User talk:Iñaki LL

Your recent edit to Txalaparta (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Txalaparta (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't like aligning pictures to the left because of how they affect paragraphs. I usually don't complaints, but since you brought it up to me, I'll back off. --Merovingian (T, C) 08:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kirikoketa_dolarean.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Suggest you lodge the permission with the OTRS permissions queue, and leave an explanation on the image page, and WP:PUI entry. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk with an admin on IRC Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out. You asked about tagging I left - where? I can't find an article named Maskaradak. Looking through my contributions I don't see any similarly named article. Tell me the precise name of the article - preferably with a link to it - and I'll try to answer your question. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the version I edited, I cannot see why I added the wikify tag. It had some links and I don't see any places for additional links. I have removed the tag. Thanks for asking. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! your contributions to the Basque mountains are very good, I'm glad that someone else is interested in this area of geography. I invite you to take a look at Basque mountains and create new articles on all the peaks of Gipuzkoa and Araba, about which I don't have enough information to contribute. Ongi etorri, oso ondo! David (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it IS ambiguous. If you read the references provided in the article for your question, you'll find that indeed the "Basque threshold" is a transition zone between the Pyrenees and the Cantabrian Mountains. Adarra is considered, as I have read, the last of the Pyrenees before that transition, because it is in the same axis of the rest of the range. In that respect, Jaizkibel would be part of the Basque Mountains for the same reason. But it is ambiguous, and you can read that some authors consider all the northern ranges from Cap de Creus to Ancares the same system.David (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion... the book of style of Wikipedia says that only the articles' title should be in bold, that is, if your article is about Adarra only the first Adarra in the intro should be bold, anything else could be in italics for example, in general it is not recomended to use bold elsewhere. Just a suggestion, of course, do as you will.David (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deibid, thanks for telling. I'll consider it, although I think the use of bold is a better way to find other key references in the text (usually other mountains and spots). Iñaki LL (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Nice article by the way ;). Well, there are various conventions here on English Wikipedia regarding disambiguation issues. Naming convention for rivers is to use "XY River" when there is a disambiguation needed. It is just the English language issue. It is obvious the name of the river is Oria only. Looking forward for more Basque contributions. ;) - Darwinek (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen at least two places where you've changed the name of the Guipúzcoa province to Gipuzkoa, according to its being "official name" or "official name decided by Gipuzkoan institutions." (See this and this.)

I'd like to remind you that, according to the Naming Conventions, the preferred name is "a name is widely accepted, or is the name most often used or understood by English speakers." As such, there has been some discussion on the more common English name for the mentioned province, and the conclusion (so far) has been to stick to Guipúzcoa. (Please check [1].)

Moreover, your point about officiality is moot. First, because it's not the main criterium applied in the wikipedia. Second, because the "official" name for the Spanish government is different from the "official" name for the province authorities. I can see no reason why W should prefer one criterium over another. Jmgonzalez (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that you have strong views on the topic. However, the place for discussing them is [2], definitely not the articles. So far, an agreement has been reached: Guipúzcoa. This is no "tribute to Spanish," but a consequence of most of the English sources consulted using that spelling (please check the discussion page). In particular, sticking to the original article writing is not an accepted policy for geographic names.

Just in case, if you decide to check the policy, you will be able to read that the official name (which by the way is both the Basque and the Spanish spelling) is only important when there's no "widely accepted English name, in a modern context."

Finally, I would recommend avoiding any political comments. Jmgonzalez (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from that... I've posted on an admin noticeboard but these things seem to take time; in the meantime you might want to watch: Sabino Arana‎, José María Olazábal, Leire Olaberria, Domingo Martínez de Irala, Fausto Elhuyar, Domingo Ibáñez de Erquicia, Salbatore Mitxelena, Juan Sebastián Elcano, Bergara

Anything User:Nazalotz and User:Guipuscoa are editing. <sigh> Akerbeltz (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pffff, bloody..., I'll try to keep an eye on it. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite... I'm seriously considering moving to the Gaelic wiki. The only thing that really keeps me here is the worry about what some of these articles might end up looking like if I did... Akerbeltz (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder, real nuisance... Ideological guardians prowling, 0 contributions. Yes, I keep watching the articles related to Basque geography and culture especially, so that they are not meddled with and I do the occasional contribution. Anyway, I want to encourage you to stay around. Agur bero bat Iñaki LL (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grosen adarra jotzen.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Grosen adarra jotzen.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Grosen adarra jotzen.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that mintzaira was speech, rather than language and hizkuntza language, rather than speech. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akerbeltz, that may be so in the current Euskara Batua, in linguistics and so on (the word has been specialized for the purpose), but initially eastern dialects use mintzaira/minzaira for western hizkuntza. Etxepare may have used mintzaira in his daily vocabulary, but resorted to lenguaje with a view to stressing formal traits of Basque.Iñaki LL (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure actually. Even the Hiztegia II Eüskara-Francais by Casenave for the Zuberoan dialect has the entries hizkuntza: langue, idiome and mintzaira: langage. And you can't get more Eastern that Zuberoan ;) But I don't want to turn this into a major issue so I've tweaked the section slightly (retaining both mintzaira and hizkuntza) to avoid it turning into a discussion of Eastern vs Western since the main point was to draw attention to the fact that Etxepare uses some Romance loans which aren't that common these days. Hope that's acceptable. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of "hizkuntza" being used in eastern dialects, but I must acknowledge I'm a bit out of dialectal issues at this moment and it may be so. Your solution looks fine to me. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki, any comments on my suggestions re the Basque people talk page? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just had a real duh moment, I realised I put the thread on the Basque people page instead of the List of Basques page. Just moved it, comments still welcome. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Iñaki! Indeed the more accurate spelling is great, mine was a bit old fashioned to be honest. Cheers! Agur! David (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Jaurgain is an old historian. You refer in one recent edit to his citing primary sources. You should make sure that these are not the Charte d'Alaon, now known to be spurious. Srnec (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on baserri referring to the "lot" (which is true of course) - would that not make more sense in the context of herri having multiple meanings in Basque (country/settlement/people)? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo berriz! The reason why I pointed that link at the dab page for Basque Country is that there is no page that covers Hegoalde at the moment. But since the issue with the paucity of apparently Basque place names applies to both Navarre and the EAE, just pointing the link at the EAE is misleading. We should either say "in the EAE and Navarre" and link those two or put the link back to the dab page I feel. "Western Basque Country" is not a term that I've encountered in English sources and would be misleading for most people I think - people would tend to look at it and think it meant the Western end of Biscay. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, zelan hortik? Ok, so you changed it? The second time I scanned the text I noticed this Southern Basque Country phrase, but actually I'm not referring to all of it, but the current EAE, CAV, Basque Autonomous Community,..., I mean, the Western part. I see your point, but since I feel the Basque Autonomous Community to be a modern administrative body, didn't want to include the name there. Yes, Western Basque Country sounds pretty strange, perhaps "West of" should apply (that's where those tribes inhabited, roughly of course). Iñaki LL (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nekatuta baina ondo, ta zuk zeuk? Perhaps we should say that "the further west you go on the western side of the Pyrenees, the scarcer place name evidence in antiquity gets for Basque settlement". On a personal note I've always been slightly dubious of that argument as it assumes that a population always founds cities or at lease villages. Looking at the map of the USA, you'd think that native americans had been rather scarce in the plains when the problem is only that they didn't have towns and cities. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ondo esan beharko. Yeh, it's about evidence, and it looks as if there were not big towns in the Atlantic area. But for the place-names, there's not much evidence, but anyway this area is out of the Pyrenees. I'll rephrase the sentence, I may change slightly the viewpoint on the Celtic element, and you tell me what you think or edit it if you feel like. By the way, it's a pity the controversy over Iruña-Veleia, I'm actually quite baffled, ...and I find the remarks on the issue in the Wikipedia are just poor, one-sided and dismissive, to say the least... Iñaki LL (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do. About IV, I'm just not sure what to make of it anymore. I guess deep down I'd like it to be true but I'd have to re-read the analysis, there was something fairly convincing about impossibly phonology. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, don't want to intervene on the IV issue myself, since everything is so confusing. Seemingly the archaeological and the linguistic criteria are at odds or don't fit together, while the controversy is not still closed. Apart from that, there is the references given to support the statements in this and other Wikipedia articles. Don't know what you think but radical as this may sound if it was me I would ban any Spanish stationed media (El Mundo, El País, etc.) in the Wikipedia as legitimate references for Basque issues on the grounds of their clear bias (cf. Egunkaria or Egin trial), really astonishing things can be asserted and held as true supported on certain Spanish media. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In theory a nice idea but you'll never get this implemented on Wikipedia. However, I think if we can find *academic* sources that we could prove a strong case against whatever newspapers might publish. Trouble is, where from, I think most papers on IV are still awaiting publication. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for current news and matters, no academic work could make up for a so-called valid reference based on whatever press. I agree that my idea could hardly progress in the Wikipedia environment and unfortunately Sugaar quitted the Wikipedia. Concerning IV specifically, wait and see till the storm wanes (some years...), call me naive but still can't believe someone of the crew, least of all Eliseo Gil, could have carved the inscriptions unless he has a mental condition I don't know ;) Iñaki LL (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Henry Kissinger talk page you said "Well, isn't it a coincidence a new person is joining the conversation to support you, RayAYang?", presumably directed at me. It is not a coincidence, I had been following your conversation from the beginning and only weighed in when I had made up my mind about the subject. If you look over the talk page, you will see that I have been watching Kissinger's article since at least October of last year. Bonewah (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Iñaki. I noticed the minor edit of Edurnes nationality where you changed this from Spanish to Basque. You have all my sympathy for doing so, especially as I have lived in Euskadi for some time, and the Basque cause is one I very much take to heart. I'd appreciate it if you would consider the following though; AFAIK Wikipedia guidelines for nationality only considers independent and sovereign states. Having said that, I must admit I myself have made several similar edits as I think you'd have a strong case for doing so [and one of the best looking flags in the world!  Basque Country], but then be consistent and change Juanitos nationality as well, and all other where the same applies. That's why I did not revert it as I'd like to find consensus or be able to press this case as a combined effort. Qwrk (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Qwrk, thanks for your comment. I don't follow myself the lives or exploits of mountaineers, can't keep track of others, so I stick to the article and the article's coherence. With regards to the change, it struck me that the article doesn't even mention her national background (have it a state or not) and it feels quite alienating. Could you imagine an article of Barcelona football club without its mentioning of their Catalan identity, wouldn't it be depriving the reader of information? It applies here as I see it, it looks as a case of forced ID. The Spanish reference is not lacking either anyway. Cheers Iñaki LL (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your contributions have like goal, just the desimformation and political nationalism Propaganda basque, we are not going to tolerate any more, the next is just the last example: [[3]] You imagine just delete Spain. San Sebastian is part Spain, delete that descalificate you and show clearly your bad faith. I´m waisting a lot of time reverting you and Akerbeltz hooliganism in Wikipedia, please stop it or I will inform about you. the most funny is that even you acuse me of sabotage when terms as basque spanish or erase at all spain or spanish is part of your everyday actions in wikipedia.Guipuscoa —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As it happens, you are the new element in the Wikipedia disrupting in texts of long-running contributors, not contributing anything positive as well as showing thuggish manners, making sweeping statements, like the one above, on which you are just rambling ("hooliganism"???, don't make me laugh!). If I have reverted any "Spain" as the one you point out, it's based on the bad faith of all your one-purpose edits, which aim at a highly sensitive issue with total disregard for the contributor community. I don't know who you are, since you're in your identity hiding or using several proxy identities. What do you mean exactly inform about you??? Watch your words and stop menace! As I stated in one edit, DO AND LET DO, in good faith. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should hold off the reverting pending the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Guipuscoa Akerbeltz (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki, in one of the most frustrating debates on a page move I ever participated in, we ended up compromising on BC (greater region), see Talk:Basque_Country_(greater_region)/Archive_1#Requested_move. The issue was that someone had rightly pointed out that the old name which was BC (historical territory) implied that it had been some form of sociopolitical unit at one point. As English is inherently vague and not equipped to distinguish Euskadi and Euskal Herria, a dab was needed and this is the one we ended up with. So whenever you see (greater region) it's Wikipedia's way of saying Euskal Herria (when it's appropriate to refer to the wider thing) and the other one for Euskadi. It's not ideal but at the very least, it has been stable. Hope that makes sense. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe it mate... I didn't know anything (I had this on my Watchlist!), I don't find anything new in your link. Besides, it's not about (historical territory), since this was ruled out one year ago. I don't understand, where can I find the discussion? By the way, I made an edit on "Basque nationalism", just related to that... Iñaki LL (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't understand that. What exactly can't you find? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, well, the discussion, where is it? Iñaki LL (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link to Talk:Basque_Country_(greater_region)/Archive_1#Requested_move, you'll see the summary at the top says The result of the proposal was moved by the nominator to Basque Country (greater region), as in conform with apparent consensus formed after long talks on the matter. The long debate is below. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Akerbeltz, I'm confused, I don't see anything new (except disruptive behaviour from the character in the section above in so many articles). I have the Basque Country in my Watchlist (talk included), and dind't get any notification. It looks to me there's a confusion with the dates. Gero arte Iñaki LL (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Go to Talk:Basque Country (greater region), click on Archive 1, go to point 38 on the list. There it is. The stuff with the green background colour, the debate was back in Sept 2008. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... Went to the link Archive 1 and point 38. Nothing from current dates, nothing new, it's past debates. Where's the novelty? Iñaki LL (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to chip in at the debate on Basque Country, someone seems to be getting upset. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iñaki LL. Most of the text I added (two paragraphs) came from the very same article in the Spanish Wikipedia. It semeed more complete and better. The data about population also came from that article and it did not have any references, so I can not assure it is completely accurate. However, I'm already looking for the sources. About the "donostiarras" thing, I think you're right, sorry; I did not think about it when I put the template. Spending time for nothing? I can't see why it would be so. The first lines of an article should give a general description of it, especially if it's a city. Before, it was just a couple of sentences. If those edits add more and important information to the article, I'm quite sure they won't "damage" it. They'd damage it if I were to add false, repeated or unnecesary information, which is not the case. Thanks for your message and greetings.--Metroxed (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you write an article about my city - Żagań on Basque Wikipedia? I would be thankful. Only 2-4 sentences enough. Saganum (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iñaki. You've been mentioned here. Perhaps another instance of an old sockpuppet? --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eskerrik asko Xabier. Zer moduz? Sure, he's the same, but he hasn´t even a leg to stand on, he's not a contributor, he discredits himself by insisting on El Cano. Anyway... Iñaki LL (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You didn't provide a reliable, secondary source that states the importance/influence of the above artist's contributions on the subject. It also sounds merely like advertizing. 11,000 views, a dozen likes, and a couple comments on a youtube page doesn't sound very significant to me. Baily'sMacomb (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O, hi. Thank you first of all for the article, looks really good, I see that you are trying to provide citation support to the article. If you see my contributions you will realize I am not adding anything off the top of my head. Just wanted to add by my first-hand knowledge of the Basque popular culture a fact not reflected in the article (the 1901 hunt of the whale) and the imprint left in the people´s culture. By the way, the lyrics give a detailed account of how the event took place. The importance of the song is confirmed here (http://historiasderock.es.tl/Benito-Lertxundi.htm (Spanish)) if this is what you are looking for, the youtube of course won´t provide more details than stats. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baily's, I think it's important to remember that we're dealing with a relatively small speaker base. 11,000 views of an English item on YouTube would make it marginal. But English has close to 2 billion speakers worldwide whereas Basque has maybe some 650,000 in total, so we can't apply the same yardstick of popularity. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I added a citation. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Talk:Reconquista. Provocateur (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, Iñaki. Beti bezala, oporrak labur egin zaizkit, baina ederki etorri zait pare bat astez eguneroko zereginetatik deskonektatzea. I'm sorry that I couldn't help you with those disruptive editions (anyway, my knowledge on the subject is quite limited), but I'm happy to see that you managed well, the article has improved with your last editions. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 09:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Iñaki. About the Cantabrians - you're probably right. The reason I reverted that IP was simply that the edit history looked very much like that of that editor who breezed through some weeks ago (and eventually got banned) who waged that campaign against the word "ethnic" across the Basque/Catalan/Galician etc pages. On the basis he/she hit 3 pages at the same time, I reverted based on the view that the main editors of those pages will know best if the use of ethnic is justified or not. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Akerbeltz, ongi? It drew my attention when I was brought to this article to see ethnic group, I thought actually it was one of so many added out of spite for the inability of the editor to accept this category in the Basques, I see it's an old edit though (at least 2 years). The citation is now loosely related to the introductory sentence, but I guess it's still relevant. I have been in deep Cantabria and I know a bit of their own speech, and you may struggle to understand parts of their talk, whether it is a language or not I will not talk. Now let's face it, you can say that just about every region of Spain if you go to any lost rural village! Agur bero bat Iñaki LL (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your remarks regarding the question of Vascones in Navarre, I just found strange that a territory with such geographical contrasts as Navarre was inhabited in old times by one single tribe, given that accounts about Europe in those times typically depict a myriad of peoples fighting each other and constantly conquering and losing lands; in addition, the ancient texts on which we base our knowledge about the matter often contradict each other. It seems that no other tribe except the Vascones has ever been reported for pre-Roman Navarre, so I'll delete the Cn tag myself, even though personally I still find that homogeneity a bit suspicious. Jotamar (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are well invited to add any statement that refutes existing ones if you have good grounds to do so, better always with a reference. Sometimes a Cn tag is needed too, but I think you are a Contributor (with capital) and you know how much we detest to waste our time with actual non-contributors or "ideological auditors" who add extra work instead of taking it themselves, with much disregard to the article in itself. Have a good day Iñaki LL (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, Iñaki. As you are an active contributor to Basque subjects in the English Wikipedia, I've thought that you may want to give your opinion on this. Ondo izan. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 20:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lentower, I saw your edits on the article. As a main contributor to the page, it took me somewhat by surprise the citation needed tags that frankly I don´t understand. Usually when someone adds such a tag, it is because s/he has something to doubt about. You added three in row, to sentences that don´t state anything especial. However, perhaps I'm wrong, you specialize in the topic, and have good grounds to doubt them. Please let me know, I look fwd to your reply. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an article of it's length, this one has very few citations. Generally each paragraph should have at least one citation.

I didn't have the time to review the entire article for text that needed citations. In this section on Food, those three spans of text, are things that should be cited. They are claims attributed to a source without supplying a cite to the source, that allows the claim to be easily verfied. Note WP:V and other policies & guidelines.

Also phrases like "most recent", should not be used on Wikipedia. A date should be given. If the text could change in the future, the Template:Asof should be used. The reason is that the age of the info is then exactly clear to the reader.

If you have to, please reply here, I look at my Watchlist most days. best - Lentower (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this Food section, because one of the text spans I marked had been added on Tuesday with no citation. I hoped the editor who added that text could easily add the citation. Lentower (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, ideally sentences and paragraphs should have citations. However, we are not professionals and that's why in the wikipedia there are loads of articles without citations. The credit of the information relies on the verisimilitude, exposure to public (refutability), and consistency of the data, and are subject to change as we all contributors now. Many info relies on first-hand knowledge and that doesn´t mean is bad information. I expect that when someone adds a citation tag s/he has some leads to think that the info in question is not so, especially when it's three citations needed in a row. The data provided here are not exact figures, just pretty approximative. I may have better understood that you added a tag for the statement asserting that "it's the city with the most Michelin stars per square foot", since that's a very specific and "big" claim. So what's the point? I don´t see the point. By the way, I summarized and organized the info included on this section, but I didn´t add most of the info. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you said here goes against WP policies & guidelines. First-hand knowledge is against WP policies & guidelines. Though you are entitled to your expectation, adding requests for citations can be done whenever the text requires it; the way to remove one is to add the citation. It should be easy enough to get a copy of the Michelin guide, and add the citations involving that. Thanks, I just added a 4th. The other point of adding these tags is to let the reader know that the uncited info doesn't meet WP policies & guidelines. We owe our readers the best encyclopedia we can create, and that includes citations. It would be better for this article to be shorter but fully cited, than it's present state. I suggest you spend some time reading the guidelines before you go back to editing. Start with WP:N, WP:V, & WP:RS; and go on from there. It be best for WP and this article, if you fully cited it, before any other editing. Lentower (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yet another example of someone applying a very narrow ruleset to the letter, well done Lentower. Look around you... this encyclopedia is FULL of unrefd information and while of course having refs is better, the reality is that it only becomes a critical issue when the information is making tall claims or controversial. If you tagged all unreffed info on WP, the tags would outnumber the content 2:1 I'd bet... or even worse, if you removed it, it would probably collapse into 1/3 of its size. Why do the hard thing and chase vandals when you can drive by tag... Akerbeltz (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making changes, we are talking, you know...? First of all, I didn't object to your bringing the discussion here, and I don´t object to avoiding talk page switching, but for reasons of traceability and clarity, if someone posts in your talk page don´t copy - paste and transfer discussion to another place, someone may think you are trying to hide something, and doesn´t help building trust. Secondly, you are showing little regard for this discussion and the WP guidelines by further editing without finishing it. Be contributive, if you think there are dubious statements edit them and add the corrected information with an explanation, and preferably a citation. Three citations in a row without claiming a inaccuracy is WP:POINT, and are just disrupting with indiscriminate edits. The article would benefit from more citations? Yes. Does it have citations? Yes. You might as well carry on your "polishing" pursuit by adding citation needed and improve tags in most of the articles on cities of France and Spain, congratulations, thanks for your contribution Iñaki LL (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing this discussion to the article's talk page for a wider audience, and input. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where I used "guidelines" above, I should have used "policies & guidelines". I have corrected that.

I'll move my reply as requested. Lentower (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Iñaki LL. Have just seen your edit over at War of the Pyrenees, and regarding the doubt you express in the edit summary, maybe they're talking about Charles-Étienne-François Ruty. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Technopat, thanks for clarifying! I will mend that, it sounds a "ghostly" character. I added more info on the on-the-ground and political circumstances. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my "maybe" above :) . Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not so, someone change it. Marquis of Ruby is enough ghostly a character to be correct, I checked the internet, and no almost no results except for an earlier character related to Barcelona and Texas too..., but as said you may not have all the details, and I haven´t either. (Corrections are welcome...:) Iñaki LL (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. I have the Siege of San Sebastián on my to-do list because the article as it stands is difficult to follow, even when one knows something about the event. Dates and other details appear out of context and chronology and the whole article needs a major clean-up to make it clearer. I had been planning to separate the first and second sieges and create a new article: Second siege of San Sebastián, but before doing so, as I see you're cleaning it up right now, I thought I'd get your opinion first. What do you reckon? Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Technopat, I added the consequences for the city and the civilians plus the circumstances surrounding the fate of San Sebastián, someone seems to haven't liked that a lot... With revealing relatively recent and new publishing in Spanish on the 200 anniversary of the events, lots of details on the destruction of San Sebastián have been disclosed, the article may expand quite a lot in the future. As far as I see it the event is just one with a cumulus of military, political and humanitarian circumstances, and I wouldn´t separate them unless the second siege section is really long. Feel free to browse the article, I think the compromised burning of SanSeb section is not too bad after all. I had to add citations myself almost to every word..., but in contrast the siege sections have just a couple of them, adding inline citations also would help enhance the article and its credibility. That's how I see it, regards! Iñaki LL (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oso ongi, eskerrik asko! Espero dut zu ere ongi izatea.

I'm very busy these days (till mid-January, at least) with my work and with family responsibilities... sorry, I won't be able to help with that article. I've taken a look at it, and I've seen it would take me a lot of hours reading the background of both the article and the topic before I can contribute something to the debate, and I haven't got enough spare time now... and I must also confess that I need some wiki-rest after a not very polite discussion in another article.

Anyway, I promise you that as soon as I have some spare time I'll have a look on that Duchy. It's a very interesting topic for me, and I would like to know more about it. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 12:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What did you mean by the phrase "Duke Lupus cited" in the above article? Rojomoke (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I may have put it too concise. Self-governed, by Lupus, "dux Wasconum". The territory under his rule was not a theatre of war during the Aquitanian war. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Basque Barnstar of National Merit
	I believe you deserve this for all your hard work contributing to Basque-related articles. Cheers, Original European (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my edit. I completely forgot about confusion in English usage. Cheers, Original European ^(talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O, not a problem at all. Just a reality check:) Iñaki LL (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to sent out your Questia code, but it says you do not have e-mail enabled. Please ping or message me when you activate it - the code it set aside and waiting for you. Thanks! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has the "Enable email from other users" feature enabled, should work now. Let me know if there are problems, thanks! Iñaki LL (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says you have not specified and e-mail now. Could you double-check that you have an e-mail on file? Otherwise, I'll have to ask about sending it out otherwise. Not used to special characters in a user name, but I want to cover that possibility before trying to find out another way to give you the code. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Polyglot. Iñaki LL, thanks for creating Nestor Basterretxea!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please have a look at the other language versions to improve this article. Spanish and Dutch WP have a lot more content.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Polyglot (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polyglot, will go through it, and let you know if need to. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Nestor Basterretxea. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that maybe you should wikilink your userbox about playing the txalaparta? I had to look it up, as I bet do most other visitors on English WP....

Just a thought. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eliyahu for your suggestion! Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of my edit this morning as plagued with inaccuracies and thus justifying its reversion. The version which you restored had that and many other problems, perhaps because of inartful translation from cited English texts to Spanish and then back to English, as well as the differences between English and Spanish grammar (English considers the passive voice problemmatic, but it seems politer to many Spaniards). I began the rather long copyedit because there was no mention of today being the anniversary of Pamplona's sack by Muslims, as mentioned in today's events list. Then I continued because the section's pervasive chronological inconsistencies exacerbated its confusing grammer. In particular, I introduced links to the Banu Qasi, which English language sources link to Zaragoza as well as Tudula per the text, then tried to make those articles consistent. As you are aware, the Banu Qasi were also Muslim, but probably not the raiders referred to in the problematic sentence with the Vikings (changed because they never came near Pamplona nor were they mentioned elsewhere in this article, though they presumably caused many problems for coastal Basques before the start of the Camino de Santiago with which this section ended). IMHO that mention belongs in the next section, which also needs a major copyedit by a native English speaker, and which after this I have no desire to tough. Quite simply, I don't have the time or desire to engage in an edit war, and IMHO your reversion has done more harm than good. Therefore, I respectfully suggest you reconsider.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I consider your style to be better than mine as a whole, you are a native, that is apparent and it is appreciated. However, as it happens, your revision was not once but very often making accurate information more obscure and imprecise, or pointed to claims that are dubious, such as any help the Basques of Pamplona may have been waiting from Charlemagne, as your revision pointed. As for the Banu Qasi, I am trying to work out what raid you are talking about, but I saw that the statement underscoring the necessary link of Pamplona to them was removed. I urge you to follow this discussion on the talk page, where it belongs. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all the nonsense and hullabaloo that you have raised over something I didn't even do on the Duchy of Aquitaine, I've got to ask: you do realize that there were Dukes of Aquitaine before 852, right? You know about Cham, don't you? Toolen (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 4#Koeboluzioa it would be helpful if there was input from a Basque speaker. You were the first person I found in Category:User eu-N who appears to be currently active on the English Wikipedia, hence this request. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These maps are identical to me, so could you point out what is wrong? Reigen (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not the map, it is the 1477 one. The 1477 map needs a good review, I do not specialize in France, but the map should be reviewed. The Basque and western Pyrénées area is plain wrong (Lower Navarre, Béarn). Brittany should be double checked, it is included in France, while it seems that it was rather a principality, not owing allegiance to the French king. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted by chance, that year (1154), Béarn owed allegiance to Aragon, so not part of Gascony either. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Biscayne (ethnonym), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.cyclopaedia.es/wiki/Biscayne.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the paragraphs about the Basque peoples' troubles in the Western Pyrenees theater. This helped the article give the war's impact on the local civilians. There is one uncited sentence after each of the two paragraphs you added. Please cite those when you have a chance. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In fact the article is much in need of info related to matters other than military, and it is lame in that respect. Except for the garrison of Bayonne and possibly customs officials, the French element was alien to the Basque districts. Also, nothing is said on the political circumstances and disputes that allowed Moncey to advance so quickly, nor the Basque military arrangement, different from the Spanish. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for looking over my changes, you're obviously an SME here. I'm confused by your mention of source text and "English" version. Also what ambiguity do you feel was added by my changes?

In the first paragraph I intended to address the weasel word over recognition by the pope (my source^[1] makes no mention of papal recognition of the kingdom of asturias but does mention that the pope leo III specifically legitimised the remains of st james. Your reversion of the second paragraph also makes/made my third paragraph redundant, yet I feel my paragraph is more informative.Vynwood (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vynwood, yes I have edited significant portions of other articles too related to this period. The recognition of Gallaecia (i.e. Asturias) as independent from Hispania was made in the critical years of 785-805 approx. during the Adoptionist controversy (main secondary source: Roger Collins) in order to separate it from Toledo and bring it to the Carolingian (Roman) area of influence. Correct me but I doubt that any acknowledgement by the Cordovan emirate of an independent Asturian realm existed before approx. 794 (Leo III's letter acknowledging it), probably just a collection of principalities. So no recognition nor in Hispania neither in Europe before roughly that date. If later Asturian accounts are to be accepted, I urge you to say who mentions it.

Carolingian documents talk of Alfonso II as Charlemagne's man (lieutenant, suzerain to Charlemagne, that is how his envoys presented him in Toulouse or elsewhere).

St.James bones are proved to be a fabrication (the very bones found seem to belong to more than one person), and the very name of it Compostella refers more probably to small burial site (compositus+ella), despite all the popular and propaganda accounts. If the source cited tells otherwise, so be it according to that source, pretty bewildering, but sometimes narrative is larger than facts, so. Narrative and fact should be separated. Correct me here also, but I do not think the pope Leo III gave credit to the alleged remains of Saint James, and international flow of peregrines did not start until the late 11th century at the earliest.

Give another try to the paragraphs in question and I may go with it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how my edits disagreed with this. If Leo III had a letter acknowledging an independant asturian realm, then that should be sourced and referenced. My source says Leo III authenticated the bones of St James on page 58 (shown in that preview) but of course if they were later proved a fabrication then that should be mentioned (as is later in the article/other articles, maybe those mentions should be consolidated?). Definitely agree with separating narrative and facts, but i often feel the narrative is so fascinating it should be mentioned regardless (obviously adding whether the facts agree or not though!) in St James Compostela at the very least, the reason for the creation of the shrine was the discovery of the remains and the matter of their fabrication is also a more recent matterVynwood (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take this to the article's talk page, where it belongs. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I have clearly messed up this note and I am unable to straighten it out. I'd appreciate your help. The link in the note is dead. deisenbe (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deisenbe, no URL address available, I removed it. As for the italics, I restored them, Saracens and Moors can hardly be taken as serious terminology for an accurate historic analysis, they are catch-all terms for Arabs, Berbers and Iberian Muwallads as specified in the explanation line. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mira, Iñaki. Deja de involucrarme en la disputa con la IP que no tengo nada que ver. Solamente dejé el comentario en el art. de los Banu Qasi con una referencia y no he intervenido en los otros artículos. Curiosamente tuve una discusión hace meses defendiendo que los Vela eran de origen vascón aunque el nombre parece que originalmente era visigodo. He estado estos días involucrada con una consulta de borrado de otro artículo sobre los Ponce de León y no he tenido tiempo de intervenir más. Tengo dos hijos mitad vasco (padre vizcaino), tengo más de un apellido vasco (Arteaga y Ayala), así que no me metas en temas nacionalistas que paso olímpicamente de ellos y si tienes alguna duda y sospechas que soy la IP, en vez del famoso "pato" pide los servicios de un checkuser. Agur, --Maragm (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) (sí, soy "she").[reply]

Hola Maragm, para empezar no me des explicaciones que no te he pedido, me importa un bledo, francamente, si eres vasca o no, o cuáles son tus apellidos. Segundo, the communication language is English for the purposes of understanding on the EN WP, so I switch to this language. Well, let me clarify it if I did not make it clear, I have not reported 188.78.131.18 for the content (which I clearly reject) but for its behaviour (dishonest in form, as in content, serial violation of WP policies), and I do not judge you, but your actions and consistence of evidence. You engaged yourself in debate with gross accusations against me ("agenda"), instead of sticking to the detail of the participants' record (and more evidently so, the IP's disruptive behaviour), self-evident! I refer you back to the Incident resource, add there your concerns. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No concerns. Over and out.--Maragm (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your "discussion" with the editors that refuse to read secondary sources, thought this might help you? Some sort of connection to the Muslim dynasties in Al-Andalus?

"AL-BASHKUNISH, the Basques, a people of uncertain origin inhabiting the W. end of the Pyrenees and the adjacent part of the Cantabrian Mountains, with the Atlantic coast to the N. 'Bashkunish' is evidently from Latin 'VascSnes1, with the phonetic change v < b as elsewhere. The Basque language is called al-bashfriyya (Al-Rawd alMiHdr, ed. Levi-Provencal, 56). The principal centre of the Bashkunish was Pampeluna (Arabic Banbaluna, from an original Pompeiopolis), which became eventually the capital of Navarre. Their territory was invaded by Musa b. Nusayr at the time of the conquest of Spain (Kitdb al-Imdma wa 'l-siydsa, Coleccidn de Obras Ardbigas, ii, 132 ff.), and then or later but in any case before 100/718-719, as Codera showed, Pampeluna capitulated to the Muslims. 'Ukba b. al-Hadidiadi (Umayyad governor of Spain for five years from 116/734) settled a Muslim garrison there (Ibn cldhari, ii, 28). A few years later (138/755-756) the Bashkunish were in revolt and destroyed a force sent to Pampeluna by the amir Yusuf al-Fihri, i.e., about the time of the arrival in Spain of 'Abd alRahman I. At the time of the famous invasion of northern Spain by Charlemagne (161/778) Pampeluna submitted to him, but it was probably bands of Basques, joined by the Muslims, who cut his rearguard to pieces at Roncesvalles (cf. Levi-Provencal, Hist. Esp. Mus., i, 1944, 89). In 164/780-781, or in the following year, towards the close of his long reign, 'Abd al-Rahman I was obliged to move in person against the Bashkunish. By 798/182 the Basques of Pampeluna had renounced their Muslim allegiance, permanently as it turned out, and declared themselves vassals of Alfonso II, king of the Asturias. We soon hear of an independent Basque chief at Pampeluna, Gharsiya b. Wanku (Garcia Iniguez), who, as it appears, through his granddaughter Iniga, married to the Umayyad 'Abd Allah, became the ancestor of 'Abd al-Rahman III, al-Nasir. A fresh grouping of power among the Bashkunish took place in 905, when Sancho Garces I set aside the elder line, and effectively established the kingdom of Navarre. The western Basques continued to be subjects of the king of the Asturias. Henceforward what from the point of view of Muslim Spain has been called the 'Basque menace' (E. Levi-Provencal) is represented by the history of Navarre especially. -- E. Levi-Provencal, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. I, page 1079. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some reading of Levi-Provencal? I believe you will find page 11, helpful. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kansas, your input and all good information is much appreciated, since the IP editors seem to be intent on halting and removing the free flow of information, detailed, accurate and relevant, into the WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP's latest attempt to ignore the Basque origins of the original Kingdom of Pamplona are 600 hundred years too late, I would suggest we start expanding this section with relevant information. Judging from the extensive history of the Kingdom of Navarre, chances are we won't be able to put Basque into the lead, without some serious wording compromise. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like a section, ?"Arista dynasty"?, which would allow us to add information concerning language, culture, etc, during the brief Arista rule of Pamplona? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no problem to compromise something for the lead. There is an attitude problem on the IP and s/he should be blocked immediately according to evidence and any criteria based judgement. I do not have much time, there are no lack of references for the period you mention, so I will add one myself, feel free to add them in the present early section, and that should be enough.

@Kansas Bear: As for the lead, that is more tricky for English language sources. I do have revealing data for the 16th century, but not the "X was Y" type of statement for the Kingdom of Navarre, but as I said, a compromised wording is not a problem with me. Granted, still it would be exposed to exclusive, disrupting editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O, I took a closer look at the section. It comprises the previous period to the kingdom's establishment in 824, so yes, I guess a different section can be created, "Establishment of the kingdom", or something similar... Iñaki LL (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, or simply drop the "Arista dynasty" section where chronologically appropriate and work from there. As for the disruptive editing, that will be expected. I believe with the sources I have posted, we should be able to expand the Arista dynasty section rather well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is in the article as of right now:

"Out of this pattern of resistance against both Frankish and Cordoban interests, the Basque chieftain Íñigo Arista took power. Tradition tells he was elected as king of Pamplona in 824, giving rise to a dynasty of kings in Pamplona that would last for eighty years."

And yet the IP was edit warring to remove Basque from this sentence, "The kingdom of Navarre was formed when local Basque leader Íñigo Arista was elected or declared King in Pamplona (traditionally in 824) and led a revolt against the regional Frankish authority."

Unbelievable! I am going to reference the sentence that's in the article, then we can restore the above sentence and set about the sectioning for the Arista dynasty.

Judging from the IP's "foaming-at-the-mouth" anti-Basque rhetoric, I'm more and more convinced the IP is a blocked user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I prefer not to think what is there behind. It is indeed a clear-cut disruption, anything-goes case, the WP policies and guidelines went straight down the drain, it is not a content issue. I am waiting for the Incident resource. Btw, I divided the section by now, still it needs tweaks and mending in order to be included

within the whole "Kingdom" section. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My english skills leave a lot to be desired. How can I possibly rephrase the edit summary to leave clear the issue needs to be thoroughly discussed (discussed on sources) in the talk page (while sounding more prone to colaboration to you) instead on engaging in some sort of edit warring adding unsourced information? Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was opened on your talkpage, so referring back to it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you pardon? You (remember, the user adding unsourced content, who's yet to provide any valid rationale based on secondary sources), are very able to discuss your changes based on WP:VER (a core content pollicy) in the talk page. Until you do that... I suggest you to refrain from pointing out that link at me.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I refer this conversation to your talk page, until you engage in dispute resolution. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, its done. Best reference in bearnese is the Laspy-Raymond dictionnary, that's the one I used this time. Regards. --Lembeye (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bartolomé Carranza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baztan. 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) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you thanked me for simple copy edits on Gipuzkoa, (blush) ...you are welcome !

Looking at your userpage, I saw many things I liked. I drink cider too, our own self made, only we dont use green apples, but these.--->

I saw the movie Vacas today, and was reminded how beautiful it was when I last visited. I love cantabria and the basque country very very much.

one question: you wrote on your userpage you are a translator: did you mean here on WP ( or in real life)? I have translated sthg I wrote for the En.wp into Spanish for the es.wp upon request and would appreciate if a native speaker could check. let me know. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Wuerzele:! Your edits are appreciated, I think it reads really well now. We have bitter cider here, the "normal" one ;) Yes, professionally, but let me know about your article, sure I can check it out. Best Iñaki LL (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Language shift, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catalan and Asturian. 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) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited End of Basque home rule in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francisco Serrano. 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) 09:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

End of Basque home rule in France

added links pointing to Enlightenment, Pau, Bearnese and Gascon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited End of Basque home rule in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reales. 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) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iñaki LL,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gaur (artistic group) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rollingcontributor (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hola!.

Mira te escribo para que eches un vistazo al artículo que versa sobre Baja Navarra en Wikipedia en español porque se han cargado la ficha con los datos básicos y, además están soltando una serie de mentiras y bobadas en la zona de discusión que es una pasada. Sé que estás comprometido con los artículos vascos y por eso te pido "ayuda" para a ver si podemos restablecer la ficha. Los fachas ezpañoles como siempre rabiando y arañándose el cuello en cuanto se menciona algo que huela a vasco.

Saludos. --85.87.71.1 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.71.1 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por tu mensaje. However, I am not active in the ES WP. Saludos Iñaki LL (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo!.

Gracias a ti por contestar. Es una pena que no estés activo en Wikipedia en español. Han destrozado el artículo y para ellos solo prima lo político en lugar de lo académico. Una pena.

Agur bero bat.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Navarre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dax and Saint-Palais. 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) 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramon de la Sota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Direction. 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) 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Iñaki, thanks for your message. The competition you're talking about seems very interesting. The competition that I organized was open to all languages. Any user of any language was invited to participate. So I sent invitation messages on the portals of all active wikis. My main goal was to ensure that the biggest number of users of different languages would make translations of articles that I considered important to Galicia, and thus give visibility to my country. I hope it has been helpful. I'll be pleased to collaborate. Saúdos compañeiro.--Breogan2008 (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Iñaki, soy AMPERIO, administrador en galipedia. He visto el mensaje que nos has dejado en la taberna. Agradezco que lo hayas intentado hacer en gallego, pero si no te importa pásame el texto del mensaje original (no se si lo hay en castellano) y lo intento traducir yo. Hay alguna cosilla que no se entiende bien, no se si has usado un traductor automático. Por cierto, me parece muy interesante la propuesta que has hecho, he empezado a traducir algún artículo ya al gallego, lo que no se es si tengo que apuntarme o marcar directamente en la tábla que está ya hecho. Un saludo! --AMPERIO (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Te lo mando por aqui, ha debido haber algún fallo. Te comentaba que aunque me habría encantado asistir, ese fin de semana tendré que estar en Madrid así que me resulta imposible. Espero que todo vaya estupendamente. Un saludo.--AMPERIO (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about your recent edit summary. Are you saying that Adelericus is not Frankish because it is Gothic? Or are you saying that it is not Germanic at all (i.e., it is Basque, or an approximation of Basque)? It certainly seems to have two clear Germanic stems (adel- and -ric). I do not have Collins with me, which I may have used when writing the article a decade ago, so I do not know what he says. From Google Books... Renée Mussot-Goulard calls it Gothic, Edward James calls Adalric's "provenance ... uncertain", and Donald Jackman makes him a probable descendant of Adalrich, Duke of Alsace. Certainly his having a name of Germanic origin (if such it was) does not preclude his being a Basque. I am not even sure that Wasco in the ninth century necessarily meant "Basque" and not "Gascon" (as in "inhabitant of Wasconia"), but the Astronomer mentions it twice in one passage, so emphasising it. Srnec (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Well, obviously it is a Germanic name, most probably Gothic if we are to follow examples of the most prominent historic personalities. However, I could not tell for sure it is Gothic, let alone Frankish, so why say it is Frankish??? However, if you found a reliable, modern source holding that it is a Frankish name, well, welcome.

The use of native names for international diplomacy / status purposes in the Basque area had not started yet (but for the probable translation Lupus). We then know that Adalric was actually a 'Wasco'. As far as I am concerned, the equivalence of Wascones with Basque is apparent, only obscured by modern historiography relying on the ambiguity posed by the ever changing Wasconia/Wascones (Vacceti/Vaccaei), shifting over the centuries from an ethnic category to a certain geographic area and its Romanized people, and rendered as Gascony/Gascon in English (< Gascogne). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for the challenge, i'm needing some peace recently. about one item - "L'arbre aux pendus" (title should be "La pendaison"?) - we have an existing article Les Grandes Misères de la guerre for the print series, not the individual print. would it be ok to link to those articles? you still have a euskara translation opportunity. Beetstraw (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beetstraw, thanks for your contribution! (Awesome:) The exhibition in Donostia features that picture but all the same the whole series is relevant to the topic and the most appropriate option for the WP purposes. Please do link, I will double check other links. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard "G5" deletion rationale; I wrote a little story to help explain why it's done.

Any of those which were substantially edited by other users, I suppose I can restore. Are there any you'd like me to check? DS (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what you are telling me, I should believe this has been a long-running issue with that editor, and that the content added is non-free content, for which I should trust your decision. However, I do know for a start that Ezpatadantzariak had no issues with non-free content, it was a short stub. Hercules fighting Nemean lion, article created by User:Lyokoï shows now as a red link.

@DragonflySixtyseven: I do not have access to the history of other articles you removed, the ones made by the sockpuppeting editor, and I do not know whether it was good free, legitimate content or not. That I find disquieting. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias, ha sido un placer participar. ( eh!! y ganar!!) Salutacions --MarisaLR (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

¡Ganar, cierto! Goleada... :)) Iñaki LL (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eskerrik asko!!! Moitas grazas!!! --Chairego apc (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ez horregatik = you are welcome! ... and many thanks for your contribution:) Iñaki LL (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am quite puzzled about your motivation to deny the use of the term Kingdom of Asturias. First of all, you undid the change that corrected the term "Principality" and substituted it by "Kingdom": Asturias was not established as a principality until 1388, therefore to use such term to describe the political status of Asturias in the timeline discussed (the Reconquista) is anachronistic and blatantly incorrect. Second, when the definition was changed to its correct term "Kingdom" you kept requesting citation, first based on the grounds of "ideological" reasons and later on simply undoing modifications without explanations or justifications. It must be pointed out that "Asturias" was already linking to a Wikipedia page called "Kingdom of Asturias". But to say that using the term "Kingdom of Asturias" answers to ideological motivations does not only reflect a worrying ignorance of history but also a malicious intent for which the motivations are unknown to me. So please I would appreciate that if you intend to keep modifying the page, do it with honesty and objectivity and explain on what grounds and arguments you support such modifications. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo.alonso (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... Do you have any other accounts? Iñaki LL (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? --Pablo Alonso (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how this is distinct from the Duchy of Gascony. The use of the comital title is typical of the 9th century, when the Carolingians deprecated ducal titles. Likewise, the Vasconia in view is Wasconia citerior. It seems to be based around one text, the Annales Bertiniani, and one year (836). This is a thin thread to hang a "county of Vasconia" from.

What "further definition" do you have in mind? Srnec (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: There are good grounds to hold it as a different smaller entity around the Adour and possibly the western tip of the Pyrenees established somewhere between the late 810s and 824 for the far territories to the south the Garonne axis (Bordeaux, Fezensac, Toulouse). In the 840s, the successor to the title Sancho II Sánchez of Gascony was finally awarded the grander title of duke, traditionally with a wider jurisdiction, possibly a restored title. The definition of the county applies to that period and the smaller territorial extent. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources? Is there any source besides the Annales Bertiniani that uses the term Wasconia citerior? (None use Wasconia ulterior, which must be inferred.) As usual, my main information comes from Collins, who definitely treats it as a synonym for Gascony (and ulterior implying the fledgeling kingdom of Pamplona). Given the typical usage of Vasconia, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that citerior would imply a space further from the Garonne, relative to St-Bertin.

My main concern is that a "county of Vasconia" is completely unknown in English scholarship. Given the inconsistency of titles in the 9th and 10th centuries and the fact that Vasconia can be just Latin for Gascony, the title is an acceptable synonym for Duchy of Gascony. Like "County of Normannia" would be for "Duchy of Normandy". If the page is to stay, I suggest moving it to Vasconia citerior.

I have not read, and cannot find online, J. Clémens, "Hispania citerior et Vasconia citerior au IX^e s.", Le Sud Ouest et la péninsule ibérique (Pau, 1987), pp. 87–97. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be or not, but there are grounds enough to maintain it as a separate entity, albeit fleetingly. I do not think Collins makes it clear they are one and the same entity. In fact the duke's jurisdiction is being challenged by the Carolingians' political arrangements after 768, establishing Fezensac for example and possibly expanding the jurisdiction of Bordeaux and Toulouse. At some point, Sancho Sans, taking over from his dead brother, becomes lord / commander (do no think he is a count), while in Bordeaux the title of duke falls in a contender's head (Seguin II or William, off the top of my head). Iñaki LL (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You restored a page that hasn't had a single source sine 2007... and you haven't provided anything. Surely you have some source to cite?

Collins definitely equates Gascony and Vasconia citerior in his recent book Caliphs and Kings and in his essay "Pippin I and the Kingdom of Aquitaine". Guilhem Pépin thinks Vasconia citerior was the county of Fezensac. I'm reading the relevant portions of Jaurgain, who definitely sees Gascony as divided after the defeat of Lop-Centulle and reunited under Sancho in 852. His Vasconia citerior is the same as yours: the southwest of Gascony, the Basque-speaking lands as opposed to the region around Bordeaux, whose counts (Seguin then William) were dukes of Gascony between 844 and 852. The letter of Eulogius of Córdoba to Wiliesind is a key piece of his case, since it shows Sancho in control of all the passes between Navarre and Gaul. Sancho is definitely called a count.

It's been a while since I read this material... When I created a bunch of articles on Gascon dukes years ago I was relying a lot on Higounet, but that book was from the library. In any case, I still think a title change is in order. Do you object to moving it to County of Vasconia Citerior? Srnec (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are the same as yours, they are not conclusive on the extent of the county. I wonder where you found Sancho was a count, he may have acted independently as a lord. I will add references. No objection to your proposed title. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sancho is called Sancius comes Vasconiae in the Annales Bertiniani, a.852. He is not explicitly called a count in the passage that says he succeeded his brother in 836, so it is possible that the 852 entry reflects his coming to terms with Charles that year. Eulogius describes him as a count, however, in 848: contumaciores cervices factionibus comitis Sancii Sancionis erigens, contra jus praefati principis veniens. Srnec (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Telmo Museoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles V. 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) 09:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole thing has been a misunderstanding. I did not personally attack you, and definitely did not intend to do so if that was how you have taken the comments. I wish to discuss the issue rationally, and will do so at the talk page of the article. I have created an account, so please reply there. Regards, ItaloCelt84 (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment you are engaging in sockpuppeting, are you aware of that? If you continue to use the above account in editing, you will be reported for skipping block. For a satisfactory conclusion to the Arabic and Mozarabic thing in the Kingdom of Navarre, providing the phrase/excerpt stating that Arabic was used after 1118 will help. Short and effective, I do not want to know more. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't know what an official policy is even if it hit you in the face :-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Just quoting from Help:Editing: It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

Please, don't hesitate to contact me if you wish to know more about Wikipedia editing. For example, about pointless blocking threats by a wannabe admin. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude says it all, you may keep your sarcastic tone for your close relationships. FYI, I do not need be administrator to identify irregular editing; the Help:Editing page may be whatever it is called, but it is there for everyone you incl. to follow, do you you understand? I will just be happy if I do not need to come back to you to remind what a summary line is and collaborative editing is, you have been 12 years in the Wikimedia by now. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your summary? --Asqueladd (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like the source? [4] I am truly devastated.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the message left by Asilah1981, consistently skipping WP rules or community input, to which you have been sympathetic in Gibraltar issued. It really looks like you have come to the article as an envoy, since if you just check the history you will notice that a similar or same paragraph on the lead was removed (explained why) before per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Lastly, related to that, Wikipedia is not a battleground, which your statements look like, with dubious sources, dedicated to attack people and sources you do not like, obviously, extremely aggressive and violation again WP:UNDUE. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mate. Those are not "my statements" but those of the source. How is this "attack people"? Dubious sources? As far as I know it is state of the art academic input on ETA violence and explicitly about the narrative of the Basque Conflict. You don't own POV.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continue on the talk of Basque conflict. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was silly to revert my edit. The previous sentence was both redundant (containing titles that the two kings always used, not just here) and poorly-written: "King of France Francis" sounds terrible, and Charles wasn't "King Charles V" of Spain but Charles I. He was only Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. Funnyhat (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking one thing Inaki. Although no doubt our political views are very different, resulting in serious hostility, I think on this particular topic we should be in agreement. My issue here is defining the border between MNLV/ETA and the Izquierda Abertzale. I want to make that distinction clear and what are the parameters whereby we make that distinction. Its complicated because many members of the Izquierda Abertzale are former or current ETA sympathizers, but many are not. The point I'm making is that I'm not trying to push the view that "everything is ETA". Quite the opposite. I'm saying that not everything is ETA and the Izquierda Abertzale has a legal and untainted political space. My AfD wasn't based on political hostility. I really don't think the MNLV really exists as such anymore. You would know better than I do, but I feel it was mainly defined by its illegality. Once the inheritors of Batasuna enter mainstream politics it ceases to be. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not reverting me. I take it as you acknowledging my edits were a good faith attempt to improve the article in a NPOV way. I'm more or less fine with these articles now. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:OR and it will be fine. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PRehse. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asqueladd and Maragm are sock-puppet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lordship_of_Biscay

Hi, thanks for correcting my error. I don't wish to challenge your edit, but would you mind explaining the history a little (just in a couple of sentences)? Your edit summary "It was in the reign of Navarre, and has a close tradition li" is incomplete and doesn't make sense. What significance does French have to the Navarre? Un saludo, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O! Sorry for the edit summary, not room enough plus I have some technical problems there I need to sort out. Basically, Navarre is a name with a very long tradition in French for close political ties/litigation, the king of France was also entitled of Navarre for long, and it was an official language of the Parliament of Navarre in Pau starting 1624. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for taking the trouble to answer. So the capital was once located in France, then. That's a good enough reason. Good evening, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Now regardless of the subject matter, there is a continuation to it by a long-running problematic editor in the article. It is a follow-up to an ANI, about WP:HOUND really by exasperating litigation. Very sad. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epa ahí! Gracias por acordarte de gl:wikipedia!
Lamentablemente este año no puedo ir a la Conferencia Wikimedia. Ya vi que os reuniréis tú, Kippelboy, Rodelar y Mboix. A bote pronto no se me ocurre nada que comentar, pero intentaré redactar un texto para el viernes con alguna idea, ¿vale?

Un abrazo fuerte! --Estevoaei (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hey Estevoaei, pena que no estéis ahí! Let me know by Friday, we will read that with a lot of interest. Fuerte abrazo Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I left Basque Wikipedia (perhaps not forever) and I prefer to answer you here (in English, I suppose it's the rule here). As you know, my points of view about Wikipedia work don't match very well with those of the community there. The banner appeared to me yesterday and also today in English Wikipedia. At the beginning they tell you: Dear readers in Spain, today we ask you to help Wikipedia, and bla bla bla, in the top side of the main page. On the other hand, some many things (opinions) to talk with you. I hope we'll see each other soon. Goraintzi, lagun! - Joxemai (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Joxemai! Yes, in English here please. I guess the banner operates automatically depending on server IPs, but I have not noticed any banners on the EU WP. Anyway, hope you keep contributing to the EU WP, and we meet some day. Agur bero bat Iñaki LL (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please man report the user Sro28 for vandalism. This explains all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilles_de_Rais&diff=778112835&oldid=778112816 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pier_Paolo_Pasolini&diff=778039295&oldid=778015556. --217.151.98.13 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Diego de Borica.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

Never thought I would need your help, but would appreciate if you could try to clarify the origins or etymology of the last name García at es.wiki (the article and the corresponding discussion page). I have many sources and cartularies from the region but do not have any work on the etymology and also, I'm away from home and can't check my books. I am trying to dispel any notion that it is a Gothic or Asturian last name since as far as I remember from all the works I've read, it's orgins are in the Basque region, including Navarra. Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC) pd..the latest discussion on García is this one. Maragm (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maragm: You may check this, entry "Gartzea", I cannot recall any other web pages right now. The spelling is Basque, but it is pretty clear it is about Sp spelling "García", hope it helps. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, en la descripción especifica que es en "la región Riojana de España" (en inglés), no que es en la Rioja Alavesa. Comprúebalo y me dices, un saludo. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, it is perfectly fine, it just reads "Rioja vineyards near the Ebro". Saludos Iñaki LL (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but I have less frustrating and more productive things to do with my time. “Regional lords saw the Umayyad emir at the gates and decided to enlist the nearby Christian Franks.” It reads like a novel. deisenbe (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In consideration of my finding a goof from 2+ years ago, would you consider re-reading in detail that article looking for problems not so obvious? Obvious problems more than 2 years old says it needs a more thorough check. Shenme (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you .want exactly me to do? There are overblown sections, that is clear, but there would be quite a lot of things to go through. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've removed some of the links you added to Elcano (disambiguation), as a disambig entry should only have one active blue link to the actual target (or to the best target if the subjected doesn't have a standalone article). The summary guide Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts is a handy reminder for the key disambig policy points. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, thank you Boing Iñaki LL (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my grammar corrections too. "Seized to the Spanish" is simply incorrect English as you can not seize something to someone. The ship was seized from the Spanish, as it says in the article USS Elcano (PG-38) - "...a gunboat that the United States Navy captured from the Spanish Navy..." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you pardon? ... That was a mistake of mine, so we are talking to cross-purposes. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already fixed it once and then you changed it back to be incorrect again. But never mind, we've got a good disambig page now :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! That explains the misunderstanding. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iñaki LL. Forgive me for acknowledging your message only now. Lapses of old age. Thank you so much for informing me of this book about the Basques in the Philippines. I will try to secure a copy here in the Philippines. I hope we can meet again in April 2018 in the Wikimedia Conference altho I will most probably be in the United States from Dec 27 2017 to March 15, 2018. Again thanks. Ringer here. (talk) 02 November 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Ringer, hope it helps! See you sometime in the near future Iñaki LL (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iñaki LL. Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. If you don't want enable email just for this, you can email me at pearleywikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that we don't want to erase the acknowledged Basque links to the foundation of Navarre. However, it is also incorrect to call Navarre a "Basque kingdom". Why?

Navarra was neither a Basque kingdom nor a Vascon kingdom. The kingdom of Pamplona (from 1162 Navarre) was founded in the year 905. The lineage of the Aristas was a lineage of chieftains and they never considered themselves kings nor used such a title. These lands are territories of the western Pyrenees that in ancient times was inhabited by the Basques, but when the Roman Empire arrived it had a social, economic, political and cultural influence that was never erased. Therefore, despite the fact that "vascon" is a designation that would last for centuries, it did not identify the kingdom of Pamplona-Navarre with a Basque kingdom or anything similar, because of the overwhelming Latinized influence that remained. Here a pre-Roman linguistic substratum (lingua vasconea) was preserved, but Latin also entered mainly, which evolved into Navarre romance. So here people spoke mainly romance (much like today), although in rural places, outside the big urban centers that substratum of Basque language was conserved (and quite rightly so, it is important to conserve this heritage).

References:

Fortún Pérez de Ciriza, L. J. y Jusué Simonena, C., Historia de Navarra. I. Antigüedad y Alta Edad Media, Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 1993.

Regards Warren55 —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring your claims to the talk page of Navarre or Kingdom of Navarre, where you have edited. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to talk about, regarding the question of Basque in the Crown of Aragón. If you have sources that claim that it was spoken, presumably around Jaca, after the dynastic union, just include them; I hope it's not the old story about Basque being forbidden in the market of Huesca. What else is to be discussed? --Jotamar (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to talk and thanks for sparing me your self-entitlement. As I pointed on your talk page, you are edit warring. Do leave obstructive attitudes aside, and go to talk. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO. If you do not stop, I will have to denounce your attitude.

A few examples (there are several more): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BallenaBlanca Admittedly I may not have been the most orthodox in the latest edits above. Only do stop gaming the system, and making highly controversial edits with misleading edit summaries, or wikihouding me, and adding your pumped up accusations against me in an article. I placed my concerns and evidence in your page, still you have removed my comment, so making communication hermetic. You can do whatever you want, I will be checked, you will be checked. Actions speak louder than words. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not refuse to communicate, on the contrary, but you have to respect the Wikipedia policies.

I removed your message per WP:HUSH because it contains several personal attacks such as "partisan, one-purpose obstructive activity" and more Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, your reply here contains personal attacks and you are violating WP:AGF saying that I am gaming the system.

I see that you are already participating in the appropriate talk page, where we are focusing the discussion Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Nationality. Thank you very much.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hello. I am not impressed, you may keep your hermetic approach, Ok. Your actions speak louder than your words. Your recent activity, at least since the 2017 Catalan referendum, is plagued with irregular and controversial edits, like the ones you point above, which looks straight controversial POV editing and looks like an attempt to elicit an angry response from editors. Stick to constructive editing, your recent activity delving ad hoc in highly sensitive national issues is not.

You claim be focused on medical, still you have chased me in my activity articles, topics totally out of your area of knowledge per your personal page claims. I pointed this adding diffs in your talk page, but you were quick to remove it. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOLUNTEER I do not have to give explanations of what topics do I edit, nor why, nor do I have any restriction. And again, please, stop personal attacks and focus on arguing about the topics, not about the users, WP:TPYES and complying with all the Wikipedia policies.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He he, yes, browsing the WP out of the focus area you are claiming in your personal page to make a controversial point... that is called one-purpose editing. Just describing what you are doing, for anyone to see in your history. I detected your activity when you started your serial edits in articles I edited recently or have edited not long ago in my focus area, following numerous discussions with you in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, which I left out of tediousness. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iñaki LL:

You collapsed a message of mine labeling it as "off topic" [13]. It is not off topic in this concret context. That's why I removed the labels [14]. You reverted my edit [15].

Also, being objective and neutral, if you collapse my answer, you should also collapse your comment, to which I was answering ("Some editors who had the right and opportunity to be proactive and add their own phrase to the poll did not use it, and opted instead to extend sine die the discussion making their point and sometimes keep adding objections."), and this is what I could have now done.

In addition, please check the result of your edit. You are misplacing the labels and as a consequence, the message is displaced at the end of the thread, and also the signature, date and time are not visible. This causes the context to be distorted and it is not possible to understand what I am referring to.

However, as a sign of my goodwill, and to show you that I want both of us to be able to collaborate calmly and politely, I will accept that you keep my message collapsed. Nevertheless, I am going to put the labels in their place, so that my message is inserted chronologically in the place that corresponds to it, and that the signature and the date are visible.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever format improvement you add is welcome, so thanks for fixing the syntax wherever it was wrong. Yes, it is off-topic because you are commenting on editors, and meaning works the same without it. You did use it other times.

I will advise you one thing. Let the WP flow, instead of attempting to harness each and every bit of it by citing rules and questionable edit summaries, so eliciting reactions from editors. No one owns an article and, beyond specific rules, WP has general principles of participation and creation of a healthy editing environment. It is good to add nuances to the edits of others when you do not totally agree, integrate their contribution instead of undoing it altogether. Catalan independence referendum, 2017 is an article that does not breath, scares away contributors, because it is virtually hermetic. And that is an issue. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I provide links to policies and diffs because is a good practice and the Wikipedia policies require it Communicating with your fellow editors WP:TALKNO. We have to argue with verifiable data to support our arguments, proving their veracity and that anyone who reads it can judge with neutrality. You can not advise me or ask me not to follow the rules.

About the first point, let's see the policy that applies here: WP:TPYES "Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." I was not commenting on an editor, I did not comment on your personality, I said "I am giving you the opportunity to demonstrate good faith, collaborative spirit and neutrality, being yourself who adds it", replying your comment. I said it in good faith, to facilitate a positive environment and that you could also demonstrate your good faith to the community. I was very surprised that you did not do it. You are saying yourself that it is necessary to create a healthy editing environment, it is a pity that you missed the opportunity to put it into practice.

You say that "I did use it other times". Please provide examples where I have commented on your personality (facilitate the diffs), such as framing you in a political ideology, "one-purpose ideological editing", "campaigner", "POV pushing"” ..., which by the way you repeatedly said about me in talk pages and edit summaries, violating WP:ASPERSIONS (some examples here). I do not remember any time I did it, but if I'm wrong, I will have no problem recognizing it and apologize.

I still do not understand what problems you have with my edit summaries. Please, give concrete examples, with diffs.

About the Catalan independence referendum, 2017, it is not hermetic. There were problems with the edits of a sock puppet recently (currently blocked), but for the rest, many edits have continued to be done to achieve greater neutrality [16], which have been actively and politely discussed on the talk page among several users [17]. It is important to point out, for example, that my last edit was on May 10, to correct an edit that I made myself using by error a primary source, recognizing my mistake after discussion on the talk page [18] (detailed explanations here [19]). This is the complete opposite of "hermeticism".

I integrate edits or I undo them, depending on what is necessary to apply in the specific context and to comply with the Wikipedia policies. Nor can you impose other rules on me.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 06:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listen BallenaBlanca, that is a wall that is leading nowhere (be concise!). Make your point in the ANI I opened, why are you coming here? You seem to have loads of time for WP, I do not, and extenuating/overwhelming editors with artificial discussions, like opening new litigation points, elaborating now on the alleged misuse of "off-topic", may be regarded as disruptive. I have been very clear in my advice. I know very well what smooth editing is, the Catalan referendum, 2017 is definitely not. I added a last edit in the ANI, where this belongs. Also, you have vetoed me from your talkpage. Should lengthy, litigation-oriented comments continue here, you will be removed from my page as well. I think you will be wise enough not to. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, Iñaki. I just wanted to be able to clarify things between us. I have offered to apologize if you show me that I have made aspersions about you and to understand what bothers you about my edit summaries.

I have not banned you from my talk page. I invite you to write to me whenever you want, as long as there are no personal attacks.

I remain open to collaborate with you and exchange messages politely and calmly.

I'm sorry you have so little time.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Navarre was in no sense succeeded by the Crown of Aragon, but I think an argument could be made that in its eastern regions, the Kingdom of Navarre was succeeded by the Kingdom of Aragon following the death of Sancho III. I guess it depends on whether you consider the Counties of Aragon and Ribagorza to have been part of Sancho's Navarre kingdom, or just held in personal union with it. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricolae: Everything depends on whether we are talking about its central institutions or its different territorial segments and in what period. I would say that the option the reader expects is the absorption/takeover of its sovereign institutions, i.e. 1512 (Crown of Castile), 1620 (Crown of France), and/or 1841 (Kingdom of Spain). That is how I see it. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To see how this is dealt with in another event of kingdom calving, I looked at Kingdom of León for how it dealt with Portugal. It includes of Portugal as a successor, which would seem to be consistent with showing as a Navarre successor, although it nonsensically gives the successor as the County of Portugal (the moment of 'succession' was coincident with the county under Leonese suzerainty, becoming the independentKingdom of Portugal). Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, successor is the main polity taking over from that kingdom. That is what applies if no strong evidence (other infoboxes in similar cases) supports the contrary. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really wanted to solve it here, between the two of us. I would not have opened this incident if you had not deleted my messages from your talk page [20] [21].

I did not start that conversation, but you [22]. I think if you did not want me to respond, you should have thought before writing me.

I'm still waiting for you to provide specific evidence to corroborate your accusations. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some clarifications in the AN/I thread [23] [24].

I hope this helps to diminish the tensions between us and you can see my good predisposition with you definitely.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. That is also my will. I hope there can be good collaboration among us in the future, as well as smooth and concise editing. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Inyaki -- I'm doing some work on Gaul right now, and I thought you might be able to help. I was curious if you had any sources, or could add anything, pertaining to the fate of the Aquitanian language (typically held to be related to Basque, no?) in what is now Gascony. I'm doing work on pages like Gallo-Roman culture, improving them with works from the Historical Linguistics scholarship on the fate of Gaulish, and I thought it would also be appropriate to discuss the other languages present but I don't have the sources on hand. Thanks in advance-- cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calthinus! The main proponent of the Basque-Aquitanian connection, very naturally so, was Koldo Mitxelena (also Luis Michelena), the single most important Basque language scholar. On the Basque-Aquitanian connection based on linguistic evidence and analysis, the most important and comprehensive work is Michelena, Luis . 2011. De Onomástica Aquitana. Obras Completas; Historia y geografía de la lengua vasca (V). Seminario de Filología Vasca 'Julio de Urquijo'. UPV-EHU. For Vascones and Aquitania Tertia during Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, this is easy to read and pretty enlightening: Baroja, Pio. 1985. Los vascones y sus vecinos. San Sebastián: Txertoa. From a historical point of view, with a focus especially on the north of the Pyrenees during Early Middle Ages, Collins, Roger. The Vaccaei, the Vaceti, and the Rise of Vasconia is very interesting and enlightening. Hope this helps.

I have done some research into the 7-9th century in the area. There is a lot of historiography confusion with the Gaulish element also for Antiquity, check out this, despite being the Aquitanian element clearly different from the Gaulish (Celtic), the nationalistic element today is all too conspicuous. The language seems to have remained on the left bank of the Garonne up to the 9th century (Vascones), hypothesis supported by the names in primary sources, as well as present-day and historic place-names. Still around the 11th century, Basque is attested in the Vall d'Aran.

My general idea is that vulgar Latin prevailed over native vernaculars across the heartland of Gaul well into only in the Early Middle Ages, 6-8 century, completed for all central areas during the Carolingian expansion. If I have time will take a look, see if I can add something. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the Roger Collins paper. Very interesting-- I've seen plenty of work lately discussing the Late Gaulish hypothesis (including a published powerpoint defense of it by Kerkhof that summarizes a lot of new info that has come in) but I haven't seen anything later than 7th century proposed so the Carolingian theory seems pretty interesting (on the otherhand I've seen some authors -- Vaissiere I think-- saying "the second century" -- even though we have actual Gaulish inscriptions from later than that!). I did also see one claim by a Spanish author that Iberian (also possibly related to Basque?) survived in some inland areas in Eastern Iberia as late as 460-- can't seem to locate the citation for that though and does seem pretty shocking to me. But there are some linguistic tidbits I've found -- like the curious case that certain "Celtic-like" sound changes (lenition, etc) happen in all Western Romance except three languages, namely Aragonese, Venetian and Gascon -- and Mozarabic, but I'm not sure how much we know about the dialect situation for idioms called "Mozarabic". --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Gaulish remained in central areas during the 8th century, it was wiped out by the Carolingian push and its 'Renaissance'. That is the taste I get. As for Aragonese, I do not think any Aragonese can be postulated before the 12th century, they were Basque areas, except for the Ebro and Berdun corridor (bilingual). Maybe that is the reason, like Gascon, they do not have "Celtic-like" sound changes, but that is a guess for me. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting -- well thanks for your time, and give me a ping if you find anything you want to share, because I will probs be editing a bit more in this topic area for the future. Have a great day!--Calthinus (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

…. but if you do have a moment -- I was curious, do you have any sources/ideas possibly regarding the chronology of the extinctions of the native languages in Iberia too?--Calthinus (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: Um, I do have some intuitions and dispersed data. 673 the Visigoths were fighting the Astures/Cantabri for what I can remember, and nations/peoples are defined at least during this period first and foremost by their language. Catalonia shows Iberian and Basque-like features in fresh place- and some person-names during the early 9th century (Besalu, Benabarre, Girona (Arabs call it Girunda), Ausona, Berga...).

Supported Basque substratum by Coromines and Ramon d'Abadal up to very late in the mountains (10-12th century approx.), with direct language shift to Catalan. Difficult to know exactly the boundaries between Basque and Iberian, they look pretty similar in form at least. Basic place-names (rivers, nature) in the Rioja hilly areas, and postulated Basque-like features in the earliest Soria charters, ancient or brought along by Basque colons. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting -- thanks Inyaki. --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked but there are too many Iñakis. deisenbe (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deisenbe I sent you an email. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is now edit warring to restore the same poorly(and unreliable) sourced figures into the article's infobox.[25] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egun on Iñaki! He escrito un artículo en la wikipedia catalana sobre el gaztetxe Maravillas (enlace aquí) y me gustaría que estubiese en más idiomas. Ahora mismo lo estoy traduciendo al castellano para que, si te parece bien, te sea más facil traducirlo al euskera o al idioma que quieras. Aprovecha para corregir cualquier error que pueda haber. Eskerrik Asko! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordiventura96 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: who is "Stephen Bre..."? Hairy Dude (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairy Dude: Um, I do not know anything about that, it must have been a typo of the editor who added it. Feel free to remove it. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? JamesOredan (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Iñaki LL (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have any sources dating the language shift in Galicia/Asturia/Cantabria/Leon/Salamanca? These areas are referred to as holdouts but no dates are given in an exhaustive search of the Anglophone lit it seems. Cheers!--Calthinus (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calthinus, I would say holdout is too big a word as far as my knowledge goes, but I do no specialize in these areas! Iñaki LL (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay understood. The reason I was asking is I'm making a map of the language shift to Latin in the Roman period and the ensuing period. Sources are sufficient for Gallia (6th century is when it collapses for the common people) and Italia (Central Italy first, Veneto early, Oscan holds out at least past Vesuvius eruption etc), and sufficient enough to say "we don't know" for much of the Balkans and Britain and present the competing hypotheses fairly, but it is Iberia where the Anglophone literature seems to make these strong statements and not specify the details (Iberian not attested affter 200 AD but may have survived till 500, "holdouts " in the NW, very early Latinization i.e. before much of Italy in South Iberia etc etc) which might be good for maintaining space in your journal publication but not when a guy on wiki wants to use it to make a map that will have authoritative literature behind it.

I figure you may have some interest in the map as regards the Basque homeland and neighboring regions -- I confess this map [[26]] is an inspiration. If you do find any good sources, don't hesitate to edit my userspace by placing them on this page of mine. It's kind of messy right now, but eventually it will be made into a graph like I do for my normal map sourcing like you can see here [[27]]. Cheers!--Calthinus (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job, good luck and courage with it! I thought actually you referred to recent or present-day dynamics. I wrote a history book on the Early Medieval period (in Basque) with a focus around the Pyrenees. For the Pyrenees, the most enlightening map is this one. It is advanced with regards to traditional language history/diachronic linguistics, still it is conservative, new data will shed more light in the coming years. Just remember that up to these days there are some who claim Basque never existed to the east of Roncal in Navarre, because it does not appear in primary source books! (Well, it was on the notes and person and place names...)

In the early medieval ages, peoples are referred according to their ethnic make-up, basically language. Well, in 673 the Visigoths are fighting the Astures in "Cantabria", it may be considered the area of high-waters of Ebro. In 806, the "Navarri" are said in Carolingian Chronicles to extend up to the rises of the Ebro, the same statement confirmed by the Codex Calixtinus almost 400 years later (Basque was the "lingua navarrorum", cited in later medieval documents).

It is safe to state that Basque extended in the 10th century up to Burgos and around most of present-day Rioja (interesting classic author, Justo Pérez de Urbel, leaving aside biographic considerations; still many others later, Jose María Lacarra, a classic as well). My impression is that for Asturias and present-day Galicia, indigenous languages remained in place at least up to the the reign of Alfonso II, 9th century, but that is an impression. In Catalonia, Joan Coromines postulates a direct transition from Basque to Catalan in circa 9th century. Certainly, most of the place names there are not Latin and resemble Basque-like syllabic structure and forms. See also reference to the Basques/Gascons (W/Vascones) by Archibald Lewis around most of the Pyrenees. I think the boundaries between Iberian and Basque there are blur. Hope this helps! Iñaki LL (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is good - I did also find a source that helps a bit with the Northwest region. Re Iberian and Aquitanian, my personal opinion that belongs only on talk pages is that a lot of the archaeological and to a lesser extent linguistic scholarship is, despite their refusal to admit it, working in the shadow of politics no less than the 19th century scholars they vociferously criticize (though nowadays there is more brakes on the phenomenon). Whereas back then Romantic scholars were concerned with their nation's "pedigree", nowadays the subconscious goal is the assimilation of all minorities under a "multicultural framework" that supports the preservation of minority cultures if and only if the bearers are historically poor and/or dark skinned. In the case of the Gauls, Dietler (1994) rightly criticized the persistent "racialization" of the idea of Nos ancetres les Gaulois (after all, even before the Romans, the Gauls were busy assimilating Germanic immigrants just like the French today with SE Asians and Maghrebis) in politics but he completely missed the emergence of the swinging of pendulum the other way. Webster (1999) on the other hand notes, while laying out the case for [a revival of druidic religion as a millenarian protest in Gaul and Britain], notes that post World War II there has been a discourse on the Gauls and their religion that, if it described any colonized people in the modern era, would be considered unethical and indeed quite racist in tone. In the case of Iberian and Aquitanian and Basque, the intellectually honest answer is "we don't have enough info" to say whether or not they are related. What I keep (irritatingly) seeing is scholars (mostly from Spain and Britain) claiming that because we don't have enough info to say they are related, they must not be related -- a logical error of the first degree! Ah, humans. --Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear association of the Gauls and French nationalism no doubt ("nos ancetres les Gaulois", taught in all French schools), just remember also Asterix stories, a re-assertion of historic French identity in a light-hearted manner; in fact, the "Gauls" are the Celts with another name, and Gaul (the 'hexagone') as a territory is a Roman creation. Let me disagree on Aquitanian. The Aquitanian inscriptions (in present-day Gascony) are very clearly identifiable, an postulated with linguistic research as a proto-Basque by Koldo Mitxelena, among others.

Another thing is what the exact linguistic boundaries were during the early Middle Ages. In around 1,000, the Basques ("Bascli") are cited in a poem, as coming from the valley of Aran in the Pyrenees, literally in Basque, the "valley". Biscarrosse is a town in the Landes, the same name as found in Aragon (with its corresponding Romance modification), where bizkar means "hill" (in Basque), etc. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My impression (but that is an impression) is that the great language shift to Neo-Latin languages in many peripheral areas of Western Europe took place between the 8 and 11th centuries. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I commented on Aquitanian/Iberian and Basque/Iberian. Aquitanian/Basque is different -- scholarship afaik tends to identify Proto-Basque as an Aquitanian dialect, no? If Iberian and Aquitanian have no relation, then the issue becomes identifying the boundary and if it moved over time between the two. If they are reasonably closely related one can hypothesize a dialect chain. Sadly this is all speculation. I did find this at least [[28]]. And [that map] is pretty useful-- though for some reason I had been under the impression that Tudela was romanized later than that, and Bordeaux Indo-Europeanized much earlier? Perhaps a bit more like [this one] But I should probably quit bugging you :) --Calthinus (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No more questions from me but I thought I'd leave you with this interesting paper in case it may interest you [29]] -- new research in Historical Linguistics is suggesting that Proto-Berber actually spread in the wake of Roman decline/collapse around 400 CE; this is relevant to other cases of claimed "internal invasions" in terrae romaniae submersae, such as the various debates regarding Proto-Albanian and proto-Romanian, or more up your alley, the Late Basquisation theory. The author doesn't state it outright, but since the argument in favor of Late Basquization is the low dialect diversity of Basque dialects in the Early Medieval era, this presents strong foundation for a rebuttal -- namely, we have a very likely case where related Berber languages experienced a major dialect leveling as Roman rule collapsed. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Seguramente podamos hablar en español a pesar de estar en enwiki. Supongo que moviste la página porque oficialmente no se trataba de un abuso sexual, pero el Tribunal Supremo lo ha corregido y ahora sí es considerado violación. ¿Se debería volver a trasladar el artículo a su anterior nombre? Saludos. Tajotep (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Zidacos (Navarre), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Servetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudela (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) 07:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Iñaki. Happy new year! I don't know if you saw the maintenance templates added after your edit here. But, aside from the minor mistake in the date, I don't think the content is precisely tailor made for the section (which stresses periods during which the kingdoms of León and Castile were ruled by the same king) as it is pointed out with the reasons anticipated in the edit summary. I am not expert, but, as far as I know, there is no overlap of an unified monarch of León and Castile and those territorial changes. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asqueladd, thanks, happy new year too. I think this would be best treated on the talk page of the article, so I take it there for a better track of the editing history of the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Zidacos (Navarre), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iñaki LL! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not on your watchlist, the perpetrators of this fraud were sentenced this week.[30] Doug Weller talk 09:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug Weller. You may added whatever you see convenient. The Guardian takes its sources straight from Madrid, so no wonder. A very tricky case with many interests at play. We have plenty of further information here in Basque and Spanish too disputing shaky statements, like saying there is "RIP" written on it and further vested assertions. As I have read, no one is saying there is "RIP" written on it, or "funny pig drawings"... For all the name of the The Guardian, there is a conflict of interest with the person writing the article. A real pity. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. How does Sam Jones have a conflict of interest? Anyway, the court has decided. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O, sorry, not the writer of the article. But the writer has seen convenient for him to rely completely on Martín Almagro, from a Spanish official institution with a vested academic interest on the issue, namely the shaky Late Basquisation theory. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Iruña-Veleia‎, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.You seem to have a problem with this looking at your talk page and your comments at the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking at my talk page?" ... Yes, I have been actually attacked countless times by undisclosed paid editors, design accounts and sockpuppets who sadly roam unrestrained in the EN WP. Of course not you. Once and more I may also have been a bit too forceful.

My concern is at the poor (sensationalist) state the section in question stands now. Sorry to say, your revert actions have not been very fortunate. I pointed exact points, my interest is with facts and the details, accuracy. If sources act as a smoke screen to facts, honestly, I am not happy. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iñaki LL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zidacos".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: O, I did not know. Will try to find the sources, should not be difficult, and add them. Thanks --Iñaki LL (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it has been deleted by now, so will not try to undelete it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baltasar Garzón, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Court.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Political parties in the Basque Country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. I believe I have already checked all of the relevant categories and removed any which would blatantly not make sense (Navarrese, Iparralde, diaspora etc). Despite all my work, the Basque aspect was removed from this discussion which renamed all other categories for the autonomous communities. This still needs to be done for the Basque Country, and I am now doing it manually. Simply saying 'stop doing it' is not an option, as has been pointed out in the discussion there is a scope for a [greater region] Basque cultural/language/ethnic category to remain at a higher 'level', but in general the biography articles - certainly for persons in the last few centuries - should be amended to 'Xers from the Basque Country (autonomous community)' as long as they are from Bizkaia, Álava or Gipuzkoa. Fully aware that the BAC didn't exist as such until the 1970s but there is extensive precedent for current entities being used in relation to historic figures - to give just one example, all the biographies from other parts of Spain have now been given this modern geopolitical category regardless of their era, e.g Category:Writers from Castilla–La Mancha. However, Category: Spanish conquistadors has been reverted and I don't intend to touch the Basque one there either. Please outline any others which you feel would not be suitable in a modern context in any circumstances. But in general, this move is something which should take place and is overdue. Crowsus (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: I am not an enthusiast of this move, since historically may not be accurate; I see how biographies and things are being put into categories according to these administrative units. However, I will not oppose the modifications done. Thanks for the fixes, I checked this and my concerns seem to have been solved in this and its "sibling" categories at least, although Batasuna, for one, is absent from Navarre. Despite its short political path, I do not think it was absent from Navarre. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes absolutely, that one should definitely be there, and I have now added the category. I'm sure there a few others, particularly those favouring Basque unity (political and other organisations) that straddle the BAC, Navarre and Iparralde and have now wrongly been categorised into the BAC only, you probably can identify those faster than me and other outsiders so please continue to monitor them. For people I would say it is usually more clear where they 'belong' to, but the area of debate for those concerns the time frame. Not an easy one in some cases. Crowsus (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2022 in Navarre indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s in Navarre indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Please do delete, my bad, I thought I was in Commons. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Iñaki: Eskerrik asko nire erarpenak ezabatzeagatik, batez ere oker daudelako. Erunberri (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Servetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudela.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have an answer to the question in Talk:Xavier, Spain?? Cheers, ThomasPusch (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Idk how to talk to you without editing this page. Sorry if I shouldn't have. My question is in regards to the Navarroaragonese page. Where did you get the info on the "vocabulary" section? It shows as cited but there is nothing in the citation, just an observation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinengi (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jinengi, it is an assortment of relevant words from different sources, but I cannot remember them. Definitely academic, or reliable anyway, but no synchronicity. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope I can find these sources cause they seem very interessting! Thanks for the work you have been doing with languages and such! I also have studied about Navarro-Aragonese (but mostly about Aragonese, those are the pages I edit ahaha) Jinengi (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Bertsolaritza, would you be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kowal2701 for contacting me. I am pretty tied up now with other on-wiki and off-wiki matters, but an interest on the topic? Yes, feel free to ping me on related issues. Kind regards Iñaki LL (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, maybe add your name to participants as that's who'll be pinged to things (or watch the page?), but dw only contribute as much as you want to, your time's valuable Kowal2701 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]