Hello, Petnog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:2016 Central European Jamboree Wrocław.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:McVeggie-PT.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cakelot1 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:McVeggie-PT.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Atlantic Core Network Corridor. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because It needs more sources (especially secondary ones) to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Atlantic Core Network Corridor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petnog! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Passport stamp. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Can you stop? The article is not "a gallery of all passport stamps in the world". You keep restoring stuff that's only of interest for hobbyists: nothing warns the reader they're about to see a million pictures, including links to visa policies that don't have anything to do with passport stamps. In addition, a ton of that information is unverified, and is thus inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of urban parks by size, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gondomar and Paredes. 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) 06:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't see enough significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to think this qualifies for WP:GNG. While material from European governments about the project are useful under WP:V, they are not clearly independent from this initiative (they read like press releases) and hence provide no notability. Critical coverage would be far more useful.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Atlantic Core Network Corridor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Core Network Corridor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On at least a couple of occasions, you have replaced a source with a blog on a commercial web site [1], [2]. The article at WP:BLOGS lays out reasons why blogs may not be a reliable source. And a source that also sells products or services is usually considered a biased source. Just so's you know. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willondon, on today's case though, the source is going against what's written in the article though, because it says Portuguese is the most spoken language in south America. Petnog (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. The original source was never very reiable, and yours is suspect (commercial source), but at least your source has the advantage of being accurate, and corroborating what was in the article. I've switched today's edit back to your sourcing. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to finish updating the Summary of rankings column A.T. Kearney 2023. 174.67.226.163 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Petnog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Petnog. Thanks for your density map of Portugal, great job. Just have a curiosity: Isn't it odd that Coimbra and Leiria don't have densities above 2000? Coimbra actually surprised me because of Santo António dos Olivais. Are census areas more broad in these cities than in other cities? Tuesp1985 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've been meaning to do this for a while. Regarding your question, the city of Coimbra is one sole census place and it includes some non-urban areas (as in, pretty much just woods), so it's population density is pretty low (1285 inhabitants per km^2). The freguesia of Santo António dos Olivais, which you pointed out, does reach the 2000 mark, but the others do not. For example, the freguesia of Coimbra (Sé Nova, Santa Cruz, Almedina e São Bartolomeu), which should be one of the densest, only has 1663 inhabitants per km^2. That freguesia includes some areas which are not urban either and, in fact, aren't even inside the city limits (for some reason), but the part that is inside the city probably still doesn't make it to 2000. If there was one freguesia with more than 2000 that was entirely inside the city limits, I could use its figures to change the map, so it would show a darker center, but they all have some parts outside. I could, however, use the census' grid data, and maybe one day I will, but I have other things on my mind right now. I don't remember Leiria's case as well, and I can't check at the moment, but it's probably similar. | Petnog (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to say. Coimbra is the second largest city by area (after Lisbon). There are plenty larger than Leiria though. | Petnog (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Interesting that Coimbra is a sole census area, which doesn't make much sense, but, it is what it is. Maybe that's some kind of old INE organization rule, as in the past the 3 main cities were Lisbon, Porto and Coimbra. Yes, the reorganization of parishes created a few that are half urban/half "rural", let's put like that. I wrote Leiria, but then I had second thoughts as Leiria is not that dense as Coimbra, because the population there is more spread across the territory, just like Famalicão and Barcelos.Tuesp1985 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]