User talk:Ivansevil

Mocedades de Rodrigo

Esperamos que pases buenos momentos en Wikipedia.

Hola. Revertí tus cambios porque lo que estabas cambiando no eran errores. En español en las notas se puede utilizar indistintamente la abreviatura pág./págs. o la abreviatura p./pp. , sin embargo yo prefiero usar el primero porque es más descriptivo. Cuando quieras corregir errores asegúrate antes de que eran incorrecciones, porque en este caso no lo eran. No es necesario que para editar te apuntes a un wikiproyecto ni te registres con un nick, aunque esto último sí es aconsejable para que podamos identificarte al efecto de poder comunicarnos contigo con mayor fiabilidad. Arriba te dejo una serie de enlaces útiles para editar en wikipedia. P.D. Procura mejorar tu escritura y ortografía, es complicado entender tu mensaje. Muchas gracias y de nuevo bienvenido. Un saludo. Escarlati - escríbeme 00:50 12 sep 2007 (CEST)

No sé si me expliqué. No hay problema en que tengas un nivel de español u otro. El problema era muy simple: corregiste supuestos errores que en realidad no lo eran. En las citas de los libros hay una tradición hispánica muy consolidada que es la que yo sigo, y no hay razón para cambiar la abreviatura págs. a pp. Yo prefiero poner págs. y eso está avalado por la Ortografía del español, que puedes ver en el punto 5. También admiten págs. los manuales de bibliografía, como el de Alberto Montaner Frutos, Prontuario de bibliografía, Gijón, Trea, 1999, pág. 188. Ese es un modelo de cita siguiendo la tradición hispánica. Por tanto abstente de corregir algo que está bien escrito, pero no hay ningún problema por tu español. Un saludo. Escarlati - escríbeme 20:55 24 sep 2007 (CEST)

Lapsus

Lo de meter mi página de usuario en las categorías fue un lapsus, que ya corregí. Gracias por el enorme trabajo de revisar categorías. Yo lo hice en la gl.wiki y es muy tedioso, pero espero que lo disfrutes tanto como yo. Sobreira 08:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

64.8.139.123

Please, be bold and warn users when they vandalize! :) As for 64.8.139.123, I can't issue a block at the time. The user needs to continue vandalizing after a final warning has been given within the past 24 hours. So, if the user comes back, take the initiative and warn this user. Please let me know or report the user to WP:AIV if they vandalize past the final warning, or they continue to vandalize for days upon days. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do

You’re absolutely right. I should have put Herrerian under “expand.” Sorry about that. Good job on Clunia, by the way. That page needed a lot of work. For images, you want to use the basic format of Image:Image name|thumb|Caption (but with the brackets around it), so if you want to put a picture of the cathedral, you can put it on the page as Image:KathedraleToledo.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Façade of the Cathedral of Toledo (but with the brackets around it), for example. Thanks! --Polylerus 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatus

After looking at the Library of Congress catalog and Worldcat, it seems to me that most of the scholarly works in English use Commentary. For the Latin, I would note that "Commentaria" can be singular or plural, depending on the declension. If Commentaria is a 1st declension feminine noun, it would singular, if it is 2nd declension neuter, then it would be plural. (To confuse things, at least one work has it as Commentarius, which would be 2nd decl. masculine.) My Latin dictionary is packed away at the moment, so I have no idea which declension it belongs to, but I would suspect that it is 1st decl singular. All of this predicated on Classical Latin. Medieval Latin is different, the rules often changed in unexpected ways. I would leave the Latin alone for the moment.

On the article structure, I did not write an article about the Commentary, because, quite frankly, I'm not qualified. I've never even read it. I do know that it was not a terribly original work, and is more a compendium of other commentaries than anything else. I have studied the illuminations in several of the copies, because they are quite important to art historians. I do feel that in the long run the best thing would be to have separate articles on the the man and the work (and each of the copies, more on that below). If there is a substantial article in another language wiki, and you are up to the translation, please do bring it over.

You ask "alternate" names for Beatus, but I fear you are a bit confused. Beatus is most known for his Commentary on the Apocalypse. However, so far as I know, we have no manuscript in his hand writing, all we have are later copies. The work enjoyed a period of poularity in the "Mozarabic" period in Spain. It was one of the most copied texts of the period, and was often lavishly illuminated. These manuscripts are some of the most important illuminated manscripts from early Medieval Spain and are often called "Beatus" manuscripts and are considered a "type" of manuscript, like a Book of Hours or Gospel Book. Individual manuscripts often don't have universally agreed upon names, but the individual Beatus manuscripts are often named after their current locaton. Thus the Escorial Beatus, Girona Beatus, Morgan Beatus and Saint-Sever Beatus are all individual manuscripts of the text, "Commentary on the Apocalypse" by Beatus (the man). The "Beatus of Facundus" and "Beatus of Tábara" are two more manuscripts that we don't have articles on, yet. The Girona Beatus is also called the "Beatus of Girona", "Gerona Beatus", etc. The Beatus of Paris, of course, is the copy currently in Paris. I hope this clears this up. I hope this clears this up some. Dsmdgold 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user included in architecture categories

I search for the error and I can't find it. At the bottom of my page I am not categorized in any other class but Babel ones. It's true that I have the links to some arch. categories (i.e. islamic arch.), but that shouldn't include me in the list. I've checked the time you find it: my links to architecture are now category:Islamic architecture category:Arab architecture category:Moorish revival architecture category:Iranian architecture but maybe the first time I had an error and wrote [[ for [[: , but now it's corrected. Try refreshing cache. Or maybe problem of browser? Tell me where to find some of this inclusions and I check that better. I wait for your reply whether things still go wrong.

Tell me about that translations, but I am not so good on doing reverse translations (es → en) and not plenty of time, so I'll start with just a bit and then we'll see. It's expected me to be aware of your reply faster if you do it at gl.wiki. Sobreira (parlez) 12:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardo

I can't believe that you found me regarding a comment I made 3 years ago! I put my 2 denarii in at Talk:Cardo. Fishal 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varones apostólicos

Gracias/Thanks. He borrado el esbozo y redirigido al artículo más amplio. También he conectado los dos santos que no lo estaban.--Ángel Luis Alfaro (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar De La Hoya

Ya its amazing how clueless people are here on Wikipedia. Well...thats my job when i'm off i guess.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]