Talk:Government of Quim Torra

Edit by Impru20

@Impru20: I have been working on several Catalan articles recently in order to bring them up to shape. My work on this article is a continuation of that work.

Yes, my format is better. The entries are sorted alphabetically rather than in some random order, they allow sorting and they have images, as all good tables do (see WP:WIAFL).

If you believe the dates are wrong change them. If you believe the images are the wrong size change them. If you dont't like red links change them (read Template:Sortname if you don't don't know how). By blindly reverting all of my edits you are taking ownership of this article as you've done to so many others.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: It's perfectly acceptable that you try to bring Catalan articles up to shape, but such a "work" is not a justification for you to try to impose your will on others and try to dictate what others may or may not edit in these articles. These are not your articles, nor are these your tables. It's not even your format, as this is open for everyone to edit. Such a behaviour constitutes WP:OWN, and is forbidden in Wikipedia.

I pointed out several flaws your edits had in this article (i.e. the Ministers not yet being appointed, the flawed use of images and redlinks as well as the excessive use of media references saying essentially the same, the wrong use of dates and so on) and you failed to address any of them. You point out to WP:WIAFL, but I fail to see where it is said there that good tables should have images. In fact, WIAFL clearly states that a minimal proportion of items are redlinked, yet you're clearly abusing of redlinks in all of the articles you're editing. You say to me that if I see something wrong I should change these. Yeah, I don't need you to instruct me to do so as you're not the owner of this: I was already bold and did it, yet you've persistently reverted these edits to your own version, without making any change. Your behaviour falls within points 2 and 3 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Now, if you accuse me of "ownership" myself, it'd be curious to see where I've acted with ownership in this article, because I've given good reasons for the changes and they were rashly reverted by you anyway. Then, you make an implicit accusation that I did violate ownership to "many other" articles; well, it's curious how, should that to be the case, you did nothing to warn me or report me about that at the time it supposedly happened. You should be aware of WP:NPA (I think I already noted you about this in our last discussion here, didn't I?) and the fact that you should not accuse others about their personal behavior if such claims lack evidence. Specially if you yourself are acting in such a behavior (see WP:KETTLE).

Also, I note you that with this edit you've reverted me three times within a timespan of less than 24 hours, thus violating WP:3RR. I don't know how that was needed at all. Impru20^talk 16:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: Dealing with your last point, I have not reverted you three times, my first edit today was a constructive edit though you probably disagree with this.

Turning to your specific issues with the table, I have stated that you should try to deal with them individually rather just revert everything. You don't like red links and the dates I've used. I have amended this. I have also changed the image size - hopefully you are please with this. You mentioned something in the edit summary about blank space - what exactly are you referring to? I will try to resolve this if you explain the problem.

WP:WIAFL states that WP:FL should have images. Most WP:FL have tables and those tables will have images e.g. List of Presidents of Portugal, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not differentiate between constructive or non-constructive reverts. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I'm not going to enforce anything about this now, I'm just warning you about what 3RR is. Because admins are very much restrictive on this: every edit you do that reverts' other editor's edit, either in whole in part, either pressing the "undo" button or not, counts as a revert if done within a 24-hour timespan.

Then, you say that you should try to deal with them individually rather just revert everything. And then I say to you: "apply that to yourself". There was no table before my first edit; just a box showing Quim Torra. I introduced a table showing the full ministers's summary, then you reverted me and imposed your own version of it, telling me what should I edit and what not. WP:OWN was so obvious so as to be disgusting and uncomfortable to even edit this page.

This is not a listing of officeholders. Some tables use images, some others not, and I'm sure as hell that there is no requirement for us to add images to a table showing ministers, nor there's any evidence that adding images to such tables improves their quality (specially when images have different sizes and shapes). Berlusconi III Cabinet or Berlusconi II Cabinet, for example, do not use images and look good; your proposed format uses images and looks clumsy. About the blank space, there's a lot of obvious and unneeded blank space in the "Name" column as a result of its width. But it matters little what I say: you've already imposed your own format of the table and will enforce it no matter the cost, so who cares. Impru20^talk 19:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: I have tried to accommodate your views, it would be good if you could acknowledge this and work with me to improve this article which is what we both want.

There was a table before you edited, although it only had one entry, and it showed the format that I have been using in several related articles.

I'm sure we can both find articles to justify our own view. To illustrate my view, please have a look at Gentiloni Cabinet, Renzi Cabinet, Letta Cabinet, Monti Cabinet, Berlusconi IV Cabinet, Prodi II Cabinet - the last six Italian cabinets all of which use images. Irrespective of this, articles recognised by Wikipedia generally include images in tables. The "blank spaces", as you call them, is caused by the images. Look at this recognised Spanish article which has "blank spaces" as a result of images. If we can have dozens of WP:FL with images, and hence with "blank spaces", why not here?--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: You've imposed your views, dictated me what to edit, then made these edits yourself. I wouldn't call that "trying to accommodate to my views", but whatever, I already said I don't care.

There was one very incomplete table before I first edited (which, btw, is a worthless fact, because that there was such a table does not determine all other must follow its design. Such a behaviour — that because there was something there added by you, you have to right to impose how further edits should be done — is one of the clearest examples of WP:OWN, but whatever). Then I added the full table with all members. The rest of the history we all know.

I'd say the blank space here is actually a result of the sortability attribute, but whatever (none of the tables at your linked articles do use that attribute, nor the small font, nor do show dozens of links... but hey, surely it's because your format is better than those). I see you acknowledging that we could each other present articles supporting our views, but I still fail to see where it is stated that images are required in tables for an article to be listed in WP:FL. This article is not listed at FL despite all of its imagery, and there are surely hundreds of articles with more images than this one which are not in FL, and other articles with less imagery which are featured there. I still fail to grasp the (somehow) required connection between the specific necessity of your particular format and FL.

But anyway, you've already acknowledged your ownership of the content here and I've already acknowledged that I do not care about this anymore, because you will not allow me to touch your table for anything else that you dictate me to, and because I won't willing to violate WP:3RR as you did. So, who cares about all of this, actually?

P.S. My initial edits also comprised the infobox, which you've maintained at your version despite also having serious flaws according to your view of WIAFL. But I'm sure it's just up to you to edit your infobox, of course. Impru20^talk 20:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: It's a shame you continue with your combative attitude rather than respond to the specific issues that caused this dispute in the first place. In your edit summary for reverting my edit you gave several reasons most of which I have now been incorporated.

The table wasn't incomplete as you say, it had all the information that was available when it was created. The "blank space" isn't caused by the table being sortable, it is caused by the images. Any recognised content, whether it be WP:FL, WP:FA or WP:GA, require images where they are available. That is why almost all, if not all, WP:FL with tables where it's possible to obtain relevant images (e.g. lists of people, places, structures) contain images. Please explain what errors there are in the infobox.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: It's a shame you continue with your combative attitude rather than respond to the specific issues that caused this dispute in the first place. In your edit summary for reverting my edit you stated that there was "no need to undo others work vindictively; if there are errors change them". Despite this claim of yours, it was you who wholly undid others' work vindictively without giving any reasoning, then proceeded to edit this talk page to give out orders about should others edit and what not, as well as engaging in clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

Foremost of all, you did not even make any attempt at justifying why the format of the table I added was allegedly detrimental (which I repeat; I introduced it earlier, so I did not actually revert anything because there was nothing to revert, as you've repeteadly claimed), but only a general statement claiming that your format "was better". It's bad that you think that others are undoing your work "vindictively", but then it is good that you act like that yourself? Please elaborate.

You keep mentioning WP:FL, and now you mention WP:FA and WP:GA, and how articles at these have images, but this seems at attempt of keeping yourself (again) from explaining the specific characteristics that make your table a perfect candidate for FL, FA or GA. Please elaborate.

And yes, I've replied to all the specific issues you've presented to me; the think is that you edited the page so quickly that there has not even been time to address these in full. And this only points out to the actual big issue here: that you did not even await for the issue to be discussed further before going on and implementing the changes you thought were asked for, because your actual intent was on trying to your format of table. While I've commented about the errors I saw such a format had, I acknowledged from the very beginning that the big issue here was your possessive way of acting and your attempts at dictating others what should they edit, preventing edits that did not comply with your designs, and even going as far as to implement those edits yourself despite the discussion still ongoing. And you have not only refused to address that, but rather, you tried to put me in the target continuously despite your obvious OWN behaviour, even trying to generically accuse me of OWNing myself "in many other" articles, at 16:13, 19 May 2018 (an accusation which only came after I openly pointed out your OWN behaviour to you, at 15:53, 19 May 2018, and which I see as only at attempt to hide your own behaviour by trying to blame that on others).

Now you still ask for errors in the table so you can go through and apply these yourself again to try to preserve your format and skip the whole point of debate here. Surely, the table may be fixed in many ways, but it is your behaviour the one that needs the biggest fix here. Impru20^talk 20:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: You're so angry with me for defending my position? What did you expect me to do?

My table wasn't perfect but neither was yours. I wonder if you'll admit to that.

Ok, now I understand that the issue have isn't what you stated in your edit summary. You don't like the table, period. So you came up excuses to justify for your position. I tried to deal with those issues but you've taken great offence at that. Would you have preferred it if I hadn't tried to resolve the issues?

You clearly have issues with other editors working on Spanish political articles. I can't help that.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Not angry; just expecting you to actually defend something with some argument more realistic than the like of "This is good because I say it" sort of argument and imposing your will on others.

I don't know if my table was perfect or not, because so far, you've only limited yourself to remove it (thus preventing others to even judge it) or saying that yours was better without clarifying why (just because you did it and because you have been working in Catalan government articles), as well as highlighting WP:FL, WP:FA, WP:WIAFL and WP:GA without pointing out the relevance your table has for those.

My first edit summary pointed out some issues. Your subsequent edits pointed out a much bigger issue. I can't help that.

Sorry, but I can't help with unproven accusations. I don't know who these "other editors" are nor what "issues" do I seemingly have with these, neither what does it have to do with the present discussion. You started out this very discussion with a similar accusation. Please consider that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence could be considered personal attacking under Wikipedia standards, and most specially if such accusations are intent on bringing the scope of the discussion off-topic. Impru20^talk 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: Everything you accuse me of you could also be directed at you. In our long discussions I have never seen any sign that you willing to even concede one inch. You dismiss everything anyone else says. There is a word for that but I won't mention it in case you make further threats against me. The fact you have been blocked twice for this attitude says everything.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: From the very beginning of this discussion you've pointed out unproved accusations against me, not even trying to refute, deny or justify your own behaviour. That's pretty decent evidence of what's going on here. Also, I don't remind to have been blocked twice "for this attitude", yet I also don't know how trying to go WP:KETTLE helps you here.

I'd suggest you to don't make threats against me nor trying to go personal here. In our "long discussions", it always goes the same: you resorting to comment on the contributor rather than commenting on content. What a shame. Btw, I don't know why we are still keeping this discussion ongoing, as it's obvious you're making no effort at trying to justify anything (despite your continued requests for others to justify themselves) and it's obvious this you're bringing this to uncivil territory. I'd suggest to put an end to it, but from past discussions, it's possible you'll try to keep this on a little further to continue your attacks. I hope I'm wrong this time. Impru20^talk 06:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: I kept this discussion going in the hope that you might calm down and work with me but I don't think that will ever happen. You can have the last word if you want, I won't be commenting any longer.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: From your very first comment in this discussion you attacked me, so allow me to doubt about your "hopes". You kept this going even after I said I would not edit this article any longer because I refused to enter into an edit war, and it is obvious we have not obtained anything from this discussion, just to talk about each other. This is it, I am also withdrawing from the discussion. Cheers. Impru20^talk 08:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)