User talk:Jmgonzalez

Gipuzkoa
I notice that the Gipuzkoa article has gone through a number of title changes without discussion. I had always seen the name as Guipuscoa in English publications, prior to 2000. See the 800 or so hits in Google books. I suspect that Gipuzkoa is closer to the original Basque pronunciation, but is there a reason that we are not using the common English spelling in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions? I notice that in April 2006 you favored Guipúzcoa-–Bejnar 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is the place to discuss it. Please forgive me if not.
 * "Gipuzkoa" isn't "close to pronunciation". It's the correct and official spelling.
 * It's written there in the article even, "Guipúzcoa (Spanish) or Gipuzkoa (Basque and official)"
 * As you mentioned pronounciation, it's exactly pronounced the same in spanish, english or basque. That's because "gi" spelling in basque is pronounced just like "gui" in "guitar".
 * You'll find more information here on the correct spanish province names, if you can read spanish (I guess so): http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincias_de_España
 * My intention was to provide consistency and directing all links by default to official names. I was completely sure
 * Gerona (spanish name) was redireted to Girona (catalan and official name), but now I see that one it's not either, so it's a bit confusing.
 * I'd say either change all or none. My intention was to change redirection to official names only, not contents, since both Guipúzcoa and Gipuzkoa are correct spellings otherwise (afaik the law proposal to make Guipúzcoa legally incorrect was never approved)
 * I hope you redo all these changes, since it took me some time doing all those fixes. Thanks in advance.
 * I can't comment on the english spelling, since each country got variations on how they spell other country/town names.
 * 87.223.198.249 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)unai
 * I'd say either change all or none. My intention was to change redirection to official names only, not contents, since both Guipúzcoa and Gipuzkoa are correct spellings otherwise (afaik the law proposal to make Guipúzcoa legally incorrect was never approved)
 * I hope you redo all these changes, since it took me some time doing all those fixes. Thanks in advance.
 * I can't comment on the english spelling, since each country got variations on how they spell other country/town names.
 * 87.223.198.249 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)unai
 * I can't comment on the english spelling, since each country got variations on how they spell other country/town names.
 * 87.223.198.249 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)unai
 * 87.223.198.249 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)unai
 * 87.223.198.249 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)unai


 * Hi, This is not the proper place to discuss such a move. You may want to try the [discussion page for Guipúzcoa]. Also, I'd suggest you register first. It gives you credibility and ensures you won't change your ID when your ISP changes your IP address. Regards, Jmgonzalez (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Antoni Maura
Besides of the translation of his name, Antoni Maura was from Mallorca and his name must be written in catalan. Here you have some references: Paucabot 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IES Antoni Maura
 * Fundació Antoni Maura de Balears
 * Antoni Maura, fill il·lustre de Mallorca.
 * I do know the translation of the name is very extended as he was the prime minister of Spain (a country not very respectuous with language minorities), but the name must be in catalan because this was his native language. Furthermore, spanish is spoken in Mallorca, but it's not the own language of the island. Paucabot 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues
I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Acroforms
It would seem to me that acroforms themselves do not necessarily justify a page of their own - the detail given could easily be included within the PDF page - or, if you prefer, the Adobe LiveCycle Designer page - as this is the only page linked to acroforms. Quoting from the white paper which is the only reference given in the acroforms article
 * Acroforms are PDF files that contain form fields....Internally Acroforms are annotations or fields applied to a PDF document.... The Acroform itself can be created with Adobe Acrobat 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x....

All this would seem to indicate that, whilst not a major component of PDF files, they are implemented as modifications to the PDF document structure itself, and therefore I would suggest liable to be covered in the PDF document.

Of course, that's just my opinion - you're welcome to disagree :-) CultureDrone (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Audiovisual Sports
The article Audiovisual Sports has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply, something I needed to take care of. Audiovisual Sport is restored- if it is mentioned in such reliable sources, could you please cite them in the article? J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Gipuzkoa
Hi, I read some of the discussion revolving around the name for this Basque region. I've got strong views about this issue and other Basque place-names, I must admit, and in my articles no doubt Gipuzkoa is always used, I being from Gipuzkoa myself. The official name is Gipuzkoa decided by the Gipuzkoan institutions, I don't see why in English the name has to pay tribute to Spanish, when the original is handy. Guipúzcoa might have been more used in English (or is it Guipuscoa?), but so was Rhodesia in Africa until it was changed to Zimbabwe. OK the example is not identical but is not far-fetched.

I think the very name of the article is incorrect and is felt as strange by many in our context. Admittedly, the Spanish Real Academia prefers Guipúzcoa, but besides applying only to the Spanish spelling, it is but another issue of political background in which Spanish institutions want to overturn legitimate decisions made in Basque territory or want to impose their views (...).

If someone typed Guipúzcoa, it could be easily redirected. However, presently it is not the case, since the article's heading is Guipúzcoa. May I say, the Spanish accent doesn't make sense nor in English neither in Basque. In addition, Gipuzkoa sticks better to the phonetics.

Finally in the event that no agreement is reached, I expect that the original writing will always be respected, even in this case. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Just seen your remarks on my talk. Yes, I answered on your talk because of your comment on my talk. I should point out that definitely I'm not going to use the "Guipúzcoa" name on my articles (not writing in Spanish), names have their development and I think this is the case. We are not talking about big names of geography and I find irrelevant the historic use of the province's name, as English has just mimicked the Spanish language's behaviour (devoid of another reference as it was). Anyway, you're right, this is not the place to elaborate on this.Iñaki LL (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Il sorpasso (economics)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Il sorpasso (economics), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Il sorpasso (economics). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

José Antonio Rodríguez López
Please add your sources when creating articles. Especially for BLPs. Rettetast (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jmgonzalez! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Julio Prieto Martín -
 * 2) José Antonio Rodríguez López -
 * 3) María Dolores Pradera -

Proposed deletion of FullMAC


The article FullMAC has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable technical terminology. No independent refs.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of FullMAC for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FullMAC is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/FullMAC until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OpenBSC, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BTS and BSC. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Agustín Eizaguirre for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Agustín Eizaguirre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Agustín Eizaguirre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. BrigadierG (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)