W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Asqueladd

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

__NOINDEX__
{{User:Asqueladd/Heading}}

Space horror


hello. so i'm not sure what you mean by 'hijacking the source'; did you mean my edits were too close to Larsen's original words? (if so, apologies). ps. i fixed a little typo your edit introduced. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by Anticipatoryplagiarism (talk • contribs ↗) 02:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Manticore (2022 film)



¡Hola Asqueladd ↗!

''=> yes, '''I object you removed verification of claims''', to begin with''

I apologise for having upset you again, mate.
Could you just explain to me briefly which verification of the claims I've removed in that revision, {{lang|es|por favor}}? Just so that I know in future... 😉

¡{{lang|es|Cuidate}}!
Szagory (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Szagory}} Inline verification immediately after a claim is the way to go. As per Help:Referencing for beginners ↗ (despite me thinking you are no beginner), inline citations {{tq|"are generally added either directly following the fact that they support, or at the end of the sentence that they support, following any punctuation."}} --Asqueladd (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::I've checked the changes you've made in that revision:
::{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|100|9.8|8}}<small><sup>[1]</sup></small>
::''
::There's absolutely no need for reference with a link to RT ↗ page when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗ - just take a look at the documentation of that template, mate.
::Besides, I also added Template:Rotten Tomatoes ↗ to the end of the article... 😎
::Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Szagory}} {{tq|There's absolutely no need for reference with a link to RT ↗ page when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗}} Only in case you used the <code>Reference?</code> parametre (which requires RT ID on Wikidata) to generate a reference of its own, which you did not. {{tq|I also added Template:Rotten Tomatoes to the end of the article}} As stated below, as per WP:ELDUP ↗, that is not the way to go...--Asqueladd (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Szagory}} Regarding your modus operandi vis-à-vis the external links section, I suggest you to take a look at WP:ELDUP ↗ where it is explained that {{tq|"Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section."}}--Asqueladd (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::'''''=> Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section'''''
::But that's my point - first of all, when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗ there's no need for reference with that template.
::And secondly, just take a look at countless other pages related to films - they all have <nowiki>{{Metacritic film|manticore_2022|Manticore}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Rotten Tomatoes|manticore_2022|Manticore}}</nowiki> in "External links" (obviously with correct film IDs).
::I'm not sure that you've done the right thing in removing those links from the article... 😕
::Szagory (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Szagory}} If links are cited in the body they should not be duplicated in the external links section as per WP:ELDUP ↗. According to WP:ELMIN ↗ the EL section should be kept minimal. Under the purview of those guidelines, I don't think that those "countless" examples you mention abide to those guidelines, what else can I tell you... Well yes, I can tell you that the duplication resembles to spamming ↗ to a certain extent (Let me clarify that as I owe nothing to imdb.com nor rottentomatoes I presume yo do neither).--Asqueladd (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::=> '''''Only in case you used the Reference? parametre (which requires RT ID on Wikidata) to generate a reference of its own, which you did not.'''''
:::That's not correct - when you don't specify film ID in Template:Rotten Tomatoes ↗, then Wikidata for the film must already include identifier for the film in RT ↗.
:::If however you provide film's name in "{ {Rotten Tomatoes | ID} }", you can just add a link that way - no need to wait for Wikidata to be updated. 😉
:::Just take a look at The Cuckoo's Curse#External links ↗ where I also added {{Rotten Tomatoes|the_cuckoos_curse|The Cuckoo's Curse}} without waiting for Wikidata to be updated. And now are you telling me that if the text for that film's approval rating was written by hand and included a citation with link to RT ↗, you would really prefer the readers to locate that link somewhere in "References"? When '''all other film pages include links to IMDb ↗, Rotten Tomatoes ↗ and Metacritic ↗ in "External links"'''? Come on, mate - that wouldn't be convenient!
:::Szagory (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::::''=> Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section.''
::::It's NOT the best practice to write approval rating for a film by hand - having to write all that stuff "''According to the review aggregation ↗ website Rotten Tomatoes ↗, ''Manticore'' has a 100% approval rating based on 7 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 9.8/10.<nowiki><ref>{{Cite web |title=Manticore|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/manticore_2022|language=en |website=RottenTomatoes ↗|access-date=28 December 2022}}</ref>''"</nowiki> again and again for every film! '''<u>Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗ should be used for that purpose</u>''' instead.
::::And there's no need for reference with link to RT ↗ to be provided with Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗ - either you use short form "{{Rotten Tomatoes}}" (when Wikidata knows film IDs for that film) or you use "{{Rotten Tomatoes|FILM_ID}}".
::::I'm sorry, but what I'm trying to say is: '''the way I added Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗ and Template:Rotten Tomatoes ↗ was correct''' and countless other pages follow the same convention. And you insisting that the link you added when writing approval rating should be preserved, and what's more shouldn't be duplicated - '''that's just not right'''... 😒
::::Szagory (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Ping|Szagory}} {{tq|now are you telling me that if the text for that film's approval rating was written by hand and included a citation with link to RT ↗, you would really prefer the readers to locate that link somewhere in "References"}}, yes, that is more or less what I am telling you. More comprehensively:


:'''''=> yes, that is more or less what I am telling you.'''''
:'''''=> No, I don't care about counterexamples, because mentioned guidelines suggest this modus operandi'''''
:Mate, just take a look at countless other film pages - by way of example, Dream Scenario ↗. Check how approval ratings in Dream_Scenario#Critical_reception ↗ are written there (and also just imagine having to duplicate all those lines for RT ↗ and Metacritic ↗ every time you want to add critical reception to some new film page!).
:And notice what links are specified in Dream_Scenario#External_links ↗.
:And I'll never EVER believe that what's done on countless pages (i.e. using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose ↗ and Template:Rotten Tomatoes ↗ is suddenly bad or inappropriate. Just ask yourself this: why are those templates provided at all if apparently everybody is supposed to follow your modus operandi and type all those words on every edited page again and again?
:So, I'm not to going to insist on my edits with those templates to be reinstated - and playing editing policeman would be just silly. But I'm going to continue doing things the way other Wikipedia users have been doing them (those templates are supposed to cut down on having to repeat the same text again and again, for Heaven's sake!).
:Have a nice evening / {{lang|es|Buenas tardes}},
:Szagory (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Ping|Szagory}} I feel that we are running in circles. I have provided you with a series of Wikipedia guidelines laiding out a modus operandi. No, I don't care in the slightest about providing readers with a directory of websites (particularly a directory of profit-driven websites) at the end of any article which I think it is discouraged anyways as per those guidelines, no matter how many counterexamples you can find. ''That's all''. I respect your tastes, but unless you bring a sound policy-backed rationale, I am not willing to give up on this and you will possibly be undone again if I notice such kind of change in my watchlist (although I am not going to WP:WIKIHOUND ↗ you either). Have a nice day you too, and, as always, until next time.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:Just to mention a couple of other things in your latest edits:
::<code>''=> Raquel gave the film '''75 with points''' ('good').''</code>
:That doesn't sound right, neither does it seem to be grammatically correct. Why "with"? 🤔
::<code>''=> He rents a new apartment on the outskirts of Madrid where he '''practices a rim job ↗''' on Diana, who gets the news of her father's sudden death.''</code>
:Use of singular indefinite article ("'''''a''' rim job''") here is not appropriate - it denotes a single act of anilingus ↗. Surely Julián hasn't rented a new apartment just for one sexual act there, and presumably neither was just one single rim job "practised ↗" (i.e. performed with regularity, so more than once) in that apartment, right?
:More correct would be something like: "''where he '''performs anilingus ↗''' on Diana''". 😉
:But why did you feel obligated to mention that salacious detail in the text at all? Is anal sex in any material way significant for WP:Plot ↗ (which is supposed to be concise and brief)?
:Also, what's the connection between anal sex being performed on Diana and her getting the new of her dad's death?
:Szagory (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::About the latter, as I stated in the edit summary, IIRC (it's been a while since I watched the film) the character gets the news about her father's death (or an aggravating condition that led to his death or a phone call ''implicitly suggesting'' something along those lines) in that scene. I don't like to explain things twice or thrice. {{tq| is supposed to be concise and brief}} The text is actually more brief, straightforward and to the point now in that regard than before (6 words now vs 9 words before). In addition, at 522 words, the plot section as a whole currently falls within the size recommendation as per WP:FILMPLOT ↗ and it still could be augmented with some details without failing to abide to those prescriptions.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The Coffee Table


do you planned add spanish page of The Coffie table by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sunuraju}} No.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sunuraju}} pardon me if you feel that I am telling you something too basic, but Spanish-language articles should be created in es:Wikipedia ↗ not in en:Wikipedia ↗.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:25th Málaga Film Festival poster.jpg listed for discussion


30px|left ↗ A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:25th Málaga Film Festival poster.jpg ↗, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion ↗. Please see the '''discussion''' ↗ to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> <span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: bold;">Kys<span style="background-color: rgb(50, 0, 129); color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">5</span>g</span><sup><small> talk!</small></sup> 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Alfonso XIII



With all due respect, how can YOU verify this claim: "On 15 January 1941, Alfonso XIII renounced his rights to the defunct Spanish throne in favour of Juan. He died of a heart attack in Rome on 28 February that year." because it ALSO lacks a source. Reverting my "conspiratorial" addition, without adding a source to the above claim is pretty telling of your biases, and/or political views. Ukudoks (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ukudoks}} Yeah, right, ''my'' biases. Not those of historiography. Please describe those biases to me. It is a pet pleasure of mine to read such inputs. It is your onus to provide reliable sources for your loony conspiracy theories.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Asqueladd}} Indeed, it is YOUR biases, since you have not provided a counter to my addition Ukudoks (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ukudoks}} Not that it matters when it comes to undoing the addition of unsourced content, but I actually have. And for all means, please describe my biases to me in the ''meanest'' way possible, pleaaase. If not, you may kindly leave here.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Asqueladd}} Interesting that you are not addressing the point of this conversation, Spanish intelligence services should change their employment strategy to recruit more intelligent agents. Because why would anyone be so adamant to completely focus on the person who added the addition instead of addresing the addition itself (with sources if possible), and since YOU cannot dispute my addition (most likely because you are being paid to do so, which is understanable) you in fact directed the attention onto me for some reason Ukudoks (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ukudoks}} {{tq|"intelligence services"}}. :D Thanks, I expected no less from you. {{tq|and since YOU cannot dispute my addition}} I actually happened to dispute your addition by sourcing the most recent biography on the subject, go figure. You've already managed to amuse me around here. If you still have issues with the current version of the article, including a cardiovascular disease-related cause of death being very suspicious because of whatnot, go to the talk page and arm yourself with relevant secondary sources. But please refrain from returning here.-Asqueladd (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Rubén Ochandiano a director?



His article doesn't note anything he directed, but the lead you restored calls him a director. Is this just a result of you undoing ''everything'' I did? Or do you know something about it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:I don't know. I don't really care. I did just remove it. PS: stubifying is not the sensible move either way, sorry.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::It's still as stubby now, factwise, just has repeated words, needless spaces and a section header filling it out. If you don't care, I don't think you're sorry, and that's fine. Thanks for removing the ''dubious'' extra bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|It's still as stubby now}} I didn't pretend it wasn't, and that's precisely why I mentioned in the edit summary about efforts {{tq|to "encourage the article to '''cease to be a stub'''"}}, suggesting yours to be contrary to that purpose instead. {{tq|If you don't care, I don't think you're sorry, and that's fine}}. I don't care much about Ochandiano's filmmaking career, unknown to me. I care something about getting good-faith editors out of a possible malpractice. Those are different issues, in case the "post-data" break did not make it clear enough. {{tq|Thanks for removing the dubious extra bytes.}} No big deal.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, you're now the English Wikipedia's foremost authority on what readers should care to know about Ochandiano's filmmaking career, big deal or not. According to the bold green numbers in the edit history, anyway. I don't understand what you mean by "malpractice" or "post-data", but I hear you ''now'' on the stub part (and yeah, I did "butcher his name" pretty terribly there; won't happen again!). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just think that while perhaps adding a layer of reiteration, current section structure paves the way for unfettered growth of the article from a stub ↗ into a start-class article ↗ (ticking in similar boxes as those of analogous Start, or C-Class articles for actors), so backtracking in that effort could perhaps be considered a malpractice, if you wish. "PS" or "PD" stand for "postdata", which often introduces information unrelated to the text written before. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Centro Universitario de la Guardia Civil



I created a draft Draft:El_Centro_Universitario_de_la_Guardia_Civil_(Spain) ↗ and woulf welcome your input. (there is an equivalent Spanish article, but ¿probably I over-cooked it?) Timpo (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:Hi! I'd rather focus on sourcing the introductory section with much needed third-party sources, with special emphasis on explaining what a ''centro universitario'' is (as well as the nature of those "close links" to full-fledged universities) rather on detailing what the Guardia Civil is (there is no need to go beyond gendarmerie). Historical content backed up by third party sources would also be a plus. Otherwise, the bulleted content in the sections seems unintentionally promotional. I personally prefer stub articles over larger articles relying too much on non-independent sources (or no sources at all). Regards.---Asqueladd (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Saturn Return



Hi!

First of all, I've found really rude your message on my ''Saturn Return'' ↗'s edit: ''this format was alright. And what did you just add as accolades? Random festival selections''?. I don't consider the Seattle International Film Festival or the Buenos Aires International Festival of Independent Cinema, festivals where the film competed for an award, "''Random festival selections''". However, if you do think so, you could say so in a more polite way and also remove the Guadalajara International Film Festival nomination in the current version as well because it is exactly the same ssituation you removed from my edit.

In addition, I also don't understand why did you remove the Golden Biznaga for Best Spanish Film nomination in the ''Birds Flying East ↗'' Accolades section.

I hope this finds you well so you can answer me.

Thanks! Xavier3Caballero (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 -->

Una duda


Buenas tardes Asqueladd. He visto que antiguamente editabas más frecuentemente en la wiki española, y viendo tu magno trabajo hecho por allí, quería plantearte una duda respecto a una cuestión que ocurre por aquí. ¿A ti te muy parece neutral todo este "material" ↗ que intentan colar a capón por estos lares? Foto incluida (jeje). Que la intencionalidad es clara, habida cuenta de que la edición inglesa es mucho más consultada fuera. CFA1877 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|CFA1877}} Hola, buenas tardes. Un placer y un honor por el interés por mi opinión. Bueno, en algún sitio se tiene que tratar del tema de la variedad de adscripciones nacionales en esa esquina del continente europeo. Es un tema importante aunque el diablo está en los detalles, los marcos, y los sitios. Seguramente "Demographics" no sea el mejor sitio para tratarlo en profundidad, o por lo menos en el que yo me sentiría más cómodo desarrollándolo. Hay una serie de temas generales que he tocado poco y/o que intento tocar poco y/o que no tocaría "ni con un palo de 10 pulgadas". Te diría que la redacción no me convence especialmente por una serie de razones, pero es que estoy ''tan'' curado de espanto... con el temita y temitas parecidos, que el marco no me parece el peor posible y tiene varios aciertos (aunque el adjetivo de ''tradicionales'' tiene tela y el párrafo final con "heavy WP:SYNTH ↗" está "clunkily worded"), y que ni tan mal. Un saludo.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::Baia, qué cosas, ya me olía que no era solo mi percepción. En efecto, es un tema importante a tratar, pero no de esta forma, y con ese contenido que invita a la desconfianza a un lector como yo que no suelo tratar estos temas. Lo que me molesta es que está intentando colarlo por las malas, a ver si la cosa no va a peor...por lo demás, muchísimas gracias por tu respuesta. Saludos. CFA1877 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::No one is trying to sneak anything in by force, CFA1877. You should know that this material was moved from the Spain ↗ article to this one with this edit ↗, made on 15 June 2023. You should cease and desist and make your case on the talk page. Carlstak (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD ↗



The lead is supposed to summarize. Footnotes do not belong in a summary. If it is important ↗ it needs to be clearly included in the text, if it not important it does not need to be highlighted in the lead section summary. You are misunderstanding the purpose of a lead section in a Wikipedia article. -- 109.76.134.39 ↗ (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:The lead is also supposed to help the reader to identify the topic. In the words of that guideline {{tq|It should identify the topic}}. Titles are supposed to be a key part of identifying a topic if you ask me. Footnotes are used in lead sections on a regular basis because they can help with alternative titles, thus making it easier to identify the topic.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Use of edit reasons



Based on this ↗, I assume you are also the previous IP. Thanks for logging in to edit. But I'd ask you to use an informative edit reason like that ''the first time'' in future, rather than just inserting the MOS link. Most of the MOS is about what awards are notable, so you shouldn't be surprised that is what someone assumes you took issue with - and there is a redirect for the entry I added, appearing as a blue link, so you shouldn't be surprised that I thought there was an article. Being more informative prevents the need to continue editing the same content. (And don't forget, just using acronyms to guidelines can appear as elitist, which I assume you weren't aiming for, but also isn't a big help if the content is edited multiple times, either.) Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|I assume you are also the previous IP}} {{ping|Kingsif}} No, I am not. --Asqueladd (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for bothering to reply, consider this moot! Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kingsif}} You're welcome. I take your concerns regarding the rest of the comment into consideration.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Ruth Ben-Ghiat ↗ for deletion


<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Ruth Ben-Ghiat ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> Czarking0 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Czarking0}} Thanks for the heads up! I'll leave the AfD request run its course. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Deny



I'm not trying to reach for attention nor to undermine Wikipedia, I'm merely making the edits I and anyone reasonable consider to be positive addings. Since when adding an image portfolio is destructive? Should I blame this on those who inventes the stupid rules or on those who restrictively interpret them? 195.23.62.28 ↗ (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal, you don't want to reply to one, fine, but it's not my intent to be one. We merely disagree on a particular matter, it's childish to accuse the other side and ignore it. 195.23.62.28 ↗ (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I appologize for not discussing the issue before, but on your side you shouldn't simply call someone a vandal in order to ignore him and walk away as if you were right. 195.23.62.28 ↗ (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{Comment|Answer}} You have been blocked permanently a gazillion times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G.-M._Cupertino/Archive ↗) and you may not be a vandal (I never call you "vandal", but you may fit the profile of long term abuser ↗, a definition that also includes "sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, POV-pushers, editors who add deliberately false or biased information and promotional editors"). Tag yourself there. I have nothing to discuss with you.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Alcalá de Henares - Change to a category



I noticed that you reverted my removal of the "1 BC establishments" category, as the date of the establishment of Alcalá de Henares. I had noted that the town (or its predecessors e.g. Complutum) were thought to have a long history going back into pre-history. From the references I have of that time, primarily Roman and Carthage related history books, I could not find a reference to the town being established specifically in 1 BC. So I thought that the other existing category "Populated places established in the 1st century BC" was sufficient. I have left your revert alone as you may have access to better reference material than I. Chewings72 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Chewings72}} This is interesting discussion because foundation dates are a moot issue. I don't about about the "town" being thought to have a long history going back into pre-history. The area of the lower Henares was "pacified" by the Roman Republic circa 180 BCE. Left-bank hilltop Complutum (today within the municipal limits of Villalbilla ↗, not Alcalá de Henares ↗) is an ex-novo Roman development (post-Roman conquest) in the San Juan del Viso hill circa 1st century BCE (sources: https://www.academia.edu/33349284/El_origen_del_urbanismo_romano_en_la_actual_Comunidad_de_Madrid_La_fundaci%C3%B3n_de_Complutum_en_el_Cerro_de_San_Juan_del_Viso_Villalbilla_Madrid_ ↗). Right-bank Complutum is another Roman era development resulting from people of hilltop Complutum moving there circa the 1st-century CE. Yet current (right-bank) Alcalá de Henares is still more of a middle ages development.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for the additional information. Very interesting. In the circumstances, I am happy to leave as is. :) Chewings72 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon ↗


Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span> 16:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Lists of Spanish films



Hi! I noticed that in the article List of Spanish films of 2026 ↗, the format for the 'Cast and crew' parameter in the tables has returned to the old format used in the article List of Spanish films of 2024 ↗ and the equivalents for previous years. Despite having been the one who pushed for a change to adopt the American version of this parameter for List of Spanish films of 2025 ↗, I'm actually fine with this - in fact, what I wanted to ask was if we could also bring this back for List of Spanish films of 2025 ↗, just to maintain the consistency with the other articles of its type, if we are going to stick with this - unless it's against Wikipedia's policies in some fashion, that is. Thank you for your time! TheVoiceGamePlay (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, {{ping|TheVoiceGamePlay}}! Both models have pros and cons. The old displays the cast better, while the new provides additional information (although when articles for non-directing screenwriters are not there to be linked—and this is currently a common occurrence in the Spanish context—some of the value disappears). I have made some adjustments that take some time on older lists. This particular one I didn't do because I wasn't sure one way or the other. I guess that at some point, we should have a discussion with a wider quorum. If for the time being you value consistency to that extent, feel free to revert the 2025 list to the old model, although I personally do not think it is a pressing matter. I don't have problems either with giving a try to the new model in the 2026 list.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::Hi again! I don't really value consistency to THAT extent (at least not when it comes to something collective/collaborative like Wikipedia) - I just thought that, for the average reader who searches these articles, it'd have felt pretty weird to see such a drastic difference between the 2025 list and the other lists, both from the years prior and the years (or in this case, ''year'' in singular) afterwards. I agree that there should probably be a wider discussion about this sometime in the future, but for now, I'm content with just keeping things like how they are right now until further notice. Have a nice day! TheVoiceGamePlay (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

A-52 spain motorway



1 ↗ Fair enough, I agree upon reflection. My mental health issues are affecting my edits, I apologise. --IWI (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

David Quirós ↗



Hello, I know we often edit on similar topics but have never spoken. I just wanted to make you aware of an edit conflict about this mayor. I won't say a lot as I'm aware of WP:CANVAS ↗, but it appears an IP strongly doubts the legitimacy of this mayor. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, {{ping|Unknown Temptation}}. According to currently available evidence, Quirós was elected as Mayor of L'Hospitalet by the plenary of the municipal corporation with a simple majority of 11 votes. Under the purview of the article 196 of the ''Ley Orgánica 5/1985, de 19 de junio, del Régimen Electoral General'' ↗, Quirós seems to enjoy the same legitimacy as any other mayor, provided that no other candidate commanded more votes, as it was the case. That can be added to the article, and perhaps will sooth that IP in the meantime. source ↗. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the founding date for Atresmedia ↗



The entity responsible for Atresmedia is currently the legal entity previously responsible for the Antena 3 channel (later known as Grupo Antena 3 when Telefónica ↗ took over the channel), but why can't the template have two founding dates at the same time. The Atresmedia rebrand was structured as a rebrand of Grupo Antena 3, a year after the merger with GIA La Sexta ↗ was completed, not a different company being founded. More info regarding the merger process can be found on the GA3/LaSexta merger page on the Spanish Wikipedia ↗. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping| VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004}} Thanks for the explanation behind your edits. The English-language article requires inline context about the differences between the group and the channel (including but not exclusively in legal terms), and inform about why the channel (or the group?) was integrated into another group (Telefónica Media aka Admira Media) prior to the developments you are mentioning, and why the television division of the group (Atresmedia TV) seems to be the factored the same as Atresmedia in legal terms (?).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::During the Telefónica Media/ADMIRA era, Antena 3 (alongside its sister radio station, Onda Cero ↗ following its 2001 buyout) still operated as a single channel… operating under a separated autonomy away from then-co-owned Telefe ↗ and Azul Televisión ↗ (the latter had to be sold to Daniel Hadad ↗ due to {{ill|lt=COMFER|Comité Federal de Radiodifusión|es}} concerns while Telefónica retained Telefe and has been later sold to Viacom ↗ which would later become now known as Paramount, a Skydance Corporation ↗. Following Grupo Planeta ↗'s take over of A3/OC, that era caused the conversion of the Antena 3 company into Grupo Antena 3.
::Atresmedia Television is still structured as a division of Atresmedia handing the company's domestic and international television channels. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Verónica Echegui ↗



{{ivmbox
|1=On 25 August 2025, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Verónica Echegui ↗''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

I guess you could have said, are your ears painted on, mate? (usw)



Hi Asqueladd,

There's a (somewhat old-fashioned) Australian slang phase "are your ears painted on?" meaning "I've explained something to you a number of times, but despite this, it appears you have taken no heed of it and you are continuing on as if you never actually listened to what I had previously said."

I hypothesise that if you literally translated this into Spanish and said this to a Hispanophone ↗, they might think you had a roo loose in the top paddock.

That said, I join you in admiration of the Detector de heces de toro ↗. Curiously, it doesn't appear to be in this list ↗. Maybe bullshit detection started much earlier on than this?

Pedro AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That represents the culture of Spain?


{{Collapse AI top}}
I think it's fair to reach a conclusion about what elements Spanish culture represents to the world 👍

I believe that what represents Spanish culture are those basic elements (knowledge, beliefs, art, laws, customs, attitudes, and habits) that markedly shaped the idiosyncrasy and representation of the Spanish nation throughout history and that represent its social evolution. Mainly elements such as the Catholic Christian religion, the Spanish language (Romance), the influence of Rome and later kingdoms such as the Visigothic Kingdom (Germanic) and the Caliphate of Córdoba (Moorish), as well as the customs of the assimilated native peoples of Iberia.

The Spanish monarchy, flamenco dance, Christian pilgrimages and festivals, and bullfighting, which, although criticized or praised, emerged in Spain and shaped the nation, creating a unique identity.
While football, modern urban planning, breakdancing, and current consumerism are elements that are deeply rooted in many Spaniards today, they are not elements that have shaped Spanish identity in a generational and marked way, with their own variations that give it a distinct identity, since they are repeated in a large number of nations in the same way.

They don't necessarily have to be positive elements that represent modern Spanish today, but rather the Spanish nation, its social evolution, and its idiosyncrasy for the world. Examples include the Day of the Dead in Mexico, the Yulinen Festival in China, or the British monarchy in the United Kingdom. Greetings! Lulasaurius (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
{{Collapse AI bottom}}

:{{ping|Lulasaurius}} I would ask you to establish a line of communication in a way that is distinguishable from chatbot slop ↗.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
::I wrote it all in my own words, it's not my problem if you have trouble reading long texts and responding with arguments. Lulasaurius (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I argued my case in the proper venue. You are most probably using a LLM for this interaction (which shouldn't be surprising, given that the "Culture of Foo" set of articles seems to be a magnet for long term abuse accounts abusing from AI slop (just check {{user|EncycloSphere}}'s recent edits on Culture of Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
::::It's a shame, but I don't need an AI to defend my position. I wrote it all in my own words, and I can still argue it. I don't care what others do with the AI ​​and its poor arguments. Can we debate the main idea? Lulasaurius (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Are we going to debate or not? You suggested it when you wrote "returning to statu quo so it can be discussed". Don't waste my time. It's not my problem if you have trouble differentiating a well written user's text from AI made garbage. Lulasaurius (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::I already did in the proper venue. For all the pretense about the originality of your ("unique" and "distinct", ha) way of writing, you cannot read apparently.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::And refrain from writing here again.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

AGF



This edit ↗ of yours says {{tq|does seem to shun the linguistic varieties of the Spanish State}}. This is veering in the direction of Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations ↗. The vast majority of Wikipedians does not know what you do. I suggest adopting an attitude of "don't persecute, educate". Maintaining a collegial working atmosphere is policy ↗, after all. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor ↗</span> (talk ↗) 13:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Paradoctor}} Pardon my poor English (particularly when the edit summary was botched as the edit was somehow made before completing the statement), but when I use "shun" I do not presume intention, so I am certainly not outlining a conspiracy theory on here, nor I am assuming bad faith. {{tq|The vast majority of Wikipedians does not know what you do}} Excuse me, are you interacting by means of the impersonal use of the second person or a you suggesting that the vast majority of Wikipedians is somehow acquainted with my user account?--Asqueladd (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
::"does not know what you do" → "does not know what you do {{em|know}}"
::Sorry about that, I'm used to being WP:TERSE ↗. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor ↗</span> (talk ↗) 13:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

What material is synthesis in the Falangism article



Five years ago you said on Talk:Falangism ↗ that the Falangism ↗ article had synthesis in it but did not say what material in particular was synthesis, could you show which material is that? BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
:I will look into it a give you a preliminary assessment.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1322758710 -->

Season's Greetings



{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | 211px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Asqueladd, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion ↗. Spread the WikiLove ↗ by wishing another user a Merry Christmas ↗ and a Happy New Year ↗, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
Abishe (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|} Abishe (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Overlinking?



Why this edit ↗? There is not a single link to Morocco in the article, even though it is the location of the film. I, for one, would have liked to continue reading about the country from the film page. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
: {{ping|Not Sure}} {{Tq|There is not a single link to Morocco in the article}}. First you should set your facts right. I notice that there is at least one link pointing to Morocco (I don't think it should btw). In addition, as with other cases in the article (Spain, France), as per WP:OL ↗, countries are generally not linked ({{tq|In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:}}
:[...]
:{{tq|Countries}}. I don't think there a lot of diegetic notability to the ''fictional setting'' of the film other than it is set in an quite arid and sparsedly populated place (perhaps in an oblique approach, as in what the director chooses not to show nor explain, but we need secondary sources for that), btw.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:In addition, I don't recall the film being {{'}}''set ↗''{{'}} in Souss-Massa ↗. Could you provide a reliable source for that specific fictional setting? It was {{'}}''shot''{{'}} in Drâa-Tafilalet ↗ and Aragon ↗.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Why are they irrelevant?



Because having random links to every word that has a Wikipedia page is irrelevant and sloppy looking. As if everyone doesn't know what a trance or psychoactive drug is. Why dont you link to "spirits" and "grief" while youre at it? Tyrionn (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Aquí (film)



Hi, i kindly acknowledge your '''many updates '''in film pages related to the 2026 Cannes Film Festival ↗, but please stop reverting sourced updates. It's not the first time you've been acting like the owner of Spanish language films pages (at least with me).

My updates in ''Aquí ↗'' were sourced, as you probably saw before reverting it. Paulo Branco ↗ sole credit as producer through his ''Leopardo Filmes'' should qualify the film as a Portuguese production through MOS:FILMCOUNTRY ↗.

I know we both put a lot of effort in these pages. So it's really disappointing this kind of nonconstructive edits. Martineden83 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Martineden83}} What are you talking about? In what way your edit complies better with MOS:FILMCOUNTRY ↗? The page you cited happens to acknowledge the film as a France-Portugal co-production. That is the sourced edit. Have you been careless in reading the webpage, or are you trying to gaslight me? Paulo Branco is producing through Alfama Films and Leopardo Filmes (two companies he founded), btw.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::::The page clearly puts Alfama Films (the french one) as co-producer. You're clearly the one trying to gaslight me here with your careless reading of the webpage. Martineden83 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Martineden83}} Depending on the source (the one preserved as an inline citation in the production section "''Variety''" establishes verbatim {{tq|“Aqui” is a Franco-Portuguese co-production between Branco’s production houses Alfama Films and Leopardo Films}}). In any case, co-production companies are '''both''' generally added to the film infoboxes in the ''studio'' parametre and underpin the film's countri(es). What is not generally not added to the film infoboxes are "co-producers" (physical people) in the ''producer'' parametre (as per template documentation: {{tq|Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc.}}) and "associated production companies" in the ''studio'' parametre (as per template documentation {{tq|such as those that receive "In Association With" credit, can be mentioned in the body of the article. }}).--Asqueladd (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
{{ping|Martineden83}}, so, as a general rule of thumb for understanding how these parameters ''generally'' relate to what sources typically understand for "film country" (there are exceptions, there are companies with operations in several countries, and there are also poorly made posters), and how they are in turn related to the limits displayed as recommendations in the infobox film documentation:

About the Falangism article again



Hello, last November we talked about the Falangism article and how it has a lot of problems, our conversation ended and we didn't get to a conclusion on what to do regarding the article. You can take a look here to see our earlier conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BlueberryA96#Answer. Upon reviewing what you said and reading up on it I agree that the three separate articles on Falange parties should be separate especially as the FET y de las JONS was a forced takeover and merger of the FE de las JONS, the Traditionalist Communion, and other Spanish political parties by Franco's government.

I wasn't sure if I had seen the word "Falangism" used in texts about the FET y de las JONS, I know that I've seen the word "Falangist" used, so I looked it up on Google Books and the term "Falangism" is used in a number of sources. The problem I see is that there was only four years where a Falangism can be spoken of before Franco established the FET y de las JONS, so having an article on it would likely have most of it repeating what is on the Francoism ↗ article. If a Falangism article is going to focus on only the Twenty-Six Point Program of the Falange ↗ and the previous Twenty-Seven Point Program of the Falange, then that would be very limited, and in that case why not just have the article on that program and not repeat it with another article. National syndicalism ↗ is the ideology that was promoted by all three parties, it originally developed as a proto-fascist ↗ movement in France that spread to Italy, Spain, and Portugal, I think it is better to add to the national syndicalism article.

From my perspective I think it would be better to delete the article Falangism. Whatever can be salvaged from the article that is of good quality can be put on other articles of the three Falange parties involving anything relating to them as well as the Francoism article. The Wikipedia article on national syndicalism has a section on Spain, perhaps content can be added to that about ideology involving the three Falange parties that involves national syndicalist ideology as expressed by those parties. BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
:{{Comment}} Hey, there, {{ping|BlueberryA96}}. My current bandwidth with the topic is somewhat limited. {{tq| there was only four years where a Falangism can be spoken of before Franco established the FET y de las JONS, so having an article on it would likely have most of it repeating what is on the Francoism ↗ article.}} Several things. 1) There is currently no "Francoism" article but an article merging the concepts of the history of Spain from 1939 to 1975 (with serious bias towards ''political'' history), a sketch of the characteristics of the dictatorial regime during that period, and some kind of light approach to an ideological worldview: 'Francoist Spain'. That is arguably another problem. 2) I am not sure whether if focusing on deleting articles is gonna work (and certainly it is not going to work through the prospect of you and me reaching an agreement here). No matter how fraught their approach can be. 3) What I did tell you (IIRC) is that you can write a distinct article about the history of falangism/falangists before and after 1937, the devil is in the details, and the details are the framing, which should be more of the history of a movement or a political identity (and/or perhaps also a cult of personality) rather than an "ideology", which should be subsidiary to the former. 4) I am also skeptical about national syndicalism being a generic ideology related to French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese politics given that I have not read about that like ever (beyond Wikipedia).--Asqueladd (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)