User talk:Asqueladd/Archive002

Map of the Basque Country

A map with zoom is not necessary. The autonomous community is clearly distinguishable. Treviño appears equally. The Basque Country is not one of the smallest communities. In addition, the rest of regions use the same type of map, and Canaries appears in the Atlantic Ocean, not in the Mediterranean. 79.145.126.42 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you speak to me so aggressively. This discussion does not have reason great. I have had to fight to remove the nationalists' maps, and it has not been easy. Why is it quite so complicated? Has current map something of incorrectly? Your map, to part of not being equal to that of the rest of Spanish regions, is crossed by an unnecessary zoom. Please, this one is afraid it must finish already. 79.145.126.42 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Spanish nationalist. This concept does not exist. For weeks you have been one of the users who were eliminating the maps of Spain. Maybe you should think about it, instead of accusing to the others of vandalism. Spain is a country, a reality. Catalonia, the Basque Country or the Valencian Community are regions of this nation, are not nations. 79.145.126.42 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...saw that you reverted in Prince of Squillace and the fake title Marquisate of Santa Rosa. Would appreciate you keep an eye on a few more. I plan to take the case to the noticeboard since the user is obviously inventing titles, has a sole purpose here to disseminate all this false info claiming to be the heir of many titles which have rightful title-holders or else have become extinct. You can see what I mean here, here and here where I include the articles that I'm trying to fix or have deleted. I doubt that the following are real titles: Marquisate of Santa Rosa (see discussion page where I added the real titles); County of San Juan and Vicecounty of Casa Romana and, Patrimonial Heritage of House of Borja takes the cake. I run across these types of people often in gen forums where I participate and would suggest he opens a blog rather than use wikipedia as a platform for all of this self-aggrandizement. Un abrazo, --Maragm (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Help?

Hello there! I noticed you recently edited the Architecture page and was wondering if you could assist with editing my architectural company's page to be more compliant with Wikipedia standards. Here are my thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Populous_(company)#Article_Improvements

Thanks for listening. Bewarethephog (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hispanidad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abingdon and Partido Acción Nacional. 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) 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid Pride

Asqueldd, your recent reversion of an edit on the Madrid page describing the city as the political, economic, and cultural center of Spain and referencing an Indiana summer abroad program's one-page flyer as the supporting citation is concerning in two respects, both in action and in intention. Making the claim that Madrid is the political center of Spain is clearly supportable, as might its 'central' status as financial, but designating one city's centrality in cultural terms in a large, pluralistic country is dubious at best. Your reversion of the edit and change of the reference from a summer abroad program demonstrates, on one hand, your intent to maintain the dubious content, and on the other, an acknowledgement of your intent to use flimsy citations. Such behavior is concerning. Furthermore, the new citation you added citing another generic encyclopedia page (Encyclopedia Brittanica "Madrid"), still does not support the statement that Madrid is the cultural center of Spain. It is clear that you are proud of Madrid, as you should be, but be careful not to let your exuberance cross the lines of objectivity and verifiability. I suggest that you remove the statement that Madrid is the cultural center of Spain or provide an inline reference. Otherwise, I will report you. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchristiansmith (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--The change you propose sounds fine. Thank you for offering to make the change to reflect the supportable information. Rchristiansmith (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

I sent you an email. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Asqueladd. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catalan nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lang. 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) 09:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

"Such a thing" exists. If you cared to even read the article itself, you'd see that such a post is even recognized in one law, even if it doesn't enter into the full depth of it. Plus, media (both Spanish and foreign) widely recognize such a role. That you think it has no relevance does not make it irrelevant; it makes it irrelevant only for you. If you cared to check sources you wouldn't have struggled to keep adding that "citation needed" tag. Impru20 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's what you say, not what sources say. One law recognizes the existence of the office, so it does exist, but it is not regulated in depth. May you stop your ranting and actually check sources? Impru20 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have it. Article 10, number 15. Plus, it was recognized by Congress itself on 28 December 1982, as you may see here. This meant that the then-opposition leader was awarded a series of privileges.

You asked for sources and you have them, so you should revert your edits. Now, since I did show sources, show proof yourself that such an office doesn't exist. I wish you good luck. Impru20 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, may you show me how officeholders are named in other places, too? Because I don't recall that there's any special appointment for officeholders in the UK; they automatically get elected to the post. In fact, in the UK the office is largely conventional, with laws only recognizing special privileges (but in fact, until 1937 they didn't get any and that doesn't mean the figure did not exist). For example, this guy is recognized as "Leader of the Opposition" before the title was even recognized in British legislation. Impru20 (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a "protocolary recognition" that is recognized in British people infoboxes from before the title was made official in the UK (and remember that you put the UK as an example). Can you show any proof or evidence that supports your case? I've already shown plenty of material that supports my case, and it gets tiring that I have to keep discussing this with someone who just asks me for sources yet doesn't care to show evidence himself. Otherwise I'd have to assume that what you're doing is merely your seeking. Both sources and Wikipedia practice support the treatment given to the title until now, which is to name it in the infobox. Impru20 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, you did put the burden of the proof on the rest of us when you kept adding the "citation needed" template to the infobox. I did answer you and did show you enough citations through sources, proofs and evidence, so it is only logical that now that your initial claim has been fulfilled, if you keep pressing the case forward now you have to prove your claims, because it seems rather unfair that the only one having to prove anything is me.

You mentioned the UK as an example to support your claim. But in fact, it downplays it. So far, these British people are recognized as British Opposition Leaders at a time when the office was not recognized in British legislation (much less were they sworn into an office that didn't legally exist): Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Arthur Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain, Bonar Law, Edward Carson, H. H. Asquith, Donald Maclean (British politician), Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin, Arthur Henderson, George Lansbury and Clement Attlee.

This is, every British Opposition Leader since around 1900, despite the office not being regulated until 1937, being just exactly a protocolary one until 1937. The only requirement I may see for these cases for the title to appear in their infoboxes is that they only needed to be regarded as overall Opposition Leaders. Not a law provision, not a legal regulation, not a swore into office. Just to be considered as overall opposition leaders under parliamentary conventions.

So now, I must ask you: where is the requirement that one has to swore the office of Opposition Leader to be acknowledged as such in a Wikipedia infobox? Can you even care to show examples where this actually happens (because it doesn't in the UK even as of currently)? Can you show evidence proving that, for an Opposition Leader to exist, even in those cases where the office is fully regulated in legislation (btw, you could also check for me in which countries this office is fully regulated), the officeholder has the obligation to swore the office in order for the post to be eligible to be added to that person's infobox? I've shown you more than enough sources, examples and evidences. So, either you start showing some yourself that actually prove me wrong (and with each new comment I only keep raising the difficulty for you to do so), or I'll have to consider that you're not pretending to be objective here. Impru20 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that if I'm demanding this from you is because you're asking for me to do an impossible thing (searching in the Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales for something you know is not in there. That's just bad faith), after having done the first thing you asked me for (that's it, showing you evidence that points Sánchez as opposition leader back when he was elected). That's why now I only see fair that you actually explain to me (with proofs, if possible) why should I look for what you're asking. Because established precedent doesn't support your case. And I don't know where Wikipedia rules say that you can't put an office in the infobox if the officeholder hasn't been sworn into it in a specifical way. Specially because there are cases were this happens automatically without a sworn in, and I've shown you how one of your very same examples does actually work against your argument. That would be like saying that Mariano Rajoy had not the right to be considered Spain's Prime Minister between December 2015 and October 2016 just because the BOE published his dismissal on 22 December 2015 and because he wasn't sworn in as caretaker PM. So far you're only basing your arguments on personal assumptions. Don't get offended and sorry if I sounded a bit rude, but I'm quite busy right now trying to figure out how to re-organize Spanish cabinets, and would rather prefer not being bogged down in a discussion where points seem rather so obvious that I feel stupid to lose time explaining them (and despite that, I do it regardless). Prove your claims and explain why should this be done your way, once I've already shown you why it is done the way it's done right now. I think that's a fair thing. Impru20 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]