User talk:Zeorymer/Archive 1

Um clip para você
Caro Ruben, conhece o Prof. Fernando Rosa? [] Atenciosamente, --Sei Shonagon (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sines
You're doing a great job expanding the article on Sines. I wrote some text and added a few photos in this article in 2006 after visiting the city during a guided tour of Portugal. But there wasn't much more I could add since most sources were in Portuguese, a language I don't understand. It's good to see someone finishing the job. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vila do Corvo/Corvo, Azores
Hello, Zeorymer. I have received you message about Corvo, Azores. First of all, although your editing looked like vandalism, I thought it probably wasn't, because your editing history indicates that you are a constructive editor, not a vandal. That is why, in my message to you, I took the trouble to write "...does not, on the face of it, look constructive. If there is a good reason for deletion please explain what it is", because I really thought you probably did have a good reason, and wanted to encourage you to explain if you did. Thanks for explaining your reason to me.

I have now moved Corvo, Azores to Vila do Corvo. For future reference, in case you ever need to do something similar again, here is some further information. Normally any autoconfirmed user can move a page to a new title. However, if there is already a page with the title you want to move it to then only an administrator can move it. The commonest reason for this problem to occur is that there is a redirect at the place you are trying to move to, as in this case. It is important that you do not copy the contents of the source article and paste them into the destination article, as you did. This is because doing so loses the edit history, and it is necessary to keep a record for copyright reasons and other reasons. The thing to do in this situation is to ask for an administrator to help, and the best way to do this is to place in the article. (Your method produced the same result in the end, but with much more trouble for both you and me, and with the side effect that you almost became accused of vandalism!) Template:Db-copypaste can sometimes be useful, instead of Template:Db-move.

I hope that has helped to clarify things for you. If you have any more questions please feel very welcome to contact me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Geoboxes and Cape Verde Content
As you can see, I am temporarly without a computer. If I seem too hasty it is not because I am being rude, it is because I don’t want to be pushy in someone else’s computer.

I reverted the Infobox, because it was not what was deceided in the WikiProject Cape Verde. We have been using the same criteria for all the islands (and all other features) concerning Cape Verde. Also, the same criteria are being used across Wikipedia in other languages. It just didn’t make sense the Island of Maio to be different than the other islands, neither the Municipality of Paul to be different than the others. That is something that some editors don’t know, that we are trying to elaborate a coordinated devellopment of all the articles concerning Cape Verde, to avoid one article to be over-develloped, and another related article to be just a scratch.

Nevertheless, as I said, a lot of information you put was relevant (although not entirely correct). I didn’t want to seem rude in deleting it, I was just concerned about the Infobox. If you think it is pertinent, please, feel free in introducing it again. We can always discuss it later. We are not so many editors interested in Cape Verde, any help is welcome.

See you!

Ten Islands (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

P. S.: If you are confortable in writing in Portuguese, feel free in talking to me in Portuguese (or in my Portuguese Talk Page) if you want.

Your signature
Re this edit, are you inserting a manual signature, or have you altered your preferences for your signature. If the former, please use four tildes ~ so that the software can convert them to a signature. If the latter, please be aware that WP:SIGNATURE states that your signature must link to at least your user page or your user talk page. Not having a link makes it harder for editors to contact you and is against the behavioural guideline. If you have altered your preferences, please change them so that your signature complies with WP:SIGNATURE. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Re your e-mail, thanks for fixing your signature. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Geobox
I see here 95% of the municipal infobox use the type I've added. I don't have anything against yours, but I think we should push for standardization as possible. Anyway, it's not so important. Let me know. Ciao e buon lavoro. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But I notice some recurrent errors in your otherwise documented articles. Notice: 1) boldface must be used just to define the entry (once, or if changined names etc.); avoid use the template Name in English in this way, as it creates exactly this wrong boldface. Names of Kings: here the Portuguese kings are called by their English names (with the exceptions of the Afonsos, I seem), so adhere to this convention (i.e., Peter IV of Portugal and not Pedro IV. Also avoid the use of "D.", "Dr." before names, as it's not used in English. Finally, the adjective for Genoa is "Genoese", not "Genoves". Ciao and good work! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, if you have time, try to correct the errors I listed before in articles such as Angústias, which are a bit a fist in the eye... Ciaooo! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What a laugh!!!! (Funchal */Etymology/*)
Dear Zeorymer. Thanks!!! What a joke, I don't beieve I did that! It looked so strange at the time, that I retyped it twice to make sure, and I couldn't figure out why it still looked funny! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the church images in the Sao Joao Pico Perrish
Hello Zeorymer. First I want to say your contributions to the Azores section have been outstanding. I am reaching out to you as I noticed you removed church images stating the following: 16:33, 19 October 2010 Zeorymer m (Geobox elaboration and removed images that were not in the parish)

Just want to let you know that I was the one that took the updated picture and that the church is in fact part of the parish of Sao Joao. Not really sure if you were cleaning the page or really feel the church is not part of the parish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutra106 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Error resolved. Follow-up commentaries at User talk:Dutra106. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Nvvchar/Monchique Islet
Thanks. You've now created unnecessary difficulty by adding to Monchique Islet with unreferenced translations for us moving the readily prepared article at User:Nvvchar/Monchique Islet into the mainspace to credit the authors! A pity you couldn't have worked on it with us in the sandbox!! Never mind, your translation is appreciated all the same.. WOuld be nice to collaborate with you over some Azores topics in the future perhaps. Now how do we go about doing this. Perhaps you can remove the info you added to the article and add it to User:Nvvchar/Monchique Islet. You see it needed to qualify for a x5 expansion to feature on the main page. Your additions have prevented it from doing so, you weren't to know though and I would generally warmly welcome any expansions you do!!. Can you cooperate over this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing please use Template:Infobox settlement and Template:Infobox island rather than geobox... See Terra Chã now. I created a new pin map for Terceira, in due course I will create similar ones for the other islands..♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Portuguese wikipedia is not a reliable source if the article is unreferenced... Translate material and then find a source to directly source articles. So me removing the unsourced material to prepare for the referenced material was reasonable. Secondly I am fully aware what a parish or municipality is. In this case it is actually a village as well as a parish so the pins are valid and if you think that a map actually showing where it is on an island is not needed I disagree. And in the current situation article son parishes and villages are as one article, not seperate, or am I mistaken? I personally find geoboxes messy but each to his own... Thirdly I did not address you in a belligerent fashion, just really bad timing that's all, and I clearly said "it would be nice to collaborate with you over some Azores topics in the future". If you want belligerence, seriously I suggest you check out ANI sometime... If you continue to translate from Portuguese wikipedia which I warmly welcome please try to find reliable sources to back up what you translate even if just one or two. In the case of the Azores parishes, english wikipedia would massively benefit from Portugese translation, especially as most of the articles are of good quality and resonably sourced.Terra Chã is sourced on Portugese wikipedia and verifiable so i warmly welcome a translation of that page and any other. I'd do it myself but I'd have to use google translate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, why have you overridden the standardised infoboxes Plastikspork added to the Portuguese municipalities? Where is this consensus for WP:Portugal to use geoboxes? Can you point me towards a discussion on it? See WikiProject Portugal/Places infoboxes. Now why would you waste time undoing the standard infobox just for the sake of having a geobox with half of it containing empty parameters? Every bit of information in the geobox is perfectly programmable into the infobox settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, yeah I agree we got off on the wrong foot, I perhaps should have worded it differently. I would normally very much welcome your edits!! Actually on the opposite I actually am very pleased we have an editor like yourself working on Azores geography. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in geography not much unlike yourself. Apologies, my mistake over claiming it was a village too, I would normally check but I thought I read a message from you saying it was a vilage or something. The best thing of course would be a shaded locator on the island of the parish like Homalin Township. ANI. People make nasty reports about other editors trying to get them blocked etc. Horrible place. If you are interested in helping write Terra Chã can we translate from Portugese wikipedia and find sources to write it in User:Nvvchar/Terra Chã? Its nice article on pt wiki. OK maybe I am overreacting over the geoboxes, the information given is satisfactory at least but understand for years I've wortked on here on most countries in the world standardising articles adding infoboxes etc. I see geoboxes kind of as a break in consistency of the other articles, that's all. I just want wikipediato be as consistent as possible. For the Portuguese municipalities can you move the maps near the top of the template perhaps?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I get a lot of messages! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If we wrote the Terra Cha article together it would appear on the front page in a few days, would be good to get some Azores articles on the main page I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I've started User:Nvvchar/Terra Chã. Can you help translate? Once translated we'll see if we can further improve it!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How about we use a geobox for Azores parishes and use an infobox settlement with pin for actual villages within them?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah if you could translate it, use http://translate.google.co.uk/ to copy the text and translate and then proof read it, this should be a lot quicker. Once you;ve tranlsated the article we can scout for more sources and try to build upon it further! Best regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, the google translation is much poorer for Portuguese than it is for French and Spanish. German also suffers many of the problems that Portuguese does, back to front phrases too many literal translations rather than understanding names etc. I have a very good understanding of spanish which has some similarities with Portuguese enough to decipher what the text is trying to say. I've begun translating but yes some parts I couldn't work out, it is best if you a native speaker translate it I think. I think later then we can compile info about the churches and notable manor estates. I think you'd be surprised in regards to villages. I've seen some excellent articles on small villages on Italian and Spanish wiki. The problem is indeed lack of contributors to make having articles on every single village possible.,. Settlements are however generally regarded on here an inherently notable however small. Either way though priority at least in regards to Portugal is to get all of the municipalities and parishes up to an accpetable level. That is more important than worrying about infoboxes I guess. I think you like the geoboxes in the way I like infobox settlements because you are accustomed to them. Actually if you studied infobox settlement a bit you'd realise they are practically the same in content. As for Cape Verde I noticed a post above I would much prefer to geoboxes in the articles than the current horrid grey boxes. Actually I replaced all of the for the Sao Tome and Principe articles, I intend to do the same with Cape Verde at some point, but infobox settlement so I can add pin maps. I know there's probably not much I can do to get you liking Template:Infobox settlement but please take some time to examine it and note the similaries with geobox and how flexible it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Very odd that, Cape Verde is not generally a region you;d think anybody would be "guarding"... I've seen little evidence of article quality improving...♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'l let you translate it. I had a lot of difficulty in parts. I'll check for grammar afterwards and then I'll invite the others to built upon it. The sandbox should be yours to edit for a few hours. If you like when translating add a tag to prevent edit conflicts. OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK. No worries. If you could translate within the next few days this would be great. Once you've translated it we can then starting the further development of it. Take care.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you see Gruta das Torres?♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, translsation finished?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi can you see if you can find more sources for the unreferenced parts to User:Nvvchar/Terra Chã? Each paragraph should be sourced.We can go live with it then.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad it successful hit the main page. Can you add an infobox and some references to Óbidos, Portugal?♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit
Hi, I saw [ your edit] to Aldeia do Mato, which you marked as minor. Please read Help:Minor edit; that was a pretty big edit, certainly not minor. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Terra Chã
Materialscientist (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Move John VI to João VI
Hi, Zeorymer. Since you are an active Wikipedian on articles related to Portuguese history I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts in Talk:John VI of Portugal. Please, read carefully what is being proposed and the discussion that has followed. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We are also requesting a move at Talk:Peter V of Portugal. Zeorymer, we are going to create a workgroup focusing in the Empire of Brazil. Portugal will also fall into this category, mainly King Dom João VI, Queen Maria II, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves, etc... IF you're itnerested on joining us, tell me. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You're leaking MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 spam
See what you did there. Palosirkka (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know what caused it? Palosirkka (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Monastery of St Jerome, Lisbon
Hello Zeorymer. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Monastery of St Jerome, Lisbon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. The article-space redirected to Jerónimos Monastery by Ϣere  Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mount Pico
Please don't revert my edit to the Parent peak again. Mount Pico doesn't have a parent peak because it is the highest point on its landmass, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not a peak, it's a range. Check the article on topographic prominence. Thanks. Armouredduck (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved.

Island of Mozambique
thanks to inform me the Difference between Island of Mozambique & Republic of Mozambique.. Muhends (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Portugal
Olá Ruben,

Muito obrigado pelo interesse e pelo apoio. Não estando eu muito activo neste projecto, dá-me a sensação de que o artigo sobre Portugal não está a merecer a devida atenção, sobretudo por parte dos editores mais capazes. O que achas que deve ser feito? Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your effort but please don't struggle to respond in Portuguese, unless you want to ;-). I just assumed that Portuguese was your mother language! Yes, monotorizing carefully the article is something we should keep doing, as many of the edits are not really constructive and it is quite easy to ruin the whole thing even in good faith. As I said before, I'm not really a regular here and my contributions are more on the illustration side. So, I'll continue to keep an eye on the article's images and try to find better alternatives. The same should be done with all the other articles addressing specific Portuguese matters, like History, Art, Politics & etc. Anyway (I may be wrong though) I feel that Portugal (and the other related articles) is not receiving the attention and participation it deserves. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Passos Coelho
Olá Mouramoor. This is not a criticism, but I was curious to know when is it appropriate to change the name of the Portuguese Prime Minister on the main article? As I live in the Azores, I've read the local papers indicated that Cavaco Silva has already designated him as Prime Minister of Portugal. Is there a specific date where the identification of him as PM is justified? Appreciate any esclarecimento.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obrigado Mouramour. Como sou um novo "retornado" aos Açores e Portugal, ainda não conheço o processo envolvido na transição do líder governamental. Tem havido muitas edições sobre o primeiro ministro durante estas semanas e pensei que a declaração do Cavaco Silva foi a indicação única necessário. Agora percebo as edições contra os Passos Coelho. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Olá Ruben. Como Passos Coelho ainda não tomou posse, ainda não é formalmente o novo Primeiro Ministro em funções. Será em breve e nessa altura haverá a cerimónia de tomada de posse juntamente com todos os membros do novo governo e obviamente um discurso acompanhado pelos media. Mouramoor (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Confused
How is the category "Portuguese politicians" redundant to "Portuguese agnostics"? They appear to be two separate categories to me. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good day Ponyo. The reason for dropping the Category:Portuguese politician category was that article it was already nested within the Category:Azorean politician category (which itself was within the Portuguese politician category). This is in line with the exist Categorization convention about diffusing categories. Also, one other point mentions the fact that "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs". By having a nested article in both the specific and general category seem to me to be redundant based on those two conventions. Mind you, that is my opinion. If you decide to revert the recategorization edit that I made, please provide me with an explanation. I will not likely dispute you on this, since my experience with Wikipedia categorization has been limited to the Wikimedia Commons, which uses the same categorization specificity. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

- hmmmm. Just noticed. I removed the Category:Portuguese politician because it was redundant to Category:Azorean politicians, not Category:Portuguese agnostics, with the same logic explained above.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the dif viewed from the history caused some confusion on my part as to what was being removed as redundant. I of course defer to your much greater knowledge on the subject. Thank you for the explanation.Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Early Discovery of the Azores and Early Discovery of Madeira
Hello Zeorymer. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of these pages which you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''I don't think this is promotion in the G11 sense. It may well be ineligible as original research, but I think it deserves a deletion discussion - I will consider taking these and related articles to AfD.''' Regards,  JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Discovery of Madeira and Azores
Sir, you write: "... these articles (Azores and Madeira, for example) could have been better integrated into the pre-existing subjects (for example, the History of the Azores and History of Madeira articles) which cover the historical issues of those islands." I understand your point of view, but I don't agree. The existing articles (History of ...) are too prominent in the whole articles about these islands. My own contributions should be considered as a new development in the archaeological research of these islands. In my view, these contributions should be at the very end of the whole articles. It will take a generation before my conclusions will be generally accepted.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  'My own contributions should be considered as a new development in the archaeological research of these islands.'  «response from Dr. R.M. de Jonge»
 * Then you should do that somewhere other than Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia of agreed, stable knowledge with firm sourcing, not a pre-print server for breaking research. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy. Wikipedia is not a bastion for new thinking. Its more an agglomeration of accepted knowledge, sourced appropriately. I do not support the articles, as long as they only include content/conclusions from your books. Surely there must be other references, cited in those books written by other authors, that alone, support the conclusions established there: journal articles, dissertations, newspaper briefs, archaeological conferences, etc. Just stating those conclusions, while using your own books to state they´re true, does not make them valid sourcing. There needs to be verifiable content. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Loriga
Hi Ruben. Thanks for your work in Loriga's article. It's very good. My family is from Loriga so I have a special affection about that article. If you need any assistance in portuguese, don't hesitate to go to my discussion page and I'll give you a hand. Bye and keep up the good work. Septrya (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. No, it's more a keep-the-truth-war than an edit-war. During the last 4 years, the article has been vandalised several times, in all languages, by the same guy so there are a couple of persons that keep an eye on it. It's a long boring story :) - histórias à portuguesa. It's all in the article's discussion page. Bye. Septrya (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Belém Tower
Nice work on your additions to the Belém Tower tower article, Zeorymer! I like all the new references you have added! Your contributions make the article much better. I think it would be in great shape if you added some of those new sources as inline references, at least for the direct quotes. Let me know if I can help you with that. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Faial Botanical Garden
I'v nominated your article to DYK. See Template talk:Did you know. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article still needs minor work. "Geography" section needs a reference. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ponta das Contendas Lighthouse
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 09:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Faial Botanical Garden
Calmer  Waters  16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In response
Since the article was already created technically it wasn't stealing. Sorry if you were offended though but i stumbled across it and since the article was already created i assumed it was waiting to be moved and i thought i'd move the text to that page; besides its rare that editors use the sandbox for articles that have already been created. User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Santo Aleixo da Restauração
Obrigado pela pronta tradução do artigo Santo Aleixo da Restauração! Ia agora mesmo postar semelhante tradução. Mais uma vez obrigado, Pedro Miguel F.A Patrício (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo requests and article requests
Hi! I have two questions: Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you take photographs of places in Lisbon? I have a list of places in Lisbon that would be nice to have photographed so that Wikipedia can use the photos
 * I also have a list of subjects that do not have Portuguese language articles - Are you interested in writing stubs on certain topics in Portuguese?

Okay, so you are in the Azores. Are you on the island of São Miguel? If so, SATA International's headquarters are there. If you are on São Miguel would you be willing to do that photo request? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright - Whenever it's convenient for you to take it, please let me know once you upload it :)
 * It's interesting how SATA has more flights to the USA than TAP (I believe)
 * Also, with the photo of the SATA HQ Wikipedia will now have photos of the HQs of both major intercontinental airlines of Portugal
 * Thank you,
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Have you had a chance to photograph the SATA HQ yet? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright - if/when you do get the photo, please let me know :) - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for posting the photos of the SATA HQ! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Miguel I of Portugal
Hi, Zeorymer. Good to see you again. It's quite common to see some historians add to royals' full name the name of their royal houses as they were a kind of surname. But that's wrong. Royals do not have surnames as you can see here and here. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the case of Miguel, see here, here and here. --Lecen (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Vila Nova de Sao Pedro
When I created the article on Vila Nova de Sao Pedro in 2006 it was meant for the culture and not the site. You may be right in creating an article for the site (castro) but you should keep the version before your intervention as Culture of Vila Nova de Sao Pedor, of which the VNSP castro is just a minor site (the main site is the Castro of Zambujal in fact, but there are many others). Do not reply to my page because I don't collaborate anymore: I just find terrible that a good article on the most important prehistoric culture of Portugal has been shrunk to one on a less important site. You should restore the pre-existing version as "VNSP culture". --Sugaar (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ajuda National Palace
This edit for some reason included <> and  <> (see Ajuda National Palace). TimBentley (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I fixed it. TimBentley (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)