Ilyacadiz

Just wanted to drop a line expressing my admiration for your level of courtesy and civility in resolving conflicting viewpoints. Stumbled on one of your exchanges after a few hours doing some browsing on controversial issues, and it was a much-needed welcome change.

So, for as much as it is worth it, kudos from a completely random stranger (as you notice, not even registered ;))!

(Since I probably won't manage to end up on this page again, feel free to delete this message once received :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Just letting you know that I reported the vandal adding hoax figures to articles like Algeria and the IP is now blocked for one month. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Casa Blanca Abdillah bahiya (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moroco Abdillah bahiya (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Abdillah bahiya Abdillah bahiya (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just want to state that I consider removing Spanish as an official language is a mistake. Spanish is still in used in Republica Arabe Saharawi, and the Frente Polisario uses Spanish in all its communications. By the way, Frente Polisario is an anacronym from Spanish. I wonder why they prefer to use Spanish and not Arabic, English or French. Based in the following from you "... My reasoning: Arabic is the only official language in both Morocco and for the Polisario Front, so whatever the outcome of the dispute, it would be considered the official language of the territory", shows to me that there is a lack of research and therefore this information is not accurate and does not reflect the reality of language use in RASD. On the other hand, Spanish is still taught in schools by volunteers and Spanish-speaking saharawies who want to preserve it.RASD looks for recognition in Latin America and they have sent representatives who speak and communicate in Spanish only. I think this is a very important fact that add some value to the language topic in RASD.

It is true that you asked for feedback and nobody replied back with information. Then, I understand you had to take the decision yourself.

I want to request a change about language status, and ask you to add Spanish at least as a second language spoken in the RASD.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niconinis (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

hello Niconinis, I think we should debate about this on the Western Sahara page - see you there.

 

A tag has been placed on Användardiskussion:Njaelkies Lea, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. T L Miles (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you try to write me something? :) You can contact me at User talk:Njaelkies Lea. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There was a link on my page which led to the wrong place, so the mess above is my fault, sorry. It should work now. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have requested for him/her to be blocked. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The admin gave the user a 24h block, I'd probably have made it permanent on svwiki but if the user comes back with the same types of edits it probably will be. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just saw it, they were quick. I'm sorry for the guy, but there was really no reasoning behind. I've checked his contributions, he made a few in Berber languages some months ago, putting figures far too high for Berber speakers in Morocco, but the bad thing is that he just replaced the figures attributed to The Ethnologue (and sourced thereto) without changing the attribution or the source, so it was not original research - which is something understandable - but more like a false statement: you had to go to the source to find out that The Ethonologue gives 3 million, not 12 million speakers for Tashelhiyt... So a permanent block would make sense --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please read the Archives of the discussions. A consensus for approach was reached aboout material that contradicts the great body of scientific evidence about Uranium and how it can affect the human body. I hope you find it useful to read.Starkrm (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please, Starkrm, could you tell me at which moment this consensus was reached? There are 10 former archives of the discussion and although I've tried to look there, reading through would take a lot of hours. Can you tell me the archive or month? I'll read it. Anyhow, let me reply that I find it odd that news material from a trustworthy source should not be published in a Wikipedia article when it contradicts the mainstream studies. That would amount to reduce Wikipedia information only to scientific mainstream information - something that is definitely NOT foreseen by WP:Neutrality. I quote: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Of course we do not give the Basra's pysicians view or the Boston Globe article the same weight than the opposite view, that would be unfair. But to ban it is not neutrality.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

My objection is to avoid having a section in a scientific article titled "Unstudied <whatever>" The artice has a health effects section and the same information could be included there. As you can see, by the sudden editing by anonymous IP, the article is contentious, (Did I spell that correctly?) and has a history of back and forth editing. The consensus was that information that contradicted decades of scientific study should meet strict standards to be included. Does that sound unreasonable to you?Starkrm (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, your recent edit to Gulf War syndrome and soldier complaints is actually on the topic of civilian epidemiology. Also the preceding paragraph to your edit regards the 2003 Shock and Awe dispersal of tons of depleted uranium in Baghdad (also unrelated to gulf war soldiers). I currently do not have a suggestion on how to make the fix. Admittedly, I am timid regarding the heavy handed deletes and reverts by the self proclaimed "Health Physict" [sic]. - Steve3849 ^talk 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree - it's not the best way to fix it, but Starkm seems to be very opposed to keep the subsection as it was. I'm no expert in DU and I don't feel ready to engage in an edit war on this. You encouraged me to start... (and other people added much better sources than I did). The current version is an attempt to keep the information without upsetting Starkm. Not the best solution, I agree. Maybe we should change the header of the section from Gulf War syndrome and soldier complaints to Gulf War effects, which would include both civilian and military complaints? Should we propose that? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it needs its own section really, more epidemiologically focussed. Not just one war effort, or city. I read back through some of the Archive, some of which is informative about DU, but most of which is informative about the many editors, enough so that I am rapidly losing interest in the article. I originally had an interest in editing the artice because I percieved it as a NPOV problem, but now I think that although most people seem to care to some degree about neutrality, there is a wide range of ideas about what neutrality is. Starkm is making it fairly clear that editors that choose to dominate the article see those who are worried about depleted uranium and its uses are most likely politically motivated, whereas those who are not worried are neutral. Much of the Archives that I skimmed share this sentiment. I did not however come close to reading all of it. One of the editors who had a clearly left leaning bias was quite inappropriate (perhaps even bonkers) and was banned from the article. This history certainly does not help in any attempt to correct its recent generally rightist stance. - Steve3849 ^talk 18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

So what do you propose? Just leave is at it is for the moment being, until some medical authorities come up with a really broad study? Go on discussing? I suppose I don't qualify as being neutral for Starkrm... (probably I couldn't help being a little anxious if I was living in Basra and getting pregnant). And then I don't understand the reason of asking for a peer-reviewed study to include even a mention: if there was indeed a peer-reviewed study indicating a clear effect of DU on newborns, wouldn't this come right on top of the article or even in the lead? But I must say that I'm much more used to political pages in Wikipedia, and there, rules are clear: if the Boston Globe runs a story about, let's say, how the CIA finances guerrilla groups in eastern Iran, according to militiamen, and the White House issues a denial (that's entirely ficticious!), nobody would ask me to delete it until a peer-reviewed study has proven the transfer of money. So I can't see what's different when the Boston Globe runs a story about how baby malformations increased in Basra, according to health professionals (and nobody has issued a denial). But then the rules for scientific articles might be different? Is there such a thing as different rules according to the subject? You might know more about that than me. Anyhow, if you think we should go on trying to put the subsection back as such, I'll do my best. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reason for expecting peer-reviewed, or science focused material is arbitrary and stated as necessary only as a convenient tool for the more important goal of staying in control of what enters the article. The article is not strictly scientific because of the grossly human use. Thousands of tons of the metal dispersed in civilian areas is a non-scientific situation. There are also the political and psychological aspects of war. Politics and psychology are intrinsic to the article. That an article whose subject matter crosses deeply over into the subject of culture makes a scientific mandate not only ridiculous, but absolutely unethical. It is an article that could be included in a medical wikipedia work group, a political work group and an ethics work group for reasons based on current references. Because of the military use of DU science is no longer the core of the topic, it should be shared as a humanity as well.

Also, wikipedia can be anonymous. Identity with a specialty does give merit, but is not required. Being a scientist is not a requirement for participating in this article. The military industrial complex has taken care of that. So, my suggestion? You don't want to hear it: give up, because after you find him a shrubbery, he'll then expect another as well as cutting down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. If you want to keep editing because your conscience beckons trust your own judgment and always include referenced sources. Avoid sites that have a political tone as references. Usually sites like Common Dreams are posting articles from more neutral sources anyway. Common Dreams specializes in gathering articles on selected topics from a variety of other sources which works fine for an interested reader, but for the wikipedia reference it should be the original source. The article may not be searchable directly on google, but going to the original news site and searching their archive with carefully selected keywords usually is fruitful. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm not too eager to go there alone... but maybe I'll try. Common Dreams is not the site I would like to link to, but I got the impression that some newspaper archives are not online or only for paying subscribers, so it is better to include a Common Dream reference - where the original source is noted and should be supposed as authentic, not manipulated - than a link which doesn't work. I'll review that anyhow. For the moment being, if they don't delete the material such as it is now, however unconvincing the position under the "soldier" header, maybe I'll let as it is, while searching for more sources. At least, a reader gets the hint that there is a debate, actually.

I'm curious as to what impression you think someone will get when using a search engine to search for Depleted Uranium? Wikipedia is the first link. What impression would someone get who is looking at the article right now? To me, considering the real studies that have been done, the article over states the risks. The truth is that there is a movement to mis-represent what Uranium can do. There are people with good intentions, even smart people, who are easily deceived. (Did I spell that right? I'm a little nervous about my spelling right now.) Read this website - http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml#q8 and find this quote "Since the advent of the nuclear age, there has been widespread use of uranium involving the mining of uranium ore, enrichment, and nuclear fuel fabrication. These industries have employed large numbers of people, and studies of the health of working populations have been carried out. The main risk to miners, and not just those involved in uranium mining, comes from exposures to radon (mainly Rn-222) gas and its decay products. A study of miners who worked in poorly ventilated mines at a time when the hazards of radon were not known and thushad been exposed to high levels of radon, demonstrated that this group had an excess of lung cancers and that the risk of cancer increased with increasing exposure to radon gas. Studies of workers exposed to uranium in the nuclear fuel cycle have also been carried out. There are some reported excesses of cancers but, unlike the miners, no correlation with exposure can be seen. The main finding of these studies has been that the health of workers is better than the average population. This "healthy worker effect" is thought to be due to the selection process inherent in employment and to the overall benefits of employment.

Regarding exposures to DU, there have been studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in the Gulf War (1990-1991) and during the Balkan conflicts (1994-99). A small number of Gulf war veterans have inoperable fragments of DU embedded in their bodies. They have been the subject of intense study and the results have been published. These veterans show elevated excretion levels of DU in urine but, so far, there have been no observable health effects due to DU in this group. There have also been epidemiological studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in conflicts where DU was used, comparing them with the health of personnel who were not in the war zones. The results of these studies have been published and the main conclusion is that the war veterans do show a small (i.e., not statistically significant) increase in mortality rates, but this excess is due to accidents rather than disease. This cannot be linked to any exposures to DU."

The Health Physics Society has prepared a fact sheet about Depleted Uranium - http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf and has some other useful links.

Google the name "Roger Helbig" - A very smart and very kind person. What do you read about him? He has been demonized by the DU "crusaders" for expressing a rational point of view. I'm going to continue to try and keep the article based on science but I'm afraid that it isn't long before I either tire of changing it or those who have political agendas take over. (Please, again, check my spelling.  ;) ) Cheers! Starkrm (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Starkrm, thanks for your long answer, but I think we talk about two very different things.

Your intention is to give the reader of Wikipedia an impression about the health hazards of DU that will be in line with the available published studies (which show a very low hazard).

I don't have any such an intention. My intention is to offer the reader the most complete (and verifiable) information about what is in this moment known, studied, observed or debated about DU.

You are afraid that inclusion of the Basra debate would unnecessarily worry the reader, because such a health hazard (genetic malformations) is not proven (or even disproven in your opinion).

I am afraid that exclusion of the Basra debate would unnecessarily conceal from the reader information about what is part of the public debate in this moment.

My opinion in a nutshell: the aim of an encyclopedia is not to reassure the reader but to inform him or her. Debate about minority viewpoints, even if disproven, is part of the information a reader is entitled to look for. See Great Wall's visibility from space: it is a common misconception, but as such it has its place in Wikipedia. The fact that some misconceptions might be more worrying than others is no reason to exclude an information. We always agreed that the section about the Basra debate would clearly state that no peer-reviewed study hat proven the link between DU and malformations. So it is an information about an ongoing debate where still no scientific conclusion has been reached. I don't see why a reader should not be allowed to get this piece of information from Wikipedia.

Remember always: verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. For inclusion here it is irrelevant if DU really causes malformation or not. We don't know that and we must not claim to know that. What matters is that a reliable source has reported that such a debate is ongoing in Basra, and therefore we should include this fact (the word fact refers to the debate, NOT to the health hazards of DU, which I do not claim to know anything about). I hope you can see what I mean. Cheers--Ilyacadiz (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate and accept your point of view. I was narrow minded in trying to keep the focus on science and looking at the article from that point of view only. In any case, I've made the decision today to stop editing DU. Cheers.Starkrm (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Starkrm, I can't say I'm happy with your decision... you seem to be quite knowledgeable about DU and it's always appreciated to have somebody around who insists on hard facts and tries to discard rumour. That's basical for quality. I hope you didn't feel thrown out by my defence of my viewpoint. But then I'm a journalist, not a scientist, and I'm used to read (and to include in Wikipedia) data which have been published by reliable sources but have not been proven beyond any doubt by serious studies (imagine your daily newspaper if only the results of peer-reviewed studies where published). Now it seems that DU goes a little beyond the scientist range and has stirred political debates - we can't help that and Wikipedia, in my viewpoint, shouldn't exclude this aspect. Anyhow, it was good to debate with you. Cheers --Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should be possible to move the article using the "move" tab, pages shouldn't be copied and pasted. Also if there is nothing else with the same name the disambiguation "Iraq" isn't needed (unless it is part of the group's name) so it should probably be at Ila al-Amam. —Snigbrook 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

hello, yes, sorry for the copypaste, I'm not experienced and will try to learn that. As for the disambiguation, there is actually a Moroccan group with the same name, which I'm right now creating (as a stub). Thanks!

By the way: should we leave a Redirect at Ila al-Aman (with N) or it is safe to assume that that is just a spelling mistake and could be deleted altogether? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've requested a history merge, I'm not sure if the misspelling is likely to be useful as a redirect (Ila al-Amam should be a disambiguation page, and and if Ila al-Aman is kept, it should probably be redirected to it). —Snigbrook 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just created the disambiguation page - I see that my copypaste arises a lot of technical problems, which I could have avoided by using the move button. Wouldn't it be easier to just delete the newly created page and do the move instead as it should have been made? I didn't do any other changes when copying and pasting.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know, I was a few days absent... --Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:Arab Israeli Conflict 8.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jordan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The [[Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood|Muslim Brotherhood]] and the protest network known as [[Hirak (Jordan|Hirak]] boycotted the vote.<ref>{{cite news |title=As Elections Near, Protesters in Jordan
• spe_on_edu_tot_of_gdp-education-public-spending-total-gdp&country=sy-syria |title=Time Series > Education > Public spending on education, total > % of GDP > Syria |publisher=NationMaster |accessdate=15 June 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry, done. (Great bots you have around!)Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbas ibn Firnas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. 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) 09:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi user Mjv216, I noticed your comment about Magyarab and transferred it to the talkpage of that article; it's the best place to debate that subject > Talk:Magyarab_people Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MV Savarona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosnian. 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) 08:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bugün, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AKP. 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) 09:29, 28 October 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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (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.

Nouri al-Maliki

added a link pointing to AFP

Vice President of Iraq

added a link pointing to AFP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arián, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arianne. 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) 09:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leyla Şahin v Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AKP. 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) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Ilyacadiz. 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

 

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Ilyacadiz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #21249 was submitted on Apr 17, 2018 15:40:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK: Both words mean engine (from latin ingenium).

Ingenio, Las Palmas, Canarias.

Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. For the cane work they brought people who had experience in the sugar cane plantations in the Canary Islands and they brought the name there of Ingenio.

Canarias the starting point: At the beginning of the 16th century, the cultivation of sugar cane and its processing began. Before the Spanish and Portuguese began to plant sugar cane in America.

To industrialize this product, a sugar mill was built at the beginning of the 16th century by the Madeiran Antonio Sardinha, obtaining a very economical machinery by using the force produced by a waterfall from the ditch formed by the derivatives to irrigate the crops in the area. This Ingenio passed in 1518 to Alonso de Matos, and that would give its name to the future urban nucleus and municipality, with names such as "El Ingenio de la Vega de Aguatona".

The name Ingenio for this type of industry continues to be used in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic, others.

Informative only, thanks. 186.97.0.34 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply