Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Disruption from User:Maurice27

Maurice27, don't revert over all the edits from most Catalan-speaker users such me. You have reverted not only those edit you are disappointing about the subject of Castillian, but also deleting sources, other edits with not related to, and etcetera. And you are the only one person who isn't discussing anything here since more than four months. Please, get a correct attitude. Why to do a lot of changes as quickly as possible? It could be get in calm to be discussed along several days. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you dare to treat me as a stupid! I already exposed my opinion months ago and every one does know it perfectly, so repeating myself is useless. This point is being discussed right now by new-by editors and no one has approved the edits you are trying to do! Behave yourself and wait until a decision is taken. I'm browned off of your attitude of wanting to impose your oppinion ignoring the rest of the users. You wait until a decision is taken like the rest of us do. Who the hell you think you are??. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 10:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm a Wikipedian user that provide sources in every edit I do. It's a big difference with you, as you only shout here. As many sources you give, as many edits can be done. If you have other sources that shows it's not true, so it can be undone. But if only you don't agree, don't disappoint or don't believe them, it's not a reason to revert, but to discuss here. Ok?. In the other hand, there are a lot of users, tired of your pittiest attitude (and a result of it, they don't participate furthermore), that are demanding an equal standard rule for names about Catalan and Spanish, with the recent participation of Cnoguera and espencat, the number is around ten users in front of practically only you and Mountolive. I'm not imposing anything, but the sources and external references are determinant. Which sources are you giving right now? Nothing, zero sources. Even worst, you're deleting new sources. How may sources I've offered in my last edit? Three sources. Ok?. So, again, please, get a correct attitude with most of Catalan-speaker users. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your source was not removed, but moved to another place. Also, as Enric said here above, "the BBC source above lists the territories where catalan is official or semi-official, and it does not list Valencia. Instead, it says "Valencian, regarded by some as a variant of the Catalan language, is spoken in the region of Valencia. Other groups in the Valencian Community, however, consider it to be a distinct language." So it does not even back your reverts adding Catalan as the name of the language in Valencia. I already said it to you, Don't you dare to treat us as stupids!. Therefore, I undo you again for changing again the names of the languages without the consensus of the rest of us. I advice to quit your attitude and start behaving like a civilized user because you starting again to act like a vandal. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This consensus is not real. Please, give me some kind of link to your fake consensus. It's only your POV, as the consensus aren't valid forever, and you're not discussing any change in the talk page, as espencat, Enric Naval and me are doing. Wich rest of persons are you talking? Are you talking about users tired of you such Dúnadan, Casaforra, SMP, pepetps, xtv, Pmmollet and me?. Any of them agree with the double and biaised standard about using Valencian/Spanish, but Catalan/Spanish. By third time, I demand you to have a correct attitude to most Catalan-speaker wikipedians. Greetings. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 13:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as you keep edit warring, I'll bring this to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you think you should do. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some improvements

The article now has an education section with "compulsory levels" and "universities" subsections and a Transports section with "Air", "train" and "Commuter rail and Metro" subsections.

I also made some additions to the "politics" section like the name of the president of the Generalitat Valenciana which was NOT even present (això si... esments al estatut que no faltin!!!)

Those new sections are now merely stubs, but whoever wants to contibute in them... Go ahead! Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again

Yet once again, user Martorell has come here to make changes only in the highly disputed and carefully agreed lines. We have been seeing this kind of behaviour every six to twelve months of this user coming here to destroy the existing consensus at ease (along the usual rant addressed to the users who do not share his point of view).

Rather than discussing what has been discussed for N times, let me add some policy guidelines (note that I havent added any bolding, but they are bolded already in the original policy)

1) first of all, even though this is about article name, it definitely fits here, so per WP:NAME and dedicated to Joanot aka Martorell aka Benimerin: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

So, Martorell, yes: there are many other ways to help improving wikipedia that coming here every six-seven months to destroy a particular wording carefully chosen after many tries (including you, even if your option didnt get any consensus). Carefully chosen wording which is accepted by a majority of users. And, yes, Martorell, users are strongly discouraged from editting for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. On the face of your recurrent behavious, I guess you are ready to be reported and face the consequences. I just hope you dont come back one year after/when your block expires under another nick and do the same...oh no, that is what you were exactly thinking?

2) Then, per WP:Naming conflict "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is".

And the name is officialy and historicaly, Valencian, sorry if this reality does not sit well with you. Here's an example for those who haven't got it yet or, worse, dont want to get it yet Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Example

according to this same official policy, "ambiguity persists (...) when the 'official' name is not unambiguous".

The official name is anything but ambiguous: Valencian, crystal clear, clar i (oops) català.

As for "Castilian", I will come back to this later, but for the time being just remember that 1) still applies anyway .

MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 21:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply show me where is the "carefully agreed" lines here in the talk page. It's an invention from you and a pushing POV from you and Maurice with two different users in every time both you make polemic this subject. I claim that this consens is NOT real. If you SHOW me where's decided that with some links I will stop believing you and Maurice are simply trolls. I give you two weeks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Martorell, but it does not work like that, and I mean the somewhat cowboy-esque challenge "I give you two weeks". When we have a version which has remained stable over the weeks, months and, possibly, years, on the face of different editors with different points of view, that means there is an existing consensus, as far as I know, all those people you mention only cared about the infobox thing (which, actually, remains just the way they wanted). In other words, when it is only you challenging this consensus and basically wanting to rewrite each and every contentious point in this article, that means it has to be you to challenge the existing consensus, because it is only you who wants to rewrite all the contentious and then agreed points. I give you as many weeks as you want, but just please dont make a mess out of this...again. Well, I guess it is too late for that, you've messed the whole thing again, but I wanted that you know that you are ruining consensus in this page, just in case you hadnt noticed yourself yet. And, adding insult to injury, you did it during Christmas time. Shame.... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 22:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple. You're repeating all times "consensus, consensus, consensus..." but you don't show where such consensus was agreed. It's very easy, show me this consensus you're talking. If you don't, so this consensus is not true. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not Martorell, and I'm not trying to change the title, just adjust the wording in accordance with English, which I assume must be good practice. And what you say is right, valencià is clear and in català. But in English, it's not clear at all. The practice of putting it in brackets (like this: Catalan (Valencian) ) is acceptable to me. But any solution which doesn't implicity and immediately explain that we are talking about Catalan is fudging the issue (deliberate obfuscation) And it is obfuscation because the authors involved don't seem to be denying that it is Catalan; they simply prefer not to say so. And this engenders confusion and doesn't help readers who are not experts (i.e. are not Cataln-speakers). I think it's a concrete objection to a concrete problem, and a valid one at that: to make the article more understandable for a novice. --Espencat (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Contested info moved to talk

• [País Valencià can be translated as . . . ] or "Land of Valencia".{{Fact|date=December 2007}}
• On the other hand, the historical term Kingdom of Valencia (Valencian: Regne de València, Spanish: Reino de Valencia) which, due to the left-wing connotations of País Valencià, became the favourite term of right-wing stances{{Fact|date=December 2007}}.

Please do not restore this info to article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the edit which restored this material with the old fact tags still unresolved. Please first find a citation for this material and then return it to the article.--BirgitteSB 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a speedy revert indeed.

Well, I wont check your contributions ticker, but I guess if I would, I'd find an impressive record of hundreds of edits a day just removing tagged content. That's a manner of contributing, I guess.

However, in this case, if you were familiar with the topic, you'd know that what you are removing here is basically recieved wisdom and that no one really objects to that. There are so many thousands of much bolder claims in wikipedia (and in this page) which indeed do need a citation, but you happened to fall in this one. Pity. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was pure chance that it was so speedy. I am rarely online on the weekends and I have never been the type to make hundreds of edits a day. So if you did look at my contribs you would be rather surprised at how different I am than you first assumed. However moving {{fact}} tags older than a year to talk pages is one of the occasional tasks I take on from the backlogs. Someone did object to these statements, after all they went to the effort of challenging them with {{fact}}. And challenged material that remains unsourced is removed per policy. If there are bolder claims in the article that you believe to be incorrect, please challenge them. I don't have any particular problem with this material per se, but rather with it remaining unsourced for so long after it was challenged. I would restore it myself, if you provided a source.--BirgitteSB 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)