User talk:TriniMuñoz

Welcome!

Hello, TriniMuñoz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JRSP (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your many contributions to California-related topics. Wikipedia ia a better encyclopedia due to your efforts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to United States dollar. The content has been removed. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{page number}} to the Ediciones de la Presidencia reference, but I wanted to compliment your work on the article other than that oversight. Keep it up. Recognizance (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the pages. I was working from memory, which the Spanish-language article had refreshed. I managed to get a copy of the volume.TriniMuñoz (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. I had decided to leave you a message because I know how much I hate having to track down old references like that for page numbers or other minor details. Guess it was too late to save you the trouble. :) Again, great job with the article. Recognizance (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know your plans at Talk:Columbia before making major changes. In general, disambiguation pages are not alphabetical. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to upset you. Sorry if I did. The page is awkward (because there are so many uses), so improvements are welcome. But because it is complex, we need balance many things. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was just that your edit summary mentioned "coming changes" that were unclear. There's been a lot of work on the page. Fixing the BC thing makes sense, but I don't know what alphabetizing has to do with it. Was truly asking for information, not complaining! be well! (John User:Jwy talk)

Hola TriniMuñoz. He leido varias de tus contribuciones en el area de historia medieval en España, y me han gustado. Existe actualmente una disputa que puedes leer en:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qqtacpn#Last_attempt_to_solve_this_dispute_amicably
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#There_was_no_hoax_-_Please_set_the_record_straight

El problema radica, creo, en que algunas opiniones vertidas provienen de administradores que no saben leer español. Por ejemplo, un administrador dice que no puede verificar la nobleza de una familia porque no sabe lo que es la Sala de Hijosdalgos de la Real Chancilleria de Valladolid. Al no saber castellano, tampoco ha podido leer la Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, o la Gran Enciclopedia Gallega. Otro niega la Batalla de Monforte de Lemos porque no puede leer los capitulos proporcionados. Ademas de libros y articulos, el autor proporciono incluso partidas de defuncion de un antepasado que fallecio en la batalla!

En fin, un jaleo. El (ofendido) autor ha solicitado la retirada de los articulos, y ya no los desea ver publicados. Lo unico que pide es que se retiren las acusaciones de fraude, que considera inmerecidas y dolorosas dado que se niega el asesinato de un antepasado. Con esta intencion, el sufrido amigo incluso ha llegado a colgar 22 documentos que prueban que la acusacion de fraude es injusta: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/

Por favor, podrias aportar tu opinion experta al respecto?

Gracias (Irmandino (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hola 167.206.29.162, Me pides mi opinión, y te la doy francamente: le aconsejaría a tu colega de dejar el asunto. Lo he estado siguiendo y ya he hecho algunos comentarios tangentes, en particular corrigiendo sus traducciones o afirmaciones. No veo la necesidad de demandar a que todos los que pidieron una investigación sobre un posible fraude públicamente declaren que estaban equivocados y pidan disculpas. Si eso fuera el caso, la policía y los jueces jamas investigarían por miedo de tener que disculparse cada vez que las pistas no dan prueba. La sospecha de los administradores era justificada. Los temas de los artículos eran de menor conocimiento en el mundo de habla inglesa (y aún sospecho también en el de habla española) y las únicas fuentes eran primarias en una lengua extranjera y en enciclopedias que solo existen en una docena de instituciones en este país. (He tenido la dicha de consultar la enciclopedia de los García Carraffa hace años como adolescente en una biblioteca universitaria para ver que decía sobre los Muñoz, y encontré que algún Muñoz en siglos pasados aseguro que su nombre surgía de un tal procónsul romano Mummius. Te imaginas la sonrisa que tuve años después cuando descubrí que la etimología establecida y mejor documentada es que es un patronímico y proviene del nombre germánico Munio.) El buscador PARES es un poco confuso de usar—yo intente también con menos éxito que Askari Mark. Con todo esto es comprensible que los administradores se asustaron y tomaron las medidas adecuadas. Todo lo que Qqtacpn ha pedido se ha hecho: los artículos se han borrado y su cuenta reactivada. Ahora pone una más condición para su partida de Wikipedia, la disculpa de todos los que investigaron. Creo que puede actuar con un poco más de decoro y caridad y dejar este asunto, en vez de encontrar desaires en todo lugar. Se que esto suena fuerte, pero es lo que pienso, y hasta ahora he mantenido mi silencio. Se que él tiene sentimientos por un antepasado, pero todos tenemos antepasados matados. Yo desciendo de ambos españoles que mataron e indígenas matados en la conquista de América, de indígenas que mataron en represalias contra los conquistadores y de los colonos matados. Más recientemente soy descendiente de personas que participaron en todos los bandos de las guerras civiles que tristemente afligieron a todos nuestros países ibero-americanos en los últimos dos siglos. Pero no me voy a poner a defender un lado o el otro, o tratar de vengar cada imaginado insulto a su memoria. Más importante e interesante para mi es entender el hecho histórico en su totalidad, y de allí sacarle sentido. Creo que esta no es la respuesta que deseaba, pero le pido tomarla con la sinceridad que se la doy. TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me alegra saber que tu no opinas que fuera un fraude. Vaya fraude trabajoso si no, sacarse las 10 cartas ejecutorias de hidalguia que lista PARES :-)

Deseabamos una respuesta sincera, como has hecho de forma elocuente, no que nos dieras la razon. Muchas gracias (Irmandino (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

P.S.: Creo que vives en NYC. Creo que tenemos intereses academicos comunes, y quiza podriamos vernos para ver si podemos trabajar juntos en algun proyecto. (Irmandino (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No vivo en la ciudad de Nueva York, pero gracias por la invitación. TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Que pena. En otra ocasion entonces. Gracias y un saludo (Irmandino (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Siguiendo tu consejo, espero que te alegre el desenlace :-)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qqtacpn#Apologies_accepted (Irmandino (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

¡Me alegra mucho! All's well that ends well. TriniMuñoz (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I like your changes, and I've updated the legend in the italian article. I have to thank you; I've stolen almost everything you've written about spanish conquest of the Americas. Jalo 23:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primero darte las gracias por la correcion gramatical. Te paso referencias sobre los puntos discrepantes, pero adelante si mejoras la redaccion.

• Weather in Venezuela (inmovilized patriot army by the rain--> desertion), and the disciplined Morillo's army in Caracas (victorious after battle of la Puerta 1818) decidieron a Bolivar cambiar el teatro de guerra hacia Bogota: ¿hay otra explicacion que tu desees añadir?

• Para el (POV), si acusas a Morillo, igualmente no olvides el Terror de la Guerra a Muerte ( War to the Death ) de exterminio de Bolivar [1], ni su despotismo personal.

• Otra cosa, a Bolivar le llamo el congreso peruano (es una fantasia que San Martin ¿¿"leaving Peru under Bolívar's command")??, y te paso libro entero para explicar si Bolivar dudaba o deseaba "to maintain Upper Peru". Thanks--Santos30 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• otro detalle: San Martín tambien hizo caso omiso de la orden de su gobierno de retornar, no invadir el resto de Chile [2]

thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno, te anticipo que tienes un poder de convocatoria y convencimiento muy efectivo. Me extiendo en dos puntos:

• Bolivar, te doy la razon, no es azar, la decisión de atacar a Nueva Granada es, si quieres, brillante, pero igual que Jose de San Martin comprende que en el Alto Peru se perdera la guerra, la idea de atacar Nueva Granada de Bolivar nace tras comprobar que Caracas no podia tomarse. Sin embargo, San Martin, era un militar profesional, no tenia la seduccion de Bolivar, pero como profesional nada dejo al azar, en cambio el ejercito de Bolivar sufrio la inexperiencia militar de Bolivar en el cruce delos Andes. Esos dos detalles son los que pretendo reflejar: el militar (San Martin) y el caudillo (Bolivar).

• El asesinato de Barreiro no es anecdotico como parece, con el se ajusticiaron todos los oficiales realistas rendidos en Boyaca, 38 en total, eso no es causal, pretendo señalar una politica de terror sistematicamente aplicada por los patriotas venezolanos en su "Guerra a Muerte" [3] desde el año 1812, adquirida por Briceño de la revolucion haitiana [4] y conocida, y consentida, por el congreso de Nueva Granada. José Tomás Boves es la cabeza de una brutal reaccion venezolana a esa politica de exterminio patriota. Pablo Morillo es el ejecutor de la justicia ordinaria española sobre el acto criminal del congreso de Nueva Granada, coautor de la "Guerra a Muerte" venezolana, que comienza en la "Campaña Admirable".

Estoy seguro que tu conocimiento gramatico puede redactar esos dos puntos con un equilibrio que no alcanzo a poder ofrecer a la wikipedia en Ingles. A mi me has convencido de ello. Gracias por tu dialogo. Saludos.--Santos30 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT:

The May Revolution (Spanish: Revolución de Mayo) was a week-long series of revolutionary events that took place from May 18 to 25, 1810, in Buenos Aires, capital of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a colony of the Spanish Crown, which contained the present-day nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay. These events are commemorated in Argentina as "May Week" (Spanish: Semana de Mayo). The consequences of the events were that the viceroy, Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros, was ousted from office and a local government, Primera Junta, was instituted on May 25. The May Revolution is considered the starting point of the Argentine War of Independence, although no formal declaration of independence was issued at the time, and in fact the Junta governed in the name of the Spanish king. Similar events occurred in other cities of Spanish South America as news of the dissolution of the Spanish Supreme Junta arrived, and so the May Revolution is also considered one of the starting points of the Spanish American wars of independence.

The May Revolution was a direct reaction to developments in Spain during the previous two years. In 1808 the Spanish king, Ferdinand VII had been convinced to abdicate by Napoleon in his favor, who granted the throne to his brother, Joseph Bonaparte. A Supreme Central Junta had lead a resistance to Joseph's government and the French occupation of Spain, but suffered a series of reverses resulting in the loss of the northern half of the country. On February 1, 1810, French troops took Seville and gained control of most of Andalusia. The Supreme Junta retreated to Cadiz and dissolved itself in favor of a Regency Council of Spain and the Indies. News of this arrived in Buenos Aires in May 18 on British ships bringing newspapers from Spain and the rest of Europe.

Initially Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal the news in order to maintain the political status quo, but he was unsuccessful. With the news of the turn of events in Spain, a group of Criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of notables of the city) on May 22 to decide the future of the viceroyalty. At the meeting it was decided not to recognize the Council of Regency in Spain, to end Cisneros's mandate as viceroy, since the government that appointed him no longer existed, and to establish a junta in his place. In order to maintain a sense of continuity, Cisneros, himself, was initially appointed as president of the Primera Junta, however, this caused great deal of popular unrest, since it ran counter to the reasons his mandate was ended, and Cisneros resigned on May 25. Subsequently the Primera Junta then invited other cities of the viceroyalty to send delegates to it, resulting in the outbreak of war between regions of the viceroyalty that accepted the Buenos Aires junta and those that did not.

Historians today debate whether the revolutionaries truly were loyal to the deposed Ferdinand VII, or whether the declaration of fidelity to the king was necessary ruse to conceal a true desire for independence from a general population that was not ready to accept such a radical change. A formal declaration was issued at the Congress of Tucumán on July 9, 1816.

Thanks for the contribution, I will replace it later. I'm from Argentina, and the spanish article is actually my own work as well, I'm just remaking the same work in english. I have plenty of books but they are all in Spanish; even so, I'm able to check books in english, unavailable at my local libraries, with Google books. I don't link such books because I know Google books is a massive source of copyright violations worse than Napster, but while it still exist, I see no problem in checking it and citing the books the regular way. However, I have yet to find a book that talks about those specific events: all I have found are books that mention the situation in the Spanish South America as a whole, or focused in heroes more known internationally like Bolivar or San Martín. I haven't even read a single mention to either the "Primera Junta" or the "First Junta", only the descriptive "Junta of Buenos Aires" (however, I have confirmed that english sources use "Río de la Plata" instead of "River Plate", so that current usage is right). Not surprising, with the exception of the french Paul Grousacc the biggest ammount of historiographical work related to the May Revolution has been done in Argentina. The detailed accounts, the rescue of related historical documents, discussions about the nature of the "Operations plan" or the origin of the composition of the Junta, it's all written and discussed in Argentina, with little to no international interest in it. So, English sources are used at the general aspects whenever possible, but the body of the article has to be written with high usage of Argentine sources. MBelgrano (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Es muy interesante el periodo de Guerra a Muerte en las revoluciones de Costa Firme, y como ya te dije, la idea del "exterminio" es importada por Antonio Briceño [5] de la revolución de Haití, y queda expresada en el Convenio de Cartagena:

Segundo como el fin principal de esta guerra es el de exterminar en Venezuela la raza maldita de los españoles de Europa sin exceptuar los isleños de Canarias, todos los españoles son excluidos de esta expedición por buenos patriotas que parezcan, puesto que ninguno de ellos debe quedar con vida [6]

Simón Bolívar espera la aprobación del plan de Briceño por el Congreso de Nueva Granada, y entonces proclama después su Decreto de Guerra a Muerte contra los españoles.

Pablo Morillo no puede utilizar el aparato judicial ordinario de Nueva Granada, que son los tribunales de la "Real Audiencia", porque sencillamente han sido eliminados por la revolución patriota, esa es la razón por la que debe encargar al gobernador político-militar de Santa Fé, Coronel Antonio María-Casano, la formación de un tribunal militar, denominado consejo de guerra permanente, para juzgar los delitos de sangre cometidos por los patriotas, y donde afirmativamente sí había un defensor asignado al reo. Es verdad que no hubo indultos para Santa Fé de Bogotá tras la terrible experiencia de Pablo Morillo de indultar al sanguinario patriota Arismendi en la isla Margarita, quien se volvió a levantar y sin dudar pasó a cuchillo toda la guarnición militar española de la isla margarita.

La instalación de tribunales de justicia con militares españoles o la negativa al indulto por el Gen Pablo Morillo en Bogotá no pueden equipararse en ningún caso a los delitos contra la humanidad de exterminio de poblaciones (Genocidio) cometidos por Briceño, por Bolívar y aprobados por el congreso de Nueva Granada (Declaración de Cartagena y Decreto de Guerra a Muerte). Lo único objetivo es que, para la justicia española, los tribunales militares perpetuan el estado de excepción militar-policial, sin embargo es un primer paso para recuperar los tribunales ordinarios de la Real Audiencia. Es una política criticable pero no es un delito contra la humanidad. No es lo mismo.

Posdata:sobre los ejércitos no he comprendido lo que me has querido decir. (editado) --Santos30 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• REPÚBLICAS EN ARMAS. LOS EJÉRCITOS BOLIVARIANOS EN LA GUERRA DE. INDEPENDENCIA EN COLOMBIA Y VENEZUELA. CLEMENT THIBAUD. 2003. Planeta.[7] --Santos30 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the month delay, but I got frustrated after the GA failure and moved to other articles for some time. I have started again to work with the May Revolution, and I have replaced the lead with your suggested one. In respect to your comment, no, so far as I have found the May Revolution is only celebrated in Argentina. The other countries that used to be part of the Viceroyalty have their own historiography and celebrate their own national days, mostly the days when their own cities became independent. For example, Uruguay celebrates the date when the 33 orientales liberated the zone from the Brazilian ocupation in 1825, allowing Uruguay to rejoin the United Provinces. MBelgrano (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audiencia_Real&diff=prev&oldid=376419864 Schwyz (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Audiencia of Cityname for all is ok? No "Real audiencia", no "Royal audiencia"? Schwyz (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Kingdom_of_Granada&diff=prev&oldid=376396913

why should I, if there is a 1:1 relation? What if later people decide to have the article at "Province of Cartagena" (B), instead of Cartagena Province (A) then in the above linked article there is [A|B] linking to B. And one cannot determine from What-Links-Here what is used in texts. Texts can use as link what they have as text if there is 1:1 relation. Schwyz (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WTAF pointer. I find it handy to create the links when I am in the article. When later the article is created it immediately has some incoming links, and also before, I sometimes go to a red page and look into WhatLinksHere, to see associated articles. But if es:WP has nothing, maybe it is better to unlink. For the Audiencia article names I reply later. Saludos Schwyz (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think about ready for good article ? --Santos30 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TriniMuñoz. You have new messages at Cambalachero's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have opened a Good Article review of Spanish American wars of independence. I have some comments, concerns, ideas, etc., but it looks quite good, and I do not foresee turning it down. DCItalk 18:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	My congratulations for your work at the Spanish American wars of independence article. As you may had noticed, I nominated it for good article, and it was recently approved. A deserved recognition to your good work. See you soon! Cambalachero (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish empire have a problem with cross Burgundy Flag.[8] This is a flag of Carlism and late military flag of spaniards. But not a flag of any Spain kingdom or Spanish América kingdoms. Trasamundo and other spaniards support the use of this flag to América in WPes, and here in WPen they start the same with article of Spanish empire. They no have any references in spanish or english to use burgundy flag to empire. Trasamundo delete my contribution to put clear that America was a part of crown of Castile (for the same reason to delete coat of arms castile from America,same as WPes).[9] Please Trini a help. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por la respuesta Trini. Trasamundo sin quererlo refleja en su mapa su propio sesgo nacionalista. La península de su mapa aparece con una única España nacional, cuando a efectos imperiales hay que distinguir el reino de Castilla y el reino de Aragón. Los dominios de ultramar en América y Asia forman parte integrante solamente del reino de Castilla. La primera constitución de un única España sabemos que sucedió en 1812. Pero haciendo caso de tu consejo he tratado de darle soluciones a Trasamundo: 1- poner sólo el símbolo de la cruz de borgoña (no necesita ser una bandera franquista). 2- Corregir su mapa añadiendo los reinos de Castilla y de Aragón, antes de la centralización borbónica en 1700.Mira éste libro interesante. Gracias otra vez--Santos30 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acepto el concejo. Voy a mejorar el mapa no te preocupes, el ponerlo todo de un color ha sido sólo una llamada de atención mas bien, y con un ajuste de colores quedará claro, y se verán Castilla y sus administraciones europeas y de ultramar. Pero es necesario un mapa para discernir claramente el reino de Aragón de América. Porque me he dado cuenta que existe el sesgo nacional español de que creer que los decretos de nueva planta que sometieron el reino de Aragón a las leyes del reino de Castilla serían una unificación de las coronas de España en un solo reino. Pero Indias ya estaba sometida a las leyes de Castilla, y su reconversión colonial viene directamente de la monarquía que aprovechan los reyes borbones. De manera que la unificación de los reinos de España en 1700 es un sesgo nacionalista español, y la mejor prueba es que cuando España se constituye en 1812 como un país unificado se produce ya sí la independencia de América, que no se considera parte de dicho país (hacer un sólo reino unitario de la monarquía era una gran innovación de Cádiz). Todo favorecido por la guerra peninsular.

Las juntas americanas efectivamente rechazaron todos los gobiernos de la península ibérica, pero todos todos, el francés de Bayona y el español de Cádiz. Las juntas americanas rechazaron ambos, y eso es muy importante. Por ello la aparente contradicción de lealtad a Fernando VII no lo es tal en realidad, porque monarquía e independencia no son contradictorias (el ejemplo de Canadá sirve también aquí). Sin embargo, Fernando VII, absolutista, quizo acabar con el liberalismo peninsular y con los liberalismos americanos. Temporalmente consiguió reprimir España, pero la guerra en América le costo la independencia americana, y el triunfo americano del republicanismo trajo la supresión de la monarquía. Voy a tratar de investigar más sobre la autonomía indiana, pero mientras espero te guste este video. Gracias Trini y quito mi mapa de la independencia americana hasta que lo tenga mejorado con esos detalles que hemos comentado.--Santos30 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bien te escribiré. Por de pronto he hecho estos cambios en wars of infependence explico que la debacle española fue en Ocaña y enlazo la cuestión inter caetera a la retroversión de la soberanía, ya que es más académico y efectivamente se trata de una cuestión ideológica y fue mas bien tratado por los ideologos de la revolución americana Monteagudo, Vidaurre y otros.[10] La independencia se resolvió por la vía de los hechos efectivamente, no ideologicamente. Bien visto Trini. Pero, a parte, la verdad es que el estudio de la independencia americana desde el enfoque de el conjunto de América hasta la misma Península ibérica, y del derecho de soberanía alejandrino hasta la constitución de las naciones, pasando por sus hechos de armas, darán al artículo una visión completa del proceso emancipador. Un saludo y felicidades por el ojo de águila. --Santos30 (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ése no me lo he leído me has pillado. Pero hay dos libros sobre lo que pasa en España que me han gustado mucho porque me han hecho conocer los entretelones de la política y gobiernos españoles en las independencias hispanoamericanas. Más que recomendables imprescindibles diría yo. Curiosamente son dos autores anglosajones. 1- Michael P. Costeloe Response to Revolution 2- Timothy E. Anna Spain and the loss of America (español) (Sin vista previa en inglés). Costeloe es más sistemático y Anna profundiza en detalles principales. Te van a gustar mucho estoy seguro.--Santos30 (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Peaceray's talk page.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Châtillon, Hauts-de-Seine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eutropius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bolivian War of Independence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuquisaca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alta California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sierra Nevada. 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) 09:02, 15 July 2014 (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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

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

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

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

Hello. This edit you made appears ambiguous because Corominas authored 2 books with titles of "Diccionario critico": (1) Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico and (2) Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana. It gets more confusing because you stated that your cite was for ISBN 8424913620 and for Vol. A-CA (1), i.e., seemingly a reference to what worldcat codes as "v. 1: A-C". However, only Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico is associated with ISBN 8424913620, but only Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana is associated with a series that includes "v. 1. A-C". It's a bit more complicated yet in that "Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico" was in fact published in 4 volumes also (which, if volume 1 was A-CA (as opposed to A-C), then both the ISBN and the volume number you provided would both then point to the same one work -- which would be good news). The problem with this finding is that it was Corominas's other work ("Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana") the one she authored by herself only, because "Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico" was co-authored with José A Pascual. This is important because in your cite you give only Corominas's name as the author. The significance of this is that, then, your cite would seem to point back to the work that is a mismatch with your ISBN (Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana). That said, there is either an obvious or an apparent ambiguity. Can you give me your thoughts, or otherwise elaborate, as to why the cite you introduced there should stay as is? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. First Corominas is “he.” Joan is a Catalan name. Second, I no longer have access to the multi-volume dictionary—it was in a university library—but it was this one, in the picture, published before ISBN numbers. I only own the 3rd edition of the Breve diccionario now. I also notice now that his last name was spelled Corominas in the books (probably following a Castilian convention) and is spelled here on Wikipedia as Coromines (probably reclaiming a Catalan spelling). Feel free to edit the note as you see best. I was just trying to explain how the second “L” ended up in the word “alcalde.” TriniMuñoz (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Curry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juan de Zumárraga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audiencia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]