User talk:PedroLopFonMarAlves

Welcome!

Hello, PedroLopFonMarAlves, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Portuguese Romanesque Architecture, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JMHamo (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Portuguese Romanesque Architecture

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Portuguese Romanesque Architecture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JMHamo (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Romanesque architecture needs sources

Hello, I have reverted some of your recent edits to Portuguese Romanesque architecture. You inserted large portions of unsourced content and commentary into an article already practically void of the required sourcing. Please provide incline citations from reliably published sources to any new content that you wish to add to the article (and preferably to the content you had initially used to start the article as well.) Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PedroLopFonMarAlves , Every claim in a Wikipedia article should be supported by an inline citation or footnote to a reliably published source that verifies the claim being made -not a list of books at the end, but a specific notation of which information come from which source. If the Wikipedia articles you are gathering information from do not have such citations, they are also non compliant, but that is not an excuse to add more unsourced/improperly cited material to Wikipedia.

So if you add a sentence that says "After being damaged by earthquakes, the restorations of the Lisbon Cathedral incorporated a number of styles beyond the original Romanesque" you would follow it by a footnote with the reliably published source where you got the information. Like this: ==> "After being damaged by earthquakes, the restorations of the Lisbon Cathedral incorporated a number of styles beyond the original Romanesque" ^[1]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Pen of Doom, I think I got it, it will take more time but I want to do a good reliable article as possible, I just ask not to delete entries right away or I won't have time to look for those citations. I'm just asking for more time before someone deletes what I had so much work to gather. Thank you!

It is the burden of the person wishing to add content to provide sources as they add the content. If you wish to work on content first and then add sources, you can do that in your sandbox (click the tab at the top of your page) and then integrate that content into the article when you have it main space ready.

books.google.com is a pretty good place to look for sources if you do not have access to academic journals through a library or college.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I will do that instead, first gathering the sources and add them as I include new content. PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sample reference list

References

^ Přikryl, Richard; Smith, Bernard J.; London, Geological Society of (2007-01-01). Building Stone Decay: From Diagnosis to Conservation. Geological Society of London. pp. 88–. ISBN 9781862392182. Retrieved 22 November 2015.

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for putting in a lot of footnotes for the material in Portuguese Romanesque architecture ! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm trying hard to make it as perfect as possible. If you notice anything out of place please warn me. Cheers!

Another barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		For all your excellent work at Portuguese Romanesque architecture. JoJan (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portuguese Romanesque architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, I will change it right away! PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Hello PedroLopFonMarAlves. I noticed on the article Portuguese Romanesque architecture that most of the content you have included is copied from elsewhere on this wiki. It's okay to do that, as the material is available under license, but you are required to provide proper attribution. That is, for each instance where you added content copied from elsewhere on this wiki, you must at a minimum mention it in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please go back through your additions and provide attribution. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa! Thanks for your message, I appreciate your attention in helping me improving the article. Let me check the passages that relate to other pages and I will provide attribution. I have to emphasize that most of the content comes from sources outside of Wikipedia that are properly listed on both the reference table and the article's bibliography, so I have to refute your claim that most of the content I have included is copied from elsewhere on this wiki. However the passages that do will be quickly attributed. Thanks for your concern. PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "most" was over-stating things. Regardless, thanks for your prompt response and for your work here on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! And thanks again for your message, feel free to write everything you see that can help improving the article, all help is more than welcome. PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PedroLopFonMarAlves. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PedroLopFonMarAlves. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PedroLopFonMarAlves. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[PřikrylSmith2007-1] Přikryl, Richard; Smith, Bernard J.; London, Geological Society of (2007-01-01). Building Stone Decay: From Diagnosis to Conservation. Geological Society of London. pp. 88–. ISBN 9781862392182. Retrieved 22 November 2015.

[1]