User talk:Mountolive

Archives
June 06 - Feb 07 Feb 07 - Dec. 07 Coda 07 Jan. 08 - Sept. 08

Did you know?

On 2 October, 2008, I've realized that the Valencian Ethnic People in all Countries (as well as the Catalan ones =P) has a population of 12,000 individuals... and I'm afraid the reliable source reflects the Samaruc population.

^_^ Hiya Mountolive. It's been a long time! I'm very sorry to toss your currently immaculate talk page: we have a problem. That's enough. The problem is I'm dry. So I think it's better request for mediation. Cheers (hiya, Maurice!)--Owdki ^talk 16:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...good ol' MC Owdki strikes back...it's been for a while, dude.

And I missed you. Even though you came to disturb the pristine blank look of my talk page freed from yet more Cataproblems...

Excuse me for the unrequested OR which follows ;) but...it is intriguing. People, after taking a break, come back (because they/we almost always eventually come back) in a more loose approach, typically editting articles which are not related to their past grudges, which they typically remove from their watchlist, if only for a while...still, you came back in a "como decíamos ayer" mood. Puzzling as it may be, I still salute this approach, for it speaks of the deep nature of your systemic concern, which I understand and share (but I am afraid we can't get explained properly).

[(Well, actually, on second thought, all my OR is more like BS as I remember now that a long time gone "element" recently came back to ravage the Valencian Community article with the same "reasons" after one year (on parole? ;) and then disappeared again (dunno for how long...). I guess my OR only applies to anglosaxon editors...]

What you are proposing is bold and, somehow, I agree. However, I am afraid your "impeachment" (just struggling to find a word who defines your 'enmienda a la totalidad' tenet) is definitely out question by now and out of our hands to ever make it successful.

Dont get me wrong: I still think you could be right, you are right, but, against the Solzhenitsyn motto in my user's page, I am afraid that, with the present situation, I guess the only way out is to compromise with the powerful lobby from which, btw, Noguera is the best example of a guy whom you can talk to, so, in my opinion, we'd better not bark to the wrong tree in the first place.

You can only expect more and more users (including administrators) coming from the ca.wiki to illustrate how wrong this wikipedia is according to their own wikipedia. Some people behaving here basically like vandals (I'm thinking of that one destroying the V.C. community article) seem to be even respected users there.

I feel the damned weight of dealing with these guys, at times I am at carrying capacity (not lately, though, but it only takes a fuse and the whole thing explodes like fuckin' dynamite) despite the -no less executive :P- action by Mo27 or the always fair new user Kman.

All in all, I think you should drop your own Solzhenitsynesque hopes and join the likely lads, discuss with Noguera (it is the only discussion which does yield outcomes that I know so far) only trying to be reasonable and make understand the occasional astray user from ca.wiki that things are different over here.

This said, you can count with my support with most of the stuff you lead. But, I wouldnt like to disappoint you: my tolerance level for Cataproblems is damned low and I am prone to give up reached a certain point...

I'm glad to hear from you, man. I hope you stay. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

=D Your "OR" is totally "Dúnadainesque", in the worst sense (mmm... it lacks the "I'm amazed", but those "it is intriguing"-"puzzling" are very original substitutes).

Reading your first paragraph I could think that you believe I've edited directly the Dalí article, falling from "my break" directly to a hot zone in a edit war. But... reading the other lines I could think that you have dug in my edit track record. Anyway I get your words with the same respect as the Heraclitus words. Don't get me wrong, because I respect you as well as Heraclitus. Another different thing is if I understand you, because you don't make it easy. And no motto works if you don't communicate clearly your concerns.

At this point the only thing I can do is expressing my general view, using a clear "OR".

Regarding the main issue, I see my "impeachment" as clear as the past Catalan people case. That is, the same way there was a note in the very top of the article:

• This article refers to both the Catalans as an ethnic group and to those speakers of the Catalan language who may not be identified as being Catalan.

In the same way, à la carte, we ought to put another one in the very top of each article where "Catalan" is used with "Spanish", for example:

• Note: The term "nationality" in this context does not imply -and has never been intended to imply- the status of statehood, of which a state-citizenship is recognized by the international community, but rather the recognition of "historical identity" or, in Keating's words, "national identity" (in other words, no one has ever claimed that Gaudí was Catalan as a "state-citizenship", he was a Spanish citizen because he was from Catalonia, a constituent "nationality" of the Spanish State). Please note too that this same term, "nationality" is also applied, in a similar fashion, to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom (Keating, p.25). Britannica also uses the term in the article of Spain to describe the four nationalities of Spain. Most importantly, it is the official, constitutional and/or statutory definition for some of the constituent political entities within Spain (the majority of which have a different native language: Catalan, Euskera or Galician, for example). (My addendum:) Note also that the Spanish and Catalan terms could be used in a cultural fashion. Please, choose the context and the meaning you like depending on your POV.

Where are the Wikipedia standards? We are not here to satisfy any POV pusher (nor me, nor you, nor Cnoguera, nor anybody), if it means violate the rules. The mess with the "cultural" meaning is just mess and misinformation. When you have to explain such things, there's a deep problem here. A deep comprehension problem. You know what I'm talking about.

Cnoguera: I have my own right to distrust Cnoguera due to his behaviour. We was discussing about "Catalan countries" and, after a looooong and dense discussion here is the outcome: Països Catalans. Can you see the Ramon llull Institute translation there? No. Just forcing the polysemy on translation: "Catalan countries" everywhere. Forcing. The polisemy case is just on Catalan context, but there isn't polysemic case on translation: two concepts. But the worst blow to my hopes was this. Cnoguera didn't answer. Nobody answered Jmabel. That template is related with the Catalan countries mess: it worked the linguistic concept, and now it's deleted. God bless the "embolica que fa fort"! And they had the responsibility. They still have the responsibility. But the problem have persisted, and in essence ain't damn shit has changed. Their silence toward Jmabel concerns is just an illustration. And I don't see the same activity in wp:ca toward the same matters discussed in wp:en. I only see silence and "I don't hear that".

You point out "the powerful lobby" (a pale wp:ca reflection). I gave them a chance (Dúnadan, Xtv, Cnoguera, etc.) in order to work all the background seriously. I'm still waiting for (where are you, guys?). They still have the responsibility. I'm giving them another chance right now.

I've retired my "impeachment". It's in your hands. Please, bear in mind the standards. Consensus must flow under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just for the sake of consensus. That would be a flawed consensus. When I see such things I go nuts. And there was consensus for 3 fuckin years!

Well, I'm out. Take care and keep up the good work. --Owdki ^talk 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Hey, I'm not back. I don't like using vests =P. Did you read the 2008 report? The DYN and the Samaruc note was because of that single purpose account: the independence overriding Valencian ethnicity by means Catalan countries + catalan ethnicity (it was her own reference). And this was funny also.

So you are out again? pues vaya gracia... Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! AMAZING. After posting this link in Vriullop talk page, and posting here my concern about the Ramon Llull Institute translation, which translated "Països Catalans" as "catalan-speaking lands", TODAY THIS PAGE HAS BEEN VAPORIZED. The map is Vaporized. All is vaporized. What do you think? XDXDXD. Oh, my! Did you see the link before the "move", Mountolive? Hey, Cnoguera: where are you, fella? --Owdki ^talk 11:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Saint Google Cache:

• Catalan: Països Catalans
• English: Catalan-speaking lands

=P --Owdki ^talk 12:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr...not really following you, mate. I'm a simple guy, I tend to be overwhelmed by plural linking and I am not sure I got your premises in the first place...Mountolive _{le déluge} 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let it run. There's enough vivacissimo tempo already.

Hey, you could try to improve the Samaruc article. It lacks valencian name, and I've seen some reliable sources online with maps and good info.

And this is my last edit (may be in six or ten months I'll edit again to say that something has changed... I dunno). Keep up your good work, fella: you maintain the minimums in some wikineighborhoods (yeah... we know, close to police rol, some frustrating work but necessary... and bad payed). At least this is a little hope. Best wishes, Mountolive ^_^ --Owdki ^talk 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello guys. I'm back from my wikiholidays. One week ago, when I read Owdki's message in Dalí's talk page [1], I got terribly disappointed so I decided it would be better to take some rest. I was disappointed because of the content of its message but mostly because of the tone. It didn't invite any reply ("We don't need to spend more time talking about the obvious", "If you don't agree, instead of e-salivating this talk or any other talk page, I suggest you go directly via requests for mediation"). It sounds to me a kind of Amb tu no tinc res a discutir; ens veurem directament als tribunals. And that's damn disappointing, yes, specially because in the past I had some pleasant experience working with him in the Països Catalans article. I thought we were building something good together. Now it is clear he didn't see it in the same way. He keeps on arguing that the article is wrong even if we accepted his rightful points by adding a precise explanation of the polisemy of the expression and this: "some cultural institutions avoid the usage of Països Catalans in some contexts, as a means to prevent any political interpretation; in these cases, equivalent expressions (such as Catalan-speaking countries) or others (such as the linguistic domain of Catalan language) are used instead" (with the link to the IRL text; BTW as far as I can see the page still exists with the same content in the "Qui som" section, they have just updated the format).

I must admit that I completely share Mountolive's feelings about the nasty situation we have here. There is a terrible pressure from opposite kinds of vandals to adapt the Catalan-related pages to their POVs. I don't like this work of trying to keep them at peace and neutral. It is tiring and frustrating and it never ends. There are many other interesting things I would like to do instead in Wikipedia. I would gladly leave these duties if somebody would arrive to substitute me. That's for sure. And I read in Mountolive's words that he feels something similar. I am not stupid. I know that, to mention some relevant examples, Dúnadan, Xtv and myself share some POV or systemic deviation, while Mountolive, Owdki and Maurice share some other one. I know that both points of view are reasonable and justified, both necessary, and that we must work together to keep the articles informative and balanced. I know that. And so far it works quite well, at least with the reasonable people I have mentioned among others. It has been a nice experience, for instance, to work with them at Kingdom of Valencia or Estelada. It gives some results that help Wikipedia, and that's the goal, isn't it?

However, there are some nasty things we have to deal with here. And one of them is the "Spanish Catalan" issue. The solution I have been supporting maybe it is not ideal but it is the best one I know. If somebody can propose something better I would be happy to hear it. There are good reasons to defend that one should write only "Spanish" and other good reasons for writing only "Catalan". That's why we cannot keep in any of these formulations without risking a stupid edit war. So, why not keeping both things? It is more informative and can calm many vandals. Of course, that's only my proposal and, as any other thing, can be discussed and maybe improved.

Anyway, for a while I'll keep being around (although being also prone to give up).--Carles Noguera (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing much to say other than I very much esteem you both guys and that the whole thing is quite depressing... Mountolive _{le déluge} 14:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Flags

I answered your question on flags in User talk:Error#Basque country (greater region). --Error (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article

You have twice changed infomation in this article regarding Valencians speaking Catalan. I now have two citations proving my point that many Valencians speak Catalan. Ethnologue.com says 6.4 million Catalan speakers reside in Spain's Valencian region. The other citation is a newspaper article in Spanish that states 50 percent of Valencians speak and read Catalan and about 30 percent of Valencians write it. If you change this information again I will revert it and report you for a 3RR violation. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes no sense to me. However, I noticed you reverted my changes yet again. I reverted your changes and have done so for the last time because I don't want to be found guilty of a 3RR. However, I will report you. LuisGomez111 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See violation report:[2] LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: [3]

Discussion of result

I just read the result of my report. Notice what the administrator said: "No vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation." Now that you know I don't take multiple and pointless reverts lightly (especially when I've worked very hard to improve an article), I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you.

The first two citations below are already in the Paella article. I just found the third.

Ethnologue info on Catalan speakers of Valencia

Study providing info on the number of Catalan speakers in Valencia reported by El Pais, a Spanish major metro newspaper

Spanish Supreme Court rules Catalan and Valencian are the same language.

Together they prove the following: There were at least 6.4 million Catalan speakers in Spain's Valencian region in the late '90s; this number comprises about half of that region's population; Valencian and Catalan are the same language even if Valencian is a different dialect.

My wording in the article states the following: Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan... Frankly, I don't understand why you think I've misreperesented the truth. Your reaction?

By the way, with respect to the peacock words, I don't agree with you nor with the other editor who changed them but I will leave the article as is in the interests of compromise. LuisGomez111 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country

Please do not move articles based on your personal opinion without first gaining consensus at a venue such as WP:Spain. Thanks, Grsz^X 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not based on my personal opinion, but on the google search. I posted my move comment one day ago and, in the absence of reply, I moved it. Is that wrong?

I am open to talk about it, as I have been from the beginning, but I can not read people's mind... Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. However, it's probable that the Google search includes hits to the autonomous Basque Country. This is just one of those things that needs discussed before it's done. Grsz^X 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

De donde esta? Grsz^X 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with "de donde esta?" nor I am getting well your google point. If you are refering to my move notice, it is at the article's talk page. Thank you. Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean, when you google search Spanish Basque Country, the results aren't just about the "Southern Basque Country" but Basque Country in general. Grsz^X 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I see. What you need to do is making the search using the quotation marks "....". When you do like that, it only returns searches with this particular order of words, narrowing down the search, like this [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs)

Alright, see what I mean now? Grsz^X 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh, I am struggling to see what you mean. I guess it is that the results are about the [[Basque Autonomous Community] rather than the (BAC+Navarre) as covered by this article. Is that what you mean?

If so, then I guess you are right. Mountolive _{le déluge} 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Paella Article

I just had a look at the changes you've made. Your writing skills are so shockingly poor that it's comical. For instance, you may be surprised to learn that the word "recipe" is not spelled "recipee". Also, your sentence construction is often nonsensical. Here's one of your gems:

Also in the Albufera, there used to be a now nearly vanished recipee including a local rodent similar to the water vole.

First of all, as I stated earlier, there's no pee in the word recipe. Secondly there are two redundancies in the sentence: there used to be and now nearly vanished. Thirdly, you have no citations to back up your information. Finally instead of identifying the actual rodent Spaniards used to use in paella, you can only provide the name of one that’s similar to it: the water vole.

Here's another one of your monstrosities:

Later on, social life became more active with the sociological changes involved with the industrialization process.

I had to read this sentence several times before understanding it. You obviously started out with something I wrote and finished off with something barely intelligible. Here's a much better rewrite.

Later on, social life became more active with the changes of the industrial age.

There are other glaring mistakes but I'm not your English teacher so I intend to give you no more instruction. In short, instead of improving this article you've ruined it by adding irrelevant, uncited information and by inserting poorly written prose.

For the time being, however, I'm going to resist the urge to revert. I want to see what other gargantuan mistakes you make. Because, frankly, I'm curious to see just how remedial your writing skills are. Later I can always revert and/or ask for the assistance of an administrator in this matter.

Seriously dude you need to learn how to write. LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the angry tone of my reaction to your changes to the paella article. Below is a kinder rewrite which I have placed on that article's talk page:

Rewrite

I just had a look at the changes you've made. Unfortunately, your writing skills need help. For instance, you spelled "recipe" as "recipee". Also, your sentence construction is clumsy. Here's an example of something you wrote.

Also in the Albufera, there used to be a now nearly vanished recipee including a local rodent similar to the water vole.

First of all, as I stated earlier, there's no pee in the word recipe. Secondly there are two redundancies in the sentence: there used to be and now nearly vanished. Thirdly, you have no citations to back up your information. Fourth, instead of identifying the actual rodent Spaniards formerly put in paella, you've provided the name of one that’s similar to it: the water vole. And last, but not least, why would you include uncited information on an ingredient Spaniards have stopped using?

Here's another example:

Later on, social life became more active with the sociological changes involved with the industrialization process.

I had to read this sentence several times before understanding it. You obviously started out with something I wrote and finished off with your own rewrite. Here's my improvement:

Later on, social life became more active with the changes of the industrial age.

There are other mistakes as well.

I was very disappointed when I read your changes because you added irrelevant, uncited information and inserted poorly written prose.

For the time being, however, I'm going to resist the urge to revert to give you time to make these corrections. If you fail to do this I can always revert and/or ask for the assistance of an administrator in this matter. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article RFC

I've placed a "Request For Comment" tag on the bottom of the discussion page for this article in an attempt to initiate dispute resolution. I noticed you and user:Bluee Mountain arguing a bit. Please participate. LuisGomez111 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to participate before at the talk page only to get you insulting me, then listening that you are quitting, then having you back with the above user name, then with another user name...if you know what I mean. Mountolive _{le déluge} 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you remember correctly, I apologized for the angry tone of one of my messages to you but not the content. Secondly, I said I would quit but became involved again when I saw other editors (including you) arguing over the same issues we were arguing over. I thought dispute resolution would help. The purpose of an RfC request is to encourage outside editors to provide useful information. Finally, Bluee Mountain is NOT one of my user names. He/she is a different person altogether. My user names are as follows: LuisGomez111, Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. LuisGomez111 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

sandbox for report

{{help}} how do I post this request for sockpuppet? I found the page, but I dont know how to enter the request

Suspected puppetmaster: user:LuisGomez111 Suspected sockpuppets: user:Warrington user:Bluee Mountain

Background

The paella article has gone definitely over the top and, at times, kinda insane. User:LuisGomez111 has made, under his three different acknowledged accounts (three!?), more than 300 of the last 500 edits [5] which points out to a pretty obvious wp:article ownership problem. What is funniest is that he accused me of having become "obsessed" with the article because I made some 5-10 edits. This article ownership concern regarding LuisGomez111 has been noted by other users as well [6] (also, funnily enough, he claims that he doesnt know where I take that edit figure from [7] despite the history ticker of the article giving glaring evidence). Besides, wp:civility concerns have been addressed to him [8] [9]

LuisGomez111 routinarily blanks his talk page rather than archiving it [10]. Still, if you dig in the history, you find out that he's been reported for sockpuppeteering before. Actually, he only acknowledged user:The Thin Man Who Never Leaves to be a sockpuppet of himself after being reported [11]. Apparently, after a long (and, I bet, tiresome) discussion, he got away with it and no sanctions whatsoever.

LuisGomez111 seems to be very aware of the 3RR [12] and [13]

Evidence

During the course of a (quite stupid, by the way) mini-edit war (which accounts for the article ownership problem noted above) all of a sudden, a couple users stepped into the talk page, making comments on talk page ranging from confusing to simply out of whack, especially user:Warrington (also a brief appearence of a misterious "Texas Pete" reverting to a version of LuisGomez could be checked [14].

Often, the suspected sockpuppets comments begin or end with a suspicious bow to how good LuisGomez edits are, like here [15] ("you have made some very good changes on the article, LuisGomez111", Warrington) [16] ("I have to say that I understand why Mr. Gomez got angry", Bluee Mountain)

Bluee Mountain then develops a rather out of the question and unfounding patronizing tone when referring to me [17] and is fast to proclaim "the dispute is resolved" [18] even though there was no real debate whatsoever.

There is also a telling record of LuisGomez editting either Warrington's or Bluee Mountain's own comments without any comment from them [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. This pattern reaches the extreme of LuisGomez tweaking Warrington's own comments and, in the same post, thanking him(self?) for them [25]

Additionally, an anon edited Bluee Mountain's comments to stress the fact that the article should not be changed [26]

my conclusions

I can't see why LuisGomez should be allowed to have three different accounts with which he edits in the same article. Then, if either or both of the above suspected sockpuppets are found to be his, I'd ask for serious action against him, for he would have used them to wp:Gaming the system and to rant against a good faith user which is a newcomer to this article, all with no civility whatsoever. In my opinion, this is serious enough.

Mountolive _{le déluge} 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Go to this page. In the input box, enter the name of the sockpuppeteer where it says to, and click the button. On the new page, enter your evidence. [ roux ] [x] 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've filed the report on your behalf, while explicitly staying neutral.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, guys. I am glad to see that at least this {help} thing works so well. Mountolive _{le déluge} 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You Accused Me of Sock Puppetry

I find this baffling because had anyone bothered to check the IP addresses of the accounts in question he/she would see that it's not true. That's really all this case requires, comparison of the IP addresses. However, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post my response. Is it?LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are socking with other accounts, even today, and you know exactly what I've talking about, on the same articles too, would you care to explain that? Note, Luis is correct that the accounts in the SSP are unrelated to him, but, there are those other ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes to any articles today. What accounts are you talking about? If you're talking about user:The Thin Man Who Never Leaves, that's mine and I've had it labelled as such for some time now, long before this dispute arose. My contribs clearly bear that out. LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)