User talk:Panenkazo

Nationality

Whilst there appears to be consensus that players can be identified as being from Catalonia ("a Spanish footballer from Catalonia") I do not see any such consensus to indicate actual nationality ("a Catalonian footballer that plays for Spain"). As such, unless you can provide such consensus (it certainly doesn't exist on Guardiola's talk page) I would suggest self-reverting those latest edits. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At no time have I put the Catalan nationality. I have put that he is a Catalan person from Spain. It's a fact. I did not redirect to the Catalonia page, but to the Catalans page. Catalan from Spain. Panenkazo (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm explaining myself wrong, but at no time have I suggested that someone has Catalan nationality. I have put that he is a Catalan person from Spain. It's a fact. it's not debatable... I'm not saying that anyone has a nationality other than Spanish. Could you clarify that? Panenkazo (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXAMPLE: Salvador Dalí is a Catalan person from Spain. Panenkazo (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Please, give me your opinion of this: Talk:Salvador Dalí#Catalan person in the lead Panenkazo (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit reason here you tell me to "stop reverting" - you'll see I am not the same user that you have been having disputes with. I'm actually the user whose edits you've been upholding at other locations. I encourage you to be more careful with putting such 'warning instructions' in edit reasons unless you are sure who you're dealing with - if you're still editing in future, not being mindful of who you're blindly reverting and effectively falsely accusing someone of poor editing behaviour, could be seen as WP:casting aspersions. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment makes no sense. You know perfectly well that there is an established consensus on this issue. Different administrators (as I have attached to your Talk page) have repeatedly said that there is a consensus. You are reverting content from an admin stating your personal opinion... Your opinion doesn't matter. They are Catalan athletes regardless of whether they feel it more or less. No debate. Panenkazo (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, my comment is not about the content, it is about you leaving a message in your edit that would only be acceptable if I was repeatedly removing indisputable information. I left this comment to tell you that I did not do that, and while I can take your message on the chin, if you do the same in future, it would be considered uncivil. Since that apparently didn't come across, I've added a civility warning to this talkpage so you understand. Don't take it the wrong way, but since that is what the message was for, and your response to it was effectively a threat, you're not helping your case.

Second, on the content, I reply below. And by the way, whether they feel it more or less absolutely does matter. We could not fairly describe someone born in Derry as British if they identify as Irish, despite it being technically correct, and nationality issues that come with wider political issues should be handled with care, not with "they were born in Barcelona so no debate". Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Identification or self-identification is a separate issue. (This sentence is from @Black Kite:. Panenkazo (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd like to see the context for that. But there's a lot of ways to respond. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen the context: There is no doubt they are from Catalonia. In some cases, they have even represented Catalonia. However, identification is a separate issue. If you wish to start an RfC on this issue, that may be the way to go. This seems to be quite clear from Black Kite in saying that identification is an issue that due to being separate to fact of birth, should be considered separately. No further comment. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for give me the reason. Good night. Panenkazo (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That general consensus asks for identification, and even if speaking in an admin capacity, Black Kite cannot single-handedly overrule that. As I said, I would absolutely encourage seeking local consensus (if someone born in Catalonia only publicly affiliates with Catalan institutions, without saying anything on the matter, IMO we should take that as identification) or bringing up a good source.

And, simply, we are allowed to disagree with Black Kite. Admins' opinions are not given more weight than anyone else's (on non-admin/procedural things). If you are trying to determine someone's national identity for them, that is exactly as harmful as anti-Catalan people deciding everyone from Catalonia is Spanish. It doesn't matter which way you're doing it, you're speaking over people who can speak for themselves. Catalonia at the moment is part of Spain and not everyone born there identifies as Catalan, don't label them for them. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself constantly. Your opinion is irrelevant. It is a fact that they are from Catalonia. There is no debate. You wrote it yourself in this comment. Panenkazo (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that they are from Catalonia. There is no debate. - there are many people who could just as easily write "It is a fact that they are from Spain. There is no debate." Clearly, there is room for debate. Either you recognise that and are willing to discuss how Wikipedia presents national identity re. people from Catalonia, or you're not. I hope it's the former. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both things are true. They are Catalans with Spanish nationality. You know perfectly well that during certain periods of Catalonia's history it was an independent country. Catalonia is officially recognized as a nation. We are talking about a region with specific characteristics such as the region of Bavaria or the Flemish or Scottish. Panenkazo (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't wait for a person to say whether they feel more Catalan or Spanish in order to be able to add the term Catalan person to wikipedia. For real?.. Panenkazo (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what general consensus currently recommends. In the edit reason I provided at the very start, that you reverted, I suggested discussion for local consensus. You can present your impractical argument at such a discussion, if you take up the offer of having one. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to re-centre this discussion. We're not debating the status of Catalan as a nationality because we know we both understand that. We're debating how this should be presented on Wikipedia. Currently, I believe you are applying consensus too broadly. And I am not against doing that, as long as it can be procedurally supported - given such edits are often contested. It would be beneficial to present arguments on why you think we should effectively broaden the scope of the general consensus, instead of just saying it's not up for debate. Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Do you have a proposal to reach a consensus? Panenkazo (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that despite having different arguments, we are not that far from the solution. Panenkazo (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I would suggest having a discussion at the talkpage of the relevant article to establish a local consensus. It seems you have been including the line in other articles where it isn't supported by a source showing personal identification, so you may want to start a new RfC for Wikipedia consensus. Either way, a discussion, open to everyone, in which arguments are focused on how the information should be presented on Wikipedia and why you think that, should take place. If nothing else, your haste of edits on the matter has attracted a fair amount of negative attention in a short space of time, and gaining a consensus on the matter will benefit you in applying your edits without that. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catalonia? It is a current debate. Panenkazo (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or.. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Panenkazo (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below moved from my talkpage, where the topic was inappropriately moved:

Hello Kingsif, I have been notified that you have reverted edits like this. REFRAIN from reverting back again with consensus described by administrators. I leave you the evidence: [1], [2] and [3]. Panenkazo (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the guy adding that content elsewhere; I reverted it at one location because general consensus (which the admins refer to) requires self-identification. Local consensus can override that, but it doesn't appear to at that article. Admins have been upholding your - and my - edits where they meet general consensus, which that article doesn't have. Do not dare threaten me again over a single, polite, supported edit. Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification or self-identification is a separate issue. (This sentence is from @Black Kite:) Panenkazo (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging the admins referred to @Black Kite and Ad Orientem:, as the user only seems to listen to admins, in the hopes they will advise on not having such a battleground attitude. Kingsif (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif See this parallel discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is more background here than I anticipated. Almost certainly needs a discussion. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi Panenkazo! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Xavi (footballer, born 1980) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Xavi (footballer, born 1980), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Ae245 (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long stablished consensus for Xavi's page. In this moment there are 2 anonymous users doing massive reverts. Please, help. Panenkazo (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not consensus and is unnecessary in the article lead 2804:14C:7F80:8296:7559:1C3E:3725:B6EA (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a stable consensus on these definitions. See recent administrators explanations: [4], [5] and [6]. Refrain from reverting again, you are doing vandalism right now in wikipedia, thanks. Panenkazo (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the count:

Administrators that have accepted my reasonings (3 admins). See: [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Panenkazo (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the consensus[11] is Catalonia can be stated in the lead sentence if sources refer to the person as a Catalan, or if the subject clearly identifies as Catalan. I could not find such a source for Xavi, or any evidence of Xavi identifying as a Catalan. Can you provide a source? (and I assume that's the case for the dozens of other articles) Ae245 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right now it is a debate in WikiProject Catalonia for clarifying all this and if it is necessary establish a clear new consensus. As you can see, the administrators have say it very clear that the fact of identification or self-identification is a separate issue. Panenkazo (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- ferret (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]