User talk:Asqueladd

__NOINDEX__

Manticore (2022 film)
¡Hola Asqueladd!

=> yes, I object you removed verification of claims, to begin with

I apologise for having upset you again, mate. Could you just explain to me briefly which verification of the claims I've removed in that revision, por favor? Just so that I know in future... 😉

¡Cuidate! Szagory (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Inline verification immediately after a claim is the way to go. As per Help:Referencing for beginners (despite me thinking you are no beginner), inline citations "are generally added either directly following the fact that they support, or at the end of the sentence that they support, following any punctuation." --Asqueladd (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've checked the changes you've made in that revision:
 * [1]
 * There's absolutely no need for reference with a link to RT page when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose - just take a look at the documentation of that template, mate.
 * Besides, I also added Template:Rotten Tomatoes to the end of the article... 😎
 * Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no need for reference with a link to RT page when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose Only in case you used the  parametre (which requires RT ID on Wikidata) to generate a reference of its own, which you did not. I also added Template:Rotten Tomatoes to the end of the article As stated below, as per WP:ELDUP, that is not the way to go...--Asqueladd (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding your modus operandi vis-à-vis the external links section, I suggest you to take a look at WP:ELDUP where it is explained that "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section."--Asqueladd (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * => Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section
 * But that's my point - first of all, when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose there's no need for reference with that template.
 * And secondly, just take a look at countless other pages related to films - they all have and  in "External links" (obviously with correct film IDs).
 * I'm not sure that you've done the right thing in removing those links from the article... 😕
 * Szagory (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If links are cited in the body they should not be duplicated in the external links section as per WP:ELDUP. According to WP:ELMIN the EL section should be kept minimal. Under the purview of those guidelines, I don't think that those "countless" examples you mention abide to those guidelines, what else can I tell you... Well yes, I can tell you that the duplication resembles to spamming to a certain extent (Let me clarify that as I owe nothing to imdb.com nor rottentomatoes I presume yo do neither).--Asqueladd (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * => Only in case you used the Reference? parametre (which requires RT ID on Wikidata) to generate a reference of its own, which you did not.
 * That's not correct - when you don't specify film ID in Template:Rotten Tomatoes, then Wikidata for the film must already include identifier for the film in RT.
 * If however you provide film's name in "{ {Rotten Tomatoes | ID} }", you can just add a link that way - no need to wait for Wikidata to be updated. 😉
 * Just take a look at The Cuckoo's Curse where I also added without waiting for Wikidata to be updated. And now are you telling me that if the text for that film's approval rating was written by hand and included a citation with link to RT, you would really prefer the readers to locate that link somewhere in "References"? When all other film pages include links to IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in "External links"? Come on, mate - that wouldn't be convenient!
 * Szagory (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * => Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section.
 * It's NOT the best practice to write approval rating for a film by hand - having to write all that stuff "According to the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, Manticore has a 100% approval rating based on 7 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 9.8/10. " again and again for every film!  Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose should be used for that purpose  instead.
 * And there's no need for reference with link to RT to be provided with Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose - either you use short form "" (when Wikidata knows film IDs for that film) or you use "".
 * I'm sorry, but what I'm trying to say is: the way I added Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Rotten Tomatoes was correct and countless other pages follow the same convention. And you insisting that the link you added when writing approval rating should be preserved, and what's more shouldn't be duplicated - that's just not right... 😒
 * Szagory (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

now are you telling me that if the text for that film's approval rating was written by hand and included a citation with link to RT, you would really prefer the readers to locate that link somewhere in "References", yes, that is more or less what I am telling you. More comprehensively:


 * Links verifying content in the body of the article should be referenced inline in the body immediately after the claim or after the end of the full sentence (as per Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:ELDUP)
 * no duplication of such links in "External links" section (as per WP:ELDUP)
 * As a guiding principle, number of links in the External links section should be aimed to be kept at a minimum. "The less, the better". (as per WP:ELMIN)
 * No, I don't care about counterexamples, because mentioned guidelines suggest this modus operandi--Asqueladd (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * => yes, that is more or less what I am telling you.
 * => No, I don't care about counterexamples, because mentioned guidelines suggest this modus operandi
 * Mate, just take a look at countless other film pages - by way of example, Dream Scenario. Check how approval ratings in Dream_Scenario are written there (and also just imagine having to duplicate all those lines for RT and Metacritic every time you want to add critical reception to some new film page!).
 * And notice what links are specified in Dream_Scenario.
 * And I'll never EVER believe that what's done on countless pages (i.e. using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Rotten Tomatoes is suddenly bad or inappropriate. Just ask yourself this: why are those templates provided at all if apparently everybody is supposed to follow your modus operandi and type all those words on every edited page again and again?
 * So, I'm not to going to insist on my edits with those templates to be reinstated - and playing editing policeman would be just silly. But I'm going to continue doing things the way other Wikipedia users have been doing them (those templates are supposed to cut down on having to repeat the same text again and again, for Heaven's sake!).
 * Have a nice evening / Buenas tardes,
 * Szagory (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel that we are running in circles. I have provided you with a series of Wikipedia guidelines laiding out a modus operandi. No, I don't care in the slightest about providing readers with a directory of websites (particularly a directory of profit-driven websites) at the end of any article which I think it is discouraged anyways as per those guidelines, no matter how many counterexamples you can find. That's all. I respect your tastes, but unless you bring a sound policy-backed rationale, I am not willing to give up on this and you will possibly be undone again if I notice such kind of change in my watchlist (although I am not going to WP:WIKIHOUND you either). Have a nice day you too, and, as always, until next time.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to mention a couple of other things in your latest edits:
 * That doesn't sound right, neither does it seem to be grammatically correct. Why "with"? 🤔
 * Use of singular indefinite article ("a rim job") here is not appropriate - it denotes a single act of anilingus. Surely Julián hasn't rented a new apartment just for one sexual act there, and presumably neither was just one single rim job "practised" (i.e. performed with regularity, so more than once) in that apartment, right?
 * More correct would be something like: "where he performs anilingus on Diana". 😉
 * But why did you feel obligated to mention that salacious detail in the text at all? Is anal sex in any material way significant for WP:Plot (which is supposed to be concise and brief)?
 * Also, what's the connection between anal sex being performed on Diana and her getting the new of her dad's death?
 * Szagory (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * About the latter, as I stated in the edit summary, IIRC (it's been a while since I watched the film) the character gets the news about her father's death (or an aggravating condition that led to his death or a phone call implicitly suggesting something along those lines) in that scene. I don't like to explain things twice or thrice. is supposed to be concise and brief The text is actually more brief, straightforward and to the point now in that regard than before (6 words now vs 9 words before). In addition, at 522 words, the plot section as a whole currently falls within the size recommendation as per WP:FILMPLOT and it still could be augmented with some details without failing to abide to those prescriptions.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Szagory (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * About the latter, as I stated in the edit summary, IIRC (it's been a while since I watched the film) the character gets the news about her father's death (or an aggravating condition that led to his death or a phone call implicitly suggesting something along those lines) in that scene. I don't like to explain things twice or thrice. is supposed to be concise and brief The text is actually more brief, straightforward and to the point now in that regard than before (6 words now vs 9 words before). In addition, at 522 words, the plot section as a whole currently falls within the size recommendation as per WP:FILMPLOT and it still could be augmented with some details without failing to abide to those prescriptions.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The Coffee Table
do you planned add spanish page of The Coffie table by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * pardon me if you feel that I am telling you something too basic, but Spanish-language articles should be created in Wikipedia not in Wikipedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:25th Málaga Film Festival poster.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:25th Málaga Film Festival poster.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kys5 g talk! 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Alfonso XIII
With all due respect, how can YOU verify this claim: "On 15 January 1941, Alfonso XIII renounced his rights to the defunct Spanish throne in favour of Juan. He died of a heart attack in Rome on 28 February that year." because it ALSO lacks a source. Reverting my "conspiratorial" addition, without adding a source to the above claim is pretty telling of your biases, and/or political views. Ukudoks (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right, my biases. Not those of historiography. Please describe those biases to me. It is a pet pleasure of mine to read such inputs. It is your onus to provide reliable sources for your loony conspiracy theories.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is YOUR biases, since you have not provided a counter to my addition Ukudoks (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters when it comes to undoing the addition of unsourced content, but I actually have. And for all means, please describe my biases to me in the meanest way possible, pleaaase. If not, you may kindly leave here.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you are not addressing the point of this conversation, Spanish intelligence services should change their employment strategy to recruit more intelligent agents. Because why would anyone be so adamant to completely focus on the person who added the addition instead of addresing the addition itself (with sources if possible), and since YOU cannot dispute my addition (most likely because you are being paid to do so, which is understanable) you in fact directed the attention onto me for some reason Ukudoks (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "intelligence services". :D Thanks, I expected no less from you. and since YOU cannot dispute my addition I actually happened to dispute your addition by sourcing the most recent biography on the subject, go figure. You've already managed to amuse me around here. If you still have issues with the current version of the article, including a cardiovascular disease-related cause of death being very suspicious because of whatnot, go to the talk page and arm yourself with relevant secondary sources. But please refrain from returning here.-Asqueladd (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Rubén Ochandiano a director?
His article doesn't note anything he directed, but the lead you restored calls him a director. Is this just a result of you undoing everything I did? Or do you know something about it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't really care. I did just remove it. PS: stubifying is not the sensible move either way, sorry.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still as stubby now, factwise, just has repeated words, needless spaces and a section header filling it out. If you don't care, I don't think you're sorry, and that's fine. Thanks for removing the dubious extra bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still as stubby now I didn't pretend it wasn't, and that's precisely why I mentioned in the edit summary about efforts to "encourage the article to cease to be a stub", suggesting yours to be contrary to that purpose instead. If you don't care, I don't think you're sorry, and that's fine. I don't care much about Ochandiano's filmmaking career, unknown to me. I care something about getting good-faith editors out of a possible malpractice. Those are different issues, in case the "post-data" break did not make it clear enough. Thanks for removing the dubious extra bytes. No big deal.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you're now the English Wikipedia's foremost authority on what readers should care to know about Ochandiano's filmmaking career, big deal or not. According to the bold green numbers in the edit history, anyway. I don't understand what you mean by "malpractice" or "post-data", but I hear you now on the stub part (and yeah, I did "butcher his name" pretty terribly there; won't happen again!). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just think that while perhaps adding a layer of reiteration, current section structure paves the way for unfettered growth of the article from a stub into a start-class article (ticking in similar boxes as those of analogous Start, or C-Class articles for actors), so backtracking in that effort could perhaps be considered a malpractice, if you wish. "PS" or "PD" stand for "postdata", which often introduces information unrelated to the text written before. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Centro Universitario de la Guardia Civil
I created a draft Draft:El_Centro_Universitario_de_la_Guardia_Civil_(Spain) and woulf welcome your input. (there is an equivalent Spanish article, but ¿probably I over-cooked it?) Timpo (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'd rather focus on sourcing the introductory section with much needed third-party sources, with special emphasis on explaining what a centro universitario is (as well as the nature of those "close links" to full-fledged universities) rather on detailing what the Guardia Civil is (there is no need to go beyond gendarmerie). Historical content backed up by third party sources would also be a plus. Otherwise, the bulleted content in the sections seems unintentionally promotional. I personally prefer stub articles over larger articles relying too much on non-independent sources (or no sources at all). Regards.---Asqueladd (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)