User talk:Mountolive/Archive 3

About Spain and other things...

After a couple of days break on your part, I see that you are back on track editing at Wikipedia, which is good. No matter how hard we disagree, Wikipedia as a whole loses when a non-disruptive user quits. All users, with their POVs, bring their own bricks to build a comprehensive neutral encyclopedia. I have to say I did resent your comment about sticking things up bodily parts, but I guess an apology won't be coming my way. Well, let's get down to business.

I've revamped and expanded the article Autonomous communities of Spain, as you have noted and edited subsequently. Given that the article is mentioning other political entities of Spain that are not autonomous communities themselves -namely the provinces, the autonomous cities and the plazas de soberanía, I think it would be more appropriate if we either rename the article to political divisions of Spain and then further expand that article à la Political divisions of the United States (or, if I dare, ca:Organització territorial d'Espanya). Alternatively, we can create political divisions of Spain as a separate article, move some content form Autonomous communities of Spain into that one, and further expand it with information on the constitutional framework of provinces and municipalities, as well as other "statutory" -if you may- active political divisions such as the comarques (of the Valencian Community and Catalonia, for example), the vegueries, the parroquias, the consexos, the merindades, etc. If you agree, I can start that article from scratch and you can further contribute to it.

Regarding Catalan Countries, to be honest with you, I still fail to see why a translation of a term makes it less neutral than the original, based on both dictionary definitions, and non-Catalan Academic sources that I provided. But most of all, I strongly disagree with the debasing of a term to a nationalistic connotation, because that is not the only connotation it has. Out of a Christmas Spirit, I will accept your compromise, but, compromise means compromise from both parties. In other words, I would agree to renaming the article to Països Catalans, as long as the article is truly neutral in presenting all POVs: (1) that a comprehensive review of the history of the term is given, (2) that the linguistic approach taken by Catalan and non-Catalan linguists and Academicians be included, that is those who have no "Catalanist" or nationalistic agenda, but simply refer to it in its linguistic sense, (3) in compliance with NPOV, that the "nationalistic" connotation, also be explained as well as the nuances the term carries in Spanish politics and thus the support or vehement opposition to the term in all territories where Catalan/Valencian is spoken. Like I said before, I am fully aware of how the term is used politically, but the article would lean towards a POV without a comprehensive overview of the nuances of the term (thus a history section is required),and its use when referring to language and culture in other realms. I think this would be a good compromise. Let me know what you think. Oh, and like I said in the discussion, I agree with you in that the term "Catalan Sea" must be removed from the map.

Per cert, no sabia que parlaves valencià -o català ;-) Hauries de crear-te un compte a la Viquipèdia. La Viquipèdia necessita més usuaris compromesos sense importar el seu PDV (POV).

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to hear that, if only for the Christmas spirit, you are ready to move a bit from your position at "Catalan Countries".

I wouldnt call this a "compromise", though. I mean, I am perfectly ok with what you say that there are two sides of the concept (cultural and politic). Actually I already wrote in the talk page there that, as it is now, it's a rather messy redaction, not making very clear this distinction. I already said there that I would make two stark sections, one covering the cultural approach and yet another for the politic one. Both would be easily connected by saying that from the cultural concept, a political one evolved as well. So I think we're good here.

But I dont think this has much to do with the name of the article itself, that is why I wouldn't call it a compromise: each thing (cultural and politic) has its own "Casa Gran" ;) which would be "Països Catalans"

I want to make clear here that I dont take it as a compromise because I wouldnt like that, later on, you feel deceived with me. Because, indeed, if we were to revamp the article, we still may clash and, given our current, to say the least "brittle" relationship as reflected in our wikiexchanges, I would feel bad if you felt deceived. Because I appreciate your effort in the post above to get closer, that it's why I want to make it perfectly clear, so that you don't feel fooled afterwards.

I can advance you what would be my stance if the revamping actually took place, so that you get a clear picture before acting: I'd strongly go by saying that Països Catalans, regardless of its original formulation (whether cultural or politic from the start) has become outside of Catalonia (especially at the Valencian Community) a clearly politic concept, the cultural dimension being shadowed by all means by the political one. Then, in Catalonia, I agree it may have both registers, it actually does.

So now that I am following your Christmas spirit and being crystal clear with you, if you are still ok with all this, then please change the name to "Països Catalans". We can use the sketch made by Xtv back in the day in the talk page as a start (as a start for more clashing, I guess ;)

In my opinion, your revamp of Autonomous Community is outstanding. A very good job (you only "missed" provincias and else, but here I am to remind you ;). So, actually, after all I guess it was good that you "sniffed" in "my business" :P It's a shame the article's intro was in the sketchy (for not to say plainly bad) state as it was before you overhauled it.

I have no problem to expand it per your comments here. I havent much time either, so I can anticipate I won't be of much help. You "missed" in your comments Diputación as well ;) which I guess I could translate....maybe ;)

The only thing which is not clear enough from your post above is whether you'd keep an article called "Autonomous Community" or dillute it in a larger one. I am 100% to keep such an "Autonomous Community" article, regardless of the other articles you may work on related to this topic. I still think this is the chief-concept and so the chief article on the topic and so I'd definitely keep its name.

Thanks • Mountolive ^{J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher} 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I need more clarification, especially when you said, "I wouldn't call it a compromise". Do you mean, you are OK with renaming the article, but not OK with my requests? Then, that is by no means a compromise. And, for practical matters, we need to call it a compromise. Indeed, my concession, is to a certain extent, subject to reciprocity on your side. But I am confused, because you did say that you will accept to talk about both the linguistic and cultural approaches. If you do, then the compromise is reached and I will rename the article. But I do need clarification. Of course, you can take whatever stance you feel it is appropriate regarding the political perception it has acquired in the Valencian Community... as long as you can back it up with sources. As far as my -probably not extensive- research goes, I would venture to say that both in and outside Catalonia, there are two sides: the political and the linguistic, no matter how small or large either one is. Some sectors love the term, some hate it, both in and outside Catalonia. But let's not go there, at least not yet. When the time comes, we can evaluate and discuss what needs to be added or not.

Now, I was actually planning on creating a new article political divisions of Spain that would include all types of administrative Spanish divisions: autonomous communities, provinces (the diputaciones being the government institutions of provinces), the municipalities and the rest. That doesn't mean we would have to delete autonomous communities of Spain. What I was proposing is that that particular article should only talk about autonomous communities, like the name of the article suggests. (For example, we have political divisions of Mexico, as the main, central article, and then we have states of Mexico, municipalities of Mexico, boroughs of Mexico).

In the same way, we can also create other articles such as provinces of Spain, municipalities of Spain, the latter being the building block of the former, and the former being the building block of the ACs; and these three being the only entities whose existence and autonomy is guaranteed directly by the constitution. Then the rest, allowed by the constitution but whose existence is guaranteed by the Statutes of Autonomy, can fall into their respective ACs: comarques of Catalonia, comarques of the Valencian Community, merindades of Navarre, et al. All of these would be linked form a main central article called political divisions of Spain. I guess I will start writing the article, and then maybe it will be more clear, and you can tell me what you think.

--the Dúnadan 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean about not calling it a compromise is that I am already compromising enough by enduring a title name ("Catalan Countries") which I think it's wrong (per comments on talk page). My compromise is bearing with it and getting a scant relief with the tag.

In other words, I fail to see the compromise whatsoever since, as I said already a few times, I am ok with your stance of making it clear that the concept has two directions (politic and cultural), maybe from one sprung one the other (Elmo's recent comments are interesting in this regard, as they are challenging our -yours and mine- vision that the politic stems from the cultural) but still each one has its meaning by its own. So I hope we are ok here.

Out of that Christmas spirit you mention, I'll keep being crystal clear to you: what I find disturbing with you is your attitude of not assuming good faith from me (while, on the other side, you seem to assume good faith from what I deem as utter trolls -aka Joanot->anon->Benimerin)

If you dont assume good faith from me...why the heck are you inviting me to ca.wiki? I just dont get it.

I'm referring to the "...as long as you can back it up with sources" thing. It is like you made a step forward in your attitude and, then, immediately step back ¿? Apparently, since you suppose me in bad faith here, my knowledge of the Valencian situation (being native myself) has to be necessarily biased and only IF I back up my comments with sources, then you may yield. And I say may because (lack of) sources for "Catalan Countries" usage was provided but you keep reluctant, even though I provided a more or less well-founded reasoning, bothered to go to the library as you wanted me to, then came with what I already knew in the first place: that "Catalan Countries" is not an entry in any international encyclopedia (that is what I mean when I said "looking for a blank", which is looking for something to prove it is not there). On the other side, Elmo has proved that, to say the least, some of your sources seem to be quite flawed because of their "Catalan ancestry" as I put it back in the day (not very fortunate wording, I know ;) but you know what I mean).

Dúnadan, I know that both senses of this concept are in use in Valencia, but, how am I supposed to prove that one is used by a community of, say 100 (1000,if you may, I dont care) in the University world and the other is the one used down the road in everyday life? Unfortunately for me in this regard, it is the academic world which produces pdf papers and post them in the internet, while down-the-road real life may be more difficult to prove by a google search. And if I found sources proving this political meaning of the concept in Valencia...how would I prove to you (since you are not assuming good faith from me) that this usage is much more common in the public life in here than the other? Are you saying that, unless I found a document from a source which you consider valid saying "this concept has evolved into a mostly political one in Valencia", you won't yield? In this regard, there is another thing which we seem to be missing: the so-called "Catalan Countries" thing is such a minoritary discussion, it's so much out of either the political or cultural agenda, that is difficult finding any references about it other than the ones provided by its supporters. How do I prove this? I don't know, it's rather difficult to find an internet source saying "Països Catalans may be good for wikipedia discussions, or sitting round the table in a Casal Jaume I with your mates, but no one else seems to care much about it"...but that, being an exaggeration, is not so far from the truth.

After all, we could do it the other way: I could ask you to back by sources your statement that both meanings (politic and cultural) are equally relevant in Valencia. Or I could challenge you to find a source saying that "Estat espanyol" and its translations is not widely used by nationalists in Spain. Can you source that? am I asking you to do that? No, I am just assuming good faith from you and not placing a {citation needed} on every word you say.

It is like in "Spanish State". You stepped in asking for sources of the usage of this expression by nationalists which is, excuse me, a ridiculous requirement when both you and I know it. It's such a redundant request that even myself was able to find those sources at ease :P Given your edit timing, you may be living in México or elsewhere in America by now —I dont know and I dont care— but I assume you are familiar with this usage by nationalists, so why the heck are you asking me to source something so obvious which we both know? is that psychological warfare or what? I'm sorry if this sounds too harsh, but it is hard to believe that, if you are familiar with Catalan stuff, you never heard of nationalists calling it like that and, if you certainly heard it, it is hard to see why you just dont contribute with the sources yourself instead of asking me to do so...

I am not sure anymore if you are stalking me (by following me in the articles I have edited and you had never edited before....by the way, if that is so, that was for good in Autonomous Communities, since you made a good improvement there). Nor I am not sure anymore if you are harassing me (by asking me to give a reference for every single thing I contribute with).

Since you dont assume good faith from me, I am forecasting that you will castle and won't allow my contributions in the "Catalan Countries" further develelopment. Please correct me if I am wrong (which I hope I am). But the thing is that, as I said a few times, I dont have much time to contribute here and, well, the more I feel harassed, the more tempted I am to quit discussion. You certainly could be friendlier, my friend...

Dúnadan, sources are important, yes, but there is also much to be debated about google searches, their systemic bias, and the validity of each particular source provided can be challenged in depth if needed, but I dont have neither the time nor the will to engage in endless discussion of every single thing here. I prefer assuming good faith.

This would be a much sunnier place if your attitude changed and assumed good faith from me, after all, I have a clean record (so far! until the next witches-burning comes, I guess) and that maybe should be kept in consideration as well.

And, fuck, after all, I was assuming good faith from you. Please feel free to feed my naivité in this regard.

I'm sorry, because all the above by now may sound quite harsh and that is not my intention, it is just that, in written, things tend to go a little bit over the top. Don't get me wrong: maybe it all comes down to me needing a change of attitude from you if we are to work for good.

p.s. all you say here above on the Autonomous Communities matter sounds fine and dandy with me. Keep the good work there.

• Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive, what can I say? It seems that to talk about sources it a delicate subject in our conversations. And, if you allow me to be honest with you, in the best of spirits, have you really had good faith towards me? You claim that I've been stalking you, you claim that I assume that your position is biased as a Valencian (and I never said so) you assume that I will reject your sources, you assume purported changes in my attitude and you assume that I don't assume good faith...? And, after our not so pleasant discussion and the final comments you made, of which I received no apology, in spite of trying to forget the past and reach a compromise, you still bring up accusations of my purported motivations? Think about it for a second, and tell me who's not assuming good faith. I was offering a hand, and I was assuming good faith when I invited you to the Wikipedia in Catalan/Valencian. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. And I still do.

Now, let's get back to business. You say, What I mean about not calling it a compromise is that I am already compromising enough by enduring a title name ("Catalan Countries") which I think it's wrong (per comments on talk page). My compromise is bearing with it and getting a scant relief with the tag. That is not the compromise we've been talking about; that is the current status quo. The compromise is changing it to the Catalan name, and then presenting all POVs. Your concerns get appeased by using the Catalan name, and my concerns get met in presenting all POVs. Compromise means, you give something, and we give something. "Bearing up with a name by putting a tag" was the starting point that brought us to the discussion and to the possibility of compromise, never the compromise itself.

It seems that you are willing to compromise, based on your comment above. But let's call it what it is so that we both have to abide by our own words. If you don't call it a compromise, I don't call it a compromise. If we both call it a compromise, you can always come back to me and say "you agreed to this", and I will have to abide by my word... and vice versa.

Now, about sources. It is a common understanding here in Wikipedia that common knowledge is easy to prove. That is, when users claim "everybody knows it", the common answer is "then, it won't be hard to find a reference on the Internet to back it up". And I am sure you will not have any trouble finding what you want to prove from the Internet (Owdki has found sources that will serve your case). I can even do the work for you, and find it. But the good thing about doing a little research yourself (or reading the research of others) is that you learn and maybe realize that you didn't know all the nuances of any particular situation. Sometimes "common knowledge" is "common misunderstandings". I have read some of Owdki's sources and I find them interesting. There were things there that I didn't know. Even one of my sources, the [in]famous "The Catalan Countries Project" (which I don't know if you guys have read or not), is an excellent source that would -even in partially- prove your point about the political perception of the concept in Valencia, and its dislike (and it was written by a Catalan!). As another example, until I did my own research about the "Spanish State", I realized that the constitution does not mention in any article the term "Reino de España", and yet, the name "Estado español" appears several times, and the country is referred to, all throughout the constitution almost exclusively as "el Estado" (with two or three instances in which the term "la Nación española" appears, in the Preliminary section). I was surprised myself, I thought that "Reino de España" was a de jure constitutional and official term, like the article implies in the first paragraphs, but it is not. So, when you say that only nationalists use "Estado Español" or "el Estado" and that we both know it... well, I am not that sure anymore about that. A little research does no harm for any of us. In doing research I learn a lot about different POVs, and come to understand why other people feel or think the way they do, even if I don't fully agree with them.

Let's try, one more time, to work together. I offer my best attitude, but it doesn't rely fully on me. You also need to change your attitude as well. Please don't take it personal when I cite the three main policies of Wikipedia. I cite them to everyone, just as a reminder, so that our discussions will not get personal. In my experience in Wikipedia, I've found that it is hard for people to be offended and for the discussions to get personal, when people do a little research and present them to the other party. But I will not bring this issue anymore with you.

Cheers mate, and my invitation to come to the Wikipedia in Catalan/Valencian is still in place. As a Valencian you might be able to contribute a lot to the articles about Valencian culture, places, traditions etc. Like in any other Wikipedia, you'll find people that will disagree with you, but that is the "nature of the beast",I guess, of all Wikipedias... or the world for that matter. =)

--the Dúnadan 17:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To keep this discussion short(er) let me focus on what should be the primarily thing: I think on the "compromise" thing we are keeping an interesting byzantine discussion which only can be justified because we are getting ridiculously overcautious about each other.

I just said that I wont call it a compromise, because, once again (this is I think the fourth time I mention it) I have no problem in making clear that the concept has two dimensions, cultural and politic (I guess that's what you call "presenting all POVs). This is implied by the text already, but it could be made quite clearer. So, since I dont have any problem with that, I dont feel like yielding to you in any form if you work on that, that is why I can't call it a compromise: because I am perfectly ok if you do that.

Another story is that, if/when "all POVs" are represented, then we still may have a problem in how these should be presented, but it's impossible to compromise on future things which we dont know how will go. After all, there is -at least theoretically ;)- a chance that this was made at ease, like in Autonomous Communities, for example.

I hope that I mean myself better now and your suspicions are over. On the rest of your post above, we may or may not discuss another day, because this is getting too long.

For the moment, I believe it is much more urgent that you, per our discussion and the one in the relative talk page, proceed with this change in the title-name to Països Catalans, if you do, I'll happily de-tag it and then either can start working on the article per our comments above. • Mountolive ^{J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher} 20:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. You may proceed with renaming the article for the sake of ending the discussion, not for the sake of the compromise. I know you agree with the changes I asked (not the future unknown changes). Maybe you are right and we are overcautious. To me, it is a matter of agreeing to something and honoring our word. That is why I have insisted on calling it for what it is, so that we can both look back either as an example of good team work or to remind us of what we had agreed. Since you don't want to call it a compromise, I won't call it a compromise either. --the Dúnadan 15:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. For the sake of whatever, let's do like that; hopefully in the end the article will look better, which I am sure is the desired result for both of us after so much talking (and little action).

Mhhh...I have a problem, though...dont worry, it's a tecnichal one! I just dont know how to change the title! The title seems to be above the "editable" content and I dont know how to reach it.

So let me please ask you to do it yourself or anyone watching this discussion here (I assume that you know how to do that) or, if you are still overcatious about this request ;) then just please show me how to do it.

I will surely de-tag it (later tonight, gotta go now, no suspicions if it takes a few minutes ;) or the same person who changes the title may de-tag it himself as well). A new map without the "Catalan Sea" should be found as soon as possible, I think this wont be a big problem. I hope that the rest of editors are ok with this move. It looks like that at this point, but it ain't over til it's over...

Thanks.

Actually, there are some technical issues. Since the article Països Catalans already exists (even if it is only a redirect) we cannot rename Catalan Countries directly (it won't let you or me do it). We could copy the content, but that will not copy the history nor the discussion. Only an administrator can do it by "overwriting" or merging the history of both. But he will probably ask us to confirm that it is a consensual decision from all editors. I guess we might need to open a new section in Talk:Catalan Countries to comment on the move. I will support it, and based on his previous comments, Xtv would too. --the Dúnadan 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the tip.

Yo Me Lavo Las Manos - antes y despues. Gracias por responder. Hasta luego Provocateur (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

You got a Christmas card! → → →

♪ ♫ I wish you the merriest, ♫ the merriest, the merriest, ♪ the merriest to you... ♪♫ I wish you the happiest, the happiest... the happiest, yes the happiest. ♫♪... Bon Nadal i Bon Any ... ♪ I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Cheers. --Owdki talk 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chill mate =

I'm sendin you a mail when I get my settings sorted out.

In the meantime, don't worry too much about Paisos Catalans, I'll keep a beady eye on it.

As the Eagles once said....

Relax,said the night man, we are programmed to receive, you can check out any time you want...

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Man lost it, Alain Whyte fell off His grace and The Man was never really The Man anymore, actually ever since Vauxhall and I. Still, some gems may still be found, curiously enough, in latter-day b-sides (music by Whyte). Such as in | "Boynamedsue".

Here are the lyrics as rendered by the Zagreb Times:

Boynamedsue, the Police are (except Xtv) Kicking their way into my talk page Sniffing and tracking the pages I may edit Resenting my comments And haunting me, taunting me Wanting me to break wikipedian laws (and report me and then do the same to me as they did with Physchim62)

And I'm turning to Boynamedsue, Oh, to save me...And I'm turning to you, Oh, to save me...

Boynamedsue, the Police are Grinding me into the ground The Odd-English pack are back Shenanidunadans, "contribute in ca.wiki, join us" and other loaded guns

And I'm turning to Boynamedsue, to save me... And I'm turning to Xtv, Oh, to save me! Save me... To save me, save me, to save me!

Boynamedsue, there's a clock on the wall Making fun of us all...(humming chorus: lalala revert, lalala revert, lalala revert, lalala revert...)

Boynamedsue, there's a clock on the "history" ticker of the talk page And it makes a "Catalan Countries" joke of us all

And I'm turning to you, to save me...And I'm turning to Dúnadan (oh my!), to save me, save me...To save me, save me, to save me!

Boynamedsue, remember! Someone from the "Catalan speaking countries" wikipedian nation will always come back ...

Boynamedsue, remember! Someone from the "Catalan speaking countries" wikipedian nation will always come back ...

They say 'to protect and to serve NPOV' But what they really want to say is: "Physchim was the first and you will follow him! Restrain yourself to the talk page! Get yourself back to the talk page! The talk page! The ghetto! Get yourself back to the ghetto! The ghetto! The ghetto!"

Thank you for your message here. I've reached the point when, at seeing the banner of a new message here, I'm like "what the fuck is wrong now?"...and then it's just maybe good ol' Owdki wishing Merry Christmas (thank you, Elmo, bon Nadal per tu també)....this and the above is a clear sign that I've started brimming again, that my mind just went deranged again. I indeed need checking out. Please take care of the hotel rooms (specially the suites) while I am out.

Appreciate it. Mountolive ^{talk to me/don't talk to me} 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I do resent what was written above.... speaking of assuming good faith and good will... and yet making it personal. Happy Holidays, anyways. --the Dúnadan 04:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hell yeah, assuming good faith and good will is such a nice thing... OK, this place wouldnt be the same without your now classic and slightly grumpy "I resent your comment"s, maybe I even like them by now, man! sometimes I even catch myself thinking of you as an endearing character, but, c'mon...live a little, relax...it's Christmas time! Hope you liked the song. Bones Festes per tu també, and I do mean it!. Mountolive _{talk to me/don't talk to me} 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this has become the forum we were all waiting for, I want to wish you all merry Christmas too. Just want also to point out that it was not because of any problem with "Catalan-team" that Physchim had an Arbitration (as it seemed from BNS' song), and I'm sorry for it. Don't worry Monunto, I was joking with the "forum" thing ;-) And happy new year!--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That was good that you didnt take the song literally (=wrong). It's like one of those programs they make in tv as a summary of the year which finishes, and not to be taken literally, I know there were some other issues with Physchim, but, for the sole purpose of fun here, the Zagreb Times rendition forcing the story was perfect. It's like with "Catalan Countries", another forced translation which serves some purposes, right? hehehehe.

You have a good time too and...the match is about to start. Ok, if there were doubts: I used to be a lifetime FC BCN supporter, can you imagine? but the Països Catalans thing Laporta did was quite disgusting, so I'll try to stay as much NPOV as possible :D Mountolive _{talk to me/don't talk to me} 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. damn, I see like a "creixent desafecció del Barça envers la Lliga"...am I wrong? Si em fes de l'Espanyol, després no dieu que és que estic "biased", etc, eh? :D

Happy Christmas Mate

Saw you've been editing an hour back and just wanted to wish you all the best for xmas. Thought I'd leave you a few words from the fey master of the Salford boys club... Altogether now!

Maurice was the first in the gang to edit Valencian Land, the first to link Spain, the first lost boy...Oh why?

Maurice was the first in the gang to edit Valencian Land, the first to link Spain, The first in the gang they banned!

AND

Been dreaming of a world where the English are sick to death of counting, of nouns, and spit upon the name of Lerrouxisme, and denounce this feral challenging of sources, of dodgy sources!

Loooking forward to another year....All the best bns.

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(for future Mandarins of future wikiexecutions directed at me: this and the above post are only out of an unique and bizzarre mixture of Christmas spirit&Mozzer. Therefore it would be very naughty if you used them against us)

You...you are the ringleader of the tormentors!.

Let me put here the video links, to clear the muddy waters before they provoke further resentment... [1] AND [2] (the latter gives way too many opportunities for some fun with the lyrics...but let me restrain of further puns ;)

oh, another year like this....well...| for 2008 I hope that:

Tomorrow

Will it really come ? And if it does come Will I still be Wikipedian ? All I ask of you is one thing that you never do

Would you put your arms around me ? (I won't tell anyone in Avui) Tomorrow Does it have to come ? All I ask of you is one thing that you'll never do

Would you put your arms around me ? (I won't tell anybody in Catalunya Ràdio) Tomorrow

And what must come before ...

Oh, the pain in my talk page Oh, the pain in my edits Ooh, my shiftless body

Tomorrow It's surely nearer now ? You don't think I'll make it I never said I wanted to ! Well did I ?

Oh, the pain in my arms Oh, the pain in my legs Oh, yeah; oh, yeah No, yeah; no, yeah Through my shiftless body

Tomorrow Tomorrow All I ask of you ... oh ...

Is : would you tell me that you love me?

Tell me, tell me that you love me Tell me, tell me that you love me Tell me that you love me ! Ah, I know you don't mean it Ah, I know you don't mean it Tell me, tell me that you love me Tell me, tell me that you love me Tell me, oh, tell me, oh Tell me, oh, tell me, oh, tell me, oh....

Please dont let me alone for such a long time next year, |without BNS, I'm lost here...

Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 21:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Is there a reason you keep changing the accepted term "nationalists" to "nationals"? It doesn't make sense. Murderbike (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing, in English writing of the war, the rebels are always referred to as "nationalists". In english a "national" is a just a citizen of some country. So, your edits are very confusing to the lay reader, and I really think they should be changed back. But, I'll take it to the talk page. Murderbike (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but A)They WERE nationalists, Spanish Nationalists, and B)we have to be able to CITE things, and all texts that I have read use the term "nationalist". But I've brought it up on the talk page of the article so we dont' have to argue about it on your talk page. Murderbike (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: moving on

Actually -though you won't believe me- I am not stalking you. I was going to write you a comment here in your talk page and I simply read the section above in which Murderbike asked you to explain the rationale behind changing "nationalists" to "nationals". The conversation above does not say that you proposed to use the Spanish term nacionales. If you did propose that elsewhere, well, I didn't follow your steps, all the way to your very detailed contributions and opinions. Actually I read the article itself (very POVish, I have to say,and to this date it uses the translation "nationals"), but I didn't read the history of contributions nor the discussion page. So I assumed nothing changed. Believe me -well, if you can or want- I do not have the time to stalk anyone or to follow their contributions and their opinions everywhere. As an admin in ca.wiki I have plenty of stuff to deal with over there.

After reading your comment on "nacionales" now, I must say I don't particularly agree. Not that I want to start a new discussion. Just let me tell you that as an English-speaker myself it has always surprised me that the word "nationalist" was used in a very particular way in Spain: what in other countries is labeled as "regionalist" or "separatist" in Spain they are both known as "nationalist", whereas those who defend the "unity of the Spanish nation" (and hence, naturally called in the English language as "nationalist") say they are not (and weird semantical concoctions have been created like estatista or the more common centralista). To me, the application of the term "nacionalista" in Spain has always been an oxymoron. I guess Murderbike thought the same, when he said that the "nacionales" were indeed Spanish nationalists in the English connotation and natural meaning of the word. It is indeed confusing because an English-speaker expects a "nationalist" to be defend the "country or nation" (i.e. Spain), not to be independent from it. (Of course I do know that some separatists claim to be "nations", and hence the name, but the average English-speaker doesn't know that). But I never intended to get into that debate.

Now, since you asked me to be "straight" with you, I'll be. You ask me to assume good faith, you ask me not to focus on past grudges and the like, you ask me to focus on the big picture but your own comment is full of criticism and you yourself are bringing up past grudges. Naturally, what would you expect me to answer? A defense, of course. Did I accuse of you blackmailing? Well I used your own adjective and words. Did you ever apologize of saying that I should stick things up my arse (a much worse lack of WP:Etiquette)? No. Did you use the tag to salvage your legitimate concerns? Well, if you had actually proven that an English translation is POV, but a name in Catalan isn't, then maybe it would be legitimate, but it wasn't that way. If you actually want me not to bring past grudges, well, you shouldn't bring them yourself either. If you don't want me to "bring out the nasty details" and focus on the big picture, why did you bring them out yourself? Quid pro quo here is needed too.

What disappoints me is that when you find a little mistake or misunderstanding here and there in my comments, you seem to capitalize it, while ignoring -or at least you are silent- on the other valid points that I have made. For example, I commented on how I believe your quote was out place; I commented on the anti-PPCC bias of the article; I commented that the burden of proof of some of your edits is still pending; I commented about quid pro quo and the dreaded "compromise"; and yet almost the entirety of your comment to me was related the "nasty detail" of me purportedly "stalking" you and "twisting" what I read, and about "self-righteousness". You say that I don't admit that I have a bias? Did you actually read the [in]famous RforA in Catalonia? There I clearly said "We (inclusive) all have biases"; the problem is when a bias is preached as the truth". It seems that you know me very little.

So, getting back to the original business of the entire original comment that I made at Talk:Països Catalans, I believe the article has a strong anti-PPCC bias, but I am tired of trying to reach a compromise. We (those with my POV, ergo bias), ceded on the name (with its OR) and other stuff -after all I wrote that paragraph and used the phrase "strong opposition to the term"-, but it wasn't enough for you. There must be a "more" and "specially strong" opposition in the PPCC themselves. (Something quite subjective, whereas the word "including" seemed more neutral). Since I didn't have the nerves to keep on debating after being demoralized, well, I opted for not changing anything, what you interpreted as a "sulky yielding".

Now regarding your future contributions in autonomous community, well I will give you a hint of what I would respond. Both Britannica and the OECD report clearly say that the original intention at the writing of the constitution was that only the historical nationalities (sic) would be given autonomy. The politicians themselves were surprised when all regions themselves demanded autonomy. That is what the article says (in whatever "vague" way you see). The article doesn't say that the rest of the regions didn't "desire" autonomy, but that the original intention was that they would not be given it, but at the end they were given it, in an "asymmetrical way" (various ranges of prerogatives). Remember, Spain's regional system is based on devolution of power, that is from the center outwards, and not vice versa. The regions (historic or not) received autonomy because the central government devolved it and still retains the right to give more or limit what has been given. If it wasn't that way, Spain would be a federation instead of a unitary state with devolution.

I've said it before, I am more than willing to do my part to discuss amicably. But in face of two (or more) POVs, compromise is the key. I think I have done my part in compromising (and I am willing to do more), and I would very much appreciate it if you do it to. And compromise means accepting something that you don't particularly like or agree with. If you do compromise, let's call it a compromise. That's what makes good friends in the long run.

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 04:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, more insults from your part? Just when I thought things were getting better, or brighter as you said, after our nice Holiday break. Again accusing me of stalking you? Why, because we edit the same articles, in which we are interested? Does it surprise you that I edit articles related to Catalan language? Grow up; please, see my history of contributions, if you will, to see all the different places in which I edit before you bring, yet again, more and more accusations while you defend the purity of your actions. My apology was not enough for you? Moreover, quid pro quo my friend. You have made plenty of tendentious comments yourself, not to mention insults of which you have not yet apologized. Why don't you strike your own tendentious comments and insults before demanding other users to do so? Compromise is what you want? Really? --the Dúnadan 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

insults from me to you? where? how? I remember only having called you "stiff", is that an insult?

why do I accuse you of stalkin me? because you edit on articles you had never edited before and you do so right after I edit them and you happen to edit only those pieces which I had edited. If that doesnt qualify as stalking, then I dont know what that is.

For good or bad, excuse me, but I am not interested in checking your contributions. It's not my business to sniff in what other people do, besides, I like to practice what I preach.

where is such apology you are talking about? let me know if I missed it. BTW, I'm not requiring you for apologies (they dont seem to be in your style manual). If you dont like apologies, that's fine: just strike that comment on my so called "purism" as it is too tendentious and too false even for me to cope with (ever thought of how many tons of harsh kbs you would have subjected me to should I had made even half a tendentious comment regarding you? that would have been bad indeed, man, and I dont want to know about it...).

Show me one of those tendentious comments of mine even half the tendentious of the one I am referring to. I said something, you quoted me as saying the opposite and tried to impair my position based on that false claim. Show me those insults too.

You have got my message wrong. I thought it was cool enough, I may be wrong. But in any case I'd recommend dont get cheeky and reckless again by using big words, Dúnadan. It won't be of any help, for, after all, yes, I believe things are cooling down. As soon as I see that part striked (by you or by me) I will be fine and looking forward for more peaceful scenery.

In other words, if you dont want to amend yourself, just dont do it, it wont be any surprise and I will amend it myself "on your behalf" anyway. But dont start now with spurious big words accusations and/or half truths or we will be fucked up as ever. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

¿Estamos en el mundo del revés? You are bringing spurious accusations against me! Read the tone of your comment. There were no "tendentious" intentions in my comment, but, like I explained, I only read your talk page. Do you like being repeatedly called tendencioso? Is that "cool"? Want me to show you the insults you've said? What about sticking things up my ass? Are they half as bad as me calling your actions (but you personalize them) as blackmail? Don't be reckless and cool down yourself before bringing your never-ending accusations of me stalking you, without bothering to check what I have actually been doing. I think is quite an assumption that, despite being a Catalan-speaker myself-and an administrator at the Viquipèdia-I wouldn't edit Catalan related articles. Not everything is about you, really. Have I not apologized? Is not in my "manual"? How about the last paragraph [[3]]? Or how about here? Gee, Mountolive, please take a deep breath, and put a little on your part before you demand others to do so too. According to Wikietiquette, you are not supposed to edit another user's comments, but I am more than willing to strike whatever offends you when you do the same with your insults against me. --the Dúnadan 00:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Dúnadan, please do not insist more in me checking your contributions. I think it is self evident enough that, given our current state of affairs, it is not the best idea to go sneaking about what each other has edited and then edit each other comments once again. It won't be of much help for us, at least not at this point. I am not calling you "tendentious" but your comments (this so-called reasoning sounds familiar, ha?) and, hello? damned tendentious it is what you said about my so-called purist stance in PPCC when compared to SCW.

I edited something. You quoted me as having edited in the opposite way and, from that very wrong assumption, you tried to impair my reasoning. Isnt that a text book example of (undesired, if you may) tendentiousness? Look for it and you will find I never acted like that to you, not out of a carelessful moment either. Again, I am not asking for apologies from you (good for me, because I havent seen any when it comes to this...unless "I only read your talk page" or "happy new year" are apologies for you).

I am asking you to please strike those comments about my so called purist stance, I think it is the 4th time I mention it. I think I am being quite specific (did I bolded all my original post? No, I bolded only this part) So please don't flood me here&now with some tons of kbs about your Catalan wikipedia activities, past unrelated grudges and additional water muddering: I think I was quite specific myself.

Is it too much to ask for a similarly specific reply from you? Ideally that would be you striking that i fins aviat.

I hope even you yourself know those lines of you are very wrong and went way too down, even for us. You say you "only read my talk page", ok, I can swallow that if you ask me to. I can take it as an unfortunate misunderstanding, then. And that is precisely why I am politely asking you to strike them. But now that you have been informed about your blunder, will you be so stubborn as to not caring to strike those comments anyway? If so, then I'll have to start thinking that indeed you are endorsing its –in the first place, I guess, unintended– tendentious nature. And, if you still endorse now with a cold mind what in the first place had been an undesired outcome, then that is another story. Then it is not a misunderstanding anymore.

Hey, I have by now already realized that me asking you to do something will end up in the contrary result, and I am sorry about this, but you will have to excuse me, because I just can't see another way of dealing with this other than asking you, because I still want to be polite and not making things worse. Maybe asking someone we both get along with (Xtv is the man) would have been a better idea, but, if I think it twice, it is a bit ridiculous acting like that. After all, I still have some faith in you keeping our differences in an intellectual level, which excludes dirty maneuvering, also unintended one. But, probably, I am just wrong and I should have already striked that myself, because no one likes to get his nose rubbed against the ground where he had just pissed Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I am a terrible communicator, because it seems that you do not understand the message I am trying to convey or I am speaking Chinese. In our discussions we have both said things that have offended one another -some more than others- so neither you nor I are innocent in this matter. What I can't understand is why you, even after being offered an explanation, demand more rectification as if to be vindicated. And, like I said, I would be more than willing to strike that phrase if it offends you. But I find this whole demand a little, lets say, incongruous, and a bit -forgive me if use the word you use in your user page- "self-righteous". Please bear with me, as I try to explain what I mean. Also, I know it is hard to convey a "tone" when writing, we both know that. So please read the paragraph below with a nice tone (that is my intention, believe me):

See, you are qualifying my statements as "damned [sic] tendentious" and my attitude as "stubborn". When I qualified your statement as "blackmail" using your own word (when you said you would reinsert the tag or else, remember?), you sniped back with a very inappropriate comment about sticking my qualifications up my ass. That is an insult. Yet, I apologized after that. Yes I did, please read Talk:Països Catalans. (Isn't it tendentious to say that I never apologize when I did? Did you rectify by striking your statement after I offered the link to prove that I did?). Let me ask you, are you allowed to qualify my statements and my attitude "politely" (I guess the word "polite" has a different connotation in Spain) but I am not allowed? Are you allowed to bring grudges against me, while you ask me not to bring past grudges against you? (i.e. "forget what I did in the past, but rectify what you did recently"). Are you allowed to repeatedly accuse me of stalking you, without having the proofs to back it up (i.e. looking at the deails of what I actually do in Wikipedia), but you demand me to rectify the "blunder" of not having complete proofs (i.e. not looking at the details of your contributions) when I made an unfortunate statement? You call me a stalker but you want me to rectify the fact that I didn't stalk you (i.e. followed your contributions) so I couldn't see what you were actually editing? Do you want an apology? Fine. I apologize for my mistake in making a precipitated accusation. But please realize that your demand is a bit ludicrous, as you have brought repeated disqualifications, accusations and even inappropriate language against me. You even brought more "disqualifications" ("stubborn", "stalker", "apology is not your style of manual") at the same time that you demanded rapid rectification of my mistakes, and implying that you have never insulted me. How can you say that you are "giving me the opportunity to amend myself" as if you have never done anything that requires amendment? Ever heard of the phrase: take out the beam of your eye before you take the straw out of your neighbor's?

So there you go. I hope I communicated my feelings properly and that you perceived a good tone overall. And I explained my mistake and I apologized. But if an explanation wasn't enough and if an apology wasn't enough, and if you still think you must be vindicated of my wrongdoing, then we would have to proceed in a "quid pro quo" manner. If you still feel that I must strike whatever comment I made, then -as I have asked you before, twice I think- you must strike certain comments you made too. Do you want me to be "specific" as to which "insults"? OK, start by striking your comment about "sticking things up my arse". Then I will strike my blunder of SCW. An apology would do, if you feel so inclined, but striking the phrase would be enough. But please meditate a little on what I said in the above paragraph. I am truly, honestly willing to reach out and make peace, and even to work together in creating truly NPOV articles of interest to both you and me. But that requires a change of attitude from you as well; you see, not all of our problems are caused by my purported nonsensical or apparent tendentious attitude.

Cheers mate,

the Dúnadan —Preceding comment was added at 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Had enough already by now, Dúnadan. The last thing I'd like to start now is a "you strike it first", "no, you do", "you apologize first", "no, you do", "your mom" "y la tuya más" thing. Striked everything, mine and your lot. Should be fine now.

As a side note (and, really, it is a friendly one) you should really strive to make your posts shorter: your point is missed along too many lines. By posting kilometrically, secondary ones intermingle with main points of your reasoning. You may end up sounding abrasive and avoiding direct answers to direct questions, while your point, whatever it is, gets lost along the kilometric way. Once again, this is a friendly note. When you learn (I am striving with it myself, too) to shorten your posts, you will realize you dont have to be verbose and still you can say the same and even in a more definite manner. But this is only an advice, take it only if you see fit.

Did you actually bother to read it? I guess not, and I am not surprised. You rather strike than apologize, I guess. --the Dúnadan 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. That is why the side note.

Please allow yourself one day instead of immediately replying back and you'll see we are actually fine. Or as much fine as we can by at this point. It will probably improve. Our hot latino temper is not helping us...but you were supposed to be the one adding the seny!...(the latter is a joke) M'en vaig a dormir. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Mountolive,

First of all, happy new year. Thanks for your recent edits. In all honesty, I am pretty much disconnected from Spanish politics nowadays. I just find it far too tiring to follow it from abroad. Spending my last days off over here before flying back to England on Saturday. Hope you are doing well.

Regards, Asterion^talk 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)