Hugo Refachinho
Welcome!
editHi Hugo Refachinho! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! I dream of horses (t) (c) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 00:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
edit Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Chittagong into Bangladesh. 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) 15:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I've seen your venture in improving the Somalia project in terms of history yet I have a recommendation why not present your Portuguese Ajuraan conflict map to this Portuguese Ajuraan conflict page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajuran-Portuguese_Wars I will offer my support and assistance.Yacoob316 (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Ajuran-Portuguese Wars
editI've seen your maps am impressed and your maps look incredible with some fabulous descriptions I comprehend the need to visualize historical episodes however your posting at the wrong page you should post your maps at the appropriate page
please contribute your work to this page underneath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajuran-Portuguese_Wars I will offer my support .Yacoob316 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not mark major edits as minor
edit Hi Hugo Refachinho! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Eritrea that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Would you kindly add a quotation (and preferably also a page number) to the reference you added for the Portuguese Empire having an area of 11.4 million km2 over at List of largest empires (i.e. História da Arte Luso-Brasileira, Urbanização e Fortificação)? Thanks in advance! TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- And now História da Expansão e do Império Português . Anyway, please engage in the discussion at Talk:List of largest empires#Recent changes to the area of the Portuguese Empire to 11.4 million square kilometers. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Portuguese paragraph in every country article
editCould you read over WP:PROPORTION. Your large addition of minor historical events by the Portuguese all over is causing problems. As you can see many many editors don't agree with whole sections in main overview country articles devoted to minor historical events. All these out of place additions may be more appropriate in History of articles.--Moxy 🍁 02:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Minor to you. Why isnt even mention that Macau was a colony for 450 years ? The first time the East meets West.. etc..interference in politics etc..to not even mention its the same as censorship. If the British Ducht of French are mention whats the issue? Who gives the rate of PROPORTION ? If you can, please help me undestaind how wiki works. (It is not sarcasm)--Hugo Refachinho (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you
- A sentence or two incorporated into an existing section might be appropriate. Note how country articles don't devote whole sections to just one Colonial event. See Canada for an appropriate distribution. That said History of... articles do have these types of sections. All has to do with historical significance on present day country articles.... simply odd to have a huge section devoted to one colonial power when their presents is almost nil now.--Moxy 🍁 02:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Its a lot of research work,every country that i mention its connected whit Portugal for centurys, but as you read first , nothing is mention... and thats weird. Ok Moxy, Thanks I will be more aware.Its just history im not here to offend nobody. Hugo Refachinho (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Be aware others have graver concerns as seen with this reply.--Moxy 🍁 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Madagascar
editHi, in this edit you inserted a section about the period of the first Portuguese contacts with Madagascar, and I've noticed that the URL in the Barros citation is identical to the one in the Andrada citation, leading to the same book from 1613 – certainly an error.
In general, citing works this old is discouraged in Wikipedia, and it's best to cite reasonably up-to-date scholarly literature; even pre-WWII literature tends to be highly antiquated. Research moves fast enough that old books can be treated as likely outdated after several decades, and are better distrusted. This is more important in academia itself, of course, but still a good rule of thumb for Wikipedia, and in fact, both sources that are very old and those that are very new (too new for a scholarly consensus to form) should be used with great caution; given that scholars will often disagree with each other, the best sources for the state of the art in a field are introductory textbooks and specialised encyclopedias – that is, tertiary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC){unblock|your reason here} bad judgment. I like to supply free information and research . Several publishes made in few months deleted in hours.
editHugo Refachinho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been Block for several days. I dont understand why. I have two more accounts that I alto use to publish in other languages. Me first princible is to give free information to Wikipedia and to the readers. If its possible ok, I Will continue to publish, otherwise its a shame not being able to participate in this project. Thank you.--Hugo Refachinho (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho/Archive. Please read WP:GAB which explains how to write an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
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.