User talk:Jotamar

Untitled 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dialectos_del_castellano_en_España.png

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

Hola Jotamar

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)

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

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).Talk^Help 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).Talk^Help 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POV and edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

¿Cual es tu problema con el Real Madrid?

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 (talk • contribs) 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?

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

Mapa

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

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

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)

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

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;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination)

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

Your run in with Novaseminary

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

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)

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

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

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

Extremaduran

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

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)

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)

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC) --Candalín (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Formal" Spanish

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

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

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

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

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 ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

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. 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

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

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. 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

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"

Why the revert, isn't it the right expression in Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsmaelLuceno (talk • contribs) _"de_la_calle"" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">01:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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

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

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

A few questions about Spanish pronouns

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

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

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

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

Zahira/Zaida

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)

Chavacano

Why was this removed? What fact do you have that would justify you to delete this? It is a fact that the word "chavacano" is not a Spanish word". You can check any spanish dictionary and the word does not exist.

---

"The word Chavacano is not a spanish word. The people of Zamboanga "coined" the word. The people of Zambaonga, being a proud bunch of people, who just helped the spaniards build the fort (June 23, 1635) and in the process developed the dialect, wanted to "own" this unique new language and hence baptized it as CHAVACANO. The word chabacano was derogatory. The people of Zamboanga were proud of their new language, the language of Chavacano." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuhitkuhit (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jotamar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Paella

You reverted my edits on the paella article even though they were well cited. I sharply disagree that the sources are dubious. We need to discuss to prevent an edit war. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Voseo

Pusiste "It has been claimed that". Eso implica duda, que hay más de un punto de vista. ¿Qué es dudoso en este párrafo? deisenbe (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Linares de Mora

Thanks for the correction! I didn't realize Aragones wasn't spoken there. Mizike (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Paella

Hi! I wonder why you think this source to be unreliable? It is a hypothesis mentioned many times in different sources. I have readded the paragraph with more supporting sources mentioned. Brainist (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Crown of Aragon

Excuse me, what are you doing? You are a long standing editor, and I have told you to take it to talk. Still you have not gone there, and start edit warring, which does not come across as very collaborative. I bring here what edit warring is for your information, and put away confrontational attitudes. For content, please go to talk. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Basque Country

Please do stop confrontational attitudes. Your claims are controversial, do not belong in the lead at any rate (WP:OR, and WP:VER). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. So far I am only seeing obstructive positions. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Old Spanish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Tortilla

Please use edit summaries. I don't read IPA. If you make a change that looks suspicious to me, and you don't give a summary, I may revert it. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh - and try to be more WP:CIVIL. That rule applies as much to edit summaries as to talk-page comments.

Have a nice day. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

There is a controversial user

An anonymous user (92.6.197.222) is systematically reverting all accepted editions and reliable sources of an user that was blocked, starting an edit war and do not let anyone revert their editions now. In addition, he accuses me of evading a blockade without any reason or proof.

Should something be done about it? I believe the sources and accepted editions should prevail than the blocking status of that former user.

A greeting. NothingHam Bread (talk)

I guess it makes no sense to systematically revert any edition by a blocked user, and even less so when you are just an IP editor. However I'm no expert about WP guidelines, so I suggest you ask your questions for instance in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Regards. --Jotamar (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jotamar, fyi, user NothingHam Bread is now blocked as yet another sockpuppet of the blocked user in question, JamesOredan, a.k.a. "EddTey", "Blade and the rest", and others. About the relevant WP guidelines, and the reverts by the IP (who is not me), I thought you might be interested to know that any and all edits by a blocked user can be reverted without question, according to WP:BLOCKEVASION. It's sometimes done to give the message that it's pointless for the user to continue their sockpuppetry, because all their edits will be undone. That's true even if the edits appear useful, according to WP:BMB, because the damage to Wikipedia by allowing a blocked/banned editor to edit may be greater than whatever value a particular edit may have. On the other hand, it's not required to revert the edits of blocked users. Editors in good standing may also reinstate reverted edits of blocked users, if they take full responsibility for them, though they should consider the reasoning of WP:BMB before doing so. I hope that helps... --IamNotU (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jotamar (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Official languages of Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Torres (surname)

The old Lady Presidential candidate Sandra Torres (politician) is not an athlete, heaven. You just had to delete Sandra Torres (fencer), Venezuelan fencer, if en:WP doesn't like to see redlinks within disambiguation lists. You have doubled entry for Lady politician again. --Emeritus (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is. Of course a non-existent page can't have a link in a disambiguation page. There are 2 Sandra Torres articles in this WP and both have their own link in Torres (surname). --Jotamar (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, later on I saw that there was a repeated entry for Sandra Torres (politician). I've fixed it. --Jotamar (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Source in Hispanic article.

I see you restored [7] a source listed in the references section of the above article. Can you explain why you think a student essay making dubious claims about 'Hispanic' versus 'Anglo' culture meets WP:RS? You might well take into consideration before answering this the fact that the only other mention on Wikipedia of the author, Romero Anton Montalban-Anderssen (I think given the unusual name we can assume it is the same person) has been in our article on the English village of Hartforth, where multiple contributors (or more likely the same contributor under multiple names) have repeatedly tried to add a claim that said individual is 'Lord of Hartforth', based on dubious sources, resulting after a discussion at WP:ANI [8] in the article being protected. Given that the 'reference' was originally added by an anonymous IP giving a clearly false edit summary ("added link to larger file that contains all references"), [9] and given that said IP's only other edits were in reference to the name 'Montalban', I see no reason to think that the link wasn't added by 'Montalban-Anderssen' himself. Not that it should matter much anyway, since Wikipedia doesn't, as far as I'm aware, cite student essays as sources. 86.143.224.244 (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Check this discussion: Talk:Hispanic#Source reliable or not. --Jotamar (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

PDECAT

Oh God, this was indeed a confusion. For some reason I had read "extinct" rather than "extant", and your reply at this revert seemed as if you were requiring me to prove that the party still existed! I had thought it was a crazy situation because it made absolutely no sense for you to claim that. Further, as a result of the various reverts I did not notice you were actually trying to correct the existing error at the article, not adding it. I'll be reverting my latest edit to your version. Sorry for the inconvenience. Impru20^talk 17:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Spaniard article

The user Melroross is vandalizing the “Spaniards” article.

He has erased all the content of the Lead and copying all the content of the article “Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula” and pasting it in this article. Basically he is removing content with sources and converting the article in an entirely genetic article. NormanGear (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:NormanGear, I understand that you may not be happy about being reported once again. Please try and reflect on your conduct and the reasons why you have been reported. I think your post above shows that you may be seeking some sort of retaliation. That is understandable, however and as per ongoing discussions, I would never vandalise an article. The “vandalism” you are implying, has been reinstated as a link, which was the intention from inception. The link in question refers to the genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula and has not changed the Spaniards page in the least. Please refrain from further unfounded accusations. Best regards, Melroross (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Language

Greetings Jotamar, may I remind you that “Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.” I trust that henceforth you will bear this in mind before adding further comments as you did on Spaniards. Best regards, Melroross (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week from from certain pages (Pupusa) for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Español caribeño / Caribbean Spanish

Hola, veo que revertiste mi edición en la página "Caribbean Spanish", volviendo a poner la imagen de dialectos de español caribeño que estaba antes. No hay tales variedades del español caribeño en Colombia, ni tienen la extensión que muestra ese mapa. Si miras un mapa de dialectología del español en Colombia, verás que los dialectos "caribeños" tienen una extensión más limitada: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dialectos_Colombia.png (también: https://www.lifeder.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dialectos-de-colombia.jpg ). Los dialectos caribeños solo alcanzan la zona norte del país, las sabanas del Caribe. Por tal razón revertí tu edición y volví a poner el mapa que había puesto. --JoacoCanal (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Bullfighter

¡Hola! I have reverted your first and second edits (or rather, restorations) to bullfighter. When you added "On the other hand, it's quite common for a bullfighter to be born in a family of bullfighters" you used unencyclopedic tone and weasel-wording – both of which are discouraged on Wikipedia. This is "on the other hand" to what? What is the first "hand"? Same thing with "quite common", e.g. common in what sense? Your second edits describing the Spanish phrase más cornadas da el hambre as "famous" is unsourced with respect to the citation you gave. I will re-word that sentence to read better. Gracias. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 02:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Koine

Please explain your reversion of my edit on Koiné language. I corrected an apparent error of English. Thanks. Zaslav (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for a reply to your reply. Zaslav (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Undo

What's wrong with the info I wrote on the Aragonese page? Please tell me before erasing what I wrote again :> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinengi (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arabic language influence on the Spanish language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SVO and VSO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --Jotamar (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity

@Jotamar: You wrote this: "User:Redav, it occurs to me that you could delete the section about this point that you wrote in Talk:Spanish pronouns, so that it doesn't confuse other editors. Regards. --Jotamar (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)"

There is ambiguity in there, in the sense that "that you wrote in Talk:Spanish pronouns" could refer to either of:

• "the section";
• "this point",

I understood "that you wrote in Talk:Spanish pronouns" to refer to and identify the nearest noun phrase it could possibly refer to, i.e. "this point". And - perfectly grammatically, I should think - I further interpreted "the section" as the then current section.

Does that justify writing "you should read your messages a little less hastily", which is in the form of an order? Or may I kindly ask you to write your message as a request that is unambiguous as well? Regards!Redav (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Terminology in Spanish verbs article

Jotamar, brief here, semi-swamped at present, but I'm thinking it would be good if we could work together to clean up the paragraphs you edited recently in Spanish verbs. Agreed that (verb) paradigm is used in two ways -- one to refer to the maximally six forms of the template for a specific tense-aspect-mood class such as imperfect subjunctive, the other, more traditional, a cover term for a specific verb's entire collection of forms, presumably conjugations as well as non-conjugated forms. I'm reasonably satisfied with the admittedly vague term system for a verb's entire suite of forms, and much more so with paradigm for a specific conjugated template, but I'm open to principled alternatives that could work. The main point is to sort out appropriate labels for those two so that tense is used to describe actual tense, thus avoiding confusing misapplication of that label to templates that are actually more than just tense. Cheers. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Barefoot through the chollas: I've opened a discussion about this in Talk:Spanish verbs#''Tense'' and ''Paradigm''. --Jotamar (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mudejar art

Jotmar, glad you liked my one and only substantial addition. Agree with your point. The rest of my endless meddling had been merely an attempt to make this article flow better and more logical, rather than have sentences and paragraphs that had little relation to each other and no overall order. I also removed the literature section because this is not what is meant by "Mudejar art". I tried to make the point in the article that the Mudejars were not the only ones to practice Mudejar art by saying they "introduced" and the styles were "absorbed by". I made these small but important changes because of your posts. However this is not enough, so please add those points you made about Mozarabs and Christians but please back it up with scholarly citations. After all there was "Mudejar art" in the former Spanish colonies but there were no Mudejars there. I hope this is the last time I do any major editing on Wikipedia but don't be surprised if I try to do some final tidying up of this article. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.194.124 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"not in most"?

Dear Jotamar, your latest edit in Spanish orthography says "...for speakers not in most of Spain..." Did you intend to delete that "not"? Kotabatubara (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kotabatubara: It's not an important edition, I'm just a little tired of the central and northern Spain formula, let alone the stupid "Castilian" moniker. About half of Andalusians and almost all Murcians do the s/z distinction, so I tried to put something more realistic. I suppose the resulting wording is kind of awkward in English, so you just edit it however you like it. Best regards. --Jotamar (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at National and regional identity in Spain, you may be blocked from editing. I wish you to seek consensus first instead of disruptive editing. You have been invited twice to discuss with proper arguments and instead you kept reverting my edits. All the best, Laocon (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Canary Islands §§ GDP statistics

You were the last person to edit the titular subsection. I would like to invite you to the format discussion at Talk:Canary Islands#Currency. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Spanish language infobox

Greetings! I have seen that you have been active in cleaning up/monitoring changes to Spanish language and have contributed to its consensus issues for a while now. Over the past year, various users have continued to flame edit wars over the insistence that Western Sahara and Philippines are Spanish-speaking to inflate its scope in a similar fashion as claiming Chilean/Argentine Antarctic territories a while back. It has been firmly agreed upon many times over the years on the talk page that these two places should not be placed under the 'significant minority' category or even be included in the infobox for interpretation of misinformation. In fact, a quick Google search will show that Spanish is basically extinct in Philippines despite what these die-hard "language inflators" suggest (something I personally experienced while briefly working there).

Recently, a new user (PyroFloe) decided to add a 'secondary/optional language' category without consulting the discussion page and only placing their reason in the article. What do you think about this? This isn't standard policy on language infoboxes and could potentially spread to other articles, such as inclusion of a bunch of countries to this section if added onto English language or French language. - Moalli (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moalli: first of all, I'm sorry for replying so late. I've been watching for long the pages about Spanish both in WP-es and WP-en, and I've come to the conclusion that a consensus about the infoboxes will never be reached, because editors come and go and balances change. I'm personally in favor of including the Philippines somehow because the language was important along the country's history, but that's not a relevant point. Regards. --Jotamar (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

SADR maps

Care to explain this? What exactly is the need for that second (albeit POV-pushing) map when there is already a perfectly adequate map there? I spoke to the editor who added that map in the first place (although they chose to flat out ignore me and erase my comment), explaining why that map has no place in the info box, or quite frankly the entire article altogether. As I explained to the other editor, it's best not confuse the proclaimed "SADR" with the entire disputed territory of Western Sahara as a whole (80% Morocco, 20% Polisario), so to add a map showing a huge swath of land completely out of the control of the Polisario as part of the SADR makes no sense. Please see Western Sahara, Morocco, Political status of Western Sahara, Southern Provinces, and Moroccan Western Sahara Wall for more if you are unfamiliar with the subject. --2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:5149:3E63:978:22FE (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:5149:3E63:978:22FE: I acknowledge that the map is somewhat redundant. However, as probably with most regular editors, my natural reaction to an unexplained deletion is to revert it, more so when the author was an IP editor, and I don't feel like apologizing for that. The normal procedure in a case like this is to bring up the question in the talk page for the article and gather consensus there. Regards. --Jotamar (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not looking for an apology, I was more just looking for an explanation why you reverted back to the map. You claimed I made "an unexplained deletion" when this is anything but true, I was very explicit time and time again as to why I removed the non-consensus and baseless map, when it was you who made the unexplained revert to restore it. None of this matters anyway because as you may or may not know, another editor has chosen to involve themself rather aggressively into restoring the map (as well as adding a bogus, throwaway "ref"), they also somehow managed to get admin intervention to their favor in what appears to be a desperate attempt to incriminate me in order to secure the stupid map. So unfortunately, it looks like that map is going to have to stay for the time being until something can be done about it, so maybe you can be happy about that. --2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:B029:1D5E:258:AB1C (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:5149:3E63:978:22FE: apparently you haven't realized that the problem is not the map, it's the manners. --Jotamar (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No definite article for Convivencia in original Spanish use either.er

The is NO DEFINITE ARTICLE in front of Convivencia, neither in English NOR IN THE ORIGINAL SPANISH.

Your examples for historical events, such as in "The American Revolution" do not apply in this case, for grammatical reasons. The definite article "the" refers to a specific "revolution"--the American one. Convivencia refers not to an event, but a process described in Iberian history, literally, as "co-living-ness", a term that never uses the definite article. Grammatically, we not add a definite article for "coexistence" OR "Convivencia". This Wikipedia page is the first time I can even remember seeing it used with the definite article and Convivencia this is my doctoral dissertation topic! If you need more evidence, I'd be to offer you more. 2607:FEA8:BCA0:3B8:697A:5A1E:71F:BA2F (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Plou, Aragon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plou, Aragon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Owen250708 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Your recent editing history at Mozarabic language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Largoplazo (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: the current conflict at Mozarabic language is the kind of discussion that can only stop with the help of additional opinions, and since you've edited the page recently you probably have something to say about it. --Jotamar (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I looked at that article was because after undoing an edit Alejojojo6 made to another page I was watching, I took a look at some of their other edits at around the same time and happened to notice the one phrase that I removed, which put the Mozarabic language article on my watchlist. And you've seen my comment on the Talk page, which betrayed no knowledge by me on the subject. Largoplazo (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IPA

No need to yell, I didn't check the edit history before removing the Western Catalan IPA. The difference between [ə] vs. [a] is automatic and so I see no need to transcribe the WC variant explicitly - but I'm not going to edit war over that. Sol505000 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000: I'm sorry I yelled. In terms of underlying phonetic form, it's easier to derive the Eastern Catalan pronunciation from the Western one, than the other way around. Anyway, even though the Barcelona (Eastern) pronunciation is obviously the most common in Catalan-language media, the state-owned media always try to have at least one or two newsreaders or other professionals who speak with a Western pronunciation, in order to underline that this accent, used in half of Catalonia (or more), is equally standard. In any case, I guess that, when in doubt, better too much than too little, don't you think? --Jotamar (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Jotamar, I'm expecting a reply to my messages on my talk page. please reply soon. Great Mercian (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hispanic America

Hi. I have no idea what "Hispanic America" is or should be (nor frankly do I much care). But according to the table of countries in our article and the Commons map displayed there, it does not include the USA. If you have RS's, please correct the article and the map (or ask the Map Lab at Commons to correct the map), and I'll be happy for "USA" to be removed from the list of areas where Spanish is native. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meseta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hispanic question

Look.

I really have a question about the term "Hispanic".

Does Hispanic count Spaniards and Portuguese?

What about Brazilians?

Mostly the word "Hispanics" are applied to the United States, cause in Canada for example, they have a separate term Latin Americans for people from Mexico to Chile.

But we are talking about Australia.

Does it even make sense? 2marco4 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@2marco4: hi Marco, my first comment is, why don't you bring up the question in Talk:Hispanic and Latin American Australians, so that it's open for more editors? Second, do you live in Australia or know that country well? I don't, but I guess that the concept of Hispanic, while originally from the US, must be common in all the English-speaking countries, and also in many others. If you have any reason to think otherwise, please explain it. Regards, --Jotamar (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I already asked the question right now on the other page.

Thanks. 2marco4 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Paella

Yes, Jotamar, seriously. The paella stew is made with tomato, preferably pear type, chopped or crushed, which is sautéed along with the rest of the vegetables. It is one of the basic ingredients of the broth, as stated in any reputable source you read. I leave you a few 1(300 g of chopped natural tomato, in the Spanish newspaper 20 minutes), 2(Crushed tomato, in the ABC recipes section), 3 (100 g of crushed or chopped tomato, RTVE)... Why did you reverted that? Thank you

Pues sí, Jotamar, el sofrito de la paella se hace con tomate troceado o triturado, preferiblemente de pera. Es uno de los ingredientes básicos del fondo, como consta en cualquier fuente acreditada que leas. Te dejo unas cuantas 1 ( 300 g de tomate natural troceado, en el periódico 20 minutos), 2 (Tomate triturado, en la sección de recetas del ABC), 3 (100 g de tomate triturado o troceado, RTVE)... ¿Por qué revertiste ese dato? Gracias Spanish Heritage (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Spanish Heritage: I've seen paellas being cooked a number of times and I didn't recall tomato ever being used. I guess it's a modern addition, just like pimentón, that makes the preparation easier. Anyway, being added in one particular recipe means very little, check for instance this page. Just as we speak, another editor has changed the text, so no need to discuss it further. --Jotamar (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I cook paella, like my father and my grandmother did, and it has always been made with grated tomato. It is the traditional recipe. The tomato is not seen because it is sautéed after the meat (chicken and rabbit) with the vegetables (bajoqueta and garrofó) along with the saffron. It has nothing to do with the link you gave me. Just take a look on the links I gave you. Anyway, as you say, it is already added. If you are interested in how to cook an authentic paella, this is one of the few videos I have found that does not make "innovations" [10] Spanish Heritage (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)