User talk:Mountolive/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Mountolive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  AdamBiswanger1 05:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ETA

Hi Jmabel.

Well, I do hope your optimistic view on the ending of ETA comes to fruition, however, let me insist in the "to date" part when we are talking of the last of the assassinations, since actually we are only in a "ceasefire", like there were others in the past which suddenly ended when new terrorist actions (killings) were carried by the band. I strongly feel like, until there is no "official" statement from ETA that they give up violence, the "to date" part should be there and this "official" statement is, as for now, just a hope.

Anyway, feel free if you want to revert your own change yourself: I don't want to start one of those stupid fights when I change it, you change it, I change it again....it's up to you if you want to consider to my opinion or not.

On the other side, I would sincerely appreciate if you know the English term for "draconian" in this regard. I mean, which English term would suit well the ETA demands of not releasing and not killing (as they eventually did) Miguel Ángel Blanco unless all ETA inmates were brought to jails within the Basque Country in a matter of two days. The only term trying to describe these demands I know is "draconian", therefore I'd appreciate it if you knew the correct one and post it by yourself (same reason as above for not doing it myself). Another solution would be simply explaining these unreasonable demands which I guess they speak by themselves, without needing further adjectivation.

Thanks.

Mountolive

Feel free to restore "to date". I'm not going to put it there, but I won't revert it again if you insist.

I don't have a specific suggestion for what to say rather than "draconian". Maybe "extreme" or "drastic"? But "draconian" is pretty specific. Its eponym is the legal code of Draco. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I have copyedited your last edit, changed haven't to have not, band in English is a grupo musical, etc. The other thing is that regarding the negotiation talks, I'm not sure whether they could be considered stalled or over when as far as I know they have never been formally announced till a couple of weeks ago? (Everyone knows that there must surely have been some talks but this has never been made totally clear). Your thoughts? Asterion^talk 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) PS: By the way, I agree with your removal of the reference, we needed one in Spanish. I have added a few, feel free to edit them.

Editing

As Adam Biswanger and the edition pages say you can sign your messages in talk pages by typing four ~ characters. There is also a button depicting some scribbles above the text box that does the same.

To see changes in a page, click the page history link of that page, and click the start and the end dates which you want to compare.

You may see in the page histories one-line descriptions of the changes. You can add them when you do your editions by typing on the Edit Summary text field.

You can add several templates to pages with shorthand. The non-neutrality one is added by typing {{NPOV}} if I remember it well. But, in the Talk page, you should provide a detailed description of your issues with the current state of the page. Otherwise, there can not be a meaningful discussion, unless those issues are evident.

Before, read the talk page (also labelled as "Discussion") corresponding to the page you are concerned about. The issues you have may have already been discussed.

--Error 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Isla Perejil

Hi o hola Mountolive. Thanks for your message. I agree w/ much of what you commented on my talk p. However, i don't understand what you meant by ...in contrast with the Moroccan to say the least loose action in this regard to date.... It looks a POV but again i agree w/ you that we can formulate that in a better way.

By the way, are you Spanish? Cheers. -- Szvest 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hans Van Themsche

I reverted your edit at Hans Van Themsche, for a number of reasons.

• the heading you changed was created after a long -and heated- debate on the article's talk page. We're risking to reopen the debate, disrupting Wikipedia
• I believe the heading accurately describes the content of its section
• Your Point of view ("Vlaams Belang may share responsability as a legal organization which can be targeted if needed, but you just can't make responsible a blurring mass of people -its voters- (unless you are biased)") is one of the POV's that is discussed in the section. Maybe it should be expanded. The discussion about it might be reflected better in the article.

-- ➌  LucVerhelst  19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing with regard to inserting a comment. Indeed it may be considered impolite, and furthermore it disrupts talk pages in a way that makes it sometimes hard for other talkers and confuses other readers who come later to the talk page. There is a template {{talkheader}} intended for the top of a talk page but it is too large to show it on most talk pages; I would only use it if many people would keep inserting remarks or answers inside another user's comment, or comments/answers between other comments, or at top of the comments. The place for a comment is always at the bottom of the relevant section (or if there is no sufficiently relevant section, an entirely new section at the bottom of the talk page). If someone beats you to it, simply refer to the earlier comment like for instance "About User:X's comment of date/time, ..." or "As at date/time, User:X pointed out in the topic paragraph, ..." etc. — Something like this is somewhere in the guidelines... ;-) — SomeHuman 8 Oct2006 02:41 (UTC)

RE: Crown of Aragón

Thanks for commenting on my talk page. While I don't doubt the factual accuracy of the information you introduced, placing it in the introduction attaches a hugely disproportionate importance to what are really minor political distinctions (that's what I meant by "politicizing"—if it matters mostly to (say) Catalan nationalists, then describing their concerns in great detail in the introduction promotes their POV unfairly). Also, I reverted because some of your additions seemed redundant with what is written under "History," i.e.:

This union was made while respecting the existing institutions of both places. This situation was mostly maintained until the abolition of the Crown of Aragon early in the 18th century.

However, Castile and the Crown of Aragon remained different states, each keeping its own institutions and laws. The Crown of Aragon was abolished during the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–1713) by the Decretos de Nueva Planta, and all its lands were incorporated, as provinces, into Spanish administration.

If my revert was too drastic, I apologize. I actually encourage you to write on this topic in as much detail you like, but instead of lengthening the introduction, could you write under "History" or even a new section created for the purpose? Also, the article really should keep the title "Aragonese Empire" as this is common nomenclature in English-language material, questions of accuracy aside. Let me know if there are any more problems. Albrecht 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Mauritania

Hola Mountolive. Gracias por la rectificacíon. Removí Egipto y Jordania. Saludos. -- Szvest 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Spain's demographics and Vinalopó river

Hello Mountolive! Thanks you for your remarks. I have given the references that you asked me in the articles of Spain and Demographics of Spain. The demographics in Spain are followed by the "Instituto Nacional de Estadística" (Nacional Statistics Institute, in english), whose webpage is [www.ine.es this one]. You can find there all the informations about population by region/province, foreign population, population by sex or age, historical data... If you are keen on this subject, I have been working lately on the spanish Wikipedia in the article es:Inmigración en España, a very interesting topic to my mind.

I have also added two pictures in the article of Vinalopó river. Do you live nearby Alicante? Greetings, --Rodriguillo 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! For the comarcas, "Valles del Vinalopó" is a generic name that includes the region crossed by the Vinalopó river, and it includes more or less the three comarcas of Alto Vinalopó, Vinalopó Medio and Bajo Vinalopó. In fact, comarcas in this part of Spain haven't been traditionally very well defined (only in some cases, like the Vega Baja del Segura), and, although the regional government tried to do a systematic classification (but with not any administrative consequence), the item is not very clear.

Spain has not any more the second sub replacement fertility rate in the world, although I heard something like that some years ago, so it's very likely it was the case in some year of the nineties. Fertility rate has slightly increased these last years because of the highest fertility rate of the immigrant population. In 2004 the natural growth rate was of 1,94‰, but it's true that in 1998 (when it took the smallest rate) it was just of 0,12‰ [1]. Anyway, I don't know where we can find the source for this comparation: maybe in some newspaper, or in an UN classification. Anyway, I agree with you that citations are necessary: I am going to try to give sources to the other statements in the article of Demographics of Spain.

Yours sincerely, --Rodriguillo 00:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Spain

Hi Mountolive, the {{sprotected}} template appeared in the article but it was not semi-protected. Only administrators can protect or unprotect a page, adding this template to an article does not protect it. Since the presence of the template was invalid I removed it. If you wish to request that the page be protected, you can make a request at WP:RFP. However, in this case it has only been vandalized about 5 times in the last day, so I doubt an administrator would choose to protect it. Personally, I don't request protection for an article until it has been vandalized about 12 times in a day. I hope this information is helpful, if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Accurizer 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Movement for unification of Romania and Moldova

No problem with your edit. I am glad that you felt that I could help out. - Mauco 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Hi Mountolive, I would really appreciate your vote and opinion on the undeletion process of "Spanish Gibraltarians". A copy of the article can be found on my talk page. I personally feel it was unfairly deleted. Here is a link to the undeletion process.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_16#Spanish_Gibraltarians

Thanks--Burgas00 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cabo de Gata

I'm not sure it is, but if you want to put it back in, I'd suggest in the body rather than the lead, and drop the "allegedly" - it can either be verified or not. Thanks for the monk seal spot - do you have a verifiable date for the last sighting? Yomangani^talk 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was clear from the reference to the depth and the marine life, "underwater" sounds to me like just underwater rather than the whole zone, but that might be just me. Yomangani^talk 03:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a ref for "the driest place in Europe" so I put it back in. Yomangani^talk 03:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I also found a "official" date from the Ministerio de Medio Ambiente for the last seals, so I've added that. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Carxe

Well, of course! If you change the template, you change it everywhere. That's the whole point of a template. For now, I'll just revert you, then I'll try to do it right. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Template:Catalan language should be about right. In addition to what you had, I added "spoken in": after all, that is the exact criterion for the articles where you were talking about using it.

Yes, you can customize templates, per page, that is exactly what template parser functions are about. See m:ParserFunctions if you want a lesson; it's not easy stuff, though, I think that only a few hundred of us have learned to do this and only about 20-30 (and I'm not one of those) have really mastered them. - Jmabel | Talk 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ETA, again

I replied on my talk page. The short of it is, I doubt you have a case that the arbitrators would take, and can't see why you would want them involved in this; mediation, though, might make sense. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither Error nor I are officially mediators, and I don't know how much time I have to give this (and I bet similar remarks apply for him), but if Error will also participate (and, of course, if Sugaar is also willing) then, sure, I'm willing to see if we can help work it out. It's worth a try, and we can always bring in someone from the "mediation cabal" later if it doesn't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear from you at Talk:ETA#Article mediation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Si me pregunta en un bar, le diría lo que pienso sobre la ETA, que no son mas que una banda de asesinos que no han sabido adaptarse al paso de los tiempos, pero este no es el lenguaje adecuado para la wikipedia. --Asterion^talk 08:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

El lenguaje es correcto: creo que fue usted mismo el que le hizo saber Squeakbox que citar hechos tipo "ETA está incluida en las listas de organizaciones terroristas de X, Y y Z" es perfectamente adecuado a wikipedia.

Lo que fastidia es que, partiendo de esta directriz (un poco inspirada en el perro del hortelano, que ni come ni deja comer, pero eso es otra historia) ya vengan a sacar como consecuencia que, bueno, en realidad, tampoco es politicamente correcto citar eso en la información básica de ETA....entonces ¿qué decimos sobre ETA en su definición? ¿sólo que quiere la independencia del País Vasco y dejamos lo de su caracter terrorista para aquél que tenga ganas de leerse un artículo de cuatro páginas y encuentre la sección donde pone eso? ¿es eso dar una información veraz y sin tergiversar como wikipedia manda?

En fin, insisto en que la historia no va con usted: al menos usted trajo de vuelta esa referencia que Squeakbox había borrado, pero creo que mis razones son bastante claras y, además, no se salen del wikiguión.

Un saludo. Mountolive 02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Morocco and Paul Bowles

I was fixing the other version according to the MoS. Your final version can be put in perenthesis as it directs you to the relevent section. It's fine now. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How can we make it so that Paul Bowles directs us directly to its Tangiers times? I'm trying but it keeps taking it to the whole article, which is fine, but the other way would be nicer...

Muy extraño! Ahora funciona. A veces pasan cosas extrañas. Puedes verificar ahora de tu parte? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sí, ahora sí...tienes razón, a veces pasan cosas muy raras. Gracias. :)

No cambie nada pero funciono! lol :)

Szvest, I don't think " in a time when the kingdom of Morocco was still being splitted between multiple dynasties and kingdoms" sounds right. You can not have something (the kingdom of Morocco) existing if is split "in multiple dynasties and kingdoms". I still think that "did not exist" is more accurate...what do you think?

...in a time when the kingdom of Morocco did not encompass the Rif area. sounds correct though it encompased the Rif area some times in history before. The case is a bit more complicated than that in terms of the involvment of other parties as the Nasrid dynasty, the Kingdom of Fez and the conflict between the Moroccans and the Portuguese. Anyway, i'll say the above phrasing is accurate although a bit simplistic. In brief, i agree we keep it that way and not complicate it further as we already have other articles where the idea could be devolopped further. Happy editing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Gagauzia

Hi. You have added the follwoing sentence to the article Gagauzia: In other words, in the event -and only in that event- that Moldova decided to join Romania, the Gagauzians would be entitled to decide whether to remain or not a part of the new state by means of a self determination referendum. As far as I know, from purely juridical point of view, if Moldova would decide to become part of Australia, the same stipulation applies. So, "in the event and only in that event" is not legal correct. I suggest to put your sentence as a footnote, and without and only in that event. Your oppinion? :Dc76 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the possibility of Moldova joining Australia is remote, literally speaking. Moldova only could possibly decide to join Romania or Ukraine and common sense dictates that the latter is not a real possibility. Anyway, I'll amend this sentence for the sake of legal sticklers :P Mountolive 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Catalan references

Dear Mountolive, I don't think so much severe the name controversy (despite the different possibilities should be respected), since I'm personally of the opinion «El nom no fa la cosa», as the continuous denial of Catalan references (sometimes even surrealistic), now impulsed by Maurice27, which you would seem to be supporting in Valencian article. Salut! Toniher 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

«El nom no fa la cosa»??? You gotta be kiding! Just like in the Rosselló/Roussillon pages, right?... Toniher says white here, and black there... Just hilarious! Don't worry, I'll use this «El nom no fa la cosa» each time you erase other's edits. Maurice27 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, names matter, because they often confer an associated view associated, so that's the polemic we have with Valencian Country naming. However, your case is plainly lamentable, not as with the Valencian Country name polemics, since you could not even distinguish Catalan from Occitan, and you are not able to understand the polysemy of Roussillon term. Toniher 08:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, you may want to move discussion to the relative talk page, not in this one. Thanks! Mountolive 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing Spain

I'm an Australian citizen - born here - a Melbournian (BEST CITY IN OZ!) but I'm also of solidly Galician descent - (I've been mistaken by English for an Englishman and Italians (my tan) for an Italian). My Spanish, sadly, is mediocre, but improving. Actually my original historical interest was not Spain, but China & Europe generally, esp France - but when I stumbled onto the Spanish related pages here I was shocked - I've made many, many errors - and have been learning along the way - correcting myself, using corrections and specific info added by others and using my feel for wider history to guide me as I go along. Most of my stuff is broad brush. I hoped to spur others, even if only to correct or qualify my statments - hence my username. (By the way I only got on to check for your replies & have made two article changes (Sp & Sp Emp) I long intended - pls forgive me.) Now, I better be off to my own Garden of Gethsemane... Cheers

Are you aware?

Just wanted to give you this link New wikiproject in case you haven't noticed. I think our good faith edits in the Valencian page have the days counted. I can't say more... I have to "show respect" (If you know what I mean) Adeuuuu Maurice27 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware and yes, you got to "show respect" here. Sometimes it is discouraging that the guys who don't show respect for the Truth (or only show respect for their truth) are leading this project and the guys who don't show respect for very biased interpretations of history or society get banned. So here you got a good reason to stay "respectful" because, in my opinion, your point is usually good.

But no, I don't think that should put an end to our good faith edits anywhere! I hope you are not quitting, man! If the Catalanists go on the offensive, we will have to give them some fight, right? but...yes, respectful one :D In any case, the fact that they started a wikiproject doesn't necesarily mean that much. This said, I am not a anti-Catalanist myself, I just try to stay as neutral as possible.

I am not a skilled guy with computers, for example, I don't know how to undo the redirect from Kingdom of Valencia to Crown of Aragón. If you just start the sketch of the translation, I promise I will help! Thanks for the advice, mate. Mountolive | Talk 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fight? Did I read Fight? ;) hehehehehehe just joking... Don't worry, I'm backing you on this. I'm not anti-catalanist either (this people give really lovely people a bad image), only anti-catalan imperialism...You will later have to help me improving the Pyrenees Orientales articles (aka Rosselló, Capcir, Vallespir... you know... the Northern Catalonia thing... hehehe. ;)

BTW, redirection in Kingdom of Valencia is removed. You may now enter and start the article. I can't help you tonight, but i'll see tomorrow what you have done... Adeuuuu Maurice27 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you read "discussion" hehehe. Thanks for preparing the Kingdom of Valencia thing! I am not sure myself either whether I may start with it tonight, if not, I will very soon. If the article has been redirected for years, I guess it can remain so for one more night... Thanks Maurice.Mountolive | Talk 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I think, yes, we are allowed to say "penis" :D

RE: Wikiproject and manners

Hi; please be advised that changing the order of tags as you are doing with the Catalan Countries Wikiproject may be seen as POV pushing and, in any case, for sure out of wikiquette and thus it could be reverted. Please keep the existing timely order. Mountolive | Talk 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your complain when there are other users doing the same (see an exemple). I've put it in top because is more quick and easy. If you need to feel happy putting Spanish template first, so feel free to change order. I don't worry about it. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't even bother to check which was the other user who acted with little respect to wikiquette. That only proves that there are people out there who push their POVs but that doesn't mean that we should do the same, you know? (I hope you are not counting a bot as a user anyway).

Being "more quick and easy" doesn't seem like a good reason to overview manners when the only "procedure" you have to do is introduce one space, right?

I won't change it myself either, I only advised you that what you did is out of wikiquette. Looks like you didn't like the advice, so I won't bother next time. Mountolive | Talk 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New edits on History

It's not a revertment to any previous reversion. It's a merging of the edits between edits made by me and edits made by you and Maurice. I don't understand why you are talking about consens because in the talk page only discussed you and Maurice, it means, the same POV. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. I am discussing with Xtv and holding my own edits. As I said, my reversion is provisional, I am not saying that you will edit as you did, but, at the present moment, we need to go step by step. Please. Otherwise mass edits will ruin the present consensus-prone situation Mountolive | Talk 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand you but, as I've already said in discussion talk, you've removed unilaterally the template of "totally disputed" (or similar) I've put first because of the same reason you are telling us. If you want to discuss, put the template now again in the actual version, or revert to the revision when I've put this template previously, in the both way as you wish. But I think that you wouldn't have no reason to revert my edits now. In the other hand, if you have no doubt that you should to post a complain protest because of any action done by me, do it so. But don't threat me, please, it's considered a personal attack to me according to the same WikiEtiquette you're referring (exactly, WP:ATTACK). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My "unilateral" removal was not more unilateral than your unilateral putting the template. I just didn't understand why you used that template right after you made six or seven edits, it didn't make sense to me. I insist we can discuss in the talk page, with no rush, step by step and, at the end of the story, if nothing is clear, you (or I) we can put the damn template but, at this point, I think is an exaggeration, as the article is not so far from your POV, but actually further from mine, and I don't use the template anyway, because it just doesn't look nice and that should be used as a last recourse.

I don't know when I threaten you, but if you felt threatened, my apologies. If you talking about when I said that I will bring this matter to an administrator, that is not a proper threat whatsoever, that is actually a friendly advice. Don't be too suspicious about me, ok? I'm trying to find consensus but you are pushing too hard in one direction all the time. You are always on time to think it over and try to discuss. I really-really hope you do. Gràcies. Mountolive | Talk 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to put only {{dubious}} on History. I suppose it's less exagerated than {{totally disputed}}. Please, tell us wich information is controversial for you when you want. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is much better, specially if you restrict the template to the History section. As you know, I am now very busy with all the guys from the Catalan-speaking "countries" wikiproject (what have I done to you? :P) but, as soon as we move ahead (IF we move ahead) I will go about your issues which, honetly, I have not even had the time to assess. This said, I appreciate your change of attitude. Mountolive | Talk 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit of Spanish naming customs

You are making substantial edits to Spanish naming customs. The addition of Registro Civil is unsourced. Please stop editting without citing sources. BTW, Salvador Dalí does apply as it is one way a family remembered a dead family member in naming him. Please stop your edits without citing sources. Morenooso 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am making a few edits to clean up the article (I would not dare to call them "substantial" though). I think this is what we are supposed to do here, right?

I have added already the Registro Civil reference. Don't forget not to take yourself too seriously as changes patrol, ok? Be good. Mountolive | Talk 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That link, while applying to the general site on Civil Registry does not support your contention that In Spain this does not have legal effect and the newborn inscription has to be made at before administrative authorities in the Registro Civil or Civil Register. Those who do not baptise their children, simply update the latter register which is the only one binding. which you add and is still unsourced. This does not meet Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Item #13 states:

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and reciprocally related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

Do you think that the case of a rock band and the Ministerio de Justicia de España are even similar? Do you know about primary sources and secondary sources? If you are bored tonight and want to show people how you master wikipedia guidelines, that's fine, but you'd better choose a troll instead of harassing a good faith editor and it would be better for all....(BTW how about "El nacimiento produce efectos civiles desde que tiene lugar, pero para el pleno reconocimiento de los mismos es necesaria su inscripción en el Registro Civil" from http://www.mjusticia.es/cs/Satellite?c=Tramite&cid=1060583996709&pagename=Portal_del_ciudadano%2FTramite%2FTramite Is this supporting enough? ) Mountolive | Talk 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please watch your edit summaries too. Please see WP:CIVIL. Morenooso 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you like to take yourself damn seriously, right? I am going to remove that statement right now: thank you for depriving the article of some interesting info. Mountolive | Talk 02:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish naming customs edit summary comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please refernce policies not users. Morenooso 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing anything here? :D Maurice27 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the whole thing was a matter of just one night...an overzealous patrol changes kind of sat on my nerves (I guess the guys you know in the Valencia autonomous community had me frustrated) thus I had to use the Conan the Barbarian sword good ol' Maurice has showed me ;) and I cited his user's name in the edit summary in a less than nice manner...but in any case, it was good that he me tocase las bolas because I ended up providing the references/citations (which is something tiring, but necessary, isn't it? ;) Mountolive | Talk 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose the following

I hit "Save Page" before I intended to, so the present version currently contains errors. I think that the following is the best summary of this section of Spain:

Modern humans in the form of Cro-Magnons began arriving in the Iberian Peninsula from north of the Pyrenees some 35,000 years ago. The best known artifacts of these prehistoric human settlements are the famous paintings in the Altamira cave of northern Spain, which were likely created about 15,000 BCE.

Early inhabitants include likely predecesors to the Basque people, who occupied coastal northern central Spain, Iberians and Celts. Iberians inhabited the southwest part of the peninsula and along the Mediterranean side through to the northeast, the Celts inhabited the north and northwest part of the peninsula. In the inner part of the peninsula, where both groups were in contact, a mixed, distinctive, culture was present, known as Celtiberian.

Between about 1100 BCE and 300 BCE, seafaring Phoenicians, Greeks, and Carthaginians successively founded trading colonies along the Mediterranean coast. The later-arriving Carthaginians engaged in armed struggles with Greek and Roman colonizers. The Greeks are believed to be responsible for the name Iberia, apparently after Iber, their name for the river. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EspanaViva (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The chronological order is inverse, as follows, 1.- Tartessos 2.- Iberian, Celts, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Greek 3.-Romans over an Iberian and Celt substratum.

As I said, if we are to summarize, a reference to proto-Basques is not needed: they shared symbols, mythology and everything else (except language) with the Celts, which made them a Celt-like culture. Besides, I really dislike etymological speculations such as the ones about Iberia, because they are impossible to prove.

In other words, I stand by the present version. Mountolive | Talk 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, leaving aside the proto-Basque question for the moment, how about the following (information taken from Prehistoric Spain):

Modern humans in the form of Cro-Magnons began arriving in the Iberian Peninsula from north of the Pyrenees some 35,000 years ago. The best known artifacts of these prehistoric human settlements are the famous paintings in the Altamira cave of northern Spain, which were likely created about 15,000 BCE.

Early inhabitants include the Iberians and Celts; the Iberians inhabited the southwest part of the peninsula and along the Mediterranean side through to the northeast, the Celts inhabited the north and northwest part of the peninsula. In the inner part of the peninsula, where both groups were in contact, a mixed, distinctive, culture was present, known as Celtiberian.

Between about 1100 BCE and 300 BCE, seafaring Phoenicians, Greeks, and Carthaginians successively founded trading colonies along the Mediterranean coast. The later-arriving Carthaginians engaged in armed struggles with Greek and Roman colonizers. The Greeks are believed to be responsible for the name Iberia, apparently after Iber, their name for the river Ebro.

EspanaViva 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The present version is much more chronological than the suggested above. Also, you are not replying to my etymological comments, which are in line with the lenght reducing policy (sentences including words like are believed and apparently after are not that necessary or important)

It may be easy for me to understand your will to edit this section if you let me know why are you in discomfort with the present redaction. Mountolive | Talk 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of current version with proposed version

Here's the version currently in the article:

Modern humans in the form of Cro-Magnons began arriving in the Iberian Peninsula from north of the Pyrenees some 35,000 years ago. The best known artifacts of these prehistoric human settlements are the famous paintings in the Altamira cave of northern Spain, which were likely created about 15,000 BCE.

The earliest documented urban culture is that of the semi-mythical southern city of Tartessos, pre-1100 BCE. The seafaring Carthaginians, Phoenicians, and Greeks founded trading colonies along the Mediterranean coast over a period of several centuries. The pioneering Carthaginians engaged in struggles with the later arriving Greek and Roman colonizers.

At the time of the Roman colonization, modern day Spain was populated by the Iberians and the Celts, the former inhabiting the southwest part of the peninsula and along the Mediterranean side through to the northeast, the latter inhabiting the north and northwest part of the peninsula. In the inner part of the peninsula, where both groups were in contact, a mixed, distinctive, culture was present, known as Celtiberian.

In the present version, as you can see, the order of the references is (1) Tartessos, (2) Carthaginians, (3) Phoenicians, (4) Greeks, (5) Romans, (6) Iberians, and (7) Celts.

The version I am proposing:

Modern humans in the form of Cro-Magnons began arriving in the Iberian Peninsula from north of the Pyrenees some 35,000 years ago. The best known artifacts of these prehistoric human settlements are the famous paintings in the Altamira cave of northern Spain, which were likely created about 15,000 BCE.

Early inhabitants include the Iberians and Celts; the Iberians inhabited the southwest part of the peninsula and along the Mediterranean side through to the northeast, the Celts inhabited the north and northwest part of the peninsula. In the inner part of the peninsula, where both groups were in contact, a mixed, distinctive, culture was present, known as Celtiberian.

Between about 1100 BCE and 300 BCE, seafaring Phoenicians, Greeks, and Carthaginians successively founded trading colonies along the Mediterranean coast. The later-arriving Carthaginians engaged in armed struggles with Greek and Roman colonizers. The Greeks are believed to be responsible for the name Iberia, apparently after Iber, their name for the river Ebro.

In this proposed version, the order of references is (1) Iberians, (2) Celts, (3) Phoenicians, (4) Greeks, (5) Carthaginians, (6) Romans - which I understand to be the correct chron order. Also, in the version I am proposing, there is no reference to Tartessos because of the speculative nature of the dating (and its existance).

I suggest that this proposed version names the groups in correct chron order. EspanaViva 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just tell me what is wrong with the present version? It should be easier for me to understand: I can't see why to change this unless you tell me your reasons, for to me it looks pretty much ok as it is now.

Your chronology is correct, even though we have to have into account that Iberians and Celts (also Celtiberians) were there all the time and that may not be clear enough for the unfamiliar with Iberian history.

I have made a small edit in the meantime regarding Carthaginians which I think makes it more chronological.

I am missing your reasons as to why to include the Iberia speculation. Mountolive | Talk 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As explained above - What's wrong with the current version is:

(1) The groups are named out of chron order-the Iberians and Celts should be named early, not at the end

(2) The Tartessos information is too speculative to include in this summary.

If you don't want to include the name "Iber" information, that can come out easily.

¿Claro? EspanaViva 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Como el agua.

I made an edit in the meantime. I realized myself that for those unfamiliar to the Peninsular history, the Iberian and Celts mentioned at the end may be misleading. I think is pretty much ok right now after my edit.

I think the Tartessos reference is interesting because it seemed to exist and is worth nothing because it would be the first urban culture but, if you really disagree, feel free to remove: that will be the price to pay for not including the Iberia reference because, no, I don't like it ;)

Mountolive | Talk 19:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to go even farther - Iber comes out and Tartessos stays in. I have moved the Iberians and Celts early. My concern is when we go through Peer review and Good article processes, we're going to have to have citations for everything important. We'll see if Tartessos survives at that point! EspanaViva 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Present version _{(19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC))}

I'm not going to make any more changes at this point, I think we should give others a chance to have some fun! You might want to double-check Prehistoric_Spain#The_Metal_Ages, because the dates given there are somewhat different than contained in the present version in the Spain article. Also, I had deleted that last sentence about "romanization" because I was going to insert it in the "Roman Empire" section which follows (where I would suggest it better fits).

More importantly, if you have reliable source/reference works that you can insert as footnotes for anything in this section, that would be much appreciated! EspanaViva 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)