User talk:Iñaki LL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

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

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

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

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

Hello!

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

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

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

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

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This sentence is in the article as of right now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bartolomé Carranza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baztan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Language shift, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catalan and Asturian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited End of Basque home rule in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francisco Serrano. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

End of Basque home rule in France

added links pointing to Enlightenment, Pau, Bearnese and Gascon

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited End of Basque home rule in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reales. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iñaki LL,

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

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

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

Hola!.

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

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

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

Kaixo!.

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

Agur bero bat.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Navarre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dax and Saint-Palais. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramon de la Sota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Direction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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