Fátima, Portugal (EN)
Dear Ruben Furtado (Zeorymer),
Regarding your rollback on the English Fátima Wikipedia page:
We are a group of 17 twelfth grade students (Professional Course of Computer Science) at Colégio de São Miguel in Fátima. We have been doing a language project work in the English classes in order to develop our research and communication skills in Portuguese, English and Spanish by working with this important free encyclopedia - Wikipedia.
We would like you to thank you for your corrections and ask for your help so that we can improve our work and have our say in this collaborative project.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amora (Seixal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando of Portugal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Regarding rollback feature
[Basically picking up here from my last comment on Talk:Madeira#Elaboration on recent edits by ... as it seems the thread is drifting away from direct relevance to the article.]
"Regardless, I apologize for reverting in total, since changes to the presidents and party affiliations are naturally important to content (a bug exists in the Rollback functionality)."
You come across as polite and well meaning.
However, you also seem to be confused as to how the rollback feature is intended to be used in main space. I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's a 'bug' but rather that you are frequently misusing the tool. Unless I've grossly misunderstood the guidelines myself, the automatic rollback feature is intended—in regards to main space editing—to be used almost exclusively to remove blatant vandalism. Particularly repetitive attacks. Not as a general convenience.
However, using it as a shortcut in your own user space appears to be acceptable—although some apparently consider it bad form to use it on User_talk pages. But technically you could use it to delete this very entry with no consequences beyond perhaps a frown and a grumble.
However, your pattern of freely using the automated rollback feature to remove good faith edits in main space appears to be in violation of acceptable bounds and exceeds the level of restraint expected of those given privileged access to the feature.
Note: Whether the edits have subjective quality, i.e. merits or lack thereof, within their articles isn't particularly relevant in this context. Basically if it's not clearly vandalism it most likely deserves the basic courtesy of at least a brief relevant edit summary for the benefit of editors who follow as well as the ones who made edits being overturned in the first place.
Please pardon me if I tend to take an adamant tone on this. I confess that some of my present fervor is likely cumulative and tinged by observing past editors—much less polite than yourself—whose personal goals for producing (policing?) a quantity of edits led to unapologetically leaving a trail of collateral damage—often with the help of semi-automated tools—ultimately producing many edits which fell short in basic human quality. It's grown into a bit of a peeve.
Anyway, Zeorymer, at this point I'm inclined to assume that whoever gave you access to the tool may have forgotten to mentor you in it's use. And specific documentation can be easy to miss amongst the Wiki's many scattered options. Hope this all proves useful to you.