Hello, LongLivePortugal! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Regarding MOS:NBSP, I read the whole thing. It does not recommend. It merely suggests. It is not strictly necessary to have it. If you paid attention, it does not appear every time. Nerd271 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I mentioned MOS:NBSP because it clearly states: "It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward." It provides examples, such as '£11 billion'. I agree that it is not strictly necessary, but it seems useful and advisable, according to this quotation. Why do you prefer not having it? (If it is not everywhere else, I think we could work on it to make it uniform throughout the article.) LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have been editing here for a while, and in my personal experience, it does not appear frequent. The MOS seems to indicate that it should be used only when an editor believes the number and its units are cut off in prose. When I came back yesterday, I spotted it and thought it was odd so I decided to cut it out. (As one of George Orwell's rules for writing goes, "If something can be cut out, always cut it out.") Nerd271 (talk)

Well, I am new here. If you know from experience that it is rarely used, I have no problem abiding by that! I would prefer a non-breaking space there, but I see that this would be a matter to debate in a much more encompassing way than just one instance in one article. Feel free to redo your change and remove the NBSP, if you want, and I won't undo it again. Thank you for your contribution! :) LongLivePortugal (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. It has been done. Nerd271 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but given the contexts of where this title is presented—namely in a section and article specifically dealing with the anthem—I don't think there would be any confusion. If anything, I think English readers would be more confused by "[song]." Translating "A Portuguesa" as "The Portuguese [song]" seems to imply that "song" is somehow being referred to in the original title. I'm not a Portuguese speaker, but I can affirm that in Spanish at least there would be a similar ambiguity with "Los Portugueses." If you would allow me, may I suggest "The Portuguese [Nation]" or "The Portuguese [People]" instead? That would make your point a lot clearer than the current rendering. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @CurryTime7-24: Thank you for your input! I will try to explain clearly, based on my knowledge as a native Portuguese speaker, what I meant, which has to do with intricate nuances of both English and Portuguese grammar.

The thing is that, in Portuguese, within the context of a song title, the name A Portuguesa means "The Portuguese Song" (not "The Portuguese Nation" or "The Portuguese People", as you seemed to assume). The word Portuguesa is an adjective, and its female singular form (rather than male plural) prevents the interpretation Os Portugueses (which would mean "The Portuguese", that is, the Portuguese People). Now, in Portuguese, it is grammatically possible to place an adjective (portuguesa) after a definite article (a), with no need for a noun, as long as its deduction is clear from context; in this case, if the noun were present, it would be A Canção Portuguesa; but the omission of canção ("song") does not change the meaning. However, in English, it is not grammatically possible to place an adjective after a definite article and leave it at that. (Or is it and I am not aware of it?) For instance, you couldn't just say "the tall" and leave it at that; the phrase feels incomplete and forces you to ask "the tall what?", doesn't it?

Therefore, if we only write "The Portuguese", an English speaker will assume that the word "Portuguese" is a plural noun (it couldn't be an adjective, because the phrase would then be grammatically impossible) referring, of course, to the people of Portugal — much like, if I say "the British", I am referring to the people of Britain. But, as stated earlier, given that the original word portuguesa is female singular, the title cannot be referring to that. In this context, the meaning of A Portuguesa is really "The Portuguese Song"; the decision to write the word "song" in square brackets will indicate that the concept is only being referred to implicitly, and not explicitly, in the title. I think this is the correct way to do it.

So, in summary, when you say: 'Translating "A Portuguesa" as "The Portuguese [song]" seems to imply that "song" is somehow being referred to in the original title', that is exactly what I want it to imply, because the title really is referring to the song! I hope that my explanation was clear. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, got it. Thanks for the clear explanation! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a social conservatives you should do further research in birttish wikipedias to see where the word derived. regardless i am not going to correct any longer since i see that it is always the same thing a pretext after another i am done. https://theconversation.com/britains-changing-religious-vote-why-catholics-are-leaving-labour-and-conservatives-are-hoovering-up-christian-support-157922

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3228952

it is a shame that the rest of Europe knows that social conservatism is not associated with communism the wikipedia from the united states is very different than the rest of the world in thsi aspect. regardless i am not going to contribute anymore i am tired and done it is not the first time you guys give me such a hassle. the good thing is at least this time you had the courtesy to let me know in other ocassions with other users when i made in totla 4 small corrections it has led me to bans, good thing at least i was not banned this time.

social conservatives by definition do not support LGBT none of them something that the British has been trying to socially reconstruct but have been unsucessful which is a very good thing extremely good thing that the people has with stood and not allow this degeneration. as it is said by theese source ".... In the interwar period, conservatism in Britain became closely identified with the defense of middle- and upper-class privileges, an unconstructive opposition to socialism, " https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism/Great-Britain https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-religion-study-christianity-socially-conservative-same-sex-relationships-a9582551.html https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0205/Does-Tory-opposition-to-gay-marriage-signal-a-UK-culture-war

regardless it seems that Wikipedia based on what i read which cleams to be supposedly unbiased is politically biased.... because it does not respect the definition of social conservatives such as i am and we (social conservatives) are being disrespected to say the very least. this is my final message — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.159.86 (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your message! If you are talking about these edits you made nearly three months ago at Social conservatism, I must explain that I undid them because you had simply added unsourced statements. You must be aware that, on Wikipedia, any information you add should be verifiable; this means that you must mention the source you used, and it must be a reliable one.

In this particular case, the way you added those sentences about social conservatism made it seem that you were adding your own personal opinion/interpretation of social conservatism. (You also seem to have made similar edits at Social conservatism in the United States, which were undone by someone else.) This looks a lot like original research — that is, material added by editors with no reference to reliable sources (as though the editors had conducted the research by themselves) —, which is also not permitted on Wikipedia.

In summary, you cannot add material just because you think it's true. You need to back it up with sources that state specifically what you want to add. If you don't know exactly how to add sources to statements in articles, I can help you with that. If you need help with anything else, please let me know! Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Politics of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assembly of the Republic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops! I've fixed it now! Thank you! :-) LongLivePortugal (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User Long Live Portugal,

I noticed that you reverted my edit of Accidents and Incidents of Comboios de Portugal stating the section was not valid. But I believe that is was very valid. Because the accidents and incidents are relavant to the topic and events even if it is few.(Hopefully major accidents don't happen again but it did happen in this case) Sorry but I disagree with your edit.

- Patrick (Creator of João the Polar Bear) PatrickChiao (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @PatrickChiao: When I reverted your edit, I was unsure about it. My reasoning was that perhaps a list of all the accidents that have taken place in the past 165 years of railways in Portugal is not something readers should want or expect to see in an article about the modern Portuguese rail company... But maybe I'm wrong, no problem! I was not planning to insist after my edit was reverted. But, since the idea is going ahead, I wonder: which accidents and incidents do you want to include in that section? All of them? You know, there have been many, as you can see at pt:Acidentes ferroviários em Portugal... Most of them are very old and have basically no consequence to the modern-day safety record... But, on the other hand, so far, you have only added two very recent accidents, none of which was fatal to any CP passengers or crew... So, what criteria will you use when determining which accidents to include in that section? I would like to know. Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, its okay. Maybe we can translate the PT Article and put it in the section. PatrickChiao (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually we can just only include the notable accidents in a separate articles with sections for accidents with fatalities and accidents with no fatalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickChiao (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PatrickChiao: I agree that a separate article for all accidents is a better idea. :-) And the Comboios de Portugal article should probably only have a short section, mentioning perhaps only the deadliest accident and linking to the separate article which features the more complete list. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah PatrickChiao (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this edit, are you saying that IISS2018 is no longer the relevant reference? In which case, it ought to be removed from those citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David Biddulph: Hi! I didn't notice there was a general reference for all the populations... In that case, we need to decide what to do... The problem is that the initial population values were clearly outdated. For example, Portugal's population was indicated as 10.8 million, which has to be quite an old estimate! Today, we're 10.3 million. So I think the values need an update. Do you think we should follow a single source for all the populations (like the CIA Factbook, which is the one currently used) or should we follow whatever is in the articles at any given time? (In either case, until we get to update all the values, I think we can temporarily leave the page as it is, since these are the more accurate values.) What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I started a discussion on Jimmy Wales' page about one of the infoboxes you have on your home page.[1] You are one of only 9 users that has this infobox. Irene Croat (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Irene Croat: Thank you for your kind notification of the discussion! However, since it has yielded no replies on Jimmy Wales' page and it has already been archived, I will just briefly respond to you here.

Firstly, I reject that the statement in my user page is hateful in any way; my personal objection to same-sex marriage is derived solely from the biologically/anatomically complementary nature of men and women, which leads me to the observation that heterosexuality is the sexual norm for Humanity, and hence to the conclusion that it only makes sense that marriage — as a legally recognised romantic union between two people — should be defined as being only between one man and one woman. This does not mean that I hate homosexuals; on the contrary, I treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation. I believe in democracy and personal liberty, and I strongly oppose all forms of discrimination or of state persecution against homosexuals; and I furthermore believe that the state should recognise a form of civil union that grants same-sex couples rights similar to those of marriage.

Secondly, you have the right to disagree with me and to publicly declare your beliefs, just as I have the right to disagree with you and to publicly declare my beliefs. We both have the right to not be persecuted for our political views. In this case, we are both free to continue editing Wikipedia and improving it for the whole world, even though we have political disagreements.

Finally, I should leave you with a friendly warning: if you have come here solely to question the presence of political userboxes in the pages of Wikipedians instead of editing Wikipedia, you may be quickly seen as someone who is not here to contribute, which can lead to your account being blocked. I strongly suggest that you drop this unimportant discussion and start improving Wikipedia, which is the purpose that unites all of us together on this website!

Thank you for your understanding! LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NATO has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Give use your invaluable opinion. Morgoonki (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - I see you made a revert at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1082501524&oldid=1082500653&title=Enlargement_of_NATO (sorry, I don't know how to do fancy diff links), including a number of my edits. I'm surprised to see my editing characterised as 'blatant copyright violation', when I'm summarising the sources in many fewer words. I also note that a couple of other edits were included in the revert. Could you perhaps elaborate a little more? I disagree about the blatantness here and I'm rather confused. FrankSpheres (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, actually, I think I see what happened: you were targetting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enlargement_of_NATO&diff=1082495112&oldid=1082484410 which _does_ seem to be a copy-paste of bits of the BBC article linked and hence definitely is a blatant copyvio, and my edits were collateral damage. I am going to be bold and reinstate mine, which I think are perfectly fine. Thank you for identifying the copyvio and remedying it. FrankSpheres (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrankSpheres: Hi! Yes, that is precisely what I was going to explain. Sorry for any inconvenience and thank you for your understanding! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrankSpheres: By the way, in order to add diff links, you may use the Template:Diff. You need a while to explore how it works and it does take a few minutes to get the numbers to prepare the link properly each time, but it looks better! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my first ever thank you! So thank you for the thank you! A.FLOCK (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]