User talk:Asqueladd/Archive009

__NOINDEX__

Mediterraneo: The Law of the Sea: was filmed in Lesvos
Mediterraneo: The Law of the Sea: was filmed in Lesvos why did you revert it? Tzim78 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it is not currently sourced in the article. Categorization of articles must be verifiable. Read WP:CATVER for more information. We may say it is set in Lesbos (as per the plot section), not shot in Lesbos.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank You, Ok.Tzim78 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Expanded Spain Formation
Tartessos existence is factual and backed up by archeological discoveries, the correspondent wikipedia page states it in the first paragraph. Having cleared up that misunderstanding, are there any other points on your part about the expansion, or is it ok to add it now? It's the same one many other countries have on their pages. --(talk) 19:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Tartessos has nothing to do with nationalism, and it is the first stablished kingdom/state in spain. That's fact. If you have no knowledge in the matter, don't corroborate your points, or bother to check if your are right with a quick google search, please refrain from boicoting the good faith additions of other editors. I can go to the talk page, but at least let me add the expanded formation again and see if there is anyone apart from you in opposition to it. Again, it's exactly the same formar the Germany page and dozens other have for their formation section, there is no reason for Spain to not have it too when it's only informing more the reader and providing more factual information. I don't think all those dozens of pages have "irrelevant" formation info as you do, and the rest of wikipedia seem to agree --(talk) 20:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How? It is the earliest and biggest iberian entity. Iberian traditions are still present today. I can't understand how it can't be included in the formation. But I'll remove it, and see if the other editors are ok with the rest of the expanded formation. Now that I took in your biggest concern, can you let the edit be until someone else raises a point? About Germany (and Tunisia, etc), what I'm talking about is that their wikis have the exact same formation structure I'm trying to implement in the Spain page, a expanded one with more factual info --(talk) 21:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Se que entiendes español...
.....si no dejas que pongamos las fuentes ¿cómo vamos a demostrar que el nombre es Monumento a Colón? ....pediré ayuda a administradores si es necesario, pero quien no puede revertir eres tú sin dejar que pongamos las fuentes. El monumento es a Colón desde antes de su creación tal como indican las fuentes. Saludos, MiguelAngel fotografo (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * y yo te voy a incluir 5, 6 o 7 fuentes que demuestran que es Monumento a Colón, tanto en Inglés como en español ¿o solo va a servir la que tu digas? MiguelAngel fotografo (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Xtreme and Centauro
Well, IMDb says those movies involve a Colombian drug cartel, and it looks like it, so... Ebb1993 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well. I don't care about what IMDb says because IMDb is not a reliable source to begin with. 2) Categorization of articles should abide to WP:CATVER anyways.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But the villains in Colombiana (2011) and Code of Silence (1985) were a Colombian drug cartel, right? Can those slide? Ebb1993 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't recall having edited those articles? What is it about them? Upon a non-exhaustive examination of the Wikipedia articles about those films, I see a plausible case for WP:CATVER in Colombiana, not in the current version of Code of Silence.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind. But the villains clearly are Colombian, so... Ebb1993 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what are you talking about. No character is depicted as a Colombian cartel member neither in Xtremes nor in Centauros articles. What is so difficult to grasp about how Wikipedia works?--Asqueladd (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Jude Bellingham
In what way is my edit puffery? I understand English isn’t your first language but this shouldn’t stop you from understanding what I’ve just said. This follows the same pattern for other players. Unbelievable AtishT20 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Describing an edit as puffery does not make it so. Also attribution is not the right word to use. AtishT20 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Answered in your talk page.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Spain
The official INE (Spain) source itself made an additional question for all of those who replied as Catholic, mentioned in the Religion in Spain wikipage as well. Practising or Not Practising equals not attending to mass/church just as mentioned in the source, but they are still identified as Catholic. Eitherwise they would reply as Agnostic, Atheist or No Religion.

If you see, the INE is basically the only one in Europe making that question, as in all of the other <> wikipages, it's simplified, just in Spain it was different before the edit I have done. That's not WP:SYNTH because I'm not using 2 different sources to prove a point just as I'm not writing data that's not mentioned in the source. XXX Catholic and YYY Catholic means Catholic.

I hope you will understand it now. If not, feel free to reply here in this conversation in your talk page, as you are the user who made the first revert. Good night. Pfarla (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello ! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Sent by using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Campo de Calatrava
Hi Asqueladd. You added a reference for "Rodríguez-Picavea Matilla 1999" to Campo de Calatrava, but that's not defined in the article. Is this referring to "Calatrava. Una villa en la frontera castellano-andalusí"? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. thanks for the heads up.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Asqueladd. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

CN in header
It seems to have been resolved, but for future reference note that template transclusions, like cn, should not be placed in headers (→MOS:HEAD). A solution would've been a section template below (Disputed section, More citations needed section, Not verified|section, etc, also including the parameter: reason=). RN1970 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Itziar Castro
You utterly missed my point. If you revert my edit, you have to wipe out the whole table, because it was imported wholly from the same source: the table in the Spanish article. Go there and look. See it? It's all or nothing. Your call.

By the way, your userpage calls you a "pretentious twat". I do hope you know what that means (it cannot be meant kindly). Kelisi (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Languages of Spain
In the article "Languages of Spain" I think that we cannot put Darija, Tarifit, Eonavian, Extremaduran, Fala, Erromintxela, Extremaduran and Portuguese in the same level as Asturian and Aragonese.

The main reason, is that the first languages I´ve mentioned had not recognition, but on the other side, Aragonese has an entire law to protect  {{Source: https://www.boe.es/eli/es-ar/l/2013/05/09/3)} } and the same case with Asturian,  and updated in 2022.

The reasoning of this comment is that the Asturian and the Aragonese languages are allowed in the Congress of Deputies with self-translation, and with the laws the languages can be used in the public administration and in the government institutions. The consideration of "lengua propia" could be similar as a "semi-official" status in some way. There are also official certifications for both languages and some TV shows on public television in both languages.

There is also a plan for education for both Aragonese and Asturian, but in this case the article considers them as "regional languages" (the same with Silbo gomero.

With this debate opened, I think the most "correct" way to classify the languages is regional only for Aragonese, Asturian and Silbo Gomero and the rest to the category of "minority", since they are not even recognized and cannot be used in the public administration. Nevertheless, the "protected language-lengua propia category" it´s in the middle between the officiality and not-official.

Delriooo (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can put them all in the basket of unofficial languages, as neither of them are official languages. I do not know what a "semi-official" language is, but if sources do not use the term to describe the statuses of those languages, I am afraid that we shouldn't do it ourselves. You can use secondary (not primary) sources to detail nuances about the status of each language in a "language policy" section.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect, it was just the minority-regional-semi-official only thanks :) Delriooo (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you are trying to highlight two languages to the detriment of the rest by making haphazard splits in the infobox. Basically, that you care more about highlighting a less disprivileged status for those two languages than about being transparent about what regional means. I insist that the current infobox is not the place for such venture.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, because I have sources, and the main reason is this chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ https://rm.coe.int/ecrml-educational-toolkit-es/1680973273
 * The minority languages document signed by Spain. If you read it, every other language is on here. Despite of that, Asturian, Silbo Gomero and Aragonese are REGIONAL because they have recognition on it´s region on the statute of autonomy. I mean you can think what you wish, but I don´t think it´s objective treating the languages that don´t have any source of recognition and there are really localised in the same way as these. I´m not a nationalist or anything, I only descrive the situation Delriooo (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I add the sources, if you don´t see it correct change it and I on´t argue more, but let me put soruces please Delriooo (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You are providing sources for what? What languages do you claim are not regional? I see now a source cited bringing the set formed by "Amazigh, Ceutan Arabic, Aragonese, Aranese, Asturian, Basque, Caló, Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Portuguese" as minority languages. In addition the document only cites one of them as a non-territorialised language (Caló), whereas the rest have one or more territories assigned (i.e: you have to be intellectually dishonest to use that source to claim that those are not regional languages.). Let me be clear, regional language is not legalese jargon, it is a descriptive term which describes languages "spoken in a region of a sovereign state, whether it be a small area, a federated state or province or some wider area". All the languages of the set (with the exception of Caló) seem to be exactly instances of that.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I understand. Sorry for making you waste your time :( Delriooo (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Lay off the sarcasm and the personal invective
Your edit summary in the Ramiro Ledesma Ramos article addressed to me ("Did you care to read cited source or you just worded the statement the way you liked it more regardless of what the source says and how it says it?") is unacceptable. If you believe I quoted inaccurately the cited text, all you have to do in the edit summary is report simply that, the inaccuracy. What you did, instead, was engage in sarcasm and invective, which are explicitly unacceptable in Wikipedia. I'd suggest you view other editors' contributions with good faith for what they are: possibly fallible. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. As far as the specific Ledesma appellation is concerned, copying verbatim one single source's text, when the source is used for an assessment, is neither an obligation nor proper encyclopaeidic practice. If it were, one could use with impunity, for example, one Lenin text to post up an assessment of western democracy or one Pino Rauti text for an assessment of NAR. We're supposed to strive for a balanced presentation - with particular care in controversial issues such as the Spanish Civil War. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do believe your edit was no improvement on that point and I suspect you did not check the source (which you apparently did not). I also think that failing to account for what sources state is not a balanced presentation. Feel free to look for other sources telling other things. Barring that, I suggest you shouldn't be substantially altering the content of articles on a no-source basis. If you have problems with a given source, lay them off on the talk page, but do not misrepresent the source. I am unsure about what's controversial about the concept of Francoist propaganda, to be honest.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just lay off the sarcasm and the invective, as you just did in this response, and everything will work out one way or another. About the specific citation, I shall return. And I called 'controversial' the Spanish Civil War itself, in the context of editors making balanced presentations in controversial issues; not "Francoist propaganda." -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat that in order to substantially alter sourced content, you are required to look for other sources. If you have problems with a given source, lay them off on the talk page, but do not misrepresent the cited source. That is not sarcasm, that's the best advice I can give you on Wikipedia editing. I am not willing to engage on non-source based discussions about what you or me may know about Ramiro Ledesma, let alone about Lenin, Pino Rauti, or the NAR.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. The "best advice" you can give, irrespective of its correctness, is not the sarcasm of "Did you care to read cited source or you just worded the statement the way you liked it more regardless of what the source says and how it says it?", but the plain wording you only now used, i.e. "If you have problems with a given source, lay them off on the talk page, but do not misrepresent the cited source," etc. For the last time, then, you have been in violation of the explicit Wikipedia policy that editors behave here in a civil manner and without personal attacks. Get with the program. -The Gnome (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I recall having told you that the best advice I can give you on Wikipedia editing is the [the plain wording] "that in order to substantially alter sourced content, you are required to look for other sources" & "If you have problems with a given source, lay them off on the talk page, but do not misrepresent the cited source,", so apparently, moving forward, we are not in disagreement here as per your most recent words.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)