User talk:Mountolive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
June 06 - Feb 07 Feb 07 - Dec. 07 Coda 07

Contents 1 Re: Radio Futura 2 Some POV edits 3 Re: this edit 4 ETA's 2006 "permanent ceasefire" 5 Valencian elections 6 Re: Reflexions 7 Spanish Civil War 8 Toc, toc, toc... 9 Països Catalans 10 Randroide 11 Països Catalans 12 Peru 13 Catalan culture in Roussillon 14 culturally French 15 Madrid (autonomous community) 16 I left the north, I travelled suth, I got confused, I killed a horse, and I can't change the way I feel 17 About Països Catalans 18 Fair use rationale for Image:Radio_futura_early_90s.jpg 19 Re:Coat of arms of Catalonia

[edit] Re: Radio Futura

It's my understanding that album covers are generally fair use only in the article about that album, and not in an article about the band. If the album is not notable enough for its own article, we probably don't need to have the album covers anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some POV edits

Hola Mountolive. Espero que toda va bien. Could you please monitor with me this IP? Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hola Fayssal. Doing not too bad, thanks. Hey, I see now that you finally got "promoted" to ArbCom, congrats! It is only now that I'm checking its members that I realize how an "exclusive club" that is! ;) Anyway, I can't see how someone would get interested in getting so much wikiwork on his shoulders, but if that was your desire, I can only support you with that ;)

About the IP, mhhh... not really sure what you mean by monitoring it. From the edits showed as of now, actually on the face of them, without having really bothered to check the relative articles nor talk pages intensively, I may even agree with some of those (please don't chastise me later on if I missed some important info in any of those talk pages or articles ;). The one in Catalonia is perfectly fine, the one about dependences rings true, too (not very sure what is meant by "dependences", but that sounds like subjugated in some form and that is not the case of Canary islands nor Ceuta and Melilla). The one in Latin Europe may have some point or may not, that depends on your POV, as usual (it can be argued that by "Spain" all those places are included already and you dont need further detail). The one of North Africa, removing the "plazas de soberanía" link is incorrect, probably vandalism, however, by removing the "exclaves" link I actually may agree, since, to my knowledge, exclaves are fully surrounded by another territory, while the plazas de soberanía, all of them have some or are fully surrounded by territorial sea. I could be wrong myself, though.

As for the annex to the list of countries, about the Ceuta/Melilla/Canary islands I'd say the same as I said above regarding his edit on Latin Europe: depends on your POV. However, I clearly agree with him in removing Catalonia, because it is indeed a POVish example when the other two examples are Tibet and Chechnya, rather than, say, Rhineland-Palatinate or Quebec. Both Tibet and Chechnya can be regarded as occupied countries. Obviously the same can not be said about Catalonia and there seems to be a clear bias in having it listed along with those two other territories: neither of them are good examples of "autonomous territories" in the first place and so the will heavily determine any other example put next to them.

The two regarding flags are obvious vandalism, though.

If actually you meant something else by monitoring, I am email enabled, so you can always email me if you see it fit. I'll pay it an occasional look, but, in the meantime, just dont hesitate in checking with me if you need anything regardint this or other. Have a good one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mountolive for your detailed opinion. In fact, my intention was to keep an eye on that. I haven't seen much POV edits but i saw signs of a potential POV editor because of this post. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadnt seen that one. He sounds definitely over-the-top there. Anyway, looks like he's not active since you told me. I'll keep an occasional eye on it.

[edit] Re: this edit

Can be found at User talk:Dúnadan#this edit. --the Dúnadan 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ETA's 2006 "permanent ceasefire"

Do you think this article could be better named? I'm very unhappy about the use of scare quotes in the title, as it basically says that ETA were lying at the time. It doesn't seem particularly neutral to me, perhaps something like ETA's 2006 ceasefire declaration? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there ONIH. Well, believe me if I say that the intention is not to suggest that they were lying. I kept the quotes to differentiate this "ceasefire" from previous "ceasefires" (which were labelled otherwise). Besides, this "permanent" character was hailed by some sectors in Spain as a good sign, which may be worthwhile mentioning.

I won't fight (much ;) about this. But, if you still want to change it, I would not like it to include ceasefire without quotation marks, because that is ETA's own term suggesting there is a military conflict, which, obviously, it's not the case. Since we are not bound by ETA's own views on the conflict, that is why I think the safest is quote them in, well...quotation marks.

What do you think? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I realise you just took the original title from the article heading. I'm just concerned that while headings aren't covered by WP:NPOV to a great extent, an article title is as there's a whole section on it. The quotation marks basically make it sound like it was all a sham. With regards to the use of quotation marks just for ceasefire, I kind of agree. However if you look at what secondary sources do here they don't tend to use them either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mhhh...I think my concern is quite legitimate, but you are right that you'll only very rarely (if it exists at all) will find quotation marks in the very article name. Besides, if you say it all sounds like a farce, then I'll have to be sensitive to that too.

In this case, if you are ok with it, I would be ok to move it to the title you are suggesting, as long as the terms "permanent ceasefire" are kept, in the text (not the title) between quotation marks. It is probably a fair solution.

Sounds good? If so, feel free to please proceed yourself with the title changing.

Sounds good. Keeping it in the text depends on context. I'm generally in favour of quoting things properly, and although I haven't looked at the article in much detail I'd generally phrase it in the form of the exact quote (see here), something like ETA's declaration stated that "ETA has decided to declare a permanent ceasefire from March 24 2006". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hackney 1 - 1 Battersea. Could be worse ;)

[edit] Valencian elections

Good work on the unio article. Just one question though: is the threshold for election still 5% of the votes? I know there were discussions a couple of years ago about reducing it to 3% to make it the same as the cortes and other autonomous bodies. p.s. militante is better translated into English as member or supporter as the literal translation of 'militant' has a stronger meaning. Valenciano (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Valenciano. It's good to know that, after all, someone was 'watching" and liked the overhaul.

Yes the 5% is still there. There was indeed some talk, but it eventually vanished, like in previous occasions. Actually it will be very difficult to change that, because that would require a supermajoritary agreement, but, actually, the two majoritary parties rather prefer a high threshold prone to forming a (nearly) bipartisan system which somewhat 'forces' electors to choose one of the two (the center-right or the center-left party) if they want to see their vote represented at the parliament.

I see...just the other day someone else rubbed my nose with the word 'militant'. Indeed, I wasnt aware of this rather violent connotation in English of the word (in Spanish, as you may know 'militante' is just a person belonging to a party).

Thank you very much for your copyedit there. There is only one thing which I think should be changed back, you substituted "reactive" by "reactionary". While all reactionaries are reactive, I think this term carries a pejorative connotation and should be avoided. I am going to change it back to "reactive" unless you think this word doesnt make sense in English in that context. If so, please provide an alternative.

Thanks again Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 09:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist for some time and I originally translated some of it from the Spanish or Catalan articles but hadn't noticed that they'd been updated so again good job. The militante point wasn't a criticism, if no one corrects us we'll never learn - I just wish I could write as well in Valencian as you do in English :) As for Reactionary/Reactive, after looking here [1] I'm not sure myself as I don't know enough about UV (I first went to Vlc in 2001 after they had peaked and declined). So I'll leave you to make the final decision on that. Valenciano (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reflexions

Bones,

M'havia pres un descans de les edicions relacionades amb els països/comunitats de parla catalana, editant articles de Mèxic i Argentina, i d'altres a la Viquipèdia. Per cert, com que ets valencià, aprofito per demanar-te una lectura d'avaluació de ca:Política i govern del País Valencià. Espero que la denominació de "País Valencià" no et faci nosa. El consens de la Viqui és emular la GREC i d'altres publicacions en català/valencià, i fer ús de PV per referir-se al territori (país) i CV per referir-se a la comunitat autònoma com a ens jurídico-adminsitratiu, sobre tot després de 1982, data en què va néixer aquest nom.

Ara, de les reflexions. De "Catalan Sea" ja saps el que penso. Tot i que el nom apareix en moltes publicacions acadèmiques en anglès -la majoria traduccions fetes per catalans mateixos- el nom històric i tradicional en anglès és "Balearic Sea" i és el nom que trobaràs en la majoria -o tots- els diccionaris i atles geogràfics en anglès. A més a més, vull (volem?) neutralitzar l'article i presentar els PPCC tal com ho fan les fonts acadèmiques i això vol dir en la seva accepció lingüística. Si de cas la denominació alternativa de "Catalan Sea" podria incloure's en una nota a l'article de Balearic Sea.

Ara, de la discussió a Catalan independentism, primerament hem de tenir en compte la definició de "recerca original" (OR). Una recerca original és: (1) una proposta o hipòtesi original que no s'ha publicat i per tant no n'hi ha cap referència o (2) una síntesi original que no s'infereix directament de fonts verificables [es a dir, que de dues fonts, diguem-ne A i B, un usuari conclou o infereix una hipòtesi C que no es deriva directament d'A i B i que no pot comprovar amb cap font]. Un gràfic no és una inferència, sinó un resum (o paràfrasi) d'una font primària, i per tant no és recerca original. Per exemple el Banc Mundial no publica cap mapa del món amb els Estats segons el PIB (almenys no jo n'he vist cap) però un usuari ha pres les dades hi ha fet un mapa. I així s'han fet un munt de gràfics de població, natalitat, mapes segons les lleis de l'avortament, del matrimoni homosexual, de la pena de mort, del PIB, del PNB, de l'IDH, etc. Els administradors de la Viqui fem ús d'aquest criteri per determinar OR; i crec que és el mateix criteri de la Wiki anglesa. Si el que et (ens, us) fa nosa és que el gràfic s'hagi publicat en una font secundària amb un PDV catalanista (de fet, totes les fonts secundàries tenen un PDV), Toniher podria fer un gràfic ell mateix amb les dades originals, i no violaria WP:OR. Les dades són imparcials, i un gràfic també ho és. Fer inferències que contradiuen o no poden derivar-se fàcilment o directament de les dades o el gràfic violaria WP:OR i WP:CITE. Però això no és el que Toniher ha fet. Jo no veig cap violació d'OR ni de CITE.

De la traducció de l'article d'EUPV, ara mateix no tinc temps, potser el cap de setmana. No m'agrada fer traduccions directes; sempre que faig traduccions d'una altra wikipèdia trobo moltes asseveracions i conclusions que, precisament, no són verificables o violen OR. Quan tradueixo generalment faig una petita recerca del tema. I per fer això necessito d'un parell d'hores. Dissabte, potser... El que podria fer ràpidament és un article petit amb dades generals i després ampliar-lo a poc a poc. Me'n vaig, que aquí als EUA aviat començarà la nova temporada de "Lost" (Perdidos, o Perduts....).

--the Dúnadan 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cap problema amb "País Valencià", en realitat, entre tu i jo, fins i tot simpatitze amb eixa denominació, amb el que sí que tinc un problema és amb "Valencian Country" pels motius més o menys explicats en un altre puesto, però eixe no és el tema ara ;)

També em sembla una 'paja mental' típica del que no suporta bé el 'reality bite' eixa pretesa "solució" a la que em dius s'ha arribat a ca.wiki de dir-li d'una manera al "territori" i d'altra a la comunitat autònoma com a ens juridico-administratiu i fer això simplement perque GREC i altres li diuen "País Valencià". Això em sembla una xorrada i un absurd impropi d'una enciclopèdia que es vullga dir imparcial per tal de satisfer els nacionalistes (l'exemple de GREC no em val, perque GREC serà tan bona com vullgues que siga, però ja saps com està muntada...). Però, ei, no em malinterpretes, perque, tot i no estar 'al tanto' de la discussió darrere la creació de such a bizarre paja mental, no m'estranyaria que tu fores un dels que ha intentat introduïr una mica de racionalitat i neutralitat, perque o molt m'equivoque o de ben segur que la primera opció era soles País Valencià. Però aquesta no és la qüestió tampoc: com he comentat alguna vegada, no estic per heroïcitats del tipus editar a ca.wiki, així que, com diem aquí (i al socaire de la Tia Rafaela) em quede "com el Tio Fava, igual estic que estava" ;)

Li he pegat una ullada. Si no ho has traduït des d'enlloc, felicitats perque tens una capacitat de resum molt bona. Si ho has traduït, doncs felicitats igualment, perque algú ha de fer el treball. El que hi veig em sembla bé...tot i que no crec que la norma bàsica del País Valencià siga l'Estatut, més aïna ho és la Constitució (com amb totes les altres CCAA) però, en fi, ja sé que eixe tipus de precissions no són del gust de la parròquia allà ;)

Wow, has vist la que s'ha muntada a Països Catalans?! és supeeer fooooooooooort! jajajaja, la cosa ja és surrealista....per cert, no seré jo el que t'haurà de dir què has de fer o què has de deixar de fer, però si efectivament penses que allò de "Catalan Sea" és una mica massa, no estaria de més que hi deixares el teu testimoni a la talk page....

En lo referent a la gràfica de la que et comentava...en fi, ja m'imaginava que pensaries així. Home, està clar que totes les fonts secundàries tenen un punt de vista, però el que ja em sembla una mica massa és que un independentista català haja sigut el que ha fet la taula sobre l'evolució de l'independentisme català i deixar el tema sense cap advertència al respecte...què passa si el bon home ha 'redondejat' al alça? què passa si el bon home s'ha "equivocat" en alguna de les moltes variables introduïdes?...com he comentat a eixa talk page, pense que el valor de la taula supera el problema del seu origen, però no està de més deixar constància també d'aixó últim....En fi, en qualsevol cas, no seré jo el que vaja tocant la pera amb temes menors com aquest, així que ho deixaré estar.

Ciao ciao by now Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ui...és que hi ha quelcom aquí dalt que t'ha picat? que no respongues si no t'abelleix ho puc entendre, val, però vore't tornant al mood eixe que et fa tan adorable (citant totes les WP: per tal de negar allò que és més aïna evident, posant les cometes als false friends dels demés i tal...) això ja em fa temer allò pitjor...

En fi, si he dit quelcom aquí dalt que t'ha ofés, doncs, xic, perdó, no era la intenció. Però si m'ho dius directament en comptes de sentir-te agreujat altra volta (això et passa molt?), doncs millor, perque així em donaries l'oportunitat d'excusar-me si toca. Si tot això són 'pajas mentales' que m'estic fent jo ara, doncs no li faces cas i perdona el comentari.

Jo tinc intenció d'estar bé amb tu i per això pose l'altra galta, però tampoc sóc tan bon cristià com per fer-me responsable sempre i a cada vegada.

Tu voràs. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a dalt no hi ha res que m'hagi picat. Si no he respost és que no hi havia res més a dir. Encara que, si puc ser sincer, no m'esperava els comentaris sobre el "nacionalisme" de la Viquipèdia . La Viquipèdia no és tan esbiaixada com penses. És clar, que com en qualsevol altra wikipèdia, hi ha un biaix sistèmic, i en el cas de la Viquipèdia , la gran majoria dels usuaris s'interessen de la llengua catalana i defensen la seva unitat; i [malauradament] molts comparteixen les mateixes preferències polítiques i socials. Però hi ha de tot, inclosos diversos castellans molt actius i participatius que han après el català, gràcies als quals s'han neutralitzat molts articles. La denominació de CV no existia abans de 1982; les referències anteriors serien anacròniques... no per satisfer els nacionalistes. Tot i així, agraeixo la ullada que has fet de l'article de Política i govern del País Valencià. No l'he traduït; l'he fet tot sol. Penso que la Viquipèdia, que és la Viquipèdia en valencià, hauria de ser la wikipèdia més completa sobre temes del País Valencià [aquella part positiva del biaix sistèmic] i hauria d'haver-hi més articles en valencià; que els catalanoparlants d'altres comunitats puguin llegir articles en una varietat de la llengua tan vàlida, però diferent, de la seva.

De la resta, ja t'he dit el que penso. Del gràfic del catalanisme, no és OR i la font és primària. Del "Catalan Sea", ja n'he dit la meva, tot i que després d'adonar-me que la Mar Balear i la Mar Catalana eren dues coses diferents, la meva opinió ha canviat. He proposat fer-hi ús només de la denominació "Mar Mediterrània"; ja veurem que opinen la resta dels usuaris que encara no hi participen i no n'han dit res.

Sobre la discussió més recent a Spain; home després que has insinuat (de bona fe?) que les meves edicions són vandàliques... doncs sóc jo el que posa l'altra galta. Has d'entendre que sóc administrador, i com a tal, tinc en ment sempre les polítiques i les premisses sobre les quals s'ha fundat aquest projecte. Com a admins justifiquem les nostres accions en base a aquestes polítiques i no per motivacions personals. I si he de ser sincer, i espero no t'ofenguis ni t'ho prenguis malament, estic més que segur que no t'agradaria que un altre usuari posés totes les teories de conspiració d'Espanya contra Catalunya i de la persecució de la llengua, i hi ha un munt de llibres i referències que podrien ser utilitzades, i per la majoria dels catalans que van patir-les, són molt reals i evidents (they ring "very true"). Però, home, els suposats missatges presentats per Cadena SER were proven wrong, llavors només són especulacions i no fets contundents ni proves. Un vídeo de youtube amb l'opinió sobre les especulacions del PP no és una font que aporti proves. Hi ha desenes de fonts que es podrien afegir amb especulacions i teories de conspiració sobre el 14-M i sobre altres esdeveniments històrics de major importància (com ara la Guerra Civil o la Transició democràtica), amb moltes referències acusant-se els uns als altres. Cap enciclopèdia seriosa inclou especulacions en els seus articles, i la Wikipedia no hauria de ser l'excepció.

Per cert, si vols una resposta més ràpida, escriu els teus comentaris a la meva pàgina de discussió. No tinc el costum de llegir la teva pàgina de discussió, encara que suposo que hauria d'afegir-la a la meva llista de pàgines vigilades. =)

--the Dúnadan 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hòstia, suposo que m'ha sortit el tret per la culata. De fet, vaig convidar en Squeakbox perquè les seves contribucions en la discussió a Talk:Mexico i la presa de decisions subsegüent em semblaren molt neutrals. No coneixia ni conec encara tot el seu historial de contribucions. I de fet, sí que vaig convidar una administradora, però aquesta és la seva resposta: [2].

Home, no m'agradaria que te'n vagis de la Viquipèdia, però si creus que te n'has de prendre un descans, doncs respecto la teva decisió. M'estimaria més que poguéssim arribar a un consens que satisfaci a tots i que continuem tots editant.

Jo, he d'insistir en què la font és "verificable", és clar, com també pot verificar les fonts que neguen l'holocaust. Per això, la verificabilitat sempre va "de la mà" amb les altres polítiques de la Viquipèdia, i no s'ha d'interpretar de manera aïllada. La font verifica que existeix una especulació i res més. No es pot presentar com a dada ni com a fet. Ara que si el que et fa nosa és que es digui que el PSOE va acusar el PP de mentir (la qual cosa no és una "teoria de conspiració" tot i que també és una opinió i no un fet). Potser seria millor eliminar ambdues declaracions i només dir que "Although initial suspicions of responsibility for the bombings focused on the Basque group ETA, evidence soon emerged indicating possible Islamist involvement. Because of the proximity of the election, the issue of responsibility quickly became a source of political controversy." I ja està. No cal dir ni que el PSOE acusa el PP de res ni que el PP acusa el PSOE de res. La cosa més important, històricament, no queda amagada (que hi ha haver controvèrsies polítiques); els detalls i els POVs, teories i tal, són coses per als fòrums. (O potser, i amb molta neutralitat, un article específic sobre el 14-M podria incloure'ls). Què en penses?

Havent dit tot això a dalt amb un to respectuós i conciliador, no vull deixar passar l'oportunitat d'esmentar algunes coses que m'han molestat massa:

• la insinuació força evident sobre "my sneakiness": "I actually salute bold editors like you in imposing their POVs over more sneaky ones which drag you dawn to too much blabla and wasted time in talk pages only to impose a similar result in the end."
• la insinuació força evident dels meus biaixos i inseguretats: "The fact that you won't let a referenced text to appear and illustrate how a significant tract of people sees it, but you prefer to substitute it by a more general P.C. account, it actually speaks of your own bias and insecurities."

Espero que en la nostra pròxima discussió (en el sentit positiu de la paraula) puguis debatre els arguments sense recórrer a aquests tipus d'atacs, indirectes, però molt personals, sobre el caràcter dels altres usuaris. Hem de fer un esforç molt gran per no rebaixar-nos a respondre aquests arguments amb atacs personals similars, posar l'altra galta, i pretendre que no has dit res.

--the Dúnadan 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Civil War

Hey, your new additions are really good. Is there any way you could find citations for them? Well done! Murderbike (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toc, toc, toc...

Hahahahaha... XDXDXDXDXD Man... This is the never end relay race and the "pass me the baton, arf, arf, arf" Spain, Països Catalans, Gates, Merge Valencian, Catalonia, etc, etc, etc... And the culture articles (for example mozarabic art in Catalonia) missed (search in wp:ca). XDXD Spend your time with... you know, typical profile:

• Member of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries.
• This user comes from the Catalan Countries.
• I support Catalan language Wikipedia (wp:ca)
• El nivel de este usuario corresponde al de un hablante casi nativo del español (es-4) o_O

What's the diagnosis? Blindness!!!! "I cannot see anything abnormal in this article: it's totally NPOV... but those tags. We need those tags out right now! And I cannot see anything in the talk page". XD Where's the Mandarinate? Picture anyone erasing this POV tag!

Gutta cavat lapidem: STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

Mauritius, you too!!! Let me declaim it dressing a big gorguera de cañutos, and caressing my fine moustache: you, evil servant of the Richelieu linage and Habsburg at the same time. Good bless the 18ème! Or... living in 1714... forever!

Meanwhile, check this: WP:WORKINGGROUP

Best. --Owdki ^talk 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! it's just good to hear from you!

I just had been wanting to tell you for some time (but you were apparently off) that your sandbox (or the articles you appear to be working on) is just a thing of beauty. Keep the good work, man.

Damn, working on stuff like that was my intention when I entered wikipedia, but rather sooner than later I found that the "nearly Spanish native-level speakers" had other plans for me. And then I ended up as a mere articles 'neutralizator', adding a little word ("Spain") next to places and people and similarly dull tasks...fuck, I know a man has to make what a man has to make ;) but it is not nice, it is damned boring and then it gets damned frustrating when the users who come "from the 'Catalan Countries'" get furious and the quarrel starts ('Catalan Countries'? sic...so, they come from all of them at the same time? it's like Mo serving two empires...by the way, to call Spain or France empires is a bit anachronistic and suffering a roughly 200 years gap, dont you think? ;) Man, I am just ready for a wikibreak and that should be soon. Dunno what will be there when I come back...but the prospect is rather scary!

Also, I'm willing to take a break because nicer users like yourself, Xtv, Boynamedsue...they tend to vanish. At least Dúnadan and I we are currently enjoying something like a "Prague Spring" but soviet armoured vehicles (waving an estelada ;) may be waiting round the corner and, heck, it's not nice to feel like the police here anyway. Did you notice that, apparently, the word has spread and we are getting more and more "hablantes casi nativos de español" amb ganes de gresca (I hear from time to time some Catalan people saying "por eso" tags all the time -like 'per això'- is that what is meant by "casi nativo"? ;)

Uf! :D Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that 'taskforce' you found is interesting...let's see what happens with it. I am not very optimistic, but...who knows! You are good at browsing in the engines of the Mandarinate on the one side and getting sources on the other, very unlike me...kudos! Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Països Catalans

Sé que tu i Maurice comparteixen el mateix punt de vista en la majoria -però no tots- els casos. I tu mateix ja t'has llegit els darrers comentaris absurds que ha posat a la pàgina de discussió del malaurat article. Per favor =), si veritablement tu també vols un article neutral i consensuat, hi hauries de dir alguna cosa. No és possible que demani coses que els altres usuaris fan, i després torni a demanar d'altres, i d'altres, i d'altres, per tal de mantenir un tag eternament que reflecteix més el seu punt de vista (anti-catanalista potser?) que no el contingut de l'article. Ara, el que vol és l'opinió de les autoritats balears i del Rosselló sobre els PPCC? I si no n'han dit res? Crec que havíem acordat una cosa: que els PPCC són una regió lingüística i cultural, i que alguns (NO tots), li atribueixen un caràcter nacional i en demanen la independència. I crec que l'article ja explica molt bé tot això: la introducció parla del concepte lingüístic, i les altres seccions de les controvèrsies. Hi ha un balanç que hauria de satisfer tots, llevat d'en Maurice que vol imposar el seu PDV. Hi ha un límit per a tot, i crec que aquí ja hem arribat al límit. --the Dúnadan 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hem arribat "ad nauseum" pot ser, si. It is the very need to explain the països catalans as a linguistical matter which gives me a headache. Ahhh... those graffitis at Vilassar de Mar... How right they are! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didnt agree with Maurice with the tag at that point. But then he posted this [3] which "rings true" in some ways. Still, I am not so sure about how much that interesting piece could be connected to the tag. Looks like this new guy CNoguera is bringing some positive attitude. Maybe we are all a bit wary of each other and we needed a fresh start, which this guy is enhancing so far.

Anyway, it looks like it has been solved, and I can do nothing but rejoicing in that.

[edit] Randroide

Hi, Mountolive. Glad the problem was solved. Sorry but I had been working abroad, and therefore offline for a week. Please let me know if you need a third opinion

BTW, suggest User:Dúnadan to take a look at WP:TALK

• "Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large"

Your personal page is very funny :-). CU. Randroide (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Randroide. And please dont chastise too much Dúnadan, it was probably me who started the language party...

[edit] Països Catalans

Dear Mounty,

You know very well that opposition to the PPCC is neither ubiquitous nor pervasive to all Spanish society, and neither is the political connotation. As such, my edits are actually more NPOV, because they are contextualizing the opposition it is receiving. In fact, even territorially speaking, we are falling into an over-generalization in simply saying "notably in the territories described by this concept", because opposition, territorially speaking, mostly comes from the Valencian Community (and only the political and social sectors of the Valencian Community; in fact, several universities in Alicant do support the linguistic connotation of the PPCC and the unity of the Catalan language). Therefore, I have two options: to revert your less NPOV edits, or to insert the non-neutral tag. I will do the first, if you insist on reverting, I will insert the tag and then request the assistance of an administrator. Cheers, --the Dúnadan 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looks like you are not in the right mood today. I thought we had reached some consensus, but looks like the "Països Catalans is a cultural thing" keeps haunting you every day and you have grown dissatisfied with the previous consensus.

If that is the case, then better please request the administrator assistance, because you don't sound in the mood of compromising today and, when you are in this mood, I know by experience that the more I say something, the worse.

ps. in Alicante there are only two universities and they do support linguistic unity (as everyone else) I can't see how, though, this could support your point to introduce extra wording for something which is clearly explain (and in less words) as it is now. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

hòstia, quan parlem en anglés la tenim...oi? es curiós! :D...."please discuss"? :O quina barra, tio! ja te n'has oblidat de tot el que s'ha discutit? ja en vols més? ets un catxondo!! :D

Mounty, you have reverted me (I was the first to edit) three times. You are bordering on WP:3RR. Please make note of it. You are the one that is not willing to compromise. It seems you want to portray the PPCC as an-almost-always nationalistic term. Considering that 3/4 of the article talks about controversies and political stuff, you are actually endorsing a political version... and you are not willing to compromise. Please, stop reverting. One more revert and you will be over the line. --the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

joooooooooooder, i jo que pensava que això ja no passaria entre nosaltres, que haviem canviat el xip....sic transit gloria mundi...ah, per cert, Duny, ja que estàs en eixe plan, t'agrairia que no em digueres "mounty", per favor

I am answering in English per the request made above. My attitude does not change from Catalan to English. Actually, I find the comments regarding my "mood" and "attitude" (and other comments in Catalan that you presented in my talk page), a little uncalled for. It is better to discuss arguments than to call into question the mood of another user.That usually tends to kindle the animosity. I will not continue in that sense. I also apologize for calling you Mounty. I believe some other user had called you that before, but I do apologize if you believe it was inappropriate.

I do not wish to push any particular POV. Like I explained in the talk page of the article in discussion, 3/4 of the content deal exclusively with the political controversies and limitations of the Catalan Countries. Per WP:UNDUE, a little contextualization was needed at the introduction which is to change "frequently the term has a political connotation and is opposed notably in all territories", to a more precise who, when and where. I hope you understand that. After all, we renamed the article to its Catalan version to neutralize it, and the Catalan definition is very precise: territories of Catalan language. I think we've talked about this before, and I requested your comments in my talk page about a month ago, remember? Regarding the territorial definitions?

I offer, as I always have, the best attitude and willingness to build upon a NPOV article with compromise, which means two parties yielding in certain areas. If you believe it is necessary, and I do hope this is not the case, we can request for mediation and even arbitration. Based on our change in "chip" as you call it, I hope this is not necessary.

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peru

Hello, it seems we are in something of a predicament regarding prose in this article. Per your last edit to the article, you object to having Spanish Empire as the subject in the sentence about Colonial Peru, arguing that "the active voice is wrong, because the Spanish Empire did not conquer anything: it's an inanimated subject", thus you changed it to passive voice. I respectfully disagree with this opinion as Empires, like countries and other types of organizations can definitely do stuff. For instance: "The UN sent peacekeepers to Kosovo", "Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939", "The British Empire ruled the oceans for several centuries". I don't think these sentences are grammatically wrong. IMHO it would be better to restore the sentence to its original active voice because it reads better. In this same sentence you want to replace "Viceroyalty" with "a Viceroyalty based in Lima" for dab purposes. I'm not sure this is a good idea as Lima has not been mentioned before in the lead so readers may not be familiar with it. As a compromise how about using "established the Viceroyalty of Peru..."?

We also have a disagreement about the sentence on languages. I don't see the point in the changes you introduced here. Is it necessary to use the phrase "as their first one"? I realize it follows the paragraph in the "Demographics" section (which in turn follows the nomenclature of the Peruvian census) but why use it in the lead? It seems a little confusing as it unnecessarily complicates the sentence.

Well, those are my opinions, hope to hear yours soon. --Victor12 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Victor and thanks for the message.

Well, I have to tell you that I found particularly unwelcoming that you were reverting a new user (to that article, that is to say) automatically for a mere "passive/active" voice matter. Being this a matter of style, it is actually ridiculous that we are even discussing about it, don't you think?

I assume neither you nor I are native English speakers, but I stand by my version. Indeed, the examples you bring about organizations doing stuff are correct. But, IMHO, when we are talking about an Empire, it looks like "conquer" does not match well, since it is a definitely action verb, while, for example, "ruled the oceans" is fine, because it's like a standing power, but not referring to any particular action. Also, I find a bit odd that the subject of the sentence refers to himself (because Perú came to form part of the Spanish empire as well, so, in the end, is like the Spanish empire conquered itself).

As for the viceroyalty, this is how I see it: if only [viceroyalty] is linked, the assumption I make is that it is linking to Viceroyalty article (and it is not a particulary bold assumption, is it? ;) while, actually, it is linking to the Viceroyalty of Perú, that is why I like to introduce (not only in that article, but in similar cases I see here and there) some extra words in the link, to denote that it is not linking to the article it is supposed to be on the face of the link, but to something more specific.

Finally, as for the languages thing, I still can't see the problem of stating "as their first language". My first edition was "also" and you were right to correct me, as there is a sizeable population which is basically monolingual in quechua and others. But you may agree with me that, even those, have some basic acquaintance with Spanish, and so, the "as their first language" bit, should be ok.

Anyway, as I said, I find it a bit ridiculous that we are arguing about these peanuts. IMHO you have been a bit zealous by reverting these minor changes. But now at least you bother to discuss them before reverting automatically, so, since it is such a little thing, if you still want to revert after hearing my lot, then go revert. I won't make a case of that anymore.

Thanks again for the message. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry for being reverting your edits in such a rude manner. Hope we can be in good terms from now on. As for the argument in itself I don't think discussing style issues is ridiculous, after we are trying to build an encyclopedia her and style is quite important in such endevours.

Now to more arguments, ;-) I don't get your point about Empires being so much different than nations for grammar purposes. Are you trying to say a nation (Germany, England, whatever) can conquer, occupy, invade, etc (as attested by usual practice in Wikipedia an hundreds of history textbooks) but an Empire not? Is it wrong to state that "The British Empire invaded India"?. As for the sentence being odd because Peru was part of the Spanish Empire, I think it is quite clear Peru (the region that is now Peru, because there was no Peruvian nation at that time) wasn't part of the Empire until after its conquest thus, there's no contradiction in the sentence.

As for the Viceroyalty link, how about putting "Viceroyalty of Peru" as a compromise solution, that way the link becomes disambiguated and there's no problem for not having mentioned Lima previously.

As for the languages issue, I think the statement "as their first language" might be kind of confusing as an average reader might think it implies some sort of bilingualism. I live in Peru and believe me there are several communities in the Andes and the Amazon rainforest that lack even a basic acquaintance of Spanish.

Hope we can reach some consensus through this discussion. --Victor12 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Victor and thanks for the message. How I see it is already written above. As I said, I won't make a case of it. Have a good one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catalan culture in Roussillon

To summarize:

• By obvious reasons, there is French Culture, but Catalan culture is fully present despite Catalan language usage is lower than in Southern territories.
• Perpignan is 2008 capital of Catalan culture.
• Els Segadors and L'Estaca are common in USA Perpignan matches.

--Toniher (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Toni. Please realize that "historically" doesnt deny that there is Catalan culture, actually it is on the contrary. However, if you say that these comarques are "historically and culturally" Catalan, then you are placing and WP:UNDUE weight on the Catalan character of these places. No one is saying that Catalan culture is not present there, but Catalan culture is far from being the culture chiefly defining these territories. That culture is, whether we like it or not, French.

If examples are needed (even though you seem to be following blindly an agenda, in which case examples et la bufen soberanament) you may want to pay a look at Alsace, a French region which is more German nowadays than Rousillon is Catalan, but no one is incurring there in the "culturally German" (or Alsatian) mistake/POV pushing.

As I said in the talk page of Catalan people, your attitude there deserves to be reported, and I'm hoping that the breach you are bringing to wiki policies is so blatant as to get a speedy block. Please be advised hereby that you will be indeed reported within the following hours/days. If, in the meantime, you change your mind, I will really salute to hear you back to a more civil attitude. Please give it a thought. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] culturally French

Some people will like it more, some less, but the fact is that, culturally, the pays catalan is nowadays sound French. There is indeed a minoritary tract of the population who feels primarily Catalan, those are also included under "historically". "Historically Catalan" doesnt mean "former Catalan", on the contrary, a sense of continuity is meant.

However, if someone said that these comarques are "historically and culturally" Catalan, then s/he would be placing an WP:UNDUE weight on the Catalan character of these lands. No one is saying that Catalan culture is not present there, but Catalan culture is far from being the dominating culture or the one chiefly defining these territories. That culture is French. Its "catalanity" is also stated, for, indeed, they are historical Catalan territories. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid (autonomous community)

Hi there buddy, long time no see... Seems like we all decided to let the catalan related articles in peace for a while hehehehe

Anyway, I was taking a look at this article in the english wiki and its counterpart in the spanish one. The Spanish article seems really very very good and complete, but it really needs to be shortened for the english one because there is a whole lot of data which is useless for the international community.

Before starting the translation, I would love if you can help me to remove all that useless data. It is a kind of manner for taking our old customs of improving some articles together... ;)

I really desire to take that path again... I started a sandbox at my user page. I hope to see you helping around down there... Cya there! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo! good to hear from you. Well, yes, those articles are in calm, but only for now. Experience dictates that it only takes the next ERC-bred editor to appear there and introduce the same old boring stuff. Maurice, I am really disappointed with wikipedia. I am only trying to keep the usual wet dreams of a particular kind of users at bay, but even so I am doing in a resigned way since I dont have that much energy nor I feel that involved in it anymore. Besides, there are personal reasons which make it wiser to focus in real life rather than in virtual one (I am email enabled over here, so you can always give me a shout there if you were interested to know more).

All in all, I appreciate the fact that you thought of me for that Madrid translation, since that is the kind of blue collar activities which can still make of wikipedia an ok place. But I just dont have the time at this point nor I think I will in the coming months.

Salut, you French and Spanish imperialist! :P Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I left the north, I travelled suth, I got confused, I killed a horse, and I can't change the way I feel

Hiya mate. Long time no Ebro-mud-wrestling. I can see from your contribs that you've been keeping the flag flying (or taking it down where necessary) for the reality based community here on wikipedia. I've been doing very little myself, was trying to write a book but ran out of steam. Anyway, I've started a blog you can have a look in at if you want (I'm going to leave messages for Maurice and D as well, so it can be just like the old days).

Hope you're well, and life is more Ask than You Just Haven't Earned it Yet Baby.

http://downhillsince92.blogspot.com/

All the best.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.24.34 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of our beloved Ebro muddy waters are now about to be drunk by BCN, while all those people and their former brauhaha when Valencians wanted to drink some of them are now looking the other way or, possibly, blaming "Madrid" for some of their own sins (it's the good ol' manoeuver: when they dont like something or they have done something wrong, they blame something vague they call "Madrid" and keep going, I know it sounds trite, but seems to work perfectly fine all the same). Not nice, but telling and unsurprising of the current (low) standard of Catalan politics...political standards are not that high anywhere in Spain, though, not in "Madrid" either, by the way.

Uh, that blog seems promising land, as much as the Land of Valencia. There are some hooks there which I will hardly escape the temptation of biting...However, if by D. you mean the singular of that race of high nobility in spirit and body, I think that is not the right place for me. Dunno if that is because of my own low nobility in spirit and body, but D. and I certainly don't work that well together, therefore I may pass this time. In other words, I am not interested in re-engaging in Ebro-mud wrestling until the Federació Catalana of this sport is recognized internationally.

Don't tease me, mate!

However, I will be telling some friends which may be interested in your blog, let's see if they dare to deflower it. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought of you as a noble enough cove, M.

I think you'll find that only the recognised Catalan Federation in the wrestling world is Roller Jelly Wrestling. Last year, three Catalan teams made it to the semi-finals, but all finally lost out to Vodafone Maccabee Jaffa in the final. Many angry letters to Avui complained that Israel was not in Europe, and that the Israelis, in association with the government of Castille, had fabricated several important documents to hide the fact that Jesus Christ was Catalan.

It may seem ridiculous, but critics were confounded when a DNA test on Christ's foreskin, kept in reliquary in the church of Santa Maria del Mar, proved His catalanity beyond doubt. It does seem obvious when you think about it; he lived with his mother until he was 33 and never went anywhere without his 12 best mates de tota la vita. The loaves and fishes incident should probably be looked at az a primitive calçotada.

All t'best

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.46.225 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy+Avui? oh, your last note is too gruesome to handle!.

Hey, no one said that Christ was Catalan (that I know, of course). Just Cervantes and Columbus were. So Catalanists are after all trying to be fair, aren't they? (you may want to check the hair-rising "Cervantes, un català de Xixona" (sic(k), I forgot the publisher, but you can count on some funding from Òmnium Cultural, Diputació de Barcelona or related acts). I forgot the author, though, but with such a title, it must be an enjoyable reading. I'm sure that these authors keep working on new endeavours such as, say "Michelangelo, un català de l'Alguer", maybe a bold statement, but could make a good sales record at next Sant Jordi for die-hards. What you won't hear about in coming Sant Jordi fests is, say, "Dalí, un falangista genial...i català" or "Josep Plà, se'n fotria del catalanisme que tenim avui dia"... Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just Michaelangelo mate. Go (here), and click on the orange mullet.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.52.242 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Països Catalans

Hi, Mountolive. We managed to have no discussions at all for many weeks ;)

I have seen your last edit on our beloved Catalan Countries entry and its summary. You are referring to a discussion about the name previous to my arrival here. I am too lazy now to search in the archives for this discussion, but I just would like to know why we could not make some more natural uses of the terms in the entry. Maybe my last changes were not properly explained in the summaries. It is a problem of style. In this entry we are doing some terminological explanations, showing the polisemy of the term and so on. Hence, it is natural to do several mentions of the expression (such as "'Països Catalans' is a polisemic expression"). But we are also talking about the thing itself, i.e. the territories, claiming things like "In some parts of the Catalan Countries the catalan nationalist sentiment is almost non-existing" or something like this if I remember it well. So, you see, we have mentions and also usages of the expression. We have to be careful about the use-mention distinction. According the Manual of Style, we must use italics to make the proper distinction. But we also must write in italics those foreign expressions that "do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". It is clearly the case of Països Catalans. So, you see the problem. In our entry we have to use the italics always just because it is a foreign expression, so the use-mention distinction is lost. That's why I thought it would make things easier to use English translation when we are referring to the territories, and keep the catalan one when talking about the term (in this way your previous decision of keeping the catalan term, for reasons unknown to me, is still respected). What do you think about that? I have written my concerns here, since you suggested this could reopen an unnecessary old discussion. Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hola Carles. Gràcies pel missatge.

I appreciate that you check with me. Look, I'll be straight: I am really concerned at the prospect of that article becoming a fucking mess yet once again. Looks like the version we had, it left everyone (dis)satisfied enough, so I dont get why people keep going on the same stuff over and over again, really. And I am not talking about you, because this discussion I am mentioning happened just before you came along. My friend Dúnadan recently started editting hotspots again, I had to follow and now Maurice, yourself and the whole thing amenaça tempesta now...

I understand if you are lazy to go through the many lines of that discussion. But in this case, I think you really should read those. I think it is not archived yet (it is basically half the length of the talk page, under different post titles). The whole incident was a huge depressing fight regarding the translation of Països Catalans as "Catalan Countries" which left several casualties (Xtv left these topics, Owdki was in pre-leaving mood -now looks like he left- Dúnadan and I became intimate enemies, there is a bad vibe over Catalan-related topics on wikipedia and so on).

I'll make you a brief summary, notwithstanding my strong recommendation for you to read the whole thing. A series of editors (including myself) denounced this translation as counterfeit, for a series of reasons which you will find there. Apparently, the reasons of these editors I feel included were finally accepted (if only reluctantly) or, more properly (things became too ugly for anybody to admit giving in) the alternative reasons were slightly less convincing than the former. In the end, the apparent consensus was to change the article name (which used to be "Catalan Countries") to Països Catalans, while keeping the Catalan Countries redirect to this article. Also keeping the original Països Catalans term along a mention of the "Catalan Countries" translation (which is mostly used by Catalans writing in English or English speakers quoting those). I notice that your concern is more about a use-mention (rather stylistic question, if you will) than for a fundamental reason. My reply here is about the fundamental problem of the translation, which we should consider in the first place.

You certainly have the right to go about it if you deem it necessary, but, believe me, if we start that topic again, there is going to be blood on the dancefloor. In any case, I strongly recommend that you waste your time reading those thousands words in the talk page before setting fire to the page ;).

Once you have checked them, if you still see something that you think is wrong and you think you can argue otherwise consistently, then go for it. I am nobody to tell you what to do: you can re-start the topic again if you think is important. I have become pessimistic with the wrong nature of wikipedia anyway (which includes, among others, re-starting old topics everytime a new user comes along).

And dont get me wrong, because you know that I am not blaming you (actually, you are the best user coming from 'the dark side' that I could ever dream about :P) Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ei, moltes gràcies per la detallada resposta :) So, I'll try to follow your suggestion and go through the discussion soon. It is quite surprising that a topic which is potentially controversial for many substantive reasons, generated a controversy just about the translation of the expression (!), but as you said I should read it before giving any opinion. Indeed, now I was only concerned about some style details, so I don't feel any urge to solve that problem. And I completely agree with you about that feeling: it was good to have such an article at peace for quite a long time with a reasonable (un)sastisfying version for everybody. Let me make you a confession: I love when the catalan-related articles (in the broad sense) are at peace, with no strange edits coming from any side, and do you know why? Because, I am realizing lately, we two have a kind of symmetric behavior here: avoiding those articles to get any worse, even if they are not perfect, at least we want to prevent radical editors (from any side, I mean) to destroy them completely. The world would be a nice place if we could just forget about those issues and just edit on other topics in Wikipedia (so many things I would like to do), if there would be no need to care about blaverism, mindless independentism, and some other isms. You know what I mean. See ya! --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Radio_futura_early_90s.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Radio_futura_early_90s.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Coat of arms of Catalonia

Whats up buddy? looks like Enric Naval has tried to keep the article in the good path. Anyhow, I made some changes on the article adding some references, clearing the povish parts and other stuffs. Tell me what you think. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"El pebre chushareao shileno!!!! and lots of "güeón", "güea"... mmmm, buddy, the trully beauty speaks chilean! ;)--MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Chile... Poland... Gotta love globalization!!! ;) --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I think we found a new potential member of the CAT-Team that User:Sclua reminds me of Joanot, bringing references which prove exactly the opposite of what he is defending... --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)