User talk:Sugaar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5

[edit] Re:Más sobre Statesclop

Hola Sugaar, Este usuario ha sido bloqueado a perpetuidad, pero continúa creando nuevas cuentas si detectas algún vandalismo similar o edidición inapropiada por parte de un nuevo usuario o ip házmelo saber. Gracias. Un saludo. AnnaP (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

And from the simply practical point of view it's misleading to describe him as ruling 'Spain', since the situation was more complicated: one could make a case for describing Philip II as 'King of Spain' from his accession, because he ruled over pretty much modern Spain as sole king, even if the crowns were technically separate - whereas Charles succeeded to the two crowns separately, and ruled a very new union. Yes, for practical purposes, in the body of the article, his Spanish territory can be described as 'Spain' (because 'Aragon-and-Castile' is tedious), but it's not really acceptable in the lead. Michael Sanders 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elcano

Please, let's finish such long discussion about a single sentence, by finding an intermediate thing that says ut all. I see very clearly how your main source is your personal POV (for example you found very bad that "Spain" was mentioned twice in the same paragraph) and you don't accept what is currently accepted internationally (again when mentioning other encyclopaedias or other sources).

Those coins, texts, etc show you how the concept of Spain with the correspondent culture (eg religion & language) existed. It is internationally accepted that Carlos I was a de facto King of Spain (e.g. that's how the current national Spanish institutions recognise it, look at them).

Saying both things ("a Basque Spanish") seems fine for me, as it is based on cultural aspects. If you want to apply a nationality aspect only then it shouldn't say Basque since he was Castilian (then you can say something like a Castilian navigator from what is now the Basque Country in Spain).

Don't apply different arguments (ignoring the other) for the same topic. We should try to be constructive (agreements have been found in other articles such as Carlos I). Escorial82 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not POV: there was no "Spain" yet, not even in name. There was Castile and the other relams united under a single monarch: Emperor Charles V. There are no texts (you have provided only texts that say the opposite, like those acts of the Cortes of Castile - only Castile!).

There is no doubt that he was Basque instead and that the Basque ethnicity and language existed then.

You could say "a Basque Castilian" but that would be confuse in modern terminology (it's like saying "a Welsh Englishman" - no matter that Wales was for long a province of England, it sounds strange as now England and Wales are considered different entities), so the choice of words "Basque subject of the King/Kingdom of Castile" is probably the best.

Additionally, I think it's wrong to say "Gipuzkoa, Spain". When he was born Gipuzkoa was a part oc Castile, so it should read: "Gipuzkoa, then /an autonomous/ province of the Kingdom of Castile".

It's also incorrect to term the colonies "Spanish", as they were exclussively Castilian, up to the point that other subjects of the same monarch (including the "Spanish" ones of Aragon, Catalonia, etc.) were not allowed normally to enter them. Only someone blind because of an ultra-romantic idealization of Spanish history can ignore that.

Form the viewpoint of the Basque Wikiproject (and common sense), it's important that he's (correctly and beyond doubt) defined as Basque, because he is possibly the most important universal Basque ever and, as such, he is mentioned in other articles. That's beyond discussion. There's no doubt that being born in Getaria, his primary language was Basque and therefore he is an ethnic Basque without any doubt. I hope you don't even consider questioning that.

Overall there is no evidence that Charles was considered in his time by almost anyone "King of Spain". The coin you mentioned, minted in America, and an exception in any case, reads "King of the Spains" in Latin, which is a very different title, one used in different variants by several medieval monarchs who claimed some sort of regional primacy, often with little success.

For the objective historian there is not the slightest doubt that before Philip II no monarch (at least since the Visgoths) had entitled him/herself "king of Spain". Even then, one can argue that Spain was only a generic name and not a real state, as that monarch, like his Habsburg successors, ruled over several states, until the Bourbons supressed the autnomy of the realms of the Aragonese crown, annexing them de facto to Castile and actually forging the modern unified Spain with that action.

But anyhow, we are just discussing Charles V, who never ever used that title at all.

You argument like if your "evidence" was inquestionable but actually it's not even evidence: the acts of the Cortes of Castile don't ever mention any "kingdom of Spain" and the Mexican coin is an od exception that rather relates to medieval titles than to the would-be Spansh monarchy.

Get over it: you are wrong. The only legit claim you ahve is that nowadays some (mostly Spanish) historians want to claim Charles as the first king of unified Spain but that's nothing but an opinion and, as I see it, an ideological apology ex-post-facto. --Sugaar (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles V

It's my understanding that because "King of Granada" and "King of Navarre" were attached to the Castilian crown, they are mentioned in association with Castile (just as "King of Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia and Sicily" are with Aragon). As for Navarre, Upper Navarre was legitimately Spanish after 1512 (they were accepted by the Navarrese cortes) whilst Lower Navarre continued to be ruled by the de Foix/Albret family. Michael Sanders 13:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you seem to be right. As regards Navarre, though, I think you're over-complicating the issue of sovereignity - the de Foix/Albret families ruled and were legally accepted in Lower Navarre, the Spanish royals ruled and were legally accepted in Upper Navarre. I'll fix the rest, however. Michael Sanders 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My God, I didn't know about the walls. That's pretty disturbing (so much for 'conformity' with Ferdinand's other kingdoms)... Also, thanks for the info on Navarre, it's good to be corrected by people who know what they're talking about. Michael Sanders 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on disciplinary action

User talk:I love entei tagged my article on Joan_Perez_de_Lazarraga for deletion because it "failed to indicate the importance of the subject," but the information was all in there. I asked him why he did it, and he said it had to do with lack of categorization, broken links, and being a "poor article" (no arguments there, but hasn't the guy ever heard of stubs?!?) I asked about the "no indication of importance" thing, and he dodged the question a couple of times. (Check out my talk page for the other half of the back-and-forth.) I told him I'd report the tagging as malicious if he couldn't explain his actions, and he couldn't, so I'd like to know how to report him. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Also, it might be interesting to you to note that a page he created at 13:11 today (Dec 22) on a vacuum cleaner has been tagged for deletion. Perfection Vacuum Cleaner. It looks to me like he was looking to get back at the world. I don't know how someone who could write an article like that could call the Lazarraga article "poor"! (I'm cross-posting this to a couple of people on the Basque Project.) Madler 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just found the Community Portal link (d'oh!). I had been searching for variations on "disciplinary action" using the regular search box. Madler 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaixo, Sugaar! It's no big deal, and the guy appears to regret having done it (he's helped clean up the article a bit), so I'm just going to drop it. (By the way, someone else added the Senor de La Torre part...) Y una pregunta - ¿tú eres vasco o español interesado en Euskal Herria o qué? Estoy pensando traducir un montón de artículos sobre escritores vascos para ... bueno, para educarme, en primer lugar, pero también para poder crear una página sobre la literatura vasca. Una página sobre la literatura vasca sin ningun enlace (dentro de Wikipedia) sería un poco raro, to say the least. Por eso, quisiera pedir un poco de ayuda en corregir mis traducciones, puesto que mi nivel está bastante bajo. Eskerrik asko aldez aurretik! Madler 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'll try to come up with some kind of template that's appropriate. And I'll stick to English... ;) Madler 11:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basques_Newfoundland.gif

Kaixo Sugaar, Would you mind to solve this problem. I'd like to get your map for Histoire du Canada in french, but it's not on Commons yet. Eskerrik asko Muturzikin 2 february 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.130.68 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the new map Sugaar. Tell me what do you think of this ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Basques_Newfoundland.gif Gero arte Muturzikin 3 february 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sugaar's History Maps

I just saw some of your maps Sugaar, great work! I'm checking them out and taking some notes for possible corrections on my next round of updates. Thank you for putting them online. Do you plan to make any more? Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use rationale warnings

Please do not remove non-free use rationale warnings from images unless you provide a use rationale. The {{non-free logo}} tag is not a use rational. As the tag says “This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale.” Without a use rationale the images will be deleted. —teb728 t c 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Official Wikipedia policy requires an explicit non-free use rationale for all non-free images. This rationale must go well beyond saying that “certain uses” … “may qualify” as fair use. The rationale must show for each use that that specific use does qualify as fair use and furthermore conforms to Wikipedia’s much more stringent requirements for non-free content.

Strict enforcement of Wikimedia policy takes effect next month, and all non-conforming images will deleted. Burying your head in the sand will not prevent that. --—teb728 t c 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Aznar family

I don't know what "Aznar family" means to you, but I only meant the "Aznars" as opposed to the "Seguins" as A. R. Lewis uses the terms to refer to two competing families for supremacy in Gascony. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply removed the term from the Aznar article. As to why I use "Spanish" forms instead of Basque or Gascon ones, the answer is simple. I have seen them in English sources. I have rarely encountered the Basque or Gascon ones and I presume it is b/c the Spanish one's are most recognisable (many people know that Sánchez is a patronymic for Sancho) and they are about as close or closer to the Latin of charters as the Basque/Gascon forms. 23:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srnec (talk • contribs)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Euskal Herritarrok logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-globalization and antisemitism

You didn't need to add this page to Articles for deletion since you put a PROD tag on it. Also, you didn't place it on Articles for Deletion properly anyway -- you simply edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furry fandom and tacked it on top instead of creating a new discussion. But that's okay, it's an easy mistake to make. ~~If someone removes the PROD notice from this article, then I'll help you list it at AfD.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the article's been listed at AfD before; therefore, it's ineligible for PROD. I'll create a new AfD discussion using your rationale. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Double whoops, somebody else already completed it for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct nomination, by the way, is here. Like I said, it's an easy mistake to make. For the record, PROD is just a quickie tag to place when you're positive that it's not a controversial decision -- with PROD, all you do is place the tag, and that's it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos on your R1a Weasal catch

Just letting you know that I agree and support your decision to remove that info from the R1a article. Plese also take a moment to visit my talk page and leave some thoughts on the current state of geo-genetic info and how its being used on Wikipedia. I'm trying to build a consensus on the proper use of that info. Thanks.Geog1 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

[edit] The actions of user Epf

Hello Sugaar! We seem to have a problem with User:Epf - he insists in saying that the Celtiberians were part of the Iberians, and has already been reverted several times by me and User:Tautintanes. His rationale is that they are a mix of Celts and Iberians, I presume. This editor seems to have a view of ethnicity based strongly on ancestry (or what he supposed the ancestry to be). He also tried to say that other eventually hispano-celts were Celtiberians (namely in Cantabri), as you very well konw since you were the one that reverted him. From other discussion I had with him and from the debate he started in French people (were not a single other editor agreed with him!) I reckon that this might be a subtle and disguised racialist view of some sort. I do not know what is he trying to accomplish. We have to look out for him. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem actually other than how I have noticed your own original research and POV which has no solid references in various articles on the peoples of Iberia. I am not a "racialist" and this has nothing to do with ethnicity being most often based strongly on ancestry or common descent. Few people would deny this and in fact Ogre, I had presumed you agreed with much of this ? Actually on the French people article, there were two other users who agreed with me if you noticed, plus no one really disagreed with me in the manner which Alun did (including yourself). Judging by your edits (and Sugaar's), I think you are the one who would in fact be disguised "racialists" pushing your own POV and improperly entering sources and images which are based mostly on your own opinions. There are very few scholars who deny that the culture of the Iberians spread across Iberia and most consider the Lustianians and others (minus the Aquitanians and Basques) to be Celtiberians. The Celtiberians were an Iberian people who had mixed with elements of Celtic culture, but it also incorporated aspects of Iberian culture and descent, hence CeltIBERIAN. Ciao, Epf (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I am not any God to solve your issues but I'll see if I can give a hand. In what regards to me: Celtiberians were Celtic-speakers of allegedly (Herodotus?) mixed origin. But that can be said of all other Celtic groups, at least in the Iberian peninsula. If they deserve a mention in the article it should be clear why (i.e. quoting the historical source) and also that they were not Iberians in the normal sense in any case. --Sugaar (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hy Sugaar. What you say is my position entirely. I also believe that the same could probably in fact be said about all the other Celts in Europe. The question here is that this user, Epf, with whom I always tried to dialogue in a reasonale manner and even propossed to work with him in an article about the Hispano-Celts (because he was trying to say that all the Celts in Iberia were Celtiberians and that Celtiberians were Iberians), and also lost some of my time trying to explain a lot of stuff about Iberia too,seem more intent in a non-cooperative, confrontational defense at all cost of his non-sourced ideas regarding the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula then anything else. If you could come to Iberians I would appreciate. Thanks a lot. By the way I do hope the Genetic History WikiProject does come along - it would be of hep in many articles. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As you might have seem, Epf insists on adding the Baleares to the Iberians, but its articles on the Spanish and Catalan wikipedias say nothing about that - what can you tell about it? Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to check in depth the controversial article (I am right now immerse in another even more controversial dispute - en fin) but, regarding the Balearic islands, Ibiza and Formentera are one thing and the Baleares proper (Majorca and Minorca) are another:

The Pitiusas (Ibiza and Formentera) were in the post-Aragarian cultural area after c.1300 BCE and later under direct Phoenician influence (they even estabilished a colony there). I doubt they can be considered typical Iberians though hey must be related nevertheless.
The Baleares proper seem to have been a world apart but there's not much information anyhow. The Talayotic period (late Megalithism apparently original from Corsica) ended c. 700 BCE and my manual doesn't mention the islands after that. A couple of maps show findings in Majorca, near modern Palma, first of Urnfield burials (in line what you can find in other Eastern areas: isolated burials) and then some Phocean findings. That's all. They are never mentioned in relation with Iberians or Iberian culture. I guess that, unless other evidence is provided (and remember that the evidence must be provided by the one making the claim), they should be considered a separate group.

In this regard, it must be mentioned that my manual says that the rich Iberian culture surely exerted attraction for the peoples of the interior and mentions the case of the Celtiberians as most typical and best documented. He seems to imply that Celtiberian were Iberized Celts and not vice-versa (though, of course, it can be argued that, first, native "proto-Iberians" were Celtizied anyhow). --Sugaar (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Human Genetic History draft and vote

I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More than just a little stupid

Sugaar, WRT your insinuations over at AN/I, it would be desirable if you did your homework. There may be a long story behind all this, and you will not be expected to dig deep into every imaginable archive, but why don't you just ask anybody with a few months of experience in this place? Bishzilla is Bishonen's alternative account, and Bishapod is Bishzilla's (sounds confusing? It isn't. All these accounts are in the hand of the same person). Nobody has ever tried to cover up anything about that. Furthermore there is no reason to believe that Yomangan(i) is a sockpuppet of that same person, as s/he has explained to you. And lastly, if you think Checkuser is an appropriate tool in such a harmless situation, kindly read the pertinent policies before making demands on others' time with these ill-founded requests. Please. 91.64.29.230 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right - or not. I really don't know what to think. Why do Biszhilla and Fishapod talk the same unusual "slang", for instance. Would I be admin, I'd probably look at the issue more in depth.

The case is why are you writing here with an IP identity? Why would anybody try to hide under multiple accounts. Maybe there's a good reason but, since Bishapod/Little Stupid intervened in apparent bad faith, I would like to know exactly what is being cooked here.

And in any case, who are you? I find it terribly annoying this game of anonymity. I seriously doubt it is in the spirit of Wikipedia - not sure abut the letter. Definitively it doesn't go with my character: I like things clear. --Sugaar (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fine and well and understandable. I will just say that I have reasons of my own to stay anonymous (there are horourable reasons, such as outspoken opinions that are not acceptable among people who know your username and know you personally), I have not been involved in these things and have not edited the pages discussed on AN/I. It would be entirely understandable if you found my behaviour sneaky, but I will just ask you to accept my explanation. 91.65.0.72 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. But it's clear that all is very unclear. Are you the one behind Little Stupid/Bishapod? I don't think so because your tone is different, more conciliatory. But you seem to know about this issue more than I do in any case.

Would this presumpt sock/alt account not have intervened in an edit conflict (very undesirable but something I that has been imposed upon me), nothing of all that would have ever come to light - as I would not have needed to research about Little Stupid's real identity, with all those branchings leading to possibly other users.

If you want to give me a confidential explanation, please feel free to drop me an email. --Sugaar (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not Little Stupid or Bishapod, nor any of the other users discussed, just someone who happens to have witnessed the goings-on recently. I see no evidence that there is anything more than inside jokes going on here. You may of course request further elucidation over at WP:AN, but honestly, I would not be extremely optimistic about that. 91.64.29.230 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What need research LS real identity? What business of Sugaar's? Little Stupid make good edit on Israel lobby in the United States, is all you need care about. Note: Little Stupid tell you several times that Thatcher is CheckUser who have already CheckUsered LS real identity.[1] See how CheckUser Thatcher not worried about Stupid identity? Why you worry about it all the time? Comment on content, not on the contributor.[2] bishapod splash! 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Please use your real identity and speak proper English. It is not funny but rather ofensive that you treat people like that. I really can't believe that you are being tolerated this abuse.

Please, do not spam my user page with multiple identies and babble. It's really annoying and could fall under WP:PA and WP:CIV. You may think you are funny but... you aren't. --Sugaar (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bishonen is a longstanding and first-rate admin and article writer who has the full trust of the community. Unfortunately, she is mad at Wikipedia (or parts of it anyway) right now and not contributing as she used to. User talk:Bishzilla is Bish's very well-known and fully accepted sock-puppet for having fun and generating incredible hilarity. User:Bishapod is Bishzilla's sock so that Bishzilla could have a sock too. More fun ensues. User:Little Stupid is another name for Bishapod.

Literally almost everyone knows who the owner is when these names show up and no-one is really going to object. Bishonen is well aware of what she's doing. It takes a while to learn these things, for sure. The best bet with Little Stupid or Bishapod is probably to offer them a plush toy, or a puppy to give their master Bishzilla. (Bishzilla nice monster, not eat little Franamax for telling this please) If we can get Bishzilla to eat the puppy, she might ask her master Bishonen pretty-please come back to Wikipedia. Does that help? Franamax (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you understand as "the community" but she doesn't have my trust since she uses sockpuppets to intervene in content disputes and somehow this is tolerated by administrators, who close the case on the pretext of "frivolity". You know I am right.

You cannot claim that what a handful of people consider valid is what "everyone knows". Wikipedia has maybe millions of contributors: a clique is not the community. The community is all who make Wikipdia possible - and obviously most have never heard (luckily) of this sockpupeetering abuse by an administrator.

And I don't find it funny in any case. Just stupid. But I don't care about that as long as it's not used to intervene in a content dispute (or to spam my userpage with Yoda-like babble). Once she starts with that, she is fully in the case of using sockpuppets for illegitimate purposes.

I know that WP:SOCK states that LS's (and therefore Bishonen's, if what you say is true) actuation is a breach of policy. Some administrators may be wrong in their undue leniency in this case.

I am not going to play that stupid game you say: this is Wikipedia not Freakypedia, please! We are editing an encyclopedia, not playing games that I can only describe as schizoid emotional blackmail and freaky childish games.

Let's be serious: there are other places than Wikipedia to play your strange games, really. --Sugaar (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I'd suggest discussion and not edit warring on Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. No consensus for the edits you reverted to. You've been around, so I'm sure you're familiar with WP:CON and WP:3RR. Dreadstar † 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for your additions certainly. That's why I reverted you: you are decaffeinating that most interesting essay and you could at least step down to the talk page to discuss those radical edits you tried to make. --Sugaar (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, they weren't "my" additions, they were additions by another editor; [3][4][5]. Get your facts straight before you start making accusations and edit warring. Dreadstar † 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map for Pre-Roman Iberia

Hello Sugaar! Thnks for your input regarding the question of the maps for Pre-Roman Iberia. I'm quite busy right now, so I won't be able to give it its due attention. But I do want to pick up on your suggestion "to positivize this discussion and draw an even better map". That was my objective all along. I have no special preference for the map I made, I just thought it better then that other one you yourselve said it was losy. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars survey

Hi Sugaar. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I received a few replies such as yours, saying that the information is simply not applicable to the way barnstars are given out In our analysis, we've seen a few patterns to barnstar texts -- there are those that target very specific work or actions and therefore can't be captured with rudimentary statistics, and others that are very generic, targeting status attainment or long patterns of work that can be easily gleamed from a person's edit stats. The poll is unfortunately limited, but coming up with a controlled experiment/survey for understanding barnstar granting behaviour is rather challenging. Thanks again for participating and giving me comments. Bestchai (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to ask you as to how you would go about deciding whether 'someone is doing a good job'? If the statistics are noise, what information about an editor is useful to you in awarding barnstars? Bestchai (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Al Andalus.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Al Andalus.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Iberia Bronze.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Iberia Bronze.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Iberia Late Bronze.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Iberia Late Bronze.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:VNSP.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:VNSP.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

[edit] Edits on the Basque People page

Sugaar, could you take a look at the discussion regarding some deletes by Narsil on the Basque people page and tell me what you think? Eskerrik asko! Akerbeltz (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --Sugaar (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I think we can agree on some common ground, the 2 sections in questions were a bit oddly worded after all. ...so much to do and so little time to do it. I wonder if Britannica has editors as diligent as wiki ; ) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah, the entries can surely be improved with other stuff and maybe there's no need to include all those quotes as such. But what Narsil is admittedly doing is crusading against Gimbutas and anything that sounds to "feminism". I guess that if he's doing the same all around the Wiki, he will have soon his personal page full of warnings. --Sugaar (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL it'll be his own fault. Mind, the Gimbutas quotes do sound a bit new-age. She could have been a little less populist and more scientific but then, she wanted the book to sell. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mural art map

Just something that crossed my mind if you ever have a week to spare - I think it would be interesting if you could overlay your Upper Paleolihic Art in Europe map with known locations of cave systems. You know, atm it looks like there are significant clusters but while looking at it it just crossed my mind that it might just be down to the fact there are no caves elsewhere. Just a thought though! Akerbeltz (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.