User talk:Asqueladd/Archive005

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice job on your work with Spanish politics and such in addition to your occasional translation. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Asqueladd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Franco & "Ground Hog Day"

I thought it was Attic Salt who reverted my change from "fascists" to "Falange Espanola" for the sentence, "In April 1937, Franco merged the fascist and traditionalist political parties in the rebel zone, as well as other conservative and monarchist elements, into FET y de las JONS, outlawing the rest of political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state."

My problem is with using the generic word "fascist" rather than the party's correct name, "Falange Espanola." Manalojo may have the same objection. To conflate FE with Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista creates only confusion. My suggestion is instead, since FE was uniquely Spanish, for greater precision to use the party's name in the sentence instead of the charged word "fascist," and of course link FE to its page so the reader can see for himself how different this party was from in particular the National Socialist German Workers' Party. All historians agree FE represented a unique brand of "Spanish Catholic authoritarianism," to conflate, even inadvertently, FE with Hitler's neo-paganism and racism is a disservice to the reader.

I also added for my original revision "thus Spain became a nominally one-party state." Manuel Fraga claimed even Franco at times treated El Movimiento as a joke. But, if you really object to "nominally" I have no problem with its removal.

I would like to work with for an agreed amended version for the sentence in question. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Answer 199.227.97.254 I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't know where did you get the crackpot idea that "Falange" were "catholic authoritarian conservatives" in opposition to being "Fascists", at odds with the entire body of academia. I don't agree at all with dropping the "Fascist" bit (that can be easily sourced as you can see in the talk page) from that part of the lead. FE de las JONS was a Fascist party as in Griffin's "palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism which seeks the rebirth of the nation through a radical social, moral and political revolution"" or whatever definition you could come up with... And that's what sources do in the context of the April 1937 decree of unification: label FE de las JONS as fascist (even right wing revisionists like Stanley G. Payne). Every authorative scholar recognizes FE de las JONS in the scope of Fascist momentum of the 1930s, not limited by the way to Germany and Italy (see Romania, f.e. for a particularly religious one). Additionally you can re-read the several definitions of Fascism: "neo-paganism" is not a core feature of Fascism in any of them. Despite being casually called simply "Falange", party real name wasn't "Falange Española" back then. That party merged in March 1934 with the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista to form the "Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista" (FE de las JONS). We are not even entering the issue of the fascistization of the rest of the right wing parties (particularly Renovación Española, and the youth wing of the CEDA)... That's were there are juicy contrasting interpretations depending on the author. But not here. Really. The Fascist character of FE de las JONS, is cut and dried as far as the entire corpus of sources go. You can stick to your personal views if that makes you feel better of course, but please don't distort the entry with them.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Franco Page Revisions

Asqueladd: Someone under the screen name of ShuffleboardJerk reverted my revisions. Apparently ShuffleboardJerk did not read the Francisco Franco talk page before undoing my revisions? These revisions were only made after much discussion on the Franco talk page. I have asked ShuffleboardJerk to undo his revisions. I may now become a registered user. Don't we agree there is no authority for 400,000 post-CW executions and/or prisoners "worked to death"? And, as shown for the talk page, I have no real problem with your proposed substitution sentence except to wonder how many readers will know what 'Arendt-style purgatory' really means? I look forward to working with you further to improve the Franco article.

Awaiting your reply. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you consulted the cited sources? I think there might be a slight problem of {{weasel inline}}, but I wouldn't think what the lede was trying to state is anything particularly unreasonable/absurd. But anyways, Javier Rodrigo is a quality source and "in topic". I suggest you to look into that comprehensive source, before claiming/pretending there is no authority for the sourced content. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought for the talk page you said you could find no authority for 400,000 post-CW executions or prisoners "worked to death"? At a minimum the 400,000 dead statement should at least be balanced by also citing what Thomas, Payne & even Preston estimate for this number? And, isn't this number more properly and already thoroughly discussed under the section entitled, "From the Spanish Civil War to World War II." This article is presently rated Class-C by Wikipedia.

Awaiting your reply. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that if that content is ultimately removed (intertextually, not explicitly, if the cited sources don't happen to verify the information, I dunno) I proposed another alternative phrasing that is verifiable. But if nobody cares to read the cited sources in order to verify the citation, it becomes difficult to do so (remove content backed by authoritative sources). AFAIK Preston and Payne don't estimate the numbers of prisoners in the entry (currently). They only deal with executions during the war and the most inmediate post-war period (certainly not until 1947). In any case I can agree the expression worked to death (I don't know if it's a literal citation) can be understood as weasel. The most comprehensive study on Francoist concentrations camps should be just fine in terms of being an "authoritative source" on the issue of how many people died and was imprisoned in those concentration camps.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please propose how you would like to reform the sentence in question. I think we can agree to a fairer and clearer version for this sentence. I have no real problem with as many as 400,000 prisoners post CW even though this number does conflict with both Thomas & Payne. And, would you like to now move back to the Franco talk page? 199.227.97.254 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just confirmed that there is no mention to a potentially weasel "worked to death" in the lead, so my only suggestion is that you need to consult the sources of that heavily sourced passage (particularly the Javier Rodrigo bit), before modifying it in any substantial way. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EFE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Periódico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you....

...check this out and, if you want, give some input. Saludos, Maragm (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Parliament election, 1994 (Spain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando Morán (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Balance

I'm not sure if I should respond here or on my page, but at least here I'll know you'll see it.

I have seen your sources, however they are not relevant for this case. The Portuguese Instituto Nacional de Estatística, does not count for Olivenza because the region is controlled by Spain. If you look at other regions such as Abkazia, the Georgian government generally has the excluded, has bad estimates, or uses Abkhaz data. Same thing with Syria's or Israel's dispute however Syria just doesn't count for it.

The Instituto de Geográfico Português, does not include the region of Olivenza to not disturb Spain. However, the region is still claimed by Portugal and is not considered a District of it's own. Since the provincial system, in which Olivenza was officially considered a part of Alto Alentejo ended with the fall of the Salazar regime, the District system has been used. The district system divided the former provinces and shifted the borders. If the region is not a part of Évora, then what is it a part of? Portalegre? It's own district? Ridiculous. There's no sources stating that there has been a change.

However, I will email the Instituto de Geográfico Português personally to confirm.

As for the article on Olivenza. If it were an article solely on the demographics, government, or statistics of the municipality of Olivenza, then it would make sense for it to only show the Spanish side. Spain controls the region, so only it can show that. However, this is a general article on the municipality of Olivenza, and the dispute. To follow the standard set by the Crimea article, maps should either not be bias to either side, or show both sides to avoid dispute.

I believe either would be fair, so, if we are to have the article follow the standard set by the Crimean article, then we should either remove all maps, create a map that is not bias to either side, or show a maps of both the Portuguese and Spanish side of the dispute. It's up to you, I just want the article to be neutral.

If the issue is the source of the maps, that can be discussed as a separate matter. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I wish to follow the quoted point from WP:UNDUE. Neutrality in articles is important. I believe the accuracy of the maps is correct and adheres to the standards, but if you wish for another, another can be found. However remember that most nation maps, particularly the svgs, are all user created.

Also, the url you provided after talking about the Instituto Geográfico Português, for me to 'check for myself', was to the Instituto Nacional de Estatística. I've already explained previously why the Portuguese statistics institute cannot have that data.

Luiz187 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"I don't think we agree in what 'not acknowledging sovereingty of the de facto ruling autority' entails for the infobox balance and for the decontextualised use of information in a bulleted list of sorts in navigation templates."

No, we don't agree on this. Why would you recognize the the de facto ruling authority over the de jure. This is Wikipedia, the articles aren't supposed to be that way. They are supposed to be neutral. Look at the article on Crimea, it doesn't support the de facto ruling authority either... or the de jure. It's neutral.

"In any case the Olivença's ellusive subnational adscription within Portugal is not a topic of crucial relevance" In all cases of disputed territories, the side of both is generally showed. Sure it may not be crucial information, because Portugal does not control it, (And that is mentioned in the article), but Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and show the position of both sides. You seem to be against the neutrality as a Spanish speaker and trying to push your own views, I am trying to make this neutral while displaying accurate information and following the standard of other articles.

"the annexation by Spain of the territory predates by decades the creation of the district system in Portugal." Yes this may be true, but I believe the district system is primarily based upon the old provincial system. Meaning when the province where the Portuguese government claimed Olivenza was a part of split and was reorganized into two districts, Olivenza ended up in one of them. Logically it would be Évora, however please wait for the Instituto Geográfico Português to reply to my email so I can confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiz187 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"Ah, you entered into personal" I think you already did with "Maybe you are not trying to reflect the position of the parts as it is, but as you would like it to be" I'm not going to bother with subtleties though.

But I will admit I have bias, but my changes are to implement neutrality. If I were to be Pro Portuguese, I would just delete all maps with Olivenza in Spain. I obviously have not and will not do that. But you wish to do exactly that but from the Spanish view from what I understand of your replies. Also as far as I can tell, Wikipedia policy allows for emails, if from an accurate representative, as evidence. You asked for evidence, I will get it. If you don't think the representative is high enough in the ranks to comment on that, I will contact someone else. However the Instituto Geográfico Nacional is a source you yourself suggested. I will also ask them why they have not published anything on it since I myself am curious. But, there is no reason for articles on Olivenza to only show the Spanish point of view.

The maps I have created are as official as the maps of Spain or any district of Portugal. None of them were created by any official source.

However since you have replaced a map with a neutral one I wont press the matter of the maps further.

I will still be contacting the government to know whether Olivenza is considered a part of Évora. If the reply is yes, then I will re-add the "Municipalities of Évora" infobox to the Olivenza article. Luiz187 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Steven Forti

Hello, Asqueladd,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Steven Forti should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Forti .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I may be wrong about nominating this article, which I came across while patrolling new articles, for deletion. There is nothing in the article that indicates that he meets WP:GNG apart from his book. If he were an academic with peer-reviewed, cited papers it would be one thing, but he has not got that authority. Has he really done enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD deleted section

Hi, you deleted a new section here.I am from the german WP. There it is a violation against wp-rules. I would like to restore it. lets see if it is worth it - ok? kind rgds --NoPC01 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@NoPC01: You have created your account (both here as in the German WP) on 19 October in order to undo me while blabbering nonsense. You did include me in a spooky list, for reasons I am not yet able to ascertain. Feel welcome to explain yourself further, because my time is limited and spending too much of it addressing this sort of potentially disruptive behaviour by single-purpose accounts (or similarly, by sockpuppet accounts) is not my cup of tea. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ana Botella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ángel Garrido, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Great article creation in Badalona City Council election, 2015! Keep it up! Do expand the article's lede if and when you get the time, though. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 10:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Asqueladd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Asqueladd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Election articles

Could you please at least explain what is the need for creating an endless flow of stand-alone articles for random municipal election articles in Spain? Or, at the very least, explain how do these meet the notability criteria so as to warrant their own, stand-alone articles. Are you going to create an article for every one of the 8,000+ municipalities in Spain, and is it really needed?

Further, you should know that under WP:POLITICIAN, members of local corporations are NOT notable on their own just by merely getting elected. So, creating stand-alone city council election articles just to show a list of elected local officials is not justified nor abiding to notability criteria. You would have to justify how these elections are notable under English reliable sources so as to merit their own articles. Are Toledo or Alcalá de Henares notable under these?

As an alternative, I would suggest creating "results breakdown" articles, which would serve the purpose of showing election results for these (and other large) municipalities, such as in Results breakdown of the 2015 Spanish local elections (Aragon) or Results breakdown of the 2015 Spanish local elections (Catalonia). Impru20^talk 06:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th cities in Spain are not notable, you can also as well as discuss it if you wish. At the very least, Madrid and Barcelona are covered in international media so the notability of these is not questioned (just as there is election articles for Paris, London, etc but not for tiny or minor cities elsewhere). Also, I do not understand why are you intent on using a different format in those articles you keep creating than all ohter election articles throughout Spain. Happy to know where and when this "Asqueladd" user decided so unilaterally. Impru20^talk 06:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

adhering to the same "arbitrary" criteria the 2015 Spanish local elections entry uses (arbitrary, but falling short of the 8,000 municipalities) is another possibility. Which criteria? You are not explaining why a stand-alone article is merited for these. Again, you only seem to be creating these in order for having a table with elected local officials (as far as I'm seeing), which is not warranted as these are not notable people on their own under WP:POLITICIAN. You are also not explaining why you can't just use the "results breakdown" format; as it's used for other local elections without the need for creating A LOT of local election articles for nothing. I'm proposing you an alternative yet you are only pushing your articles forward (with their own, different format) for the sake of it. Also, as far as I'm seeing, these articles you are creating are essentially copy-pastes from the Spanish wiki, which works under wholly different criteria than those used here. Impru20^talk 06:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Because that compact format using the legislative election template fits the purpose of a "election for electing a full chamber" best, with the other one you mention giving not enough importance to the focus of the election (electing councillors from a list) (...) WP:POLITICIAN. You are not even caring to address or reply to this. Locally-elected politicians are NOT notable on their own just by getting elected, so the need for showing a list of elected councillors is not really there. You may have not invented the template, but you're using a wholly different system than that used for other existing elections in Spain, which are the country these cities do belong to (and, if you wish to abide to examples in another countries, you could very well get inspired by other countries not having such articles for most of their local elections (just for the capitals and, at most, the 2nd or 3rd most populated cities). Impru20^talk 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The nature of these elections is that these in itself are not notable on their own, aside from the WP:POLITICIAN argument, which I only pointed to show that creating these articles for having lists of elected councillors is not really warranted. The very most populated cities are notable because they get coverage in English reliable sources. If anything, I think the Seville case is the most conflicting one (maybe it could be argued that if Seville remains, Zaragoza could as well), but sincerely there is little doubt on the others. Impru20^talk 07:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A list of cities within any given article is something wholly different than stand-alone articles for each one of these, and is obviously not a free license for creating these as separate articles (and I mean under the notability guidelines). Topics for stand-alone articles are required to meet the notability criteria on their own right; you as an experienced Wikipedian should know that. On the Zaragoza article, I just re-directed it to an article already containing information for 2015 election results in Zaragoza (the article you created only adds an infobox and a list of mostly unnotable people (remember POLITICIAN). I won't accuse you of "disruptive editing" just for needlessly duplicating info or for keeping failing to explain why the "results breakdown"-list articles do not seem enough for you to cover these). Nonetheless, I'm not that opposed to having stand-alone election articles on Zaragoza (given it is the 5th-largest city) or re-considering the status of the Seville articles (whose creation was mostly motivated because of the extensive opinion polling that Seville frequently gets) if that is the actual issue. It is just a matter of discussion. Impru20^talk 07:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not at home right now, so I'll reply to your last comment in full as soon as I'm able to (I say this just in case, as I'll proably be unable to reply in a couple hours, or link to policies, edit changes, etc I would need until then). Notwithstanding, I will say right now that you are assuming some arguments and reasonings on my part that I've never stated or used (i.e. the "it's a matter of four" argument is just absurd. I have never used it nor defended something even close to that; you are just assuming it because I did create articles for Seville but not for Zaragoza, which is bringing the argument to the brink of fallacy). I will say for us to take this little time to take on this in a more relaxed way, as a suggestion. Impru20^talk 09:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. Firstly, the use of such a language is inappropiate and not needed. Let us keep this a civil issue. Surely, we may have very well not expressed ourselves correctly, so let's give it another try.

• First of all, a clear reference to WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRITERIA should be made, because I had assumed you would already know about these before I read your last comment. Topics not meeting the criteria in those guidelines do not merit stand-articles on their own. Plain and simple.
• Then, I did not create these articles "out of the blue". The first instance where one of such articles was created was 2015 Madrid City Council election, which was created by another user different than me ([1]). Based on that, I merely created the articles for the remainder of local elections in Madrid, also taking into consideration the existence throughout Wikipedia of stand-alone articles for municipal/local elections in capital cities throughout the world (Paris municipal election, 2014, Rome municipal election, 2016, Belgrade City Assembly election, 2018, London mayoral election, 2016, Dublin City Council election, 2014). Any simple search on the Internet would cast little doubts on Madrid elections meeting both GNG and EVENTCRITERIA. As for Barcelona elections, I concede that the notability of these is not expressly given within as no specific links were provided in a case-by-case basis, but such a notability is verifiable nonetheless if warranted ([2] [3] [4] [5] or others). The cases of Valencia and Seville are more doubtful: as you will see, I did not worked fully on those until two and a half years after the Madrid and Barcelona articles were created, and I did mostly for the practical purposes of showing available opinion polls (that's the actual reason, not that 4 is some sort of "magic" number). A restrictive interpretation of GNG and EVENTCRITERIA could put these two into jeopardy as well, so let's not think about Alcalá de Henares, Badalona or Toledo.
• On the issue of sources (which are key for determining notability) verifiability is not the same than notability. A topic does not get notable (i.e. in terms of warranting its own stand-alone article) just because it gets reported in a source. Source reports must meet a set of criteria, among those: A) WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE, B) WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DIVERSE. The sources you inserted for these articles do not support the idea of these rather minor elections abiding to these criteria, as they hardly show any truly national and/or international significance on their own (and not as part of the wider local elections throughout Spain) neither do they get a persistent and in-depth cover in a variety of sources.
• (...) all of them deemed within the group of "relevant" municipalities in the entry about the 2015 Spanish local elections) Getting covered in Wikipedia does not determine notability. A list within an article showing a variety of global election outcomes for municipalities is something very different to (and does not imply) the need for having a stand-alone article for each of these. Topics must be notable on their own to merit creation as stand-alone articles, which is something way different than you determining their notability because of these getting a mention within an article to which they are related.
• then an arbitrary (unlike the former criteria) list of city control change of notable "municipalities" can be included in the 2015 Spanish local elections to the dreaded 8,000 municipalities The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. This is somewhat related to the previous, as you seemingly imply that just because some content is featured in an article you are determining that such a content warrants its own stand-alone article, which is not the correct approach. So, when you say like if they were any different from the ones you created, it is obvious that notability alone is enough of a difference (and again, this may be questionable for the cases of Valencia and Seville as I pointed, but hardly for Madrid and Barcelona). Your topics do not become more notable just by adding different or new content. In fact, you can have an article on a notable topic with little content at all.
• The reality is that local elections elect local councillors regardless of the individual notability of those biographies to merit and standalone article (...) Of course, but my point when linking to POLITICIAN was to highlight that local officials are not notable just for getting elected. They are non-notable by definition, unless something else makes them notable. Thus, it is hardly an argument to say that a topic merits notability because you need to show a list of unnotable people running for election/getting elected in any given municipality. The articles on the wider Spanish local elections do exist because they are notable topics on their own; they do not exist to feature tables or other content, which is just complementary information. Conversely, an article should not exist just to support a list of otherwise unnotable people: that would be nigh to indiscriminate.
• And at the same time, none can apparently use that same arbitrary list to extract a criteria of notability of municipalities. Obviously. Notability criteria are not determined by what is said in any given article, but by WP guidelines. Again, as an experienced Wikipedia user, you should know this. Notability for article creation is not the same as notability for article content, and these should not be confused.
• On the BRD issue, you did not reply when I first "blanked" these pages with extensive edit summaries (and relatively, because the content for two of these was already present in other articles way before you created those). You limited yourself to make empty reverts or reverts without any justification ([6] [7] [8] [9]), and you kept reverting even after I started this discussion in your talk (you did not make any attempt at discussion before I did), which is why I pinged you to BRD.
• (...) the frigging "result of the election" (...) The result of the election is not relevant if the election itself does not meet WP guidelines for having a specific article on it, and lists of non-notable people do not make a non-notable topic any more notable. I could use your same argument against you: you seem keen on adding however was elected at an election by creating articles on these elections, even if these elections are not notable enough to merit their own articles or even if those elected people are not notable on their own to get a mention in Wikipedia, no matter how core of an element do they represent for an otherwise non-notable topic. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for something, because it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some things may just not be needed to be shown in Wikipedia. Impru20^talk 15:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Hi Aqueladd!

I can perfectly understand your point. Nonetheless, as I could to a certain extent agree with the fact that maybe the infobox name should go by the name they were most known as, the article title should follow the wikipedia conventions, which is to include normally the title (after the name, of course). Take Margaret Thatcher for instance. Very rarely do people refer to her as The Baroness Thatcher, but in her infobox, she appears as such. I couldn't agree more with you in general, but seeing most English language articles, I think we should reach consensus and name the articles following those conventions, e.g Name, x Duke of abc and then the title in the infobox, maybe only exclude personalities that are incredibly known or relevant (e.g Francisco Pizarro etc...)

Any thoughts?

Thank you very much for your kind help! --MaroneLeone (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Province of Toledo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiétar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hi Asqueladd!

Fortunately, no need of sock puppetry investigation has to be done, as I do admit to having owned those accounts. Having said this, I have ever since only used this account and I firmly believe that I am doing the right thing, therefore no puppetry is being used. My interest is in nobility and particularly Spanish nobility, as I believe that it is rather obscure as a topic in Wikipedia, when it really shoudln't be, specially when one thinks about the fact that Spain is a Kingdom and therefore is arguably one of the two most important systems of nobility (the other being UK). I am only following Wikipedia's naming conventions for nobility (read here [10] particularly the section of "Other cases"), as well as uploading free use media on commons regarding this topic. I believe I am not disrupting but rather the opposite; when I arrive at an article of a Spanish peer, it tends to be very unsupervised and untidy, and I really do try my best to clean it up.

I sincerely appreciate your helpful edits and concerns, but would rather work alongside you rather than being some sort of enemy!

Of course if the Wikipedia community or yourself considers this to be disruptive, I will accept whatever it is, but I really do want to help as much as I can. Any thoughts are more than welcome.

Thank you for your time and I do apologize if I'm wasting some of it. Regards, --MaroneLeone (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Catalan politicians

Hi, I just wanted to explain my reverts. Category:Catalan politicians is an "All included" category - articles are included in this category even if they're included in a sub-category. Therefore I've re-inserted Category:Catalan politicians where you've removed it.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Hi. I've just checked the use of the template: it's marginal for cats of people. Mainly used for locations, supposedly closed sets (and for some reason I am not able to ascertain yet for the "nationality"[sic] of films). As said before, very minor use for people and directly never used in instances of such potentially wide cats of politicians. As it is stated to be inserted by convenience... well one may well ask, which is the convenience behind it?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

As with many things on Wikipedia, the use of Template:All included is hap-hazard. You're correct that it seems mostly to be used for locations but it is used a few times for nationality based categories, mostly sport related, e.g. Category:Australian cricketers and Category:American male golfers. Both of these have many more entries than Category:Catalan politicians.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Currently, if the intent is actually to be exhaustive, the category is certainly underpopulated. Maybe I would bring this issue later (attracting discussion to the talk page of the category?), because I don't think there is a clear useful rationale for it (the absence of usage of such template for most wide cats of politicians may be a hint, but I should dig further into it to make a more reasoned statement). As of now, in the meanwhile, I just intend to not remove the cats again and avoid further populating the category. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly a discussion can be had but I would recommend somewhere more widely used than Category talk:Catalan politicians, perhaps WP:BIOGRAPHY or WP:CATP. The issue with underpopulation can be rectified easily using Commons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot but I won't do anything for now.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: I take your suggestion into consideration, although as you say the template is discretionarily used, the specific Cat talk page may be in my view to first place to discuss how pertinent is the use of the template for the category. If potentially low participation is a problem, a request for comment may solve that.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish Revolution of 1854, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSIC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment

If you check, the column is not for "coalitions" but for "parties or alliances". While at times both terms are used intercheangibly, the purpose here is not to use a restrictive term but an inclusive one (albeit not a too inclusive one). Several parties may be allied without a formal coalition being signed, be it with the candidates standing as independents or whatever. In such a case it won't be a coalition, but it would be an alliance between different parties. My criteria for the 2019 Madrid City Council election (and for all elections as a whole) was to include parties in such alliances. "Bancada Municipalista" is not a party (not now at least) but rather, a loose umbrella organization, and that was the issue with it.

About Actúa, I think that as per this we could add them into the municipal list (they have been rejected by Errejón at the regional level, though). Impru20^talk 20:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You're bringing it to a too extreme approach I think. I mean, the current approach is option b) but limiting the listed organizations to actually registered parties (or, if it is the case, party federations or alliances that in turn run within a larger, umbrella grouping), something which is easily verifiable with the Interior Ministry register tool. Extending it to any organization is too extreme and not an issue of "liking" but an issue of legality: non-party organizations do not have a legal personality to run in elections on their own (unless they run under the umbrella of a grouping of electors). Simply put, a "confluence of three organizations" where two are parties and one is not, is not "a confluence of three organizations" but a confluence of just two. The third one either turns itself into a party or has no recognition under the electoral law, it simply does not exist in electoral terms.

The issue with a), on the other hand, is that it has proven throughout time to be little practical and to miss key information that may be relevant for some readers: this may be the case for United to Advance in the 2017 Catalan regional election, the Socialists' Party of Catalonia in all general elections and so on. Impru20^talk 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ports in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Manuel de la Rocha

Hello Asqueladd,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mgbo120 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Manuel de la Rocha for deletion, because it is unnecessary and disambiguates only a single page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mgbo120}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 20:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Valor seguro

re: Safe asset, safe value y trusted values. Veo que se optó por "safe asset" en el artículo, no está mal pero tampoco me convence. No pensé que sería tan difícil traducir el slogan. Se me ocurren "reliable value" (valor en el que puedes confiar) y, ya pensando en el "espíritu" de la frase y un "idiom", podría ser algo como "sure bet" . Saludos, --Maragm (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Andalusia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Julián Casanova

White Terror (Spain) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Julián Casanova

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andalusia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julián Casanova (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Franco intro

Hi, just how we previously made changes to the introduction of the Francoist Spain page, maybe we should modify the introduction of Francisco Franco's page. I feel its too heavy on the early stuff like Civil War and especially World War II. The reign from the 50's to the late 70's is basically just skimmed over, while details about WW2, which Spain was not even part of, is given a lot of space. Maybe something kind of in the style of the intro of Mao Zedong. It feels to have a more balanced inclusion of both the early and late stuff he did, with a nice little "finisher" of his overall perception and legacy at the end. --Havsjö (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed some of the superflous details about WW2, but still maybe add some more details about the post-WW2 times? --Havsjö (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: Is there any size limit (as prescribed somewhere)? The lede needs to deal with his military activity in Africa with the Spanish Army and his repressive role after the 1934 insurrectionary strike in Asturias (vis-à-vis his early life) in addition to probably his upbringing. Yes, it was too much WW2 heavy. About post-1945, aside from generalities of the dictatorship, it may also include something about how he set up his succession with Prince Juan Carlos of Bourbon, something about the "Valley of the Fallen", and despite not being Franco-centered, something delving on the course of the political leadership of the regime in the 1970s (including Carrero and Arias Navarro as heads of government).--Asqueladd (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont know if there is a specified limit, but I would say the overall length currently, or on for example the aforementioned Mao Zedong page, seem pretty okay for a more famous guy. Less info about the civil war and more about Franco himself, like the Asturias, which you mentioned. What are things that happened between the 50's and his death? How did he personally change considering the relaxation of the dictatorship? I feel the "layout" of Mao's intro is very good. The very basic intro of his name, life and death. Then an "even stream" of his doings from the early days to the late, finished with a paragraph about his legacy and how he is/was perceived in the world/today.
What would you say are the "main points" in his life from birth to death that the intro would be built around? --Havsjö (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: Born in Ferrol, cadet in the Toledo Infantry Academy, military career in the Rif, became general very young, repressive role in the 1934 strike, late adherence to the Civil War putsch (that is, not masterminded by him), flew from Canarias (where he had been reshuffled to) to North Africa and took command of the Army of Africa during Civil War, became single rebel leader, appointed generalisimo&head of state in Fall 1936, head of government, merged parties into FET y de las JONS, won war in 1939 (sometimes considered to having followed a strategy of "war of attrition"), continued repression, nurtured certain cult of personality, role in WW2, imposed autarchy in international isolation, Carrero Blanco becoming Éminence grise since very early, physical decline of Franco since the mid 1960s, including Parkinson (maybe also mental in the later stages, sources conflict over this, possible reduced control over his cabinet in his last years), set up succession in 1969 to Juan Carlos of Bourbon, appointed Carrero as head of government in 1973, figuratedly died in "his bed". Buried in the Valle de los Caídos. This source (in Spanish though) can help to connect late francoism and the decline of the regime with biographical passages of Franco.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sredina (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sredina: Do you mean your possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, as you are the greatest offender, right?--Asqueladd (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pablo Casado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-nominals

Hi Asqueladd,

I have seen your enthusiastic Barnstar to a Wikipedia user that seems to be a biased British contributor. As you can probably imagine, orders and postnominals do not solely apply to British articles, but to other countries as well!

How come? Quite ironic being a Spaniard yourself...

--Cantabrucu (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Out of curiosity, are you from Spain yourself?

--Cantabrucu (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agustín Aznar

How are my edits on Agustín Aznar pushing a point of view? --2001:8003:412B:6300:3D7D:C6B7:A82B:367D (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You are twisting the tone of the sources to insert your own slant.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

i don't see how these edits are twisting the tone. Can you explain with each edit made how it is twisting the tone? 2001:8003:412b:6300:9435:e8b:2709:6873 (talk)

You arbitrarily change the words, you twist the tone. The reasons for you to do it... that I cannot fathom, but refrain from pulling those changes without consensus.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

they are being changed to make it neutral. If you could explain every single change I made to it and why it's wrong I would like to hear

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Castile and León, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply

I suppose that is one of simplicity and economization, as there is not a clearly established guideline on the formatting of Cabinet pages throughout Wikipedia and the splitted articles were not very large on their own. In Spain it is not common for sources to disaggregate cabinets by number and it is typical for sources to refer to the whole government period as a whole, i.e. "Gobierno (de) Zapatero" ([11]), "Gobierno (de) Rajoy" ([12]), "Gobierno (de) Sánchez" ([13]), etc. This proves even more complicated when you go to governments all the way back into the Restoration period or even the early 19th century, when prime ministers were not directly appointed in investiture votes nor as a direct result of elections and it proves very difficult to determine, at times, what number a specific cabinet was (merging helps this way by avoiding to bring any possible inconsistencies into article titles themselves). There wasn't any discussion on this, though multiple other government/cabinet articles have been set up without proper discussions as well, so feel free to make any suggestions about the formatting. Impru20^talk 16:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, consistency at this stage is nigh to impossible because there is simply no consistency throughout Wikipedia on cabinet articles. Take Blair ministry, Conte I Cabinet, Government of the 32nd Dáil, Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand, Morrison Government, Second Philippe government, Fourth Merkel cabinet, etc. I think splitting has its advantages (i.e. being able to work on one specific cabinet independently from others, as well as the ones you point), but then the main issue would be how to name them, since article titles should abide to the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. It should be "First Zapatero Government", for instance? "First Zapatero Cabinet"? "Zapatero I Government" (or Cabinet)? Or even "Government of the 8th Legislature of Spain"? Or should these be uncapitalized as "government"/"cabinet"/whatever? Further, as you say, it is much simpler to number governments starting from 1976 than it is for previous ones (by taking sources, such as your Urquijo Goitia's classic, Lluis Belenes' online compilation, Historia Electoral for 1913-present governments, the CSIC minister compilation ([14] [15] [16] [17]) or just taking it directly from the historical Official Gazette, those may not agree on the governments' numbering). However, while I agree that different issues may arise for the different periods, it's also obvious that we can't have vastly different formattings for each historical period, and they should all contain at least some common patterns. PS. Indeed, the structure of Zapatero government and others hint at a possible splitting because when I knew they could be possibly split up again in the future. It is simply that at the time I did not come up at how best to do it. Impru20^talk 08:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Gonzalo Álvarez Chillida.

User:Willsome429 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your work with translations, much appreciated!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:

Fellow, I just took out some galleries that looked excessive, had many images and covered a lot of space, you feel free to place the images in a better position, so that the article looks better, of course in the correct article section, do it in the style of the New York article, when You do write to me, I will validate the images if they look right.--BrugesFR (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to do the same thing right now with the Budapest article thanks to what I learned today from you.--BrugesFR (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plateresque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antena 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ignacio Sánchez Amor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cáceres (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

CDR conection to violence

Hi! Sorry, you where right, in the source i gave, there was not mention of the CDR.

Here I give you ElPais https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/16/inenglish/1571210417_061341.amp.html they describe them as "The Committees to Defend the Republic (CDR), a grassroots network that advocates direct action". I dont change It my self, because I dont want to feel in a "edition war".

Better that we first get it sorted out and agree and then make the edit. What do you think? --LaVerdadEsImportante (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVerdadEsImportante (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi Asqueladd,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Hi, just wanted to direct your attention to Talk:Spanish Civil War#Restoration of page --Havsjö (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: Hi. I see there is a developing consensus against adding unsourced content with unsourced POV. I've looked about the image of the monument of the Cerro de los Ángeles. At this point the affiliation of the militiamen may need direct sourcing. It is 'hinted' here (key word: 'hinted') that at least the dynamite may have an idea of the CNT of Villaverde. But the caption as it is right now or in the former version still needs an actual source directly backing it up. Somewhat related (as it looks to have been a minor target of the recent changes) but not directly addressing your main concern: I personally find the whole "people" section to be utterly disposable (not to say also the concept of the presiding 'podium'/'altar' with three 'thumbnailed' individuals). There may be also problems regarding the licensing of some images recently uploaded to Commons.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

True, much of the bottom part of the page is pretty unnecessary bloat. If no source can be found for the militiamen, maybe a generic "republicans" can be used. --Havsjö (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cabinets, cabinets, cabinets

Yeah, in the end I think that having them separately makes them easier to handle, so in the absence of a clear, common Wikipedia guideline or MOS on how to handle these, efficiency and simplicity should prevail. ;)

On your suggestion, I've been thinking a long time about it but I am not sure on the benefits it may bring, specially considering that the condition of MP is not related to the government's offices. The main issues I've come to see on it are the following ones:

1. How to properly represent ministers' membership as either deputies or senators. There's not much precedent on this throughout Wikipedia. I can think of Japan and the the UK, but these are somewhat different political systems where it is extremely rare for cabinet members not to be MPs (in fact, in the mentioned systems it is actually either a legal rule or customary practice for cabinet members to have a seat in parliament), whereas in Spain it is more commonplace (the Sánchez I Government is the most visible example of this, as most members including Sánchez himself were not MPs upon the cabinet's formation in June 2018, and those that were resigned shortly afterwards: Ábalos, Robles and Batet).
2. Related to the above, the question arises on how to properly represent changes on such membership during the government's tenure (and what to understand as "tenure" in such a case, i.e. whether to include "acting" periods), a situation further aggravated by the recent trend of Spanish governments requiring of two elections in a row to be formed (which implies a tremendous prolongation of the acting periods that, up until 2015, only lasted for about 20 or 30 days). This means a lot of potential for changes from MP status to non-MP or vice versa within a single government. For example: José Luis Ábalos was a MP until 15 June 2018 (meaning that from 7 to 15 June he concurrently combined his cabinet duties with those of MP). He went on to re-win his seat on 21 May 2019, after the April 2019 election, which means we would have to figure it out how to show him intermittently as MP and non-MP in 2018 and 2019. This could have been further aggravated should he had chosen not to run in the November 2019 election (such as Josep Borrell, for example).

If this is to be implemented, these concerns should be handled in a simple way so as to avoid the MP issue from interfering too much on the articles' scope, which in the end is to show the governments' composition. Something I've not been able to figure out yet. What do you think on this? Impru20^talk 17:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I also tended to think at some point that this could be amended through the "Notes" section. The main issue on it is that notes are typically used for (rather) exceptional situations and comments, whereas we may end up with a lot of notes for some governments just to reflect the changes of MP status (think of the Sánchez I Government, or the Calvo-Sotelo Government which literally saw the entire Council of Ministers expelled from parliament after the 1982 election), which I don't think is worth it considering the very weak connection between cabinet membership and parliament membership in the Spanish political system. I actually think this could be more useful at the 14th Congress of Deputies and related articles, adding a note for MPs who are also cabinet members. It may be of more relevance there, since being a cabinet member implies that the MP will not sit together with the remainder of his or her party's parliamentary group but on the government's "blue bench". Impru20^talk 17:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to José María Marco, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Why are you removing entire sections from said page? Even if that info is not properly sourced, you'll have to raise the issue on the talk page, properly discuss this with more experienced users, and then (and only then) remove the info as a part of cleanup. Otherwise, it is possible uninvolved people could classify this as vandalism. JavaHurricane 11:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just explained that you once (now twice) in your talk page and another one via edit summary. What's is wrong with you?--Asqueladd (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the message on my talk until after posting the above message. Please ignore above message, and carry on with your work. -- JavaHurricane 11:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

¡Santiago! (or ¡Santiago y cierra, España!)

I'm sorry there is nothing illegitimate or nonconstructive about my contributions to the ¡Santiago! battle cry wiki. All the sources used are respectable and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs (talk • contribs) 12:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pablo Iglesias Turrión, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madrid, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Centro, Barajas and Chamartín (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Not me

Feel free to investigate who is that Sylas guy. Not me. If collaboration is needed just ask whatever you want. I do not write Catalan as bad as he does. Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vigo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gondomar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Madrid councillors (2019–2023) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of Madrid councillors (2019–2023), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 01:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paseo de la Castellana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ríos Rosas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for Occupation of Tangier (1940–1945)!

buidhe 23:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Buxadé Article

Why have you undone my contribution??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Redfield (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer

That must have been before I saw your message. I did not combine material from different sources. And why do you have to delete my contribution instead of fixing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Redfield (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit on Totalitarianism

I just wanted to thank you for your edit on Totalitarianism. Rjensen's edits were expressing a fringe POV, since he asserted that communism is inherently a "totalitarian" ideology (Even though it does not even have totalitarianism as a set principle) and then proceeded to label every leader described as "communist" totalitarian, even though sources describe leaders other than Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong as authoritarian, and there is a substantial difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, as the article itself explains. Once again, thank you, and I hope this edit war will be properly resolved. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ranked lists of Spanish municipalities (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cartagena, San Fernando, Carmona, Jaén, Arona, Loja, Armilla, Requena, Yeste, Almonte, Lorca, Alburquerque and Morella

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Asqueladd

Thank you for creating Moncho Alpuente.

User:WikiAviator, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Since the article is relatively new, problems are not flagged yet but I wish to leave you a message to let you know what are the problems and how to improve:

1. Article looks like a list. Please use prose to restructure it.
2. More sources are needed.
3. Try not to over-rely on few sources (using one source to cite multiple facts).
4. Article too short for people to know clearly about who he is.

Despite the problems, thanks for using the new Wikidata infobox, and most importantly, created this article. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

WikiAviator (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Questionable taste

You are deleted in Battle of Covadonga "Basilica Our Lady of Covadonga Spain"File:CovadongaCathedral2.jpg|thumb|Basilica of Our Lady of Covadonga,Asturias (Spain)]],if there was a battle and later it is commemorated with a beautiful basilica we must think that is a memorial. The Spanish People not only commemorate the important victory but also honor the dead with it.You show a bitter character in your explanation, you say: The image (far from dealing with a central feature of the entry) spills over into the "nothingness" . I ask that the image be restored IN MEMORIAM.--REKKWINT (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the expression: Questionable taste

Hello Asqueladd,I acknowledge that I feel pain for your reversal of the image,and now I feel bad about having to argue, I won't do it,if you reversed it by this rule I can understand it: In the wikicode, floating elements (including images) should be placed inside the section they belong to; do not place the image at the end of the previous section. (Depending on platform, "stacking" of several images alongside a relatively small amount of text may cause a particular image to be pushed down to a later section). I bid you farewell, and I thank you for having been patient to answer me.--REKKWINT (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Catholic political parties

The tile of this category is: "Political parties historically aligned with Catholicism." not parties which are identify themselves as Catholic. That is why officially non-denominational parties such as the CSU or ÖVP are included. Braganza (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, these cofessional categories are only about the fact that a certain party ARE SAID TO BE Catholic (like most conservative parties in Italy, Spain, Austria, Croatia etc.), Protestant or Orthodox in the past, not declared them self to be one of these Braganza (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernesto Bark

There's a short reference to Bark 1888 in there, but no full citation. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Headbomb. I just added cf. and the full citation to the primary source (Bark, 1888) as it is featured in the secondary source (Thion Soriano-Mollá, 1998a). Is it ok?--Asqueladd (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb Thanks. I just checked. The book is available online (here), and it pretty much says what the secondary source highlights ("Gracias á mi nacionalidad de livonés, reúno, como Dios las tres personas Padre, Hijo y Espíritu Santo, las tres nacionalidades: la alemana etnográficamente, la rusa políticamente (y por desgracia) y la española por afición y amor;"). Feel free to pull a better English translation. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User: Sanitroni

Thanks for the warning I think I reached consensus, finally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanitroni (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for creating Egypt–European Union relations.

buidhe 03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Demographics of the European Union has been nominated for deletion

Category:Demographics of the European Union has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you recently removed content from Isabel Díaz Ayuso without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: I have perfectly explained via edit summary why I did that. The one who failed to address any type of justification whatsoever was you, when you recklessly reverted the change. Yes, I think you have made a mistake. No, I don't have any questions. I will address this here, not on your talk page.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Asqueladd, First of all you better not start insulting me! Secondly you are long enough at Wikipedia to know that we do not remove content just because you think that it is better or nicer, especially without any consens - the photo is absolutely okay although there may be better ones. Next time I will report an EW and will ask for blocking you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: "First of all you better not start insulting me!" I have not insulted you. Admonishing me about not insulting you before me actually insulting you is actually kinda rude. "Secondly you are long enough at Wikipedia to know that we do not remove content just because you think that it is better or nicer, especially without any consens" I fail to know what are you on about. You better read actual image guidelines: MOS:PERTINENCE. You may also find interesting the reading of behavioural guidelines such as WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Be my guest.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment in Spain

There's a short reference to "Rodríguez Jiménez & Fernández de Miguel 2012" without the full reference. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless it's a mistake and you meant 2011? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The later case. It's a typo, as the citation should feature 2011.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Madrid uv index

Hi, Asqueladd! Thank you for correcting me on my edit. I have created a separate weather box specifically for the monthly UV index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynne333 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Movida

Sorry Asqueladd, I was translating for the French Wikipedia, thank you for your quick fix. :) --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference.

(Expulsion of Jews from Spain) My concern was the quoted material that wasn't cited. Although it was attributed there was no title or publisher or first name, or....I am assuming that your edit fixed that? I haven't looked at your edit, just the notification of the revert.

I did want to tell you though that you can remove a tag by deleting it; it isn't necessary to revert Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: You're welcome. Just intending to communicate the sourcing. For the next time, I should remember that the use of the 'thanks' button could be a best (most amicable?) way to convey the notification than the 'undo' one. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Want to make peace with you with regard to the "alt-right" article

Pleasure to meet you. :)

It is not my intention to be cavalier about this article given the subject matter.

I'll grant you that the alt-right has been classified by notable academics as a form of the far-right. However, I noticed that the article seems to sometimes treat them as contrasting phenomena, which corresponds to usage I have also found in articles outside Wikipedia about the alt-right (especially when discussing ideosyncratic views of the alt-right including but not limited to its isolationism and economic protectionism); other times the article considers alt-right to be a subset of far-right in accordance with the opinions of some cited scholars. Because the usage did not seem consistent, I tried to make the usage consistent at least in the specific context (social-political or academic) without changing the content of the article. As such I did opt to replace the word "far-right" in the opening paragraph with the umbrella term "right-wing" in recognition of the contrast being maintained between the alt-right and the far-right in other parts of the article (especially because the opening still clarifies its racial nationalistic and extreme nature), although I am open to leaving the phrasing in this paragraph as it is. I do hope that my reasoning seems a little less arbitrary to you now!

Either way, there are issues of usage and grammar that I also painstakingly corrected in the article which I would like to see restored. In addition, I offered an additional citation which I thought was very important to the article. Edits aside, I hope the days are finding you well! Webspidrman (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Webspidrman:. As of today, "far-right" is a very wide descriptor, covering from the most extreme right-wing fringes to the radical right (where many scholars—see, for example: Cas Mudde for an authoritative one—already place Donald Trump). In that sense, the way I see it, the purpose conveyed by the use of "far-right" in the article is very much already an umbrella one. Additionally, the characterization of the so-called "alt-right" as far-right is pretty much a scholar consensus (not just "many notable academics") as long as the alt-right is a solid "something". Going back to the beginning, this is however something that should be addressed via discussion of what the sources state. If cited sources state X, this is to a large extent a futile discussion. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would dispute your assertion that there is a total consensus on the matter (partially because scholars still don't all agree on how the political spectrum should be best represented and how ideologies should be placed therein, which seems to affect how they view the alt-right). As an anecdotal example, Merriam-Webster does not include "far-right" in the definition of "alt-right" but does include "right-wing" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right ). It is certainly not a scholarly consensus that Donald Trump is on the far-right or the alt-right, let alone on both simultaneously. Even the article itself contrasts positions of the alt-right with those of the far-right as though they are distinct entities, reflecting popular usage. The way I see it, if we use the dictionary definition of "alt-right" in the opening paragraph, this doesn't affect the content of the article which goes in depth into how scholars view the alt-right in the appropriate section. Regards~ Webspidrman (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Webspidrman: No. I've have not stated scholars place Trump in the alt-right. You have misinterpreted my words. I've stated some prominent scholars, most notably Cas Mudde—author of The Far Right in America—, already place Donald Trump as an example of radical right (which is also a subset of far-right politics, the half-assed part if you wish). I've pointed out this to you just to give you the gist of the umbrella nature of the descriptor "far right" in academia. Of course, the far right is again a subset of right-wing politics. For anything else, I will insist again: this is primordially an issue of how reliable secondary sources (expected to be the ones sourced in the article) approach to each distinctive part of the article, not on the agreement or disagreement we may reach here between you and me. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayuntamiento de Valladolid

Hi! I've just seen that you moved the page from City Council of Valladolid to Ayuntamiento de Valladolid. However, I'm not sure that this abides to naming conventions, specifically WP:NCGAL: When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored, except when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native title. For example, National Assembly of Bulgaria (not Narodno sabranie) but 2003 loya jirga (not 2003 Grand Assembly) and Bundestag (not Parliament of Germany). I'm not checked it in depth, but I find it pretty unlikely that English sources do refer to this as "Ayuntamiento de Valladolid"... meaning that, probably, the English version should be preferred. Impru20^talk 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know either. But following that reasoning I also wonder why the original title of the article was not an English translation of the native name. I've seen Valladolid Municipal Council, Valladolid's Municipal Council, municipal council of Valladolid, Valladolid City Council, City Council of Valladolid and Ayuntamiento de Valladolid all used in English language sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess you can call it many ways, but ultimately one will have to be picked. What it seems certain is that, for government institutions, there is little choice but to use English when sources do translate it, and that is the case here since sources do use an English translation even if is not clear at first sight which one is the one for Valladolid. Even if some sporadic source does use the native name, as per NCGAL that should only be preferred for institutions if that's the COMMONNAME in English reliable sources, which isn't the case here.

There are several ways to clarify this. This city council in particular may not be very popular in English sources because of it being a medium-sized city of limited international scope, but others are, and we know that all of these institutions are named the same in Spanish ("Ayuntamiento de X"). For both the City Council of Madrid and City Council of Barcelona, "city council" seems the actual official translation preferred by the institutions themselves: Madrid and Barcelona (note that in the latter's case, it clearly makes a distinction between the "municipal council" (the plenary) and the "city council" (the institution as a whole), though it's not unfrequent to see "city council" being used to refer to the plenary as well). This is also true for others, such as Bilbao, Badalona, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Benidorm, Asturian city councils in general, etc. In Wikipedia, the generic article for such institutions is located at City council, which would also favour this specific name over others.

Google searches are also an indicator. For example, by directly searching for the term in Google (excluding Wikipedia results, obviously), you obtain over 31,000 results for "city council of Valladolid" to only 7 for "municipal council of Valladolid". Google Trends also allows you to directly compare two different terms.

Overall, I think it's obvious that "city council" is the name to go, but I wanted to provide you of some input to more easily compare different English terms or different ways to search for a term (when it comes to institutions, being able to find an official translation in English does help a lot) when it's needed to determine the title of an article, which typically should prefer the WP:COMMONNAME in general, and the specificities of the appliable naming conventions in particular. Impru20^talk 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Proceed at your peril for the particular case based on whatever sources you find for this particular case. I should warn you though that using other articles of other ayuntamientos as a method to shoehorn an standardization is not ok: if you yearn for any kind of Spain-wide "standardization" of titles rather than a case-by-case approach you will probably need to attend to what holystic sources dealing with the local government of Spain have to say (regarding the class not the object).(the reading of this one rightfully suggests "council" for the whole thing rather than for the deliberative assembly is confusing, although it also seemingly dissolves "ayuntamiento" into the concept of "municipality"; conversely this one suggest "municipal council" or "ayuntamiento". PD1: What is an "official translation"? PD2: "the generic article for such institutions is located at City council" What? Ayuntamientos are not "legislative assemblies". In fact they are not even deliberative assemblies (only a part of them). PD3: I note that in the case of Paris, they didn't even dare to "nombrar a la bicha" (the mairie, most akin to similar to what a purposed "generic institution" resembling the ayuntamiento would look like), yet they rightfully reserve the concept of council for the, well, the council :) PD4: In fact I'd venture to say that the ·generic article for such institutions· (I hate that kind of articles about generic "institutions" because of their abusive amount of original research, btw) may be rather municipal corporation.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)