User talk:The Ogre/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Ogre/archive2.

Archives

Talk Page•Archive1•Archive 2

Contents 1 You may want to help me with this... 2 Note mk. 2 3 About the article "Iberian" 4 Colonialism 5 Population genetics 6 Vote 7 Portuguese People 8 Unspecified source for Image:Vasco da Gama.jpg 9 Image copyright problem with Image:Vasco da Gama.jpg 10 Veritas-spanish Article. 11 luso-islamic war 12 Tradução do latim 13 Falcata 14 WikiProject tags 15 Abaixo os escuteiros 16 AMO-TE 17 Ophiussa 18 Tomé Pires 19 ¡Bienvenido(a)! 20 Thank you 21 Welcome? 22 Thanks... 23 eh 24 Orge 25 Jorge Sampaio 26 AfD nomination of Maximus (rapper) 27 Prehistoric Iberia 28 Portuguese empire 29 Portugal and Banda 29.1 Portgual and Indonesia 30 Defender-te? 31 Grafia do nome Francisco Doria 32 Celt 33 Império dos espanholos 34 Sp-Port Empires 35 Kingdom of Portugal 36 Image:Caviar2.jpg 37 Image:Gama1916.jpg 38 REDIRECT 39 Francisco Antonio Doria, no accents = 40 Considerations 41 Map of Portuguese empire 42 Welcome 43 Spanish vs Castillian 44 Francisco Alvim 45 Spanish Empire 46 List of Celtic Tribes 47 Desculpas pelo malentendido 48 Loriga's article 49 List of Roman Legions 50 Silbo Gomero language 51 Thanks 52 Portuguese Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins. 53 Do you know who created that "Iberian Peninsula before First Punic War" map? 54 Images and compounding of Iberian Scripts 55 Prehistoric Iberia 56 Miríade 57 Fair use rationale for Image:Gama1916.jpg 58 Why do You suppose this POV? 59 Template:Portuguese ethnicity 60 Hispania/Spain 61 Africa in topic 62 Flag of Tierra de Miranda 63 Your Civility 64 Porto 65 Hey. 66 Your work is appreciated 67 European 68 Re. Your work is also appreciated! 69 Europe people 70 Gallery 71 Learnportuguese 72 Portuguese Colonies in North America 73 Image source problem with Image:Pedro Álvares Cabral.jpg 74 Caracóis 75 Image:Portugal EEZ.PNG - copyright 76 Desenhos 77 I am not kidnapped! 78 Hey! 79 Shuar 80 NOR 81 Litania dos Santos 82 Loriga's article 83 Portuguese 84 Hello Back! 85 Maricas és tu 86 Edit it, then send it 87 British Latinos 88 TfD nomination of Template:British Latinos 89 On the move 90 Um projecto 91 Não apague mais 92 Ogre... 93 Race 94 race 95 Happy Holidays 96 your civility 97 dropping a line to you 98 college 99 ! 100 Thanks 101 Iberians 102 Antonio I 103 Correa de Serra ≠ Correia da Serra 104 White people 104.1 White People 105 Portuguese surnames 106 É isto, pá! 107 Sephardi Jews 108 Regras 109 Re. Jorge Ferreira 110 French people 111 Latin Europe 112 Latino (demonym) 113 New name for WotGA 114 Can you stop please 114.1 Our small revert war in Talk:French people - Sorry!!! 115 Thanks for the boxes! 116 Muchas gracias Ogre 117 Vandalism of the Sp people page 118 Latin Europe 119 Your recent edits 120 CCC 121 Spanish Am.. 122 Hi 123 On IP vandal 124 Image:Portuguese People.PNG 125 iamandrewrice sockpuppets 126 Apologies about the Iberia map 127 French people 128 Iberians 129 WikiProject Human Genetic History draft and vote 130 Your map 131 Magellan 132 List of countries by formation dates 133 AfD nomination of List of countries by formation dates

[edit] You may want to help me with this...

As you are member of the wikiproject Spain and I've seen that you have collaborated in many articles of history about the Iberian Peninsula, Portugal, etc, you may be interested on helping me to reform the article Hispanic. My main goal is to end with the idea that "hispanic" is equivalent to "south american", so I am introducing a few sections to the article Hispanic, to explain the great missunderstanding about talking of "hispanic" as a synonym of castilian-speaking (forgetting the basques, portugueses, catalans, etc), and I'm also adding a small section to explain the history of Hispania from its roman times, etc. So you may wanna extend some section. I'm doing it because I couldn't suffer the fact that the 90% of the article Hispanic was talking about the so-called latinos of the U.S. and so on, while the word "catalan" just appeared once. Onofre Bouvila 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note mk. 2

Hi there! Who can I ask about editing my contributions pages, since they have removed some of them? Thx! Cercia (aka Novice Wikipedian).

Hello Cercia! What do you mean "editing my contributions pages, since they have removed some of them"? I am not really understanding what you mean... The Ogre 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I mean they removed some of my edits that I made (reset the article) and I get confused when I look at the contributions list and it still says that I made an edit. Is there a way I can rearrange the logs on a special page? Cercia (aka Novice Wikipedian).

Well... no! There is no way to rearrange the logs on a special page. You did made the edits! So, they have to be logged, independently of the fact that your edits may have been reverted. The Ogre 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the article "Iberian"

I've reformed the Iberians article, and added quite a lot of information, pictures, restructurated the sections, etc. Visit the post I created at its talk page if you wish.

More specifically, I'm here because I've seen that you have created lots of articles about ancient Iberian tribes (Ilergetes, Cassetani, etc). If you could group them all (also the Celtiberian tribes, there are lots of stub-articles about them, dunno if it was you too who created them), so if you could group them all, and put them all in a category called like "Ancient Iberian Tribes" or something like that, and also link them all from the Iberians article, it would be kinda cool.

I've tryed to do it, but there are too many article-stubs about these ancient tribes and I probably miss them all. But as you've created the articles, I bet you'll be able to do it.

Thanks.

Onofre Bouvila 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonialism

Hello! I removed this info because I created The Roman Catholic Church and Colonialism article where it is included. Because of the length of colonialism, I believed this was necessary for editorial consensus. However, I am rather of your POV that it should be included anyway, and the "Church & Colonialism" article improved and extended. Lapaz 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Okay, then. Good job! The Ogre 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You might be interested in voting against deletion of the sub-articles concerning First & Second Wave of colonization. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century). Cheers! Lapaz 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population genetics

This might be of some interest. Velho 23:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Hi Fellow-WikiPedian, This thing came up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood. Would you like to vote? Antiphus 20:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese People

Caro Peço-lhe desculpa pela maneira como me dirigi a si no meu primeiro post.E agradeço-lhe a mensagem que me enviou. No fundo, partilhamos o mesmo ponto de vista.No entanto, acredito que a influencia negra na populaçao é bastante superior á sofrida em qualquer outro pais europeu,sendo a mistura entre culturas algo que define a cultura portuguesa. Lembre-se da nossa história,dar novos mundos ao mundo, tudo isso e etc,a expansão maritima está profundamente marcada na cultura do povo portugues, é isso que os distingue dos outros europeus.se não está, deveria estar. Foi por isso que insisto tanto em se manter lá a influencia africana. De resto, ainda nos nossos dias, se viajar pelas regiões de Alcacer do Sal e Coruche, bem sabe que a influencia africana nessas populaçoes é mais que evidente ao "olho nu". Cumprimentos 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Vieirasimoes

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Vasco da Gama.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vasco da Gama.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia: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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Vasco da Gama.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vasco da Gama.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 Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source 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. Durin 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veritas-spanish Article.

Some people continue erasing verifiable and up-dated information in the Spanish People's article about recently published books pointing to a strong link between Iberia and Atlantic Europe. Those books are Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes, Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer and Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells. What do you think of it? Veritas et Severitas 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, user Burgass has done it again. Just look at this user's constant and strange behaviour in this article. Veritas et Severitas 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Burgass' attitude in the Spanish article. Veritas et Severitas 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] luso-islamic war

Hi ogre

You are right in everything you asked and said:

1 - it is about the campaigns of Afonso de Albuquerque which I'll call Luso-Islamic War.

2 - The info is wrong because I just copied the infobox of my "dutch-portuguese war" and planed to chnage the details.

Unfortunately I haven't had the time.

[edit] Tradução do latim

Hoje, não, porra. Mesmo depois, confesso que ainda me dará um bocado de trabalho...
Sabes que isto de ler a língua das línguas não é para todos (os dias)... Velho 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falcata

Hey, Ogre, what do you think we should do about Señor Usuario Anonimo's changes to falcata? For the reasons I explained on the talk page I am in favor of just reverting, possibly incorporating some of the better stuff from the Spanish article he was translating afterwards. But I don't want to do so without some sort of consensus, for obvious reasons. --Iustinus 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If he's not Spanish, but claimed to be... um... that's really weird! --Iustinus 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, this guy is really getting on my nerves. I don't understand why he thinks he needs to be so nasty either. --Iustinus 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Ogre, I got really worked up about talk:falcata yesterday, so I've kind of been avoiding the page. Is Anonymous still being pugnacious, intractable, and accusatory, or has he come around? If not... well, did I understand correctly that you're portuguese? Maybe as a fellow Iberian you can convince him, since he seems to thing everyone else is not worth taking seriously. --Iustinus 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just went to look at the talk page, finally. WHAT THE HELL? How on earth can I even deal with such a person?? --Iustinus 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject tags

Your comment:

Hello EspañaViva! Thanks for removing WikiProject Afghanistan from some pages (there's still more...). I really could not understand why it tagged the articles on Iberian Caliphs! But tell me, why did you remove the tag of WikiProject Spain from the article Míl Espáine? Don't you think that it also deals with Spain, even if it is not very high in the importance scale? Hope to hear from you! Hasta luego. The Ogre 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it probably because I'm being a touch over-sensitive! If you think it belongs, please do re-add it! I see that you're a member of WikiProject Portugal, but you're being very helpful in adding the WikiProject Spain tag to the caliphs . . . thank you! Would you like to join WikiProject Spain as well? ;) PS: I see what you mean about there being more Afghan tags on the caliphs! EspanaViva 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, I've got to ask you . . . are you using a bot to add all those WikiProject Portugal tags, or are you doing those manually! (The Afghan tags all showed because a bot added those tags too broadly). EspanaViva 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment:

But my aim is one of precision and balance. In that sense, I do struggle for a NPoV on Portugal and Spain, amongst others, that does justice to its history and reality. Do you still think I should join?

Mas naturalmente, senhor, we would be delighted if you would join WikiProject Spain! You are absolutely right that there is a high degree of overlap on many issues.

Plus you will get a front-row seat on our attempt to use a bot to add the WikiProject tag to articles in categories related to the Project. All the best, EspanaViva 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abaixo os escuteiros

Pá, vai a Talk:Scouting aderir ao que eu escrevi! Há um featured article só a dizer bem dos fascistas dos escuteiros! Irra!! Velho 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMO-TE

AMO-TE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.193.84.127 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ophiussa

I did see the developments on talk:falcata, so hopefully he'll stay calm now. It's funny you should come to me with some Latin: a friend of mine, seeing the research work you'd done on Fulgosio was impressed, and thought you would be a good candidate for la: if you know some Latin ;) Anyway, now's a bad time, but I'll take a look at your quote when I get home. --Iustinus 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, some changes are needed:

Post illa rursum quae supra fati sumus,

magnus patescit aequoris fusi sinus

Ophiussam ad usque. rursum ab huius litore

internum ad aequor, qua mare insinuare se

dixi ante terris, quodque Sardum nuncupant,

septem dierum tenditur pediti via.

Ophiussa porro tanta panditur latus

quantam iacere Pelopis audis insulam

Graiorum in agro. haec dicta primo Oestrymnis est

locos et arva Oestrymnicis habitantibus,

post multa serpens effugavit incolas

vacuamque glaebam nominis fecit sui.

(Note also that there appears to be disagreement over whether Ophius(s)a should be spelled with one s or two)

Translation:

Back after the places we spoke of above, there opens a great bay filled with water, all the way to Ophiussa. Back from the shore of this place, to the inland water, through which I said before that the sea insinuates itself through the land, and which they call Sardum, the journey extends for seven days on foot. Ophiusa extends its side, being as large as you hear the Island of Pelops lying in the territory of the Greeks is. This land was originally called Oestrymnis by those who inhabited the Oestrymnian countryside and region, much later the serpent chased away the inhabitants and gave the now empty land its name.

The point is that ὄφις (ophis) means "snake" in Greek.

This translation may need some editing, but it should do for now, I hope.

--Iustinus 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my friend's point was that over at la: we really value attention to primary sources. You see, we try not to invent new Latin words if we can help it, and between the scientists of the renaissance, Historians, Ethnographers, the crazy people who write in Latin to this day, and so on, virtually everything has already been described in Latin, you just have to know where to look. Not everyone is careful or dedicated about this. In theory at least you don't have to know Latin to help: some of our most helpful users actually work behind the scenes. So it is at least possible you could be useful, and enjoy yourself. Whatever you like.

I did go to the pages you quoted me on and modified the footnotes. Eventually I'll probably need to improve my translation too.

I don't read Portuguese very well at all, which is odd, because I have no problem with Spanish, and can also read French and Italian. But given that I can read Latin, it might be fun to practice reading portuguese by means of your list ;)

--Iustinus 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomé Pires

You are correct. I have moved this page. Thanks for pointing it out. My source also says Pires so it 100% my fault. Must be 'old age' on my behalf. It makes sense, Pires is a much more successful google search too! thanks Merbabu 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ¡Bienvenido(a)!

¡Bienvenido(a) to WikiProject Spain! We look forward to your contributions. If you already have a project in mind, please feel free to contribute. If you would like a suggestion, please contact me on my discussion page. Again, welcome! EspanaViva 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate your kind note.--Brownlee 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome?

Só um gajo muito avariado é que anda a espalhar welcomes à bruta por todo o lado.... Velho 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

for the welcome message! omes 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eh

Listen guy, give me a break here. I know alot of Portuguese people, and I only know one who has MIXED blonde shades. No one in Portugal has lightest blodne shades seen in northern Europe and there is now ay that 20% of the whole country has blonde hair ? Have yo uever been there ? There is NO way the country has that much blondes and I would bet my life on that. England barely has that percentage even though the majority of people there are of pale complexion. DOn't be riduloucs. The website you referenced is a joke. Portugal has one of the highest percetnages of darker complexions in all of Europe, and the smallest in lighter complexions.

[edit] Orge

Dear Orge, thank you very much for you warm welcome :) I also edit on Basque Wikipedia. Again thank you! Euskera 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge Sampaio

I'm re-opening up your concerns of Jorge Sampaio being on a list of Jews. Since he says he's not one, WP:BLP supports your position. If you want to continue the debate please comment on it. Mehmeda 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Maximus (rapper)

An editor has nominated Maximus (rapper), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximus (rapper) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric Iberia

The Ogre,

Thanks for your interest in my proposal. I have responded on the Talk page. Jimp 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimp 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese empire

Porra, o mapa ficou fabuloso! Confesso que preferia amarelo em vez de cor-de-rosa, para se ver melhor, mas era só isso!
Cervejolas logo? Velho 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal and Banda

Hello there. Thanks for your interest. i replied on the article in question (and reverted sorry). By the way, i do love the map. Nice work indeed. But, there might be one dot that needs a change of colour. Pink i suggest, not read. he he. Some weeks ago i did a bit of work on Portuguese explorers, and their presence in Indonesia. I will pass the links on to you shortly. I have a question though, why was the Portuguese Empire article split? Ie, to the "Evolution of..." article. ciao for now. --Merbabu 13:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portgual and Indonesia

Just for your information, or to share with anyone else who may be interested: as i mentioned earlier, a few weeks back I wrote a bit about the Portuguese in Indonesia across a number of articles. There's probably more that can be done in this area. These articles included:

• Malacca
• Ternate
• Francisco Serrão
• Ambon
• Solor
• Francis Xavier
• Maluku Islands
• History of Indonesia - i actually inserted a 'portuguese' section.

Soon I would like to summaries this info into a single consolidated article. Merbabu 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defender-te?

Ouve, tou na Germânia Superior! Num portátil ínfimo. Como é que te posso defender, puerra?! Velho 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grafia do nome Francisco Doria

Caro Ogre, percebi que mudastes a grafia de "Francisco Antonio Doria" para "Francisco Antônio Dória". Apesar da última grafia ser a correta em Português, na certidão do professor Doria consta "Antonio Doria", sem acentos. Acredito que a razão seja a grafia Italiana, origem de sua família. Em tempo: em minha dissertação de mestrado escrevi o nome do professor Doria com acento (ele foi meu orientador), e ele imediatamente corrigiu a grafia. Você teria como reverter o título da página para o original? Obrigado, Acacio de Barros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.64.22.40 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Celt

Stop introducing lies in Wiki. Nowhere in Portugal is Rb1 90%. The only area is in the Basque country in Spain. 65.11.114.84 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User The Ogre is erasing Spain and adding Portugal as an area of 90% R1b. He is a liar and manipulator, because he knows that 90% is only seen in the Basque country in Spain, nowhere in Portugal. Look at the values for Spain and Portugal and other places in this article [1]. I urge him to provide a single study that says 90% or even close to it in Portugal. In fact Portugal has the lowest values in the Iberian Peninsula as you can see. But this is my last word here. I am tired of liars and manipulators. Wiki stinks with all these people around. 65.11.114.84 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you will not be able to escape liars and manipulators by leaving the Wikipedia. Real life is full of them too. It's just easier to miss them because they don't leave a permanent record of their every move in real life as they are forced to do on the Wiki. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, 65.11.114.84, and as a follow up to our "discussions" regarding the map of the Spanish Empire... Let me tell you again that it is quite annoying, to say the least, to have to discuss these or any other subjects with someone who prefers to stay anonymous and uses several different IP adresses. If you have something to contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis why don't you register as a permanent user? Secondely, you are not assuming my good faith. If you check my contributions and profile you may be able to see the serious and open minded attitude I have regarding any subject, you may also note that I am a member of WikiProject Portugal and WikiProject Spain. I have no nationalistic agenda of any sort, and am, in fact, quite opposed to such agendas. Contrary to you, I do not wish to attack you personally, by calling you a liar, manipulator or a nationalistic something (even if your insistance, contrary to well known and established facts, in saying that the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire between 1580-1640 is quite suspicious to me...) - Please! No personal attacks! If you want to discuss something, let us do it in a civilised and calm manner. Regarding the present issue of the percentages of R1B, I am, by no means, an expert or even someone with more than a superficial knowledge on these subjects. I reverted your edits because I am generally suspicious of anonymous unregistered users who seem to be forcing an agenda on several articles and basically delete information that has been in those articles for some time, without anyone disputing it. Now, regarding the statemente that "Haplotype R1b exceeds 90% of Y-chromosomes in parts of Wales, Ireland and Spain. [2] [3] [4]", I believe that the links presented do not prove any such things for those countries (and in wich "parts" of those countries?). Futhermore, the samples are quite small and non-representative of overall populations (and believe me, if you will, I do know population sampling and statistics!). What I do know is that R1b is of Iberian origin and represents the majority of Iberian populations' Y lineages, in any part of Iberia, with a concentration in the areas of the Basque country. My edit did not intend to erase Spain from that polemic statement of the 90% - I must admit I reversed because you had deleted Portugal, I did not notice that Spain disapeared from the version I saved... I admit my fault! So, my friend, calm down. And do not treat others as villains until they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are so. Thank you. The Ogre 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

65.11.114.84, you even called me a liar in my talk page! Is that a proper way to behave? The Ogre 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Império dos espanholos

Mas ouve lá, pá, o mapa inicial até distingue bem as coisas portuguesas, dizendo que o são. O que lá te chateia é a expressão «Spanish Empire»? Velho 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Já respondi. E não, sou do continente! :PCâmara 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sp-Port Empires

Ogre, I've made some changes in the Definition on the Sp Emp page and a change to the anachronous map by putting in Spanish-Portuguese monarchs in place of Spanish sovereign. Please check them out and hopefully we can put some of these disputes to rest. Cheers Provocateur 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Portugal

Could you please comment my proposal on the article's talk page?

Best wishes, --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Caviar2.jpg

I removed an image tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Caviar2.jpg) on User:The Ogre. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. Please find a free image to replace it with. Keep up the good editing work I see you are doing. Cheers, NoSeptember 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gama1916.jpg

Hello, The Ogre. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Gama1916.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:The Ogre/archive1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REDIRECT

I'm trying to redirect Mike Freeman to Mike_Freeman_(disambiguation). Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page says to replace content with

#REDIRECT [[Mike_Freeman_%28disambiguation%29]]

at the top of the page, but I get a numbered list item instead. What's the trick? Elphion 08:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see from Help that I should have moved Mike Freeman to Mike Freeman (football) rather that copied it, in order to preserve the page history. Can this be fixed at this point? (and after the move, can one then create a new Mike Freeman that redirects to the disambiguation page?) I suppose another solution would be to add a dab reference to the top of the current Mike Freeman page and junk my copy at Mike Freeman (football) Elphion 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Antonio Doria, no accents =

Dear Ogre: my name, as it appears in my birth certificate, has no accents. Reason? Basically my parents felt that the use of accents (diacriticals) in Portuguese was so unstable that avoiding them was the best policy. (Of course the Doria family has spelt it as Doria for the last four centuries or so, as the documnts show it, both in Brazil and in Italy.) So please do correct it.

Also, I use the no-accent-name in all my publications. As some search engines are diacritical-sensitive, if people look for my name with a diacritical, they will find no references...

Best,

Francisco Antonio Doria

[edit] Considerations

Hi, I insert some correct and impartial modifications in Hilda Toledano page: 1- the libel suit in Italy against Guy Stair Sainty "It is nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case nor the claims of Mr Poidimani which have not even been addressed by the court as yet" . Infact these are Stair Sainty words and you can see this here [5]. So I insert this also in Guy Stair Sainty page. 2- I have added a external link concerning the violence against the Royal House of Portugal, Constitutional Line by the Brazialian Culture Journal. In Duarte Pio of Braganza page I insert an important (and famous in Portugal) critique web site of Duarte and this news: “On March 17, 2007 the portuguese press reported the news that after the People's Monarchist Party president (Nuno da Camera Pereira) charge there will be a criminal trial against Mr Duarte Pio of Braganza for theft and unlawful use of the "São Miguel da Ala" Order.[6]” but the Duarte Pio supporters continue to delete this. Why?This is only a vandalism against the freedom of opinions. I insert also in pretender page the truth about: “Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, was the (illegitimate daughter of Carlos I of Portugal. In the 1982 the Sacred Roman Rota confirmed her baptisimal documents with the paternity of the king and the presence of a document signed by King Carlos granting her the rights of the princes of Portugal.” But always a miguelist supporter continue to delete this and put his libellous version. I am also disgusted that this people insert Hilda Toledano as name of her wikipedia article and not her real name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is their method in order to discredit this pretender... Is possible and correct for you in a democratyc encycloepdia this censorship against this lady and her heir in favour of Duarte Pio? I hope you can see that my contributiones are not vandalism but based only in objective facts....My best regards, Manuel de Sousa

[edit] Map of Portuguese empire

Hi, I'm trying to make a map of the Treaty of Tordesillas and Saragossa lines, showing briefly how they affected the history of the people living in the territories of the Portuguese and Spanish empires. (Unfortunately I probably won't be able to contribute this map to Wikipedia, because the graphic designer working on this project with me has a vector map that he prefers to work from that has licensing incompatible with Wikipedia illustrations... but maybe we can do another version if we find a better-licensed base map.) Anyway, I'm wondering where you got the information for your very thorough historical map of the Portuguese empire. Trying to show the colonial possessions of Spain and Portugal has turned into a difficult challenge, partly because they varied so much over time, and partly because they don't quite correspond to present-day national borders. Do you have a source or a reference you could point me to for the map you produced (and perhaps equivalent information for the Spanish empire)? Do you think it would be more edifying to see the treaty lines drawn against the eventual colonial territories, or against the current national borders of the Lusophone and Hispanophone countries? Thanks! Schoen 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Schoen! The map I did for the Portuguese Empire was done using the information presented at Evolution of the Portuguese Empire. That's how I did it. That and with the help/comments of other editor regarding more specific locations (such as Brazil or Indonesia), as you can see in the talk page and in the map's talk page. I find nothing equivalent for the Spanish Empire, sorry! Regarding your questions about the map you are making, I would prefer to see the treaty lines drawn against the eventual colonial territories, because in this way you can see the historical areas of de facto influence, rather than the more reduced areas of present linguistic spread of Portuguese or Spanish. Good luck! The Ogre 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the pointer to the image's talk page. It looks like this is quite a complicated task, which might explain the lack of prior ready availability of these maps in freely-licensed forms. It's a bit daunting to try to get the designer I'm working with to repeat all this work, but I guess I can pass the information along to him and see what he thinks. As far as I can tell, the corresponding Spanish Empire map now in Wikipedia may well have been produced simply by using the current borders of former Spanish colonial possessions. Schoen 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thanks for your welcome to the wikipedia in english. I hope to contribute specially in heraldry and in spanish matters. Nice to meet you here. --Ignaciogavira 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way: I have removed the coat of arms in the article about the Spanish Empire and changed it for the only common arms in all the period: the small arms of Castile, Leon and Granada, surrounded by the Golden Fleece and crowned by an open crown. The other was the coat of arms of the Presidio National Park in San Francisco Bay, not the Spanish Empire coat of arms. --Ignaciogavira 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish vs Castillian

Vem aqui: Talk:Portuguese_grammar#Spanish_vs._Castilian. Velho 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Alvim

A tag has been placed on Francisco Alvim, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Empire

Hi, I noticed you are keeping reverting anons on that page, I just wonder if you would agree if I asked for a semiprotection request there. --Andersmusician $ 23:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Andersmusician! Thank you for your atention! And you are right, a Semiprotection, impeaching non-registered users of editing the article would be a good idea. The anonimous user in question defends a POV position that the Spanish Empire was, without discussion, the first global empire, wich is contradicted by the previous existence of the Portuguese Empire. Trying not to fall into petty competition, the text now states the the Spanish Empire was "one of the first global empires." I believe this is a good way to put it and it should remain so. Could you, please, ask for the semiprotection? Gracias, hombre! Hasta siempre! The Ogre 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Celtic Tribes

I don't know what a British isles point of view is, but clearly yours is a biased one. The article works on the assumption of "people" not political borders, we have had this argument again and again. The iberians were not celtic, but iberian. A distinct and seperate ethnic grouping, which is why they have their own sub grouping but do not appear in the "list of Celtic peoples". The celts that were in Iberia, being covered by the list of Gallic celts, or Celtiberians, make the need for a new section irrelevant. If you wish to begin a revert war, and seek a third party juridiction, ok. It is not about the "evidence", it is merely about the necessary format of the article. Ciriii 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is now an expanded list of Iberian tribes etc that may be a compromise...if you couldedit it and put the relevant info like place names and also the maps on theer I think iut should be ok now. Ciriii 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no not your former version, the one now, if it suits both parties. Because the information on other contemporaries is there, but some other information for the reader I see as a compromise. In future, please do not use terms like "british point of view"; it is unecessarily inflammatory and highly sterotypical from someone who doesn't know my views. I apologiese for acalling you bias. Thank you for making the edits. Is it possible to find a better map of the British isles and Gaul than the ones that were formerly used, perhaps like The Iberian one, which is easy to read? I am not good at inserting images otherwise i would try. ThanksCiriii 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, If you feel happy that you can state this better, then go ahead. But I would just still like it to state something about the difference between Iberians and Celts, and also the Celtiberians, as distinct group. Thanks for your help with the maps too!

[edit] Desculpas pelo malentendido

Dear friend, I apologize if I my words look like unrespectful for you. I did not said that you were national-chauvinist. I said that discussion was only interesting for those people. Of course I understand what you say and I agree. Anyway I was very surprised when after reading that discussion I read this on Portuguese Empire article: "The Portuguese Empire was the first global empire in history. It was the earliest and longest lived of the European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999", and I have not see changes on that article. Peço-te desculpas pelo malentendido. Um abraço. --Ignacio 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the article about Portuguese Empire continues the same. Will you correct it soon? Saludos --Ignacio 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loriga's article

Hi. Someone, 213.22.178.52, is trying by all means to introduce an internet address that's not reliable, and to tell that Viriatus was born in a village that he was not (due to a misinterpretation of an ancient text). He doesn't provide bibliography to suport his changes. He's doing the same on the italian and portuguese wikipedias (where he was banned for one day). Obrigada pela atenção. Septrya 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Roman Legions

Thank you for your modifications- but they do not help the general reader's understanding of the Roman terms. (1) I am not aware that there is a modern state called "Iberia"- as you will see from the map of Roman provinces, modern Portugal is included in the Roman Lusitania. Therefore, Hispania Tarraconensis is indeed most of Spain. (Spain minus Baetica, which was essentially Andalusia) (2) The term "Hispanics" is misleading, as today it is largely used to mean Latin Americans, especially Latin Americans resident in the USA. I understand your point that the ancient Iberians were not the same as modern Spaniards (although they are their ancestors); but that is the same as saying we can't call the ancient Greeks Greeks because they are not the same as modern Greeks! As a compromise, I've entered "Victor Iberians". One further point: when you edit tables, bear in mind that you can screw up the spacing by entering terms which are too long for the box: so by entering & northern portugal, you have doubled the spacing of several lines, making the table much bigger; same for Hispania Tarraconensis. Please think before you act. 21.6.07 86.85.44.73

[edit] Silbo Gomero language

De facto, tem graça, foda-se! Velho 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your edits to te celtoc tribes page, I think its a good compromise and one that makes sense. One thing though. The locations next to the name, do you think they are tyoo much, after all it is just a list and now it is out of format with the rest of the article/list. Instead of "autonomous region of The Asturias, in the hills north..etc etc.." why not just Asturias, because you will discover the detailed information about the location in the actual article itself. I feel it is unecessary wastage. Ciriii 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins.

Portuguese Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.15.77.12 (talk • contribs)

The term Latino contains also Portuguese descent Brazilians. The term Latins (Latini) means only ancient Italic people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.15.77.12 (talk • contribs)

Modern use of Latin is limited to linguistics. not ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.15.77.12 (talk • contribs)

Read the article Latin peoples (linguistic). Modern use is only limited to linguistics. Portuguese people isn't related to ancient Italic people Latins but linguistic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.15.77.12 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Do you know who created that "Iberian Peninsula before First Punic War" map?

Do you know who created that "Iberian Peninsula before First Punic War" map? You just added that map to the History of Spain. The map was apparently added to Wikipedia Commons in December 2006. EspanaViva 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the map seems awfully precisely about the boundaries - which are only educated guesses! Also, the map is in Spanish (for the English WP). Most imporantly, it doesn't really say what its sources are, so that we could double-check it, and maybe do a better job in an English-language version! Do you have any "reliable sources" that would show this same information that we could use to make a better map? EspanaViva 03:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about that map. I'll see about following up. Thanks again! EspanaViva 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images and compounding of Iberian Scripts

Thank you for compounding the images, I had tried but couldn't achieve a good display. But, may I suggest that the images should be bigger? I could try to enlarge them, but I'm afraid it could become another mess. As I said in the talk page, there are more interesting images avaiable. --Dilvish 10 words 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks again :-). To put images seems an awkward thing.

There remains a little problem with the display of the section History of alphabet, but maybe better to wait for more images (there are some very goods). If it seems necessary the Navarra inscription can be deleted (as it is of little importance: an inscription written in Basque on the Monumento a los Fueros in the way that one hundred ago they thought was the Iberian script (very different of the real one).

I'll search and think about which are the better images and on whether the article may be enlarged. I don't know if the article deals with all the ancient Iberian script akin to the Iberian system (two Iberians, Celtiberian and Tartessian) or on Iberian strictly speaking (if so, the image of the Botorrita inscription (as Celtiberian) should be in the other article. I think it's the second case. Isn't it? --Dilvish 10 words 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric Iberia

Nice work on the article. I wonder whether any of those maps have English versions. Jɪmp 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miríade

Parabéns, mas talvez devesses, de facto, arranjar uma vida... Velho 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gama1916.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gama1916.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Rettetast 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do You suppose this POV?

For a modern version of the hypothesis of European origin of PIE see the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (proposed by Italian theorists) that derives Indo-European from the European Paleolithic cultures. The basic argument of this theory is based on the recent paleogentical result - 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic. «The Neolithic farmers have certainly been important; but they have only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It is the hunters of the Paleolithic that have created the main body of modern European gene pool». (Bryan Sykes, 2001, 242). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.22.250 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Template:Portuguese ethnicity

Please, could you take a look at Template:Portuguese ethnicity. The user Opinoso wants to make a photogallery inside the infobox. Soon we'll have ten pictures there. He has no sense of limit and common sense. Dantadd 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not listen to this vandal user. Opinoso 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispania/Spain

I do not wish to start and edit war or even a long debate, but I would like to point out that when you changed all the instances of "Spain" to "Hispania" in the text at Achila II, you seemed to be acting contrary to the very sources on which the article was based:

• The Arab Conquest of Spain (Collins)
• Visigothic Spain (Collins)
• Visigothic Spain (James)
• The Fall of the Visigothic Power in Spain (Shaw)
• The Goths in Spain (Thompson)

The works by Collins, James, and Thompson are the premier works on Visigothic Spain in English. It demonstrates that in a historical context, the meaning of the word Spain is clearly Iberia or Hispania. Spain should be regarded as the English translation of the Roman word "Hispania", as, indeed, etymologically it is. Srnec 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Africa in topic

Hi, I've reverted your edit to {{Africa in topic}} for reasons I explained in my edit summary. Please get consensus on the talk page if you still want to make the edit. Thanks. Picaroon (Talk) 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Tierra de Miranda

I add pictures from Terra de Miranda and a unnoficial flag NON-SEPARATIST with the colours that are admit for the mirandese people. I add the name of terra de Miranda (Tierra de Miranda) in his native languague, mirandese. Revert a edition without discusion or say that other wikipidist is a lunatic, the words that was used by The Ogre is vandalism. I respect your POV, not share your interest about the imperialism and the "ethnicity" of the portuguese but I respect.Stop! your vandalism Miranfree 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Civility

Your comment to "block Hayden forever!" on this edit is against WP:CIVIL which says to not call for bans or blocks on other editors.----^DarkTea 05:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Well... He did end up blocked for being racist and continuosly trying to push his POV in the articles. Oh! And attacking other users! The Ogre 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Porto

• Presumably you were referring to WP:TRIVIA when you mentioned the "rules" - as you can see from the page, facts should ideally be integrated rather than removed when possible. This is in any case a guideline - only policies can really be regarded as rules - and nowhere does it say "Trivia sections should be deleted on-sight". The points listed seem to be substantive and useful - I removed an overtly trivial point earlier today. Leave it for now, I'll edit it into the article. Deiz talk 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Trivia integrated. I'm against random miscellany and have been given a hard time in the past for deleting trivia sections myself - the key is to recognize when a trivia section is entirely comprised of unsourced, useless factoids, or if it contains notable information that simply wasn't properly integrated into the article. Porto is a fairly well looked after article, when a page has mutiple active editors a note on the talk page or related WikiProject noticeboard will usually get things happening. If that doesn't work, delete and leave an appropriate edit summary. Removing the info to the talk page is also helpful. Cheers, Deiz talk 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sweet as.. we have scarily similar edit counts.. you've got me by about 98 right now :) Deiz talk 16:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey.

Thanks for your help. I noticed you are part of the Portugal group. Maybe you can speak portuguese, which means it is sort of strange that we keep speaking in english. By the way, I live in Évora and let me say that we here do not consider Olivenza as portuguese territory and I think it is a bit strange that Olivenza is still oficially in the district of Évora. It seems a bit odd. Anyways, good luck. If you need any help in articles about Évora or Alentejo, please ask. I'll be happy to support you in anything you need, photos or information! Filipeacaeiro 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your work is appreciated

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless, invaluable work here. Keep up the good work! Regards, Húsönd 15:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European

Hi. I just made a suggestion there [7] and I'd like your opinion but since that page is so inactive, I felt like notifying you here...KarenAER 12:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Your work is also appreciated!

Thank you so much for the Barnstar, The Ogre! :-) I'm naturally very proud and grateful for this one. Keep up your excellent work as well! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 19:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe people

As soon as you can, please comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I agree that we need a German. Someone pulled out the German model. But there will be objections on two issues (1) B&W photo, and (2) another politician. I didn't set these rules and don't agree with them, but without compromise we lose support from the broader base. Can we pull down your contribution and sub in another German? --Kevin Murray 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you work with me to balance the gallery,a s I think that we share the same goal. I don't see tagging it as being productive as it disrupts the visual. I agree to moving it to Commons once we have a stable product, but it's a lot of work to do while it is in flux. OK? --Kevin Murray 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I tried to find a color picture of a Portugese non-politicial, but have so far failed. Any ideas? --Kevin Murray 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks again. --Kevin Murray 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learnportuguese

Hello The Ogre. I just noticed that you've contacted Learnportuguese and gave some advice, just like me and some other editors have recently. I don't know if you already know that this user is blind (she claimed she was blind on my talk page yesterday), so Learnportuguese is naturally a newbie who will face more difficulties in getting accustomed to editing Wikipedia, its formats, styles, etc.. I thought I should tell you in case you didn't know. Regards, Húsönd 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User Hosund is going to help me with the signature thing. Like I said, I am a blind user, so formats can be an issue with my computer. I've been typing the four tildes, and it doesn't look right 'cause I keep being accused of something I'm not intending to do.

learnportuguese 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese Colonies in North America

Hi. I've discovered a source of 1570 about this, that says that Portugal had a colony in Cape Breton. Take a look in the Portuguese Empire Discussion page. Greetings, Câmara 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Pedro Álvares Cabral.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pedro Álvares Cabral.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dantadd 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caracóis

Tem graça que fui ao artigo depois de ler o Público e quando lá cheguei já lá estava a cena... Velho 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Portugal EEZ.PNG - copyright

Thanks. Have done now. Btw, what were you planning to use for your map? Is there a free basemap that shows the area? Because I was thinking of trying to do an EU one at some point. - J Logan ^t: 16:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desenhos

Safa, Ogre, tás não só o herói da Família, também o herói da Pátria! Só falta dedicares-te um bocadinho a Deus. Velho 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am not kidnapped!

It's me, it really is! I wasn't kidnapped, I just developed a sense of humour (and also decided that satire is the only proper response to this little farce). I ask you to delete your own comments form the talk page as I do not want you to get in trouble for anyone suspecting that you are even seeming to accuse Fourdee of impersonating me. And I did warn Alun about this, so he knows. Sorry to have caused you any distress, it is a joke - I didn't think I would need to explain it. I guess I am a better mimic than I thought! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you! I was just saying the same thing. Thanks for your concern though Ogre, I appreciate it. Alun 12:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I just did it again - sorry, I can't help it. maybe my spirit has been kidnapped, but if so i assure you it is by an imp who is on your side, really. I just can't take these debates seriously any more, at least not today. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (yes, really!)

Far be it for me to start a revert war and I know all your reasons were good ones, but I think when it is sectioned off in an "irony" section, it is less funny...The joke is in the difficulty in deciding whether it is a joke. (Being a point not about my edit, but about similar-sounding edits by other people) Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay- but what is boring are the edits by a certain editor whom I shall not name ;) Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Wow, that is only the second barnstar I have ever gotten here in 6 years and it means a lot to me, really. I guess what really means a lot to me are your kind words. While I have had the will and time to fight on the talk page front I actually feel guilty that I have not fought on the main front - making substantive contributions to the articles. I work in the Amazon and ethnic groups of Europe let alone White people are not my main field of expertise. I recently made some additions to Ethnic group - finally, at least Weber's definition is in. May I ask what your specialties are in sociology? Perhaps you would feel competent adding to the White peoples or European Peoples' articles material on the social construction of Whiteness or White/European ethnic groups? The only book i know for Europe is Cole and Wolf's The Hidden Frontier and some books on Greek Macedonians (or Macedonian Greeks). On the White people talk page, in the section "Bias in this article" I provided a partial bibliography of works on whiteness - if you know any of them well, or other work by sociologists on whites (I guess even Gans's stuff on Italian Americans should be cited) I hope you have the time to do the work that really counts: quiet, but good, accurate, well-researched additions of content to the articles. It is a stuggle, but I'll watch your back and help out if I can. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how are Ben Anderson and Ernest Gellner's works on nations and nationalism received on the Continent? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope my phrasing wasn't irritating: based on your user page I inferred perhaps wrongly that you are based in Europe. Anyway, I fully understand your personal policy about how you edit ... alas, I think these kinds of editors require very serious hobbiests, or actual social scientists who are willing to do some writing. I would encourage my own graduate students except like us they have other priorities. It's a pity ... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in the UK which is why I specify "the Continent" for continental Europe - maybe a bad habit. And in light of the debate over at European people - it always seemed to me that if India is a "subcontinent" isn't Europe also a sub-continent of Asia too? (no offence I hope). Anyway, alas, we are only a few. In the US and I suspect most places even people who claim to be utterly opposed to creationism and want evolution taught in schools do not really understand evolutionary theory and how it forces us to change our way of thinking of species, races, whatever. And it always appals me how someone who would never argue with a physicist about physics will argue with a social scientist about social theory. And here at Wikipedia ... Wikipedia would be a success if all professions and areas of expertise were equally represented among its editors, but I fear most editors are still either in IT or teenagers - and while many of them are indeed thoughtful and well-informed editors, it still means that articles on social science and humanities themes are woefully under-researched. Now: I have a grant proposal to work on. Cheers! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shuar

You can't begin to imagine! If I could get my ass in gear (and away from Wikipedia) this weekend and write real articles (i.e. legit original research), more people would know just how interesting they are! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you forst go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Litania dos Santos

Acaba por ter graça, mas o texto não me parece bem, até porque os acrescentos no fim já não fazem parte da litania (acho). Velho 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loriga's article

Olá. Mais uma vez, o IP do costume tentou introduzir o link para os seus sites (msn.groups) no artigo nesta Wikipédia e na WikiPortuguesa. Como suspeitava, conheço este "sr." pessoalmente e tentará por todos os meios fazer valer o seu ponto de vista. Se não o conseguir, difamará a Wikipédia nos seus sites. É esperar para ver. Septrya (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese

I finally have the signature thing going properly! I don't know why all of a sudden it is linking properly, 'cause I've been typing four ~ characters just as indicated many many times. That was one of the first things I read on Wikipedia when I signed up.

Do you speak Portuguese? Have you been to Portugal or Brazil?

learnportuguese 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MAKE SURE TO "WATCH" MY USER PAGE AND TALK PAGE FOR CONTINUOUS UPDATING! :)

learnportuguese 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Back!

Just returning your hello. We need to start a user category for this or something... Ogre lawless 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maricas és tu

Pensei que já não escrevesses na Viquipédia... Velho 11:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit it, then send it

Just wanted to say thanks for the info given at List of countries by formation dates, but could you use the SHOW PREVIEW button 1st to make sure all you want to do is ok before using the SAVE PAGE button to submit it. It seems there were several edits done within a few minutes of each other recently. I can understand if something was missed or needed fixing though. A few spelling mistakes were also there, plus a bit long in areas, but I'll fix it up. Thanks That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Latinos

Yeah, it seems that at the very least it should be renamed to "Latin British" or "Latin Britons". As to whether even this would justify keeping it, I don't know; I'm inclined to think it wouldn't, but I'll think about it some more. You should maybe give it a day or two before proposing deletion. Also, would you please check out Category:People born in Mozambique and let me know what you think? I explained its purpose in the talk page. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ogre. That category was the outcome of a discussion with User:Will Beback at Talk:Teresa Heinz#Mozambican American?!. Read it when you have time, but here's a summary. He objected because I had removed categories such as Mozambican American, German-Mozambican, etc from Heinz's article. She'd been categorized as a Mozambican person just because she was born there. I explained that it's not exactly so simple. She was born at a time when that was a territory of Portugal, and she was a Portuguese citizen; she'd even moved on from Portuguese to American citizen before Mozambican nationality came to be in the 1970s and was never a Mozambican national. So we compromised: she and others with similar history would instead be categorized as "People born in Mozambique". So only those who are known for a fact to be of Mozambican nationality or ethnic Mozambican descent are put in "Mozambican people" categories (such as Category:Portuguese-Mozambican people). SamEV (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:British Latinos

Template:British Latinos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Apparently there are no latin populations in Britain! More nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the move

I only noticed you moved "History of Latinos and Hispanics" to "History of Latinos and Hispanics in the United States" after I'd posted my comment on the Hispanics in the United States talk page. I'm considering whether the latter article should move to the corresponding title, i.e. to "Latinos and Hispanics in the United States", or some other title. How about you? Although I find the title very long (I would have preferred just "Latinos and Hispanics") and I think that it should be "Hispanic and Latino" (i.e. the reverse order), I'm for the move because at least it includes the two terms. But ... what about the fact that debate on the move was closed? Or does that just apply to that particular name that was debated? SamEV (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Um projecto

Olá.

Há muita confusão à volta dos termos "Latin" e "Latino", o que não é de surpreender porque têm significados múltiplos. Descobri vários artigos relacionados com eles, que não estão lá muito claros, e gostaria de fazer umas alterações, mas também gostava de ter outras opiniões, até porque por hoje estou cansado de editar artigos. Ideias:

• Quando se busca "Latin" na Wikipedia, vai-se bater a Latin language, o que acho bem. A página tem um link para Latin (disambiguation).
• Quando se busca "Latino" vai-se parar a esta página, o que já não me parece tão interessante. As outras referências são obscuras. Devia-se it ter a Hispanic directamente, e nessa página podia haver links para a página de desambiguação.

Outras páginas interessantes que descobri:

• Latin Union - interessante para justificar que a noção "europeia" de "Latin" tem sentido.
• Latin Europe - idem.
• Latino (demonym) - deviar ser uma ligação directa para Latino, em minha opinião.
• Latins - Editei-a um pouco, mas depois vi que duplica material de Latin (demonym). Além disso não gosto do nome, no plural, se bem que não é caso único; há também a página Franks.

Acho que tudo isto pode e deve ser arrumado e compatibilizado, mas de momento devo confessar que estou demasiado cansado. Problema: o que chamar ao artigo sobre o sentido europeu de "Latin" -- Latin peoples vai ser demasiado confuso de certeza; tem de ser uma página de desambiguação!

Gostaria que me dissesse o que acha. Cumprimentos. FilipeS (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Não apague mais

Caro senhor Ogre, Estou escrevendo porque o senhor modificou indevidamente duas vezes o artigo sobre Madeira. Em uma delas, disse que há milhões de livros que tratam da sua descoberta. Pessoalmente, sou especialista do assunto e não os conheço. (Seria inbteressante que o senhor publique uma parte da lista, me ajudaria muito) O interesse dos dois livros que aí estão é o de serem os únicos, no meu conhecer, que dão a versão da descoberta de acordo com o ponto de vista de Zurara. Espero que esta explicação tenha sido suficiente para que o senhor pare de apagá-los. Muito obrigado. 81.56.141.205 (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ogre...

go check the talk page for Latin europe. Oh and also, Bluesky mentions there how Iamandrewrice's work on it was good...i agree... and i think it is only prejudice of you to disagree just because he is now blocked, which had nothing to do with his editing skills. Just2saythis (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI this appears from this diff to be an edit by a sockpuppet of Iamandrewrice, who is now the subject of a community WP:BAN. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Hi, I know you prefer not to work on sociological topics but would appreciate it if you could do me a favor. There has been some back-and-forth reorganizing of the article on race as a human classification and I would be very grateful if you would go over the sections on race as a social construction (there are three case-studies) primarily for clarity and style: here ... thanks, Slrubenstein Talk 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

I appreciate your looking over the section on "social construction: in the race article - I do not have anything specific in mind but I value an outsider's view and also trust that as a scoiologist if there was some gaping error you would spot it immediately. I do not think it is an issue that English is your second language - indeed, many non-native English speakers read English Wikipedia so it is worth trying to make the prose clear and intelligible even to non-native speakers. So that is it - I was just looking for someone knowledgable who could spot anything that is unclear or off-base. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

Marlith ^T/C 00:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your civility

Stop undoing other peoples edits in the white people page just because you please so. 87.220.201.69 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dropping a line to you

Olá. I was just dropping a message because I haven't see any posts from you on my talk page for awhile. Be assured that my talk page is a friendly and dynamic environment with discussion on many aspects of the beautiful and fascinating Portuguese language. Just scroll to any section or the end of anyone's comments and type away. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] college

Olá. College term starts January 10 and so I won't be on Wikipedia nearly as much. I thought I'd let you know. Just put my pages on your watchlist and you can start new discussions if you want. I think it's excellent what you have contributed so far! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnportuguese (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  !

Claro que já aqui não venho (mais de duas vezes ao dia).
Velho (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Olha que um tipo que te acusou de apagares demais no White people talvez tenha um nadinha de razão (sobretudo, no teu penúltimo undo). Velho (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Um comentário pouco antes do meu, intitulado "incivility", é capaz de ter aluma razão quanto aos teus edits no white people. Velho (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Não é isso, porra! Aqui: ((redundant with "and other countries from Europe" - Undid revision 183842836 by Ale4117 (talk))) tu cortaste um gajo que até me pareceu de boa fé.
Não estou contra isso que disseste. Mas aquele bocadinho de texto fazia referência a outros países (ou grupos étnicos). Talvez se pudesse aproveitar alguma coisa, sem faz um simples e geral undo. Velho (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Well, I'm a newbie here, so, I really espect that it works like this: Thanks for the Welcome :-) Cadroiolos (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iberians

How can you say there weren't Iberians in Portugal? Are you out of your mind? If Iberians are not the ancient inhabitants of Portugal, so who are they? Opinoso (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Viva Opinoso! Vou escrever em português para ser mais explícito. Não, não perdi a cabela (calma!). Verifica por exemplo: Mattoso, José (dir.), História de Portugal. Primeiro Volume: Antes de Portugal, Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992. Os Iberos são um conjunto de povos do lesta da Península Ibéria que falavam Ibero - isto em inglês diz-se os Iberians falavam a Iberian language. Estes povos não habitavam o território português - o seu artigo diz mesmo "The Iberians were a set of peoples that Greek and Roman sources (among others, Hecataeus of Miletus, Avienus, Herodot and Strabo) identified with that name in the eastern coast of the Iberian peninsula at least from the 6th century BC". O problema aqui é que não existe nome para as outras populações não-Indo-Europeias Ibéricas (o que não quer dizer Iberas), a não ser para a civilização Tartéssica (Tartessus) da Andaluzia (e à qual os Cinetes ou Cónios do Algarve poderiam ser aparentados, pelos menos antes de terem sido celtizados pelos Célticos do Alentejo) e os Aquitanos Proto-Bascos nos Pirinéus, ou então, se levares o Avieno à letra, o território do ocidente peninsular era habitado pelos Oestriminis que foram conquistados pelos Saephe, Ophis e Dragani (o que provavelmente é um relato das migrações Indo-Europeias). E se em português se consegue distinguir bem entre Ibero e Ibérico, o mesmo não se passa em inglês. Nunca se falou Ibero em Portugal, ou se se falou não o sabemos (nota que a linguagem Tatéssica não é aparentada ao Ibero, sendo um outro isolado linguístico). Além do que, para o período em que os Iberos são identificados pela primeira vez, podemos dizer que o território português era habitado pelos seguintes grandes grupos linguísticos: Galaicos, Lusitanos, Célticos e Cónios. Não podemos saber mais, embora saibamos que o território era obviamente ocupado antes das migrações Indo-Europeias (desde que o homem moderno aqui chegou, há cerca de 35 mil anos, aqui se refugiou, e daqui da Península, repovou o resto da Europa Atlântica - vê o artigo sobre o Haplogrupo R1b). Pelo que o que podemos dizer com certeza é que o território português era habitados por povos não-Indo-Europeus aos quais se virem juntar povos Indo-Europeus (Proto-Celtas e Celtas). Mais nada. Dizes-me para citar uma referência. Pois bem, cita-me uma referência que diga inequivocamente que os Iberos, falantes da língua Ibera habitavam território português! Vou portanto reverter a tua reversão da minha alteração ao texto. Obrigado. The Ogre (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio I

Hello Sir. I adress to you to tell you that the proclamation of Antonio, prior of Crato, as king of Portugal happened in Santarem on July 24th, 1580, and although he could only reign in the continent up to the battle of Alcántara, on August 25th, the Tomar Courts only recognized Phillip to be king on April 15th, 1581. Have a good time, Ralphloren171 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correa de Serra ≠ Correia da Serra

In the context created by pt:Abade Correia da Serra, there can be no question that your recent edit to José Correa de Serra was justified. My question seems a bit awkward, but I'm wondering if you can help me understand why I was wrong in creating this article with a mis-spelling. I first encountered this scholar's name when I read his signature on a nomination letter for a proposed new member of the Royal Society in London. The penmanship is very clear -- hence my error and that of the archivists of the Society. You can see it for yourself, if you like. Isaac Titsingh was elected to membership in the Society in 1797; and his nomination letter has been posted with other similar membership records at the Royal Society web site.

• Royal Society Archive Catalogue
• Royal Society Archive Record: Titsingh -- EC/1797/12

The record identifies those signing Titsingh's nomination letter were: William Marsden, Henry Cavendish, Admiral John Dalrymple, José Correa de Serra, Maxwell Garthshore, William Larkins, John Lloyd, Henry Crathorne, Sir Charles Wilkins.

Also, although it it is no longer readily available for on-line viewing, I did find confirmation for my mistaken view in reading: Abbeé Correa and the genesis of the Monroe Doctrine, John Parry Memorial Lecture, Harvard University (2000).

Could this have been one of those occasions when the conventions of spelling are in flux? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ooperhoofd! First of all let me tell what a delight it is to see someone with such care and attention to original sources as you! Regarding your questions about Correia da Serra, there is no doubt whatsoever that, in the modern European Portuguese spelling (I believe since 1911), his name should be writen Correia. Notice, as in the document you linked to, that he did not write his name as Correa, but as Corrêa, with an ^ over the "e" (he also didn't wrote José, but Joseph, also an archaic Portuguese spelling). This is a huge difference in Portuguese. It implies, and always implied, that his surname was not the Spanish one, and that one should read it as Correia. The archaic spelling is still common in Brazil. Thus, and also given the fact that in French and in English Correia is generally rendered and read as Correa, his name started to be writen internationally as such, but never in Portuguese, where it is almost everytime writen Correia and only as Corrêa if someone intencionally wants to render the archaic spelling. Also, his name was not José Correia de Serra, but José Correia da Serra, I'm moving the article once again... Life is an unending struggle! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White people

Just reverted the anon again. Is there a story here I don't know about. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 'bout what I figured. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White People

The user [Dúnadan] has removed my entire paragraph of text and replaced it with his, with no reason whatsoever. If you follow his edits, you can clearly see that he has an agenda, as he has been reverting and removing sections from articles concerning Argentine demographics all across the wiki.

I consider my original text was apropiate for the article, yet the one posted by the Dúnadan is a clear copy-paste of what he typed into Demographics of Argentina. In both articles, [Dúnadan] has reintroduced the controversial UBA study that says 56% of Argentines have amerindian descent. This study has been proven wrong by many others, such as [3], as well as arguments explaining that the supposed "amerindian" markers analized are also present in Spanish and Galician populations, of which Argentina has plenty of descendants.

As a result, the UBA study was considered too controversial, and a consensus was reached to keep it out of the Demographics of Argentina article. Yet this user has been adding it again, and even worse, HAS REWRITTEN MY COUNTRIBUTION WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER, as he basically posted the same information with a different rewording.

I've made more than 500 contributions to the Wiki, with a dynamic IP, but it's pretty sad to see that so many editors are willing to side against an anonymous editor simply because he's anonymous. I guess I'll have to create a nickname for myself, even though that undermines the purpose of the Wiki itself.

Please take a look on this info I gave you. The genetic study has no bearing whatsoever in the article, unless you also want to include genetic studies on Canada, the USA, Brazil, or Australia, which also show similar levels of admixture. Regards,

--200.117.168.68 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi The Ogre. I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:

The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina.[8], [9]. This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussions amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:

""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote). [10]

A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Wikipedia with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Wikipedia is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition [:es:Composición étnica de Argentina]].

I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.

I will copy this paragraph to Talk:White American and Talk:Demographics of Argentina and will welcome your opinion on the matter. I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.

--the Dúnadan 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ogre, I have been looking towards the recients editions on the article white people and this particular user the Dúnadan who has been editing all the articles with the UBA study made surprisingly in all white and demographics articles about Argentina I personally think we should report it as vandalism because he cannot just appear and erase all our contributions just because he wants to put a racist study against Argentina and all ending up in a great discution because that's what he has created..well I wait your opinion

Fercho85 02:32 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese surnames

Just an FYI, a banned user (User:Uhy) occasionally comes to articles that span Portuguese and Spanish topics and subtly erases all mentions of Spanish and emphasizes Portugal, as shown here.-Wafulz (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] É isto, pá!

Trabalhaste bem ali no pater familias... LOL
Ainda me rio de ter pensado que me estavas a plagiar num artigo académico... Velho (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sephardi Jews

DOB is fine... please bear in mind that the images will line up differently on different peoples computers. 9 images might look ok on your screen but it might look out of alignment for somebody else.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The image you sent me from the protugese page is actually very common. If you look at pages such as African American, Italians, Irish American and Jew you'll see that arrangement. I wouldnb't say it's universal as pages like Irish people, Italian American, and Ashkenazi Jews don't have it but still... it's very common.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the picture of Jacques Derrida?... I wouldn;t recomened using it if it's copyrighted... not sure if it would get the image deleted or not.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool... good job.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regras

Este verbete na página de discussão na seccão -Protection- foi discutido porque existem regras que são usadas seletivamente. Não sei se poderia dar uma opinião. Obrigado.

[edit] Re. Jorge Ferreira

I've never heard of him before. I'll have a look at the article later and see if it meets WP:MUSIC. Thanks. Best regards, Húsönd 18:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French people

Hi there, I have created a special page for the vote regarding French people images at Talk:French people/Vote, and ported your vote to that new page. I'll set my own choice tomorrow. Good idea you had, hope we'll see some participation in order to make a decision. Best regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Europe

See the talk page. I think some of these things need careful attention. Thanks Crystalclearchanges (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latino (demonym)

Thanks again, man! SamEV (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New name for WotGA

It has already been discussed here Talk:War of the Grand Alliance/Archive 1. I'll ask an admin. I didn't realise it was such a complex thing. 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter how old the discussion was, the conclusion was correct. This article should be renamed. Why do we need to keep a track of the old article's edit history. The article has been completely rewritten. It will no longer be relevant, will it? Thankyou Rebel Redcoat (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you stop please

Hello The Ogre. I ask you, please, to stop immediately your reverts. You are the one who called me a vandal in the first place because i reverted the edits of an anonymous who changed the text written by Pistolpierre. What i did was the only thing to do. Do not try to invert the roles. Calling me a vandal for having reverted a vandalism is not acceptable. I do not know what sort of game you are trying to play but it is not nice from your part. Regards. Med (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our small revert war in Talk:French people - Sorry!!!

Hello Med! First of all let me give you my most sincere and humble apologies! I'm not playing any sort of game, I assure you. It was all a big mistake on my part and I am truly sorry if any of my actions or words have offended you. My mistake was that I thought (though I also thought it strange since it did not agree with you contributons' profile) that you were the one changing some other editor's words (in these case from a supposed Italian version of Napoleon's name to a French one) - my mistake was also provoked by the fact that you (why? can't seem to understand) also changed, when you reversed the anon vandal, Dbachmann's talk link from (𒁳) to (��). Again my strongest and enerst apologies! I wrote in French because I got the impression (wrong?) that you were a French speaker. And in fact I didn't even noticed that I was the one that called you a vandal in the first place! There are days everything one does is wrong and today I deffinitely should have stayed in bed! I'm so sorry for the small confusion I unintentionaly caused. I hope no ill will comes between us in the future should we meet again. Thank you for your understanding and calmeness! The Ogre (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.:Wouldn't you be interested in participating in the vote for the French personalities to be included in the French people infobox, as Wikigi already proposed to you? Do come! We need all the informed votes we can get. Thank once again! The Ogre (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the boxes!

I had such a hard time trying to figure out how the formula for those ancestry boxes works! That really helped me out. Here's a cookie for each one:

Thanks again!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias Ogre

Deveras, As you were writing me I was making changes to the controversy section in Latino. Maybe you can read it and we can discuss what you think and feel can communicate contrasting views in an educational and respectable fashion. I apologize if I offended you in any way. EDGARR (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Its possible that in my edit I mistakenly may have damaged links or their order. Could you take a quick look?... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of the Sp people page

Ok Ogre. However apart from some brief forays to emphasize aome things and make sure a more or less global perspective is being maintained I haven't been paying much attention so I'll now have a look at the arguments, as I've been reducing my obsessiveness in recent months with much success. I'll try to come up to speed on this vandalism issue, however. Provocateur (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Europe

Oye. You say "the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits". Have you actually read the artcile or, more importantly, the talk page? That is the joke!! "Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing"- For just a moment, let's ignore the blatant POV pushing and "dumbed" down editing... Cm'on- a list of celebrities to help define 3000+ years of culture and history?!?? (By the way, have you ever met a Latin Ukrainian?). Apart from the fact that my "contribution" was a valid statement on the talk page (not the article!) and thus not really vandalism, it was in the same adolescent vein as its context. I've come across this infantile editor before... he is on a rampage. The good faith attempts by you and other seasoned editors will not help. Theredapple (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because as I said above, good faith attempts will not help :). Have fun, Theredapple (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've been around a long time. I gave up my original user account because I'm tired of WP's inability to deal with POV pushers on lower profile articles (and some high profile ones!). I don't have the time or energy to manage a one person balancing act. In fact, we've had discussions before, and I probably responded to you because you are an editor I respect. As you can see, I cannot help the occasional snooping and opening this new account was my ineffective attempt to make a point. I'll probably continue to snoop from time to time, but I'll resist intervention next time. Take care, Theredapple (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One last thing... it's always the same idiots. Has it occurred to anyone that CCC bears a striking resemblance to User:Iamandrewrice? Thanks for allowing me to vent. Theredapple (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you came around to your senses, but don't beat yourself over it. We're all on WP for the fun of it and it's easy to get caught up in things we enjoy. Also, thanks for your support. Nonetheless, I'm going to take a long WP break before I decide whether to return. Take care, Theredapple (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CCC

When I first interacted with him (at the Vatican discussion in Talk:Latin European, nine days ago) I had no idea who he was. But since we started working on Latin Europe six days ago, I suspected from that day on that he was Andrew. I decided to show assumption of good faith and leave it to others to decide if he stays or goes, my thinking being that he's getting things moving and is editing constructively. Of course, I didn't know about how it was going at other articles he's editing, but I have no complaints about our interactions at Latin Europe. SamEV (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Am..

Hi there, I noticed that you have helped the spanish, portuguese people articles with great photos combined together with what was free to use already. I wandered if you could help do the same maybe with 8-10 photos of spanish americans, dont think spanish Britons has many at all at the mo. The problem is that there doesnt seem to be great number of photos of the people..maybe you can help put them together??..rita hayworth has afew photos to choose from...and others in the list of spanish americans. Many thanks if you can help..since i thought what you did was professional.Britannic1 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I am not Britanicus, no. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On IP vandal

Thank you very much, Ogre! For the thousandth time. :) SamEV (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Portuguese People.PNG

Hello. I came across your Image:Portuguese People.PNG and I was puzzled by the choice of license. Despite not being familiar with all stipulations of the copyrights laws and only judging from what I know about GFDL, I think that the presence in this patchwork of two images released under GFDL requires the whole of it be released under GFDL, too. The license contains a share-alike clause, which is absent at PD and CC-BY, making it a more restrictive one. (Hopefully you haven't collaged a GFDL and CC-BY-SA because in this case no choice of a license would be adequate enough...) So this is what I had to say, just to edge your attention, and to ask you to review this image or contact more copyright-experienced wikipedians for advice... Cheers! Spiritia (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iamandrewrice sockpuppets

I shall be away for a day or two, but when I return I will take a closer look at that user. Thanks Whitstable 10:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies about the Iberia map

• Hi Ogre, I'm terribly sorry that you had to remove the map from all those articles I added it to ! I did not know there were factual inaccuracies in the map, but it is sourced if you look at it's actual file (or at least was, I don't know if the source link has been moved). In terms of its appearance, I thought it was an excellent map compared to others I've seen and in terms of the distribution of languages, it is quite accurate to the one which you based your created map from. You said you were discussing the issue on another talk page ? Ciao, Epf (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French people

Hey Ogre, just a short note to thank you for your work. It was a pleasure to team up with you on that one. Cheers - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iberians

I understand your ommission of those tribes from the Iberians article and I apologize for re-verting so often (it won't happen anymore). We really need to discuss the matter but I have been so busy with the stubborness of the issue on Talk:French people/Vote (and possible creation of an article for the French ethnic group) that I didnt get much time to read alot of your comments on my own talk page. The chracterization of the peoples in ancient Iberia isn't merely on linguistic grounds but on other aspects of culture as well as ethnicity in genereal (eg. descent). Celtiiberians were a mesh of the Celtic and Iberian cultures, hence why I would argue that they can be included as an Iberian tribe. I know we have similar viewpoints on many matters, including ethnicity and the importance of descent (and related traits) in such, so I want to work with you on such articles as Iberians, not against, lol. Ciao, Epf (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Human Genetic History draft and vote

I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your map

Hi, Ogre. I just noticed that Image:Ethnographic Iberia 200 BCE.PNG is your creation. I think it has several important errors and many not less important presumptions that are likely to be wrong as well (or are blanks in our knowledge). I have made a criticism in the image talk page in the hope that you pick up these objections and can improve the map into something really worth it. Not everything must be colored: leaving blank "terra incognita" areas would be a great thing to do in the case of many tribes really. In any case, as something specially exaggerated, the Talayotic culture was not anymore active by 200 BCE. --Sugaar (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magellan

Hello,

A message which could interest you here. DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by formation dates

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of countries by formation dates, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of countries by formation dates

An editor has nominated List of countries by formation dates, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by formation dates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)