User talk:Asqueladd/Archive007

__NOINDEX__

January 2021
Melilla's motto

Hi! I thought "Praefere Patriam Liberis Parentem Dece" was Melilla's official motto, as stated by the Autonomous City's government. Isn't that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. No, the source does not state that. The source mentions that lemma (the lemma of the House of Medina Sidonia, IIRC) together with the Non Plus Ultra lemma in the description (the blazon) of the coat of arms. As per WP:NOR, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. [...] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs)
 * You are welcome. Per se, the lemma btw has nothing to do with the history of Melilla but that of Tarifa (the siege of Tarifa in the late 13th century). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Always good to know! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs)

Arabic
RE: Comment[edit] [2] The phrasing does not concern a "linguistic origin" in any way whatsoever. The phrasing suggests the date of physical inception of a previous building (when it was built). So no, a linguistic link is not relevant.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you have such an issue with Arabic that makes engage on reverting a mere link over and over again. Plus leaving me several messages. I wonder who you really are.Melroross (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you have such an issue with Arabic I don't have such problem. Plus leaving me several messages I just edited a comment. I wonder who you really are Whoah.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the substance your question (leaving rants aside), I have already answered you why the link is not needed.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Asqueladd (talk) The thing about writing is that it leaves a signature of the editor, and this leaving rants aside plus the aggression and the ‘pinging’ remind me of another alias. Time will tell. Melroross (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Melroross. I think 'Asqueladd' is a pretty active account (by most metrics) here. I do not know where did you get the "dormant" bit.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Madrid councillors (2019–2023)


Hello, Asqueladd. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Madrid councillors".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Invite!
Hurricane  Covid  (contribs) 00:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A Coruña
Hello,

I added A Coruña also as a Spanish name (manteining La Coruña too) and you reversed it to match A Coruña as a Galician-only form. I don't agree with your comment "Official name is Galician. That does not mean anything else". In Spanish, A Coruña is the official name and both are used by media and people (talking in Spanish, I insist). I understand your point but, in my opinion, with this change you are giving a wrong idea to English speakers because A Coruña is also a right option to Spanish speakers (and sometimes the best option, in fact).

Thank you, I won't change it again without hearing from you --AvoF (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. It is unnecesary. The official name and bolded one is expected to be used in different registers and languages over the rest of mentioned varieties. Despite that, that does not turn it into a "Spanish name" if for no other thing that sources don't consider it a "Spanish name" (most sources will tell you the Spanish-language name of A Coruña is La Coruña, period). Sometimes it seems that for Wikipedia editors creating convoluted opening statements in Wikipedia is the way. It isn't. The simpler, the better. Btw, I don't think that in Spanish-language casual speech you will hear anyone saying "voy a A Coruña" in Spanish (it is cacophonic), but most of the time "La Coruña", or less frequently "Coruña". Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again, thank you very much for taking the time to explain your point of view to me, but I still have to disagree. Regarding your last point, to me is completely natural and usual say and hear A Coruña in Spanish language casual speech. Of course, in the example you gave ("voy a A Coruña") is very common to say only an "a" ("voy a Coruña"), but you don't have this problem in most sentences such as "soy de A Coruña", "vivo en A Coruña", "nació en A Coruña", etc. Newspapers or any media sources are a good example as they mostly use A Coruña instead of La Coruña, except for those media biased by Spanish nationalist political ideas.


 * I totally agree with keeping it simple but it has to reflect reality too, be correct and avoid subjectivity. Nowadays, A Coruña is definitely and at least one of the Spanish names of the city and the province.


 * Said this, if you consider that "the official name and bolded one is expected to be used in different registers and languages over the rest of mentioned varieties", I'm not arguing that.


 * -Offtopic: I hope that you don't find the conversation agressive or biassed in any way, and sorry if this is not the right way to answer about a topic in Wikipedia (I'm new in this discussions). Thank you again. --AvoF (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is how I interpret the opening: "Bolded name is the most common name in English-language sources and given the following brackets with the Galician-language pronunciation it is implied it comes from Galician and it is also the official one). In order to avoid confusion, we inform you that besides the first and go-to name (which is the official name) you may also find this place rendered as alternative Spanish-language form in Spanish-language sources and, archaically in English-language sources, as archaic English-language name1 and archaic English-language name2". Perhaps an alternative way to accommodate the former without adding cruft to the lead would be rephrasing to "also La Coruña in Spanish", but really, I don't see anything wrong with the current version. I am not really seeing a need for a change.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlos Montero Castiñeira (March 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LJF2019 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carlos Montero Castiñeira and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Carlos Montero Castiñeira, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Carlos_Montero_Casti%C3%B1eira Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LJF2019&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Carlos_Montero_Casti%C3%B1eira reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 LJF2019    talk   09:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sevilla
Why return the article back?? There are many distortions and manipulations with words Xasazx123 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stay calm. I see no such distortions and manipulations with words.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Andalusia
The word "Moor" was an insult given to the Arabs after their entry into Christianity. It is not ethnic. The name of the rulers must be written, not the inhabitants, for example, Judaism or others. The name of the ruling dynasty "Umayyad" was not exist, and instead of it it is written "Moor" must be corrected Kasaxu (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moors is not wrong. It is in fact a vastly used term, if not the term par excellence in historiography (as well as Muslim, depending on context). If a paragraph deals about cultural influences (as for example the case where Berbers and Jews are mentioned) the idea that only a label specific for "rulers" is apt is a particularly silly one. In any case all content (also terminology) should be generally backed from the take of sources, not your opinion. You are not here to right a great wrong. Changes can be discussed on a case-by-case basis, but your black and white stance (a WP:DISRUPTIVE situation) does not hold.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The word Moors was an insult released after the Muslims entered Christianity. It was given to Arabs, Filipinos, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and many others, so this distracts the reader when he reads it. Deleting the name "Umayyads" and calling them "Moors" is considered an insult and a perversion Kasaxu (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because the history of Andalusia was a history of the Kingdom of the Goths and then the Umayyads. As for the Jews, they did not rule, Judaism was a religion that existed before the entry of the Umayyads and after their entry as well, but the history of the rulers must be written, not the population and religions Kasaxu (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, mate. This is boring. I've just taken a look at your edit history and that of the blocked user above Xasazx123 (possibly a relation, huh-hah?) (you are being constantly reverted—and possibly blocked—, that usually happens for a reason), a piece of advice: Wikipedia articles are not a battleground for waging a war on cultural hegemony between the so-called ۞Moorish Movement۞ and the Pan-Arabists. Specific words (Arab, Arabic, Muslim, Islamic, Moor, Moorish, Berber... or even Andalusian) are generally used in specific articles in specific contexts because they are the ones used by sources in specific contexts (although some contexts are more "malleable" or ambivalent than others), and not because they deliberately pick a side in a war. In the case/context we crossed with each other, most sources are actually alien to the "war" mentioned before. You should not edit to make a personal point. If you are not willing to engage on the scholar literature on the topic of a given article, you probably should stay away from editing that given article, certainly so when it comes to replacing the historiographical frame for one of your own, possibly alien to the former. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but names should be clarified, such as "the Umayyads." Nicknames like the word "Moors" have never called by umayyad themselves, and must be article arranged more. Kasaxu (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, stop. As long as your editing and arguments are not source-based (in relation to the topics you edit), as in take a book about X topic and see the treatment about X topic, and then edit accordingly the Wikipedia article about X topic, your slanted edits are going nowhere. Articles are not o be changed every day at the whims, philias and phobias of any editor disregarding a historiographical and source-based approach. While I have presumed good faith so far, I am beginning to think you are not really here to build an encyclopedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the word "moors" and replace it with "Arabs" because the word "moors" was an insult given after they converted to Christianity as what it's wrote here Anti-Arabism Also, this word was given to many different peoples, such as the Filipinos, after they entered Christianity and others, so it must be corrected Kasaxu (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am correcting and do not add additional articles. For example, when "moors conquest of Spain" is written, it must be corrected for "Umayyad conquest of hispania" as well as on the history of Portugal. Some exaggerations such as "all the Muslims of the world". Kasaxu (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I know that I made changes quickly in various articles, but I deleted this word only and corrected it to arabs in the articles because it was insulting. Kasaxu (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I thanked you specifically for succinctly formulating a long-standing beef of mine: PD: I personally feel there is an undue general urge in Wikipedia to fit articles as "polities" (so there is always a sucession of polities, which are often understood as the sole container of historical content for the history of a given country). While there can be a degree of that, there are less rigid frames and the fixation (particularly vis-à-vis the infoboxes) to shoehorn the notion of "former country" is problematic and prone to become a trap of unvoluntary orientalism. As an illustration, just today I stumbled upon an article about a tiny Estonian island of Naissaar, which for a short period in 1917-1918 hosted a soviet commune. The factoid is crowned with a huge infobox claiming that the entity was "preceded" by Soviet Russia and "succeeded" by Ober Ost. What a historic record for a community of under 100 people! No such user (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The Reconquista
OK. Will do (or not do, as the case may be). Thank you for your input. Todos tenemos el mismo objectivo, mejorar Wikipedia, y para mi tambien, aprender algo. Silly-boy-three (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Question
sorry i was so annoying but im catalan and i learned in school that perpignan is like the entrance into the iberian peninsula, i was wondering if u know if this is true or not, because on the wiki site of the iberian peninsula u guys wrote that cerdagne is the only french territory on the iberian peninsula. I was searching on the internet and found articles which were about perpignan being a historical city of iberia. im sorry if im annoying u just know much about our country (i assume ur spanish) thats why i asked u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisosa (talk • contribs)
 * I don't recall you having asked me anything explicitly about Perpignan (you did mention 'bro why u remove all my edits I mean what's wrong with the plazas de soberania they are literally called like that idc about the rest but this is 100% Fact' in an edit summary, tho), but anyways. Iberian Peninsula is a geographical physical term defined by the chunk of Eurasia in between the Pyrenees, the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. That presumably leaves islands, territory in another continent, as well as European land to the "north" of the Pyrenees' mountain line outside the definition. Perpignan (firmly located to the north of the Pyrenees) being part of an Iberian-based polity in the past eventually means nothing vis-à-vis its physical geography, just like the Madeira islands being part of Portugal does not turn them part of the Iberian Peninsula from a physical geography standpoint. In the end, both your purported effort towards "gatekeeping" and an equally "gatekeeper" fine-tuning amendment of it are unnecessary in the lead, which is fine as of now, possibly accepting the mention to the Pyrenees and the seas at most. In reality the French–Spanish border fails to follow the mountain line in other places than the Cerdagne (for example, parts of the Irati watershed lie in France), but those are equally fringe details, certainly not lead-worthy materials.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh thank u very much man appreciate u. So does this mean that this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula#/media/File:Iberia_(orthographic_projection).svg isn't correct? I found it on the Iberian Peninsula wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisosa (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is wrong. I mean, it actually serves its purpose rendered at a low resolution (which is arguably the current case in the infobox), but a closer look just reveals the map is inaccurate. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean it aint that wrong the line was made different it was formed like u actually form an border of an peninsula. they marked it like this because that's where the form of the peninsula starts I mean if u would ignore the fact with the Pyrenees this would be correct but I guess its a special case with the Iberian Peninsula. class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisosa (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Here an example u know the real way to form a border of a peninsula is to mark the both points where the peninsula is start forming itself away from the mainland here an example with the Scandinavian Peninsula https://drive.google.com/file/d/17EZOPJr32DsoG2ab5upIMZps7-abUhwG/view?usp=sharing

if u look now at the one of Iberia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula#/media/File:Iberia_(orthographic_projection).svg u can see that Perpignan is the city bordering the line of the peninsula to the mainland of France. I think that's why we learned it like this in school prolly because geographical this is the border line. im pretty sure cause if search on the internet how to finde the absolute line-border of a peninsula u will read the same.
 * Look, mate. The conventional definition of the Iberian Peninsula stresses the Pyrenees as separation line of Iberia from the rest of continental Europe (not different to the way the Indian subcontinent is sometimes defined as a peninsular chunk of South Asia, even if there is no actual isthmus, or the way the Italian Peninsula is often defined in terms of the Alps as separation line instead of taking an isthmus as reference). Period. If you have quality sources establishing an alternative separation line—the isthmus line—then for all means, present those sources in the talk page. While I warn you that it is unlikely to change the lede or the basic definition, accounting for the shortest distance between water bodies in the geography section could be interesting. If you are here only for Perpignan, please take a deep breath, and reflect on it.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
How kind of you! Thanks 😅 --Goldorak (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Irati Forest
Hey man I wanted to ask u some :) On the French Version of article about the Iberian Peninsula they have more French territory on the Iberian peninsula included. They wrote that there are several French territories on the Iberian Peninsula, the biggest are the French Cerdagne (which we already included in the English version) and the Irati Forest which is a big forest area on the spanish side of the pyrenees. I wanted to ask u if we should include this territory or not. The area of the Irati Forest is about 173 km2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisosa (talk • contribs)
 * Yep, I did tell you that a small part of the Irati watershed lies on France. But anyways, we should not rush as we have not holistic sources so far, and this is too fringe to affect the concept in the essential (i.e: small part of Southern continental France remains true). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh ok i thx for the answer :) but its right that the French Cerdagne is on peninsula right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisosa (talk • contribs)
 * That's my understanding, yes. My main concern is that if you look at the article the French small element of the Iberian Peninsula does not really affect most of the article's content in a meaningful way. If you've got quality secondary sources delineating the nuances of the "border" of the Pyrenees and use them to clarify some points in the "geography" section, we can work on that. Also possibly in the table about modern day countries (the surface), but I should warn you that the table looks like original research, either in its current form or with the changes you are proposing. But that's pretty much all the relevant sections. Regarding the rest of sections, it is—as per how the sources handle the content—non-relevant to WP:UNDUE at best. If we don't have the quality (holistic) reliable sources on the Iberian Peninsula as a whole pointing those issues, I would not worry too much, really .--Asqueladd (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Asqueladd

Thank you for creating Sancho Jiménez.

User:MarioGom, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MarioGom (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

French conquest of morocco
Hello Hi can I make a simple request if possible to increase the article(French conquest of morocco) add valuable information to it. It's a bit miscorrect. In the belligerent morocco was on the opposing side until 1912 then was on France side. And there is many commander and leaders of the Moroccan side missing for example Bombardement of casablanca(1907) you can clearly see the Moroccan leaders and leaders Abdullah zakour and Ahmed alhiba missing as well. Alooypasha (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am a particularly "able hand" in that regard. If you think the infobox of the article "French conquest of Morocco" (which I do not recall to have edited it before) features misleading information, I advise you to read WP:DISINFOBOX, elaborate a rationale about how to trim or change information and explain it in the article's talk page, seeking consensus to go forward. In general, I personally favour a trimming from convoluted details or simply removing the infobox all together. In any case, if you decide to follow the advice, I'll see how the discussion develops, but I am no certain to participate at all.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly I change it but there is always this one person that deletes the change and says a sock of rayooni. I add information he just removes them Alooypasha (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I recommend you to go to the talk page before editing the article (which it does not seem to have been edited by your registered account either...). Old versions (predating an editorial conflict) are usually favoured as stable versions. Regarding the latter, I am not familiar with "rayooni" and thus and I am not able to determine if you fit a profile as potential sock of rayooni.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Francisco Franco
Hi there, so recently there has been a dispute in the Franco article, a user has removed the Fascist-related categories on the Franco article, but didn't seek consensus for it:



Of course there is controversy about whether or not Franco and his regime were fascist, but I do believe it is appropriate to at least seek consensus before making this change, I did request for the categories to be reinstated, was successful at first (but then he quickly reverted), and failed the next time.

I would like to know what is your opinion on this subject. -- 2804:248:f632:a100:f189:5f57:b5df:b286 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think that a particular user (not unknown to me) is clearly misrepresenting the scholar take on some issues (even misrepresenting the take of some authors to score points in the talk page, regarding works by "Payne" on Spanish Fascism please read ). The mention stating that "there is an increasingly widespread consensus that Francoism was never really fascism" is somewhat egregious (please read for the presentation of the ruckus in academia, including the latest developments). If you want sources and are able to read Spanish Here you have a discussion about that issue. And here you have a whole monography on Francoism (coming from a political and sociopolitical approach), including the work on the historiography of the classification of Francoism by Sanz Hoya. Otherwise I also recommend you works by authors such as Ismael Saz or Ángel Alcalde with plenty of in-depth research about francoism. I also think that, at some point, the article you mention was going down to the hagiographic path. That said, the fact that the discussion seemingly revolves around a frigging Wikipedia category (!) rather than around actual content comes across as somewhat frustrating and boring. The Wikipedia treatment on the issue is poor, although the best place to improve Wikipedia vis-à-vis the nature of the regime is a robust improvement of the article "Francoist Spain" rather than the article about "Francisco Franco", which should be primarily about the man himself. Other options are somewhat analogous to starting to build the house from the roof, as people say in Spain. I do not know if I was helpful. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, I was planning to add some sources who considered Franco to be fascist on the article and restore the categories, unfortunately the article is now permanently semi-protected, so I can't do that anymore. -- 2804:248:f632:a100:cc6f:97c1:8cf3:c422 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I advice you not to be impressed by users bringing an alleged scholar consensus who fail to bring meta-sources outlining the historiography on the matter. This article on the very crux we are talking about is also very thought-provoking. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I advice you not to be impressed by users bringing an alleged scholar consensus who fail to bring meta-sources outlining the historiography on the matter. This article on the very crux we are talking about is also very thought-provoking. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve El Capitán Trueno y el Santo Grial
Hello, Asqueladd,

Thank you for creating El Capitán Trueno y el Santo Grial.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

""lousy reviews" is an informal expression."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Salimfadhley (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think that "dismal" can be better a translation than "lousy" for sourced term "pésimas" (that is, according to the RAE: "something that is extraordinarily bad or can be no worse, especially as regards the quality or quality of a thing or person")? Keep in mind we are talking about "the biggest fiasco of Spanish cinema".--Asqueladd (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have write in generalities, you could say that a film was "poorly received by critics" or "got negative reviews". The word dismal implies causing dismay, which seems too strong an emotion for a visual art.
 * I think it would be better to summarize what the critics actually said about the movie, and give translations of specific statements they made. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should we summarize by ourselves? We've already got third party sources summarizing the reviews: El estreno tuvo lugar el 7 de octubre de 2011, con críticas horrendas. (literally: the premiere took place on October 7, 2011, with horrendous reviews.), En nada ayudaron las pésimas críticas que recibió (The lousy reviews it received did not help in any way), "Nefastas y sangrantes críticas", "Público y crítica han dedicado sus peores adjetivos a la película" (literally: "Nefarious and bleeding reviews", "Public and critics have dedicated their worst adjectives to the film") . --Asqueladd (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You reverted some basic English grammar mistakes — probably for lack of proper knowledge
I understand you are zealous about imposing a certain ideological narrative on Wikipedia, but your reversions of Federico Jimenez Losantos’ file involved removing a series of basic English grammar corrections that had been made to the article, thus considerably worsening the quality of such article. Chupanaranjas (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are hijacking sources. Don't do that. Yeah, sure, there was some copyediting: I'll take that beating. I will recover those changes insofar they do not contradict the cited reliable sources nor violates MOS:TERRORIST while providing misleading edit summaries, blatant cases of WP:DISRUPTIVE and POV-driven editing (or "lack of proper knowledge"), which is what you were primarily doing. And vis-à-vis the rest of your comment, perhaps a reflection on a possible case of projection is timely.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Undercover Wedding Crashers
H, thanks for creating this article. If possible can you please add a reception section with referenced details of reviews of the film, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I can. Can you check the section for copyediting and so on? Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for improving the article. The section is very good and doesn't need copyediting. I've upgraded the article to C class (it could be B class but I don't do lengthy assesments for B class and above), regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Asqueladd, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AAsqueladd added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- TNT (talk • she/they) 06:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Francoism
Hello, Im Carmallola and I saw that yesterday you undid the modifications I made in the Fancoist Spain page. I'm sorry if I didn't referred right, I'm new, but if you read the deleted text you'll find the references to two recent books, one of them of Paul Preston. I assume that this author has enough prestige for to be accepted in the Wikipedia. Please, let's discuss about to place the info again, but right referred. 93.176.142.178 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You need to do it much better. You need to make inline citations (via ), you need to remove your personal remarks ("Anyway"... "(same as the National-Socialist ideology: to use work as a means to exploit and subjugate nations), "always understood as Castilian", etc, etc...). Et al. Regarding the referencing, please visit Help:Referencing for beginners. The English could be much improved ("Anyway, cannot be underestimated the previous basis influence", "if it is wantes a prosperous" what does this even mean?), although I am perhaps not the most qualified user to make such judgement, as I am no native speaker. Otherwise, shall we remove the whole text from its WP:POVish nature and improve on the sourcing, the text would still be heavily slanted towards or centered around the plight of Catalonia, as if the Civil War or Francoist Spain revolved around Catalonia or whatnot, that's a bias too (WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP). Perhaps (I wonder), you wanted to make a point so hard that you missed that you were straying off-topic. To be frank, I think you have tried in good faith to do something like a presentation of how "the other" was built in the Spanish civil war on the side of the rebel faction (a perfectly valid topic, although the best venue to do it in Wikipedia is not the article 'Francoist Spain', but possibly Rebel faction), but it is getting on you and you are inserting your personal opinions, and a misaligned framing of the issue displaying a Catalan-centric bias.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments and suggests. I fully agree the need of improving the reference work as well as language expression. Regarding the subject itself, what I try to describe is the content of the two referred new books, that places a very new vision of the civil war, not as a simply "civil war" instead as something much bigger, with etnic implications, where Catalonia has very important rule. Anyway, as I think that I'll not be able to express it correctly in english, I'll let the info arrives to GB, the USA, etc., where I assume other people with better language capacities will do the task. By the way, please, I'm so sorry but I also placed this info (a little improved) in two pages more, the White terror and Francoist Catalonia. Please, feel free to erase. Many thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmallola (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discourage you, but you need to do it much better, as mentioned above. For starters you need to source every single line and trim it from ANY personal consideration, in addition to staying in topic. Perhaps 'Francoist Spain' was a too ambitious venue. If you actually wanted to develop how the Rebel side saw the "other" (the "Anti-Spain", where in addition to "reds" and "masons" possibly some sources also laterally mention "Catalans", or "Separatists" in general) I would start in the article Rebel faction, dissecting the framing of the Spanish Civil War as a colonial war by elements of the Rebel side. This is the most clear feature of dehumanization of the rival and I think you may find multiple quality sources about it. This could trace back of course to the War in Africa from the 1910 and 1920s, the parallel growth of far-right militarism and the Spanish Legion, and I think Sebastian Balfour has dealt with it in the African context (and possibly Preston in the Spanish Civil War, now that you mention him) as well as connected it to the later civil war (necessary in order to avoid original research). The eugenic framing (not related to the whole Rebel faction) is also possibly worthy of mention, depending on sources. Happy New Year, btw :)--Asqueladd (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again. Only a last subject with no intention to loose into bizantian requests. I want to comment that upon new info it was an etnic - eugenic framing, but differently from nazi regime, the francoism has a lot of years to clear the trail. But it still remains the newspaper news, and in this sense to remember, for instance that in an interview in an Italian newspaper, Franco described that the war had as its objective "to save the Homeland that was sinking in the sea of racial dissociation and degeneration." It is also worth remembering that the rebel holder Gonzalo de Aguilera, in 1937, affirmed to a journalist: "Now I hope you understand what we mean by the regeneration of Spain ... Our program consists of exterminating a third of the Spanish male population ...". Happy new year also for you, I hope that this 2022 we all can return to normal live.
 * Well, you cannot stop here! You have the article Gonzalo de Aguilera Munro to insert some juicy quote, such as that one. Start there, mate and don't give up yet. If you nail that perhaps you'll end up mastering the edition of more general articles. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can read Spanish, this is a quite interesting article (and potential source) about what we are discussing: .--Asqueladd (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Falange Española
Hi there. In this edit, you say "unwarranted, not sourced"; I must beg to differ, as it says in the article "The Falange Española was created on 29 October 1933 as the successor of the Movimiento Español Sindicalista (MES), a similar organization founded earlier in 1933...In February 1934, after poor results at the ballots in the 1933 election, José Antonio Primo de Rivera suggested a fusion of Falange Española with the Ramiro Ledesma's Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, which was approved on 15 February." ('Sindicalista' referring to syndicalism ofc). As well as this, under the ideology we have 'National Syndicalism'. All those claims are backed up by sources in the body. Would you explain why this doesn't constitute a syndicalist party? Alssa1 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is textbook original research and haphazard categorization worsens the quality of the encyclopedia. If reliable sources do not discuss that party within a given ideology (btw, I am sceptical the other organization is discussed as such either, name notwithstanding), simply don't insert a category because of connections you can make. I assure you sources I have read about that party do not discuss that party as belonging to a movement called syndicalism characterized for trying to "advance the workers' rights" by means of strikes (at odds with having a harmonicist understanding of worker-employer relations). Insofar you are not willing to commit to sourced content in the body, please refrain from that kind of edits. Discussing about content below that bare minimum is a waste of time.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How can it be considered original research? I am applying a category to a party defined as syndicalist by the sources within the page. The page says (supported by references) it was formed as a successor to Movimiento Español Sindicalista (Spanish Syndicalist Movement) and that it eventually united with Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (Councils of National-Syndicalist Offensive). Instead of giving assurances, would you kindly provide the sources that justify the claim? Also what's the source of your definition of syndicalism? Alssa1 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me phrase it slightly different: If reliable sources do not discuss that party within a given ideology, simply don't insert a category because of connections you can make, because those connections are (your) original research. Really mate, discussing an article while failing to commit on the treatment of the topic on reliable sources is a waste of time. Suffice to say that it is not something I am interested to do.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then a couple of things: 1.) It isn't original research, the guidance doesn't make any such claim about categories and ideologies. As stated in my first comment: "The Falange Española was created on 29 October 1933 as the successor of the Movimiento Español Sindicalista (MES), a similar organization founded earlier in 1933...In February 1934, after poor results at the ballots in the 1933 election, José Antonio Primo de Rivera suggested a fusion of Falange Española with the Ramiro Ledesma's Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, which was approved on 15 February." ('Sindicalista' referring to syndicalism ofc). As well as this, under the ideology we have 'National Syndicalism'. All those claims are backed up by sources in the body." Everything there is backed up by the sources on the page. 2.) The category is about syndicalist political parties, given the fact that they identified themselves as syndicalist, the sources on the page point out that they were syndicalist, and the ideology (which I had no involvement in adding to the page) declares them to be 'National syndicalist'. So your rather odd declaration that my amendment was "unreferenced" is objectively not true, and a bit rich given your use of an unsourced definition of syndicalism earlier. Alssa1 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything there is backed up by the sources on the page. No mate, no. You have reliable and scholar secondary sources about that organization already cited in the article. If they don't justify the categorization (I have told you they don't, but you can check for yourself, if this were a matter of trust), you can look for other reliable and scholar secondary sources about that organization. If you only have your connections or sources not dealing explicitly about that organization, we are going back to square one: you are pulling bad original research.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

About the other instance of décimo
Hello my friend, I hope all is well with you. I am glad an editor with your deep knowledge of Spanish history is watching the Columbus page, and your edits are appreciated, as always. Should I change the other instance of décimo in the phrase "The gold was his tenth (décimo) of the profits from Hispaniola" to diezmo per your remarks? Regards, Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! It is ok, I mean, if the source mentions it, the inclusion falls on your best judgement. Anyways, I've read in some of the sources that, at some point, he also (unsucessfully) laid a claim to a "tercio" (I have yet to fully grasp of what exactly) in addition to the diezmo and the ochavo.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, since Armas uses the term I'll leave it for now and see what else I find. That's interesting about the tercio. Let me know what you come up with, or I guess I'll see it in the article.;-) Thanks, Carlstak (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Susana Abaitua
Can you please explain how are the new categories "unjustified"? Was she born in Vitoria-Gasteiz? Yes, she was. Is she, therefore, an actress from the Basque Country? Yes, she is. There is no controversy here. - Darwinek (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please take a look at what I have removed from your edit (and what not). Then, if you still have doubts, you can ask for further explanation. I will remind you then that categories need to be justified inline, and that that is not the case with the removed category so far. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I thought you undid the whole revision. All is clear now. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I do not know if she has performed in the Basque language. Perhaps she did. Besides the lack of an explicit mention to that, note that while there are some Basque-related shows (otherwise featuring Spanish as the primary language, such as Una bala para el rey or Patria), there is not a single primarily Basque-language show nor film mentioned in her filmography (correct me if I am wrong). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Valladolid no es capital de nada.
Deja ya de molestar y cambiar los artículos, valladolid no es capital de nada, ni de facto ni de nada, mírate la ley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetoIII (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, at the bare minimun, the de facto capital (practices that exist in reality, whether or not they are not officially recognized by laws or other formal norms), which is what the infobox asserts. It is also the de jure seat of the main self-government institutions (thus arguably also the de jure capital, the "de facto de jure capital" [sic] if you wish, haha although the infobox does not account for this).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No es capital de facto, varios órganos de gobierno están en otras provincias, nadie reconoce a pucela como capital y por supuesto NUNCA lo será.
 * ¿Que quieres decir con haha??? otra mas y te reporto. LetoIII (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand what de facto means. In any case, for all means, open a talk page thread if you wish. But please stick to English there.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)