User talk:Jotamar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Untitled 2007[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dialectos_del_castellano_en_Espa%C3%B1a.png

--Guzman ramirez (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Hola Jotamar[edit]

Te escribo en castellano porque mi inglés es de first certificated, sólo sé hacerme entender(no es como el tuyo). Si sólo se puede escribir en inglés me borras lo que te diré ahora y ya veríamos donde hablar, si fuese el caso.

Alfonso el Casto fue soberano de Aragón con el título de rey y soberano de Barcelona (Cataluña)con el de conde, o sea, si sólo aceptas el sello de Alfonso (por cierto, de 1159 no hay ningún sello y en todo caso sería de Ramon Berenguer IV que murió en el 1162 [1]) entonces el origen es aragonés-catalán no sólo aragonés. Lo que si que no existe es un documento de alguien que no sea conde de Barcelona y sea sólo rey de Aragón. Fatás, Montaner y Ubieto son "ultras". No es ningún insulto. Es como si estuvieses editando el articulo de la Guerra Civil con enlaces a textos de Blas Piñar. ¿Has leído de donde sale tu "papal flag" [2]? Sale de aquí [3] Si lees todo lo que pone (Historical Overview) verás que en el siglo XI cuando lo de la "infeudación" esos colores no eran los del Papa. "Pre 1808" no quiere decir nada en el artículo. Me estoy extendiendo, voy a acabarlo. El único aragonés miembro de la Academia Internacional de Heráldica es Faustino Menéndez-Pidal, ¿has leído algo de él sobre el tema? Es obvio de que no ¿Sabes por qué considera que los palos son de Ramon Berenguer IV y los heredaron sus tres hijos varones? Pues porque Alfonso el casto dió sus armas a la villa de Milhau en 1177 (creo) y el sello más antiguo que se conserva de Milhau está basado en el sello de Ramon Berenguer no el de Alfonso que era diferente. Leélo tu mismo. Por cierto, si vieses los sellos de Alfonso (pregúntate por qué los esconden tus "amigos") verías que lo de que "clarísimamente se ven las barras aragonesas", nada de nada. También Pedro el católico tiene la mayoría de sus sello "borrados". Lo dejo aquí, se te ve buena persona, no como el ultra Escarlati, creo que podríamos llegar a un acuerdo aunque no será fácil. --Sclua (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Hola, aquí nadie de nosotros está trabajando con documentación, no soy sólo yo. Por mi parte te digo que estoy en ello.
  • Lo de disputado es muy relativo, también hay quien disputa el holocausto nazi. Hay que ver quién lo disputa y con qué argumentos. Que en el sello de 1150 hay barras lo manifiestan los heraldistas Paul Adam-Even, Michel Pastoureau, Michel Popoff, Leon Jequier y Faustino Menéndez-Pidal entre otros. Por tu parte, dime algún heraldista o historiador con un mínimo de prestigio y que no sea aragonés que apoye las tesis de tu link. Hasta entonces los que niegan que haya barras allí es gente interesada, gente parcial y fanatizada como el amoral de Ubieto, Fatás/Redondo, Montaner...los de siempre. Ya que pones "the most common opinion" no te será difícil encontrar a alguien no nacionalista aragonés con un mínimo de prestigio porque si no es así te rogaría que dejases de poner esos comentarios.
  • La palabra Aragón es equívoca, era el título principal del rey (Rey de Aragón), también era el nombre del Reino de Aragón, y más modernamente, a los territorios también se les llamó de Aragón (Corona de Aragón). Cuando en un armorial al escudo barrado se lo atribuyen al "Rey de Aragón" lo que están haciendo es atribuirlo al soberano que tiene como título principal ese nombre pero que también es soberano de Catalunya con el título de Conde de Barcelona. Por lo tanto, es falsificar la historia afirmar que cuando se le llama Rey de Aragón a lo que se refiere es que son armas del "Reino de Aragón", o sea, aragonesas, o sea, no catalanas, que es lo que hace tu enlace que has pegado. Por otra parte, tu enlace no sólo manipula esto sinó que además esconde todas las declaraciones de los propios reyes y reinas que niegan el origen aragonés de estas armas.
  • Sobre las tumbas de Girona el problema no es si son del XI o del XII..., la cuestión es considerar que en la Edad Media había nacionalistas catalanes "robando" el orígen "aragonés" del señal. Esto es anacrónico. Quien pintó esa señal ahí tenía la autoridad para hacerlo y sabía a qué soberano atribuía esas armas, decir otra cosa es anacronismo.

Por lo tanto, el escudo de Catalunya es el barrado porque era el escudo de los soberanos de Catalunya, los condes de Barcelona, no por otra cosa y lo de "bars of Aragón" es más de lo mismo que ya te he comentado, a parte que habría que documentarlo. saludos --Sclua (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Olba (ancient city)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Olba (ancient city), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Olba. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Coat of arms of Catalonia[edit]

No, I haven't abandoned it, I just had a night off from Wikipedia. I'm back now and I'll try to sort the dispute. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote's closed and I've outlined guidelines for a fair consensus if anybody wants to change it again. I'll close the MedCab case now. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POV and edit warring[edit]

I first reverted to your version [4] but then I noticed that Sclua's version was way less POV, even if it still has lots of problems with reliable sources [5].

The version that you are putting up has a *lot* of problems, unfortunately I don't have time right now to explain all of them to you, so I'll have to tell you tomorrow --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't have time to review Sclua's contributions and all the discussions, but I'll try to make today a framework for the article, and a rewrite of the lead --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I made the framework, and I left a section for you to fill. It has some subsections following more or less the organization you had at your version --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Real Academia: http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=ojalá In Spain we use the term in a variety of situations and there is no implication of something being unlikely to happen. Maybe you got that idea from Juan Luis Guerra's famous song "Ojalá que llueva café en el campo". :-)

As for Olé I still consider Olé with the tilde to be the correct way of writing the word. "Ole" is simply a phonetic derivation of the word much as Jose is a derivation of the name José. Both are correct? I guess...

Still, no reason to argue over such small things...

--Guzman ramirez (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No reason to argue, but I still wonder where you're from. Even if you say "In Spain we use the term..." it's obvious that you don't have a native insight of the Spanish language. For example you don't know that olé does not exist in the spoken language. You should pay more attention to native speakers like me. --Jotamar (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am Spanish "de pura cepa", Jotamar. You cannot deduce whether someone is Spanish over whether he thinks that olé or ole is the correct or original way of writing the word. If Spanish is your native tongue, you should know this, so I can only assume that either its not or you are acting in an excessively defensive way over this issue. I suspect the latter is the case. As for "Ojalá", take your discrepancies over the exact meaning of the word with the Real Academia, not with me!


--Guzman ramirez (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC on the conduct of a user you have been involved with[edit]

Please check Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sclua and feel free to comment there --Enric Naval (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Castilian Spanish on DAB[edit]

Sorry that I didn't respond right away; I was going through some census data and trying to make sense of it (I have dial up). In regards to your question of why Castilian Spanish should be on the Spanish disambiguation page: well, you have a point that maybe it shouldn't. It's been there as long as I've been monitoring that page, but when you did your edit [6] and removed it the other day, you didn't put a reason or edit summary. I'll admit that it was a knee-jerk reaction that anytime someone deletes material without any explanation (unless obvious vandalism), sometimes I restore without putting as much thought into as I should have. I see that you just removed it again (don't worry, I shan't revert it), but you should probably put the reason in the edit summary next time, other than "editor doesn't respond" ;)
I was thinking that maybe someone originally put it there because it has, in the past, been considered the "standard" by some people, but you're right that it doesn't need to be there if none of the other varieties aren't there. Thanks.Kman543210 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Paella[edit]

I don't understand why you placed the dubious tag in the etymology section of Paella, especially since it's well cited. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I included a citation showing an Indoeuropean root for patella in the etymology section. I also moved this conversation to the article's talk page. Please have a look. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New etymology changes[edit]

The changes you made look good to me. I don't intend to edit that section any further. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Valencia[edit]

Why do you refer to Spain's Valencian region as the Spanish Autonomous Community of Valencia? My family is from Puerto Rico and yet I don't feel the need to refer to it in writing as the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I always refer to it simply as Puerto Rico, both in writing and conversation. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Paella#This_article_mentions_Valencia_too_often Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

El Clasico[edit]

Please stop putting that lies in "El Clasico" article. Madrid is not "a francoist city" and Real Madrid does not represnt any "centralized state". I f you continue putting that views in the article, Ill think its personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talkcontribs) 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

¿Cual es tu problema con el Real Madrid?[edit]

Tienes algun tipo de problema con la ciudad de Madrid y con el Real Madrid en particular? Por que al no parar de poner que Madrid representa la idea de un estado "centralizado", y es el eje de las "fuerzas conservadoras centripetas", nos estamos empezando a plantear que eres excesivamente fanatico. Recuerda que la Wikipedia tiene que aportar una informacion neutral, no puede implicar subjetividad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talkcontribs) 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Hola Jotamar. Considero que faltas al principio de neutralidad por el que aboga Wikipedia. Por tanto mientras continúes editando textos que falten a dicho principio no tendré ningún reparo en borrarlos. Ya veo que has tenido problemas anteriormente con este mismo tema. Un saludo. Spooki (talk 10:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

¿Quieres acabar con esta guerra?[edit]

Quieres seguir la guerra de ediiones o paramos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talkcontribs) 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mapa[edit]

Sigo sin verlo del todo bien, pero hasta que encuentre una opción mejor lo dejo tal cual. Saludos. CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 20:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks!, for your help in the article castúo. --Der extremadurisch (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Spain[edit]

Sorry abou my revert Jotamar, you were quite right about the Iberians stuff, I just wanted to salvage the rest of the paragraph, and you ddi perfectly. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

El Clasico[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Grsz11 22:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Grsz11 18:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


The survey is 3 years old, how relevent can it still be? Also, don't make accusations you can't prove. Grsz11 13:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I must answer here because your talk page is kind of unstable. A 3-year-old survey is better than maybe 90% of Wikipedia sources. Sports team allegiances don't change overnight, and 3 years is quite reliable. But that is not the point. The point is, if you have other sources, add them, but don't delete without consensus. --Jotamar (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Aragon[edit]

I reverted your recent edit, Castilian is a perfectly correct term for the variety of español spoken in Castile, Aragon and Extremadura. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Eonavian[edit]

I note that his only contribution to this issue is to undo this page periodically, taking advantage of the controversial nature of the issue raised. Can you respect the policies of WP or argue, at least, your opinions? I remember the Eonavian is, to the natives of western Asturias, a great cultural interest and behavior like yours can only be described as vandalism, to trivialize this language, that sadly is disappearing by ideologic reasons and attitudes like yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candalín (talkcontribs) 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America[edit]

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Your run in with Novaseminary[edit]

I noticed that you have had some issues with Novaseminary. He is one of the most vicious, vindictive, destructive people in Wikipedia. Pretty much his entire interaction with others in Wikipedia is picking fights with and fighting with people. He is so vindictive that he stalks people he has had fights with.

What makes him so unusually destructive is the he is so expert at playing the Wikipedia game, and USING the Wikipedia system as a way of fighting, and disguising his fighting as legitimate Wikipedia work. He is expert at fooling Wikipedia administrators who do not have the time to do the through review and investigation. You probably had some flaw which he capitalized on

Novaseminary also hides his “rap sheet” by badgering everyone to never write him on his own talk page, and then continuously and immediately erasing everything written on there so that it would be a huge amount of work to review his history on how he relates to others, which is basically manipulating the Wikipedia system to have nothing but fight after fight after fight. Feel free to copy and use this to inform others when needed.12.7.82.66 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

El Clásico[edit]

The list of players you insert are not meeting WP:CITE nor WP:MOSFLAG and I have thus removed them. You can reinsert it when the flags are removed and the information properly cited. Sandman888 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCITE, "go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." As such I believe I was correct in removing the list as it had been unsourced for quite a while. Furthermore I do not believe the list adds anything of use to the article. Sandman888 (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pepe (1908–1931)[edit]

Hello Jotamar. You are right my bot spread a mistake, I have corrected cawiki and enwiki in order to prevent any other bot will spread the same error. Bots are useful tools but may spread human mistakes. Regards. --Loupeter (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Calimero[edit]

Please stop adding trivia that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Calimero is about an animated, however, the trivia you keep adding has nothing to do with the series. On top of that, you also keep adding unverifiable information against Wikipeida's polices after it has already been challenged and removed. Do not add this information back into the article until you can source its relevance to the article's subject. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What relation does any of the trivia you added have to do with the subject of the article? And can that relation be sourced? If not, then it MUST be removed. Article content should be about the article's subject, not a random collection of completely unrelated information. Can you verify any connection of the trivia items to the animated series? —Farix (t | c) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding in connections you see between the word's usage and the animated series without direct sourcing. This is a violation of Wikipeida's no original research policies. —Farix (t | c) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
How is any of that information relevant to the animated series? Remember that it is up to the edit, in this case you, who want to include the information to prove that it is relevant via reliable sources. So far you have not show any such evidence. But instead of continuing the edit war, I'll give you one week to provide the evidence that the information has a connection to the subject of the article instead of random trivia attempting to make a connection where a connection doesn't explicitly exist. I'll also point out that this information doesn't exist in any of the other versions of the article, making the likelihood that there is not connection very high. —Farix (t | c)
P.S. Following Wikipeida's policies and guildeines is not "bullying". Failure to comply with Wikipiedia's policies and guidelines will result in the loss of your editing privileges. I will ignore the "keep reverting your deletions for as many years as it takes" threat. However, it will be used as evidence against you if you continue to add this information back into the article without the proper sources showing its relevance to the article's subject. —Farix (t | c) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If you can't prove that information is connection to the article's subject, then ultimately the section will be deleted in accordance with Wikipeda's policies. —Farix (t | c) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
None of the references prove such connections with the animated series. —Farix (t | c) 14:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A reliable source that directly states the connection with the animated series. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Paella article[edit]

I left you a message on the Paella talk page. Lechonero (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Extremaduran[edit]

I'm not familiar with the topic and you may be right, but would you mind providing a source? It sounded like someone had just put their personal opinion in there. John Slocum (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Paella Article[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.

Please see my most recent edit to Paella. You'll notice I kept some of the info I deleted earlier. Lechonero (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop reverting my edits. You are edit warring. Wikipedia's three-revert rule prohibits editors from making more than three reverts within 24 hours. As you can see in my comment above, I offered a compromise where I replaced some of the etymological information I deleted earlier. Contrary to your belief, I do not need any editor's permission to alter an article as long as I follow Wikipedia's good faith guidelines. You have now reverted both my original change and my compromised change. Keep in mind an administrator may block you even if you violate the spirit of the Wikipedia's three-revert rule without violating the letter of it. Lechonero (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg You have become a disruptive editor on the Paella article. You have done this by repeatedly reverting my edits despite my efforts to compromise with you. Your dispruptive approach to editing has resulted in a page protection for this article. I no longer have any desire to communicate with you unless you're willing to negotiate a compromise with me. Lechonero (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you know the Paella page has been protected. Are you willing offer a compromise of some sort? Lechonero (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI Report[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see WP:ANI#Jotamar and edit warring. Thank you.

Galician[edit]

Aunque me pides que me dirija en castellano, he estimado más correcto, exponer en castellano en tu página personal.

"Hola Jotamar. ¿La pregunta es doble, existe algún lingüista que afirme que el gallego-asturiano es una lengua asturleonesa? Yo estimo, como Dámaso Alonso señalaba, que una correcta exposición debería de aclarar que "la distinción dependerá de nuestra manera de apreciar y leer una serie de hechos lingüísticos", pero referidos a ambas regiones, al Eonavia y al resto del occidente asturiano. Entiendo que esta es la correcta exposición de esta teoría. Si no fuera así, parecería que la cuestión se circunscribe al Eonavia, y esto es un error, siendo, en mi opinión, una parcial e interesada exposición sobre esta teoría.

Por lo demás, como en toda cuestión de limites, la cuestión depende de donde pongamos el centro. En mi opinión, yo creo que esta teoría es errónea porque la región eonaviega y en General el oeste de Galicia como los Ancares, es precisamente el epicentro de las más importantes características de las lenguas galaico portuguesas, como son el sistema vocálico la falta de consonantes nasales, el vocalismo nasal (esencial en el galaico portugués y hoy sólo presente, aparte de Portugal en los Ancares y en el Eonavia), el sistema verbal, etc. Esto se nos muestra más evidente cuanto más miramos atrás en el tiempo en el origen de esta lengua. Es por tal razón por la que es tan importante el estudio de los documentos antiguos del Monasterio de Oscos, además de los monasterios más próximos como Lorenzana, Meira, etc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candalín (talkcontribs) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hola Candalín. Bueno, de entrada me parece detectar aquí una especie de revanchismo: como hay quien llama al Eo-Naviego asturiano y eso no me gusta, me desquito insinuando que el asturiano medio-occidental puede ser llamado gallego. De lo que dices queda claro que nadie afirma que en Cangas de Narcea se hable gallego, solo que hay continuidad dialectal.
Respecto al texto de Alonso, lo que dice de los dialectos de Asturias y Galicia, que seguramente nadie niega, se puede decir de muchos otros sitios. Posiblemente has estudiado una versión de la lingüística en la que tal cambio progresivo se veía como una rareza, pero actualmente sabemos que eso, que técnicamente se llama contínuum dialectal no solo no es una rareza, sino que viene a ser precisamente lo normal en todo el mundo, por así decirlo.
Por otro lado reconozco que hay que tener cuidado con poner la etiqueta de transicional a un dialecto, ya que en un continuo dialectal todos los dialectos son transicionales, incluyendo aquellos que se identifican comúnmente con una lengua estándar, como el dialecto de Palencia o el de Barcelona.
En realidad el problema de fondo es que es difícil explicarle a la gente que el concepto de decir esto es una lengua y no un dialecto o al revés esto es un dialecto y no una lengua ya no tiene validez hoy en día. No hay ningún criterio objetivo suficientemente fiable como para diferenciar lengua y dialecto, y así lo reconocen una gran mayoría de los lingüistas.
De lo que se trata en definitiva es de dar una información veraz e imparcial al usuario de Wikipedia, y eso es lo que me interesa a mí. Intentaré editar el artículo para reflejar todo esto lo mejor de lo que sea capaz.
Una última cosa, por favor no incluyas traducciones como la de Dámaso Alonso sin dar también el texto original, o un enlace sencillo a él. Tener que arreglar un texto mal traducido sin realmente estar seguro de qué decía el original es una tarea muy penosa. Si necesitas ayuda con tu inglés, para eso estamos los demás editores. Y espero que no te ofendas por dar a entender que tu inglés deja un poco que desear. Jotamar (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognize my english is bad, but, I'm sorry, your english is not very better than mine.

I will use short sentences to be more clear.

As you know, the first documents written in romance language in Asturias are on the 13th century. In those documents, you shall find the unsteady words and tipycal hesitations in the language which is forming. But, if in the rest of Asturias these hesitations are not differents than castellian, the notaries of Oscos use a perfect galician portuguese language.

Since of 14th century, 1300 year in forward, all the documents in the rest of asturian monasteries are in perfec castillian, however in Villanueva de Oscos, the notaries follow writing in galician portuguese language till 16th century. Then, if in Middle Ages in Asturias there are not sign of «continuum» linguistic, ¿why, there should be today?

I would like, that you pay attention only five minutes and read the documents of the monastery of Cornellana published in Ridea by Floriano Cumbreño, where it says Cornellana I, 1948, n. 4, parchments since 12th century till,. It is a whole set of documents since the XII century. If you read these documents, you will understand the big misrepresentation that there is today about this subject.

See, http://ridea.org/node/499. Introduce 4 in num. and Cornellana in título.

The continuum linguistic in Asturias is false because the origine of Galician portuguese language is different of castillian, leonesse and catalonian. If you read Baldinger and another authors, they explain very clearly like the galician portuguese language came from latin spoken on the south of Spain, specifically from Betica Roman Province, whilst the romanization in the rest of Asturias and Cantabria came from the Tarraconense. For that reason the aragonese language, Castillian and Catalonian in the middle ages are not very different languages. It is very easy finding the continuum (see Cantar mío Cid) and however there are not sign of continuum in Galician-portuguese languages with the other languages.

The language of Cancionero de Ajuda, Vaticano or Colocci Brancutti is a very complex language, very dificult to translate, even by the persons which speak today Gallician or portuguese. Today, there are many poems and gallician-portuguese phrases in which there are not consensus about his meaning. The continuum in the galician-portuguese languages are in the North to South and not West to East, in that sense, the eonavian is perfect example of this continuun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candalín (talkcontribs) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC) --Candalín (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Formal" Spanish[edit]

It seems to me that your recent edits to Spanish orthography are falsely specific. Can you explain to me how Spanish orthography isn't phonemic with informal Spanish and how an informal pronunciation of most words can be ambiguous given their written form? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I will answer in my own talk page, as I can see that you do the same. First, sorry about unreverting your edits in Spanish orthography, I don't like reverting regular editors, but sometimes I feel it's the best thing to do.
About the phonemic nature of the Spanish orthography, just ask yourself, if a phonemic writing (whichever one you liked) were imposed on English, your native language, do you think it would fit equally well formal and informal varieties of the language? And why should it be different for Spanish? For example, the Spanish expression todo el día is uttered in most or all informal varieties in Spain as roughly ['tol.'ði.a]. Tell me if you find that phonemic. Jotamar (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You are making or implying two claims. The first is that informal Spanish is different phonemically from formal Spanish. Your example of todo el día doesn't indicate this as ordered rules can lead from /ˈtodo el ˈdia/ to [ˈtol ˈdia]. In regards to your second claim, that the written language provides ambiguous pronunciations for informal varieties, even if [ˈtol ˈdia] were different from formal Spanish phonemically, this pronunciation reflects sound changes that are regular enough that one can look at the spelling of the word and know how it is pronounced in a given variety. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that the average user of Wikipedia will assume all those facts? I mean, underlying forms plus phonological rules that are different for each dialect, etc. Jotamar (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant. You're making a statement of fact. I've challenged it. You haven't backed it up yet. I'm sorry if I sound overly curt, but truthiness and thought experiment are not reliable sources. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Paella article[edit]

Are you willing to compromise with me or are you determined to continue this edit war? Lechonero (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on paella[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on paella. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

unreferenced towns[edit]

Hi Jotamar -- to answer your question, there is no bad feeling or threat attached to my marking of those Spanish towns as unreferenced. I'm personally unlikely to delete any such articles that seem credible. I'm simply pointing out that references are needed. all best --Lockley (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Catalan language[edit]

Please mind WP:3RR, you've already reverted the same information three times now. CodeCat (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Valencian-centric theories ???[edit]

Hi, you have included a lot of non-scientific information.

  • The languaje spoken in Valencia before Jaume I was the Mozarabic language, not the Provençal language (Provençal is a dialect of OCCITAN and please look at a map). Then, the phrase "the theory of a local/native Provençal language spoken by the people in Valencia before Jaume I conquered it became the stronger theory" HAS NO SENSE, as you will notice this defeats the whole section and nucleus of argumentations.
  • THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC evidences of PROVENÇAL language in Valencia BEFORE the Christian conquest. Moors do not spoke Provençal, the Provençal language is not included into Arabic culture in any way. The "reconquest" (note the quotes) was a process of many-many years with long periods of peace, contact and collaboration between Moors and Christians was very usual (proved). Due this, it is possible that the Mozarabic language in Valencia was influenced by contact with Catalan language and other romanic languages in the vicinity (Catalan language is influenced by Provençal-Occitan), but evidently also in this case the Valencian continues being a variety of Catalan as long as it retains the Catalan structure, and this common structure is scientifically proved until today.
  • The text included contains mixed concepts belonging to various matters, it is confusing to reader, please clarify nature and connections, you are WALKING ON THIN ICE, sources are doubtful, Ubieto (RIP) was in fact a "blavero", this means "not neutral".
  • The whole section is contaminated with concepts of blaverism (please consult the blaverism page), blaverism it is a belief and a political attitude. The Blaverism has the attitude oriented to elaborate an "history" with a concrete intention (similar to catalanism and other ism's), history means facts not intentions, and linguistic is SCIENCE, not politics.
  • The Catalan Language Page is a scientific page on linguistics, not a theories page, I think would be better include this section on the Blaverism Page (in fact, if you include this section, the blaverism page will be "complete", perhaps the main difference is they consider the Valencian a variation more from Mozarabic than from Provençal). An alternate option is to create a new page entitled "bizarre theories about the catalan language", and leave space to include theories about "mallorquin", "menorquin", "ibicenco", "formenterense", "cabrerense", "oriental aragonese", "tortosense", and "joromovesense" (my dialect combined with russian language) ... do you understand the meaning?

If you wants to left this section "as is" for my no problem, I do not want waste my time again, I do nothing, but I just advise you are contaminating an EXCELLENT page in english that uses a lot of people IN THE WORLD interested on Catalan with inaccurate information, this degrades Wikipedia and the Catalan language. Others also have deleted this section, I think for same reasons. I would suggest you must have a scientific attitude on Wikipedia... and, yes, I NEED TO IMPROVE my English. Thanks for reading.Jomarov (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

need outside opinions in Crown of Castile[edit]

I have asked for outside opinions in Crown of Castile, the question is Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715? I am notifying you because you have made non-trivial edits to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a topic ban proposal, but it's getting very little input from the community. Apparently, people are not commenting because they are not familiar with the topic. Can you leave a comment there? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Influences on the Spanish language[edit]

Hi, I hope you don't mind that I've made a major reversion of this page, as is discussed on its talk page, which includes backing out some edits that you made. It looked to me as if you were patiently trying to correct the problems that some of us have concluded are part of a larger sock-puppet problem that warranted more drastic action. If there is some work that you did that you think should be salvaged (sorry, I don't have stamina enough to read the whole history in enough detail), please let me know if I can help. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Deberíamos parar esto[edit]

Sólo digo que estoy a favor de como está ahora el artículo. En ningún caso se menosprecia o algo parecido, al leonés. El leonés tiene un buen artículo y así debe ser. Pero los cambios que estás quitando, están contrastados, y esto empieza a ser una locura. Explícame bien tu postura, porque creo que podemos matizar el artículo y dejarlo como debe estar. Un saludo --Astur (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed in Navarre[edit]

Hi Jotamar, I'm going to use English language since that's where the article belongs. I have just realized that you added a citation needed tag to the phrase stating that Navarre was a territory inhabited by the Vascones in Roman times. I was about to delete the citation tag out of hand, deeming it just disruptive, one more of the so many meaning to disrupt the contribution spirits of the wikipedia, specially on certain subjects.

Then I realized it had been you who added it, I hold you for a reasonable person with whom one can compromise and I'm not going to hide my surprise, what's the point of that citation requirement where you add "Only the Vascones?" as a reason for demanding citation. This is a widely held fact by historians and widely known one to whomever knows something of regional history. So I was wondering, do you mean you have any lead that points to the contrary? Please refrain from demanding gratuitous requirements. If you have anything that suggest on good grounds that a statement doesn´t hold water, add whatever relevant, preferably with a reference, instead of putting the burden of the work on others. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aragonese dialects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinco Villas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula[edit]

While we were focused on the discussion on the Canary Islands, it seems we missed the fact that Approck has been busy deleting still other sources and content from the article, I've reverted the last three of these as I found his arguments compelling and, to my perspective, it seems pretty obvious he has never abandoned his effort to delete the article via incremental edits, since his efforts to have it merged were so completely and overwhelmingly rebuffed. I've stated my reasons for the reversions on the talk page and, as I'm done with this repetitive scenario, advised him that the next such move without attempts at discussion will be met with a request for intervention at WP:ANI. If you would please, in the event that you observe more of this behaviour, leave a message on my talk page or ping me on the article's talk page, just in case I miss any more untoward alterations on the watchlist? It seems to me he waited just long enough for far fewer eyes to be on the page just to pick up where he left off. Snow (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Re History and political dynamics in Navarre[edit]

Bravo! I don´t know what your specialization is, sure this is not, you don´t seem to have, or don´t show it at least. Your contribution to the modern and old History of Navarre is messy and not lacking in errors and inaccuracies. I saw also your revert of the template, do pinpoint exact problems to the section, the template is only adding confusion, it come across as disruptive.

No verification has been added here, nor in other articles I happened to see you edits, but you keep raising "neutrality" claims. You did not even mention the watershed military conquest of Navarre 1512-1524 ("absorbed") or even the Basques (the Navarri), well done for your neutrality and your help! In addition, you are expanding a section that is redundant, since most of it is in the Kingdom of Navarre. This does look indeed like a personal elaboration. Thanks for stopping meddling on topics you do seem to have an opinion, but not a grasp. (You were even considering removing verified information, very inclusive and supportive of knowledge, indeed!) Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You have an ongoing discussion here Iñaki LL (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)o
You may add your take on Request for comment. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Calimero may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • creators of the main character were Nino Pagot, Toni Pagot and Ignazio Colnaghi. <ref name=AM1> [http://www.animationmagazine.net/tv/new-calimero-series-premiere-frances-tf1/ Animation Magazine,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calimero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGI. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Spanish People: Muslim Spain vs Middle Ages[edit]

It is more than OBVIOUS that the Muslim influence is an uncomfortable fact with a lot of Spaniards and Spanish-speakers today, and to yourself particularly too. The fact that you repeatedly deleted the "Muslim Spain or Al-Andalus" and repeatedly again replace it with "Middle-Ages" is an attempt to try and make it go unnoticed in Spain's/Spanish people's history. From today's political and cultural meaning, one can understand your position. However, Wikipedia is supposed to be a FACTUAL source of information and education, not a biased, politically, culturally or racially partial medium. Therefore I ask you respectfully to stop removing "Muslim" out of the Middle Ages as the Arabs occupied Spain as you and I know for even past the Middle-Ages period. To try and deny that, is being both untruth and unethical. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melroross (talkcontribs) 10:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bonfires of Saint John, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

coat of arms of the successor state[edit]

I uncommented a coat of arms in Kingdom of Aragon. Please check carefully before reverting. I think it's uncontroversial that the CROWN of Aragon had that coat of arms. It doesn't say anything about the coat of arms of the KINGDOM. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Kingdom_of_Aragon#Image_for_the_Crown (it's at the end of "wrong flag"). Please give arguments of why the image is not adequate as the image of the succesor state. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the most common surnames in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Our Lady of the Snows (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest intervention in Treviño enclave[edit]

Hi, I am writing this to let you know that I find your latest requirement of verifiability, which is always welcome as a general rule, not to be out of honest concern for the content, but as a last of a series to obstruct relevant and accurate content you do not like from entering the WP, as the edit records (and previous interventions) show, insisting on adding for one non-existent claims to source and using defiant explanation lines. I should ask to work on consensus, content and attention to detail, and not to use WP policies as a way to take on others. Basque language in Treviño is subject to the Castilian language policy, so mentioning it is fully relevant and provides the reader with important information to gain insight into the matter. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As per this discussion and others before, I suggest you remove the 'inclusionist' label on your personal page, you are refusing to build consensus and discuss the details, straightforward details, the basic part for reaching a compromise. As far as my experience goes, your editing here and some other times falls in the category of disruptive editing. There should not be any problem to reach consensus here, but you insist on litigating. I urge you to add relevant/accurate information and help building the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Chavacano / "del calle" -> "de la calle"[edit]

Why the revert, isn't it the right expression in Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsmaelLuceno (talkcontribs) 01:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Devoicing of final /d/ in Madrid[edit]

Hello. What's inaccurate in saying that final /d/ in Madrid is realized as [θ]? That's the stereotypical realization. Peter238 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Vibration[edit]

See voiceless uvular raised non-sonorant trill. Peter238 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A few questions about Spanish pronouns[edit]

I'd like to make some additions to Spanish pronouns, but since the following things were never made clear to me in the 6 years I took Spanish in school, I figured I should ask you first before I add them to the article:

  1. I know that se replaces le or les before non-reflexive third-person direct object pronouns, but what do you do when se as such really is the indirect object? Do you disambiguate it with a sí or para sí and thus get things like Se lo hizo a sí and Se lo mantenía para sí?
  2. When you have multiple direct or indirect object pronouns, do you have to repeat the verb every time a new one is used? Thus, is it Me y te gusta or Me gusta y te gusta?
  3. I know that emphasis is placed on personal direct object pronouns by repeating them with personal a and putting the a + disjunctive construction wherever you want to place emphasis: Me ama a mí, Te necesito a ti, etc. But do you use a when placing emphasis on non-personal direct object pronouns, and if not, do you just use the disjunctive form? Thus, is it Se los di ellos a él?
  4. I know that in perfect infinitives, pronouns get added to haber: haberme visto, habértelos dado, etc. Does the same rule apply to ser in passive infinitives when used with indirect object pronouns? Thus, is it sernos dado, serme guardado, and, if you want to get really fancy, haberte sido mostrado, etc.?
  5. I found a site that says that in formal writing and oratory, object pronouns can be added as enclitics to pretty much any verb form you want to attach them to: thus, to use the examples that the site uses, propúseme, siéntese, etc. Is that true? If so:
    a) Do the normal rules for encliticization apply (i.e. verb-final "-s" drops before nos and se (thus Tú dánoslo, Nosotros dámoselo, etc.) and I'm guessing verb-final "‑n" drops before nos as well (thus Ellos dánoslo, Ellas viéronos, etc.))?
    b) In compound tenses, what do the enclitics attach to? Do you say Helo visto or He vístolo, Fueme dado or Fue dádome, etc.?

Thanks in advance for all your help. Esszet (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the very long delay, I wasn't feeling well for quite a while. I just added to the article a lot of what I wanted to add; look it over, and I'll be making a few more edits in the next day or two. Esszet (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Votación sobre mapas[edit]

Buenas, compañero.

Te solicito que votes en la discusión de los artículos de Basque Country (autonomous community) y Valencian Community para elegir el mapa localizador de ambas comunidades autónomas, apoyando el tipo standar para todas las regiones del país. Algunos usuarios nacionalistas o abiertamente independentistas quieren añadir un mapa sesgado en el que no aparece todo el país (en el caso de Euskadi) o que aparece como si fuese una nación de la Unión Europea (en el caso de la Comunidad Valenciana). Esto es inadmisible.

Te pido que añadas "support" y tu firma en la opción Satesclop's red map. Mil gracias por adelantado. Satesclop 03:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Respecto a la página de los arabismos[edit]

Jotamar he venido a tu pagina a que comentaramos lo de la localización del orígen del castellano puesto que llevamos unos meses peleandonos por este tema. Al principio iba a discrepar pero creo que ya entiendo tu posición. Lo único es que ahora está bastante mal escrito y el párrafo no fluye bien. Trataré de cambiar el párrafo entero para que también refleje lo que estas diciendo sin confundir al lector.

Un saludo Asilah1981 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question[edit]

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Zahira/Zaida[edit]

Just out of curiosity, log on to facebook and look up people called Zahira/Zaida Pérez or Garcia. You will be surprised.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)