User talk:Iñaki LL

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

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

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]

Hello, Iñaki LL. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Brill.
Message added 23:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

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

• 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]

Hello, Iñaki LL. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

]

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

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]

Hello, Iñaki LL. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

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

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

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: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

]

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

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]

Hello, Iñaki LL. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

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

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,

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

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]

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

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs some actual references.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zidacos (Navarre) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zidacos (Navarre), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 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 Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

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

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]

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

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]