User talk:ElBufon

Welcome!

Hello, ElBufon, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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! Laurinavicius (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Callao

Hola! Me ha producido una gran alegría ver que por fin alguien revisa el artículo del Combate del Callao (Battle of Callao) y lo limpia de la tremenda falta de neutralidad que ostentaba (en gran medida fomentada por Cloudaoc). Intenté dialogar con él, pero como si estuviera hablando a una pared. Te quería comentar una cosa. En el apartado "Bajas" ("Casualties and losses") de la Escuadra se dice: 3 damaged frigates. Lo primero es que esto es rotundamente falso. La "Villa de Madrid" y la "Berenguela" tuvieron que abandonar la línea de fuego (disparando mientras lo hacían); la "Almansa" se mantuvo al margen lo justo para apagar un incendio y volvió al combate. La "Almansa" junto con el resto de la Escuadra se fueron una vez finalizada la batalla. Por tanto, sólo dos buques sufrieron daños significativos. Lo segundo es que, ¿en qué artículo sobre un combate naval se contabiliza un buque dañado como "baja"? En ninguno. Los buques se contabilizan así cuando son hundidos o capturados, pero nunca cuando abandonan el combate por su propio "pie". ¿Acaso en una batalla terrestre cuando un regimiento se retira es baja? No, lo es si mueren o son heridos. Tras la batalla de Trafalgar muchos barcos se hundieron por los graves daños que sufrieron, pero no son bajas del combate porque sobrevivieron a éste, su hundimiento se produjo después. Por todo ello, creo que es hora de retirar esa información falsa del infobox. Un saludo. Durero (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saludos, las modificaciones realizadas por ud. señor ElBufon se basan principalmente en una fuente que entran en total contradicción con los testimonios neutrales del combate en cuestión y que coinciden con el relato peruano, como bien indicara un editor en la pagina de discusión del combate del 2 de Mayo, yo no he contado con el tiempo suficiente como para revisar todos los articulos que tengo bajo observacion pero este sin duda va a ser revisado y restaurado en su totalidad, tal y como indicara en la talk page del articulo en discusión, lo cual implica la eliminación de la fuente que ud. ha utilizado como fuente casi unica del articulo, eliminando sin explicación alguna las fuentes de origen peruano e ignorando fuentes neutrales como el testimonio del Comodoro Rodgers, testigo in-situ del combate. Espero su comprensión y total colaboración en este punto. Saludos--Cloudaoc (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

The articles on the Capture of Bahia and the Recapture of Bahia are very interesting! As a Dutch history lover, i had never even heard of these battles. Very interesting! Omegastar (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan Expedition

Looks good! I've made a few minor (I hope!) changes, fixing / adding wikilinks and putting in a couple of section headers, to give the article a lead section. It would be good to know something more about the expedition's members -- did it have a leader? who was Charles Hall? -- and a few more references would help, but the article's fine. Jimmy Pitt talk 08:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan Expedition (1780)

I've just realised this was the article I tagged, not the other one! I'll have a look through it and fix anything that looks wrong -- it's mainly a matter of a couple of slightly awkward expressions: I think you understate your capability in English; it's rather better than "intermediate". Jimmy Pitt talk 08:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cartagena de Indias

Ante todo gracias por todas tus aportaciones. Si quieres y tienes tiempo pásate por la Batalla de Cartagena de Indias porque un inglés está manipulando todos los datos a su favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by History6969 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent additions of Spanish language reference sources to this article. If you have more reliable sources in published works on this please add them and their information. Also, do you by any chance have access to this: "Narración de la defensa de Cartagena de Indias contra el ataque de los británicos en 1741", publicado por Cristóbal Bermúdez Plata en Sevilla (1912)? It appear like it could be very helpful. Unfortunately I cannot read spanishTttom1 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gibraltar (1621)

Creo que esta batalla está mal redactada. En 1621 Don Fadrique de Toledo derrotó a una flota holandesa, pero... ¿No fue cerca del Cabo de San Vicente? (Eso es lo que dice en la biografía de Don Fadrique de Toledo en la que veo que también has participado). La batalla de Gibraltar (según la biografía) tuvo lugar en 1623. "He gained several victories against the Dutch, in 1621 near Cape Saint Vincent and Gibraltar in 1623..." O la batalla está mal redactada, o lo está la biografía. Gracias por tu trabajo. History6969 (talk • contribs) 2:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Flores (1591)

Hey there, I've marked your article as patrolled. The article qualifies for a WP:DYK, do you want me to submit one? You will still get credit as the creator. If you prefer, you can submit it yourself too. If you don't know how to, I can guide you. Bejinhan talks 14:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've submitted it here. If it gets through, you'll receive a notice crediting you for it. :) Bejinhan talks 03:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a DYK for the Battle of Pinos here. I saw through your contribs that you've been creating a number of Spanish military articles. Great job! DYKs are always good for readership reasons. A DYK appears on the Main Page which receives over a million views per day. But for an article to qualify for DYK, it has to be nominated after being created(or expanded 5x) within 5 days and the it has to have 1,500 characters. So as a suggestion, if you think an article you're creating can reach 1,500 characters, would you like to create it first in a sandbox and then move it so that the article can be nom for DYK before the 5-day limit expires? Bejinhan talks 04:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings! I would like to congratulate you for your magnificent work on Spanish military-related topics. Your articles are great, interesting, well-sourced and it is a great pleasure for me to read them. It is so nice when a person is trying to fight anti-Spanish nonsense and is using neutral approach for Spanish-related articles. Please go on the same way. Cordial saludos desde Bulgaria!!! --Gligan (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an award I think you deserve:

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to ElBufon for is outstanding and sourced work on Spanish-related battles and wars. Continue in the same spirit ...y ¡que viva España! --Gligan (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Pinos

On 16 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Pinos, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Flores (1591)

On 18 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Flores (1591), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

Courcelles 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardments of Algeria

Ante todo y nuevamente buen trabajo por todos tus artículos. Quería saber si tienes información detallada sobre los Bombardeos Españoles de Argel de 1783 y 1784. Si es así te animo a crees los respectivos artículos. Un saludo máquina y sigue así. History6969 (talk • contribs) 5:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Castelnuovo

I would have liked to give Siege of Castelnuovo a B-class rating, but there are a couple of problems. If you want, I can clean up the grammar. Let me know. But I don't have time at the moment. It's a nice article. Djmaschek (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. If there are any unclear sentence or additional problems with the references, tell it to me, please. ElBufon (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manzanillo

Yes, i had suspected the reported casualty numbers were a bit high. This source [[1]] states their were 3 spanish dead and 14 wounded. I've been meaning to do some work on the Manzanillo battles for a while, but have been busy with other projects. What source did you get your casualty numbers from? Some times there are discrepencies between sources in the number of dead due to some sources counting Died of Wounds cases as wounded instead of KIA. As for being decisive, the battle basically cleared the last Spanish naval units from the area and so it could be considered decisive from a naval standpoint. The elimination of the Spanish naval units was the primary concern of Marix's forces at manzanillo.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source [[2]] also states there were 3 dead and 14 wounded on the spanish side, and the source uses spanish accounts as its basis. Most sources state a total of 10 spanish vessels were sunk, burnt, or beached. One of these may have been a merchant vessel, the Purisima Conception. If you would like to collaborate on this article, i think there is enough materiel to get this to GA status at least with a bit of work. An order of battle section could be added and the article lengthened.XavierGreen (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources do list the vessels you have mentioned but also add the following and three transports/steamers the Purisima Conception, Jose Garcia, and the Gloria. These may have been merchant vessels or auxiliary ships taken into spanish service i am uncertain but most english sources list them are they mentioned in the spanish sources? Also some sources state the gunboat Centinela was there as well, she had been refloated after being sunk in the first battle. Most of the information in the infobox was not what i had originally added, no source i have read states there were more than 10 Spanish vessels of all types at Manzanillo. With the six vessels you have mentioned + Centinela and the three transports would be consistant with the 10 vessels mentioned in the official American naval reports.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah very nice! So it seems that we can regard the official American naval reports and modern english sources as reliable since they coincide with the Spanish accounts of the battle. Non-offical reports and accounts from the 1890's and 1910's will have to be replaced then. The only discrepincy that remains appears to be the casualty numbers, one possible source of that could be that the modern english sources include Spanish civilians in their numbers. Do the Spanish sources list any civilian casualties apart from the military ones?XavierGreen (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you can locate the name of the name of the Spanish officer commanding the forces at Manzanillo, I am unable to locate it though i do have the names of several of the commanders of the individual vessels engaged.XavierGreen (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the reports of the American comanders at the engagement state that only light resistance was made by the gunboats, but that the firing from shore at one point became quite fierce. The official statements by the American CO's can be read here [[3]]. Reports from the same source also state that the American commanders wanted an armoured ship sent to reinforce them before their attempt at the third battle because their previous two attempts at the harbour were met with such fierce resistance.XavierGreen (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Cardenas

So American reports of the engagement were completely made up, that doesn't make sense.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have taken a few minutes to look around and I have found no information (other than the "Boys of '98" book) regarding USS Wilmington on May 12, 1898. That is not to say the engagement did or did not occur, I just think that until at least one other source can be found, the "Bombardment of Cardenas" article should be deleted, just to be safe. I have looked over a few different lists of the actual reports made by American naval commanders in the war and I did not find even one that mentions a bombardment of Cardenas on May 12. I do not know how to go about deleting an article, maybe you do, if so, (as the creator if the page), you have my approval to delete it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I wish I had not created that article. See ya.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I'll check out that link right now.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is pretty simple, I added the "((subst:proposed deletion))" thing to the article so in seven days, if no other user objects, the article should be deleted.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Action of 25 April 1898

On 5 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 25 April 1898, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinch Island War

So far both the Capture of Paquete page, and the the article about the ship itself says the ship was unarmed and there was no fighting. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was armed with two guns and was a ship of the Chilean fleet. The article of the Paquete de Maule also gave two guns before its edition by an anonymous IP. Its capture was considered at that time similar in importance to that of the Convadonga, so I think the article should not be deleted. ElBufon (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Action of 13 June 1898

On 12 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 13 June 1898, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Badajoz (1658)

On 25 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Badajoz (1658), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Action of 18 February 1639

Good job on expanding that article also should you still have problems with my editing please let me know on my talk page, thanks. Catsclaw (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:tercios

Hey, acabo de leer tu mensaje..ya te diré algo, por ahora sigo estando 'offline', pero eso no me impide entrar y chafardear un poco. He visto tus últimos artículos "publicados" y son la 'repanocha'. ps. me ha dado por crear el del fuerte delfín. Saludos Pietje96 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Siege of Badajoz (1658)

The article Siege of Badajoz (1658) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Siege of Badajoz (1658) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the article a thorough copy edit as required by the reviewer and it has now passed on all GA criteria. All that's required now, I believe, is for you to read through the article once more and try to make sure that I haven't messed anything up or got anything factually wrong. If the article looks okay to you, let the reviewer know.

There are a couple of points on the article discussion page I have made which you should look at, but it should be pretty straightforward. It's an interesting article. Good luck. Richard asr (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination for Siege of Castelnuovo

Hey ElBufon. I will review your GA nomination for Siege of Castelnuovo either today or tomorrow. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I reviewed the article (Link). I hope you find my comments useful. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have passed the review. Well done! Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Gibraltar reference

A few years ago you inserted a ‘Mont’ reference in the article, but I could find no Mont author in its bibliography. There are Monti and Montero authors. Because of the p. 133 number, I presume it is Monti. Could you confirm, please?

— Lgfcd (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I like the approach to your different articles. Would you like to connect by email? Mine is rlacayos@gmail.com, please send me a note if you would like to do so. I am an economist who sees history as an important determining factor. I’m also an honorary member of the Academia de Geografía e Historia de Nicaragua. (AGHN) Ralacayo200 (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]