User talk:Sugaar

Re:Más sobre Statesclop
Hola Sugaar, Este usuario ha sido bloqueado a perpetuidad, pero continúa creando nuevas cuentas si detectas algún vandalismo similar o edidición inapropiada por parte de un nuevo usuario o ip házmelo saber. Gracias. Un saludo. AnnaP (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spain
And from the simply practical point of view it's misleading to describe him as ruling 'Spain', since the situation was more complicated: one could make a case for describing Philip II as 'King of Spain' from his accession, because he ruled over pretty much modern Spain as sole king, even if the crowns were technically separate - whereas Charles succeeded to the two crowns separately, and ruled a very new union. Yes, for practical purposes, in the body of the article, his Spanish territory can be described as 'Spain' (because 'Aragon-and-Castile' is tedious), but it's not really acceptable in the lead. Michael Sanders 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Elcano
Please, let's finish such long discussion about a single sentence, by finding an intermediate thing that says ut all. I see very clearly how your main source is your personal POV (for example you found very bad that "Spain" was mentioned twice in the same paragraph) and you don't accept what is currently accepted internationally (again when mentioning other encyclopaedias or other sources).

Those coins, texts, etc show you how the concept of Spain with the correspondent culture (eg religion & language) existed. It is internationally accepted that Carlos I was a de facto King of Spain (e.g. that's how the current national Spanish institutions recognise it, look at them).

Saying both things ("a Basque Spanish") seems fine for me, as it is based on cultural aspects. If you want to apply a nationality aspect only then it shouldn't say Basque since he was Castilian (then you can say something like a Castilian navigator from what is now the Basque Country in Spain).

Don't apply different arguments (ignoring the other) for the same topic. We should try to be constructive (agreements have been found in other articles such as Carlos I). Escorial82 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not POV: there was no "Spain" yet, not even in name. There was Castile and the other relams united under a single monarch: Emperor Charles V. There are no texts (you have provided only texts that say the opposite, like those acts of the Cortes of Castile - only Castile!).
 * There is no doubt that he was Basque instead and that the Basque ethnicity and language existed then.
 * You could say "a Basque Castilian" but that would be confuse in modern terminology (it's like saying "a Welsh Englishman" - no matter that Wales was for long a province of England, it sounds strange as now England and Wales are considered different entities), so the choice of words "Basque subject of the King/Kingdom of Castile" is probably the best.
 * Additionally, I think it's wrong to say "Gipuzkoa, Spain". When he was born Gipuzkoa was a part oc Castile, so it should read: "Gipuzkoa, then /an autonomous/ province of the Kingdom of Castile".
 * It's also incorrect to term the colonies "Spanish", as they were exclussively Castilian, up to the point that other subjects of the same monarch (including the "Spanish" ones of Aragon, Catalonia, etc.) were not allowed normally to enter them. Only someone blind because of an ultra-romantic idealization of Spanish history can ignore that.
 * Form the viewpoint of the Basque Wikiproject (and common sense), it's important that he's (correctly and beyond doubt) defined as Basque, because he is possibly the most important universal Basque ever and, as such, he is mentioned in other articles. That's beyond discussion. There's no doubt that being born in Getaria, his primary language was Basque and therefore he is an ethnic Basque without any doubt. I hope you don't even consider questioning that.
 * Overall there is no evidence that Charles was considered in his time by almost anyone "King of Spain". The coin you mentioned, minted in America, and an exception in any case, reads "King of the Spains" in Latin, which is a very different title, one used in different variants by several medieval monarchs who claimed some sort of regional primacy, often with little success.
 * For the objective historian there is not the slightest doubt that before Philip II no monarch (at least since the Visgoths) had entitled him/herself "king of Spain". Even then, one can argue that Spain was only a generic name and not a real state, as that monarch, like his Habsburg successors, ruled over several states, until the Bourbons supressed the autnomy of the realms of the Aragonese crown, annexing them de facto to Castile and actually forging the modern unified Spain with that action.
 * But anyhow, we are just discussing Charles V, who never ever used that title at all.
 * You argument like if your "evidence" was inquestionable but actually it's not even evidence: the acts of the Cortes of Castile don't ever mention any "kingdom of Spain" and the Mexican coin is an od exception that rather relates to medieval titles than to the would-be Spansh monarchy.
 * Get over it: you are wrong. The only legit claim you ahve is that nowadays some (mostly Spanish) historians want to claim Charles as the first king of unified Spain but that's nothing but an opinion and, as I see it, an ideological apology ex-post-facto. --Sugaar (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles V
It's my understanding that because "King of Granada" and "King of Navarre" were attached to the Castilian crown, they are mentioned in association with Castile (just as "King of Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia and Sicily" are with Aragon). As for Navarre, Upper Navarre was legitimately Spanish after 1512 (they were accepted by the Navarrese cortes) whilst Lower Navarre continued to be ruled by the de Foix/Albret family. Michael Sanders 13:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you seem to be right. As regards Navarre, though, I think you're over-complicating the issue of sovereignity - the de Foix/Albret families ruled and were legally accepted in Lower Navarre, the Spanish royals ruled and were legally accepted in Upper Navarre. I'll fix the rest, however. Michael Sanders 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My God, I didn't know about the walls. That's pretty disturbing (so much for 'conformity' with Ferdinand's other kingdoms)... Also, thanks for the info on Navarre, it's good to be corrected by people who know what they're talking about. Michael Sanders 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on disciplinary action
User talk:I love entei tagged my article on Joan_Perez_de_Lazarraga for deletion because it "failed to indicate the importance of the subject," but the information was all in there. I asked him why he did it, and he said it had to do with lack of categorization, broken links, and being a "poor article" (no arguments there, but hasn't the guy ever heard of stubs?!?) I asked about the "no indication of importance" thing, and he dodged the question a couple of times. (Check out my talk page for the other half of the back-and-forth.) I told him I'd report the tagging as malicious if he couldn't explain his actions, and he couldn't, so I'd like to know how to report him. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Also, it might be interesting to you to note that a page he created at 13:11 today (Dec 22) on a vacuum cleaner has been tagged for deletion. Perfection Vacuum Cleaner. It looks to me like he was looking to get back at the world. I don't know how someone who could write an article like that could call the Lazarraga article "poor"! (I'm cross-posting this to a couple of people on the Basque Project.)  Madler   05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just found the Community Portal link (d'oh!). I had been searching for variations on "disciplinary action" using the regular search box.  Madler   05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaixo, Sugaar! It's no big deal, and the guy appears to regret having done it (he's helped clean up the article a bit), so I'm just going to drop it. (By the way, someone else added the Senor de La Torre part...) Y una pregunta - ¿tú eres vasco o español interesado en Euskal Herria o qué? Estoy pensando traducir un montón de artículos sobre escritores vascos para ... bueno, para educarme, en primer lugar, pero también para poder crear una página sobre la literatura vasca. Una página sobre la literatura vasca sin ningun enlace (dentro de Wikipedia) sería un poco raro, to say the least. Por eso, quisiera pedir un poco de ayuda en corregir mis traducciones, puesto que mi nivel está bastante bajo. Eskerrik asko aldez aurretik!   Madler   00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'll try to come up with some kind of template that's appropriate. And I'll stick to English... ;)  Madler   11:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Basques_Newfoundland.gif
Kaixo Sugaar, Would you mind to solve this problem. I'd like to get your map for Histoire du Canada in french, but it's not on Commons yet. Eskerrik asko Zorion 2 february 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.130.68 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the new map Sugaar. Tell me what do you think of this ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Basques_Newfoundland.gif Gero arte Zorion 3 february 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sugaar's History Maps
I just saw some of your maps Sugaar, great work! I'm checking them out and taking some notes for possible corrections on my next round of updates. Thank you for putting them online. Do you plan to make any more? Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale warnings
Please do not remove non-free use rationale warnings from images unless you provide a use rationale. The non-free logo tag is not a use rational. As the tag says “This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale.” Without a use rationale the images will be deleted. —teb728 t c 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Non-free content criteria and Non-free use rationale guideline. Official Wikipedia policy requires an explicit non-free use rationale for all non-free images. This rationale must go well beyond saying that “certain uses” … “may qualify” as fair use. The rationale must show for each use that that specific use does qualify as fair use and furthermore conforms to Wikipedia’s much more stringent requirements for non-free content.
 * Strict enforcement of Wikimedia policy takes effect next month, and all non-conforming images will deleted. Burying your head in the sand will not prevent that. --—teb728 t c 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Aznar family
I don't know what "Aznar family" means to you, but I only meant the "Aznars" as opposed to the "Seguins" as A. R. Lewis uses the terms to refer to two competing families for supremacy in Gascony. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply removed the term from the Aznar article. As to why I use "Spanish" forms instead of Basque or Gascon ones, the answer is simple. I have seen them in English sources. I have rarely encountered the Basque or Gascon ones and I presume it is b/c the Spanish one's are most recognisable (many people know that Sánchez is a patronymic for Sancho) and they are about as close or closer to the Latin of charters as the Basque/Gascon forms. 23:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srnec (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and antisemitism
You didn't need to add this page to Articles for deletion since you put a PROD tag on it. Also, you didn't place it on Articles for Deletion properly anyway -- you simply edited Articles for deletion/Furry fandom and tacked it on top instead of creating a new discussion. But that's okay, it's an easy mistake to make. If someone removes the PROD notice from this article, then I'll help you list it at AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see the article's been listed at AfD before; therefore, it's ineligible for PROD. I'll create a new AfD discussion using your rationale. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Double whoops, somebody else already completed it for me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct nomination, by the way, is here. Like I said, it's an easy mistake to make. For the record, PROD is just a quickie tag to place when you're positive that it's not a controversial decision -- with PROD, all you do is place the tag, and that's it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on your R1a Weasal catch
Just letting you know that I agree and support your decision to remove that info from the R1a article. Plese also take a moment to visit my talk page and leave some thoughts on the current state of geo-genetic info and how its being used on Wikipedia. I'm trying to build a consensus on the proper use of that info. Thanks.Geog1 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

The actions of user Epf
Hello Sugaar! We seem to have a problem with User:Epf - he insists in saying that the Celtiberians were part of the Iberians, and has already been reverted several times by me and User:Tautintanes. His rationale is that they are a mix of Celts and Iberians, I presume. This editor seems to have a view of ethnicity based strongly on ancestry (or what he supposed the ancestry to be). He also tried to say that other eventually hispano-celts were Celtiberians (namely in Cantabri), as you very well konw since you were the one that reverted him. From other discussion I had with him and from the debate he started in French people (were not a single other editor agreed with him!) I reckon that this might be a subtle and disguised racialist view of some sort. I do not know what is he trying to accomplish. We have to look out for him. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem actually other than how I have noticed your own original research and POV which has no solid references in various articles on the peoples of Iberia. I am not a "racialist" and this has nothing to do with ethnicity being most often based strongly on ancestry or common descent. Few people would deny this and in fact Ogre, I had presumed you agreed with much of this ? Actually on the French people article, there were two other users who agreed with me if you noticed, plus no one really disagreed with me in the manner which Alun did (including yourself). Judging by your edits (and Sugaar's), I think you are the one who would in fact be disguised "racialists" pushing your own POV and improperly entering sources and images which are based mostly on your own opinions. There are very few scholars who deny that the culture of the Iberians spread across Iberia and most consider the Lustianians and others (minus the Aquitanians and Basques) to be Celtiberians. The Celtiberians were an Iberian people who had mixed with elements of Celtic culture, but it also incorporated aspects of Iberian culture and descent, hence CeltIBERIAN. Ciao, Epf (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, guys. I am not any God to solve your issues but I'll see if I can give a hand. In what regards to me: Celtiberians were Celtic-speakers of allegedly (Herodotus?) mixed origin. But that can be said of all other Celtic groups, at least in the Iberian peninsula. If they deserve a mention in the article it should be clear why (i.e. quoting the historical source) and also that they were not Iberians in the normal sense in any case. --Sugaar (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hy Sugaar. What you say is my position entirely. I also believe that the same could probably in fact be said about all the other Celts in Europe. The question here is that this user, Epf, with whom I always tried to dialogue in a reasonale manner and even propossed to work with him in an article about the Hispano-Celts (because he was trying to say that all the Celts in Iberia were Celtiberians and that Celtiberians were Iberians), and also lost some of my time trying to explain a lot of stuff about Iberia too,seem more intent in a non-cooperative, confrontational defense at all cost of his non-sourced ideas regarding the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula then anything else. If you could come to Iberians I would appreciate. Thanks a lot. By the way I do hope the Genetic History WikiProject does come along - it would be of hep in many articles. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you might have seem, Epf insists on adding the Baleares to the Iberians, but its articles on the Spanish and Catalan wikipedias say nothing about that - what can you tell about it? Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to check in depth the controversial article (I am right now immerse in another even more controversial dispute - en fin) but, regarding the Balearic islands, Ibiza and Formentera are one thing and the Baleares proper (Majorca and Minorca) are another: In this regard, it must be mentioned that my manual says that the rich Iberian culture surely exerted attraction for the peoples of the interior and mentions the case of the Celtiberians as most typical and best documented. He seems to imply that Celtiberian were Iberized Celts and not vice-versa (though, of course, it can be argued that, first, native "proto-Iberians" were Celtizied anyhow). --Sugaar (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pitiusas (Ibiza and Formentera) were in the post-Aragarian cultural area after c.1300 BCE and later under direct Phoenician influence (they even estabilished a colony there). I doubt they can be considered typical Iberians though hey must be related nevertheless.
 * The Baleares proper seem to have been a world apart but there's not much information anyhow. The Talayotic period (late Megalithism apparently original from Corsica) ended c. 700 BCE and my manual doesn't mention the islands after that. A couple of maps show findings in Majorca, near modern Palma, first of Urnfield burials (in line what you can find in other Eastern areas: isolated burials) and then some Phocean findings. That's all. They are never mentioned in relation with Iberians or Iberian culture. I guess that, unless other evidence is provided (and remember that the evidence must be provided by the one making the claim), they should be considered a separate group.

WikiProject Human Genetic History draft and vote
I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid (talk · edits) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More than just a little stupid
Sugaar, WRT your insinuations over at AN/I, it would be desirable if you did your homework. There may be a long story behind all this, and you will not be expected to dig deep into every imaginable archive, but why don't you just ask anybody with a few months of experience in this place? Bishzilla is Bishonen's alternative account, and Bishapod is Bishzilla's (sounds confusing? It isn't. All these accounts are in the hand of the same person). Nobody has ever tried to cover up anything about that. Furthermore there is no reason to believe that Yomangan(i) is a sockpuppet of that same person, as s/he has explained to you. And lastly, if you think Checkuser is an appropriate tool in such a harmless situation, kindly read the pertinent policies before making demands on others' time with these ill-founded requests. Please. 91.64.29.230 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right - or not. I really don't know what to think. Why do Biszhilla and Fishapod talk the same unusual "slang", for instance. Would I be admin, I'd probably look at the issue more in depth.
 * The case is why are you writing here with an IP identity? Why would anybody try to hide under multiple accounts. Maybe there's a good reason but, since Bishapod/Little Stupid intervened in apparent bad faith, I would like to know exactly what is being cooked here.
 * And in any case, who are you? I find it terribly annoying this game of anonymity. I seriously doubt it is in the spirit of Wikipedia - not sure abut the letter. Definitively it doesn't go with my character: I like things clear. --Sugaar (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fine and well and understandable. I will just say that I have reasons of my own to stay anonymous (there are horourable reasons, such as outspoken opinions that are not acceptable among people who know your username and know you personally), I have not been involved in these things and have not edited the pages discussed on AN/I. It would be entirely understandable if you found my behaviour sneaky, but I will just ask you to accept my explanation. 91.65.0.72 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. But it's clear that all is very unclear. Are you the one behind Little Stupid/Bishapod? I don't think so because your tone is different, more conciliatory. But you seem to know about this issue more than I do in any case.
 * Would this presumpt sock/alt account not have intervened in an edit conflict (very undesirable but something I that has been imposed upon me), nothing of all that would have ever come to light - as I would not have needed to research about Little Stupid's real identity, with all those branchings leading to possibly other users.
 * If you want to give me a confidential explanation, please feel free to drop me an email. --Sugaar (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not Little Stupid or Bishapod, nor any of the other users discussed, just someone who happens to have witnessed the goings-on recently. I see no evidence that there is anything more than inside jokes going on here. You may of course request further elucidation over at WP:AN, but honestly, I would not be extremely optimistic about that. 91.64.29.230 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What need research LS real identity? What business of Sugaar's? Little Stupid make good edit on Israel lobby in the United States, is all you need care about. Note: Little Stupid tell you several times that Thatcher is CheckUser who have already CheckUsered LS real identity. See how CheckUser Thatcher not worried about Stupid identity? Why you worry about it all the time? Comment on content, not on the contributor.  bish a pod   splash!  21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Please use your real identity and speak proper English. It is not funny but rather ofensive that you treat people like that. I really can't believe that you are being tolerated this abuse.

Please, do not spam my user page with multiple identies and babble. It's really annoying and could fall under WP:PA and WP:CIV. You may think you are funny but... you aren't. --Sugaar (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Bishonen is a longstanding and first-rate admin and article writer who has the full trust of the community. Unfortunately, she is mad at Wikipedia (or parts of it anyway) right now and not contributing as she used to. User talk:Bishzilla is Bish's very well-known and fully accepted sock-puppet for having fun and generating incredible hilarity. User:Bishapod is Bishzilla's sock so that Bishzilla could have a sock too. More fun ensues. User:Little Stupid is another name for Bishapod.
 * Literally almost everyone knows who the owner is when these names show up and no-one is really going to object. Bishonen is well aware of what she's doing. It takes a while to learn these things, for sure. The best bet with Little Stupid or Bishapod is probably to offer them a plush toy, or a puppy to give their master Bishzilla. (Bishzilla nice monster, not eat little Franamax for telling this please) If we can get Bishzilla to eat the puppy, she might ask her master Bishonen pretty-please come back to Wikipedia. Does that help? Franamax (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you understand as "the community" but she doesn't have my trust since she uses sockpuppets to intervene in content disputes and somehow this is tolerated by administrators, who close the case on the pretext of "frivolity". You know I am right.
 * You cannot claim that what a handful of people consider valid is what "everyone knows". Wikipedia has maybe millions of contributors: a clique is not the community. The community is all who make Wikipdia possible - and obviously most have never heard (luckily) of this sockpupeetering abuse by an administrator.
 * And I don't find it funny in any case. Just stupid. But I don't care about that as long as it's not used to intervene in a content dispute (or to spam my userpage with Yoda-like babble). Once she starts with that, she is fully in the case of using sockpuppets for illegitimate purposes.
 * I know that WP:SOCK states that LS's (and therefore Bishonen's, if what you say is true) actuation is a breach of policy. Some administrators may be wrong in their undue leniency in this case.
 * I am not going to play that stupid game you say: this is Wikipedia not Freakypedia, please! We are editing an encyclopedia, not playing games that I can only describe as schizoid emotional blackmail and freaky childish games.
 * Let's be serious: there are other places than Wikipedia to play your strange games, really. --Sugaar (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
I'd suggest discussion and not edit warring on Call a spade a spade. No consensus for the edits you reverted to. You've been around, so I'm sure you're familiar with WP:CON and WP:3RR. Dreadstar †  07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for your additions certainly. That's why I reverted you: you are decaffeinating that most interesting essay and you could at least step down to the talk page to discuss those radical edits you tried to make. --Sugaar (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, they weren't "my" additions, they were additions by another editor; . Get your facts straight before you start making accusations and edit warring. Dreadstar †  07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Map for Pre-Roman Iberia
Hello Sugaar! Thnks for your input regarding the question of the maps for Pre-Roman Iberia. I'm quite busy right now, so I won't be able to give it its due attention. But I do want to pick up on your suggestion "to positivize this discussion and draw an even better map". That was my objective all along. I have no special preference for the map I made, I just thought it better then that other one you yourselve said it was losy. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars survey
Hi Sugaar. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I received a few replies such as yours, saying that the information is simply not applicable to the way barnstars are given out In our analysis, we've seen a few patterns to barnstar texts -- there are those that target very specific work or actions and therefore can't be captured with rudimentary statistics, and others that are very generic, targeting status attainment or long patterns of work that can be easily gleamed from a person's edit stats. The poll is unfortunately limited, but coming up with a controlled experiment/survey for understanding barnstar granting behaviour is rather challenging. Thanks again for participating and giving me comments. Bestchai (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I forgot to ask you as to how you would go about deciding whether 'someone is doing a good job'? If the statistics are noise, what information about an editor is useful to you in awarding barnstars? Bestchai (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Al Andalus.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:Al Andalus.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Iberia Bronze.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:Iberia Bronze.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Iberia Late Bronze.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:Iberia Late Bronze.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:VNSP.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:VNSP.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on the Basque People page
Sugaar, could you take a look at the discussion regarding some deletes by Narsil on the Basque people page and tell me what you think? Eskerrik asko! Akerbeltz (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Sugaar (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input! I think we can agree on some common ground, the 2 sections in questions were a bit oddly worded after all. ...so much to do and so little time to do it. I wonder if Britannica has editors as diligent as wiki ; ) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yah, the entries can surely be improved with other stuff and maybe there's no need to include all those quotes as such. But what Narsil is admittedly doing is crusading against Gimbutas and anything that sounds to "feminism". I guess that if he's doing the same all around the Wiki, he will have soon his personal page full of warnings. --Sugaar (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL it'll be his own fault. Mind, the Gimbutas quotes do sound a bit new-age. She could have been a little less populist and more scientific but then, she wanted the book to sell. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mural art map
Just something that crossed my mind if you ever have a week to spare - I think it would be interesting if you could overlay your map with known locations of cave systems. You know, atm it looks like there are significant clusters but while looking at it it just crossed my mind that it might just be down to the fact there are no caves elsewhere. Just a thought though! Akerbeltz (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis Culture & Cost
Eleven years ago The Ottawa Citizen published four consecutive Editorials in four days calling for the legalization of Cannabis. Calling the Editor to commend him for such bold action, it was suggested an article be submitted for payment if published on the Op-Ed page. On submission, the Editor said, "Now we're going to have to shit or get of the pot."

It was published as a Letter To The Editor with the heart and guts edited out so that no reader would have a clear perspective or understanding of the issue. If you're interested, you can read the article in the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier and maybe comment on the images in the article. Peace

Vitoria-Gasteiz
Need your comment on this Talk:Vitoria, Spain. Milesker. Zorion talk 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I guess we need your support. Zorion talk 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neolithic migrations map
Hi. nice map. I wanted to know where you encountered the term thessalio-Danubian group in relation to the movement of farmers from within the Balkans. ? Hxseek (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an old map. I coined the term myself, I think. Balcano-Danubian would be more correct surely. The use of "Thesalian" refers to this Greek region being aat the origin, apparently, of Balcanic Neolithic. But nowadays I'd rather use "Balcanic".


 * Glad you liked it anyhow. --Sugaar (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I came across the term Danube-Morava-Vardar river basin complex in a genetics paper. Apparently these farmers might have propagated haplotype E3b across Europe. Cheers Hxseek (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's actually another focus of E1b1b (former E3b) in southern Spain, whose early Neolithic may have arrived from North Africa (and later propagated somewhat through the Megalithic macro-cultural network). But you are right for E-V13, that has an apparent "Greek" origin (though it's actually more common among neighbouring Albanians, generally speaking) and it's basically spread through the Balcans and Danubian basin (what basically excludes later Greek maritime colonization). Enjoy. --Sugaar (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. But the focus of E3b in spain is different subclade, and different migration pattern and time from that in the Balkans. Spaniards have the M-78, V-12 clade which might have spread way back, like 15 kYa , possibly via a direct, trans-Meditteranean migration from northern Africa. Another clade, present in variable frequencies, is the m-81 clade- the so-called "Berber" gene reflecting migrations of Moors during Al-Anadalus, as well as Sephardic Jews.

In contrast, Balkan E3b is the M-78, V-13. Cruciani thinks it originated in Anaolia 10kYa, but expanded and grew within the Balkans, spreading later, c. 5.3 kYa. Its high frequency amongst Albanians is nothing special, just a founder effect, because Albanians have been a small, biologically isolated people throughout history. J2e, is the postulated marker of Greek maritime expansion during Neolithic and Bronze age.

Peace.

Hxseek (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AFAIK all the Iberian E subclades are of North African origin (exception of minor E-V13 traces that must be of Greek or maybe Phoenician origin). But (as I do not believe in the solidity of the conclusions of the Molecular Clock hypothesis, almost always contradictory internally and in regard to archaeology), I doubt those datations you provide are correct. Let's see:
 * There is no evidence whatsoever of any North African migration to Iberia as early as 15,000 BP. The opposite may be true (Iberomaurusian) but should not relate with E clades. Iberian (excluding Franco-Cantabrian region) Upper Paleolithic is a succesion of waves from the North: not just Aurignacian and Gravettian arrived from the North (and ultimately from the East) but also Solutrean (strongly Gravettized in Iberia), Magdalenian and Epipaleolithic cultural waves (Azilian and Tardenoisian derived).
 * Instead there is a not popularized (but very real) South Iberian Neolithic that pre-dates Cardium Pottery and that (for lack of any other explanation, cereals and legumes appear already developed: no local evolution certainly) must have arrived from ill-researched North Africa. Relations with North Africa were also rather strong later within the Megalithic macro-culture of the Chalcolithic era, and of course later under Phoenician, Roman and Muslim rule. But I would not agree with claiming all that North African blood in Iberia just to Islamic rule: that's clearly oversimplistic. In fact I think that most of it has Neolithic roots instead (but not Paleolithic - archaeologically "impossible").
 * Neolithic was in fact a good moment for founder effects like these because the agriculturalists, even if they assimilated many natives (as is attested by the archaological record, at least in Mediterranean Europe), also had some decisive economical advantage that would make sure that such minority arrivals would become numerous enough to persist through the centuries. In the case of Iberia, certainly this North African founder effect was reinforced later on but it is way too common to be attributed only to recent immigrants, who, as conquerors of farmer peoples, were necesarily a small minority.
 * North Africans arrived to Iberia in the Muslim period in relatively large numbers but almost always with privileged status (troops specially), not as farmers, that in the old times were always like 90% of the people. As privileged classes, they also were probably much more likely to emigrate than to accept defeat. While the number of Muslims in Al Andalus was important after several centuries of Emirate and Caliphate, most were local converts, who were then reconverted by grade or force. Of course, Muslim rule must had some genetic impact, I won't deny that, but not necesarily much more than Roman or Carthaginian rule, or than the strong and well attested economic and cultural links in the Chalcolithic or the Neolithic founder effects. The straits were sailed through once and again... since Neolithic (but not before, unless the Iberomaurusian/Oranian can be confirmed as original from Iberia - and only in that case).
 * Enjoy, --Sugaar (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly very interesting. My information was what Cruciani found in his last study. Of course all such studies should be taken with a grain of salt, as the confidence intervals of supposed 'ages' of the haplogroups are so variable that the conclusiosn consequently derived can be very different.I did not state that all "african' blood in Iberia was due to the Moors. Probably ancient migrations from nth Africa are more likely, although the time may be dabatle, as Cruciani's conclusion of 15 kYa apparently does not fit any archaeological evidence. And, yes, ther was an expansion of E3b V-13 from the Balkans to Spain, ? perhaps via Greek colonizers.


 * The classical Greek presence in Iberia was limited to a couple of Massalian outposts at the eastern Pyrenean coast. They were active as traders in other areas anyhow. Another epysode of Greek direct influence surely happened in the Middle Bronce Age, when El Argar culture adopted burialpractices of Mycenaean Greece. But all this Greek influence appears centered in the East, the South at most, and the actual area of greater E-V13 in Iberia is the West (Portugal, Galicia, Asturias). So it may be a Neolithic founder effect arrived with Cardium Pottery - not sure. It's a small clade anyhow. --Sugaar (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not much of an archaeologist. The gravettian and aurignacian culture articles here on wiki are crap, haven't learnt much from them. Were they both pan-European cultures ? In know they might have co-existed in western Europe, c. 25 kYa. Apparently, during the LGM, the Gravettian culture existed only in central Europe/ western Balkans. Hxseek (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that the Paleolithic articles are quite crappy but I have not been motivated as of late to edit Wikipedia a lot.
 * Aurignacian is pan-European, except Eastern Europe, that was then scarcely populated (origin in either the Levant or Central/West Asia). Gravettian (origin unknown, splinter in Central Europe) is really pan-European and even spans into West Asia (Caucasus, Zagros) in form of Epigravettian and has some Siberian offshots too (Altai). Solutrean is resricted to the Franco-Cantabrian region (where it surely originated), with offshots in Iberia (gravettized - maybe at the origin of North African Oranian culture) and Hungary. Magdalenian (origin Franco-Cantabrian region, maybe with Central European late Aurignacian influences) finally includes all Western and Central Europe but excludes Italy, the Balcans and Eastern Europe, that remained "Epigravettian". Epipaleolithic cultures all evolved form either Magdalenian or Epigravettian. --Sugaar (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just read the Prehistoric Iberia page. Very informative. Hxseek (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope it's still in good shape. The good and the bad of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. --Sugaar (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose that the spread of the carium pottery culture was a seperate route of spread to the "Balkan " farmers which spread Vincha culture to central Europe ? Hxseek (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's very evident. Also (very important) Vinca is distinct from the Balcan-Danubian early Neolithic inland wave. Vinca-Dimini is a second layer that may have been an invasion (some burnt villages, specially in Thessaly, a totally different pottery, first male "god" icons...) and has a limited scope: Northern Greece, Macedonia, Serbia - and a more hybrid and late influence in Syrmia and parts of Hungary. The Black-Beige pottery and other elements of Dimini-Vinca are unknown in the Adriatic (Cardium/Epicardial), the Eastern Balcans (that adopt Danubian cultural influenes instead) or anywhere in the Central European Danubian (Western Linear Pottery) cultural area.
 * In any case, while the origins of Cardium and Balcano-Danubian Neolithic might have been mixed (it's kind of obscure but some Cardium pottery is found in early Sesklo, "proto-Sesklo" for some), the consolidation and diffusion of both waves is clearly distinct:
 * (1) Balcanic (and derived Danubian) macro-culture expands through the inland routes into the Danubian basin and then farther west and north (as "Danubian", a culture that is significaively modified yet clearly derived from Balcanic Neolithic).
 * (2) Cardium pottery not only has a totally distinct style of pottery (no painting, engraving instead) but also a more tight dependence on sheep/goat and very specially on fishing (they are the first Europeans known to have ever fished in the high seas, far away from the coast, what implies a relatively advance navigation capability). Their more clear source is the Adriatic Balcans (coastal Albania, Montenegro, Dalmatia and most of Bosnia), from where they expanded along the coasts into (sequentially) Southern Italy, Central Italy, Sardinia and Corsica, SE France and Eastern Spain, with some remains also found in Northern Africa and in Iberia further west. This expansion nevertheless is very clear to have in most cases absorbed rather than displaced the natives (Cardium-Imprinted pottery style but with local Epipaleolithic stone tools), though there are some spots that appear true colonizations.
 * Regards, --Sugaar (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot: Cardium people also expanded into Northern Italy but in this case seems more of an inland migration directly from the Western Balcans. --Sugaar (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. So the Vincha culture is a seperate entity to the balkan culture ? Coz on the simplified Neolithic Europe map, the Vincha culture covers most of the balkans. If the Vincha is a seperate to the Baclkan - Danubian, what do we propose are its origins ? Hxseek (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not 100% separated, rather a new layer, probably caused by some invasion but certainly on the older early Neolithic substrate. There's clear discontinuity but also many elements persist. A deep transformation under a newly arrived influx in any case. They are also detected (simlar situation) in southern Anatolia (Can Hassan).
 * I use "Vinca", because that's what best approaches the Serbocroat spelling and is often found that way in English or Spanish too. But the pronunciation is certainly "Vincha" (VEEN-cha). It's not just Vinca but also Dimini in Thessaly (whose Bronze Age offspring, Rakhmani culture, persisted until just before the Mycenaean period) and other less famous cultural groups in Macedonia and highland Albania. They are all clearly related in origin.
 * Among the area of early Balcanic (Sesklo-derived) Neolithic (that excludes the Adriatic), who were not influenced by this wave, fell under the influence (also very strong) of Danubian Neolithic. True that in the first moment there seems to be also some Vinca-Dimini influence (not the purest version anyhow) in Bulgaria but in the Late Neolithic map you can see that area has become yellow (Danubian by the color code I used). It seems that in Boian culture of Wallachia became very expansive, probably as reaction to the Vinca-Dimini influence (this last is my speculation in any case) absorbing the anyhow continous Bulgarian cultural group (nation?) into the Boian-Marica (or Boian-Maritza) culture, that replaces the Vinca-Dimini influence by a Danubian one, while keeping the peculiarity of this group, somewhat distinct since the very beginning.
 * Origins of Dimini-Vinca? Obscure. Nevertheless there is a clearly related group in southern Anatolia (Can Hassan, also intrusive) and therefore it's been speculated that they may have arrived from West Asia. But their exact genesis is not known. In some anthropometrical paper I've browsed recently the Vinca remains appeared more related to Syria than anywhere else and rather apart from the main Balcanic trends. That's all I can say. --Sugaar (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate Hxseek (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Magdalenian
Hello and seasons greetings. Quick qustion- was the Magdalenian culture the main culture of Iberia during the LGM (20-14kYa) ? Hxseek (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Iberia must be treated as two separate main regions: the Cantabrian region, very closely related to southern France (Franco-Cantabrian region as a whole), of Atlantic climate nowadays (my English apartment-mate is surprised of how much it rains here - so far from the topical idea of "sunny Spain"), and the properly Iberian region along the Mediterranean coast. Additonally there are a handful of sites elsewhere, specially near Lisbon, that sometimes appear related to one or the other.
 * The Iberian (Mediterranean) province appears mostly as secondary to the Franco-Cantabrian one (much more important and densely populated overall) but with some noticeable peculiarities. It was first colonized by H. sapiens in the Aurignacian but with a very scattered pattern and low density. The main wave may have arrived only in the Gravettian (Cro-Magnon type), culture that rooted deeply there.
 * In the LGM it is one of the first spots where Solutrean appears (soon after Dordogne) but this Solutrean became intensely "gravettized" soon after. The peculiar Gravetto-Solutrean of this area was probably the origin of North African Oranian culture, at least in my opinion.
 * Magdalenian arrived only late there, almost in the Epipaleolithic (Parpalloan). Soon after we see the so-called "microlinear" microlithism (directly related to Azilian of the Franco-Cantabrian region) and then the "geomtric" one (derived from Tardenoisian culture of Middle Western Europe, that also influenced the Franco-Cantabrian region). Nevertheless the sites of microlinear and geometric Epipaleolithic are all different, what may mean two populations living side by side before the arrival of Neolithic.
 * Hope this helps. --Sugaar (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move of Mezquita de Córdoba ‎
I just requested a move of Mezquita de Córdoba to Great Mosque of Cordoba ‎ because this is an English language encyclopedia. I though you would agree.Historicist (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Iruña-Veleia
Kaixo Sugaar! Puedes mover tu mapa que muetra la localización de Iruña-Veleia a Commons? más que nada para poder ponerla en en otras wikis. Mila esker eta gero arte--Xave ri us  14:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalista (talk • contribs)


 * Move it yourself. I'm inactive. Anyhow, if the map has legend in English, it should not be moved but copied into a language-neutral format. --Sugaar (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some Spanish Nationalist nonsense
(Originally titled: "* tus estupideces en la pagina de carlos V *", or in English "your idiocies in the page of Charles V - changed by the owner of the page for aesthetic reasons --Sugaar (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

It's true that many modern authors use the term Spain way too liberally, falling in absurd anachronisms. This is partly fuelled by the nationalist ideology of modern Spain (with all the romanticism involved in such phenomenons: amplifying the nimious and minimzing the obvious) and the general perception that the seed of this modern state was already there since the late 15th century (marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella). --Sugaar 13:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) But formally there was no such "kingdom" at all at least until Philip II.

JAJAJAJAJAJA claro, Por eso Soliman el magnifico no reconocia a carlos V por el titulo imperial sino como rey de España "ispanya" no HISPANIA. así lo vemos en el estudio de la hispanista Özlem Kumrular, de la Universidad del Bósforo (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi): Carlos V y Solimán el Magnífico: dos soberanos en lucha por un poder universal, y en el libro El imperio otomano 1300-1650 de Colin Imber (Ediciones B), 2004, según consta en la página 69, y en la página 137.

que vivan las vascongadas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.7.100.94 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not any official title. Turkey did not exist either before Ataturk, no matter the name was occasionally used to refer to the Ottoman Empire.

In any case, please, write in English, be polite and constructive and sign your comments. --Sugaar (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Violencia
Hola, te he respondido en la página de discusión Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society a la pregunta que haces sobre la violencia, pero ahora que veo que hablas español, creo que es mejor responderte aquí en un idioma que domino que allí en uno que apenas chapurreo.

Pues si, la violencia contra la propiedad es violencia legalmente (no he leído el artículo entero, así que asumo por tu comentario a que se refiere a violencia de ese tipo). Esto en España es así, y lo he oído en boca de activistas pro derechos de los animales, que tienen que saber para luego poder asumir las consecuencias lo que es y lo que no es delito (cortar un candado, como ellos decían, se consideraría un acto violento aunque este no cueste ni un euro, así que teniendo en cuenta cuantos sitios hay disponibles para hacer rescates abiertos sin tener que hacer nada más que entrar y llevarse un animal, evitaban siempre hacer ese tipo de actividades de esa manera). Y en Estados Unidos diría que también se considera violencia, porque Tom Regan menciona (en su libro "Jaulas Vacías") que, de acuerdo a lo que se entiende por violencia (y cita alguna definición de diccionario), muchos de los actos que hace el ALF son claramente violentos.

Lo que las personas que se sienten molestos con este término suelen hacer en estas situaciones es matizar con un "contra la propiedad", para que se aclare que con "violencia" no se entiende lo que la gente suele entender por ella (agresión contra quienes pueden sentirla).

Veo que de todos modos, NRen2k5 ha dejado después de mi comentario una cita de otro artículo que creo confirma mis palabras (aunque aun tampoco la he leído entera).

Saludos. Akhran (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Normalmente prefiero comunicarme aquí en inglés, de forma que todo el mundo pueda entender. De todas maneras, que sea un delito no implica que sea "violencia". Cortar el tráfico u ocupar un edificio puede ser delito pero no es violencia. Gandhi cuando inició sus campañas de desobediencia noviolenta lo hizo cometiendo delitos, como hacer sal. La diferencia con un criminal normal es que ellos lo hacían abiertamentamente con la intención de protestar y asumiendo las consecuencias (ir a la cárcel o lo que sea).
 * Eso es noviolencia: resistencia activa, incluso técncamente criminal a veces pero sin matar, herir o violentar de cualquier otra manera a nadie. Yo tengo bastante experiencia en campañas y acciones noviolentas e incluyen asaltar cuarteles o locales de partidos (sin herir a nadie, usando la sorpresa y tácticas así), no acudir a obligaciones legales como el servicio militar, que pueden llegar a ser delito y sin duda ilegales. El que la actividad sea delictiva o no, no es lo que define la violencia. Matar judíos, gitanos, gays y rojos varios en Matthaussen era perfectamente legal pero extremadamente violento, la Satygraha de Gandhi era ilegal, criminal, pero noviolenta.
 * La gente que pretende hacer creer que cualquier acto que sea técnicamente ilegal es "violencia" simplemente trata de echar mierda sobre la resistencia noviolenta: trata de desactivar, de volver una forma de lucha tremendamente poderosa en algo sin fuerza. Es un cachondeo!
 * --Sugaar (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article
As a member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on September 11 attacks terminated
Hello Sugaar, These past few days, I was involved in a discussion on the page Talk:September 11 attacks and this morning I learnt that someone had decided to terminate it abruptly. I couldn't help noticing the same thing happening to you. In both cases, the enforcer goes by the name of Tarage and I find his attitude both offensive and impolite. He behaves like a thug, don't you agree? As it seems you've been a wikipedian longer than I am, I was wondering if you were aware of any recourse to have the closure submitted to an administrator or if we should just give up —in disgust as far as I am concerned. Sincerely, Oclupak (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Sugaar. I realize I made a mistake. The section which has been archived is not the one you were involved in but another one below it. All the same, I saw your post expressing your desire to leave Wikipedia. I too am disgusted by the attitude of those who seem to be in charge. I don't know what I'll do. Oclupak (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitoria-Gasteiz part 2
Despite having edited articles off-and-on for about 5 years now, this is still a major part of Wikipedia culture that I just don't "get". I tried to piece together form Talk:Vitoria-Gasteiz why that article is entitled what it is. Here's the chronology I inferred:
 * Someone came along and, for whatever motives, renamed Vitoria-Gasteiz to Vitoria, Spain.
 * Someone proposed a move back.
 * A few people said that, hey, the person shouldn't have moved it without consensus but now that they did, it's an appropriate title.
 * A few more people, including you, said that it's an inappropriate title.
 * Because consensus wasn't reached, the article didn't move.

So the unilateral actor wins the dispute. The prize for not following WP custom of consensus building is that you get your way.

What am I missing here? I agree strongly that you're correct on the merits of the naming, and more to the point this example shows why I get bored with Wikipedia so fast. If there's a de facto unwritten rule here, it seems to be that the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. This is a huge hole in Wikipedia IMO.

FWIW it's easy to Google an example from 2001 where the BBC plainly agrees with us. IMO their style matters far more than what a million historians call the Battle of Vitoria, because it's actually a contemporary English usage!

At any rate, I've brought up the question again on Talk:Vitoria-Gasteiz - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, never mind, I see you don't edit Wikipedia any longer.  Can't say I blame you.  - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Basque archaeology
Hello, my name is Dmitri Lytov, I am interested in European prehistory. I appreciate your contribution to the English Wikipedia on prehistoric topics and, as you may have noticed, I have already translated some of your prehistoric articles. May I ask you one thing: I prepared an article on prehistory of the Basque region, which was published in Basque. If you can read in Basque, can you please comment just a little? Regards and greetings from Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UOJComm (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Franco-Cantabrian region.gif
Hi, you createt the map File:Franco-Cantabrian region.gif. Thanks allot! Do you have the GPS Coordinates for the red dots? On WP/de I am preparing a list of all those sites: de:Benutzer:Zulu55/Höhlenmalerei: Fundorte in Frankreich. Greetings --Zulu55en (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Ancient Basque tribes.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Busturialdea map historical.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Busturialdea map modern.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Biltzar


The article Biltzar has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article is little more than X means Y in Basque.

While all constructive 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Letting you know
That you have been added on Missing Wikipedians. IMiss2010 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)