Jump to content

User talk:Asqueladd/Archive007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Asqueladd

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kasaxu (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 17 April 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive: I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII · VIII · IX

BS-0This person does not understand Bullshit (or understands it with considerable difficulties or does not wish to communicate in Bullshit).
This user may blank useless notifications (i.e: notifications for deletion of a void category) from this talk page without further notice


Hi! Comment below. The message stacking is top-bottom..
.

                                                                                                            

January 2021

Melilla's motto

Hi! I thought "Praefere Patriam Liberis Parentem Dece" was Melilla's official motto, as stated by the Autonomous City's government[1][2]. Isn't that correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ https://www.melilla.es/melillaportal/contenedor.jsp?seccion=s_fact_d4_v1.jsp&contenido=27893&nivel=1400&tipo=2&codMenu=291&evento=1
  2. ^ https://www.melilla.es/melillaportal/RecursosWeb/DOCUMENTOS/1/0_3386_1.pdf
@Gregori-luxair: Hi. No, the source does not state that. The source mentions that lemma (the lemma of the House of Medina Sidonia, IIRC) together with the Non Plus Ultra lemma in the description (the blazon) of the coat of arms. As per WP:NOR, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. [...] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeladd: Thanks for the clarification!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs)
@Gregori-luxair: You are welcome. Per se, the lemma btw has nothing to do with the history of Melilla but that of Tarifa (the siege of Tarifa in the late 13th century). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeladd: Always good to know! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs)

Arabic

RE: Comment[edit] [2] The phrasing does not concern a "linguistic origin" in any way whatsoever. The phrasing suggests the date of physical inception of a previous building (when it was built). So no, a linguistic link is not relevant.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you have such an issue with Arabic that makes engage on reverting a mere link over and over again. Plus leaving me several messages. I wonder who you really are.Melroross (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melroross: Why do you have such an issue with Arabic I don't have such problem. Plus leaving me several messages I just edited a comment. I wonder who you really are Whoah.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the substance your question (leaving rants aside), I have already answered you why the link is not needed.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asqueladd (talk) The thing about writing is that it leaves a signature of the editor, and this leaving rants aside plus the aggression and the ‘pinging’ remind me of another alias. Time will tell. Melroross (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Melroross: Melroross. I think 'Asqueladd' is a pretty active account (by most metrics) here. I do not know where did you get the "dormant" bit.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Madrid councillors (2019–2023)

Hello, Asqueladd. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Madrid councillors".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invite!

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Weather's Non-tropical storms task force (WPNTS), a task force dedicated to improving all articles associated with extratropical cyclones on Wikipedia. WPNTS hosts a number of Wikipedia's highly-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming winter season (for whichever hemisphere happens to be in its climatological winter). Simply click here and add your name to the list to accept!

HurricaneCovid (contribs) 00:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Coruña

Hello,

I added A Coruña also as a Spanish name (manteining La Coruña too) and you reversed it to match A Coruña as a Galician-only form. I don't agree with your comment "Official name is Galician. That does not mean anything else". In Spanish, A Coruña is the official name and both are used by media and people (talking in Spanish, I insist). I understand your point but, in my opinion, with this change you are giving a wrong idea to English speakers because A Coruña is also a right option to Spanish speakers (and sometimes the best option, in fact).

Thank you, I won't change it again without hearing from you --AvoF (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is unnecesary. The official name and bolded one is expected to be used in different registers and languages over the rest of mentioned varieties. Despite that, that does not turn it into a "Spanish name" if for no other thing that sources don't consider it a "Spanish name" (most sources will tell you the Spanish-language name of A Coruña is La Coruña, period). Sometimes it seems that for Wikipedia editors creating convoluted opening statements in Wikipedia is the way. It isn't. The simpler, the better. Btw, I don't think that in Spanish-language casual speech you will hear anyone saying "voy a A Coruña" in Spanish (it is cacophonic), but most of the time "La Coruña", or less frequently "Coruña". Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, thank you very much for taking the time to explain your point of view to me, but I still have to disagree. Regarding your last point, to me is completely natural and usual say and hear A Coruña in Spanish language casual speech. Of course, in the example you gave ("voy a A Coruña") is very common to say only an "a" ("voy a Coruña"), but you don't have this problem in most sentences such as "soy de A Coruña", "vivo en A Coruña", "nació en A Coruña", etc. Newspapers or any media sources are a good example as they mostly use A Coruña instead of La Coruña, except for those media biased by Spanish nationalist political ideas.
I totally agree with keeping it simple but it has to reflect reality too, be correct and avoid subjectivity. Nowadays, A Coruña is definitely and at least one of the Spanish names of the city and the province.
Said this, if you consider that "the official name and bolded one is expected to be used in different registers and languages over the rest of mentioned varieties", I'm not arguing that.
-Offtopic: I hope that you don't find the conversation agressive or biassed in any way, and sorry if this is not the right way to answer about a topic in Wikipedia (I'm new in this discussions). Thank you again. --AvoF (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AvoF: This is how I interpret the opening: "Bolded name is the most common name in English-language sources and given the following brackets with the Galician-language pronunciation it is implied it comes from Galician and it is also the official one). In order to avoid confusion, we inform you that besides the first and go-to name (which is the official name) you may also find this place rendered as alternative Spanish-language form in Spanish-language sources and, archaically in English-language sources, as archaic English-language name1 and archaic English-language name2". Perhaps an alternative way to accommodate the former without adding cruft to the lead would be rephrasing to "also La Coruña in Spanish", but really, I don't see anything wrong with the current version. I am not really seeing a need for a change.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlos Montero Castiñeira (March 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LJF2019 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Article subject is likely notable - you need more reliable sources, preferably from English ones.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
LJF2019 talk 09:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Asqueladd! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LJF2019 talk 09:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sevilla

Why return the article back?? There are many distortions and manipulations with words Xasazx123 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xasazx123: Stay calm. I see no such distortions and manipulations with words.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andalusia

The word "Moor" was an insult given to the Arabs after their entry into Christianity. It is not ethnic. The name of the rulers must be written, not the inhabitants, for example, Judaism or others. The name of the ruling dynasty "Umayyad" was not exist, and instead of it it is written "Moor" must be corrected Kasaxu (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Answer @Kasaxu: Moors is not wrong. It is in fact a vastly used term, if not the term par excellence in historiography (as well as Muslim, depending on context). If a paragraph deals about cultural influences (as for example the case where Berbers and Jews are mentioned) the idea that only a label specific for "rulers" is apt is a particularly silly one. In any case all content (also terminology) should be generally backed from the take of sources, not your opinion. You are not here to right a great wrong. Changes can be discussed on a case-by-case basis, but your black and white stance (a WP:DISRUPTIVE situation) does not hold.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word Moors was an insult released after the Muslims entered Christianity. It was given to Arabs, Filipinos, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and many others, so this distracts the reader when he reads it. Deleting the name "Umayyads" and calling them "Moors" is considered an insult and a perversion Kasaxu (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the history of Andalusia was a history of the Kingdom of the Goths and then the Umayyads. As for the Jews, they did not rule, Judaism was a religion that existed before the entry of the Umayyads and after their entry as well, but the history of the rulers must be written, not the population and religions Kasaxu (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Answer @Kasaxu: Look, mate. This is boring. I've just taken a look at your edit history and that of the blocked user above Xasazx123 (possibly a relation, huh-hah?) (you are being constantly reverted—and possibly blocked—, that usually happens for a reason), a piece of advice: Wikipedia articles are not a battleground for waging a war on cultural hegemony between the so-called ۞Moorish Movement۞ and the Pan-Arabists. Specific words (Arab, Arabic, Muslim, Islamic, Moor, Moorish, Berber... or even Andalusian) are generally used in specific articles in specific contexts because they are the ones used by sources in specific contexts (although some contexts are more "malleable" or ambivalent than others), and not because they deliberately pick a side in a war. In the case/context we crossed with each other, most sources are actually alien to the "war" mentioned before. You should not edit to make a personal point. If you are not willing to engage on the scholar literature on the topic of a given article, you probably should stay away from editing that given article, certainly so when it comes to replacing the historiographical frame for one of your own, possibly alien to the former. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but names should be clarified, such as "the Umayyads." Nicknames like the word "Moors" have never called by umayyad themselves, and must be article arranged more. Kasaxu (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asqueladd/Archive007&oldid=1018370438"