Sure, I'd be glad to look it over later tonight. I have to say, I think you're doing a pretty good job so far, and I don't know if I can be of much assistance but I'll do what I can. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-16T23:56:00.000Z","author":"Drmies","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drmies-2009-08-16T23:56:00.000Z-Kingdom_of_Galicia","replies":["c-Drmies-2009-08-17T02:10:00.000Z-Drmies-2009-08-16T23:56:00.000Z","c-Xareu_bs-2009-10-19T17:48:00.000Z-Drmies-2009-08-16T23:56:00.000Z"]}}-->

• You have to decide if you want to go with "Galician" (which is probably the more accepted version) or the more Latinate "Gallaecian." You're the expert; it's your call. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-17T02:10:00.000Z","author":"Drmies","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Drmies-2009-08-17T02:10:00.000Z-Drmies-2009-08-16T23:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Nuninho, the History in the Article of the Kingdom of Galicia doesn´t make any sense. I know it´s been a great amount of work translating from the Galician wiki, but it´s Very biased. First of all, Kingdom of Asturias is not another name for the Kingdom of Galicia. It´s a thoroughly different thing. It´s impossible for the Galician Kingdom (supposing that the Suebic Kigdom was a sort of Kingdom of Galicia, which is going too far) to have survived after the Moors arrived, because the NW of Spain fell (for only a few years) under Muslim Control. After that, and in the EAST corner of Asturias, a merger of Astures, Cantabri and later on Visigoths created a new state, which, and according to the Chronicles, fought the rebellious Galician several times (in times of Fruela and Bermudo,for example). So, we have three facts: the cradle of the Kingdom was a zone who hadn´t belonged to the Suebic Kingdom. The Kingdom called itself Asturorum Regnum. Several kings fought the rebels from the region of Galicia, and then appointed Comtes to control this zone (it´s was also how the County of Portugal was created). Where is the Kingdom of Galicia to be found in this scheme?. And, to end up, the chronicles state the date of Conquering of Lugo, Tuy, Braga, and so on. Conquering.Do you get it?. The sources are first hand Chronicles of that period, being the main source of reference also in the English speaking Historical Studies, and not articles written by nationalist biased teachers in Galicia. Please read the article for the Kingdom of Asturias in Spanish or English. The Chronicles are also in the web.Best regards.--Xareu bs (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-19T17:48:00.000Z","author":"Xareu bs","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xareu_bs-2009-10-19T17:48:00.000Z-Drmies-2009-08-16T23:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Xareu_bs-2009-10-22T10:01:00.000Z-Xareu_bs-2009-10-19T17:48:00.000Z"]}}-->

I´ve left a post at the discussion page for this article. Also, please check the people who created the French and Portuguese versions. You may come to a surprise. You´re right, I´ve contributed my best in the articles of the Kingdom of Asturias, but this work is based on several academic books I´ve read which covered the Chronicles. If you read the Kingdom of Leon or Castile articles (on which I have taken no part), you may see that the vision is quite the same. But, if you find a piece of research stating the contrary with Data, I´ll have no trouble at all in changing the article. But for me (a personal view, not wikipedian), the former version was a delirant interpretation of the History. If you read about the History of the County of Portugal, you won´t find much about this supposed Kingdom. Obrigado and regards,--Xareu bs (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-22T10:01:00.000Z","author":"Xareu bs","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Xareu_bs-2009-10-22T10:01:00.000Z-Xareu_bs-2009-10-19T17:48:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Moved to Christopher Columbus talk section. --Zeamays (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-09T12:23:00.000Z","author":"Zeamays","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Zeamays-2009-09-09T12:23:00.000Z-Columbus_article,_why_\"Crown_of_Castille\"","replies":[]}}-->

Why did you change everything to Castile? When Ferdinand and Isabella united Aragon, Castile and Navarre, they were known as monarchs of "the Spains". Certainly Carlos V (their grandson) was known as Carlos I of *Spain*, not of Castille.

Please provide references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-13T23:57:00.000Z","author":"Tarlneustaedter","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tarlneustaedter-2009-09-13T23:57:00.000Z-Hernan_Cortes_article,_why_\"Crown_of_Castille\"","replies":[]}}-->

Ok Nuninho, You made your point, and I accept it (and thank you for the text of the treaty). Although I have a feeling that Spanish people may have some issues with it. Now I lack the time for, but soon should investigate on their view of it. Greetings--Uxbona (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-14T23:40:00.000Z","author":"Uxbona","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Uxbona-2009-09-14T23:40:00.000Z-Crown_of_Castile","replies":["c-Trasamundo-2009-09-16T20:30:00.000Z-Uxbona-2009-09-14T23:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

I have seen with astonishment the last changes that you are doing, removing the word Spain and replacing it by Crown of Castile. I have seen in several pages of discussion that you have edited, that you use arguments as «Catholic Monarchs never have the title: "Spanish kings or Kings of Spain"», «the Teatry of Tordesillas never was signed by ""Spanish kings" no one word about "Spain"», «until 18th there were diferent laws in diferent Crowns, and also coins were diferents, and the Courts were diferent too.» However, such arguments are contrary to Wikipedia policy of WP:ORIGINAL: «All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors» and WP:SYNTHESIS: «Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources».

I am not going to enter into discussion about on how you assimilate Spain with centralism, nor how you extract countries from honorific titles. Simply to indicate that your changes are based on your own interpretation and they and do not correspond to the secondary sources, and because of it such changes will be reverted or corrected, as examples:

Here [1]:

• You changed «In March 1519, Cortés formally claimed the land for the Spanish crown.» into «In March 1519, Cortés formally claimed the land for the Crown of Castile.», but the secondary source says: [2] «In 1523, for instance, the Spanish crown, in capitulating...» [3] «The Spanish Crown eventually imposed administrantive order on the unruly conquistadores and brought peace to its colonies». [4] «When Cortés arriven in Cuba, the Spanish crown awarded him an encomienda [...] In 1542 the Spanish crown adopted the Leyes Nuevas...»

• You changed «Cortés managed the founding of new cities and appointed men to extend Spanish rule to all of New Spain» into «Cortés managed the founding of new cities and appointed men to extend Castilian rule to all of New Spain», but the secondary source says: [5]: «Cortés was strongly urged by some of his officers to establish the locus of Spanish rule away from the centrer of the Aztec capital»

• You changed «bishop Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca, chief of the Spanish colonial department,» into «Bishop Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca, chief of the Castilian colonial department», but the secondary source says: [6] «Fonseca, bishop of Burgos, the chief person in the Spanish colonial department».

Here [7]:

• You changed «was a Spanish conquistador, conqueror of the Incan Empire» into «was a famous conquistador of the Crown of Castile, conqueror of the Incan Empire», but the secondary source says: [8] «the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro had learned of a rich and powerful Incan empire»

• You changed «he was forced to confront the Punian natives in the Battle of Puná, leaving three Spaniards dead» into «he was forced to confront the Punian natives in the Battle of Puná, leaving three Castilians dead», but the secondary source says: [9] «A battle was the inmediate consequence; and the hanf ful of Spaniards defeated several thousand Puná warriors»

• You changed «established the first Spanish settlement in Peru» into «established the first Castilian settlement in Peru» but the secondary source says: [10] «the first Spanish settlement in Peru, San Miguel de Piura, was founded in August.»

• You changed «Atahualpa, however, refused the Spanish presence» into «Atahualpa, however, refused the Castilian presence», but the secondary source says: [11] «Atahualpa did not believe Pizarro and the Spaniards were gods or divine beings [...] Atahualpa sent back word refusing the Spanish presence in his land...»

Here [12] [13]

• You changed «To return to Spain eastward against this prevailing wind» into «To return to Crown of Castile eastward against this prevailing wind» , but the secondary source says: [14] «on his return to Spain, in his second voyage in 1494»

• You changed «After spending more than one week in Portugal, he set sail for Spain.» into «After spending more than one week in Portugal, he set sail for Castile.» , but the secondary source says: [15] «When he failed in Portugal he turned to Spain»

• You changed «the Taino engaged in mass suicide, even killing their own children to save them from the Spaniards» into «the Taino engaged in mass suicide, even killing their own children to save them from the Castilians.», but the secondary source says: [16]: «Treachery, kidnapping rape, torture, enslavement, and murder were common. Some Taino not killed outright by Spaniards chose suicide.»

• You changed «Before returning to Spain,» into «Before returning to Crown of Castile», but the secondary source says: [17]: «In the year 1496, Columbus returned to Spain»

• You changed «lobbied against Columbus at the Spanish court,» into «lobbied against Columbus at the Castilian court», but the secondary source says: [18] «Columbus in Spain [...] none of the nobles of the Spanish court woul have been likely ...» [19] «his many letters to the Spanish Court remained unacknowledged»

Here [20]

• You changed «was a Spanish novelist» into «was a Castilian novelist», but the secondary source says: [21] [22] «Spanish novelist»

Other secondary sources:

• [23]: «'Spanish imperial policy. After Cortés had destroyed the power of the Aztecs, Spain laid claim to vast territories. Francisco Pizarro, also from Spain, conducted a similar conquest of the Inca in Peru. The Spanish crown set up two two administrative centers [...] Spanish administrators believed the purpose of colonies was to profit the mother country. They melted down irreplaceable ancient art into gold bars and shipped them to Spain. A number of Spanish adventurers tried to repeat the successes od Cortés and Pizarro...»
• [24]: «Under more orderly and legalistic circumstances, no small number of Indian women and young females fell under the control of Spanish conquistadors in New Spain. Indians who accepted Spain's "right" to rule them under terms of the Requierement (1512) were protected by law as free vassals»
• [25]: «The Spanish monarchs urged Columbus to develop items of trade for export to Spain in order to develop the island's economy».

As it can be seen, the secondary sources use the word Spanish without problems, so there is no reason to delete it systematically as if it were a bot. This does not deny that the word Castilian can be used, but the absolute and obsessive elimination of the word Spanish is something that is not a fruit of WP:V but of personal and original research, because of it such articles drop being encyclopaedic and they become a game of taboo or guessing the forbidden word. Anyway, about the opinion that Spain does not exist until the nineteenth century, the Dutchmen rebels would not agree with that, since in 1581 they abjured the King of Spain («Coninck van Spaegnien») [26] Trasamundo (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-16T20:30:00.000Z","author":"Trasamundo","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Trasamundo-2009-09-16T20:30:00.000Z-Uxbona-2009-09-14T23:40:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nuninho_Martins-2009-10-05T17:54:00.000Z-Trasamundo-2009-09-16T20:30:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sorry for my delay, and thanks for your answer Trasamundo. You´re right, although primary sources talk never about "Spanish Crown", "Spanish Catholic Kings" or "Spanish Empire", Wikipedia has other laws and everybody -and me-, must respect it. I agree totally, secondary sources in English language speaks about "Spaniards" and "Spain" and only sometimes about "Castilians" and "Castile". I will agree with you about your changes in these articles. Obrigado, and best regards.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-05T17:54:00.000Z","author":"Nuninho Martins","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Nuninho_Martins-2009-10-05T17:54:00.000Z-Trasamundo-2009-09-16T20:30:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Please stop replacing "Spain" with "Catholic Monarchs". (a) your edits are grammatically very poor - e.g. "Catholic Monarch's". (b) while you are technically correct, English language historians commonly refer to this entity as Spain. You quote (at length) a Spanish reference but this is an English language Wikipedia. e.g. see [27] for a work which is happy using Spain/Spanish after 1492. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-15T21:29:00.000Z","author":"The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-The_Red_Hat_of_Pat_Ferrick-2009-09-15T21:29:00.000Z-Spanish_Empire","replies":[]}}-->

Hello Nuninho. Recently you've created a nice (though very laconic) stub about an Galician clergyman. Could you add at least one reference there? Is that Agrestius of Lugo? --Vejvančický (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-27T21:28:00.000Z","author":"Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd-2009-10-27T21:28:00.000Z-Agrestius","replies":[]}}-->

The same case at Gladilanus, please add references for verification. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-27T21:50:00.000Z","author":"Jujutacular","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jujutacular-2009-10-27T21:50:00.000Z-Agrestius","replies":["c-Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd-2009-10-27T21:54:00.000Z-Jujutacular-2009-10-27T21:50:00.000Z"]}}-->

I've added the reference to the article. Nuninho, you seem to be more familiar with that topic and you should add references to each of your new articles, it's not so difficult. I've also created Category:Galician clergy, it could be useful for better orientation. Please, respond at my talk page, not at my user page. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-27T21:54:00.000Z","author":"Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd-2009-10-27T21:54:00.000Z-Jujutacular-2009-10-27T21:50:00.000Z","replies":["c-The_ed17-2009-10-27T23:57:00.000Z-Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd-2009-10-27T21:54:00.000Z"],"displayName":"user page"}}-->

Yes, please provide at least one reference to prove these aren't hoaxes... —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-27T23:57:00.000Z","author":"The ed17","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-The_ed17-2009-10-27T23:57:00.000Z-Vejvan\u010dick\u00fd-2009-10-27T21:54:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ed"}}-->

[28] ? Those aren't references... —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-28T00:07:00.000Z","author":"The ed17","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-The_ed17-2009-10-28T00:07:00.000Z-Agrestius","replies":[],"displayName":"Ed"}}-->

On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saint Gonzalo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-11-09T05:14:00.000Z","author":"Jake Wartenberg","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jake_Wartenberg-2009-11-09T05:14:00.000Z-DYK_for_Saint_Gonzalo","replies":[],"displayName":"Jake"}}-->

I have asked for outside opinions in Crown of Castile, the question is Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715? I am notifying you because you have made non-trivial edits to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-11-12T12:04:00.000Z","author":"Enric Naval","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Enric_Naval-2012-11-12T12:04:00.000Z-need_outside_opinions_in_Crown_of_Castile","replies":[]}}-->

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-24T14:06:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2015-11-24T14:06:00.000Z-ArbCom_elections_are_now_open!","replies":[]}}-->