myself!! LOL!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it: my plan was pure genius! LOLLLL................. SamEV (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm stepping away for an hour. Just so you know not to expect a quick reply if you post me a message. SamEV (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blah! pure reverse psychology! lol (yea it was good i'll admit it )

Ok im actually getting off for today. bye--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¡Te pagué con tu propia moneda!

¡Hasta luego! SamEV (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oye EHT: ¿Qué tal si detienes las constantes acusaciones de prejuicio contra Pat? No es que no sea cierto que lo tenga, pero queda mal (y no nos ayuda) el que tú siempre recurres a eso. Piénsalo, por favor. SamEV (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Imperio espanol mapa 3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted to the edit warring admin page about you here [27] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what? blocked? for how long? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Philippines.antique.map2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you not to come off your second block and immediately start reverting things again. I can assure you that the end result of this behaviour if you continue is going to be a permanent block for you on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your change should certainly be undone. Such unilateral changes don't help us in the least. Throwing around loaded words like "threat" won't do you much good, either. SamEV (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the word "threat" here Pat, there's nothing wrong with reverting wrong stuff i.e. your "modifications" to the map (in fact wikipedia likes it).--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EHT: please continue this discussion at the S.E. talk page. I would be interested to know which of the changes you believe is "wrong". I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with you in a mature fashion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As for Sam I don't get where you are going at." What do you mean? What are you referring to?

On a different subject, could you clarify about how Brazil was Spanish even disregarding Tordesillas? Trasamundo asked me to explain it, but since you're the one who wrote it, we both should be asking you. SamEV (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No don't worry i got confused, I didn't know you guys were also arguing (please let's all "stop throwing rocks at our neighbors windows because our own windows are made of glass" XD ) with Pat Ferrick.

As for the map here it is (by Henry Karmen btw and Pat F. sources him a lot) : [28], do you see the torsedilla boundaries? and the boundaries of the Viceroyalty of Peru that includes half Brazil? the Portuguese recognized it so half Brazil should be red instead of pink--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Why is the PE still green?

Second, my answer to Trasamundo was all about Tordesillas. Read it first and then comment. SamEV (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First of all: Why is the PE still green?"

• Because Pat Ferrick wants to.

"Second, my answer to Trasamundo was all about Tordesillas. Read it first and then comment."

• Ok I will.

As far as I can see, you have just come off a block for reverting a map, and you have done exactly the same thing again. I shall be making another post on the edit war board, as you have clearly not learned a thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you not understand?! the maps that you want to propose are not even accepted by the rest of the editors and I'm not the only one who reverts them. For example when I reverted your map in the Portuguese Empire article I was blocked right? But why didn't you tell the admins that I wasn't the only one reverting your edits?! The same in the Spanish Empire page, you haven't discussed your position here and you are changing the map without the consent of NO ONE, User:SamEv also does not like your map and has given support to revert it. You are clearly abusing these issues at the expense of me.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, the only reason your change wasn't reverted sooner is because I wanted to hear EHT's opinion. Otherwise, I would have undone your change yesterday myself. SamEV (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]