User talk:Mountolive/Archive 4

Re: Radio Futura

It's my understanding that album covers are generally fair use only in the article about that album, and not in an article about the band. If the album is not notable enough for its own article, we probably don't need to have the album covers anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some POV edits

Hola Mountolive. Espero que toda va bien. Could you please monitor with me this IP? Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hola Fayssal. Doing not too bad, thanks. Hey, I see now that you finally got "promoted" to ArbCom, congrats! It is only now that I'm checking its members that I realize how an "exclusive club" that is! ;) Anyway, I can't see how someone would get interested in getting so much wikiwork on his shoulders, but if that was your desire, I can only support you with that ;)

About the IP, mhhh... not really sure what you mean by monitoring it. From the edits showed as of now, actually on the face of them, without having really bothered to check the relative articles nor talk pages intensively, I may even agree with some of those (please don't chastise me later on if I missed some important info in any of those talk pages or articles ;). The one in Catalonia is perfectly fine, the one about dependences rings true, too (not very sure what is meant by "dependences", but that sounds like subjugated in some form and that is not the case of Canary islands nor Ceuta and Melilla). The one in Latin Europe may have some point or may not, that depends on your POV, as usual (it can be argued that by "Spain" all those places are included already and you dont need further detail). The one of North Africa, removing the "plazas de soberanía" link is incorrect, probably vandalism, however, by removing the "exclaves" link I actually may agree, since, to my knowledge, exclaves are fully surrounded by another territory, while the plazas de soberanía, all of them have some or are fully surrounded by territorial sea. I could be wrong myself, though.

As for the annex to the list of countries, about the Ceuta/Melilla/Canary islands I'd say the same as I said above regarding his edit on Latin Europe: depends on your POV. However, I clearly agree with him in removing Catalonia, because it is indeed a POVish example when the other two examples are Tibet and Chechnya, rather than, say, Rhineland-Palatinate or Quebec. Both Tibet and Chechnya can be regarded as occupied countries. Obviously the same can not be said about Catalonia and there seems to be a clear bias in having it listed along with those two other territories: neither of them are good examples of "autonomous territories" in the first place and so the will heavily determine any other example put next to them.

The two regarding flags are obvious vandalism, though.

If actually you meant something else by monitoring, I am email enabled, so you can always email me if you see it fit. I'll pay it an occasional look, but, in the meantime, just dont hesitate in checking with me if you need anything regardint this or other. Have a good one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mountolive for your detailed opinion. In fact, my intention was to keep an eye on that. I haven't seen much POV edits but i saw signs of a potential POV editor because of this post. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadnt seen that one. He sounds definitely over-the-top there. Anyway, looks like he's not active since you told me. I'll keep an occasional eye on it.

Re: this edit

Can be found at User talk:Dúnadan#this edit. --the Dúnadan 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ETA's 2006 "permanent ceasefire"

Do you think this article could be better named? I'm very unhappy about the use of scare quotes in the title, as it basically says that ETA were lying at the time. It doesn't seem particularly neutral to me, perhaps something like ETA's 2006 ceasefire declaration? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there ONIH. Well, believe me if I say that the intention is not to suggest that they were lying. I kept the quotes to differentiate this "ceasefire" from previous "ceasefires" (which were labelled otherwise). Besides, this "permanent" character was hailed by some sectors in Spain as a good sign, which may be worthwhile mentioning.

I won't fight (much ;) about this. But, if you still want to change it, I would not like it to include ceasefire without quotation marks, because that is ETA's own term suggesting there is a military conflict, which, obviously, it's not the case. Since we are not bound by ETA's own views on the conflict, that is why I think the safest is quote them in, well...quotation marks.

What do you think? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I realise you just took the original title from the article heading. I'm just concerned that while headings aren't covered by WP:NPOV to a great extent, an article title is as there's a whole section on it. The quotation marks basically make it sound like it was all a sham. With regards to the use of quotation marks just for ceasefire, I kind of agree. However if you look at what secondary sources do here they don't tend to use them either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mhhh...I think my concern is quite legitimate, but you are right that you'll only very rarely (if it exists at all) will find quotation marks in the very article name. Besides, if you say it all sounds like a farce, then I'll have to be sensitive to that too.

In this case, if you are ok with it, I would be ok to move it to the title you are suggesting, as long as the terms "permanent ceasefire" are kept, in the text (not the title) between quotation marks. It is probably a fair solution.

Sounds good? If so, feel free to please proceed yourself with the title changing.

Sounds good. Keeping it in the text depends on context. I'm generally in favour of quoting things properly, and although I haven't looked at the article in much detail I'd generally phrase it in the form of the exact quote (see here), something like ETA's declaration stated that "ETA has decided to declare a permanent ceasefire from March 24 2006". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hackney 1 - 1 Battersea. Could be worse ;)

Valencian elections

Good work on the unio article. Just one question though: is the threshold for election still 5% of the votes? I know there were discussions a couple of years ago about reducing it to 3% to make it the same as the cortes and other autonomous bodies. p.s. militante is better translated into English as member or supporter as the literal translation of 'militant' has a stronger meaning. Valenciano (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Valenciano. It's good to know that, after all, someone was 'watching" and liked the overhaul.

Yes the 5% is still there. There was indeed some talk, but it eventually vanished, like in previous occasions. Actually it will be very difficult to change that, because that would require a supermajoritary agreement, but, actually, the two majoritary parties rather prefer a high threshold prone to forming a (nearly) bipartisan system which somewhat 'forces' electors to choose one of the two (the center-right or the center-left party) if they want to see their vote represented at the parliament.

I see...just the other day someone else rubbed my nose with the word 'militant'. Indeed, I wasnt aware of this rather violent connotation in English of the word (in Spanish, as you may know 'militante' is just a person belonging to a party).

Thank you very much for your copyedit there. There is only one thing which I think should be changed back, you substituted "reactive" by "reactionary". While all reactionaries are reactive, I think this term carries a pejorative connotation and should be avoided. I am going to change it back to "reactive" unless you think this word doesnt make sense in English in that context. If so, please provide an alternative.

Thanks again Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 09:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist for some time and I originally translated some of it from the Spanish or Catalan articles but hadn't noticed that they'd been updated so again good job. The militante point wasn't a criticism, if no one corrects us we'll never learn - I just wish I could write as well in Valencian as you do in English :) As for Reactionary/Reactive, after looking here [1] I'm not sure myself as I don't know enough about UV (I first went to Vlc in 2001 after they had peaked and declined). So I'll leave you to make the final decision on that. Valenciano (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reflexions

Bones,

M'havia pres un descans de les edicions relacionades amb els països/comunitats de parla catalana, editant articles de Mèxic i Argentina, i d'altres a la Viquipèdia. Per cert, com que ets valencià, aprofito per demanar-te una lectura d'avaluació de ca:Política i govern del País Valencià. Espero que la denominació de "País Valencià" no et faci nosa. El consens de la Viqui és emular la GREC i d'altres publicacions en català/valencià, i fer ús de PV per referir-se al territori (país) i CV per referir-se a la comunitat autònoma com a ens jurídico-adminsitratiu, sobre tot després de 1982, data en què va néixer aquest nom.

Ara, de les reflexions. De "Catalan Sea" ja saps el que penso. Tot i que el nom apareix en moltes publicacions acadèmiques en anglès -la majoria traduccions fetes per catalans mateixos- el nom històric i tradicional en anglès és "Balearic Sea" i és el nom que trobaràs en la majoria -o tots- els diccionaris i atles geogràfics en anglès. A més a més, vull (volem?) neutralitzar l'article i presentar els PPCC tal com ho fan les fonts acadèmiques i això vol dir en la seva accepció lingüística. Si de cas la denominació alternativa de "Catalan Sea" podria incloure's en una nota a l'article de Balearic Sea.

Ara, de la discussió a Catalan independentism, primerament hem de tenir en compte la definició de "recerca original" (OR). Una recerca original és: (1) una proposta o hipòtesi original que no s'ha publicat i per tant no n'hi ha cap referència o (2) una síntesi original que no s'infereix directament de fonts verificables [es a dir, que de dues fonts, diguem-ne A i B, un usuari conclou o infereix una hipòtesi C que no es deriva directament d'A i B i que no pot comprovar amb cap font]. Un gràfic no és una inferència, sinó un resum (o paràfrasi) d'una font primària, i per tant no és recerca original. Per exemple el Banc Mundial no publica cap mapa del món amb els Estats segons el PIB (almenys no jo n'he vist cap) però un usuari ha pres les dades hi ha fet un mapa. I així s'han fet un munt de gràfics de població, natalitat, mapes segons les lleis de l'avortament, del matrimoni homosexual, de la pena de mort, del PIB, del PNB, de l'IDH, etc. Els administradors de la Viqui fem ús d'aquest criteri per determinar OR; i crec que és el mateix criteri de la Wiki anglesa. Si el que et (ens, us) fa nosa és que el gràfic s'hagi publicat en una font secundària amb un PDV catalanista (de fet, totes les fonts secundàries tenen un PDV), Toniher podria fer un gràfic ell mateix amb les dades originals, i no violaria WP:OR. Les dades són imparcials, i un gràfic també ho és. Fer inferències que contradiuen o no poden derivar-se fàcilment o directament de les dades o el gràfic violaria WP:OR i WP:CITE. Però això no és el que Toniher ha fet. Jo no veig cap violació d'OR ni de CITE.

De la traducció de l'article d'EUPV, ara mateix no tinc temps, potser el cap de setmana. No m'agrada fer traduccions directes; sempre que faig traduccions d'una altra wikipèdia trobo moltes asseveracions i conclusions que, precisament, no són verificables o violen OR. Quan tradueixo generalment faig una petita recerca del tema. I per fer això necessito d'un parell d'hores. Dissabte, potser... El que podria fer ràpidament és un article petit amb dades generals i després ampliar-lo a poc a poc. Me'n vaig, que aquí als EUA aviat començarà la nova temporada de "Lost" (Perdidos, o Perduts....).

--the Dúnadan 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cap problema amb "País Valencià", en realitat, entre tu i jo, fins i tot simpatitze amb eixa denominació, amb el que sí que tinc un problema és amb "Valencian Country" pels motius més o menys explicats en un altre puesto, però eixe no és el tema ara ;)

També em sembla una 'paja mental' típica del que no suporta bé el 'reality bite' eixa pretesa "solució" a la que em dius s'ha arribat a ca.wiki de dir-li d'una manera al "territori" i d'altra a la comunitat autònoma com a ens juridico-administratiu i fer això simplement perque GREC i altres li diuen "País Valencià". Això em sembla una xorrada i un absurd impropi d'una enciclopèdia que es vullga dir imparcial per tal de satisfer els nacionalistes (l'exemple de GREC no em val, perque GREC serà tan bona com vullgues que siga, però ja saps com està muntada...). Però, ei, no em malinterpretes, perque, tot i no estar 'al tanto' de la discussió darrere la creació de such a bizarre paja mental, no m'estranyaria que tu fores un dels que ha intentat introduïr una mica de racionalitat i neutralitat, perque o molt m'equivoque o de ben segur que la primera opció era soles País Valencià. Però aquesta no és la qüestió tampoc: com he comentat alguna vegada, no estic per heroïcitats del tipus editar a ca.wiki, així que, com diem aquí (i al socaire de la Tia Rafaela) em quede "com el Tio Fava, igual estic que estava" ;)

Li he pegat una ullada. Si no ho has traduït des d'enlloc, felicitats perque tens una capacitat de resum molt bona. Si ho has traduït, doncs felicitats igualment, perque algú ha de fer el treball. El que hi veig em sembla bé...tot i que no crec que la norma bàsica del País Valencià siga l'Estatut, més aïna ho és la Constitució (com amb totes les altres CCAA) però, en fi, ja sé que eixe tipus de precissions no són del gust de la parròquia allà ;)

Wow, has vist la que s'ha muntada a Països Catalans?! és supeeer fooooooooooort! jajajaja, la cosa ja és surrealista....per cert, no seré jo el que t'haurà de dir què has de fer o què has de deixar de fer, però si efectivament penses que allò de "Catalan Sea" és una mica massa, no estaria de més que hi deixares el teu testimoni a la talk page....

En lo referent a la gràfica de la que et comentava...en fi, ja m'imaginava que pensaries així. Home, està clar que totes les fonts secundàries tenen un punt de vista, però el que ja em sembla una mica massa és que un independentista català haja sigut el que ha fet la taula sobre l'evolució de l'independentisme català i deixar el tema sense cap advertència al respecte...què passa si el bon home ha 'redondejat' al alça? què passa si el bon home s'ha "equivocat" en alguna de les moltes variables introduïdes?...com he comentat a eixa talk page, pense que el valor de la taula supera el problema del seu origen, però no està de més deixar constància també d'aixó últim....En fi, en qualsevol cas, no seré jo el que vaja tocant la pera amb temes menors com aquest, així que ho deixaré estar.

Ciao ciao by now Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ui...és que hi ha quelcom aquí dalt que t'ha picat? que no respongues si no t'abelleix ho puc entendre, val, però vore't tornant al mood eixe que et fa tan adorable (citant totes les WP: per tal de negar allò que és més aïna evident, posant les cometes als false friends dels demés i tal...) això ja em fa temer allò pitjor...

En fi, si he dit quelcom aquí dalt que t'ha ofés, doncs, xic, perdó, no era la intenció. Però si m'ho dius directament en comptes de sentir-te agreujat altra volta (això et passa molt?), doncs millor, perque així em donaries l'oportunitat d'excusar-me si toca. Si tot això són 'pajas mentales' que m'estic fent jo ara, doncs no li faces cas i perdona el comentari.

Jo tinc intenció d'estar bé amb tu i per això pose l'altra galta, però tampoc sóc tan bon cristià com per fer-me responsable sempre i a cada vegada.

Tu voràs. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a dalt no hi ha res que m'hagi picat. Si no he respost és que no hi havia res més a dir. Encara que, si puc ser sincer, no m'esperava els comentaris sobre el "nacionalisme" de la Viquipèdia . La Viquipèdia no és tan esbiaixada com penses. És clar, que com en qualsevol altra wikipèdia, hi ha un biaix sistèmic, i en el cas de la Viquipèdia , la gran majoria dels usuaris s'interessen de la llengua catalana i defensen la seva unitat; i [malauradament] molts comparteixen les mateixes preferències polítiques i socials. Però hi ha de tot, inclosos diversos castellans molt actius i participatius que han après el català, gràcies als quals s'han neutralitzat molts articles. La denominació de CV no existia abans de 1982; les referències anteriors serien anacròniques... no per satisfer els nacionalistes. Tot i així, agraeixo la ullada que has fet de l'article de Política i govern del País Valencià. No l'he traduït; l'he fet tot sol. Penso que la Viquipèdia, que és la Viquipèdia en valencià, hauria de ser la wikipèdia més completa sobre temes del País Valencià [aquella part positiva del biaix sistèmic] i hauria d'haver-hi més articles en valencià; que els catalanoparlants d'altres comunitats puguin llegir articles en una varietat de la llengua tan vàlida, però diferent, de la seva.

De la resta, ja t'he dit el que penso. Del gràfic del catalanisme, no és OR i la font és primària. Del "Catalan Sea", ja n'he dit la meva, tot i que després d'adonar-me que la Mar Balear i la Mar Catalana eren dues coses diferents, la meva opinió ha canviat. He proposat fer-hi ús només de la denominació "Mar Mediterrània"; ja veurem que opinen la resta dels usuaris que encara no hi participen i no n'han dit res.

Sobre la discussió més recent a Spain; home després que has insinuat (de bona fe?) que les meves edicions són vandàliques... doncs sóc jo el que posa l'altra galta. Has d'entendre que sóc administrador, i com a tal, tinc en ment sempre les polítiques i les premisses sobre les quals s'ha fundat aquest projecte. Com a admins justifiquem les nostres accions en base a aquestes polítiques i no per motivacions personals. I si he de ser sincer, i espero no t'ofenguis ni t'ho prenguis malament, estic més que segur que no t'agradaria que un altre usuari posés totes les teories de conspiració d'Espanya contra Catalunya i de la persecució de la llengua, i hi ha un munt de llibres i referències que podrien ser utilitzades, i per la majoria dels catalans que van patir-les, són molt reals i evidents (they ring "very true"). Però, home, els suposats missatges presentats per Cadena SER were proven wrong, llavors només són especulacions i no fets contundents ni proves. Un vídeo de youtube amb l'opinió sobre les especulacions del PP no és una font que aporti proves. Hi ha desenes de fonts que es podrien afegir amb especulacions i teories de conspiració sobre el 14-M i sobre altres esdeveniments històrics de major importància (com ara la Guerra Civil o la Transició democràtica), amb moltes referències acusant-se els uns als altres. Cap enciclopèdia seriosa inclou especulacions en els seus articles, i la Wikipedia no hauria de ser l'excepció.

Per cert, si vols una resposta més ràpida, escriu els teus comentaris a la meva pàgina de discussió. No tinc el costum de llegir la teva pàgina de discussió, encara que suposo que hauria d'afegir-la a la meva llista de pàgines vigilades. =)

--the Dúnadan 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hòstia, suposo que m'ha sortit el tret per la culata. De fet, vaig convidar en Squeakbox perquè les seves contribucions en la discussió a Talk:Mexico i la presa de decisions subsegüent em semblaren molt neutrals. No coneixia ni conec encara tot el seu historial de contribucions. I de fet, sí que vaig convidar una administradora, però aquesta és la seva resposta: [2].

Home, no m'agradaria que te'n vagis de la Viquipèdia, però si creus que te n'has de prendre un descans, doncs respecto la teva decisió. M'estimaria més que poguéssim arribar a un consens que satisfaci a tots i que continuem tots editant.

Jo, he d'insistir en què la font és "verificable", és clar, com també pot verificar les fonts que neguen l'holocaust. Per això, la verificabilitat sempre va "de la mà" amb les altres polítiques de la Viquipèdia, i no s'ha d'interpretar de manera aïllada. La font verifica que existeix una especulació i res més. No es pot presentar com a dada ni com a fet. Ara que si el que et fa nosa és que es digui que el PSOE va acusar el PP de mentir (la qual cosa no és una "teoria de conspiració" tot i que també és una opinió i no un fet). Potser seria millor eliminar ambdues declaracions i només dir que "Although initial suspicions of responsibility for the bombings focused on the Basque group ETA, evidence soon emerged indicating possible Islamist involvement. Because of the proximity of the election, the issue of responsibility quickly became a source of political controversy." I ja està. No cal dir ni que el PSOE acusa el PP de res ni que el PP acusa el PSOE de res. La cosa més important, històricament, no queda amagada (que hi ha haver controvèrsies polítiques); els detalls i els POVs, teories i tal, són coses per als fòrums. (O potser, i amb molta neutralitat, un article específic sobre el 14-M podria incloure'ls). Què en penses?

Havent dit tot això a dalt amb un to respectuós i conciliador, no vull deixar passar l'oportunitat d'esmentar algunes coses que m'han molestat massa:

• la insinuació força evident sobre "my sneakiness": "I actually salute bold editors like you in imposing their POVs over more sneaky ones which drag you dawn to too much blabla and wasted time in talk pages only to impose a similar result in the end."
• la insinuació força evident dels meus biaixos i inseguretats: "The fact that you won't let a referenced text to appear and illustrate how a significant tract of people sees it, but you prefer to substitute it by a more general P.C. account, it actually speaks of your own bias and insecurities."

Espero que en la nostra pròxima discussió (en el sentit positiu de la paraula) puguis debatre els arguments sense recórrer a aquests tipus d'atacs, indirectes, però molt personals, sobre el caràcter dels altres usuaris. Hem de fer un esforç molt gran per no rebaixar-nos a respondre aquests arguments amb atacs personals similars, posar l'altra galta, i pretendre que no has dit res.

--the Dúnadan 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Hey, your new additions are really good. Is there any way you could find citations for them? Well done! Murderbike (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Toc, toc, toc...

File:Hoellentor.jpg

Tachaaaaaan: The GATE of the pipi-sisi

Detail of the gate: "Hmmm...which has sometimes been translated... which is frequently translated... hmmmm... which has sometimes been translated... which has been oftentimes translated... often translated... hmmmm"

Hahahahaha... XDXDXDXDXD Man... This is the never end relay race and the "pass me the baton, arf, arf, arf" Spain, Països Catalans, Gates, Merge Valencian, Catalonia, etc, etc, etc... And the culture articles (for example mozarabic art in Catalonia) missed (search in wp:ca). XDXD Spend your time with... you know, typical profile:

• Member of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries.
• This user comes from the Catalan Countries.
• I support Catalan language Wikipedia (wp:ca)
• El nivel de este usuario corresponde al de un hablante casi nativo del español (es-4) o_O

What's the diagnosis? Blindness!!!! "I cannot see anything abnormal in this article: it's totally NPOV... but those tags. We need those tags out right now! And I cannot see anything in the talk page". XD Where's the Mandarinate? Picture anyone erasing this POV tag!

Gutta cavat lapidem: STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

Mauritius, you too!!! Let me declaim it dressing a big gorguera de cañutos, and caressing my fine moustache: you, evil servant of the Richelieu linage and Habsburg at the same time. Good bless the 18ème! Or... living in 1714... forever!

Meanwhile, check this: WP:WORKINGGROUP

Best. --Owdki ^talk 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! it's just good to hear from you!

I just had been wanting to tell you for some time (but you were apparently off) that your sandbox (or the articles you appear to be working on) is just a thing of beauty. Keep the good work, man.

Damn, working on stuff like that was my intention when I entered wikipedia, but rather sooner than later I found that the "nearly Spanish native-level speakers" had other plans for me. And then I ended up as a mere articles 'neutralizator', adding a little word ("Spain") next to places and people and similarly dull tasks...fuck, I know a man has to make what a man has to make ;) but it is not nice, it is damned boring and then it gets damned frustrating when the users who come "from the 'Catalan Countries'" get furious and the quarrel starts ('Catalan Countries'? sic...so, they come from all of them at the same time? it's like Mo serving two empires...by the way, to call Spain or France empires is a bit anachronistic and suffering a roughly 200 years gap, dont you think? ;) Man, I am just ready for a wikibreak and that should be soon. Dunno what will be there when I come back...but the prospect is rather scary!

Also, I'm willing to take a break because nicer users like yourself, Xtv, Boynamedsue...they tend to vanish. At least Dúnadan and I we are currently enjoying something like a "Prague Spring" but soviet armoured vehicles (waving an estelada ;) may be waiting round the corner and, heck, it's not nice to feel like the police here anyway. Did you notice that, apparently, the word has spread and we are getting more and more "hablantes casi nativos de español" amb ganes de gresca (I hear from time to time some Catalan people saying "por eso" tags all the time -like 'per això'- is that what is meant by "casi nativo"? ;)

Uf! :D Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that 'taskforce' you found is interesting...let's see what happens with it. I am not very optimistic, but...who knows! You are good at browsing in the engines of the Mandarinate on the one side and getting sources on the other, very unlike me...kudos! Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Països Catalans

Sé que tu i Maurice comparteixen el mateix punt de vista en la majoria -però no tots- els casos. I tu mateix ja t'has llegit els darrers comentaris absurds que ha posat a la pàgina de discussió del malaurat article. Per favor =), si veritablement tu també vols un article neutral i consensuat, hi hauries de dir alguna cosa. No és possible que demani coses que els altres usuaris fan, i després torni a demanar d'altres, i d'altres, i d'altres, per tal de mantenir un tag eternament que reflecteix més el seu punt de vista (anti-catanalista potser?) que no el contingut de l'article. Ara, el que vol és l'opinió de les autoritats balears i del Rosselló sobre els PPCC? I si no n'han dit res? Crec que havíem acordat una cosa: que els PPCC són una regió lingüística i cultural, i que alguns (NO tots), li atribueixen un caràcter nacional i en demanen la independència. I crec que l'article ja explica molt bé tot això: la introducció parla del concepte lingüístic, i les altres seccions de les controvèrsies. Hi ha un balanç que hauria de satisfer tots, llevat d'en Maurice que vol imposar el seu PDV. Hi ha un límit per a tot, i crec que aquí ja hem arribat al límit. --the Dúnadan 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hem arribat "ad nauseum" pot ser, si. It is the very need to explain the països catalans as a linguistical matter which gives me a headache. Ahhh... those graffitis at Vilassar de Mar... How right they are! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didnt agree with Maurice with the tag at that point. But then he posted this [3] which "rings true" in some ways. Still, I am not so sure about how much that interesting piece could be connected to the tag. Looks like this new guy CNoguera is bringing some positive attitude. Maybe we are all a bit wary of each other and we needed a fresh start, which this guy is enhancing so far.

Anyway, it looks like it has been solved, and I can do nothing but rejoicing in that.

Randroide

Hi, Mountolive. Glad the problem was solved. Sorry but I had been working abroad, and therefore offline for a week. Please let me know if you need a third opinion

BTW, suggest User:Dúnadan to take a look at WP:TALK

• "Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large"

Your personal page is very funny :-). CU. Randroide (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Randroide. And please dont chastise too much Dúnadan, it was probably me who started the language party...

Països Catalans

Dear Mounty,

You know very well that opposition to the PPCC is neither ubiquitous nor pervasive to all Spanish society, and neither is the political connotation. As such, my edits are actually more NPOV, because they are contextualizing the opposition it is receiving. In fact, even territorially speaking, we are falling into an over-generalization in simply saying "notably in the territories described by this concept", because opposition, territorially speaking, mostly comes from the Valencian Community (and only the political and social sectors of the Valencian Community; in fact, several universities in Alicant do support the linguistic connotation of the PPCC and the unity of the Catalan language). Therefore, I have two options: to revert your less NPOV edits, or to insert the non-neutral tag. I will do the first, if you insist on reverting, I will insert the tag and then request the assistance of an administrator. Cheers, --the Dúnadan 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looks like you are not in the right mood today. I thought we had reached some consensus, but looks like the "Països Catalans is a cultural thing" keeps haunting you every day and you have grown dissatisfied with the previous consensus.

If that is the case, then better please request the administrator assistance, because you don't sound in the mood of compromising today and, when you are in this mood, I know by experience that the more I say something, the worse.

ps. in Alicante there are only two universities and they do support linguistic unity (as everyone else) I can't see how, though, this could support your point to introduce extra wording for something which is clearly explain (and in less words) as it is now. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

hòstia, quan parlem en anglés la tenim...oi? es curiós! :D...."please discuss"? :O quina barra, tio! ja te n'has oblidat de tot el que s'ha discutit? ja en vols més? ets un catxondo!! :D

Mounty, you have reverted me (I was the first to edit) three times. You are bordering on WP:3RR. Please make note of it. You are the one that is not willing to compromise. It seems you want to portray the PPCC as an-almost-always nationalistic term. Considering that 3/4 of the article talks about controversies and political stuff, you are actually endorsing a political version... and you are not willing to compromise. Please, stop reverting. One more revert and you will be over the line. --the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

joooooooooooder, i jo que pensava que això ja no passaria entre nosaltres, que haviem canviat el xip....sic transit gloria mundi...ah, per cert, Duny, ja que estàs en eixe plan, t'agrairia que no em digueres "mounty", per favor

I am answering in English per the request made above. My attitude does not change from Catalan to English. Actually, I find the comments regarding my "mood" and "attitude" (and other comments in Catalan that you presented in my talk page), a little uncalled for. It is better to discuss arguments than to call into question the mood of another user.That usually tends to kindle the animosity. I will not continue in that sense. I also apologize for calling you Mounty. I believe some other user had called you that before, but I do apologize if you believe it was inappropriate.

I do not wish to push any particular POV. Like I explained in the talk page of the article in discussion, 3/4 of the content deal exclusively with the political controversies and limitations of the Catalan Countries. Per WP:UNDUE, a little contextualization was needed at the introduction which is to change "frequently the term has a political connotation and is opposed notably in all territories", to a more precise who, when and where. I hope you understand that. After all, we renamed the article to its Catalan version to neutralize it, and the Catalan definition is very precise: territories of Catalan language. I think we've talked about this before, and I requested your comments in my talk page about a month ago, remember? Regarding the territorial definitions?

I offer, as I always have, the best attitude and willingness to build upon a NPOV article with compromise, which means two parties yielding in certain areas. If you believe it is necessary, and I do hope this is not the case, we can request for mediation and even arbitration. Based on our change in "chip" as you call it, I hope this is not necessary.

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peru

Hello, it seems we are in something of a predicament regarding prose in this article. Per your last edit to the article, you object to having Spanish Empire as the subject in the sentence about Colonial Peru, arguing that "the active voice is wrong, because the Spanish Empire did not conquer anything: it's an inanimated subject", thus you changed it to passive voice. I respectfully disagree with this opinion as Empires, like countries and other types of organizations can definitely do stuff. For instance: "The UN sent peacekeepers to Kosovo", "Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939", "The British Empire ruled the oceans for several centuries". I don't think these sentences are grammatically wrong. IMHO it would be better to restore the sentence to its original active voice because it reads better. In this same sentence you want to replace "Viceroyalty" with "a Viceroyalty based in Lima" for dab purposes. I'm not sure this is a good idea as Lima has not been mentioned before in the lead so readers may not be familiar with it. As a compromise how about using "established the Viceroyalty of Peru..."?

We also have a disagreement about the sentence on languages. I don't see the point in the changes you introduced here. Is it necessary to use the phrase "as their first one"? I realize it follows the paragraph in the "Demographics" section (which in turn follows the nomenclature of the Peruvian census) but why use it in the lead? It seems a little confusing as it unnecessarily complicates the sentence.

Well, those are my opinions, hope to hear yours soon. --Victor12 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Victor and thanks for the message.

Well, I have to tell you that I found particularly unwelcoming that you were reverting a new user (to that article, that is to say) automatically for a mere "passive/active" voice matter. Being this a matter of style, it is actually ridiculous that we are even discussing about it, don't you think?

I assume neither you nor I are native English speakers, but I stand by my version. Indeed, the examples you bring about organizations doing stuff are correct. But, IMHO, when we are talking about an Empire, it looks like "conquer" does not match well, since it is a definitely action verb, while, for example, "ruled the oceans" is fine, because it's like a standing power, but not referring to any particular action. Also, I find a bit odd that the subject of the sentence refers to himself (because Perú came to form part of the Spanish empire as well, so, in the end, is like the Spanish empire conquered itself).

As for the viceroyalty, this is how I see it: if only [viceroyalty] is linked, the assumption I make is that it is linking to Viceroyalty article (and it is not a particulary bold assumption, is it? ;) while, actually, it is linking to the Viceroyalty of Perú, that is why I like to introduce (not only in that article, but in similar cases I see here and there) some extra words in the link, to denote that it is not linking to the article it is supposed to be on the face of the link, but to something more specific.

Finally, as for the languages thing, I still can't see the problem of stating "as their first language". My first edition was "also" and you were right to correct me, as there is a sizeable population which is basically monolingual in quechua and others. But you may agree with me that, even those, have some basic acquaintance with Spanish, and so, the "as their first language" bit, should be ok.

Anyway, as I said, I find it a bit ridiculous that we are arguing about these peanuts. IMHO you have been a bit zealous by reverting these minor changes. But now at least you bother to discuss them before reverting automatically, so, since it is such a little thing, if you still want to revert after hearing my lot, then go revert. I won't make a case of that anymore.

Thanks again for the message. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry for being reverting your edits in such a rude manner. Hope we can be in good terms from now on. As for the argument in itself I don't think discussing style issues is ridiculous, after we are trying to build an encyclopedia her and style is quite important in such endevours.

Now to more arguments, ;-) I don't get your point about Empires being so much different than nations for grammar purposes. Are you trying to say a nation (Germany, England, whatever) can conquer, occupy, invade, etc (as attested by usual practice in Wikipedia an hundreds of history textbooks) but an Empire not? Is it wrong to state that "The British Empire invaded India"?. As for the sentence being odd because Peru was part of the Spanish Empire, I think it is quite clear Peru (the region that is now Peru, because there was no Peruvian nation at that time) wasn't part of the Empire until after its conquest thus, there's no contradiction in the sentence.

As for the Viceroyalty link, how about putting "Viceroyalty of Peru" as a compromise solution, that way the link becomes disambiguated and there's no problem for not having mentioned Lima previously.

As for the languages issue, I think the statement "as their first language" might be kind of confusing as an average reader might think it implies some sort of bilingualism. I live in Peru and believe me there are several communities in the Andes and the Amazon rainforest that lack even a basic acquaintance of Spanish.

Hope we can reach some consensus through this discussion. --Victor12 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Victor and thanks for the message. How I see it is already written above. As I said, I won't make a case of it. Have a good one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Catalan culture in Roussillon

To summarize:

• By obvious reasons, there is French Culture, but Catalan culture is fully present despite Catalan language usage is lower than in Southern territories.
• Perpignan is 2008 capital of Catalan culture.
• Els Segadors and L'Estaca are common in USA Perpignan matches.

--Toniher (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Toni. Please realize that "historically" doesnt deny that there is Catalan culture, actually it is on the contrary. However, if you say that these comarques are "historically and culturally" Catalan, then you are placing and WP:UNDUE weight on the Catalan character of these places. No one is saying that Catalan culture is not present there, but Catalan culture is far from being the culture chiefly defining these territories. That culture is, whether we like it or not, French.

If examples are needed (even though you seem to be following blindly an agenda, in which case examples et la bufen soberanament) you may want to pay a look at Alsace, a French region which is more German nowadays than Rousillon is Catalan, but no one is incurring there in the "culturally German" (or Alsatian) mistake/POV pushing.

As I said in the talk page of Catalan people, your attitude there deserves to be reported, and I'm hoping that the breach you are bringing to wiki policies is so blatant as to get a speedy block. Please be advised hereby that you will be indeed reported within the following hours/days. If, in the meantime, you change your mind, I will really salute to hear you back to a more civil attitude. Please give it a thought. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

culturally French

Some people will like it more, some less, but the fact is that, culturally, the pays catalan is nowadays sound French. There is indeed a minoritary tract of the population who feels primarily Catalan, those are also included under "historically". "Historically Catalan" doesnt mean "former Catalan", on the contrary, a sense of continuity is meant.

However, if someone said that these comarques are "historically and culturally" Catalan, then s/he would be placing an WP:UNDUE weight on the Catalan character of these lands. No one is saying that Catalan culture is not present there, but Catalan culture is far from being the dominating culture or the one chiefly defining these territories. That culture is French. Its "catalanity" is also stated, for, indeed, they are historical Catalan territories. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Madrid (autonomous community)

Hi there buddy, long time no see... Seems like we all decided to let the catalan related articles in peace for a while hehehehe

Anyway, I was taking a look at this article in the english wiki and its counterpart in the spanish one. The Spanish article seems really very very good and complete, but it really needs to be shortened for the english one because there is a whole lot of data which is useless for the international community.

Before starting the translation, I would love if you can help me to remove all that useless data. It is a kind of manner for taking our old customs of improving some articles together... ;)

I really desire to take that path again... I started a sandbox at my user page. I hope to see you helping around down there... Cya there! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo! good to hear from you. Well, yes, those articles are in calm, but only for now. Experience dictates that it only takes the next ERC-bred editor to appear there and introduce the same old boring stuff. Maurice, I am really disappointed with wikipedia. I am only trying to keep the usual wet dreams of a particular kind of users at bay, but even so I am doing in a resigned way since I dont have that much energy nor I feel that involved in it anymore. Besides, there are personal reasons which make it wiser to focus in real life rather than in virtual one (I am email enabled over here, so you can always give me a shout there if you were interested to know more).

All in all, I appreciate the fact that you thought of me for that Madrid translation, since that is the kind of blue collar activities which can still make of wikipedia an ok place. But I just dont have the time at this point nor I think I will in the coming months.

Salut, you French and Spanish imperialist! :P Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I left the north, I travelled suth, I got confused, I killed a horse, and I can't change the way I feel

Hiya mate. Long time no Ebro-mud-wrestling. I can see from your contribs that you've been keeping the flag flying (or taking it down where necessary) for the reality based community here on wikipedia. I've been doing very little myself, was trying to write a book but ran out of steam. Anyway, I've started a blog you can have a look in at if you want (I'm going to leave messages for Maurice and D as well, so it can be just like the old days).

Hope you're well, and life is more Ask than You Just Haven't Earned it Yet Baby.

http://downhillsince92.blogspot.com/

All the best.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.24.34 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of our beloved Ebro muddy waters are now about to be drunk by BCN, while all those people and their former brauhaha when Valencians wanted to drink some of them are now looking the other way or, possibly, blaming "Madrid" for some of their own sins (it's the good ol' manoeuver: when they dont like something or they have done something wrong, they blame something vague they call "Madrid" and keep going, I know it sounds trite, but seems to work perfectly fine all the same). Not nice, but telling and unsurprising of the current (low) standard of Catalan politics...political standards are not that high anywhere in Spain, though, not in "Madrid" either, by the way.

Uh, that blog seems promising land, as much as the Land of Valencia. There are some hooks there which I will hardly escape the temptation of biting...However, if by D. you mean the singular of that race of high nobility in spirit and body, I think that is not the right place for me. Dunno if that is because of my own low nobility in spirit and body, but D. and I certainly don't work that well together, therefore I may pass this time. In other words, I am not interested in re-engaging in Ebro-mud wrestling until the Federació Catalana of this sport is recognized internationally.

Don't tease me, mate!

However, I will be telling some friends which may be interested in your blog, let's see if they dare to deflower it. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought of you as a noble enough cove, M.

I think you'll find that only the recognised Catalan Federation in the wrestling world is Roller Jelly Wrestling. Last year, three Catalan teams made it to the semi-finals, but all finally lost out to Vodafone Maccabee Jaffa in the final. Many angry letters to Avui complained that Israel was not in Europe, and that the Israelis, in association with the government of Castille, had fabricated several important documents to hide the fact that Jesus Christ was Catalan.

It may seem ridiculous, but critics were confounded when a DNA test on Christ's foreskin, kept in reliquary in the church of Santa Maria del Mar, proved His catalanity beyond doubt. It does seem obvious when you think about it; he lived with his mother until he was 33 and never went anywhere without his 12 best mates de tota la vita. The loaves and fishes incident should probably be looked at az a primitive calçotada.

All t'best

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.46.225 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy+Avui? oh, your last note is too gruesome to handle!.

Hey, no one said that Christ was Catalan (that I know, of course). Just Cervantes and Columbus were. So Catalanists are after all trying to be fair, aren't they? (you may want to check the hair-rising "Cervantes, un català de Xixona" (sic(k), I forgot the publisher, but you can count on some funding from Òmnium Cultural, Diputació de Barcelona or related acts). I forgot the author, though, but with such a title, it must be an enjoyable reading. I'm sure that these authors keep working on new endeavours such as, say "Michelangelo, un català de l'Alguer", maybe a bold statement, but could make a good sales record at next Sant Jordi for die-hards. What you won't hear about in coming Sant Jordi fests is, say, "Dalí, un falangista genial...i català" or "Josep Plà, se'n fotria del catalanisme que tenim avui dia"... Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just Michaelangelo mate. Go (here), and click on the orange mullet.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.52.242 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

About Països Catalans

Hi, Mountolive. We managed to have no discussions at all for many weeks ;)

I have seen your last edit on our beloved Catalan Countries entry and its summary. You are referring to a discussion about the name previous to my arrival here. I am too lazy now to search in the archives for this discussion, but I just would like to know why we could not make some more natural uses of the terms in the entry. Maybe my last changes were not properly explained in the summaries. It is a problem of style. In this entry we are doing some terminological explanations, showing the polisemy of the term and so on. Hence, it is natural to do several mentions of the expression (such as "'Països Catalans' is a polisemic expression"). But we are also talking about the thing itself, i.e. the territories, claiming things like "In some parts of the Catalan Countries the catalan nationalist sentiment is almost non-existing" or something like this if I remember it well. So, you see, we have mentions and also usages of the expression. We have to be careful about the use-mention distinction. According the Manual of Style, we must use italics to make the proper distinction. But we also must write in italics those foreign expressions that "do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". It is clearly the case of Països Catalans. So, you see the problem. In our entry we have to use the italics always just because it is a foreign expression, so the use-mention distinction is lost. That's why I thought it would make things easier to use English translation when we are referring to the territories, and keep the catalan one when talking about the term (in this way your previous decision of keeping the catalan term, for reasons unknown to me, is still respected). What do you think about that? I have written my concerns here, since you suggested this could reopen an unnecessary old discussion. Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hola Carles. Gràcies pel missatge.

I appreciate that you check with me. Look, I'll be straight: I am really concerned at the prospect of that article becoming a fucking mess yet once again. Looks like the version we had, it left everyone (dis)satisfied enough, so I dont get why people keep going on the same stuff over and over again, really. And I am not talking about you, because this discussion I am mentioning happened just before you came along. My friend Dúnadan recently started editting hotspots again, I had to follow and now Maurice, yourself and the whole thing amenaça tempesta now...

I understand if you are lazy to go through the many lines of that discussion. But in this case, I think you really should read those. I think it is not archived yet (it is basically half the length of the talk page, under different post titles). The whole incident was a huge depressing fight regarding the translation of Països Catalans as "Catalan Countries" which left several casualties (Xtv left these topics, Owdki was in pre-leaving mood -now looks like he left- Dúnadan and I became intimate enemies, there is a bad vibe over Catalan-related topics on wikipedia and so on).

I'll make you a brief summary, notwithstanding my strong recommendation for you to read the whole thing. A series of editors (including myself) denounced this translation as counterfeit, for a series of reasons which you will find there. Apparently, the reasons of these editors I feel included were finally accepted (if only reluctantly) or, more properly (things became too ugly for anybody to admit giving in) the alternative reasons were slightly less convincing than the former. In the end, the apparent consensus was to change the article name (which used to be "Catalan Countries") to Països Catalans, while keeping the Catalan Countries redirect to this article. Also keeping the original Països Catalans term along a mention of the "Catalan Countries" translation (which is mostly used by Catalans writing in English or English speakers quoting those). I notice that your concern is more about a use-mention (rather stylistic question, if you will) than for a fundamental reason. My reply here is about the fundamental problem of the translation, which we should consider in the first place.

You certainly have the right to go about it if you deem it necessary, but, believe me, if we start that topic again, there is going to be blood on the dancefloor. In any case, I strongly recommend that you waste your time reading those thousands words in the talk page before setting fire to the page ;).

Once you have checked them, if you still see something that you think is wrong and you think you can argue otherwise consistently, then go for it. I am nobody to tell you what to do: you can re-start the topic again if you think is important. I have become pessimistic with the wrong nature of wikipedia anyway (which includes, among others, re-starting old topics everytime a new user comes along).

And dont get me wrong, because you know that I am not blaming you (actually, you are the best user coming from 'the dark side' that I could ever dream about :P) Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ei, moltes gràcies per la detallada resposta :) So, I'll try to follow your suggestion and go through the discussion soon. It is quite surprising that a topic which is potentially controversial for many substantive reasons, generated a controversy just about the translation of the expression (!), but as you said I should read it before giving any opinion. Indeed, now I was only concerned about some style details, so I don't feel any urge to solve that problem. And I completely agree with you about that feeling: it was good to have such an article at peace for quite a long time with a reasonable (un)sastisfying version for everybody. Let me make you a confession: I love when the catalan-related articles (in the broad sense) are at peace, with no strange edits coming from any side, and do you know why? Because, I am realizing lately, we two have a kind of symmetric behavior here: avoiding those articles to get any worse, even if they are not perfect, at least we want to prevent radical editors (from any side, I mean) to destroy them completely. The world would be a nice place if we could just forget about those issues and just edit on other topics in Wikipedia (so many things I would like to do), if there would be no need to care about blaverism, mindless independentism, and some other isms. You know what I mean. See ya! --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Radio_futura_early_90s.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Radio_futura_early_90s.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Coat of arms of Catalonia

Whats up buddy? looks like Enric Naval has tried to keep the article in the good path. Anyhow, I made some changes on the article adding some references, clearing the povish parts and other stuffs. Tell me what you think. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"El pebre chushareao shileno!!!! and lots of "güeón", "güea"... mmmm, buddy, the trully beauty speaks chilean! ;)--MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Chile... Poland... Gotta love globalization!!! ;) --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I think we found a new potential member of the CAT-Team that User:Sclua reminds me of Joanot, bringing references which prove exactly the opposite of what he is defending... --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:The Salamanca

It appears that the 1812 loco was named after the Battle of Salamanca 1812. I have left you some info on The Salamanca talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.97.39 (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Green Spain

Hello there! well... I have mixed feelings about that, after all I have spent many summers in Amurrio, Ayala Valley (Álava) and I can tell you that this large, important valley, has a clearly oceanic climate and is north of the water divide. But then, also the Valley of Mena in Burgos is in the north side and is definitely part of Green Spain, and the southern part of Cantabria (Reinosa) has the same climate as Vitoria... things are never simple... so what to do? if we go for accuracy it will be better to eshaustively list all the areas and not only autonomous communities or provinces... but "the northern Basque Country" could be fine. Cheers! David (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! yes, I commented in the Basque Country autonomous community article that the article was just horrible: all about estatutes, PNV and politics, but no geography at all, that after all should be the most important subject in an encyclopedia. Since then I have tried to fix it. In Spain article it is the same! all the edits concentrate on languages, politics and partial views of history... and I am not happy at all with the geographical aspects, that are only a retelling of CIA information or something like that. I am not a member of the wikiproject, but I am a usual contributor in geographical articles, like Pyrenees, Cantabrian Mountains, National Parks, ski resorts, climate, transport, tourism, even sports! ... but there is a lot to be done, and as you say... a whole very important mountain range is missing!!! But like all of us, I do what I can. David (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Militant

Hello again Mountolive. A previous wikipedia entry here [4] covers it pretty comprehensively. We could indeed use militant to speak about eta activists. To my ears, member sounds a little more neutral as militant sometimes has negative connotations. Best regards, Valenciano (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on the conduct of a user you have been involved with

The situation on Coat of arms of Catalonia has not improved much since you last edited it :(

Please check Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sclua and feel free to comment there --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorbs

Dear Mountolive, You just changed the order of Lutheran - Catholic in the Sorbs article, claiming "more Catholics than Lutherans". You´ve got a source for this? There´s already a discussion and according to a publication of Sorbian domowina "15 % of Sorbian people are catholic", so why do you think there are more catholics than lutherans? HerkusMonte (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied at the talk page you are pointing out. Thanks for the note. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lopez Pena

I just saw the infobox is nto there. While I agree with you it ought not to a politican infobox. BUt do you have any idea what other type of infobox to use? The quick info is pretty useful though.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, I dont know where is the infobox fitting best. There is an infobox for militant organizations, there must be one for militants? Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

bin laden has the same infobox as the one previously on lopez pena. he would be militant, no?

do you know how to get one created perhaps? Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to see how to make/edit them. What do you think should go on it? If its just a amtter of the title of the infobox then thats not really showing up, so it wont matter. Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well it should be fixed now. Not the best, but itll do.

Though just for future reference, can you query it in the discussion part before deleting. Took me awhile to find the info again. Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceuta

You know what, you utterly right leave it in there, if that is the official Spanish position, the obvious double standard shines forth and we really should let the reader decide for themselves. But you're gonna have to provide a citation. 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey that link is just peachy! Cheers. Justin talk 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you possibly expect less? :P

I admit that when you placed the tag you didnt make me all that happy...thanks goodness that Saint Google is out there to help us the faithful.

After all, yes, you are right: it does look better with a quotation (and I may use it at the Gibraltar article...never went there...I guess it is a thing of beauty... ;)

Cheers. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry I already plan on adding it to the Gibraltar article. Justin talk 20:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again Catalonia

Hola Mountolive. Fa temps que no passava per aquí. Continuo estant enfeinat, o sigui que continuaré absent durant una bona temporada. Ja vindran temps millors (o pitjors, si tenim en compte les discussions dels suposats temps millors ). Només volia comentar-te que m'ha sabut greu el teu darrer comentari a la mítica pàgina de discussió de Catalonia, per dos motius.

1. Pels comentaris sobre polítics amateurs que no contribueixen en la resta de l'article: a part del to despectiu, cadascú té dret a col·laborar amb el que li plagui. I entenc que en Dúnadan prefereixi dedicar-se a articles de Mèxic, que segurament li donen menys maldecaps que els catalans. Entenc que en Maurice prefereixi dedicar-se als articles d'Espanya, ja que al capdavall és el que porta a la sang ;-). O que jo prefereixi dedicar-me a la Viqui catalana, ja que 1) no em sento gens segur escrivint en anglès (ja ho hauràs comprovat) 2) a la catalana faig més feines d'administrador i neteja que aquí no puc fer i/o allà fan més falta. Ara bé, entenc que tots, tot i preferir dedicar-nos a d'altres coses, quan ens toquen un tema sensible, vinguem aquí a defensar els punts de vista. En resum, no crec que mai dels mais es pugui retreure algú la col·laboració que no fa en un projecte completament voluntari.
2. El segon i més important és pel teu "I may pass this time". Crec que el teu punt de vista i les teves propostes de millora són sempre benvingudes.

Salut! --Xtv, from Casi Nativo Team - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hombre!! l'amic Xtv del Casi Nativo team!! :D

Ho sent si no t'ha agradat el comentari, en qualsevol cas, ja veus que hi vaig escriure "we all", és a dir, que no t'ho hauries de prendre malament. Si bé és potser crítica no constructiva, fruit del fàstic, també és autocrítica. El cas és que seguint donant-li voltes al mateix 'pandero' mentre que n'hi han un munt de coses per fer a eixe article (i d'altres), però com que no són de l'ambit polític, allà continuen, deixant passar els dies...ah! però això sí, el tema nationality, nation, region, country, (¿empire? :P) eixe tema sí que ens agrada a tots més a un tonto un palo i amb eixe tema sí que hi "contribuim"...

Efectivament, pel moment vaig a passar del tema en aquell article. No sé tu, però jo ja he arribat al punt en el que vore segons quines firmes quasibé m'amarga el cafè, i no crec que siga l'únic. Segur que hi haurà Casi Nativo membres als quals els hi fot mal a la vista algunes altres firmes, incloent la meua també ;)

Ah per cert, encara t'estic esperant perque "aprimem" una mica l'espai que se li dona al Català en aquell article (compara'l amb el que si li dona amb el castellà i...a-hem...hello?? :P). Igual un dia d'aquestos em pose a fer-ho jo mateix, així que millor ho fas tu abans de que jo em pose i aixi quedaràs més satisfet amb el resultat!! :P

Una abraçada. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 14:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tens raó, no m'he oblidat del tema català, però estic en un moment que no em puc permetre dedicar temps a la wiki (encara que malauradament, de vegades no me'n puc estar, especialment a la catalana).

Vaig estar-me rellegint el contingut de la secció en qüestió i crec que la informació que hi ha és interessant i, alhora, gran part no apareix a l'article sobre el català (ara sé que ja t'he cagat i entreveus una discussió sobre si s'ha de retallar o no l'article... doncs sento decebre't: no). Per tant, crec que el que podríem fer és crear un article que sigui una cosa de l'estil Catalan language in Catalonia (i es poden crear els anàlegs sobre les altres zones) i posar-hi gran part de l'apartat que ara tenim a Catalonia (ja entreveig les apassionants i apassionades discussions: Catalan language in Catalonia means in AC Catalonia or in Principality of Catalonia?). Així, totes aquestes estadístiques sobre l'ús del català, si el parlen els joves, els vells, els coixos o els guenyos, poden anar al nou article, i en podríem deixar un resum a Catalonia, juntament amb un: per l'article principal, vegeu "Catalan in Catalonia". Altrament, una altra solució és ampliar l'article Catalan language amb aquesta informació, però no sé si aquest article és també massa llarg i podríem fer el mateix: a l'apartat "Number of Catalan speakers" es podria afegir l'enllaç a aquests nous articles que proposo (en aquest cas no crec que s'hagi de treure res de l'article Catalan language, perquè tot i que l'article és llarg, no trobo aquest apartat desmesurat amb la resta de l'article). Què et sembla aquesta proposta? (i perdona que trigui a respondre't, però ja et dic...).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per cert, agrairia que em responguis a la meva pàgina de discussió perquè si no, no sé quan em respons (bé, ja he vist idees més amunt: posar-me la teva pàgina de discussió a la watchlist, però... no m'abelleix...).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Catalan nationalism article

Hola company! Des que fa uns dies vaig tornar de les meves curtes vacances, tinc la lleugera impressió que el tema català a la Wiki comença a escalfar-se de nou (i que consti que jo no en tinc cap intenció, ja que fins ara estic actuant només reactivament i que a més m'he abstingut en la recent, i un poc agre, discussió a Catalonia). Deu ser per l'onada de calor africana? ;)

Now, I just want to ask you about the misunderstanding between the two of us in Catalan nationalism. I am afraid we have read the same sentence with two different meanings: "This view ideally extends to the so-called Catalan Countries or Catalan-speaking territories." I thought that meant that the Catalan nationalist typically thinks that his demands for further autonomy or independence should extend to the whole Catalan Countries. If this is the meaning, such a demand would be supported by CUP, ERC and part of CIU, right? But it seems you read it in a different way. Please let me know and let's try to find the best possible wording for that. Thanks! --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We read it pretty much the same way (even thoug the "ideal" wording is open to interpretation, I'd say "nightmarishly" rather than "ideally" :P). The thing is that, in my opinion, from those parties you mention only CUP is definitely making an issue of the Països Catalans thing, while ERC has it as a very secundary topic, for JERC (sic :P) boys to waste their excess of testosterone, while the "capos" do the serious business ;). As for CiU, I dont think they really care at all. Ok, just a bunch in the boys section ;)

If this is correct (and I think it is ;) then we could safely say that it is a small fraction, because CUP is small as of now.

I stand by that wording, what do you propose instead? just let me know. Fortunately you and I should be able to sort it out.

sí, la cosa podria estar escalfant-se més del compte (jo tampoc he volgut entrar 'al trapo' amb el tema 'Catalonia') i no m'abelleix en absolut entrar en barrena altra vegada! Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'll certainly sort it out, but first it seems that for the first time we need to have some previous discussion about facts. Usually we have been just finding formal solutions based on a previous agreement on facts, but now it seems we do not interpret the Catalan nationalist organizations in the same way. It could be the case that we are analyzing the topic from two different criteria: (1) what the organizations claim they want to do and (2) what they really do. I am doing some searching for sources that could be useful later on to find the wording in the article.

According to the first criteria, I think that the Catalan Countries as the framework for the demands of the (non Spanish) nationalism therein is quite majoritary in these organizations. Just take a look on the following documents: Declaració ideològica d'ERC (they explicitly stipulate the Catalan Countries as the nation they work for), Declaració política del Bloc Nacional i d'Esquerres a les Illes Balears (they aim to strengthen the link between Catalan-speaking countries), Catalunya a Europa i el món, Ponència de CIU (when talking about the future development of the European Union, page 13, they demand that the legal framework should not prevent the Catalan Countries from being recognized as a European region), CUP presentation on their web page (they choose the Catalan Countries as their framework from the very beginning), Ponència del Bloc Nacionalista Valencià (they claim it is their goal to "achieve full sovereignty for the Valencian people, legally declared by a Valencian sovereign Constitution which allows the possibility of association with the countries which share the same language, history and culture"). However, under the second criterion the issue could be more controversial, and this is what you probably mean. But still, it looks quite clear to me that the ERC guys are working hard on that (they have established the party, or a federation of the party, in almost all those regions). What do you think? --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me move this discussion to the talk page, where it belongs. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing by moving it to the corresponding talk page. Now our discussion could have a general interest for the development of this and related articles. Ostres! Avui em fa l'efecte d'estar-te donant males notícies i que això dels "nacionalismos periféricos" és encara pitjor del que et pensaves... (Ho dic per allò del "nightmarishly" que has posat abans) xD --Carles Noguera (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a better place to discuss by all means, especially now that Carod has learnt that going to Perpignan for talks will not help him and he will be caught :P

Oh, indeed finding Joan Tardà's moustache hair or Ridao's beard one in my paella is certainly not within my definition of "ideal" :D Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I have been too fast in implementing my proposal. I hope it didn't make you angry. You will see I have reverted the renaming immediately. I mistook your silence in the article talk page as an invitation to start doing my changes and discuss them a posteriori. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Sure, we don't want to get burnt with any nasty fight regarding our beloved articles, so we'll take our time to discuss everything calmly. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you keep like that, you will leave me with no other option but to love you :P

Moltes gràcies per la teua comprensió. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Euskara map

It's not the most accurate map I've ever drawn but you are wrong. On my map it's between 0-20% not 85%. Zorion talk 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Please. Open your eyes and observe clearly borders. You are confusing eastern Navarre and Soule. Don't jump to conclusions. ThanksZorion talk 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Am I missing something? I honestly do not see where your comments and sarcasm are coming from. --the Dúnadan 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

flag of Spain (osborne)

Please Mounty... Behave yourself! We just want to distinguish, like the constitution, between osborne's bulls and vacas que rien; whether they are self-ascription or denomination, we just report it, and those primary sources. That is what we want to do. Since this article talks about both, it makes sense to rename the article, without any further ado. What else do you want to discuss about before moving the article?

On the other hand, i already warned user:ignaciogavira about this heresy. Hope he will be able to fix it soon. cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Osborne Bull: 1 - La Vaca que Rie: 0. :) --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial page moves

The article is back on its original English name. Page move privileges have been set to admin-only. It is pretty obvious that a change like that needs to follow due process and the other user should have known that already. Thanks, Asterion^talk 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit wars

Hi Mountolive! I am currently traveling across Europe for several professional duties and I haven't been able to follow the evolution of the entries in my watchlist with the usual frequency. Finally today I have spent a couple of hours reading most of the stuff. I don't like the way things are proceeding. First of all, there are some formal problems. Benimerin has been doing some unilateral changes (with little explanation) that have been immediately regarded as highly controversial and reverted (again with little explanation). Then he tries it again and we end up in a disgusting edit war. Following what you have advised in other occasions, it would be better to proceed step by step, discussing all the issues one by one in a rational way. I know you are angry with me for having been silent till now. You even imply that I am happy having someone to do the "dirty work". But the fact is that (in addition to the lack of time) I do not want to be engaged in this kind of edit wars when they do not lead to a fruitful discussion. I hope all of us we will be able to calm down things and recover the civil harmony we had been enjoying during a long period. Cheers! --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political parties in Catalan Countries ‎ for you. Schuym1 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(Re) Valencian Community

I'm sorry Mountolive... Why do I have to yield? The "other side" hasn't move a bit from his position. He fullfils his mouth with the word "debate" and he is unable to reach a solution. If he finds ridiculous to have the tag on the article, I also find ridiculous to have the spanish language erased from a spanish region infobox. If he doesn't want to add it, I won't remove the tag. Sorry if this wasn't what you expected but I'm browned off of yielding for the sake of cooling things. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Honestly, what is your personal opinion on how the debate was and is being handled at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox and Talk:Valencian Community? Do you really think it is testosterone per collons driven despite all the "let's discuss" speeches? Do you think that Option 3 wasn't a valid compromise? Should I have been more explicit in asking him to present his own proposals? Do you have any suggestion?--the Dúnadan 00:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whatever findings you made at the guidelines, but I assume nothing has changed fundamentally and those are rather obscure this time and subjected to interpretation. If that was correct, my opinion hasn't changed from the one I expressed in the relative talk page. There I said something like, more or less:

"custom is custom, custom is not "norms" and I dont think anything on the Manual of Style refers to this particular situation (...)Good faith advises that, being Spanish the language of 100% of Valencians, it is not a crime to add the Spanish name on the top of the infobox. Good faith advises that "customs" (unlike "norms") can be fine tuned in cases like this one (...) adding Comunidad Valenciana too (...) would be perfectly ok.....if people out there were reasonable at all."

Please don't take it personally, but, in my humble opinion, this kind of approach makes any given "special page project", "polls", "multiple options", "footnotes" and else a circus which could be solved in the first place by yielding in a matter which is fertile ground to do so. That would add much credit to users like you, I guess. Otherwise, I am tempted to think there is a testosterone question involved, or, if you prefer more tecnical vocabulary (and I know you do) clinging to a mere legal techcnicality (the fact that the official name in the Valencian Community is Comunitat Valenciana) to not yield, like if Valencians (all of them) didnt speak Spanish (not all of them speak Valencian, as you know) or like if Valencia wasn't a part of Spain (and, despite the Valencian wikipedia users, a quite pepera one, by the way).

Please dont chastise me for my naughty thoughts.

Have a good weekend. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the choice of words ("testosterone", "circus"... gee is it really a "circus" to open an organized debate?), I thought you'd agree with me that I reached out for a compromise, when I offered and agreed on option three, something, that unfortunately, the other party did not. For the other party, it was "my choice, or nothing". So, I find—but maybe I am in self-deception—that it was the other party which was actually more testosterone per collons driven, than me. Especially when the other party requested a third-opinion, and got four additional opinions. I moved towards the middle ground, compromise, we call it, the other party did not, but rather did quite a "circus" (if you will) in erasing his comments, throwing a few inappropriate comments here and there, and leaving the debate. Call it self-deception, but I fail to see your point. Don't take me wrong, here you had the opportunity to actually disagree with Maurice27's evident unfriendly actions for the first time, and indeed gain some credit for yourself, but you preferred to remain quiet at first and now to condone his behavior.

In any case, thank you for your honest appraisal.

--the Dúnadan 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From Historical regions of Spain

I only wrote a "general" comment in that debate, since "specific" comments belong to user talk pages. Here is my entire comment:

When I mentioned "users abandon the debates" I was referring to Maurice, who explicitly abandoned the debate of the Catalan names in infoboxes and refused to accept the opinion of five users who disagreed with him. And the tag still remains...

Secondly, I do find your comment of me playing "deaf ears" to other user's reasons very unfair, simply because as more users began debating, new proposals came out. What had originally been intended as a single renaming, turned out to be the possibility of creating "two" separate articles. Your own argument focused on the nuances of the content (i.e. what constitutes a nationality and what doesn't) and not necessarily on the title, and therefore, I suggested to either rename the article or create two articles first (two alternative options of what we call consensus and/or compromise), and then discuss nuances of content, which was your concern. I was actually expecting you to continue participating in whatever outcome we were, arguably, consensually deciding.

Playing deaf ears to me is when I say "I disagree and I refuse to reach a compromise", like when a user offers a compromise version of an infobox incorporating elements of two opposing versions, and another user accuses him of being "testosterone by the balls driven" for not accepting the other party's POV without questions asked (i.e. "without strings attached") like in Valencian Community.

To be totally honest with you, I had always regarded you as a user with very strong opinions about what he believes is "right", but nonetheless honest, approachable, willing to learn and to reach consensual solutions, unlike others. NPOV is not the absence of a point of view (that is utterly impossible: all sources and users have a POV), but the consensual and compromised version of an article that includes the diverse sources and opinions, and that is why had once invited you to come to the Catalan Wikipedia, since we needed Catalan speakers from diverse points of view. However, after our last conversation, you disappointed me not only by calling a compromised version a "testosterone by the balls driven" opinion, but when asked to reconsider the comment in light of the middle-ground proposal, you insisted on your opinion, called the organized expression of proposals a "circus" (but not the actions of Maurice therein written) and in your silence, and hasty archiving of our talk, condoned Maurice's behavior. Fine, I was willing to forget everything, and start anew. And yet again, this time in "Historical regions of Spain", when I did read all users opinions, and therefore, the debate was moving towards the creation of two articles instead of one (ergo, not "deaf", ergo new solution, ergo consensual solution), you, yet again, surprised me with your unfair assessment. As if "disagreeing and unwilling to find an alternative middle-ground solution" is not "playing deaf ears".

Now it is me who asks you to forgive me for my naughty thoughts.

--the Dúnadan 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, did you notice you are chastising me all too often lately? I dont find this little game that funny anymore but it is getting way too tiresome for now. All these comments of you are coming just too frequently lately and it is getting too much even for me to handle:

Here [5] you find my comment "very unfair". Here [6] my comment was "absolutely inappropiate, to say the least", then, here [7] you "dont understand where (my) comments and sarcasm come from". Here [8] you didnt like (and that one has become a classic) my "choice of words"....all that over the course of 10 days or less.

Now, would you please stop it? Sorry, for written words tend to amplify it, but that was a simple request, "no strings attached".

For God's sake, this is only wikipedia. If you have a problem with my posts and "choice of words" (most of the times "poor"/"bad") then just please go report it, but please spare me the chastising and wishful thnking chatter, because you are not the most appropiate yourself to teach me willingness "to learn and find consensual solutions". Nor you are even the most indicated to teach style in addressing people, for you can be yourself quite poignant yourself with your italics, quotation marks on false friend vocabulary and your unrequested English lessons to users you disagree with (not to me, thanks goodness...well, not lately). Do I chastise you for that? No, I just take it as it is and the world keeps rotating, you know?.

Let's face it: I am either too rude for you or you are too touchy for me. Probably both. I hae learnt it and learnt to live with it, so I dont really bother you that much, just endure it, dont I? why wouldnt you accept this yourself too and, accordingly, please quit quoting my comments once for all?. Our exchanges would be so much better.

As for my so-called "hasty archiving"...did you notice I was archiving through August, as per the Archive Box? did you notice I was archiving almost right away not only yours but everybody's comments on the bloody matter? And that includes Maurice's. Did it ever crossed your mind that it doesnt have anything to do with you but with the fact that I am fed up and weary with the whole situation from which you are just one more? why on earth do you have to take all my comments personaly? why do you take so much offense? do you realize you talk to me like if you were an ex- of mine? (a "bad choice of words" no doubt...but...did it ever cross your mind that what for you is a "bad" choice of words could be a "good" one for me? yes, it's a matter of POV...)

We probably had our days, but, dear, accept it: we both need to get over. And I did already. Life goes on. It's your turn now. Besides, it was you who left me anyway, so why now all the brauhaha? ;)

As for your lessons on "looking for compromise blabla", did you notice this edit [9]? and this one [10]? I know you did notice them. As you know, I have an open channel of communication with Maurice, unlike you. You have an open channel with Benimerin, at least according to this cabàs de vegaes comment [11], unlike me. But it was me who reached out for Maurice to try to persuade him to compromise, or, more exactly, to, at least, consider it. However, I am still waiting for someone from the "Catalan-speaking territories wikiproject" to tell Benimerin on the loose to slow down, behave and dont slash and burn a painful consensus which was working, instead of looking the other way...where were you when "consensus" needed you? not a single fuckin' reversion of Benimerin's rampage from you! how low is that record, Dúnadan?!

As for me having "very strong opinions about what I think is right" you are correct. But those opinions are no less strong than yours, are they?. So, what the fuck are you telling me?

Of course you think you are such a good editor. On this, we do agree, for I think I am not too bad myself either. The difference is that I am not rubbing your nose against your own posts.

One day you'll learn this lesson of "live and let die" along with good doses of humility and self-criticism before you keep pointing your finger out at other people.

Cheers. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 03:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ps. I am going to archive this one too, even if it is not August anymore, because, as I said, I'd like to have this page clear from "Catalan-speaking shite" for a while, and you may agree with me in that this post looks nasty. I am only accepting Mr. Noguera's comments on the matter, which are always welcome. Hope you understand and dont take much offense this time. Take it as an exercise of self-knowledge of you as a wikipedian. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 03:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To archive as well

I don't know if your comments (which I have to read at the archive, since you delete them before I get the chance to read them) aim at reconciliation or aim at throwing more wood to the fire. I was going to write a comment showing how I tried to persuade Benimerin and Xtv to reach for a middle ground, and bla, bla, bla, but then, the facts are open for all to see in the talk pages. And I don't want to remain in this vicious cycle of me "defending myself" and then you "defending yourself", ad infinitum.

So, I'll just write a clarification and a final comment.

First, when I wrote that you had "strong opinions about what you think", I wasn't trying to tell you anything wrong. Of course, I have strong opinions as well, and some topics perhaps even stronger. Didn't you get my point? It was the fact that you had strong opinions and were also honest and approachable that made you a valuable contributor for this and the Wikipedia in Catalan. Didn't you read the sentence that followed? NPOV is not the absence of a POV (and you can add the "strong" adjective, if you will), but the consensual and compromised version of an article that incorporates all [strong] approaches. You see? You (we) need both, and you have both, or used to have both.

And last, but not least, if you feel that my "proposals on compromise" are just nonsense, a circus and bla, bla, bla. Fine. Then make a new proposal, let's discuss it. Let's talk about alternative solutions to the so many dead ends that we have. Do you prefer a single article or do you prefer two, or five? Do you prefer to move the content to an entirely separate article? Fine. Do you want to revamp content? Do you have alternative solutions for the infoboxes? Fine. Do you want to restructure articles and their sections? Fine. I am more than open to discuss any proposal that is moving towards a compromised consensus, and not a static "I disagree, period". If you don't like my proposals to reach a "middle-ground", then what I said to Maurice, I say to you: fine, add your own proposal to the list. But let's talk! Let's walk our way towards a compromised solution that satisfies everybody's concerns! I find it very unfortunate, in my experience in Wikipedia, that the series of articles on Mexico, Argentina and Brazil seem to be more complete than those of Spain, because we never seem to agree on compromised articles (pardon the Italics if they offend you, but this is important), and we get so tired of fighting over controversial stuff, that we lose the stamina to edit on the rest of the topics. And because of our strong disagreements, we are unable to work as a team on other projects.

Archive this comment, if you will, but at least consider some of the points I'm trying to make.

--the Dúnadan 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am willing to reach out to Benimerin and trying to convince him to reach a consensual solution (as I already have with Xtv), but then would you be willing to help me sort things out with Maurice? If you have an alternative solution, please let me know.

Yes, you had "to read my comments at the archive" because I archived (not really "deleted") them before you "get the chance to read them"...so, tell me something new, dude, I knew all that in the first place...what are you telling me? or are you maybe talking to somebody else which I am not aware of? our imaginary friend? scary.

That post does not aim to "reconciliation" (I told you we have to get over, baby, and I mean it) nor to adding more wood to any fire. Is that possible? well, I tell you: yes, it is. Not everything is about you, nor me.

Ara t'escolto with the "dont want to remain in this vicious circle of you defending yourself and me defending myself". Totally agree. A great start would be if you, once for all, stop taking my comments personally, stop feeling permanently grudged, shelve dellusions of "reconciliation" whatsoever.

As for the "new proposals", "let's talk", etc. sunny part, sounds good, but there is something which you are not aware of, because you can't see it. And it is the fact that you will never move from your starting point. I am not saying that you wouldnt like to, I am not saying that you are not sincere with your statement, but...check the contentious issues you've been involved with and show me one where your position changed substantially from the initial one. Is there any? No, as far as I am concerned. It must be our "strong opinions".

With this state of things, yes, "let's talk" is nice, but you have to understand that people's time is limited, talk for the sake of talk is not paying, talking and not being listened to is not nice and, the most important, there is a sex life to maintain and the best way is not engaging in endless fruitless time-consuming talk at wikipedia in the small hours.

You are not responsible of my little will or time availability to be invested here, so I am not blaming you for that. But please do not blame me either if I decline to engage in talk pages for ages going in circles, with me sending messages and you bringing wikipedia policies and google references which I feel like they dont answer my concern, while I guess you feel like they do, and the only thing certain is little-to-none outcome in the end. It is fruitless and frustrating, for the both of us. We've been crashing for a year or more. Probably you are younger, more enthusiastic etc. (and that is nice) but myself I certainly do not need another year to find out what I already know: that it is not going to work unless you really assume yourself all those things you are writing above. You are in the good path of knowing they are important, so, naturally, it will come the day when you practice what you preach. When that happens, do not worry: I'll recognize the signs right away and happily engage in talk page sex with you.

This said, I will recheck the article I presume you are talking about (Historical regions of Spain, is that one?) re-asses your comments (I seem to remember your speech changed from the initial post to the last ones, not fundamentally, but rather as cutting corners...) and I'll let you know if I fond any possible way out. Please allow me some time. Dont expect much anyway.

ps. your proposal to appease Benimerin-on-the-loose arrives just so late Mountolive _{and the complications} 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment

Indeed you care less about reconciliation. Patience is a virtue, but it has its limits, and I reached mine, so forgive me from what I am about to say. I really don't know if it is honest misinformation or delusion, but it is ludicrous to claim that my position hasn't moved "a single bit", when I offered a middle-ground proposal on the infobox debate. A proposal that I had to argue even against my own so-called "fellow-mates". This proposal had the Spanish translation unlike my proposal two years ago, when I opposed the Spanish translation. Do you refuse to see that, or are you self-deluded? I assume that in your eyes walking away from a debate and condoning Maurice's intransigence means to "compromise". Did he ever move a bit from his initial position for the last two years over the same subject? Did you? No.

So, in short, cut the crap Mountolive. You called my efforts at proposing and advocating for a compromise a "testosterone by the balls"-driven circus. What did you do? Nothing at all. Want to use the rhetoric of "walk the talk", "live what you preach"? Then why, when I repeatedly ask you—like on my last intervention—to stop the vicious cycle and to offer a proposal, you resort again to ad hominem arguments? No proposals then? Only more criticism against my "rhetoric"? You said it yourself: This is not about me. Perhaps you should walk the talk, because at least I am trying.

You don't want me to take offense at your comments? The moment you start bringing constructive arguments instead of the ludicrous assessments of my testosterone level I'll start taking you seriously. The moment you respond to my request for a proposal with a proposal, instead of bringing again more fire into the woods of accusation, I will take that proposal seriously, and work with it to reach a consensus. I used to give you credit as an approachable editor. Not anymore. Not that you care, though, it seems.

But if you do not have time to edit and discuss, then let us the "young and energetic" work. I am neither as young as you think I am nor as bad an editor. For the last three years I have edited hundreds of articles, on various topics from Latin America, to Economics, to History, to Spain, and only in the latter have I found an intransigent and inconciliable opposition. Maybe you should let go off the stereotype that any user coming from the Wikipedia in the Catalan language—whether Catalan or not— is inherently nationalistic and an unreliable editor.

You don't need, and I don't expect you to answer this comment. But if you do, do it on my talk page. It is a tiring effort trying to locate your quickly-archived answers. You see, not everybody lives in the same hemisphere you do.

--the Dúnadan 22:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Statute of Autonomy

I'll take a look at it.--the Dúnadan 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my Dúnadan. Mountolive _{and the complications} 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if the article should exclusivelly refer to Spain. As far as I can tell, no other administrative division in the world uses that nomenclature to refer to their organic laws. That is not even the name used in the UK, and the British "Acts", refer to the documents that devolved power, not to the organic laws (after all, the UK does not have a constitution). --the Dúnadan 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably.

Sound reasoning like that one is the one I was expecting from you when I asked you to pay a look in there...Mountolive _{and the complications} 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Half Barnstar
		The Half Barnstar is awarded to you for excellence in cooperation. You have contributed to move forward the Nationalities and regions of Spain article, by productive editing together with User:Dúnadan, despite not always sharing the same viewpoints. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Asterion. However, I think I deserve better the "pico-estrella" or, maximum, "quarter-star barnstar" instead! :D

Mountolive _{and the complications} 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mountolive

When you have time, please take a look at Talk:ETA#Hotel_Corona_de_Arag.C3.B3n_fire_as_an_ETA_attack. Thank you Randroide (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Today / current

Perdona, t'havia canviat aquesta paraula sense voler perquè per anar ràpid en fer el meu canvi havia apretat "undo". Està clar que era millor usar "current" que "today". Res a discutir sobre això :) BTW, do you agree that it is better to link to Spain rather than to Spanish which is a disambiguation page? --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Clar que estic d'acord amb això, de fet, no ho vaig fer jo mateix per mandra ;) Cap problema. Després em passe per Kingdom of Valencia, però...drop all your hopes :P

Elche/Elx article

Last month you had started a discussion regarding the unusual naming convention of the Elche/Elx article, and I posted a response in agreement with you. I did a check of 3 encyclopedias and 3 dictionaries which all used Elche as the main spelling. It doesn't look like anyone else has responded after a month, but should we start the process of officially requesting the article name change from Elche/Elx to Elche? I've made a request on another article once before when it wouldn't allow me to do a move, but I'm not familiar with the appropriate process when there is potential for dispute. Gracias. Kman543210 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kman. I dont think that move is particularly sensitive. I'd change it myself, but, to be honest, I dont know exactly how to do it. You may want to ask user:Asterion, also, you may want to check user:Cnoguera's opinion. The latter probably won't like this move, but I he will probably understand as well.

If you have problems with this move, I can certainly support you with this.

Have a good weekend. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 03:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed a title change request from Elche/Elx to Elche on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Because the titled page Elche used to exist, it has to be done by an administrator rather than just using the 'move' function. I feel pretty confident that it's the right thing to do, and we allowed discussion for a month on the talk page.

Each time I see that title with the slash, I cringe. I'm a really firm believer that a title should reflect the most commonly used word in English language sources whether it be Spanish, Catalan, Basque, or an anglicized version of it. Thanks for your help. Kman543210 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in cringing with the slash/name and other odd Spanish regional conventions here in English wikipedia. As you said, we should use here whatever the most used in English is and that even if, personally, I prefer Elx; but I understand that Elche is more commonly heard/written in English. The point is that too much people fails to understand that wikipedia is not a "nation building" tool after all.

Thanks. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 2 October, 2008, I've realized that the Valencian Ethnic People in all Countries (as well as the Catalan ones =P) has a population of 12,000 individuals... and I'm afraid the reliable source reflects the Samaruc population.

^_^ Hiya Mountolive. It's been a long time! I'm very sorry to toss your currently immaculate talk page: we have a problem. That's enough. The problem is I'm dry. So I think it's better request for mediation. Cheers (hiya, Maurice!)--Owdki ^talk 16:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...good ol' MC Owdki strikes back...it's been for a while, dude.

And I missed you. Even though you came to disturb the pristine blank look of my talk page freed from yet more Cataproblems...

Excuse me for the unrequested OR which follows ;) but...it is intriguing. People, after taking a break, come back (because they/we almost always eventually come back) in a more loose approach, typically editting articles which are not related to their past grudges, which they typically remove from their watchlist, if only for a while...still, you came back in a "como decíamos ayer" mood. Puzzling as it may be, I still salute this approach, for it speaks of the deep nature of your systemic concern, which I understand and share (but I am afraid we can't get explained properly).

[(Well, actually, on second thought, all my OR is more like BS as I remember now that a long time gone "element" recently came back to ravage the Valencian Community article with the same "reasons" after one year (on parole? ;) and then disappeared again (dunno for how long...). I guess my OR only applies to anglosaxon editors...]

What you are proposing is bold and, somehow, I agree. However, I am afraid your "impeachment" (just struggling to find a word who defines your 'enmienda a la totalidad' tenet) is definitely out question by now and out of our hands to ever make it successful.

Dont get me wrong: I still think you could be right, you are right, but, against the Solzhenitsyn motto in my user's page, I am afraid that, with the present situation, I guess the only way out is to compromise with the powerful lobby from which, btw, Noguera is the best example of a guy whom you can talk to, so, in my opinion, we'd better not bark to the wrong tree in the first place.

You can only expect more and more users (including administrators) coming from the ca.wiki to illustrate how wrong this wikipedia is according to their own wikipedia. Some people behaving here basically like vandals (I'm thinking of that one destroying the V.C. community article) seem to be even respected users there.

I feel the damned weight of dealing with these guys, at times I am at carrying capacity (not lately, though, but it only takes a fuse and the whole thing explodes like fuckin' dynamite) despite the -no less executive :P- action by Mo27 or the always fair new user Kman.

All in all, I think you should drop your own Solzhenitsynesque hopes and join the likely lads, discuss with Noguera (it is the only discussion which does yield outcomes that I know so far) only trying to be reasonable and make understand the occasional astray user from ca.wiki that things are different over here.

This said, you can count with my support with most of the stuff you lead. But, I wouldnt like to disappoint you: my tolerance level for Cataproblems is damned low and I am prone to give up reached a certain point...

I'm glad to hear from you, man. I hope you stay. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

=D Your "OR" is totally "Dúnadainesque", in the worst sense (mmm... it lacks the "I'm amazed", but those "it is intriguing"-"puzzling" are very original substitutes).

Reading your first paragraph I could think that you believe I've edited directly the Dalí article, falling from "my break" directly to a hot zone in a edit war. But... reading the other lines I could think that you have dug in my edit track record. Anyway I get your words with the same respect as the Heraclitus words. Don't get me wrong, because I respect you as well as Heraclitus. Another different thing is if I understand you, because you don't make it easy. And no motto works if you don't communicate clearly your concerns.

At this point the only thing I can do is expressing my general view, using a clear "OR".

Regarding the main issue, I see my "impeachment" as clear as the past Catalan people case. That is, the same way there was a note in the very top of the article:

• This article refers to both the Catalans as an ethnic group and to those speakers of the Catalan language who may not be identified as being Catalan.

In the same way, à la carte, we ought to put another one in the very top of each article where "Catalan" is used with "Spanish", for example:

• Note: The term "nationality" in this context does not imply -and has never been intended to imply- the status of statehood, of which a state-citizenship is recognized by the international community, but rather the recognition of "historical identity" or, in Keating's words, "national identity" (in other words, no one has ever claimed that Gaudí was Catalan as a "state-citizenship", he was a Spanish citizen because he was from Catalonia, a constituent "nationality" of the Spanish State). Please note too that this same term, "nationality" is also applied, in a similar fashion, to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom (Keating, p.25). Britannica also uses the term in the article of Spain to describe the four nationalities of Spain. Most importantly, it is the official, constitutional and/or statutory definition for some of the constituent political entities within Spain (the majority of which have a different native language: Catalan, Euskera or Galician, for example). (My addendum:) Note also that the Spanish and Catalan terms could be used in a cultural fashion. Please, choose the context and the meaning you like depending on your POV.

Where are the Wikipedia standards? We are not here to satisfy any POV pusher (nor me, nor you, nor Cnoguera, nor anybody), if it means violate the rules. The mess with the "cultural" meaning is just mess and misinformation. When you have to explain such things, there's a deep problem here. A deep comprehension problem. You know what I'm talking about.

Cnoguera: I have my own right to distrust Cnoguera due to his behaviour. We was discussing about "Catalan countries" and, after a looooong and dense discussion here is the outcome: Països Catalans. Can you see the Ramon llull Institute translation there? No. Just forcing the polysemy on translation: "Catalan countries" everywhere. Forcing. The polisemy case is just on Catalan context, but there isn't polysemic case on translation: two concepts. But the worst blow to my hopes was this. Cnoguera didn't answer. Nobody answered Jmabel. That template is related with the Catalan countries mess: it worked the linguistic concept, and now it's deleted. God bless the "embolica que fa fort"! And they had the responsibility. They still have the responsibility. But the problem have persisted, and in essence ain't damn shit has changed. Their silence toward Jmabel concerns is just an illustration. And I don't see the same activity in wp:ca toward the same matters discussed in wp:en. I only see silence and "I don't hear that".

You point out "the powerful lobby" (a pale wp:ca reflection). I gave them a chance (Dúnadan, Xtv, Cnoguera, etc.) in order to work all the background seriously. I'm still waiting for (where are you, guys?). They still have the responsibility. I'm giving them another chance right now.

I've retired my "impeachment". It's in your hands. Please, bear in mind the standards. Consensus must flow under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just for the sake of consensus. That would be a flawed consensus. When I see such things I go nuts. And there was consensus for 3 fuckin years!

Well, I'm out. Take care and keep up the good work. --Owdki ^talk 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Hey, I'm not back. I don't like using vests =P. Did you read the 2008 report? The DYN and the Samaruc note was because of that single purpose account: the independence overriding Valencian ethnicity by means Catalan countries + catalan ethnicity (it was her own reference). And this was funny also.

So you are out again? pues vaya gracia... Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! AMAZING. After posting this link in Vriullop talk page, and posting here my concern about the Ramon Llull Institute translation, which translated "Països Catalans" as "catalan-speaking lands", TODAY THIS PAGE HAS BEEN VAPORIZED. The map is Vaporized. All is vaporized. What do you think? XDXDXD. Oh, my! Did you see the link before the "move", Mountolive? Hey, Cnoguera: where are you, fella? --Owdki ^talk 11:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Saint Google Cache:

• Catalan: Països Catalans
• English: Catalan-speaking lands

=P --Owdki ^talk 12:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr...not really following you, mate. I'm a simple guy, I tend to be overwhelmed by plural linking and I am not sure I got your premises in the first place...Mountolive _{le déluge} 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let it run. There's enough vivacissimo tempo already.

Hey, you could try to improve the Samaruc article. It lacks valencian name, and I've seen some reliable sources online with maps and good info.

And this is my last edit (may be in six or ten months I'll edit again to say that something has changed... I dunno). Keep up your good work, fella: you maintain the minimums in some wikineighborhoods (yeah... we know, close to police rol, some frustrating work but necessary... and bad payed). At least this is a little hope. Best wishes, Mountolive ^_^ --Owdki ^talk 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello guys. I'm back from my wikiholidays. One week ago, when I read Owdki's message in Dalí's talk page [12], I got terribly disappointed so I decided it would be better to take some rest. I was disappointed because of the content of its message but mostly because of the tone. It didn't invite any reply ("We don't need to spend more time talking about the obvious", "If you don't agree, instead of e-salivating this talk or any other talk page, I suggest you go directly via requests for mediation"). It sounds to me a kind of Amb tu no tinc res a discutir; ens veurem directament als tribunals. And that's damn disappointing, yes, specially because in the past I had some pleasant experience working with him in the Països Catalans article. I thought we were building something good together. Now it is clear he didn't see it in the same way. He keeps on arguing that the article is wrong even if we accepted his rightful points by adding a precise explanation of the polisemy of the expression and this: "some cultural institutions avoid the usage of Països Catalans in some contexts, as a means to prevent any political interpretation; in these cases, equivalent expressions (such as Catalan-speaking countries) or others (such as the linguistic domain of Catalan language) are used instead" (with the link to the IRL text; BTW as far as I can see the page still exists with the same content in the "Qui som" section, they have just updated the format).

I must admit that I completely share Mountolive's feelings about the nasty situation we have here. There is a terrible pressure from opposite kinds of vandals to adapt the Catalan-related pages to their POVs. I don't like this work of trying to keep them at peace and neutral. It is tiring and frustrating and it never ends. There are many other interesting things I would like to do instead in Wikipedia. I would gladly leave these duties if somebody would arrive to substitute me. That's for sure. And I read in Mountolive's words that he feels something similar. I am not stupid. I know that, to mention some relevant examples, Dúnadan, Xtv and myself share some POV or systemic deviation, while Mountolive, Owdki and Maurice share some other one. I know that both points of view are reasonable and justified, both necessary, and that we must work together to keep the articles informative and balanced. I know that. And so far it works quite well, at least with the reasonable people I have mentioned among others. It has been a nice experience, for instance, to work with them at Kingdom of Valencia or Estelada. It gives some results that help Wikipedia, and that's the goal, isn't it?

However, there are some nasty things we have to deal with here. And one of them is the "Spanish Catalan" issue. The solution I have been supporting maybe it is not ideal but it is the best one I know. If somebody can propose something better I would be happy to hear it. There are good reasons to defend that one should write only "Spanish" and other good reasons for writing only "Catalan". That's why we cannot keep in any of these formulations without risking a stupid edit war. So, why not keeping both things? It is more informative and can calm many vandals. Of course, that's only my proposal and, as any other thing, can be discussed and maybe improved.

Anyway, for a while I'll keep being around (although being also prone to give up).--Carles Noguera (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing much to say other than I very much esteem you both guys and that the whole thing is quite depressing... Mountolive _{le déluge} 14:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Flags

I answered your question on flags in User talk:Error#Basque country (greater region). --Error (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article

You have twice changed infomation in this article regarding Valencians speaking Catalan. I now have two citations proving my point that many Valencians speak Catalan. Ethnologue.com says 6.4 million Catalan speakers reside in Spain's Valencian region. The other citation is a newspaper article in Spanish that states 50 percent of Valencians speak and read Catalan and about 30 percent of Valencians write it. If you change this information again I will revert it and report you for a 3RR violation. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes no sense to me. However, I noticed you reverted my changes yet again. I reverted your changes and have done so for the last time because I don't want to be found guilty of a 3RR. However, I will report you. LuisGomez111 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See violation report:[13] LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: [14]

Discussion of result

I just read the result of my report. Notice what the administrator said: "No vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation." Now that you know I don't take multiple and pointless reverts lightly (especially when I've worked very hard to improve an article), I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you.

The first two citations below are already in the Paella article. I just found the third.

Ethnologue info on Catalan speakers of Valencia

Study providing info on the number of Catalan speakers in Valencia reported by El Pais, a Spanish major metro newspaper

Spanish Supreme Court rules Catalan and Valencian are the same language.

Together they prove the following: There were at least 6.4 million Catalan speakers in Spain's Valencian region in the late '90s; this number comprises about half of that region's population; Valencian and Catalan are the same language even if Valencian is a different dialect.

My wording in the article states the following: Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan... Frankly, I don't understand why you think I've misreperesented the truth. Your reaction?

By the way, with respect to the peacock words, I don't agree with you nor with the other editor who changed them but I will leave the article as is in the interests of compromise. LuisGomez111 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country

Please do not move articles based on your personal opinion without first gaining consensus at a venue such as WP:Spain. Thanks, Grsz^X 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not based on my personal opinion, but on the google search. I posted my move comment one day ago and, in the absence of reply, I moved it. Is that wrong?

I am open to talk about it, as I have been from the beginning, but I can not read people's mind... Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. However, it's probable that the Google search includes hits to the autonomous Basque Country. This is just one of those things that needs discussed before it's done. Grsz^X 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

De donde esta? Grsz^X 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with "de donde esta?" nor I am getting well your google point. If you are refering to my move notice, it is at the article's talk page. Thank you. Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean, when you google search Spanish Basque Country, the results aren't just about the "Southern Basque Country" but Basque Country in general. Grsz^X 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I see. What you need to do is making the search using the quotation marks "....". When you do like that, it only returns searches with this particular order of words, narrowing down the search, like this [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs)

Alright, see what I mean now? Grsz^X 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh, I am struggling to see what you mean. I guess it is that the results are about the [[Basque Autonomous Community] rather than the (BAC+Navarre) as covered by this article. Is that what you mean?

If so, then I guess you are right. Mountolive _{le déluge} 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Paella Article

I just had a look at the changes you've made. Your writing skills are so shockingly poor that it's comical. For instance, you may be surprised to learn that the word "recipe" is not spelled "recipee". Also, your sentence construction is often nonsensical. Here's one of your gems:

Also in the Albufera, there used to be a now nearly vanished recipee including a local rodent similar to the water vole.

First of all, as I stated earlier, there's no pee in the word recipe. Secondly there are two redundancies in the sentence: there used to be and now nearly vanished. Thirdly, you have no citations to back up your information. Finally instead of identifying the actual rodent Spaniards used to use in paella, you can only provide the name of one that’s similar to it: the water vole.

Here's another one of your monstrosities:

Later on, social life became more active with the sociological changes involved with the industrialization process.

I had to read this sentence several times before understanding it. You obviously started out with something I wrote and finished off with something barely intelligible. Here's a much better rewrite.

Later on, social life became more active with the changes of the industrial age.

There are other glaring mistakes but I'm not your English teacher so I intend to give you no more instruction. In short, instead of improving this article you've ruined it by adding irrelevant, uncited information and by inserting poorly written prose.

For the time being, however, I'm going to resist the urge to revert. I want to see what other gargantuan mistakes you make. Because, frankly, I'm curious to see just how remedial your writing skills are. Later I can always revert and/or ask for the assistance of an administrator in this matter.

Seriously dude you need to learn how to write. LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the angry tone of my reaction to your changes to the paella article. Below is a kinder rewrite which I have placed on that article's talk page:

Rewrite

I just had a look at the changes you've made. Unfortunately, your writing skills need help. For instance, you spelled "recipe" as "recipee". Also, your sentence construction is clumsy. Here's an example of something you wrote.

Also in the Albufera, there used to be a now nearly vanished recipee including a local rodent similar to the water vole.

First of all, as I stated earlier, there's no pee in the word recipe. Secondly there are two redundancies in the sentence: there used to be and now nearly vanished. Thirdly, you have no citations to back up your information. Fourth, instead of identifying the actual rodent Spaniards formerly put in paella, you've provided the name of one that’s similar to it: the water vole. And last, but not least, why would you include uncited information on an ingredient Spaniards have stopped using?

Here's another example:

Later on, social life became more active with the sociological changes involved with the industrialization process.

I had to read this sentence several times before understanding it. You obviously started out with something I wrote and finished off with your own rewrite. Here's my improvement:

Later on, social life became more active with the changes of the industrial age.

There are other mistakes as well.

I was very disappointed when I read your changes because you added irrelevant, uncited information and inserted poorly written prose.

For the time being, however, I'm going to resist the urge to revert to give you time to make these corrections. If you fail to do this I can always revert and/or ask for the assistance of an administrator in this matter. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article RFC

I've placed a "Request For Comment" tag on the bottom of the discussion page for this article in an attempt to initiate dispute resolution. I noticed you and user:Bluee Mountain arguing a bit. Please participate. LuisGomez111 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to participate before at the talk page only to get you insulting me, then listening that you are quitting, then having you back with the above user name, then with another user name...if you know what I mean. Mountolive _{le déluge} 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you remember correctly, I apologized for the angry tone of one of my messages to you but not the content. Secondly, I said I would quit but became involved again when I saw other editors (including you) arguing over the same issues we were arguing over. I thought dispute resolution would help. The purpose of an RfC request is to encourage outside editors to provide useful information. Finally, Bluee Mountain is NOT one of my user names. He/she is a different person altogether. My user names are as follows: LuisGomez111, Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. LuisGomez111 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

sandbox for report

{{help}} how do I post this request for sockpuppet? I found the page, but I dont know how to enter the request

Suspected puppetmaster: user:LuisGomez111 Suspected sockpuppets: user:Warrington user:Bluee Mountain

Background

The paella article has gone definitely over the top and, at times, kinda insane. User:LuisGomez111 has made, under his three different acknowledged accounts (three!?), more than 300 of the last 500 edits [16] which points out to a pretty obvious wp:article ownership problem. What is funniest is that he accused me of having become "obsessed" with the article because I made some 5-10 edits. This article ownership concern regarding LuisGomez111 has been noted by other users as well [17] (also, funnily enough, he claims that he doesnt know where I take that edit figure from [18] despite the history ticker of the article giving glaring evidence). Besides, wp:civility concerns have been addressed to him [19] [20]

LuisGomez111 routinarily blanks his talk page rather than archiving it [21]. Still, if you dig in the history, you find out that he's been reported for sockpuppeteering before. Actually, he only acknowledged user:The Thin Man Who Never Leaves to be a sockpuppet of himself after being reported [22]. Apparently, after a long (and, I bet, tiresome) discussion, he got away with it and no sanctions whatsoever.

LuisGomez111 seems to be very aware of the 3RR [23] and [24]

Evidence

During the course of a (quite stupid, by the way) mini-edit war (which accounts for the article ownership problem noted above) all of a sudden, a couple users stepped into the talk page, making comments on talk page ranging from confusing to simply out of whack, especially user:Warrington (also a brief appearence of a misterious "Texas Pete" reverting to a version of LuisGomez could be checked [25].

Often, the suspected sockpuppets comments begin or end with a suspicious bow to how good LuisGomez edits are, like here [26] ("you have made some very good changes on the article, LuisGomez111", Warrington) [27] ("I have to say that I understand why Mr. Gomez got angry", Bluee Mountain)

Bluee Mountain then develops a rather out of the question and unfounding patronizing tone when referring to me [28] and is fast to proclaim "the dispute is resolved" [29] even though there was no real debate whatsoever.

There is also a telling record of LuisGomez editting either Warrington's or Bluee Mountain's own comments without any comment from them [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. This pattern reaches the extreme of LuisGomez tweaking Warrington's own comments and, in the same post, thanking him(self?) for them [36]

Additionally, an anon edited Bluee Mountain's comments to stress the fact that the article should not be changed [37]

my conclusions

I can't see why LuisGomez should be allowed to have three different accounts with which he edits in the same article. Then, if either or both of the above suspected sockpuppets are found to be his, I'd ask for serious action against him, for he would have used them to wp:Gaming the system and to rant against a good faith user which is a newcomer to this article, all with no civility whatsoever. In my opinion, this is serious enough.

Mountolive _{le déluge} 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Go to this page. In the input box, enter the name of the sockpuppeteer where it says to, and click the button. On the new page, enter your evidence. [ roux ] [x] 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've filed the report on your behalf, while explicitly staying neutral.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, guys. I am glad to see that at least this {help} thing works so well. Mountolive _{le déluge} 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of sock puppetry

I find this baffling because had anyone bothered to check the IP addresses of the accounts in question he/she would see that it's not true. That's really all this case requires, comparison of the IP addresses. However, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post my response. Is it?LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are socking with other accounts, even today, and you know exactly what I've talking about, on the same articles too, would you care to explain that? Note, Luis is correct that the accounts in the SSP are unrelated to him, but, there are those other ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My Response to sock puppetry accusation

When you refer to "those other ones" I assume you mean Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. Those are two openly declared, alternate accounts I've been using for several months now. I added an alternate account notification to Pasta4470 on May 27 at 10:57 UTC [38] and then one to Thin Man on June 23 at 08:46 UTC [39]. By the way here's the wikipedia policy that allows users to have alternate accounts in case you're not aware of it (though you should be).[40]

Therefore, not only are you wrong about me having sock puppets but you're also wrong about the date of my recent changes. Have a look the contribs for all three accounts for yesterday. You'll notice I've made changes to no articles nor have I left messages on any talk pages. The most recent change I made was the day before yesterday with my Thin Man account before putting the "Retired" tag on all three of my accounts. However, after I left a message for you two days ago about closing my accounts, I tried to put a hash codes on my accounts thinking that that was the way to close them. However, I deleted the hash code templates once you pointed out to me that the "Retired" tag was the best I could do. Perhaps this is the flurry of activity you're referring to. But all of that was legitimate and, as I said, occurred two days ago, not yesterday.

Moving on to another issue: Mountolive is determined to discuss civility. Therefore, I will as well. My first confrontation with Mountolive occurred earlier this month after he insisted on reverting my edits rather aggressively. To his shock, I reported for him for violating the 3RR. Here was the administrator's finding:

...no vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation...[41] Apparently, since this time, Mountolive has considered me persona non grata.

Regarding my behavior: It's true that I wrote one angry message to Mountolive both on his talk page and on the Paella talk page but I promptly apologized for my tone in both places. [42] [43]

Not long after that, a few of the editors of the Paella article started arguing over several issues at once. Seeing this, I decided to initiate a dispute resolution. After spending considerable time looking through Wikipedia policy I discovered the way to start was by initiating a wp:RfC which I did here.[44]. I then encouraged Mountolive to participate. [45] He responded by accusing me of sock puppetry, as you can see. He then made a change to the Paella article and promptly insulted me on the article's talk page [46] (something for wich he has never apologized). I chose not to react for the sake of not starting another argument. However user:Warrington angrily defended me (as I warned Mountolive that he/she might). I then thanked Warrington. Apparently, my warning and Warrington's reaction convinced Mountolive that Warrington was my sock puppet. However, we all know he was wrong about that now because you checked the IP addresses.

So, I have apologized to Mountolive, encouraged him to participate in an RfC and I bit my tongue when he insulted me. Are those the actions of an uncivil man? The answer is obviously no.

In summary here are the issues of the case, each of which I have refuted:

1) Mountolive accused my of sock puppetry. However, you found that accusation to be baseless after checking the IP addresses of the accounts in question.

2) You accused me of sock puppetry with my two openly declared, alternate accounts. However this defies the definition of both a sock puppet and an openly declared, alternate account. Also I showed you that I declared them months before this dispute arose.

3) Strangely, you also said I was socking yesterday. However my contribs show I made no changes yesterday to any article or talk page.

I think I've proven my case.

However, there is one more issue I'd like to bring up. I put in great effort in expanding and improving the Paella article. Here's what it looked like before I began editing it.[47]. Here's what it looks like today (Paella). This is largely due to my effort with smaller contributions from Bluee and Warrington. Thanks to us, it now includes a lengthy history section, two basic recipes, three more images (two of them contributed by Warrington) and many citations. The only person on Wikipedia who has thanked me for all this work is Warrington. However, other editors involved have done nothing but criticize me. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this has happened. I've received tremendous criticism from other editors as well after editing other articles. This reminds me of the expression no good deed goes unpunished.

These conflicts led me to place the "Retired" tags on my accounts. I see no point in editing if it only leads to arguments and criticism. For that reason I will not be editing any other articles. However, if you block me then you will have clearly over stepped your authority as an administrator because I don't see how I've violated any Wikipedia policies. So if you block me, you can be certain I will appeal the decision to a higher Wikipedia authority purely for reasons of principle. LuisGomez111 (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella article

I'm glad that you took action on the problem with the article. I became involved when another editor asked for help due to the fact that I had created the food infobox being used and they were having a problem with LuisGomez as well. To me, it was like a mini-Soap opera that would have a new developement each day. The drama didn't make sense to me, but wars have started for less. I had approached an administrator (informally) about the problems with the article/editors. However, I didn't receive a response and I wasn't sure if I should go further. I did make some checks of my own and thought it was odd that some of the editors started contributing around the same date and their support for LuisGomez seemed extreme. LuisGomez was interesting as well, if you go back through his talk page and contributor page histories (past all the page blanking) I was able to get a better picture of him as an editor. Hopefully, this is now settled. :) Shinerunner (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)