User talk:Asqueladd/Archive006

Nobility numerals

I think so. WP:OBE mentions that the use of numerals for nobility titles is a matter of convenience. It is often useful disambiguation. From this I understand that numerals are useful if they are of help for disambiguation in cases such as Archibald Kennedy, Arthur Wellesley, William Cavendish, Claude Bowes-Lyon or so. Otherwise, however, I see them as unneeded and indeed, Wikipedia general naming guidelines and common practice seem to favour avoiding numerals if they are unnecessary for disambiguation in titles (Alfred, Lord Tennyson, not "Alfred, 1st Baron Tennyson"; Lord Byron, not "6th Baron Byron"). There are no other Marquis of Alhucemas named "Manuel García Prieto", so the numeral is entirely unneeded there (just as it is for Álvaro de Figueroa, 1st Count of Romanones, who is the overwhelmingly best known holder of the title and which could do with just "Count of Romanones" as title, in fact). Impru20^talk 13:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this discussion and as per the reasons exposed, I've proposed the article be moved to the title without the numeral. Arguably, we could do it directly ourselves, but considering the unstable nature of these articles in the past and the chaotic use of nobiliary titling, I see it as more convenient to establish a specific consensus on such moves so that subsequent move attempts require to bypass a RM specifically overriding the previous one. Impru20^talk 11:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Meziane's year of birth

Hey Asqueladd, I have a reliable (arabic) source that gave his year of birth as 1887. My question is: Are there any Spanish sources that support this claim?. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheseusHeLl: If you refer to the general for Spain/Morocco. There are not not and it does not make much sense taking into account what follows. All sources point at 1897. Also the tertiary ones (encyclopedias: [1][2]). Keep in mind the cited source (El Mundo/Crónica) also establishes a story about the young Mizzian impressing Alfonso XIII with his geographical acumen and his "will" to become a "captain" while the latter visited a school in 1911 [3], apparently narrated in El Telegrama del Rif (11 January 1911), and thus the latter becoming his "godfather" of sorts [4], and thus the monarch sponsoring his entry in the academy of Toledo at 16-17 [5] (you could follow in the contemporary press that he entered the academy in 1913 [6][7] as the "secondary" and tertiary sources highlight anyways:). That is not consistent with a 1887 birthdate (also Alfonso XIII was born in 1886, so the paternalistic story with only a one-year difference (or with a 24 year old student) would be very awkward to say the least).--Asqueladd (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, It's probably just a typo then. Thank you for the elaborate reply, Asqueladd. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When he was grown up he also reportedly stood 1.92 metre high. That birthdate and that meeting in 1911 may serve as starting point for a fan-fic. :). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO GOD! PLEASE NO!!! NOOOOOOOOOO -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all your work stopping tendentious edits at the Vox article. This is from the source just used to back the dodgy "right-wing to far-right" claim you just reverted "Polls project that a far-right party, Vox, will win seats for the first time.". They don't even seem to care to read the articles they cite, let alone the weight of academic sourcing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: Wikipedia is a work in progress. But at some point you'd be best loosing mooring with journalist reports and trust into the takes of scholars with an expertise on the field in question, to filter some facets of the article. That some editors do not even seem willing to acknowledge what journalistic reports they use state (or what those reports can actually "refute" or cannot) is troubling and a sign of advocacy. To give you a perspective from a non-English speaker of the continuous drilling of meh edits, I also notice a trend in far-right articles of the past of Spain (for example FET-JONS) on inserting labels that only make sense from a current US perspective discourse and not very much the scholar research of the topic (or the notion of approaching the historiographical crux of the Fascist nature of Francoism on whether the answer to the question tells us if that regime was "bad" or "good"). I do not know if they are sanitizing dogwhistles (only audible to the US audience), but hell, the use of "national conservatism" or "right-wing populism" as core ideology of FET y de las JONS, surely do look like one. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This tendentious public relations effort of the far-right does seem to come from the USA. seems to be happening to all our articles about "new right" parties around the world. Bacondrum (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello MrSoftPillow (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning" (I don't presume to warn you, but you put the title, not me)

I apologize for my lack of eloquence. Would you please take a look at how every single other royalty infobox is organized in Wikipedia (in English) and please stop messing with it the way you'd like it to be? Gratefully yours, M. Armando (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? Do as you will. Not really in the mood. Piece of advice? Go ahead and make the same changes to other articles as well. As you say the repetition of "Infanta" is redundant, the same goes for "Prince". George III had a bunch of children, all but three of them have the title "Prince" or Princess" ahead of their name. Change that as well. Do as you please, as long as you're happy. No need to respond me here or anywhere else. You won the argument. Congratulations! Dropping out! M. Armando (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing cite in Ignacio Figueroa y Mendieta

The article cites "Shubert 1991" and "Moreno Luzón 1998" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or are these just typos in years? Ref #6 also needs page numbers. Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: Those are indeed typos. Already filled the pages. I will give the script a look. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also no "Figuera 1908" in Monument to Agustina de Aragón (Zaragoza). Renata (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done [8] Bibliography section has been filled in. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing "Atienza Peñarrocha 2012" in Guillermo Pintos. Renata (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done [9]--Asqueladd (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And "Guerrero López 2015" in Monument to Isabella the Catholic (Madrid). Renata (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done [10].--Asqueladd (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Hi Asqueladd!

I sincerely apologise if I am being disruptive as you are saying. I know we do have our differences, but I wouldn't want that to affect negatively on what I believe is goodwill within Wikipedia. Although I do understand that it may be strange to you, I believe the patter of naming articles on nobility should include a) only first surname and number in title? It's just so that Wikipedia follows the same trend and thus is more coherent? What do you think?

Regarding sock puppetry, I have always openly said that yes, I am the same user as all those you mention, so there is nothing to investigate. However, I started from scratch and edit ONLY from this account, which surely is allowed?

I want to apologise again for taking time from you. But understand that rather than working against you, I want to work WITH YOU, as it seems we have similar interests in Wikipedia? Also, I strongly believe this account has contributed to uploading lots of good imagery to commons and contributed to vectorising images. Do you agree?

Sorry and thank you!

Your Wikifriend, --Cantabrucu (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, Thanks for your feedback! I think you mean the changes I have been doing in the infoboxes in enWiki. When the infobox already existed (if it was missing I did not use minor edit) but had some information missing I just marked them as minor changes. That information was factual information that was already in the esWiki and/or wikidata so I thought it was a small change of factual information already present in the wiki wouldn't be subject to dispute. After reading the whole "minor edits" page maybe checking the minor wasn't the best choice.

Anyway I have seen that you have reverted my changes in Ávila, Spain and you refered to WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I didn't know that topic of the manual of style, thanks for that. But in the explanation it says ″Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes.″ Plus, before I started changing that infoboxes I checked many of the featured and good settlements articles in enWiki and all of them had the flags templates (I'm not saying there is no single article which does not, maybe some does not, I haven't checked every single one of them). The Ávila article in esWiki, an article marked as good, also includes the flags (I know it is a different project). So I have to say I disagree with your decision.MateoSag (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I'm DrKay. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Juan Carlos I that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't respond in kind when faced by incivility. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Spain

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spain. Elizium23 (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Manuel de la Rocha Vázquez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manuel de la Rocha Vázquez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

It appears that you don't know what the words "no reverting" and "use my talkpage" are, so I'm telling this in your talkpage: Your reasons for deleting the flagicons in Horcajo, Madrid directly contradict the general manual of style used on regular settlement infoboxes. I know it can be hard to accept defeat but starting a edit war isn't a way. Reply to this message if you want to further debate this instead of just reverting my status quo edits with literally no reason. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperSkaterDude45::

That you may have found style X seen in Y article is about the worst reason ever to pull a change in Wikipedia. Feel free in any case to engage in another slow-mo edit war in Topeka or Portland, Oregon.
"Country" flags in a "city" neighborhood comes across as pretty silly if you are attempting to emphasize a relevant parametre. The flag of the municipality (the only one a user may have a modicum of rationale about it may actually hold of some relevance, other cons notwithstanding) is actually not very recognaisable as it is pretty much unrecognisable at such rendering size (dramatization: oh, yes... a murrey flag with a blurry thing on the middle, it's clearly the flag of Madrid: no) and it is not particularly recognaisable either even in Spain (not to say the average en:Wikipedia reader) at any size.
May does not mean should. And I am telling you this presuming that you may have a far better grasp of English than me here. The idea that I may be going against Wikipedia policy is thus absurd. In the other hand, you are precisely going directly against policy here ("physical geographic articles – for example, continents, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, swamps, etc. should not".).
I notice your contributions to Wikipedia largely consist of adding flags to infoboxes. That is overall a tad disruptive of an edit pattern.
It's clearly you who have started an edit war, failing to abide to WP:BRD.
All in all, if you think you have a goddamn right to insert miniflags galore trumping over stable versions, don't threaten me with taking me to ANI, just please take yourself your case to ANI ASAP, I implore you.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Asqueladd::

Care to explain on how I started this when you A.) Reverted my edits with condradictory claims and unjustified reverts? And your edits either minor which are A. Non-explained removals or deletions B. Ruin or misuse templates C. Edit Wars. And those edits are mainly either military history (Which by the way, use multiple flagicons for military branches and nations which counts as consensus) and if flagicons are disruptive, then lets just remove them altogether! (Even though common consensus implies they aren't) And I could get your argument if the city flags looked the same but each flag looks significantly different from the other, even if its not similar, there are subdivisions in the settlement template to begin with. And yes, I do admit to screwing up on that case but here is the thing: Communities are not the same as geographic articles Get this through, there is absolutely no reason for your constant reverts despite me telling you more than once to use my talkpage and to not cause a edit war and yet you're acting like a toddler whenever someone actually speaks up on your fraudulent claims. And its funny how you convientely shift the blame towards me despite telling you repeately to discuss in my own talkpage but you constantly revert my status quo edits with said edits also following the cycle part of the page. Overall you need to accept defeat at times dude. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]