User talk:The Ogre/archive1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 14:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ethnic-stub
Hi Ogre, please include ethnic-stub in the appropriate stubs when you create them. --MarSch 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Start your user page, Ogry!
Velho 03:32, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

Batata
Nice contributions, pal. Velho 4 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 3 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Categories
Since "Germanic peoples" is already a subcategory of "Ethnic groups of Europe", there is no need to add the latter to articles which are already categorized as the former. regards, dab (&#5839;) 3 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Whatever...
Seja como for, já apaguei tudo. Mas olha que a data do Welcome do gajo era 30 de Dezembro de 2004!! E eu lembro-me daquela mensagem ali desde sempre!!! Velho

Nah! Não ando nada a ver!
Ploc. Velho

Coincidência
Padreca és tu. Porra, os slurs são infinitos!... Não há cu. Vou dormir. Velho

Pois é...
Há quatro dias que não faço nada. Bem sei... E... Velho

Portuguese colonies
What are the criteria for addition to this category? Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli in India, and Hormuz also qualify. If we go back in time Mumbai, Vasai and some parts of Sri Lanka may also qualify. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Nichalp! First of all let me tell that your wikiwork is impressive. Thanks for you post on the Former Portuguese colonies. I did add Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli to the category. The criteria I was following was that of portuguese possessions after World War II (If we did go back in time the list would be much bigger and the exact meaning of colony ambiguous), plus Brazil (due to it's importance). Of course you might disagree. If you do disagree (and remove the category from the territories of former portuguese India), do you think we can agree, then, that this category should at least comprise the existing colonies as of the Carnation revolution of 1974 in Portugal (plus Brazil?)? Hope to hear from you! The Ogre 15:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't disagree, and the post-WW2 limit is fine. But you should put up the minimum criteria for inclusion on the category page. Thanks, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

A belated welcome, and an award
Hi, The Ogre. I came across your excellent contributions via your expansion of Elmina Castle. I see that you're fairly new here (you arrived June 23, 2005), so a belated welcome from me. I want to award you with the Exceptional Newcomer Award because of your high-quality contributions. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! &mdash; mark &#9998; 23:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Foda-se, já tens prémios e tudo!
Maridinho é o outro idiota, ó caraças. Já tinha ido ver a tua timeline. Pelo contrário, a tua e a minha teses continuam sem se ver. Ainda por cima, para me deprimir, tou a ler um bocado da tese do Nogueiras. E este rabeta que se cortou ao caviar de quinta, hem?! Velho

Judeo-Portuguese Origin of Baruch Spinoza
Even if it is a minor aspect of Spinoza's life, why should it not be said, in the article, that he was of judeo-portuguese origin (of course Sephardic), as stated in many sources (see, for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online here ). He was, in fact a member of the Judeo-Portuguese Congregation of Amsterdam (Synagogue Talmud Tora - see the pages in Portuguese  and Dutch ; you can see also the references done by the World Jewish Congress here ). Even if this congregation could receive jews with other origins (such as Spanish; or even Ashkenazim, whom they help establish in the Nederlands and to build their own synagogues), the fact remains that it was a Sephardic Portuguese community, as can clearly be verified in situ in Amsterdam. Spinoza was born in Amsterdam to Miguel de Espinosa and Ana Débora, Miguel's second wife who died when Spinoza was a little boy of six - they were Marranos who had fled from Portugal in order to escape the Portuguese Inquisition and return to Judaism. Some say that the Spinoza family had, in fact, its remote origins in Spain, others claim that they were portuguese jews who had moved to Spain and them returned in 1492 to their country of origin - Portugal. There, they were forcebly converted to Catholicism in 1498. Spinoza's father, Miguel de Spinoza, would be born about a century after this forced convertion in the small portuguese city of Vidigueira, near Beja in Alentejo. When Spinoza's father was still a child, Spinoza's grandfather, Isaac de Spinoza (who was from Lisbon), went with all his family to Nantes in France. They were expelled in 1615 and moved to Roterdam, were Isaac died in 1627. Spinoza's father and his uncle, Miguel and Manuel respectively, them moved to Amsterdam, were they assumed their judaism (Manuel even changed his name to Abraão de Spinoza, though his «commercial» name was still the same). Spinoza spoke portuguese and this was the language he spoke at home and in the jewish community he was a member of before expulsion. He also spoke hebrew, latin, dutch and spanish. Portugal and Spain are not the same reality and the Iberian peninsula, with all it's internal differences, should not be reduced to Spain (and even more so to Castille!). I'm not reverting your change, Blainster, but I'm adding the fact that Baruch Spinoza was a member of the Portuguese-Jewish Community of Amsterdam. The Ogre
 * I intended no slight of the origins of this great philosopher. It simply seems that to describe him as both Sephardic and from Portugal is partly redundant, because the term Sephardic means his family is from either Spain or Portugal. But you responded as if I had removed the word Sephardic, too. In an encyclopedic article I think that book length explorations of family origins should be subordinate to the philosophical work of the man.  Notice that I have removed two additional redundancies (Amsterdam and Jew were both listed twice in the same sentence! Shouldn't we have a goal of communicating as concisely as possible?  The word Sephardic is good for this purpose since it communicates both religious and geographical background in a single term.  I like that.  --Blainster 23:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, this is a wiki. It is useful to have both Sephardic and Portugal as links. Septentrionalis 00:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Septentrionalis, in any case I think Blainster is right about redundacies, but Sephardic and Portuguese are not redundant (then why not just say he was European?). I do not think a small reference to his family origins is a book length explorations. For me the last edit is a good compromise. What's your opinion? The Ogre 04:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

ISCTE
I know it is not a polytechnic. It offers university education, but isn't totally correct call it a University. It doesn't have a Rector or faculties inside. It isn't a member of CRUP-Conselho de Reitores das Universidades Portuguesas. It is a University Institute at the moment, is like an independent faculty. It could became a University later, as the article says, or be integrated inside one of the public universities of Lisbon. Armindo
 * I Disagree. The ISCTE is a de facto university even if, juridicaly, it is a Non-Integrated University Institute (Instituto Universitário Não Integrado), offering all levels of university degrees in Portugal, abiding by the same laws that govern university life and BEING a member of CRUP (this is a recent development). I belive that you are confusing the formal status of the institution with it's reality and function. But let us not enter into a reverse war. I'm making changes that maybe can accomodate both our views. What's you opinion? The Ogre 8 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's better now. I made also some small improvements on the article. Armindo 8 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)

Wrong pronounciation of Batalha (Battle of Aljubarrota)
Batalya is not a valid transcription of the pronounciation of batalha, nor would bataglia be. In this case we'd need the IPA.
 * The palatal consonants lh in Batalha (equivalent of Spanish ll) is IPA ' ; batalha would be '. But this needs verifying, for I'm not sure. The Ogre 06:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * lh is not pronounced the same as the spanish ll. --CSTAR 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll grant that. Still, do you think that the IPA I proposed to batalha is correct? The Ogre 17:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't now anything about IPA, but it is pronounce batalya with all the a's pronounced as in bar.--CSTAR 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry CSTAR, but now I must desagree. My mother language is portuguese, and batalha is not pronounced batalya and the a's are not all pronounced the same way, either in european portuguese or brazilian. The Ogre 22:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well OK I'm a native spanish speaker BUT I lived (and taught at the University) for a decade in Rio. Please don't tell me barulho, mergulho, canalha, (Caralho for that matter) are pronounced without a light l sound (e.g barulyo, canalya with nasal vowels). You are CORRECT the a's aren't all pronounced the same in batalha, but I was trying to find the closest english pronunciation, and in particular to stress that the a's are not pronounced like a in bat.--CSTAR 01:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Melhor do que isso só mesmo o silêncio
 * E Melhor do que o silêncio só João
 * (Caetano).--CSTAR 01:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well CSTAR, the most I am able to concede is that in some brazilian varieties of the portuguese language the lh may have an extremely brief and light i sound. That sound, however, is non-counspicuous to native speakers. In european portuguese that briefest and lightest of sounds does not exist. The Ogre 18:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. But then that does seem to point to a problem of IPA as a pronunciation guide. To assert that the ll and lh sounds have the same representation in IPA (as is indeed apparently the case) is not very helpful  to a non-native speaker. In other words if I said in my spanish pronunciation you "que carallo voce esta dizendo" ('tou brincando) I wonder if that carallo would make sense and be understood as caralho (and yes I know, you portuguese and most brazilians unlike us morbid spanish speakers hardly use that profanity as I discovered long ago as I muttered carajo under my breath as I realized I forgot my keys).
 * That sound, however, is non-counspicuous to native speakers. Well of course, because that's the definition of a minimal pair.--CSTAR 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Problems with political map (Europe)
There seems to exist several problems with this map due to different and not overlapping definitions of Europe: Maybe the best thing to do is try to come up with the map that does acknowledge these ambiguities! The Ogre 15:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The map is presented as a political one. Does that mean, exclusively, a map representing the borders between Sates within the strict geographic limits of Europe? Then no consideration about cultural and historic reasons should be present.
 * What are the strict geographic limits of Europe? This question is pertinent as to the geographic status of Cyprus and the countries of the Caucasus.
 * If considerations other then that of the borders between States are present, such as cultural and historic, then the following remarks must be made:
 * a) The map presents no specific colour for countries that, being culturally European, have part of their territory outside of geographic Europe (such as Russia).
 * b) The status of culturally European given to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia is highly disputed (particularly the first two).
 * c) If Georgia is culturally European, then point a) is relevant.
 * d) If Armenia is culturally European, then what to do with its de facto control of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave (and areas between that enclave and Armenia), witch are de jure part of Azerbaijan?
 * e) If Azerbaijan is not culturally European, then the Nakhichevan enclave should not appear as part of Europe.
 * f) Is Kazakhstan culturally European?
 * g) Are the regions of Caucasian Russia (namely autonomous republics such as Chechnya or Kalmukia) culturally European?

Problems with regions' map (Europe)
This map presents several problems already present in the political map of Europe (see Europe political map Talk page), but some more seem to appear due to the disputed definitions of the European regions. These problems are: There may exist some other problems. I believe that there are some ambiguities that derive from the confusion of a political map (representing State borders) and a map of regions. And are regions cultural, political, economical or geographic? Maybe the best thing to do is try to come up with the map that does acknowledge all these ambiguities! The Ogre 15:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If Asiatic Turkey is culturally European (witch is highly disputed), what's its region? Probably Southern Europe (green).
 * If Cyprus is European, what's its region? Probably Southern Europe (green).
 * If the Caucasian countries (all of them or just some) are culturally European (witch is highly disputed), what's their region? Probably the Caucasus (that doesn't exist in the map)?
 * Are all of the Balkans Southern Europe (green)?
 * Is not southern France Southern Europe (green)?
 * Is not Corsica Southern Europe (green)?
 * Are the Baltic countries in Northern Europe (purple) or in the Baltic (that doesn't exist in the map)?
 * Doesn't the definition of Western Europe (red) appear to be to restricted?
 * In fact, Turkey and Cyprus could be placed in the region of the Middle East. The Ogre 16:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Iceland - It would be great if we had some of that southern European weather but it is a bit of wishful thinking I think, just like coloring Iceland green on this map. :) --Bjarki 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * YES! The Ogre 15:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be so envious of southern European weather, however. It's 35º to 40º Celsius outside, the air is dry and all the forests are burning... It's probably much nicer in Iceland - for the likes of me, of course! :) The Ogre 15:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lisbon
You made some modifications on the History section of the Lisbon article, which I had written: giving birth to Celtiberian tribes such as the Lusitanians, the Calaicians or Gallaeci and the Conii. I reverted this change since there were never any gallaeci or lusitanians in the Lisbon region, to which the article refers. The gallaeci inhabited the northwestern corner of the Iberian Peninsula, todays Galicia and Minho region of Portugal; as for the Lusitanians, they were not among the tribes described by the Romans (our single written source) in the mouth of the Tagus River. Their territory was mostly in the region just south of the Douro, todays Beira region of Portugal. Roman Lusitania did include Lisbon but its borders were based on administrative not ethnic considerations. The tribes documented in the region of Lisbon are the Conii and the Cempsi. These tribes were certainly celtic speaking, and their heavily celticized culture was distinct from proper Celtiberian tribes to the East (in todays Castille). I have reverted your alterations since you have yet to provide a valid reason for your disagreement. If you have any good reason for your edition, please use the discussion page at Lisbon to expose them, so that we can come to an agreement. And for any future edits, please be so kind as to discuss the issue before you make such significative modifications. Salvadorjo 15:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Salvadorjo. I've just read the message you left in my page about the changes I had made in Lisbon. Ok. Partially my mistake since, from what was writen, it was not clear that the tribes/peoples mentioned were only those of the area of Lisbon (notice that the rest of the references refer only to the Iberians and the Celts in general), so my changes were a way of mentioning the major groups in Western Iberia (I was using Celtiberian in a loose sense, refering to mixtures of Celts and Iberians, and not in the stric sense of the ones living in East Iberia). However, and I'm not doubting you, where is it said (what's the source?) that there were Conii and Cempsi (also Cinetes or Cunetes?) in the mouth of the Tagus River? From what I can gather these peoples were found in the Algarve (see, for instance, the incredible map of Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia at about 200 BC done by the archeologist Luís Fraga; you can find it at ). Furthermore, if you go to the Conii's page you will see that it is not clear (as the afore mentioned map shows) if the Conii were Celts, Pre-Celts or even close to the Iberian Turdetani. Can you help learn more about all this? I'm just doing a slight change, that of fixing the link Conni to Conii. Thanks! The Ogre 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * According to ancient writtings by the Greeks of Massala (an ancient greek colony), todays Marseilles in France, quoted by the ancient roman writer Rufus Festus Avienus, the tribes inhabiting the region surrounding the mouth of the Tagus were the Conii and the Cempsi. It is true that a related tribe with a similar name existed in the Algarve, perhaps its territory was invaded by another tribe and cut into two pieces, they migrated, or maybe their names only sounded alike. Another tribe sometimes described in the Estremadura region were the Turdetani, which is also known to have had cousins in the Algarve. Indeed there were even some Lusones apparently unrelated to the Lusitanians further East. All in all I think it's best to stick to the surviving contemporary source.
 * If you speak Portuguese, you're welcome to colaborate in the Portuguese wikipedia also. Cheers, Salvadorjo 02:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

History of Portugal
The Ogre, reparei que gostas de mexer na história de Portugal. Queria-te pedir um pouco de ajuda na colocação dos interwikis. A História de Portugal, se bem que ainda em expansão, já está bastante desenvolvida. Por exemplo, a pt:batalha de Alcântara (que foi o que me trouxe aqui) já existia há bastante tempo. Não custa nada, é só dar um saltito à pt: ver se o artigo já existe e adicionar interwikis. Bom trabalho! Nuno Tavares 19:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Ogre, obrigado pela chamada de atenção acerca desses dois artigos (um deles já ganhou interwiki eheh). Verdade que na wikipédia em inglês existe muita informação spanish-centric. O exemplo de Roman Spain é perfeito. Como tu e o Pedro referiram, é um erro típico confundir Hispania com Espanha mas é absolutamente incorrecto . Em relação a Timeline of the Muslim Occupation of Spain vou ler mais atentamente, parecem existir duas discussões: uma ao redor de Occupation e outra ao redor de Spain.

Biography Collaboration
Só para avisar que, se estiveres interessado o artigo Fernão Mendes Pinto está nomeado para a Biography Collaboration of the Week. Basta um voto para ser o escolhido. Obrigado. Gameiro 23:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama
An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Damasus I
Thanks for your comments on the Talk page, it really helped clarify where I was wrong, and was very interesting as well. Kaisershatner 15:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hispania and template
Similar message at Talk:Hispania You removed the History of Spain template I added to this article for the valid reason that the article covers more than the area that is now modern Spain. However, Hispania is the article covering the Roman era for the History of Spain series. I tried making a unique Roman Spain article for the series, but that was merged into Hispania. Basically, I see three different options: First, restore the template to this article; second, create another Roman Spain article for the series; third, preserve the status quo and have the template link here but not have a copy here. I'm in favor of the second option. The third seems problematic since the series essentially is incomplete. Any thoughts?--Bkwillwm 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert reverts
Eh, pá, não tenho pachorra para ir lá ao outro coiso participar na discussão. 'Tive lá ontem e o outro gajo era um perfeito idiota. Não dá para discutir com essa malta. Velho 00:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese profanity
Worked on Portuguese profanity, I deleted the tag because you never said why it needed attention.  V. Molotov   (talk)     20:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Irei
Bom, prometo que irei à Age of Consent. Só me dás trabalho! Velho 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Controlo
Andas a controlar-me, pazinho? Velho 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Paradinho
Aqui trabalha-se, pá. Acho. Velho

Cabo de São Vicente
Fiz alterações pequenas no Castelo. O Cabo é que está um bocado gralhento, mas agora não tenho tempo para ir alterá-lo. A cópula portuguesa precisa de ajustamentos menores. Velho 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
Importante, de facto. E poderoso. E "ideologizado". Há que temer! Velho

Portugal and Spain History boxes
Ghepeu added the History of Spain template. I've just added the History of Portugal template. Iberia pr Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, if this article has the History of Spain template, it must also have the History of Portugal template. The Ogre 16:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Missing the "History of France" and "History of Italy" templates, probably POV to not include them. Of course, we could also have a "History of Europe" and "Germanic Tribes" templates. Oh, and a new "History of Visigoth" template, which can be added it to the History of Spain article. The possibilities are endless. Stbalbach 21:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree! Probably the best thing is not to have the templates at all, just the links to the "History of (whatever)", where you can find the respectives templates. I was just tired of having to delete the History of Spain template people keep adding to this type of articles that are about historical periods well before the existence of the modern country of Spain and are also connected with the history of many other modern countries (namely Portugal, when we are talking about the Iberian peninsula)! The Ogre 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Stbalbach. I see that you did a general clean up of the "See also" section, including removing the removal of the "History of..." templates. Just to reiterate that I agree and believe the article, in this regard, should just stay as it is. By the way, the same problem can be found in the article about Hispania... The Ogre 18:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Mohra Sharif
This Article is more a Propaganda presentation of a religious (Islamic) community than anything else. Only 2 editors (without active user pages and talk) seem to have done it: User:Taaoo & User:DivineLight. It's clearly biased! I've added the POV and CLEANUP tags. The Ogre 14:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The whole existane of this place is because of the "propaganda" if you say so. BTW where did I mention Islam in that "propaganda"? How do you think it should be changed? And against what do you think it is biased? Do you see any haterd against anything in this article? Maybe you can tell us how to make it better. خرم Khurram 14:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is biased because of all the adjectives used to carachterize the community, its leaders and goals. If you can't see that you need to study Wikipedia guidelines (look up the links above). It is not the existence of the place that is biased, it is the way the article is written!! Tell me Taaoo, why are you using a different name (خرم Khurram)? The Ogre 14:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the adjectives used may seem like that but if we look at the meanings they simply translate to "Mr." and the names are the words that they are remembered by. As far as the place is concerned, I can post some pictures that show that it indeed is situated in a valley that is very beautiful in itself. I also gave the real names in the article thinking that giving the titles is also providing a piece of information so that reader may know that both are the same person but this is not a point that an agreement can not be reached upon. About my name, I use my real name as my signature while "Taaoo" is what my friends used to call me and is dear to me as well. خرم Khurram 15:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some POVs here, Khurram. You should fix that! Velho 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made some modifications. Please tell me if these suffice.خرم Khurram 21:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It still has problems, Khurram. I'll give a hand! The Ogre 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember this:
 * Neutral point of view (and also see the tutorial): This policy is absolutely 100% non-negotiable. If you disagree with the policy (summarized succinctly in the following sentences), you should not be writing for Wikipedia.
 * "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly".
 * "Mak[ing] your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so".
 * Cite sources:
 * "Citing reliable sources serves... to reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise".
 * Also, you had the pages duplicated in MohraSharif and Mohra Sharif, I've sorted that out. The Ogre 03:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is better now, Khurram, don't you think so? The Ogre 04:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ficou muito bem, pois. Vamos lá a ver é se o Taoo (ou lá como era) não muda tudo outra vez... Velho 05:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree.خرم Khurram 15:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all thank you very much for your warm welcome. I shall try to add some useful information on this forum. Regarding Mohra Sharif article, I think it is much better than what I did and I really appreciate it. Will it suite you if I send you more information about this topic and you plug that into it since I may get inclined because of my hearty relationship with the place and people? Also can you please help me out in editing Gama. خرم Khurram 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Disputed and Cleanup tags, but added, after the changes I've made to the article, the Attention and Verification tags. The Ogre 04:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will start putting those additional pages soon. خرم Khurram 22:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Cabrillo
What about Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo? Wasn't he important as well? How come he is not listed in the line of famous explorers? So please add him. 170.158.127.50 13:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He is already there, in the "C" subsection (for Cabrillo, his last family name, that of his father according to Portuguese naming system). His name is written in the Portuguese form - João Rodrigues Cabrilho. The Ogre 15:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gama &rarr; Great Gama (wrestler)
I have added some information on Great Gama. Please have a look. خرم Khurram 16:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) User:The Ogre can you please help me out in editing Gama. خرم Khurram 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I can give a hand, Khurram. Maybe the best way is for you to had stuff to the articles and then I can look a them and make some improvements if needed be. By the way, is Gama a proper name, a nickname or what? Does ir mean something? The Ogre 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not move article content about by cut-and-paste; this separates the content from the history, and causes problems for us with respect to the GNU Free Documentation License. I have corrected the problem, but please use the move feature in the future. Rob Church Talk 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Robchurch! I will do as you say. The Ogre 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you have any other queries, please don't hesitate to ask. Rob Church Talk 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NICE JOB الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Hi, The picture here that is suppose to be of the great Gama is not the real Gama.. This one is another wrestler who´s name is also Ghulam Mohammad, but he is not the Great Gama. If i remember correctly this Ghulam Mohammed was a wrestler who fought in Paris in the beginning of 1900. There is a famous story about how he tried to fake an illness so he wouldnt had to fight his opponent who was much larger then him. Ghulam eventually lost the fight.. and he died some weeks later of an unknown sickness.
 * Ogre the picture is of Ghulam also known as Rustam-e-Dauraan the teacher of Raheem Bakhsh Sultani Wala and not that of the Great Gama. Actually since both wrestlers had the name "Ghulam" common as their first name, this confusion sometimes occurs with the western historians. I have few pictures of Gama but a good source for them is . Other than that your edits are excellent as usual. I will post further information and hopefully we will get done with it very soon. خرم Khurram 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this a good picture, then? The Ogre 16:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it surely is. خرم Khurram 16:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll post it, then. The Ogre 16:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Spain is not Iberia or Hispania!
This article had several instances of Spanish-centered POV! The Iberian peninsula or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should not emply that Spain is Iberia and that there was an exclusive direct descent from some of the monarchs of ancient times to those of modern Spain. The Ogre 19:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Really nice job on your edit on this. It's nice to see someone with this level of issue with the POV of an article simply come in and fix the issue without tearing our large quantities of useful information, or inserting POV in the opposite direction, etc. I corrected a couple of very minor English-language issues, but great work! -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jmabel! The Ogre 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it ought to be noted that Philip IV didn't give up his claim to the Portuguese throne until some decades after the revolt. I'd add that, prior to 1516, and perhaps prior to 1640/1662, "Spain" can be considered to mean "the Iberian Peninsula".  It is only with the definitive independence of Portugal that "Spain" can be said to mean "the Iberian Peninsula, except Portugal." john k 06:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello John Kenney. I've added that the Habsburgs only recognized the separation of Portugal under the Braganzas in 1668. As to the fact that, before 1640, the name "Spain" meant all of Iberia, I think that is clear by the sentence "and thenceforth the name of Spain does not refer to the whole of the Iberian peninsula (ancient Hispania), but only to one of its constituent countries." Mind you that in most Iberian languages, namely Portuguese and Castillian, "Spain", when refering to the whole of the peninsula, was frequently worded in the plural - they spoke of the "Spains" (As Espanhas or Las Españas) - which has quite different connotations... The Ogre 16:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Suebi Kings of Gallaecia
KuatofKDY had deleted the link to the Suebi Kings of Gallaecia, arguing "Wrong kingdom listed. No list available yet for Gallician kings". This is a mistake. If one follows the link one can see the list. However the list is not of Galician Kings, but of the Suebi Kings of Gallaecia. Gallaecia, not Galicia. There where no Kings of Galicia, except for Garcia II of Galicia and Portugal during a period of very few years (see Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal), even if sometimes Galicia was refered to as a Kingdoom. The fact was that Galicia was generally ruled by a Count. For these reasons I have reverted to Jmabel version, that includes the afore mentioned link. The Ogre 15:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

É como tudo
Tudo é como alguma coisa. Confessa que ficou lindo e elogia-me profusamente. Velho 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Tudo mentira
O que é a verdade? Velho 03:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Expanded Damião de Góis
I merged into this article the material of Damião de Gois, which obviously had the wrong title. I also fixed some links and made some minor corrections (including all the redirects). The rest is up to you! The Ogre 05:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pubic Wars
LOL Vou alterar. Velho 05:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC) This article could really use some references that document use of the term in the media. Eloil 04:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I believe the term was used by the mass media. This needs verification indeed. Why do you think the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? The Ogre 05:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mostly because of this: "Eventually Playboy decided to take the high road (providing more artfull nudity) while Penthouse and Hustler (even more so) decided to provide even more explicit images." I'm new to this; maybe I was going overboard with the tags. Do you think that one should be removed? Eloil 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User User:Velho has already removed it. I also think it is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia, even if it can be better phrased (why don't you try?) and it certainly needs verification. By the way, the best way to reply is in the talk page of the specific article. On another note, why don't you star your user page? The Ogre 05:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Boy, I've never seen people respond so soon to edits here before. I'll try to be a bit less liberal in my use of those tags; I'm a bit tired and perhaps getting a little trigger-happy. Eloil 05:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem Eloil. Enjoy the Wikipedia! The Ogre 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ploc! Velho 06:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexandre Dumas
By the way its fun to see Alexandre Dumas photo to illustrate the "Français de souche" what do you think of adding the photo Zinedine Zidane ? Ericd 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't quite understand that, could you elaborate at all? Cheers, - [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|24px]] >>michaelg|talk 12:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably because Alexandre Dumas was 1/4 black... The Ogre 14:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Celtici Cleanup and Verification
Removed the Cleanup and Verification tags. Added sources and some more info. Still needs a lot of work, though. The Ogre 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Was it for verification? Such a small article? OMG! It must have been the "True Celts" thing. They were true Celts and it must be readed, it shouldnt be removed because someone with lack of information removed. True Celts means they were already Celts, and not the people that were to give origin to the Celts (the proto-Celts), Portugal was invaded by proto-celts and true celts. I'm the original author that added it to the Portuguese lang. wiki, and that is taken from books. -Pedro 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was probably the "True Celts" thing that made User:Angr (who is a specialist in theoretical linguistics and mostly interested in the Celtic languages) tag it for verification. That and the fact that it was a very short stub. This article needs expansion. If you have books (please cite them)or just further information on the Celtici you could be the one for the job. As to the fact that the Celtici were not Proto-Celts, ok, we all agree, but maybe calling them "True Celts" is a bit old fashioned... I'm sure there are better ways to state that fact (I already added the fact that they where of the La Tène culture...). The Ogre 17:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The name "True Celts" definitely made me suspicious. I wondered on whose authority they were called "True" Celts, as if other Celts were somehow fake. But I probably would have added the tag even without that, just because there seems to be a certain fashion for claiming Celtic tribes all over the map of Europe, without actually verifying that (1) the tribe actually existed or (2) the tribe is verifiably Celtic. And even for the Celtici, if there isn't linguistic or at least archaeological evidence that they were Celtic, we shouldn't boldly claim that they were just because of their name. If there is such evidence, it would be great if it could be discussed in the article (with sources cited, of course). --Angr/undefined 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look this article up. It is available in E-Keltoi - Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies; Volume 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula. Some revision of all the articles referening to the pre-roman peoples of Iberia is needed. I'll have to read the whole issue... The Ogre 15:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link. I've removed the text itself, though, as it's probably a copyright violation to copy it here, even onto a talk page. --Angr/undefined 17:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I'm sorry about that... By the way the whole volume about The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula seems interesting, and several of the articles deal with the Celtici (amongst others). You also may find this detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC) interesting! The Ogre 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand you, Angr. Sorry. Unfortunatly not all sources are in the Internet. The ogre, I think those links are very interresting!! thanks. -Pedro 02:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed it. The Ogre had originally provided not just a link to the article in "E-Keltoi" but had actually pasted the entire text of the article into this talk page. Short quotes from copyrighted texts are allowed under fair use, but pasting an entire article into a Wikipedia page isn't. So I left the link but removed the text. --Angr/undefined 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Quantos edits tenho
Os meus são melhores, ó mísera verdura. Velho 00:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese independence
Portugal is independent from the Kingdom of Leon since the day that Afonso I of Portugal was proclaimed King, that is July 26 1139 (after the Battle of Ourique). By 1143 this was recognized by the King of León and in 1179 by the Pope. The correct date, therefore, is the one of proclamation and acclamation by the first assembly of the estates-general at Lamego, where he was given the crown from the archbishop of Braga (to confirm the independence) - 1139. The Ogre 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hiperactividade
Tu hoje, pá... Chiça! Tás muito wikiactivo e muito calado, pazinho... Velho 19:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Erros... Gralhas! Velho

Thanks
Thank you so much for this Barnstar of National Merit. It is an honour for me. I have offered it to the recently created WikiProject Galicia. Perhaps you are interested in participating on it. Please take a look at the goals section. --Stoni 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrade
Hello, I'm wondering about your edits to Andrade and Andrade (disambiguation). They had (previously) two different functions--Andrade was about a single family in Spain (everyone in the "See also" list was a member of that particular family). Andrade (disambiguation) listed nearly everyone with the name. Now, however, the two pages have essentially the same information, and so there's no way for a reader to tell which Andrades belong to the aristocratic family of Spain and which don't. I was hoping you might explain your rationale. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, and for keeping me up to date. The edits to the main part of Andrade are great--that was a skimpy article, and you've improved it enormously and given a good sense of the family. However--and I'm sorry about this--I'm afraid I still don't see the point of merging Andrade (disambiguation) into it. It seems like it gives the impression that someone like Mário Pinto de Andrade is a member of that family. In fact, now that you've expanded Andrade, I've even more convinced that the disambig. page should be separate, so as not to distract from the content on the Andrade page--this is what disambig pages are for: to separate between pages that are purely for finding an article a reader is looking for from pages that give specific information (see Disambiguation. However, I'm not going to revert unless I hear from you--I can still be persuaded, of course. You might want to bring someone else into the conversation, too. You could ask User:Redwolf24, for example--he's always around and has expressed an opinion on disambig pages before, I belive. Chick Bowen 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is the clearest way. Thanks again for consulting me on this--I appreciate it. Best, Chick Bowen 20:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hannibal's Ethnicity
The article doesn't mention Hannibal's heritage. I assume he was a moorish Spaniard? anyone know?
 * Well he predated the Spanish Moors by several centuries so I don't believe so. My understanding was that he was of the semetic peoples (I use that term in the broadest sense to cover Arabic-looking but semetic speaking peoples).  Basically, he'd looked like a modern Arab man.
 * EVIDENCE - Hannibal is usually depicted as a white man, but his coins in the British Museum and the Museo Kercheriano, Rome, show him to have been an African of the purist type, with rings in his ears. Col. Hennebert, perhaps the leading authority on Hannibal, declares that none of the several differing portraits now exhibited as Hannibal is he, "We do not possess any authentic portrait of Hannibal" he says.(Histoire d'Annibal, Vol. I, p.495, Paris,1870.) These coins were struck by Hannibal while he was in Italy. In the absence of other information the most logical argument is that they bore his own effigy, the more so, as several of them bear the same likeness. Above all, let us remember that he was an African. User:Tom Bailey - Talk
 * This seems to me as pretty silly talk. A "pure type of African"?! As opposed to "white"?! What does that mean? Come on, we're not talking about some American guy of the XXI century... Velho 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tom Bailey. I´ve deleted the paragraph you had added to the article on Hannibal (and that you have on your User Page). I did this because what you've written is clearly Racialist POV (not explicitly Racist, though). You see, the racial categories you work with have no meaning at all for many people around the world (look up the Race article and connected pages). Hannibal was probably similiar to other North Africans (past and present), and this in a time well before major Sub-Saharan influences. For many those populations are White or Caucasoid (see also Caucasian race)! The same can be said of the Phoenicians, from whom the Carthaginians were derived. How can you say he was "an African of the purist type with rings in his ears" - can you tell someone's "pure type" (whatever that is!) by their earings? If you want to use the information on the fact that you do not know exactly how he looked like (following Hennebert, who wrotte in 1870 - are you sure he is the "the leading authority on Hannibal"? 135 years of academic work have passed since then...), I think that that could be interesting and relevant, but saying he was a Black African using as source a book from 1936 that uses the category of Negro is obviously POV. You say "Above all, let us remember that he was an African", by that meaning he was not white. Well, he was a North African and in that article it is stated that "North Africa is often set apart from the sub-Saharan African region, as the desert serves more of an obstacle to communication than the sea itself. It is principally inhabited by Berbers and Arabs, who are scarcely distinguishable physically, along with minorities of other ethnic groups. The Berbers are the indigenous people in the Maghreb, and are believed to have come from the east. The Berber peoples range from very fair to quite dark. The majority of people in North Africa are ultimately of Berber descent, but, outside of most of Morocco and parts of Algeria, most identify themselves as Arabs." Of course, in Hannibal's time the Arabs weren't around in North Africa, but the Berbers are of Upper Paleolithic origin, that is to say they represent the main populational group in North Africa well before Hannibal's time! And we would be speaking of Mediterranean North African populations (look up the genetics and phenotypical sections on the Berber article), not the deep desert ones... I hope you understand my reasons for the removal of you paragraph. The Ogre 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is conversation that can only exist if the above museums are not visited and the coins are not viewed. This world has been influenced by all of the people who inhabit it. I challenge anyone to visit Museo Kercheriano in Rome to look at the coins that bare his likeness, that were struck and approved by Hannibal himself. Believing that he was African isn't narrow. Believing that he couldn't possibly have been, is what's narrow. Any speculation in the absence of viewing his coins is hollow, even if that speculation is centuries standing. These coins were placed on display in Rome by Romans, not by Africans. User:Tom Bailey - Talk, 11/08/05
 * I'd be interested to see the coins but on the other hand the bust that is usually assumed to be him shows someone with features that are considered to be Semitic ie white Arab.  The whole idea of race applied to Hannibal is a little anachronistic.  The Carthaginians were regarded by some Greeks as in a sense Greek because they had a constitution and city life while to Demosthenes the Macedonians were barbarian.  In short, it is so hard to say what race he is because the ancients while they could be prejudiced were not racially aware in the modern sense. Really North Africa isn't part of our modern concept of Africa but West Eurasia.  Dejvid 14:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. Because of a constitution, Carthaginians are given the wonderful oportunity of being considered Greeks. What was that, a step up in class for Carthage? I don't think so. There are people that somehow have to inject their own likeness into anything of great historical value. Such as King James ruling by Divine Right. Or Columbus discovering America, when there were already millions of Native Americans living in the land. All Columbus did was visit the land not discover the it. If you let enough time go by eventually books could read that Elvis Presley discovered Rock and Roll. To say or believe that there were no black Africans in Carthage Africa, would be to say centuries from now that there were no Native Americans in Canada and no Mexicans in New York. It's as if the obvious is being disregarded in favor of the conceptual. There is stunning visual evidence of Hannibal's appearance in Rome. Unless these coins are destroyed the truth of Hannibal's appearance will always resurface. Forever. User:Tom Bailey - Talk.
 * It seems rather ironic that you're denouncing people for "people ... hav[ing] to inject their own likeness into anything of great historical value" while you are the one trying to shoehorn ancient peoples into modern Western cultural constructs of race. (And I'm not sure what James I & VI's political philosophy has to do with this.  He felt that being in a position to inherit the throne was a mark that God had chosen you to rule, and therefore your authority was greater than Parliament's.  So?)  You were given an example to illustrate the point that our constructs of race don't make sense when applied to the ancients&mdash;that the Greeks to some degree based their ideas of Carthaginian "ethnicity" on political sophistication rather than skin colour or genetic ancestry&mdash;and you are the one who automatically assumed a moral value was being assigned to each race.  The bias being exposed here is your own, not Dejvid's.
 * (Did the ancient Greeks think they were paying the Carthaginians a compliment by equating them with Greeks? Well yes, of course.  Because the ancient Greeks were bigots.  But not racists&mdash;because, like the rest of the ancient world, they had no modern Western&mdash;I'd go so far as to say modern Anglophonic&mdash;concept of race.  Dejvid's completely value-neutral statement in no way implied any endorsement of that position.)
 * To address your tangent&mdash;Columbus did indeed discover the Americas, and to describe what he did as "visiting" is at best intellectually ingenuous; a visit implies he had a destination and itinerary before he left, whereas he didn't even know there was a destination there. He was not the first to discover the Americas, since, as you point out, their was a whole cultural grouping already living there.  But (aside from oddities like Roman coins in Venezuela and the minor footnote of Lief Eriksson's brief expedition) the American cultural grouping and Columbus's cultural grouping&mdash;Christendom (for lack of a better term)&mdash;had no contact with or knowledge of each other or of each other's geography.  So Columbus discovered the Americas for Christendom&mdash;and it was as a direct result of Columbus's discovery that knowledge of the Americas was spread to the Islamic world, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and East Asia, and Australasia.  So Columbus actually discovered the Americas for the most of the planet&mdash;but not for the people who lived there at the time.  Of course, the vast, vast majority of the people of now live in the Americas come from a cultural heritage outside the Americas, so it would be revisionist history of the worst kind for them not to learn of Columbus as the discoverer of the Americas.  That doesn't imply that he was the first man to visit them; it implies that he opened them up to Europe and the rest of the Old World.  Binabik80 23:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Did you notice Velho's comment of silly talk? The Org commented that North Africans are white and had no contact with Sub Saharan Africans? When it is historically clear that mankind went north from southern Africa. What we're really debating here is what Hannibal looked like. You see he had to look like something. I declare strongly that he looked like his coins. The Greeks were pompus in not accepting Carthage's differences on an equal basis. I understand that racism and the concept of race was different to them than it is to us. But I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to people in the modern era and addressing their concept of race. Obviously the Ancient Romans had no problems with what Hannibal looked like. They're the ones who kept the coins. I don't have a bone to pick with them or the Greeks on race issues. I question only the heart of those who don't believe that he was dark, regardless of the coins. I too would be challanged to believe the reports of modern historians, if not for the coins. It is the coins that are the basis of my belief. Therein lies the difference between me and the other writers herein. Where the Greeks had to draw a common ground with society in Carthage to accept them as equals, modern historians today seemingly have to draw an ethnic commomness to Hannibal in order to accept his greatness. In other words, they had to lighten him up to accept him. Only Dejvid mentioned interest in seeing the coins. No one else has even commented on them. How am I to interpret that? Since the Ancients had no concept of race as we have today, proves that they were different than us. Why can't we be like the Ancients who saw Hannibal and kept the coins? This is a question that you and many others can answer only in your own hearts. Of course there were light skinned people in Carthage, but Hannibal wasn't one of them. I accept that I am biased because of the coins if others will accept that they are biased inspite of them. I also accept that I could have used better examples, with the exception of the one about Elvis. Think about it, Rock and Roll had been played by Black Americans for more than two decades. It was only accepted in mass once it was lightened up. The same goes for Hannibal. User:Tom Bailey - Talk.
 * Hello Tom Bailey. I believe you are making some confusions. Of course Hannibal had to look like something! But the fact is that we do not have an acceptable likeness of his image, even if there are some coins (and of course we all would like to see them!). And I must note that coins say nothing about his colour... And of course I agree with you that European Racism has, over the centuries, tried to portrait Hannibal as White, whatever that means! And of course there were people in Antiquity most people in the Western world today would classify as Black (but maybe not in other areas of the world - look up the civil war in Sudan, namely in Darfur, between "Arabs" and "Blacks"; to an European eye thay are all Black Africans, but not for themselves...). And of course there has been a lot of withewash on the participation of people we could consider Black in World History. However, and that is why I said you should look up the makeup of Mediterranean North African populations (looking up the genetics and phenotypical sections on the Berber article), even if "it is historically clear that mankind went north from southern Africa" (in fact, not "from southern Africa", but more a less from East Central Africa), they did not do so in a straight line (why don't you look up the The Genographic Project home page and look at the early migration routes routes of human populations- there you can see that North Africans mostly came from the Middle East, as well, obviously, as from other places, including Sub-Saharan Africa; also look at the world distribution of haplogroups, Mitochondrial and Y chromosome). And this is not all. The question is not only that people in Antiquity did not have the same concept and categories of Race as people in Modern times have. The question is that we, today, do not all have the some concepts and categories of race! Someone that you may find Black, I may not, or vice-versa. Racial categories are social definitions based, among other things, in different cultural appropriations of physical appearance. Furthermore, even if Eurocentric narratives and images of Hannibal are clearly Racialist POV, bluntly and definitively stating that Hannibal was "Black" is also an extreme statement of the same type, not only because we have no reliable sources, but also because the category itself is problematic. Nevertheless one could say that there is a polemic about such an issue as Hannibal's Ethnicity or Race (and also because Ethnicity and Race are polemic...) and explain it. That would not be POV. Once again, I hope you understand my reasoning. Please Tom Bailey (and others) properly sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (4 times the symbol ~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. By the way, it's The Ogre, not The Org. The Ogre 15:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good information. There have been more people to read our writings than have responded. So I suspect that some will take time to see the coins when visiting Rome. I am concerned that you however don't considered them an acceptable likeness of Hannibal. I have to say that I trust The Museo Kercheriano, Rome, and their display of the coins. It is true that coins do not accurately depict skin color, but what's unique about the coins are their heavy negroid features and that they are the same. While there have been many varying portraits of Hannibal through the centuries, there has been no variance in coins claiming to bare Hannibals likeness. I believe that all other effigies of Hannibal that look different than the coins are made up and made in the likeness of the people who made them up. I'm glad that you mentioned the whitewashing of history. Thank you for that. I will be content if modern historians remove from their belief that "he couldn't have possibly been black" and accepting that a declaration that he was purely black is as equal an opposite. But please remember that it is these coins (alone) that were struck by Hannibal himself and the only way to discount them would be to believe that the Museo Kercheriano, Rome, is perpetrating a fraud. If modern historians would consider them fraud in favor of the varying effigies of Hannibal then who am I to deny them that?. The references that you gave will be very interesting reading however they do not address whether these coins are considered accurate in their depiction of Hannibal. If anything, you've convinced me that you don't quite see their relevance. I've been as redundant as one can be in explaining my belief in these coins. If anyone is still unconvinced of their accuracy or existence, then they can remain unconvinced. Are we seeking the true face of history, or just concepts that we can live with? Tom 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

Hello again Tom Bailey. I am sorry, but we seem to be speaking of different things! Mine is an argumentation that there is no absolute evidence of Hannibal's likeness and that the most probable is that he looked as most North Africans do today (and that is clearly non-Black by most reasonable and non-biased standarts, including official U.S. classifications). This is even more so given the fact that the Barcid family was an elite Carthaginian family, claiming descent from a younger brother of Dido (according to Silius Italicus in his Punica: 1.71–7), less likely to intermarriage with Sub-Saharan populations. If you want to speak about what some coins might portrait, an argument dear to Afrocentric positions (as ideological as Eurocentric ones), look at the ones bellow! Notice that, at least for me..., no one could classify this images of Hannibal as depicting a "Black" man! No even that of his younger brother Hasdrubal! And these are the coins in good conditions... Most of the other ones available are just a blur! Of course Hannibal might have been "Black" (whatever that means...). One could even say that whatever he looked like, some people will always try to say that he was either "White" or "Black"! Well... Hannibal was Hannibal, a Carthaginian General. And the population makeup of Carthaginians is well known. The Ogre 18:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose The Ogre put it the right way. I think that anything we can possibly say about Hannibal's "race" or "ethnicity" is as pov as any other pov. Actually, I think Hannibal looks very much like me on these coins, and I'm neither white nor black. Velho 19:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on other coin images and can cleary see that these coins are simular to each another. I can also see that these coins do not portray Hannibal as a Black African. Thank you for your research. Can you determine when they were made? Tom 03:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Hello Tom. I've added some of the dates and info on the coins. They are all of Barcid mint in Iberia (namely in Carthago Nova). They are not dificult to find using or just Google. Here is some bibliography on the subject.
 * Jenkins GK & Lewis RB  Carthaginian Gold and Electrum Coins.  London, 1963.
 * Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: Danish National Museum (SNG Copenhagen), Jenkins GK  vol 42 North Africa: Syrtica – Mauretania. Copenhagen, 1969.
 * Jenkins GK  Coins of Punic Sicily. Parts 1-4 Swiss Numismatic Review 50:25-78,1971; 53:23-41, 1974; 56:5-65, 1977; 57:5-68, 1978.
 * Robinson ESG  Punic Coins of Spain and Their Bearing on the Roman Republican Series.  in Carson RAG and Sutherland CHU (eds) Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly.  Oxford, 1956.
 * Robinson ESG  Carthaginian and Other South Italian Coinages of the Second Punic War.  Numismatic Chronicle, 7th series 4:37-64, 1964.
 * Villaronga L  Las Monedas Hispano-Cartaginesas.  Barcelona, 1973.
 * Visona P  Carthaginian Coinage in Perspective.  Am J Numismatics 10:1-27, 1998.
 * Noble Numismatics Pty Ltd Sale #64A: the Stephen P Mulligan Collection, July, 2000.
 * Enjoy! The Ogre 14:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Aníbal Barca
Ganhaste? Mas alguma vez admitiste a hipótese contrária? Isso é um bocado de ra..... Velho 19:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Soares role as president
You (Velho) describe this as nonsense: "The Portuguese presidency is a largely ceremonial role." Does Portugal have an executive presidency like the USA? Who runs the country, the President or the Prime Minister? You describe this as POV: "which Soares used to promote human rights in Portugal and internationally." So far as I know that is true. What is your objection to this? Adam 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between being "a largely ceremonial role" and not being "an executive presidency like the USA". Portuguese presidents have the power to dissolve the Parliament (and many did do it; Sampaio did it six months ago), to veto Parliament and Government acts, to call for an appreciation of laws by the Constitutional Court (they do it often), to decide whether to call for referendums (following a proposal by the parliament), to put down the Government without dissolving the parliament, etc. If you think this is "largely ceremonial", we have a divergent reading of "ceremonial". Some people classify the Portuguese political system as "semipresidential". The role of the Portuguese president has no resemblance to those of UK's Queen or of Germany's and Italy's president. As to the "promotion of human rights", I really don't think it has any "dense" descriptive value. Not even the closest supporters and friends of Soares use that phrase to describe his presidency. I don't know what someone has in mind by saying it, and therefore it really sounds to me like a pure pov. By the way, I even voted for him on his second election for president... Velho 04:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Velho. By the way Adam, we seem to have some of the same ancestor, so that makes as cousins in a way... ! Bye. The Ogre 13:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal
Stoni: this article is not about the whole of Galician history, but only about the Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal. Please do not move it to Kingdom of Galicia. The Ogre 15:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia
Stoni (Talk)! I've just seen what you have done with Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal, Kingdom of Galicia, Gallaecia, History of Galicia and the History of Galicia box series. My deepest congratulations. I was going to propose that something along those lines should be done, but you were ahead of me the whole time. For your work in bringing up the quality of Galician articles I award you the Barnstar of National Merit. The Ogre 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)}}

In the news - November 29
It says...
 * A motion of no confidence, defeats Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government by a margin of 171 to 131 forcing an immediate election campaign.
 * ... and nowhere it is stated what is the county in question!
 * (Yes, I know it's Canada). The Ogre 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Albertine, Princess of Saxe-Hildburghausen - Not African!
This seems to be a recorrent error all over the place. The previous version said that Margarita de Castro e Sousa was descendant of the King Afonso III of Portugal and an African mistress of him (by that meaning Black). This would not be a problem but for the fact that it is not true! Afonso III of Portugal had descendants from Matilda II of Boulogne, Beatrix of Castile, Maria Peres de Enxara and Madragana (Mor Afonso), as well as up to 7 children other from unknown mother(s). The one that is repeatedly refered to as African is Madragana ( called Mor Afonso after bearing two children to the King: Martim Afonso Chichorro and Urraca Afonso). She was not African. People abusively assume that because she was the daughther of the Governor of the city of Faro (in the Algarve), then a region dominated by the Moors (who were North Africans, which is quite different from saying just Africans...). The fact is that Afonso III of Portugal captured the city and its governor Aloandro Ben Bekar, not a Moor, but a Mozarab (Iberian Christians living under Muslim domination), gave up his daugther to the King. You might find suprising that a Moorish town (even if the majority of the population was Christian, the political power was Moorish) was governed by a Christian, but you might do well to remember that the Moors always had Christian or Jews in high level positions, and Aloandro Ben Bekar (or Aloandro Ben Bakr) was from an old lineage of Mozarabs who had even taken control of the city away from the Muslims for certain periods in the past (people like Yahia Ben Bakr and Bakr Ben Yahia). So, they were definitively not Africans, not even Moors, but native Iberians! So, Elizabeth Albertine, Princess of Saxe-Hildburghausen, is not descendent of an African woman. Mind you, it would not be a problem if she was! Be she wasn't. The Ogre 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to know the direct line of descent here goes:


 * King Afonso III of Portugal and Madragana (Mor Afonso) (daugther of Aloandro Ben Bekar) had...
 * Martim Afonso Chichorro, who, with Inês Lourenço de Valadares, had...
 * Martim Afonso Chichorro II, who, with Aldonça Anes de Briteiros, had...
 * Vasco Martins de Sousa Chichorro, who, with Estefânia Garcia, had...
 * Afonso Vasques de Sousa, who, with Leonor Lopes de Sousa, had...
 * Mécia de Sousa, who, with Fernando de Castro, had...
 * Margarita de Castro e Sousa, who, with Jean de Neufchâtel, had...
 * Fernando de Neufchatel, who, with Claudia de Vergy, had...
 * Antonieta de Neufchatel, who, with Filipe, Count of Salm and Wildrheingrave of Dhaun, had...
 * Margarida, Wild-rheingravina of Dhaun, who, with Eberard XII, Count of Erbach, had...
 * Georg III, Count of Erbach, who, with Maria de Barby e Mühlingen, had...
 * Jorge Alberto I, Count of Erbach, who, with Isabel Doroteia, Countess of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, had...
 * Jorge Luis I, Count of Erbach, who, with Amália Catarina, Countess of Waldeck-Eisenberg, had...
 * Sophia Albertine, Countess of Erbach, who, with Ernst Frederick I, Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen, had...
 * Elizabeth Albertine, Princess of Saxe-Hildburghausen.
 * Et voilá! If you want to find out more about Elizabeth Albertine ancestors (and there's much more data available!) check her out in this Portuguese genealogical site. Best regards. The Ogre 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabic origin of the name Portugal
User 82.155.192.235 wrote: "Another theory is that it comes from "Portucale", which is arabic for Orange, a fruit of which Portugal is famous for." I've removed it and told him: Please do not write stuff you are not sure and just heard somewhere. In Arabic orange is called Portugal (or something similar) because it was the Portuguese who introduced that fruit to the Arabic speaking world, namely due to the large production of the Algarve. The Ogre 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Lusitania
I was looking for the ship & got directed here. Shouldn't I've gotten a disambig page, first? Trekphiler 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You did. The first line reads "This article concerns the Roman province. For other uses, see Lusitania (disambiguation)." The Ogre 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I wasn't clear. I meant a page that listed both & offered me the choice. I had to search SS Lusitania to get her. Trekphiler 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You were. Maybe I wasn't. The page that list both as choice is Lusitania (disambiguation). The Ogre 14:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So everything is correct, Lusitania was a Roman Province and SS Lusitania was a boat... so what's the problem? Different names, different things.

People named Rodríguez
Please, kind wikipedian, add names of people called Rodríguez. The Ogre 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rodríguez Etymology
As for the origin of the name the Old Norse Hróðgeirr, meaning proud spear or something to that effect springs to mind. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is just a hunch. Cheerio Io 19:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. As stated in the article, Rodríguez (Spanish) or Rodrigues (Portuguese) is a Patronymic, meaning Son of Rodrigo. Rodrigo comes from the Gothic Roderic (modern English Roderick), meaning Famous Ruler. In old Germanic languages it had forms such as Hrodric (Old High German) and Hroðricus (Old English). In Old Norse, Hrœrekr (Norway, Iceland) and Hrørīkr or Rørik (Denmark, Sweden), from which the Slavic Riurik is derived. The name also appears in Beowulf as Hrēðrīk. The Ogre 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I got the hróð-part right. :) (And you're right, hróðr means fame not pride, a slight slip on my part - I must have been distracted.) Cheerio Io 11:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Saint Beatrice da Silva Meneses
Forgot to add Saint Beatrice da Silva. Anonymous User talk:205.188.117.69.
 * Who the hell (pardon the impropriety...) is she? And, if she is Portuguese, don't you mean Saint Beatriz da Silva? The Ogre 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Saint Amedeus of Portugal
Add him also. Anonymous User talk:205.188.117.69.
 * Who the hell (again, pardon the impropriety...) is he? And, if he is Portuguese, don't you mean Saint Amadeu of Portugal? The Ogre 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Saint Uncumber
Add him. Anonymous User talk:205.188.117.69.
 * Who the hell (again, pardon the impropriety, probably sign of the terrible sin of incredulity...) is he? And, if he is Portuguese, what the hell (I'm a repetitive sinner...) is his name in Portuguese? The Ogre 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

POV, cleanup and expand in Global Empires
This is a poor article. In its previous version it was completly Spanish POV centered. It still needs corrections (cleanup) and expasion. The Ogre 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Diachronic Map in Centum-Satem isogloss
This map is incorrect in what refers to the Iberian peninsula, since it reverses the geographical/linguistic areas. In Iberia the area presented in blue should be grey and the one in grey should be blue. In fact the one presently in blue was globaly the area of the Iberian language and Tartessian language (non-Indo-European languages), while the one presently in gray was in fact the one with Celtic and Proto-Celtic languages. See, for instance, this detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples and Languages of Iberia. This needs to be corrected. The Ogre 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Moors?
Quite frankly, the Moorish rulers of Lisbon, from 711 to 1147, aren't given enough credit in this article. The rule is concluded in two sentences. Did the city just dissapear and reappear in 1147? Lisbon was a thriving city under Moorish rule, and we need to mention that. Go in depth. Mention how the populace spoke Arabic, some retaining the Romance, and that the majority of the population was Muslim during this time. Somebody needs to do research and write as much about the Muslim rule as is in the Roman rule.
 * Go for it!!! --BBird 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it! But sources are important. I had the idea that a great part of Lisbon's population (Muslim and Christian) had been killed by the Crusaders. This should be checked. The Ogre 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Métis?
I'm still new to Wikipedia but what is the policy regarding ethnicity articles on 'mixed' ethnicities? Would the Métis of Canada and the United States be considered 'French'?
 * The Métis of Canada and the United States are either Canadian or American. Not French. Even if their ancestors once were. The Ogre 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oli..what??
Seems the Olivenza "conflict" is only known in Portugal, in Spain most people have no idea about it. That leads me to the conclusion that there's no such conflict except in some portuguese ultranationalists, otherwise Olivenza people would have already claimed that they wanted to be portuguese. Let's say it was occupied by spaniards and that right now they are overwhelming majority, so what are you going to do? kick spaniards out of their hometown and bring portugueses from Lisboa to colonize it? sounds nice. What I find very funny are those comments about how portuguese it looks...if you can difference it from any other Extremadura town then my kudos, because you might have some kind of very sensitive portuguesometer. 83.138.237.106
 * Yes... but, you see, the only problem is that the Portuguese State does not recognize the incorporation of Olivenza in Spain (even if it does not press the issue), and official Portuguese maps refuse to draw the border in that area. Puting aside those "Portuguese ultranationalists" (let's neglect them!), this seems to be the only "conflict"... The Ogre 12:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrade Coat of Arms
I'm an Andrade from El Salvador, now living in Indiana, USA. I was looking at a newer coat of arms, and I noticed snakes and cauldrons and a winged serpent crest. Were the Andrades witches or I don't know sorcerers or something hundreds of years ago? Guanaco152003 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Guanaco152003. I do not know the coat of arms you're refering to, but the simbology of Iberian heraldry does not point to witches or sorcerers... The cauldron was a symbol of power (having the possibility to feed lots of people), and the serpent or dragon (winged serpent) are fairly common in European heraldry, namely in Portugal, where they are an important symbol since 1000 BC. Also remember that a specific coat of arms may not have any specific connection with the original coat of arms presented in the Andrade article. The Ogre 11:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversies about the "discovery" of Brazil
Acoording to the Wikipedia in Portuguese: ''Vicente Yanéz Pinzón, navegador espanhol, partiu de Palos de la Frontera, Espanha em 19 de novembro de 1499. Em Janeiro de 1500 desembarcou no Brasil no local atualmente chamado Praia do Paraíso, Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Pernambuco. O local foi batizado por Pinzon como Cabo de Santa Maria de la Consolación. Pinzón seguiu sua viagem e em fevereiro de 1500 chegou à foz do Rio Amazonas, que batizou como Mar Dulce. A Viagem de Pinzón e sua chegada ao Brasil não constam da maior parte dos registros oficiais de história do Brasil pois pelo tratado de Tordesilhas as terras descobertas por Pinzón pertenciam, de fato, a Portugal. Mas existe grande probabilidade de que mesmo a esquadra de Pinzón não seria a primeira expedição européia a desembarcar em terras brasileiras. Já em 1325 circulavam em Portugal lendas e mapas sobre uma terra rica em pau-brasil situada além mar. Na disputa com a Espanha por novas terras, os portugueses realizam expedições sigilosas chamadas "de arcano". Assim há relatos de que João Coelho da Porta da Cruz e Duarte Pacheco Pereira teriam estado no Brasil respectivamente em 1493 e 1498. Diogo de Lepe, navegador espanhol, teria atingido a costa brasileira em março de 1500.'' Gimferrer 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * YES! I've tried to deal with this issue sometyme ago, but someone (can't remember whom...) reverted my changes to the article, giving it its present and Spanish-centred POV form, where it is stated, blumtly and without discussion, that Vicente Yáñez Pinzón, and not Pedro Álvares Cabral, was the discoverer of Brazil. I think I'm going to change this, doing something in the lines of what is done in the Portuguese Language Wikipedia. That is to say, creating a section (or even an article if it's too long) on the Controversies about the "discovery" of Brazil. What does everyone think? The Ogre 19:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Move & Corrections
I moved this page from Elvira Menéndez to Elvira Mendes, because that is the correct spelling of her name. She was of the line of the Counts of Portugal (House of Vímara Peres) and that is how it's spelled. I also added info on her father and descent. The Ogre 20:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Estar nas listas
És tão cromo... Seja como for, o Nuno Tavares tem mais duzentas alterações do que tu. Incha! Velho 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fore
Tinha visto há poucos dias um comentário sobre eles. Parecem-me tipos simpáticos e sensatos, mas acho-os um bocado esquisitos ao só comerem parentes. Com tanta chicha que anda aí! Velho 03:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Trufas!!
Porra, tenho de arranjar trufas. É que nunca comi! O preço não anda longe do caviar... Velho 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Lusophobia
Sabia que existia, sim. Só não conhecia a palavra!... E é preciso notar que os maiores lusófobos são tugas... Velho 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, parabéns
Hi, Ogre, congratulations for your excellent and complete Santos disambiguation article! --R.Sabbatini 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

67.107.166.138
Thanks for letting me know about this vandal. He seems to have stopped shortly after you left your message for me, but I've blocked the IP address for a week. If you ever need immediate administrator assistace with a vandal you can go to WP:AIV and ask for it. See you around. Canderson7 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Claimants of the Duchy of Branganza
This guy 82.50.183.202 removes everything fom the article. He must be one of the pseudo pretenders and insists anonymously. The ip is from Italy. I had a revert war with him that stopped when the article Manuel of Portugal reached a minimaly accpetable level. --BBird 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Quid?
Atão, pá, na dizes nada? Velho 20:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Tosco
Mandeitummail Velho 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Natal
Há uns filhos de uns cães que andam a tentar apagar um artigo que eu estou a fazer! Irra! Velho 18:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Translating "law" to other European languages
Could someone please explain why on Earth this article should be deleted before inserting the AfD tag?! Velho 15:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems a valid, informative and interesting article about a real translation problem in Law. Why would anyone want to delet it? The Ogre 18:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tu sabes
Vejo que o teu Natal está a ser animado... Velho 18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC) E ainda tenho de copy-editar o que escreves em meu apoio... Velho 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Bêbedo. Velho 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Que é feito?
Eu ando por aqui a tomar conta dos meus artigos,essa é que é essa! Velho 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tiveste piada
Bom ano também para ti, ó rabeta! _ Velho 04:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Uriel
Ouve, não acho bem a alteração que fizeste no princípio do Uriel da Costa. Acho que fica mal e é incomum pôr-se um link na primeira aparição das palavras que fazem o nome do artigo. Velho 15:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese people
True, the numbers of Portuguese with lighter hair and eyes isn't occasional. My main concern was the statement that there wasn't a typical Portuguese "look" when the majority of indigenous Portuguese are a Western/Iberian Mediterranean type, even with those of lighter hair and eyes. User:Epf

County of Portugal
I've reverted Muriel Gottrop deletion of Portugal-bio-stub in Elvira Mendes. She says that there was no Portugal in 1022. That is in fact not true. The First County of Portugal was established in in 868 and Elvira Mendes was a member of the reignant family (that of Vímara Peres House). On the other hand one could argue, and I'm not really doing that..., that Spain, if you don't use that name to signify Iberia or Hispania, only exists after the union of Aragon and Castile (1492) and the incorporation of Navarre (1516). If by Portugal and Spain you mean the present political entities, then neither of them existed in 1022... The Ogre 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bem, o que existia em 1022 era o Condado Portucalense, nao Portugal... Mas pronto, como queira. Já agora, a wiki.pt precisa de gente. Abracos, muriel@pt 14:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ou, por outras palavras, não é lá por "Portugal" (o estado português) não existir em 1022 que a malta de 1022 ia deixar de ser malta da história portuguesa. Os espanhóis, os bifes e assim por diante fazem o mesmo. A "história dos EUA" começa com as primeiras migrações para o continente americano. E, no caso específico de 1022 -- como diz o Ogre, desde 868 -- há mesmo uma unidade político-geográfica que só muda de estatuto para dar origem aqui ao rectângulo à beira mar enterrado. Velho 02:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LocalGuimaraes.png
Thanks for uploading Image:LocalGuimaraes.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy). The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --cohesion &#9733; talk 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Rosario Poidimani
Vote aqui: Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Cheers, muriel@pt 13:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured article
Just to inform you that an article you've edited before (History of Portugal (1777-1834)) is nominated for featured article. If you want you can vote or comment here. Thanks. Gameiro 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula
I agree with most of the reversion, but I don't think it was vandalism. Best regards, Marco Neves 12:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

O amor
Bons edits!

Archiving Talk Page
While you are welcome to archive your talk page, please do not blank it. Adrian
 * How do I do that? The Ogre 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you on my talk page :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You can use the "move" button on the page to move it to something like User_talk:The Ogre (archive 1), and link to that page from your new, blank talk page :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Ogre 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

História de Portugal
Olá Ogre. Não sei se te posso tratar por Ogre, nem por tu, nem sei se posso falar contigo em português, mas aqui vai. Parabéns pelo teu trabalho aqui na Wikipédia. No entando gostava de falar contigo sobre alguns artigos que tu criaste relativos à História de Portugal. No template dos artigos sobre a História de Portugal criaste os artigos Prehistoric Portugal e Pre-Roman Portugal limitando-te a dividir a cronologia Timeline of Portuguese history (Pre-Roman) entre os dois artigos. Ora, eu concordaria com isto caso não existisse já um artigo com a cronologia, pois prefiro um artigo em forma de cronologia à inexistência desse mesmo artigo. Acontece que neste caso já existia essa cronologia e o objectivo do artigo era mais uma retrospectiva em forma de texto corrido dos períodos. Eu percebo que pelo teu recente entusiasmo pela Wikipédia que estivesses com "as ganas" de "mostrar serviço" e admiro o teu trabalho aqui em diversas áreas, mas acho que estes artigos merecem melhor pois neste momento são contra-producentes porque as melhorias que sofram o artigo da cronologia ou o artigo que deveria ter texto fazem concorrência a si próprias. Outro ponto que gostava de falar é a criação dos artigos Economic history of Portugal, Cultural history of Portugal, Demographic history of Portugal e Diplomatic history of Portugal que contêm apenas uma frase: "This article covers the _____ history of Portugal". Concordo que o template fica bem mais bonito só com links azuis mas é decepcionante para alguém que tenha de facto interesse em saber sobre a história económica portuguesa se depare com um artigo de uma frase. Um red link acaba por ser melhor neste caso pois estimula alguém que perceba do assunto a escrever sobre ele. Eu no caso dos artigos sobre os períodos tenho vindo a trabalhar aos poucos já que são um pouco trabalhosos (se quiseres podes ver: History of Portugal (1578-1777) e History of Portugal (1777-1834)). Nos outros períodos que faltavam fiz o que tu fizeste com uma diferença, estruturei as secções dos artigos por forma a que não evoluam para artigos como este: Portuguese First Republic. Bom, todo este discurso sobre a moral e os bons costumes só para te propôr uma coisa: que te parece uma parceria neste trabalho da História? Se quiseres podes ajudar-me em History of Portugal (1834-1910) que é onde estou a trabalhar agora. É que a opinião de um pessoa só muitas vezes não é fiável e gostaria de ter um contraponto que fosse acrescentando/modificando informação que me escapasse, e que preferencialmente começasse por si só artigos. Ou seja, seria óptimo uma espécie de colaboração. Peço desculpa pelo texto longuíssimo mas não vejo outra forma de falar deste assunto (caso não estejas interessado ou simplesmente não tenhas tempo para a colaboração agradeço-te na mesma só o frete de teres de ler isto). Se pudesses mudar de alguma forma os artigos de uma só frase para stubs ou transformasses as cronologias em texto corrigo já era uma grande ajuda. Obrigado. Gameiro 02:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quebec French profanity
Vai ver isto, que é fabuloso. Velho 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal de Portugal
Já abriu o Portal de Portugal na Wikipedia! Junta-te a nós para trabalharmos em prol de artigos, listas e imagens relacionadas com Portugal. No portal, encontrarás um artigo geral, um artigo biográfico, um artigo geográfico e uma imagem todas as semanas em destaque. Para além disso estão apresentadas também secções de Notícias, Curiosidades, Listas, Citações, Opentasks, informação sobre artigos recentes, etc. Futuramente teremos um WikiProject para geografia de Portugal (de modo a estandardizar todos os artigos relativos às localidades e divisões administrativas portuguesas), história de Portugal, biografias, e possivelmente desporto. Também temos em vista a criação de uma Colaboração Semanal para artigos sobre Portugal. Por isto, e tudo mais, pedimos-te que venhas ajudar-nos. Estamos também à procura de colaboradores, por isso, se estiveres interessado, é só pedires que já estás no grupo de manutenção do portal. Saudações! Gameiro 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sobre estar giro
EuBA. Velho 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

List of noted polyglots
Tinha a sua piada, de facto! Velho 01:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:João Gonçalves Zarco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:João Gonçalves Zarco.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 20:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Joao_franco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Joao_franco.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Portuguese language poets
Expandi List of Portuguese language poets. The Ogre 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Já pus o link em Portuguese language. Ah, grande patriota! Velho 15:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User page
És tão cromo... Mas não te deste ao trabalho de fazer nenhuma Userbox, como eu fiz! É muito simples: escolhe um template de cujas cores gostes, e tal. Escolhe uma imagem (de caviar, por exemplo) das que há na WP. Vai ao template, faz «edit», copia o que lá está, passa para a página do novo template com o nome que queiras (vg, Template:User caviar) e muda o texto e o link para a página! Trabalha, pá! Velho 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A do caviar ficou com piada... :-) Velho 16:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, eh, eh...
Eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh... Ganhei uma barnstar! Incha! Velho 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Milesians (Irish)
I only just noticed your contribution to this article - thanks. Would you have any interest in Spanish Armada in Ireland (great photos, if nothing else)? Or in English Armada (significant Portuguese content)?--Shtove 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ena!
Voltámos à actividade pro bono humanitatis, foi? Velho 23:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Portugal

 * Portugal was formed in 868 by Vímara Peres. Afonso I of Portugal was aclaimed king in July 26 1139, after the Battle of Ourique (even if it was de facto independet since the Battle of São Mamede in June 24 1128). This was recognized by 1143 by the Kingdom of Leon (Alfonso VII of León and Castile) and in 1179 by the Holy See (Pope Alexander III). The Ogre 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. José Manuel insists in changing it to the 1910 thing. Afonso Silva 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reino de Portu-Cale
Please read here this article about the: Os suevos já não têm concorrentes. Durante mais de uma centúria sustenta-se o seu reino na parte noroeste da Península. Alarga-se até o Tejo com a capital em Braga (já sede de um bispado desde Diocleciano) e chama-se Reino de Portu-Cale - do nome de dois castros fronteiros nas margens do Douro. Best regards--José Manuel CH--GE 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Castromao.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Castromao.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kimchi.sg 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Castromao.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Castromao.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kimchi.sg 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Coelerni
Nada, nada mal, pazinho! Velho 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Map Languages Iberia - except Castilian.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Map Languages Iberia - except Castilian.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Iberian languages
Ficou com óptimo aspecto, pá. Tá porreiro! Velho 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jarchas
Hello, The Ogre. First of all I would like to thank your contributions in the article Kharja. Nevertheless, I would like to ask for your sources for including it in the Portuguese literature as a category. I am very interested in the subject, and due to your categorisation I have thoroughly tried to find these Portuguese origins. As you know, kharjas were anonymous compositions, and it is not easy to establish where they were composed. The only geographical alussion in the text I have found is to Guadalajara, Spain. Other way to found the origin could be the geographical location of the Jewish and Arab poets who heard and collecetd them. This is what I have found:

Yehuda Haleví: Tudela (Navarra). Traveled to Córdoba, Granada and Toledo.

Moses Ibn Ezra, Granada

Yosef Ben Saddiq Córdoba

Abraham Ibn Ezrá Tudela, (Navarra) He traveled to North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Italy (Rome, Rodez, Lucca, Mantua, Verona), Southern France (Narbonne, Béziers), Northern France (Dreux), England (London), and back again to the South of France.

Ibn al-Labbana, of Denia

Abu Isa ibn Labbun, Lord of Murviedro (Sagunto, Valencia)

Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Ruhaim was born in Bocairente (Valencia) was visir of Sevilla.

Al-Yazzar as-Saraqusti, (from Zaragoza)

Muhammad ibn Ubada al-Malaqi, (from Málaga)

Abu-l-Abbas al-A cMa at-Tutili,(from Tudela)

Ibn Harun al-Asbahi al-Laridi (of Lérida)

There must be more biographies about other Jewish and Arabic poets who collected kharchas and which I have not found. If you find somebody located in Portugal, please, inform me. In Alvaro Galmés book I have not found any reference to Portugal and nor did I in a superficial research in internet university texts. There is an influence in the Galician-Portuguese Cantigas de Amigo, because of the topic of the lover who cries for her beloved, but Cantigas are more modern, more than 100 years later of the transcription of the Kharjas. I would be pleased to debate these points. --Garcilaso 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have read the article Languages of Portugal, and I would invite you to do a revision of the historical languages. Some of them, as for example, Tartessian, make me introduce some geographical doubts about its veracity. Thank you again.
 * Hello again. I quite agree in your reasons about the political unit of Al-Andalus in some of its historical moments, not, by the way, in others, in which independent taifas were established. Anyway, if something is related to this political unit it is good to quotate the whole Peninsula (or the modern countries, Spain and Portugal). I don´t agree in expanding each cultural achievement or architectural movement, or literary expression to both countries if it was not develloped homogeneously, but in certain regions. I haven´t questioned the existance of mozarabs in Portugal, indeed they existed, and probably they spoke a language very close to the one of the kharjas. I was talking about the kharjas themselves, that is what the article is about. Although there sometimes was political unity, I don´t agree in a cultural unity. It is impossible to have the same cultural and literary developement in great cities and capitals ( Córdoba, Sevilla, Granada, Toledo..) than in further territories, even more in the fronteers or in those in permanent battle. So talking about an homogeneous cultural development could be a plain simplification. This is a very concrete topic: whether there were kharjas created and collected in the territory of Portugal or not.


 * About Tartessos, I hadn´t thought about tartessian influence in the Cynetes of the Algarve. Thanks for explaining. Anyway, I think that those explanations could be added to the text, to make it clearer to the reader. Muito obrigado pela vossa atenção, --Garcilaso 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

stop your vandalism
Please stop your vandalism in Madeira's article Vicente.ferrersevilha (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)