User talk:Santos30

"Vandalism"
Please, stop accusing me of "vandalism". I have some objections about the current status of the article (Battle of Ayacucho) thus I performed some edits on that page entirely according to Wikipedia policies. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not feed the trolls.--Santos30 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I have ZERO tolerance for sockpuppets like you. Be careful.--Darius (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Correcciones: "Hispanic American wars of independence"
Hola Santos. A la orden sobre las correcciones gramaticales, pero ten en cuenta que estas editando la versión inglesa de Wikipedia, y debes de tratar de hacer la correcciones anteriormente. Esto no es muy difícil el el mundo tecnológico como el nuestro: simplemente pasa el texto por un corrector ortográfico antes de publicarlo. Creo que esto es simplemente cortesía común. Por eso no edito la versiones en hebreo o ruso: no lo puedo hacer justamente.

Ahora, tus puntos. Primero los cambios que hiciste si me parecen tienen un punto de vista marcado: San Martín es inteligente, metódico, sabe estrategia; Bolívar es díscolo, torpe, y solo gana porque la fortuna le sonrió. No soy fan de Bolívar, pero al fin y al cabo, Bolívar es exitoso. Y esto hay que explicarlo con algo más satisfactorio que simplemente fue hecho del azar. La decisión de atacar a Nueva Granada creo que se puede clasificar como un momento en que Bolívar sí pensó claramente. A lo mejor lo copió de San Martín, ¿y que? La Nueva Granada no era fuertemente realista (con la excepción, desde luego, del norte y el sur) y era el obvio lugar de ataque. No Caracas, como lo intento varias veces en los años anteriores. El capítulo de Mackenzie que citaste, no contradice esto. Más bien Mackenzie hace el punto de que la guerra en Venezuela estaba empatada. Los realistas no podían penetrar los llanos, y los patriotas no podían conquistar el norte poblado. (59-62) Segundo, de lo que leo, Bolívar—y Santander, si quieres darle crédito al neogradino—usaron el invierno venezolano intencionalmente como cubierto para empezar la campaña. Esto es lo que leo en Lynch, "Bolívar: A Life", 124-127; Masur, Simon Bolivar, 261-264; y hasta el anti-Bolivariano Madariaga, Bolívar, 229-243 (de la traduccion en inglés). Entonces no veo porque me sigues quitando esa corrección.

Mi POV no era con Morillo. Siento mucho por él. Él no querría estar allí y pedía constantemente el permiso de volver a España, algo que solo se lo concedió el gobierno constitucional. La frase "after defeated local militias under command of spandard brigadier Jose Barreiro, prisoner murder by the patriot's War to the Death," no tiene ningún sentido. Ni puede empezar a adivinar que quieres decir por esto. En castellano sería algo como: "después de derotadas milicias locales bajo el mando de brigadier Español Jose Barreiro, prisionero asesino (o "prisionero asesinato") por la patriota Guerra a la Muerte." De toda forma, esto es un artículo general sobre la independencia. No veo porque necesita un detalle tan particular como la ejecución del brigadier Barreiro. La guerra a la muerte, la cual llegó a su punto más brutal años antes, es importante; pero esta ejecución—tan extra-legal como sea—es tristemente parte común de todas guerras y un detalle menor en este artículo. Pertenece en los artículos específicos sobre la campaña en Nueva Granada y la batalla de Boyacá.

Sobre los deseos de Bolívar de mantener el antiguo virreinato de Peru unido, esto se menciona en David Bushnell, The Santander Regime, 325-335; en John Charles Chasteen, Americanos: Latin America's Struggle for Independence, 164-165 y Bolívar mismo en su cartas a Sucre en Lecuna y Bierck, Selected Writings of Bolívar, 590-592, 633-634. Esto no es de sorprender. Bolívar siempre imaginaba con la creación de grandes estados para enfrentar la fuerza de los realistas. De allí la Gran Colombia, un estado centralista que une regiones que no tenían mucho en común. Si no fuera por el mito de Bolívar, la historiografía popular no hablaría de como su fin fue una traición a la visión de Bolívar.

Bien, regresamos a San Martín. El extracto que sitas, Anna "Chaos and the Military Solution", menciona como los patriotas peruanos estaban desorganizados. Ellos existían porque la retirada del ejercito realista dejo un vacío. "By late 1823 […] the political state was leaderless, with two different men claiming to be president of the republic. Congress collapsed under pressure" (260). Clamar que el "congreso" peruano llamo a Bolívar libremente es ignorar un poco que este congreso no tenia mucho poder, ni ningunos de los ejércitos peruanos. Llaman a Bolívar porque el es el hombre fuerte en la escena y era casi inevitable que él se metiera en los asuntos peruanos. Lo mismo ya había hecho en Guayaquil y Quito. (Rodríguez, Independence of Spanish America, 224-226.) Al retirarse un año anterior, San Martín en esencia dejo el porvenir de esta parte de Sudamérica en las manos de Bolívar. (Anna, 265. Rodríguez, 226-227. Lynch, 186-187, 248-249. Kinsbruner, 77-79.) Pero esto lo puedo decir mejor y lo cambiaré.

Para terminar, creo que como un artículo general, los detalles se tienen que escoger para ilustrar temas globales. Segundo, sí creo que como uno escribe es muy importante. Empece a editar estos artículos porque noté que mis estudiantes usaban estas paginas mucho aunque les advertía sobre el plagio y el uso de fuentes establecidas. La calidad de los artículos sobre la independencia eran pésimos. Por eso me importa mucho como lucen y como leen. Si Wikipedia se va tomar seriamente tiene que tener un alto nivel de escritura.

Pero siempre te agradezco por tus contribuciones. TriniMuñoz (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * De hecho quedo mejor la imagen en lugar del mapa, esta bien que lo colocaron mas abajo, me parece importante recalcar que en estas guerras se independizo muchisimo mas territorio que el que controlan los paises latinoamericanos actualmente.Hpav7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

Hola de nuevo
Hola Santos, hace tiempo, pero he estado ocupado con la prole. Me acuerdo que me habías dicho "Pablo Morillo es el ejecutor de la justicia ordinaria española sobre el acto criminal del congreso de Nueva Granada, coautor de la 'Guerra a Muerte' venezolana, que comienza en la 'Campaña Admirable'" y también leí el capítulo de Mackenzie que citaste. Dos citas nada más. Rebecca Earle en su Spain and the Independence of Colombia: 1810-1825 (ISBN 9780859896122) describe como los procesos jurídicos bajo Morillo no fueron regulares ni ordinarios. No podían serlo. Era un momento de plena guerra civil—parecido a lo que ocurrió en la Península—y no habían bastantes abogados en quien los realistas tenían confianza. Los procesados no tenían acceso a una defensa. Morillo y sus asesores tenían que escoger: o la reconciliación o represión (p. 78-82). Escogieron la ultima y el resultado fue la desaparición de gran parte de la clase educada y letrada. También Jaime Rodríguez, quien cito mucho y quien se puede decir no es amigo de los independentistas, nota que irregular fueron los procesos bajo Morillo en Nueva Granada (p. 189).

Sobre la descripción que Mackenzie da de los ejércitos insurgentes, lo curioso para mi es que son casi lo mismos que otros historiadores dan al ejercito expedicionario, ¡e incluso el mismo Morillo lo describe así al fin de la década! Vea, de nuevo Earle quien maneja la correspondencia de Morillo bien. Al fin para mi este periodo—en el cual estoy muy interesado—es para mi muy triste. Cada vez que vuelvo abarcarla, me doy cuenta que horrible es la guerra, para ambas bandas. Cuando uno va más allá de la historia patria, uno escucha las voces de gente que querían que esta guerra devastadora termine. Bueno, no quiero terminar en un punto deprimente. Te doy estas citas por interés histórico, igual como hiciste conmigo. Tristemente Earle no esta disponible en Google Books, aunque lo entiendo por que. A lo mejor lo puedes encontrar en una biblioteca cercana. Chao! TriniMuñoz (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Collage
It's a good proposal. I was delayed at it because working with images takes some time, and we won't always have an image about something we want to have an image of. We can use it at the infobox instead of the map, but a pair of notices. First, if all the images are from Commons, then this should be at Commons as well (my first try was uploaded locally because it employed images that can't be moved to Commons, so the same applies to derivatives of them), and all the original images should be linked. Mentioning all the authors would be ideal, but mere links and "see here for futher information" may be enough. And second... we would still need to locate a good portrait of royalists in action in the war of south american independence. The Peninsular War was a contemporary Spanish battle, and whose development strongly influenced this one, but it isn't the same war, and we can't extrapolate that the soldiers in it may support the royalists in South America (in a more detailed sense, it was a "liberalism vs. absolutism" battle, rather than a "South America vs. Spain" one). San Martín and Carlos Alvear would be strong counter-examples of such misunderstanding. However, while we seek and find a better alternative, the courts of Cadiz will do it for now. MBelgrano (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re/ Dating Wars
Considering that there were more than one war at the time, a decade-long period seemed ok to me, but your edition is fine anyway. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 19:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks (Spanish American wars of independence)
Since I wrote a great chunk of the article, of course, I think it's ready for Good-Article status! No, seriously, since I did write most of it, I don't think I'm an objective reader. The article makes sense to me, but what is important is does it help others understand the events of Independence? Is it organized well? Are the sentences intelligible? Etc. I find it hard to step "outside of myself" to truly judge that. All that said, I think yes. Let me know if you have more comments. TriniMuñoz (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Review
Good Article Nomination review is underway for Spanish American wars of independence.  DCI  talk 19:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasamundo (talk • contribs) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've responded to Trasamundo's post at WP:AN3, please try to gain consensus for your proposed version of the article on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Flags" of the Spanish Empire
Hi Santos, I got your message, but sorry about responding late—I'm traveling with my family. Sorry to see you involved in an edit war. My take on all of this, is that this fight over "flags" (and I've seen others) is a bit pointless. Flags, from what I understand reading vexillology books are a recent development: they were first used on ships (where a banner waving in the wind because it's hung by the sides makes sense) and then were transferred as symbols on land. Then in the early 19th century, with rise of nationalism and the creation of so many new nations, flags became the de rigueur symbols of states. If one wanted to be truthful about the symbol of the "Spanish Empire" in or out of the Indias, the correct symbol would be the royal standard—which would be square, not rectangular, and hung from the top, not the sides and probably had two different images on the obverse and the reverse! Oh, and the royal standard would change slightly as new monarchs came on the throne… making things complicated. But then again, complicated is how things were (at least to our contemporary eyes) because there was no "nation," no "state" as we understand it today, there was a monarchy—that is a personal allegiance to a monarch ("Her Majesty's Ship" being one such holdover). But we moderns want history to make sense and often the easiest way to do that is to make it conform to our expectations. This whole obsession with flags of empires and polities past—as well as the over-simplifiying info boxes—, which I see as peculiar Wikipediaisms, is a manifestation of this modern spirit. But it's not just here. Just look at many 20th-century murals which depict conquistadors wading ashore with flags. I understand your concern with the association between the Cross of Burgundy and Carlism—or worse!— but frankly this will be lost on the majority of the non-Spanish readers. Also in the US there is a long association of the Cross of Burgundy and the country's Spanish history. The flag is sold in flag stores and it's the basis of a few of the flags of southern states. TriniMuñoz (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Bueno, ahora creo es estamos pasando a otro extremo. ;-) "Ni mucho que queme el santo, ni poco que no le alumbre." Las Indias (un termino que creo que se debe rescatar—"América y Asia" es tan incomodo) eran posesión de la corona de Castilla, pero decir que eran parte de "Castilla" o "del estado/gobierno" de Castilla, creo que es exageración. Como veo las Leyes de Indias, la Indias eran vistas como reinos propios. El monarca español era rey de estos reinos por su herencia de Castilla, al igual que el monarca español clamaba ser Rey de Jerusalén por su herencia aragonesa. Pero creo que nadie diría que Jerusalén era parte de Aragon.  Las Indias eran gobernadas independientemente de Castilla desde el principio: de allí sus propias leyes y consejo.  El decir que las Indias eran posesión de la corona (monarca) de Castilla es como decir hoy que el rey de Canadá es quién sea el rey del Reino Unido, pero esto no quiere decir que Canadá sea parte del Reino Unido. Es interesante ver como las Leyes de Indias reconocían el derecho de los reinos indianos de tener sus propias cortes—aparte de las cortes en Castilla—a la vez que aplastaban este derecho:
 * En atención a la grandeza y nobleza de la Ciudad de México, y a que en ella reside el virrey, gobierno, y audiencia de la Nueva España, y fue la primer Ciudad poblada de cristianos, es nuestra merced y voluntad y nadamos que tenga el primer voto de la ciudades y villas de la Nueva España, como lo tiene en estos nuestros reinos, la Ciudad de Burgos, y el primer lugar, después de la Justicia, en los congresos que se hicieren por nuestro mandato, porque sin él no es nuestra intención, ni voluntad, que se puedan juntar las ciudades y villas de las Indias. (Libro Cuatro, Titulo Ocho, Ley 2 "De las Ciudades y Villas y sus preeminencias" y lo mismo para la Nueva Castilla (Perú) en Ley 4.)

Que la Indias eran consideradas como reinos apartes (por no decir "independientes") fue importante para el desarrollo del proceso de la independencia. Lo americanos nos se consideraban castellanos, se consideraban americanos—nuevo-españoles, peruanos, nuevo-granadenses, etc. Y su reacción a la invasión francesa (o británica en el Cono Sur) era defender sus reinos y los derechos de su monarca (algunos, incluso varios de los héroes del Sur por supuesto pelearon el la Península contra el invasor francés), no necesariamente "Castilla." Ahora, para volver a la ley que cito arriba. Cuando la Junta suprema le dijo a los americanos que con el proceso de crear una constitución a terminado trescientos años de tiranía [habsburga y borbónica"], los americanos no entendieron esto como el proceso de aplastar las cortes de Castilla que empezó en el siglo XVI, pero como el proceso de no dejar a los reinos ultramarinos tener sus plenos derechos.  En fin, creo que es importante reconocer que las Indias eran posesión del monarca de Castilla, pero no debemos insinuar que las Indias y Castilla consistían un estado unitario. Solo lo digo como consejo amistoso.  Recomiendo este libro (disponible en inglés y español), si ya no lo tienes.  Es el único hasta ahora que trata con la independencia en general a través el lente de la política hispánica de la época.TriniMuñoz (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Whoa! Time out!" como decimos en inglés. Primero no pude ver el vídeo de Pérez Vejo que me enlazaste, pero sí pude ver este: http://www.prismatv.unal.edu.co/nc/detalle-serie/detalle-programa/article/tomas-perez-vejo-un-mito-que-creo-naciones.html. También leí esta critica: http://www.scielo.unal.edu.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-24562010000200015. Y me gustó. Veo que ya no estoy actualizado en la historiografía. Pero me alegra que Pérez V. tiene la casi misma interpretación que mi guía, Jaime Rodríguez. Bueno, ahora vuelvo al hilo y, de nuevo, como crítica amistosa. Vi el cambio que hiciste al artículo sobre la Independencia, y me pregunto porque introducir lo de la Corona castellana en ese punto: ¿sirve para avanzar el análisis? Yo diría que no. Las juntas americanas no rechazan la Junta Suprema Central (alias, la Junta de Sevilla) porque se declaró poseedora de los derechos del Rey "de España" y los americanos se consideraban solamente parte de Castilla, no, la rechazan porque no consideraban que ya representaban la Monarquía independiente—eso es, que los franceses ya se apoderaron de la Península y la única parte independiente era Ultramar. El Rey "de España" y el Rey "de Castilla" es uno y el mismo, el ausente Don Fernando de Borbón y Parma. Debatir si una gobierno de emergencia lo representaba como uno o el otro seria académico. Pero en verdad es más complejo que eso: Primero, los americanos en verdad rechazan la Regencia (compuesta de un puñado de oficiales) en 1810. Segundo, las juntas gobiernan en nombre de Fernando VII—sea como rey de esto o lo otro. (No creo que la teoría de que declaratorias de fidelidad a Fernando era una "mascara para la independencia" ya es viable—y Pérez esta enfáticamente de acuerdo en la entrevista citada.) Tercero, una vez que se empieza a elegir las Cortes muchos—si no la mayoría—de los americanos vuelven a la banda realista. Contundente lo que cita Pérez: el grupo más grande que firma la Constitución del '12 son mexicanos! Y esto no incluye las otras regiones americanas. ¡No hay un rechazo a Cádiz! ¡Hay un abrazo! Y aún más, los americanos participan en la invención de la "nación española" en la cual "reside la soberanía", eso es, los americanos mismos entierran esa monarquía "católica" dividida y colección de señoríos. Eso sí, hay también una guerra civil. Entonces el choque no es entre una "España" (liberal y gaditana, o borbónica y absolutista) y una "América" (republicana o castellana), pero de tres partes: entre un liberalismo panhispánico, un liberalismo proto-nacional (los Bolívares, los Morelos, etc.) y los que no quieren el cambio liberal. Visto así, la cuestión de la Corona de Castilla, no es tan importante—al menos no una vez que la revolución liberal empieza y tampoco—yo diría—en un artículo tan general y en inglés sobre la Independencia. O al menos no en ese párrafo especifico como existe. Ahora, que haya nacionalistas españoles… bueno, eso es asunto para los españoles arreglarselos entre ellos mismos. Yo se, por ejemplo, que la Constitución del '12 se ha vuelto símbolo—para algunos—del Partido Popular, e historiadores hispanoamericanos han tenido roces con algunos historiadores españoles (de derechas) por esto. ¿Pero que vamos hacer? ¿Dejar de seguir adonde nuestras investigaciones nos llevan? No. No creo que debemos hacer una historia "presentista". Esto fue lo que creo la "historia patria" al principio. Bueno lo dejo aquí. Esté seguro que no voy a entrar en una guerra de redacción. A lo mejor arreglo una cosita u otra para que lea mejor, nada más. Mándame un mail si quieres. Creo que tengo esa opción en mi página. TriniMuñoz (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Viceroyalty of Peru
The Cross of Burgundy was used as the representative war flag of the Spanish viceroyalties (which, in reality, had no "official" flag of their own aside from that of Spain). The government of the Viceroyalty of Peru actively fought against the independence movements in the Americas during this time period (until its demise in 1824). This is not the Spanish Wikipedia, and "annexes" are not used (luckily). I shall consider any further revertions from your part in the article as vandalism. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jaontiveros (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * American Provinces of Spain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to San Juan, Chuquisaca and Charcas


 * Junta (Spanish American Independence) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Absolutism and National

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Central Junta
Hi Santos. Have you read Richard Hocquellet's analysis in "La publicidad de la Junta Central Española" in Guerra, Lampérière et al., Los espacios públicos en Iberoamérica (Mexico, 1998. ISBN 968-16-5468-4)? TriniMuñoz (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits to History of Spain
Could you please try to consolidate your edits so that it will be easier to proofread the material you're editing? I'm not necessarily opposed to the changes, but may temporarily revert them, if necessary, to consolidate the new stuff. Peace. Carlstak (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * answer in your talk.--Santos30 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaties to recognise the Spanish American independence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rafael Nuñez, Pedro Gual and Francisco Serrano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Provinces of Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuquisaca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Florida-Spain Articles
Santos30, please stop changing wording on Florida and Spanish articles, or relation thereof, without checking the facts from the official Florida government documents, Spanish government documents, the City of Pensacola, or the City of St. Augustine. Spanish military flags, including the Cross of Burgundy, were used in Florida. So was the Standard of Castile. Both flags are still in use today in St. Augustine, Pensacola, Sarasota, and other historical Florida sites and towns. Furthermore our current flag, as well as Alabama's, are both described with St. Andrew's Cross by law.

I do agree with you that there were variations of the Cross of Burgundy used throughout time, but the official one for Florida is not available as a graphic on Wikipedia yet. Please refer to the following link for more information: Florida Department of State: Florida's Historic Flags

Thank you.

--

Santos30, por favor, deje de cambiar la redacción en Florida y artículos en español, o relación de los mismos, sin comprobar los hechos de los documentos oficiales del gobierno de la Florida, documentos del gobierno Español, la ciudad de Pensacola, o la ciudad de San Agustín. Españoles banderas militares, incluida la Cruz de Borgoña, se utilizaron en Florida. Tambien el estándar de Castilla. Ambos indicadores están todavía en uso hoy en San Agustín, Pensacola, Sarasota, y otros sitios y ciudades históricas de la Florida. Además, nuestra bandera actual, así como la de Alabama, están ambos descritos con la Cruz de San Andrés por la ley.

Estoy de acuerdo con usted en que hubo variaciones de la Cruz de Borgoña utilizado a lo largo del tiempo, pero el oficial de Florida no está disponible como un gráfico en Wikipedia aún. Por favor, consulte el enlace arriba para obtener más información.

Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLA.101 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Update to Florida-Spain Articles
Santos30,

Thank you for writing back. It is known that the Standard of Castile was used in Pensacola, and it is listed on that page (first Spanish period). So, no worries there. It's one of the city's flags and part of its logo. But the grammar is kept with general terms because the dates provided by government documents are the best dates we have. Pensacola itself was destroyed a few times by hurricanes. It is also true that Ponce de Leon probably used it as well. Here in St. Augustine, statues of Ponce are often decorated with both flags, that of Castile and that of Burgundian Spain. And the standard is part of the coat of arms of Puerto Rico, where he was governor. All this said, the article is just about Florida's flag and its origins - the cross of St. Andrew/Cross of Burgundy.

Gracias por escribir de nuevo. Se sabe que la Estandarte de Castilla se utilizó en Pensacola, y se aparece en esa página (período español primero). Por lo tanto, no hay preocupaciones. Es una de las banderas de la ciudad y parte de su logo. Sin embargo, la gramática se mantiene con carácter general por las fechas indicadas en los documentos del gobierno son las mejores fechas que tenemos. Pensacola fue destruida varias veces por los huracanes. También es cierto que Ponce de León es probable utilizo el estandarte también. Aquí, en San Agustín, las estatuas de Ponce se adornan con las dos banderas, la de Castilla y la de Borgoña. Y la estandarte de Castilla es parte del escudo de armas de Puerto Rico, donde Ponce fue gobernador. Dicho todo esto, el artículo es nadamas sobre la bandera de Florida y sus orígenes - la cruz de San Andrés / Cruz de Borgoña. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLA.101 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Crown of Castile

 * Warning. I am going to decline the edit-warring report at WP:ANEW, principally because you did not properly warn the IP, and partly because you were also edit-warring. If you resume the war on the article, even one battling edit, you may be blocked without any further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning. Second time at Crown of Aragon. Desist. Escarlati (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning. Third time at Crown of Aragon. Do not make changes while maintaining discussed, remain statu quo ante. Escarlati (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lo siento pero no sé inglés, por lo que no puedo argumentar convenientemente; de todos modos se te explicó todo con detalle a ti y a tu títere Domenico en la wikipedia en español. Puedes volver a releer tanto las explicaciones mías en esa wikipedia, como las de Durero o cualquiera de los demás usuarios. Escarlati (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

flag of New Spain and vicerroyalties
See Talk:New_Spain. Took me a while to find the correct keywords, but "estandarte virreinal" finally turns up sources that talk about the flag used at New Spain. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed a topic ban
See Administrators'_noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arthur Sandes
Hello Santos30,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Arthur Sandes for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Travelbird (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the article will soon be delete until there are some major changes some info on copyright for future reference:
 * Changing a couple of words in a text does not mean that the new text is your own creation.
 * Example: The king James Bible starts with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form."
 * A copyright infringement would be: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth. And the earth didn't have a form."
 * Not a copyright infringement would be: "God created heaven and earth before time began. At that time, earth didn't have any structure yet." Travelbird (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur Sandes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kerry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please
Desist about your wrong changes in Crown of Aragon. Thank you. Escarlati (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning (2)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escarlati (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Crown of Castile. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .

Santos30, you have no consensus for your edits and you have been reverted by multiple editors over several weeks. In Talk:Crown_of_Castile there is analysis of why the sources don't support your edits and why your theories don't even make historical sense. Don't revert again, and don't insert again your theories or your dates. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Idem for posting anachronical and non-representative flags and coats of arms in New Spain and the viceroyalty articles. See Talk:New_Spain for discussion of sources, and pointers to discussions in the Spanish wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible indefinite block of your account
Hello Santos30. An editor has filed a new complaint about you at User talk:Bbb23 regarding your edits at Crown of Castile. I've looked over your past admin problems and I suggest you risking an indefinite block from the English Wikipedia. Here are the discussions:


 * You were named for edit warring at Spanish Empire by User:Trasmundo:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive191


 * After the 24-hour protection expired, you continued the war and the article on the Spanish Empire had to be protected for a week: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763


 * You were at the 3RR noticeboard yet again here. This resulted in two weeks of full protection:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive193


 * You were previously warned by Bbb23 on 27 October for edit warring on Crown of Castile.


 * See also the closed 3RR case at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199


 * Your behavior has previously been discussed on the Spanish Wikipedia, where your account is at present indefinitely blocked for abuse of multiple accounts:


 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776 (25 November 2012)


 * A topic ban of your account was proposed at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242


 * Enric Naval has reminded the admin Bbb23 that you resumed edit warring at Crown of Castile after a final warning that Bbb23 had issued: User talk:Bbb23

Regular editors of the English Wikipedia such as User:Enric Naval who know anything about Spanish topics seem to believe you are POV-pushing our own fringe thesis into articles. If you can say anything to show you will behave better in the future, you may be able to avoid an indefinite block of your account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed, thanks for jumping in while I was off-wiki. Your history above is very thorough. I haven't seen any indication since you posted your summary that Santos intends to behave. Subsequent to your post, Santos reverted the article beginning at 22:56. Santos's comments on my talk page do not address his conduct, but instead shift the blame onto other editors who apparently disagree with him on the content. I add that Santos is currently involved in an edit-war on Viceroyalty of Peru (he has reverted 4x since January 1). I therefore will indefinitely block him (based on your contribution history, Ed, it appears that you are now off-wiki). The indefinite block is not just for edit-warring, but for all of the disruption he has and continues to cause without any sign that he understands what he's doing wrong or intends to change it. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23. After I made a list of the evidence it started to look overwhelming. Santos30 could still have avoided action if he'd made an appropriate response. As you observe, he did not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So
I came to warn you about your edit warring here[ [Crown of Castile]] but see you have already had a lot of them. Best you start using the article talk page or end up blocked forever. If your lucky Bbb23 may go light on you, I would not. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit-warring across multiple articles, non-neutral editing, and ignoring administrative warnings. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Crown of Aragon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kingdoms


 * José de Canterac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2103
You appear to have returned as 79.152.51.59. Please don't re-insert your POV edits in articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And now you are back as 88.25.54.177... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And again as 83.44.82.57... If you do this again, I will have to label your userpage as a sockpuppeteer. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)