User talk:Ravenloft

Cantabrian folklore
A ver, si eres asturianu no me hables en inglés, por favor. Aunque la verdad es que lo dudo leyendo lo que leo, pq para ser vecino desconoces bastante Cantabria y personalmente me resulta una gran ofensa, por ser suave, que llames a la mitología cántabra "influencias de la mitología asturiana en el folclore de Cantabria". Como veo que lo desconoces, Cantabria tiene sus propios mitos, lo que pasa es que al ser zonas limítrofes comparten su origen celta-romano-cristiano y algunos como son el nuberu, el culebre, los ventolines o el trasgu y me he servido de las entradas ya creadas para Asturias para incluirlas y comenzar a editar por ahí. Porque si me dices que la osa d'Andara, el ojáncanu, el trenti, el trastolillu, la ijana d'Aras, el hombre pez, el cuegle, l'arquetu, los cuínes, el sol de los muertos, los mengues, la sirenuca de Castru, etc son mitos asturianos... Así que te pediría amablemente que retirases tal petición de borrado, que dejes de lado esa visión subordinada de mi cultura respecto a la tuya, que al fin y al cabo son una transición de la misma, y que procures informarte y conocer antes de ver mala fe en los actos de los demás. (Otra opción es dejar la categoría mitología de Cantabria, y hacer referencia a las "influencias de la mitología cántabra en el folclore asturiano", pero no creo que te agrade :D). Un saludo --Uhanu 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Uhanu. First of all, my apologies for talking in english, this is the english Wikipedia and I like to express myself in the appropiate language so everybody, visitors, users and admins, can understand what I'm saying. (If you have any problem with it, just say it and I'll translate the following to spanish or asturian with pleasure)


 * Secondly, I suggest you to not get offendend at a personal level by this kind of bureucratic stuff that happens all the time around here. Please, don't get my acts wrong, I feel a lot of sympathy and respect for Cantabria, and for the remains of the pagan-christian Astur and Cantabrian mythology in modern folklore, even more when both share so many common roots. In fact I am a little expert in Cantabrian mithology as much in Asturian. I have no personal problem with Cantabrian folklore but just the opposite, I love it. That said, the problem is a bureucratic one: you can't create a new category in wikipedia that only features articles of another category, it's a simple rule and an easy one to understand. And it's a fact the articles you firstly listed as part of that new category weren't talking about ojáncanos, or ijanas d'Aras, they were Asturian mythology articles about asturian myths that did have a huge impact on Cantabrian folklore, and that's a fact. You should not consider yourself to be offended because of it.


 * Understand that: If someone would have created an Asturian mythology category featuring only already existing articles about "mengues" or "sirenuques de castru", articles that already belonged to the Cantabrian mythology category, I would propose that new Asturian mythology category to be deleted, and I think it's quite easy to understand why. I think you would also agree to do so.
 * To create a bunch of new stubs and a main article for the category the day after the category was proposed to be deleted, just to justify its existence, is not a good move in this kind of things, it can be seen by admins as a kind of POV pushing. But anyway, I strongly encourage you to improve and create new articles on the Cantabrian mythology matter, I think wikipedia needs them, as much as the Asturian folklore ones, and it's great that someone decides to end with the existing poor presence of that kind of information on this encyclopedia. If trentis and trastolillos can be considered the base of a whole isolated mythology and have nothing to do with asturian trasgos or trastiellos is a different issue, which I have not discussed yet. --  · Ravenloft ·   · (talk) ·   11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jo macho, es que me da una pereza escribir en inglés, pero vale, tienes razón, dejemos que todos entiendan.
 * I can understand your actitude when firstly listed articles in the new category are common to Asturian Mithology. That don´t justify the petition over all if you know about Cantabrian mythology and recognise that myths are common to both. If someone would create a category for Basque or Castilian mythology and we have a myth in common, I have no problem to accept it even having just Cantabrian articles. I would supose that cathegory would be expand in the future, and even if don't I would have to accept the independence of the cathegory.


 * Admins and you can see what you want, but the creation of the main article and the new links are part of my previous plan to begin and expand the category, as you can see in my spanish user page, and I told you. I don´t need to justify its existence coz the category don´t need justification. My mistake was begin with the common myths to Asturias, I repit "common myths", not "asturian myths that did have a huge impact on Cantabrian folklore". As I said, please don´t foresee bad faith in my actions.


 * As you say we have not discussed yet about if trentis and trastolillos can be considered the base of a whole isolated mythology. I can tell you now: no. In fact I support a common article for trastiellos and trastolillos, just as culebre and cuélebre, nuberu, trasgu, ventolines. The main problem is sometimes the common name don´t mean a common article due to wides diferences in the legends and descriptions like in busgosu-musgosu, anjana-xana, guaxa-guajona. I´ll try to respect special features and I accept claims but never menaces of deletion in truthful information.


 * Jeje, también has hecho un stub sin consultar. Si es que al final todos somos unos ilegales... :). Venga un saludo.--Uhanu 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When I see a category that claims to be independent, but it only features two articles of another category, it's just the normal procedure to propose it for deletion. I don't have to think in the creator's inner wishes, I don't have to know what kind of user is the creator and I don't have to know if the creator is going to work on it or if it's going to stay that way forever. I don't have to expect the creator to create specific articles for that category in the future, or to expect it not. The fact is that, in the moment the category was proposed to be deleted, those specific articles didn't exist. It only included the Cuélebre and Nuberu ones. I repeat, as a nominator, I'm not supposed to infer the future behaviours of users. At that moment, the user who created the category didn't include in it any specific article who could justify its existence, and that's just what I pointed out.


 * Anyway, my point in that moment was that there was no need to delete that kind of information when deleting the category, so if someone wanted to talk about the influence of the Nuberu and Cuélebre myths (both then in the Asturian mythology category) in Cantabrian folklore, it could still have been done after deleting the category by improving the articles with the appropiate references to that influence in Cantabrian myths. Understand that I was in fact defending to make that kind of information stay in the encyclopedia. Instead of it, you seem to have taken that sentence as some kind of attack to Cantabrian folklore from the first, attributing some kind of imaginary Asturian cultural etnocentrism to my proposal, and even more, as if I was questioning trentis or ijanas. Clearly, a projection of your actions, since it's a fact that you started to create a whole independent category from two previously existing Asturian mythology articles (that are not independently Cantabrian), and not from Cantabrian myths, and since you wanted to create a completely separated cathegory and not one that could include those myths as part of a mythical astur-cantabrian continuum. Please, think again. Don't get me wrong. I'm very positive towards having that kind of information, and I highly encourage you to do it. It just has to be done properly.


 * Another point is that the category is not correclty named. There are too many geographical posibilities, it could be referring to different Iberian penninsula cantabrians (this Cantabrian, this Cantabrian, Cantabrian) or to this other ones: Cantabrian, and Cantabrian. Maybe Mythology of Cantabria could have been a better choice.


 * But anyway, if the deletion proposal is not approved, no problem man. If the category is finally deleted, my advice is to build a good base of Cantabrian folklore related articles, and then to create a proper category for them, a category that could also incorporate the common and related Asturian figures without this kind of frictions.


 * By the way, en realidad sí había consultado sobre el stub un día antes (stub que por cierto, no propone ser uno nuevo más, sino ser uno genérico que pueda submerger unos cuantos más demasiado específicos para una región de un millón de habitantes y con tan pocos artículos de momento), pero este administrador no había caído en la cuenta, lo cual no viene mal para mi propuesta puesto que él es favorable ;D. Un saludo. --  · Ravenloft ·   · (talk) ·   13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Asturias-stub
Hi - I notice you created a new stub template and category. Those are usually only made after a proposal and vetting process at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals (as explained at Stub). That way, we can check whether there are sufficient numbers of stubs to warrant a separate category, as well as checking other things such as the correct scope and naming of the stub template and category. Your new stub type is listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there about it. Grutness...wha?  01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish people page
I have introduced a new interesting article about genetics and Spain. Check it yourself. I am leaving almost an exact quote, but then others (the same people) as usual, seem to have thier very strange interpretations. Just check the article for yourself, please. Veritas et Severitas 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amanda-somerville.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amanda-somerville.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Black (band).jpg
I have tagged Image:Black (band).jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:To_Separate_the_Flesh_from_The_Bones.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:To_Separate_the_Flesh_from_The_Bones.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Somió (Barrios)
Que no hombre, que no. Todos esos nombres serán topónimos autorizados de lugares que se encuentran en Somió (aunque alguno no sé donde, pero bueno), pero Barrios (unidad administrativa inferior a la parroquia) son 10. Tengo delante mío la cartografía de la Unidad de Integración Corporativa del Ayuntamiento de Gijón, y si no me crees, puedes ver la web oficial de la junta vecinal de la parroquia, o pasar por Somió (existen letreros marcando los barrios en todas las vías principales)... Un saludo--Banderas (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for speaking english, I do it just in case any english wikipedia user follows our conversation.)
 * First of all, are you familiar with Verifiability guidelines? In this cases, editors should provide a reliable source for any material the want to change into the encyclopedia.
 * In this particular case, the only official reliable source is the Principality of Asturias through the laws published in the Boletín General del Principado de Asturias (B.O.P.A.) . The Principality of Asturias is the only responsible institution for territorial administrative divisions in Asturias. Evidently, no other institution, neighbour association or civil parrish assembly can enact the official divisions of the Principality of Asturias. If you have the B.O.P.A. (official document) with a different Barrio division for the parrish of Somió -which repeals the aforementioned- please provide it.
 * You say your map of the Unidad de Integración Corporativa del Ayuntamiento de Gijón has 10 barrios. Ok. I doesn't really matter, but anyway, there are two possible explanations: A) The map was made before the publication of the law in the BOPA 3rd October 2006. B) The map is wrong. It happens. Last week EMTUSA (a municipal company) had to remake hundreds of bus stops signs because some civil servant used a repealed BOPA with repealed toponyms.
 * But, as you've seen, I don't have any problem at all with having a mention to the 10 toponimic divisions you're kin to in the article, but I insist the official names must stay: We must use the official administrative divisions and toponyms for an encyclopedic article about official administrative divisions and toponyms. Provide a newer B.O.P.A. with your suggested Barrio division for the parrish of Somió before making any change.
 * We should keep this talk on the article page. Thanks --  · Ravenloft ·   talk  20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal of mentioning the 10 barrios and the rest of toponyms as ""llugares", even though some of them are not even that (they are just a fountain, a watermill, a bridge, a hermitage, a park, etc. = "sites of interest" or something like that). By the way, Candenal is shown twice. Beleive me, the administrative division has 10 barrios, as shown in the map you mentioned and in the governing body of the parish website . The other names are not subdivisions--Banderas (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good consensus to me. Ok then. (Btw: fixed Candenal issue) See you --  · Ravenloft ·   talk  17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New Wave of British Heavy Metal as a Music genre
Dear Ravenloft, it appears you believe NWOBHM to be a musical genre. I do as well : "Although genres are not precisely definable, genre considerations are one of the most important factors in determining what a person will see or read. Many genres have built-in audiences and corresponding publications that support them, such as magazines and websites." "Genre is a common concept that has great commercial and aesthetic importance, but it also continues to frustrate fans, artists, composers, and critics who don't want to be pigeonholed, for instance. There is always disagreement about the definition of a genre, and it is impossible to list all genre categories in existence. For further examination of these general issues, see Negus 1999 and Holt 2007. (Also see Music genre.) It really appears that NWOBHM is a sub-genre of Heavy Metal music. There is a person who disagrees that NWOBHM is a genre. I was wondering if you would post a note on the Talk:Iron Maiden page under 40 New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Thank you ( & Please).  Master Redyva   ♠  19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NWOBHM is a Music genre
If you agree, please see the page : Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre . Master Redyva   ♠  22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of To Separate the Flesh from the Bones


The article To Separate the Flesh from the Bones has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "may not be notable"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)