User talk:Dúnadan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1 (2005-2007)

[edit] Demography of Mexico

Dear Dunadan I agree with you, the only reason I made the recently edits is because I noticied that in Demography of Mexico there was not a poverty index that is why I added this source. I should 've added the standard of life and poverty part into Economy of Mexico.

Yes, it is true that I mostly make edits in argentina's articles might be patriotism or something I don't know, but more recently I am seeking to make edits in other articles besise Argentina's, (eg demographics and history of Uruguay, Mexico etc). Nonetheless (your key word) I still remember the "heated discutions" that we had but well, lets leave the past behind and why not work together as you say on different articles.

Fercho85 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] moving on

Mmhhh, I see you keep tracking my edits. Dont know if I should thank you for your attention and close monitoring or begin worrying seriously about your somewhat stalking presence. After all this underserved attention, you shouldnt be surprised if I referred to you like "the police" all the same...

By now I have to fully agree with BNS comment on how worrying your use of sources can get. The last example is the one you brought in PPCC talk page about my edits in Spanish Civil War. This is what I wrote in that talk page:

I am not very much for using the English term "National" but keeping the original "Nacionales" which has a rather impossible translation in English (but, for sure, that is not "nationalist").

As I said, actually I would support better keeping the original nacional(es) above any other wording,(...)

And this is how you summarize it Interestingly enough you have insisted on keeping a word that doesn't mean the same thing in English in other articles [nationals] but were very purist when it came to "countries" That is pretty much the opposite of what I wrote. If I can say something in my favour is that in both articles I have been consistent and asked for keeping the names in the original language to avoid the tricks of a less than perfect English translation. Being my position crystal clear in SCW talk page, I guess I can't assume good faith from you anymore when what you just did in PPCC is twisting it in a way to mean exactly the opposite of what I said. Not nice, naughty boy.

Let me say that, some weeks ago, your point used to be better articulated, but lately, when you have been challenged thoroughly your examples and some of your reasoning started to sound in between over-the-top and ludicrous (this -ludicrous- is a word you have used oftentimes when referring to other contributor's work, including my own, so I hope you accept it going in your direction, too) I'm talking, for example, of the TOESL thing or when you said that "oftentimes" doesnt mean "sometimes" (but who said that, in the first place???) Moreover, back in the day you accused me of blackmailing because I reached out for the tag as the last mean to at least salvage some of my legitimate concerns while now I realize that your insistence on the "compromise" thing was some kind of black market offer dangerously taking the situation down to a mere article ownership to be solved round the corner with a good ol' "compromise" splitting the neighbourhood in two.

I will blame it on the excesses of the Christmas season and hope you resume the good work you made in articles such as Autonomous Communities instead of entrenching in positions just because you wont admit you also have a bias (relax: we all do, me too) and you wont always get away with it.

Now, since I'd like to practice what I'm preaching you, here's the self-criticism. I guess I have part of the blame in your lowering standard. I am afraid that, since when I perceive you getting thick as a brick you certainly frustrate me to the max, my ironic addressings didnt sit well with your -you may want to admit it, if only to yourself- less than flexible persona. It is good that BNS came to the rescue of us, because I admit myself being routinarily pissed off at the sight of self-righteousness. He has the nerves (no wonder: he's English) to take it cool and bother to explain in a relaxed manner what, otherwise, I can only produce irony about and this can be sometimes poignant. And for that I have to ask for apologies.

I wouldnt bother to write all this to you and being straight to you if, after all, I didnt think you are an overall good editor (used to think you were more than just good before these unfortunate things I mentioned here, but I trust you'll be back for good). And dont get me wrong, I wouldnt have never been this straight in a public talk page: it's not my style to try to get other users in trouble apart from particular edits which I may disagree with.

Things in written tend to go a bit disparaged and I guess that didnt help us, either.

Anyway, I know it is not your style to let the others say the last word, but when you reply to this, I'd appreciated it if you got to the general picture instead of the nasty details, otherwise we will never finish. You can be similarly straight to me if you want, I'd just appreciate if you did so in a manner that doesnt revive old grudges, so that we can finally move on.

Ah, if you want a hint of my next edit without having to check my "contributions" ticker such as you are doing lately, that should be something regarding Autonomous Communities and how, initially, they were presented in such a vague way as it could turn out that only the so-called "historic" ones reached out for autonomy if the rest had desired to remain in an administrative only (not political) autonomy. It's that what they call el principio dispositivo? My law notes are getting past behind me and I'll have to recheck the whole story. Hope you help me with the particular wording and references. Feel free to work it out yourself, actually, if you fancy.

Salut. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the things you say in your last message make sense, others make less sense (in my opinion, that is). But overall thank you for not responding in an 'escalation' manner. Maybe we both have had enough of that, or we will, hopefully sometime soon.

Now, I dont want to follow up here or elsewhere any particular discussion for the time being (actually, I wouldnt like to be back to those anymore) but the thing is that I notice the 'up your arse' thing still lingers on.

Ok, then; if that is going to be -and looks like yes- a serious handicap in our relationship, I think we shouldnt forget what are those things you be stuck. Those are your comments calling me (or my own comments, doesnt make much of a difference) "blackmailer", "ludicrous", "not intelligent", "most of all, unethical" and the like.

Looks like you did, but let's just not lose sight of this, Dunadan.

All it takes from my side to ask for excuses I guess is you ~~striking~~ those paragraphs. Note that I am not demanding you to do that, will be fine if you won't, because I am not making a case of those anymore such as you seem to be making a case of my answer to those. But I think your comments in the first place are no less out of whack as my own and, if we are to be fair, we both have to make some effort. Let's call this one, yes, a "compromise" ;)

Act freely, do not strike them if you feel they are deserved and you'd say the same thing over again. Even though I did find them truly offensive, they are a thing of the past for me now.

What I would really like you to strike, if you dont mind, is that line of yours I quoted above regarding my "purist" stance in PPCC compared to the same in SCW, because that one comment is plainly false. I'm not saying I am not accepting your explanation on why you made such an unfortunate comment (not following talk page etc) but, next time, given our bad relationship, please try not being that reckless again and, this time, please amend yourself there. I think it's necessary. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 11:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do it myself if you dont act with the bolded part. And I would keep it into consideration the fact that you didnt amend yourself after having placed reckless comments which have been proved not only false but tendentious even when you are given the opportunity of so doing.

p.s. it's sad that we wont come closer but instead you've seem to apparently decide to stalk whatever my edits in a controversial approach, but this is just wikipedia anyway...and, who knows, maybe one morning we see a brighter day. In the meantime, cheers. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probablement n'estàs fart

Tot i que sóc plenament conscient del que poden arribar a cansar les discussions de la Viquipèdia, m'agradaria que fessis una ullada a aquesta discussió. T'he de confessar que la teva metodologia m'ha influenciat molt, malgrat que, per altra part, és la que marca la Viquipèdia. He après que no es tracta d'imposar cap punt de vista sinó de reflectir-los tots per garantir un punt de vista neutral. En això, he après molt de tu. Ui, no vull que sembli que t'ensabono... Si et ve de gust i tens forces, t'estaré molt agraït. --Pmmollet^Talk 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ei no pateixis, ho entenc. Et vaig escriure en un moment d'una certa desesperació, però finalment seguint "el teu mètode" hem aconseguit arribar a una solució de compromís. Val a dir, que s'ha de tenir molta paciència i t'has de sentir a dir cada cosa que Déu n'hi do. Però bé, al final el resultat ha sigut prou satisfactori. --Pmmollet^Talk 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Països Catalans

Bon dia, Dúnadan.

Escolta, no entenc del tot aquesta edició [1]

Estic al corrent de que penses que l'article en qüestió és massa centrat al voltant del sentit polític del terme. Com ja saps, jo no tinc cap problema en que hi portes coses al respecte del sentit lingüistic, si penses que és addient 'treure-li ferro' al sentit polític. Tot i això, és obvi també que l'ús que li dona al terme, per exemple, ERC o els altres grups polítics nacionalistes és un i el lingüístic és un altre. No hi veig motius per desdibuixar aquesta distinció. Al contrari, s'ha de deixar ben clara per evitar confusions.

Perque, almenys des de el meu punt de vista, si el que volem és descarregar l'article d'un cert approach, el que primer s'hauria de fer és deixar ben palés quins són els dos principals approaches -sense esborrar res- i des d'eixos fonaments, és més fàcil treballar per donar-li als dos sentits del terme la relevància que cadascú puga tindre, no? Això és el que la meua edició preten.

Què en penses? Pots respondre aquí mateix. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bon dia, o més aviat, Bona tarda Mountolive,

Entenc molt bé, i estic d'acord amb tu, que hem de descarregar l'article de qualsevol approach i biaix que pugui tenir, i alhora presentar tots els punts de vista de manera neutral. I, no pretenc amagar cap approach, com dius, ni l'ús del concepte. Tanmateix no vull barrejar definicions amb usos del concepte. Com tu ho has dit, una cosa és la definició i una altra l'ús del concepte.

La definició dels Països Catalans en l'àmbit acadèmic (incloent-hi el GREC) es refereix als territoris de parla i cultura catalanes. Hi ha dues maneres de definir-ne els territoris: de manera estricta, els territoris on es parla el català o de manera àmplia, els territoris on el català té caràcter [co]oficial. De manera anàloga, la Francophonie inlcou tots els països on el francès és la llengua [co]oficial, tot i que això inclou territoris la població dels quals no parla el francès (p. ex. la part anglòfona del Canadà, les illes de parla criolla del Carib, i els diversos Estats de l'Àfrica). En altres paraules, les dues referències (estricta o àmplia) són lingüístiques i culturals i no polítiques. (La Francophonie no té cap "sentit polític").

Per altra banda, hi ha d'assagistes que atribueixen un caràcter nacional comú als Països Catalans, i diferenciat de la resta d'Espanya. Aquesta atribució no té res a veure amb les fronteres territorials; el caràcter nacional pot atribuir-se als territoris estrictes o als territoris en el sentit ampli. (Per exemple, Mèxic es defineix com a nació [només una] pluricultural [moltes llengües i cultures]). I, finalment, hi ha polítics catalans, valencians i balears que propugnen per la independència dels Països Catalans, en base al [suposat?] caràcter nacional, malgrat l'oposició de molts sectors dels mateixos Països Catalans.

Llavors, al meu parer, hi ha tres approaches (apropaments? haha, un fals amic potser?) per a estudiar els Països Catalans:

la definició del concepte com a territori lingüístic i cultural (que pot correspondre a dues definicions territorials)
l'atribució del caràcter nacional als mateixos territoris definits lingüísticament (que pot correspondre a les dues definicions territorials)
l'ús del concepte amb fins polítics (que pot correspondre a les dues definicions territorials)

Per això, he eliminat la frase "in a politic sense" de la segona definició territorial. No vull barrejar "defincions" amb "usos". M'explico? Si qualifiquem la definició lingüística o si li atribuïm un caràcter polític, llavors l'article comportarà un biaix polític inherent des de la definició lingüística.

Què en penses de tot això?

--the Dúnadan 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bones Dúnadan,

Mhhh...te n'adones de que el que has fet revertint-me al cap de ¿2 minuts? no és la millor idea a l'hora de tindre un esperit cooperatiu? Te n'adones del potencial de edit-warring que això pot tindre? Te n'adones de que no he tocat quasi res de la teua edició anterior, soles allò que pense és més crític (i que per això no he tocat allò que pense que has fet millorant el consens previ)? Te n'adones que li demanaves a Maurice que respectés la seua paraula?

As such és clar com l'aigua (clar i català, if you may) i la redacció addicional que estàs estibant en una intro que, per cert, ja ha esdevingut massa llarga, no és NPOV.

És per això que he de tornar a la versió anterior. Espere que comprengues els meus arguments i....no tornem-hi...jo encara no en tinc ganes, la veritat... Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names of the Valencian Community

Com que pense que una de les raons per la nostra mala relació i 'piques' és açò del pensat-i-fet (o pensat i repensat...amb una mica de mala baba, que és encara pitjor) si et sembla, et contestaré demà per contribuir a la serenitat. En qualsevol cas, intente predre-m'ho més tranquilament, així que pense que aquest tema en concret no ens donarà massa la murga.

En canvi, si t'he de ser sincer, pense que el teu darrer post a 'names of the' no va en la bona direcció. He fet un esforç allà per tal de sonar 'cool' i treure-li ferro al tema, perque, de veritat, vull -necessite- passar pàgina amb tu, urgentment. Tot i això, a la vista d'eixe post teu, pense que o bé el meu esforç no ha sigut bo i m'he expressat malament o bé tú encara no has canviat el xip del tot, o les dues coses.

El cas és que em continues sonant unfriendly, em continues sonant tancat. Ho has revertit tot, matxo, tot. Primer dius que això s'ha d'explicar a la talk page. Vale. Ho explique... t'ho passes pel forro. Que sí, que sí, que jo no dic que tot el que jo he fet siga necesàriament perfecte, pero, "tio Dúnadan", de veritat penses que l'article té millor cara amb el "Apóstol de Indias", el "combit cheneral y particular", "la tia Rafaela" i la "Verche Amparadora"?...et sembla tan important tindre allà al bell mig del text això del "grandson of aunt Rarela"? (Rarela?? i la gent que ho puga llegir -si ho penses, ningú... tret de 'la penyeta'- en plan "was it grandson or was it aunt", en què quedem?) Això, que és només un exemple, de veres et sembla tan absolutamente bàsic per l'article que no transigiràs amb un edit traent-ho del bell mig del texte?

En casos com aquest no puc evitar pensar que el que jo puga editar et provoqués una certa urticària davant de la qual reacciones. Això t'ho has de curar, matxo, perque jo estic disposat a fer esforços en la meua actitud (i després podrem discutir tot el que vullgues sobre el contingut concret) però vull vore correspondències per la teua part o no em paga la pena.

L'única manera que se m'acut per que em demostres que no és així, que pots viure amb les meues edicions, almenys les més 'light', és que demostres una mica de flexibilitat, una poc de cintura.....perdona'm, en cap cas estic en plan xungo, et repetisc que he canviat el xip... però és que ho mire i ho remire i encara no em puc creure que hages tornat a posar eixa cita en contes de portarla al peu de pàgina. Collons, encara que et semblés del tot necessària, hauries de fer un esforç de comprensió dels demés, que segurament no la troben tan fonamental. I no estic parlant de mi...i si no em creus, ja vorem què passa a la talk page...

Si em dius que et sembla que tot el que jo he fet a eixa secció és incorrecte, que lo de la DRAE tampoc et val, en fi, res, doncs...no sé ja què fer, perque, insistisc, això m'ho he plantejat més com un minor edit que altra cosa, ho he explicat en la talk page, he portat referències...però, res. Matxo, estàs segur que, a poc que feres un esforç, no hi ha quelcom amb el que pugues transigir?...

~~Espere que sí.~~

~~En fi, ja en parlarem.~~

Què tal a Houston (Dallas?) si ets a Houston et puc recomanar un garito de marxa guay al Uptown Park guay...Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 01:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

Bon dia Dúnadan. El primer, agrair-te molt el canvi d'actitud sobre el que parlàvem abans.

Com que la comunicació està funcionant pel moment, millor et faig saber el que pense abans d'editar. Estic parlant de l'última edició que has fet a Spain.

No és gens important, és una qüestió de detall (però ja saps que the devil is in the details ;) T'explique: desde el meu punt de vista no es pot parlar de "devolution" per les comunitats autònomes perque aquelles inclueixen tota una sèrie de territores com siga La Rioja, Castella La Manxa, Madrid, Castella Lleó, Múrcia, Extremadura, Cantabria (fins i tot les illes Canàries i, potser, les Balears)....cap dels quals mai ha exercit cap mena de poder local, diguem-li històric (à la Regne de València) o més recent però legalment reconegut (à la Andalusia).

Jo en principi treuria lo de 'devolution' basat en això que et comente. 'Devolution', si no sóc errat, és un terme molt britànic que s'aplica bé als territoris històrics tipus Gales o Escòcia (Anglaterra mateixa també, tot i que l'opinió pública anglesa ha refusat cap mena de 'devolution')

In my view, the Spanish case is different and there would be nothing to be "devolved" if this regional self government never existed in the first place but, actually, has been created ex-novo like in most cases mentioned above.

Comments? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 11:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bona tarda Mountolive,

El que hi havia abans de les meves edicions era: "[with]... the arrival of democracy, political autonomy were established." Al començament, només volia corregir l'error gramatical evident, però, això de l'"establiment de l'autonomia política", almenys en anglès, no té gaire sentit. El que es va establir és un "estat de les autonomies" ("state of autonomies"?) basat en la concessió d'autonomia del govern central a les regions [i nacionalitats] que integraven l'Estat. Sí, és clar, no totes les regions van rebre l'autonomia perduda.

Tanmateix, el que s'entén com a devolution no requereix que la regió que rep l'autonomia, l'hagi tinguda abans o que n'hagi gaudit històricament. "Devolution" es defineix com a "the delegation of authority (especially from a central to a regional government)".[2], [3].

El que passa és que "devolution" i "devolve" són dos exemples claríssims d'un "fals amic" o false cognate. El castellanoparlant associa "devolve" amb "devolver". Però, en anglès, "devolve" significa (1) delegar responsabilitats, (2) transmetre per successió, (3) succeir (cap a baix, o negativament) i (4) degeneració (de "de[s]" i "evolve", és a dir "des-evolucionar"). [4]. Si t'agrada la filologia, aquesta és l'evolució del mot: [Middle English devolven, to transfer, from Old French devolver, to confer, ascribe, from Latin dēvolvere, to roll down, fall to : dē-, de- + volvere, to roll]. No sé perquè el mot va adquirir una connotació o definició diferent en castellà.

Per això, els "papers" en anglès que estudien l'"estat de les autonomies" d'Espanya, parlen de "devolution". De fet el concepte de "devolution" no és merament britànic (potser es va originar al Regne Unit), però avui dia és un concepte global. (Devolution in Russia, Devolution in NT, Canada, Devolution in Spain, [5]). L'autonomia no es "retorna", es "transmet" (it is devolved).

--the Dúnadan 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tens raó, Dúnadan, estava totalment confós amb el false friend aquest. Gràcies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bones.

Ei, Dúnadan, si realment estigueres (com "algú" ha dit :P) "avorrit" deixa'm que t'oferisca una tasca per matar la fam: traduïr EUPV a l'anglés (sembla que no existeix l'article encara) i des d'eixe article seria interessant crear també el de Iniciativa pel País Valencià (que també existeix a es.wiki).

Escolta, ara, dintre d'aquest calvari rutinari auto-imposat, em toca tindre-la muntada amb el Toniher, aquí tot i que imagine que el teu punt de vista és proper al dels teus colegues al Catalan-speaking countries wikiproject, com que a tu t'interessa prou més que a mi el tema diguem-ne..."legal" de l'ús de fonts, m'agradaria sentir la teua opinió al respecte.

Fora d'això, en general, mira, t'he de dir que la cosa a vegades m'arriba a preocupar amb alguns dels wikipedistes que venen de Catalunya (hi siguen al CSC wikiproject o no) perque hi arriben molt ideologitzats, defensant coses com allò del "Catalan Sea" etc que no fan molt bon "servici" (em sembla que aquesta paraula és oficial ja en valencià ;) al projecte aquí. Si eixos editors fóren com tu o l'Xtv seria collonut, perque vosaltres defenseu unes coses, però almenys sabeu el que és incompatible amb la neutralitat estricta, allò que ja entra més aïna a formar part del punt de vista ideològic de cadascú. I això vosaltres no ho tracteu d'imposar, però d'altres....en fi, no se ben be perquè et faig aquesta reflexió final, perque, obviamente, tú no ets responsable de res d'això... Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, gràcies, no cal que poses la meua pàgina a les teues pàgines vigilades (scary! :P) Per cert, gràcies per la teua resposta tranquila: després d'haver escrit el meu post, em vaig penedir un poc, vaig pensar que igual sonava massa inflamatori. Gràcies per haver aportat serenitat esta vegada.

De fet, després del que ha passat a Spain, on heu clavat un gol per tot l'escaire (i damunt m'han dit que estic 'esbiaixat'...hòstia, quina paraulota, no? ;) pense que ja és hora de que em prenga un descans...i quant més llarg, millor. Ja és la segona vegada en que m'he atipat. Ojalá aquesta siga l'última, perque la meua xicona ja està farta de wikipedia :D

Per si això no fóra suficient, hi ha els Toniher boys, que venen amb una embranzida considerable (memorable l'últim post a PPCC)...encara no me n'anat, però...què serà el que em trobe quan torne? "Catalan sky"? "Castelldefelsian Sea"? "Francesc Macià's Sea"? (he sailed there once or twice: properly referenced ;)...o fins i tot Dúnadan as an en.wiki administrator??? :D (això últim és conya, eh?!)

Ah per cert, haviem quedat en que et posaries en contacte amb un administrador, no amb un fulano que va ser bloquejat un any sencer a [José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero] per imposar que ZP és una barreja d'allò millor en Jesucrist, Gandhi, Churchill, Aristòtil et al. ...també pense que l'han bloquejat un grapat de voltes més en altres articles....huevos, Dúnadan, almenys em concediràs que hi ha una diferència entre un administrador i açò que has portat, no?! ;)

No patisques, però: ara com ara, em la bufa soberanament, estic entrant al mood de descompressió. No descarte un 'rally' final d'edicions abans de predre'm unes vacances, però la decisió ja està presa, i això és el més difícil. No vullguera ser com Solbes que, com diu la cançó (adaptada): se va, se va, se va, se va y todavía no se ha ido, però, per quan arribe el moment, pots alforra-te el "repensa-t'ho" etc...més aïna el que hauries de fer és aprofitar el temps que estiga fora ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No cregues que jo el tinc massa controlat tampoc, però, sí, certament el 'pájaro' del que parlàvem no sembla el més indicat. Pel poc que'l conec, té un molt fort 'bias' esquerrà, "anti-imperialista" etc...si dius que el paio està actiu a articles sobre centreamerica (de fet diu que viu allà) fins i tot seria bo que el controlares un poc, perque, lamentablement, imagine que països tipus Guatemala o Nicaragua (els altres PPCC, Països Centreamericans jajaja :P) en tenen poc wikipedistes locals i hi és més fàcil "clavar-la" sense que et controlen, tot i que igual m'equivoque.

En quant a eixos suposats atacs, no t'equivoques (ho dic de bon rotllo, eh? que hem d'anar amb peus de plom amb el que ens diem mutuament ;) perque estic parlant de 'you' com a vosaltres, no com a "you, Dúnadan".

En qualsevol cas, al respecte del comentari sobre els sneaky, et demanaria un poc de paciència: òbviament editar a segons quins articles et pot cremar una mica (m'encanta un recent d'en Maurice que diu "I'm browned off, BROWNED OFF!" jajaja a tots en passa en algun moment, no?) Aleshores puc eixir amb una cosa així com allò d'sneaky i, potser, no és d'aplicació a este cas concret o a tots els usuaris referits. My apologies anyway.

En quant a allò dels bias i insecurities, ahi ja sí que pense que derrapes un poc si et fa sentir agreujat: tu mateix has dit en moltes ocasions que tots en tenim biases, així que no pense que m'haja de 'tallar' de parlar dels biases de ningú, ni del teu ni del meu ni del de la Tia Rafaela. En quant a les inseguretats, òbviament m'estic referint a les que van associades al bias del que es tracte, no a les inseguretats personals que cadascú puga tindre.

No m'apetix parlar ara del tema Spain. Ja en parlarem un altre dia.

Gràcies. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Layout of Article

the Dúnadan; thanks, although we got a collaborator who reversed part of what i did, particularly Transportation and Cities and metropolitan areas, I'm in contact with said person to se how we can work this out!, please review if you like and give me pointers on how i can resolve situation!

In regards to your other points, «all correct», they should be taken care off – Sincerely – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catalan Sea

Agraeixo la teva participació amb la discussió relacionada amb el Catalan Sea [6]. Et demanaria, si us plau, una intervenció en el mateix sentit (o com tu creguis millor) en la discussió a Mediterranean Sea [7]. --Marcbel (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translating help

Hey there, com va? so I noticed you look quite qualified to help me with a little translating problem, if you have time. I've been working on Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, which was kind of sloppily translated from the Spanish article, and have hit a bump. I'm trying to find sources for the section mentioning comarcal federations, and all that I can find is this: "Cuando varios pueblos constituyan la Federación Comarcal, la cotización correspondiente a la Local debe pasar a la Primera." It's from the 6th Article of the ESTATUTOS DE LA C.N.T. at this link. I can't really figure what the "Primera" being referred to is. Can you shed some light? Salut! Murderbike (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copying section Mexican Crime and Corruption

Hi Dúnadan:

I just wanted to say that, as far as I recall, when I copied from section Mexican Crime and Corruption to the newer section at the bottom of Talk:Mexico, I copied everything that was there.

You added more discussion afterwards, which was not copied.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spain Article

Hi Dúnadan

I've made what I think is a reasonable compromise proposal to solve the wording of the section on the Madrid bombings. Mountolive seems fairly determined to preserve the part abut the elections being "stolen". I would suggest that you pursue your suggestion of looking for outside administrative intervention on the issue before it becomes a bigger dispute. Southofwatford (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing - it seems that Mountolive is now trying to involve in this discussion another editor with whom I had a long dispute which I have no desire whatsoever to revive. For that reason alone, it may be better for you to take the lead in seeking assistance. Southofwatford (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

User:Earthbendingmaster/Poll Basketball 110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White People

Thanks for your note. I new there was a counter argument just waitng for me. I'm afraid that I'm not going to figure out the "correct" version. This needs to be discussed on the article talk page, seeking consensus amongst the other editors. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on how to deal with situations in which editors disagree. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the formerly-anonymous user 200.117.168.68, having finally adopted a nickname to clear up the confusion. I should have brought this argument to you instead of allowing the edit war to escalate.

My main beef with your edit in the White People article comes from the fact that you decided to erase my entire contribution as opposed to building up on it, which was a rude thing to do, and from your decision to include the controversial UBA study, which contradicts many previous studies on the matter, such as [8] or [9]. Additionally, I don't believe genetic studies belong in the "White People" article, since this article deals with *social definitions* of "white people", not actual genetics.

The UBA study is controversial, because it's based on a sample of 200 Argentineans and uses a form of genetic testing that only traces one lineage from either the mother or the father's side. The overwhelming majority of genetic studies on Argentinian population shows no major differences between the admixtures of white Argentinians as compared to, say, white Canadians or Americans.

I'm not trying to deny that there's an amerindian component to Argentine population. Of course there is. But this component may range from 5% to 56% of the population, depending on the study cited, and does not make Argentine demographics any less different from other "Areas of New Settlement". Either we also include genetic studies showing admixture in Canada, Australia, and the US, or we don't include any genetic study at all. The white people article is supposed to deal with cultural and census definitions, after all, and no country in the world uses genetic testing for its census definitions.

Regards,

--Dharma for one (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dunadan I understand what you say but you should have proposed to add this study previously. I am not saying that you edit is worthless is just that people find it very controversial..I personally think that goes perfectly on the demographics section (though it is already on Argentina's main page) but not on the other articles such as southern cone or white people I still have reverted you editions until we get to a final decision with the other users

Best regards,

Fercho85 05:12, 09 Feb 2008

[edit] Edit War

Mate, I tried to pacifically discuss this with you guys, but there is a conspiracy here of some nationals to avoid talking about some topics that doesn't please you. What you are doing here is the same paint Iraq as Scandinavia, a place where no war exist, equal income distribution and so on. I shows my arguments, I presented several references but you didn't care. All you did was to reject every piece of evidence that I presented.--Mhsb (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User's comments unrelated to the article

I removed the comments of the User:Opinoso because it doesn't contributed to to the topic. Notice that one of editors did the same as you can cleary see from the discussion page history:

04:01, 28 February 2008 Supaman89 (Talk | contribs) m (160,577 bytes) (→The attention of administrators is required: Removing joke between Supaman and Wanderer since it wasn't part of the discussion, so we can continue with the subject in a serious way.) (undo)

Please, don't start an edit war! Don't restore the page with this user's comments. Thanks.

--Mhsb (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I don't agree with your point of view. What the User:Opinoso is doing is to link attacks from other articles for the purpose of attacking me.

Regarding the edit of my talk page, there is no official policy regarding when or whether personal attacks should be removed. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

--Mhsb (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the User:Opinoso was doing personal attacks againt me.

As per his statement:

Mhsb is disturbing many articles. In Brazil he is erasing information, including non-sense stuff in the article and creating an edit-war.

Please, somebody stop him. Opinoso (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He is accusing me of disrupting contents, including non-sense stuff, in his opnion and creating an edit-war. Personal attacks violate talk page guidelines.--Mhsb (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because the discussion was directly related to the article in question. User:Opinoso hasn't expressed anything but my actions on other articles, moving the discussion from one article to another article and thus disrupting Talk:Mexico page.--Mhsb (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion did I insult you??? I could equally say that you guys attacked me:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

You are using affiliation to over-guard article and this violates Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Mhsb (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are the one who follow the contributions of other users... regarding the topic, it doesn't matter, I've just expressed my point of view... --Mhsb (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico City Page

In any case, please read WP:NOT. Images should be used when they illustrate a point in the section, not as decoration. Wikipedia is not supposed to be neither an album nor a repository of media files. A link—which already exists—to commons is the way to go.

I disagree, otherwise, why I would use galeries?

BTW, I wouldn't edit the Talk:Mexico page to discuss an article about the Mexico City. --Mhsb (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Dúnadan

Please, follow the Wikipedia guidelines which refers to personal attacks. You are accusing me of Cyberstalking, which is a serious offense. Remember: Wikipedia is public, you do not own any article, section or even your talk page (see:Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). Angry mastodons isn't constructive in an online encyclopedia.

--Mhsb (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you have against me, is this just because I proposed a section about crime in the Mexico article? I don't want to engage in an edit war with you. Please, state your concerns about my actions that I will address them seriouslly but stop attacking me. Cheers.

--Mhsb (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Making threats is against Wikipedia policies. You are the one who is not following the guidelines. --Mhsb (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to start over. I should continue our discussion here, protest against your recent edits on the article Crime and Violence in Latin America, but let's start simple. I would kindly ask you to consider my apologies if I did anything that hurt your feelings. I will review all my writing under the discussion page of Mexico to see if I insulted you in any moment, I am pretty sure that I never did that. I would suggest to star over and go back to the discussion page in the Mexico article to give a new start. I think that my greatest mistake was not being diplomatic. I sincerelly hope to hear from you. about my proposal. Cheers.

--Mhsb (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

OK Dúnadan. Thanks for accepting my apologies and for proposing the modification of the articles we've been battling so far. I carefully read your proposals and I decided to proceed with the following actions:

Regarding Mexico, I will wait for your proposal in the near future, I will be more than happy to contribute.
Regarding Brazil, I was just following the guidelines of the project to include in the introduction some things the country is known for. I'll take care in creating possible stereotypes, althouth I wouldn't use the word "stereotype" since it has negative meaning. I know people from several backgrounds and some of them didn't know the English name for Brazil, but they knew that Brazil, as they name it in their language is known for its soccer players and its carnival... But I got your point anyway.
Regarding Mexico City, forget my comments, I recognise that I was being childish.
Regarding Crime and Violence in Latin America, I am glad to hear you think the article is valid. I will do some research on the topic and change its contents in a near future, please feel free to change the article as well if you wish.

Cheers, --Mhsb (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When you get a chance

Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Random weirdness, potentially disruptive editor and comment if possible? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I would like to thank you for the work you made in proposing a section that have been requested by other users some time ago in the Mexico article.

		The Original Barnstar
		Keep up the good job Mhsb (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Please Maurice

I assume your good faith. But I also believe you're reasonable enough to quit pushing your POV in keeping using "Spanish State" (both words together). I'm not going to start losing my time bringing references for days and days and days. You just have to read the Spanish State article to assume that this denomination of the country has francoist (in the past) and federalist and nationalist (nowadays) political connotations.

So, I admit that I start doubting your good faith when you keep using that denomination, even when knowing perfectly its contraversy.

Want to call it "seat of government of the State"? fine... "seat of government of the Country"? fine... "seat of government of the Nation"? fine... But I refuse to accept "seat of government of the Spanish State" It is not fully NPOV (and you know it very well)

So, I kindly ask you to quit using "Spanish State" as a denomination to Spain (outside the 1939-78 period). You may choose among 3 other.

Let's see your good faith...

Politics apart, I'm glad you started translating the article. But, as you read in Mountolive's talkpage, I consider that it would be better to start shortening the article with useless data before starting the translation. In the Sandbox we may do it without disturbing the article's general audience. Once we get the length desired, we could start translating. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi D

How's it going?

I'm just dropping you a line so you can, if you so wish, have a look at my new blog. I know we've had our differences, and you won't agree with everything you read there, but I think some of it might interesy you.

All the best and keep up the (mostly :-)) excellent work here.

http://downhillsince92.blogspot.com/

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.24.34 (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America

When you did the update/change in the table in Latin America you delete a name ref that left other orphan (see 19). Would you be so kind to recuperate the lost ref (IMF) and also, put the World Bank reference in proper format, as the rest of that table is. Mariordo (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank for your interest. A BOT fixed it automatically after I left you the above message, check the history. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mariordo (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico City (former)

I just wanted to point you to WP:PROD. In particular, there isn't a set procedure for contesting PRODs, other than removing the tag. PROD tags should never be replaced, even if they are removed in bad faith or without any justification. The right thing to do is what your next step was, taking it to AfD. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mexican cities/metro areas

These templates are to talk about cities, not metropolis areas. — Nuclear Vacuum 16:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Though areas like this are metropolis areas, this is mainly talking about the city itself, not the area around it. Does this make sense for you? — Nuclear Vacuum 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:United Kingdom cities

Hello there. It would mean a lot to me if you could help make an argument on the talk of the city template of the United Kingdom. I know that you are interested in the way these templates work and are interested in keeping them (to some extent) standard. Please make an argument on Template talk:United Kingdom cities#Consensus if you are intended on keeping some standards here. Please make a statement here and thank you very much. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten me here. I simply asked, you don't need to be spitting it at my face. Secondly, I have not violated the 3RR rule and you have no need to be threatening me with this. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back to your last edition. Please no need to threaten me or insult me. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistype on my part. I had no intention writing that. Forgive me please. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico City pollution

Hello. Someone else had writen that on high-smog days, the city takes measures, such as double hoy no circulo, and they cited it. This is true, I live in Mexico City, I know. Someone else deleted that statement, along with a statement that cigarettes contribute to pollution. I may have been in error in restoring the entire section (which I considered wrongly deleted), and not just the thing about hoy no circulo. The cigarettes thing should go (unless cited), but the rest was good stuff. Keep up the good editing. - Eric (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need some help

Hey Dunadan, I'm having some problems in the Geography of Mexico article (same old stuff) so there are some things I need to do and I thought you might be able to help me:

First - I need to find an administrator (hopely not biased) to stop the edit war, it's the same old stuff with people trying to put Mexico like it's not part of North American, etc. I'm tired of it.

Second - The person who I'm fighting with is an anonymous IP, so I need to ask someone to semi-protect the page, so at least people will have to show its face to edit the article.

So that's basically it, for some reason I always forget where to go with these things, could you put me the links so I can go and ask someone to check and protect the article, gracias. Supaman89 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)