Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 21 October 2007

→Archive 2005
→Archive 2006
→Archive 2007

people is ready for new rounds

Hi Physchim. I know you must be busy with your "evil and malignant path" (hahaha, that guy is, I think I told you...err... should I say funny, to put it mildly?). The thing is that looks like some people in Valencian Community are tired already of calmed waters and ready for some "shake it, shake it!!" renewed episodes...I would like to hear your opinion on the "Castilian affair" before engaging in further blablabla, if I ever do at all, since these guys are well capable of tiring me to death with boredom....

Mountolive.-

Yes, well, I have been on a self-imposed holiday from participating in such debates, but the pages are still on my watchlist so I have seen that there has been some activity ;) Casa seems to thinks that two PoVs make an NPoV, but I shall hold off for the moment before diving in again (having just moved house and whatever!). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, yes, I am very busy with my "evil and malignant path", which takes me from my flat round a selection of the 28 bars in Capellades (pop. 5302). I shall be back after the Festa Major! Physchim62 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, between Festa Major and Major Mess in Valencian articles, I think the choice is clear! I would do the same...Anyway, if after the holidays, the post-coitum depression is so deep that you want to intervene there (if anything has happened at all, that is to say, because I am not myself delighted at the prospect of round # xxxx) then your views will be most welcome.

One advice which you must have learnt the hard way already: just say "yes" to everything Catalan nationalists say (there must be more than a few in Capellades, the CUP even got a councilor!) and then you will be a nice guy. If not, then you will incurr in an evil, malignant path, arrogant and fascist...

Have fun, mate.

Mountolive

Yes, well, the ERC lost the alcaldia in Capellades, basically because they didn't do anything for three-and-a-half years and it was a little bit too obvious when they started doing things six months before the elections! I don't expect the CiU to be any better, mind you! There is a large catalanist group here, who give great parties and so I shall heartily recommend them! All the best, Physchim62 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse CUP (Candidatures d'Unitat Popular) with CiU (Convergència i Unió). The former is some sort of "more popist than the Pope" (as we say in Spanish) latter day appearance of ERC. If ERC did little during these years, it makes sense that they suceeded in getting their -I believe single- city councilor....anyway: enjoy it!

Mountolive.

Hi Physchim. I know you are not up to discussion in Valencia now (neither am I, actually) but things are getting worse and worse with an emboldened anon user who is destroying the basic cornerstone of the consensus reached back in the day (amongst others, he is now editing "Valencian" into "Catalan", for example) based on bizarre reasons like "making it more understandable to English readers" which can't hide his obvious POV.

I would really like that you use your admin magic to check the identity of this anon (I have my suspicions...you know, months of being heavily exposed to that article can make you a bit paranoid). Whether he is a "usual suspect" who just "forgets" to register or a genuine new one, I am demanding that you block him until he shows some respect for the consensus reached and engages in serious talk page debate if he think is needed.

Please keep me posted.

Thanks! Mountolive

I'm looking into it, and you can be fairly sure that my recent edit to Valencian Community (thank God we finally got the name changed!) won't be my last for today. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive, you can play to policeman dectective if you wish, but I'm not bizarre about making this topic better explained to English-speaker persons, to whom this WP is intented to be oriented. You can read a intervention of an anon who self-claims to be a British living in Valencia here and here. Of course, you have not responded to him, because only when it isn't on your interest you claim "consensus" when in fact you don't want to discuss. Benimerin. --84.120.254.73 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That user as explained his POV on talk page, but hasn't reverted 12 times like you. There is a little diference. --Maurice27 10:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm more boldest than this user, it's true, but I'm not a liar and angry person as you. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You have that rare gift of trying to make your way in the world by pushing against the doors marked 'Pull'. --Maurice27 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The valencian flag... again...

Hey buddy, between beer and beer, would you mind taking a look at this ]. This anon is becoming more and more arrogant even if proven wrong... (reminds me of some people hehehehe...). Cheers and have fun in the festa! --Maurice27 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, I've been also reverted:

• On article: here , here , here , here , and here ...
• On talk page: here and here . --> (because I added a template!!!!)
• Mountolive has been reverted: here , here , here , here and here

As soon as you sober back, take a look please ;)

--Maurice27 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen and, as I said to Mountolive above, I'm looking in to it. The Valencian flag issue is complicated—although you have done a lot to simplify it with your research—but I think it can be solved by well-intended discussion. When I get a moment, I will put forward my arguments, but for the moment I've got a more serious problem to worry about! Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blockage of Benimerin

I've been following the debate on both the Spanish flag and the use of Castilian as a synonym of Spanish, and offered my opinion exclusively on the latter (which happen to agree this time with Maurice27). However, I disagree with the outcome whereby you indefinitely blocked Benimerin from Misplaced Pages, on two grounds: (1) no case was opened at WP:SSP (or at least I couldn't found it; if there was, please direct me to it), and therefore, no opportunity for the purported sock puppet (or innocent user) to defend himself; the drastic decision of permanent blockage is, to my eyes, based on mere speculation, and (2) his contributions (exclusive to Benimerin, not to the purported puppeteer) were controversial but far from destructive. I hope you had followed the argument closely instead of basing your decision on the version of the facts that you were getting from Maurice27 and Mountoulive, or on your sympathy for their POV. --the Dúnadan 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim? sympathy for my POV? hehehehehe you gotta be kidding! Do I have to remind you how many times I've been blocked by him? But heck! Guess I deserved it... --Maurice27 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sympathy for you, sympathy for your POV. You might have been blocked for your own actions, but he seems to agree with many of your POVs. In this case Benimerin seems to have been blocked not for his actions, but for his strong opposition, though never destructive, to his/your POV. I wish a WP:SSP had been opened to really prove that which he was accused for, or that his permanent blockage be reconsidered. --the Dúnadan 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to discover that you find his attitude with multiple reverts described here above "never destructive". --Maurice27 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, don't worry. Multiple reverts within a 24 hour period are a violation of WP:3RR which would merit (if that had been the case, but no case was opened there either) a temporary blockage. Since the multiple reverts were fully justified in the talk page (though you/we might not agree with the logic of the arguments or with the proof provided), they cannot be described as WP:Vandalism, but simply as part of the debate. The page should have been blocked until the debate had reached its conclusion. Even if his actions could be defined as vandalism (by stretching out the definition), vandalism merits temporary blockage unless it is reiterated, and this is not the case, unless the sock puppetry accusation is confirmed by proof and not speculation. That would bring me to my final concern, that no such case was opened at WP:SSP, and therefore, the decision was hasty. --the Dúnadan 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Benimerin (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. The sockpuppetry was absolutely blatant. You are quite correct that his edits on their own and as Benimerin would not justify such a harsh measure, although they would merit several rounds with the Large Wet Haddock as a minimum measure: however there was every indication that his actions would become just as disruptive as they were when he edited as Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs). He was already well on the way. WP:SSP exists to allow any wikipedian to report suspected sockpuppet activity: it is not a prerequisite for blocking, as is obvious by the ten day discussion period. You might also like to check WP:RFCU: the recommended action for an "obvious, disruptive sockpuppet" is "Block. No checkuser is needed". Benimerin can appeal the block on his talk page: however, I wouldn't like to count on his chances of success. As Onofre Bouvila, he has already been refused twice. Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree with you: (1) the sockpuppetry of Benimerin was not blatant and not obvious, otherwise I would have seen it myself, and (2) his actions were not disruptive: He reverted, but provided proof of his POV. That cannot be qualified as vandalism. I have to ask you again, did you follow the argument thoroughly? --the Dúnadan 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics of sock puppets

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Misplaced Pages and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Retrieved from Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets

Sorry Dunadan, but I think it's you who is allowing your judgment to be clouded by the fact that this user was arguing on the same side as you in certain debates. If you wish to open a case at WP:SSP, go ahead, but frankly you will only be wasting people's time. Not only is it obvious that this account was a sock puppet account, it is also obvious who it belonged to. As the puppeteer had been indefinitely blocked for serious and repeated breaches of WP:NPA, a block which was confirmed by two other admins, the sock puppet account is also blocked indefinitely. Standard practice, as you well know. Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then be so kind as to illuminate me and remove the clouds. I have reviewed Onofre's contributions (I never met him) and as far as I have been able to see, he did not participate at all on the discussion of the Valencian Flag. His edits were political/ethical and related to other issues, whereas the issue of the Flag of Valencia is a matter of sources. It is not as blatant or as obvious as you want me to believe. The above quote, as you know, is a rule of thumb; many an anon participate extensively at Misplaced Pages before registering.

If you had followed the debate you would have noticed that he contended the consensus on two grounds (1) the legal document provided by Maurice27 explicitly states that it pertains to municipal flags; he questioned whether this legal source could be interpreted in such a way as to include the community's flag and (2) he provided pictures of hoisted flags of 2:1 proportion, thus questioning the interpretation of the legal source. Maurice27 has not provided any flags of 2:3 proportions (except folded flags whose proportion is blurred). Please forgive me but those arguments cannot be classified as disruptive. Other than your speculation of him being Onafre, the blockage is not justified.

By the way, being a new user (and since I cannot say he is the same as Onafre), why do you say that I am on the same side as him on certain debates? I might agree with his proposal, only because I have yet to see the 2:3 flag in real life. Don't you think that maybe your judgment was clouded by the fact that you disagreed with him? Don't tell me how bad Onafre was. Please illuminate me and show me how obvious it is that Onafre and Benimerin are the same user. Benimerim was not blocked for being a sockpuppet of Onafre: Benerim was blocked for being a purported and not confirmed, sockpuppet of Onafre.

--the Dúnadan 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Benimerin started editing as an anon shortly after Onofre Bouvila had been blocked. This (fixed) IP address had never previously been used to edit Misplaced Pages.
2. Benimerin immediately started to edit articles related to the Valencian Community, and from a "Catalanist" PoV; these were two characteristics of Onofre Bouvila's editing.
3. Benimerin immediately got himself into edit wars with other editors, something which is rare for a true newbie user. He was however, careful not to breach 3RR. His general editing approach shows that he had not simply been editing for two days, but rather that he had substantial experience of Misplaced Pages practices.
4. When editors complained on my talk page, Benimerin knew exactly where to find the complaints. How would anyone know that there could be complaints on my talk page, unless they had recently been involved in disputes with me? Don't forget that it is several weeks since I had edited articles related to the Valencian Community, there is no reason for an uninvolved editor to associate me with the current disputes.

If you do not believe that this user is Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs), then please tell me which of the established users who contribute to Valencian topics was using this sock-puppet. All of them (with the obvious exception of Toniher (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a wikibreak) have edited since the block was imposed. In any case, and even if none of the contributors to these topics are angels, most have a little more sense and tact than Onofre Bouvila. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Benimerin has now requested to be unblocked, in a certain unimitable style "Have good memory if you lie"), so the reasons behind the block will be reviewed by another admin. Dúnadan could have got a review himself, of course, at WP:SSP or WP:AN/I, although he chose not to. I consider the matter closed pending the outcome of the block review. Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've not requested specially to be unblocked, because I have no interest to continue editing in this Misplaced Pages while articles related to Valencian topics are hijacked by Maurice27 and Mountolive because political reasons. I've expressed only my disappointment to your action and I've advised you to have better behaviour. --84.120.254.73 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Following Misplaced Pages's rules, when someone disagrees with an administrator's action the first thing that a user should do is to talk directly to the administrator. That is what I did. After that, I would have gone either to WP:SSP or to WP:AN/I; not that I didn't chose to do it; I simply followed the procedure of contacting you first, and I was waiting for your explanation, which you just recently gave. You presuppose that he is a sock-puppet (not an active anon user with a dynamic non-repeating IP address), and then it is just a matter of finding a puppeteer (Onofre, Toniher... whoever). If he is indeed shown to be a sock puppet, then I apologize to you for giving you an unnecessary headache. However, I must tell you that your decision was also based on somebody else's POV (or your own POV) and assume that his edits have a "Catalanist" point of view. I fail to see how it is that a discussion over the proportions of a flag relate to a Catalanist (or anti-Catalanist) POV. Or is it simply a matter of legal sources vs. visible flags displayed in government buildings? We are not talking about two different flags, but simply proportions of visible flags vs. "legal sources" of how flags should be. Please, tell me, do Catalanist actively support the use of one proportion of a flag over the other? --the Dúnadan 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, thanks a lot to your words about me, WP:ca is too lucky because having an user good-minded as you. --84.120.254.73 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, the problem when you stop assuming good faith in other editors—as when you accuse me of blocking for political of PoV reasons—is that those editors tend to stop assuming good faith in you. Your actions seems designed to waste my time and to try to persuade me not to persue sock puppets of Onofre Bouvila. You don't seem to wish there to be a serious investigation—I believe that it is because you are afraid of what that would prove. Physchim62 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: I'm not this user called "Onofre Bouvila". You're going to a very deep mistake, because the reasons you're arguing are simply casual facts. Instead to be paranoid, you should to stop the hijacking of articles related to Valencian Community by users Maurice27 and Mountolive. --84.120.254.73 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) PD:"If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory", Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was quite true; however, you are twisting his quote to suggest that other userts are lying. As I said above to Dúnadan, if you are not willing to assume good faith in other users, I do not see why other users should assume good faith on your part. Physchim62 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop adding Mountolive in your accusations? He hasn't done anything but to express his ideas, just like you expressed yours... Who is then hijacking the article? The difference is that he didn't revert 12 times. --Maurice27 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, either I am a terrible communicator, or you constantly misinterpret what I write. Let me be clearer for the last time:

• I do wish to have a serious investigation. That is what I asked of you from the very beginning: to open a case instead of blocking out of speculation. Didn't I say that from the very beginning, in my first comment (point number 1)? Let me cite myself, just to be clear: "no case was opened at WP:SSP (or at least I couldn't found it; if there was, please direct me to it)"
• I am not dissuading you from pursuing sock puppets, I am asking that you do so through the proper channels. Moreover, I am citing, verbatim, your reasons for blocking him: you stated that he has a "Catalanist" PoV, and that his edits were destructive. I never stopped assuming good faith from you, but when you say that a silly argument over the proportions of a flag has political motivations, then it is you who is not assuming good faith. You blocked him not by the merit of his own actions (you eventually admitted this yourself), but by the merit of the actions of Onofre: until he is confirmed to be Onofre, the blockage is unjustified; therefore it is imperative to use all means to prove that he is indeed Onofre.
• I have no problem at all if you are proven right, and if the investigation confirms your wise instincts as an administrator. In fact, I will be the first to congratulate you! I am not afraid of being shown proofs! I am not defending Benimerim hismelf as a user, but his right to defend himself within a system that presupposes innocence of all editors. If by the end of the process of investigation he is proven to be a malicious sock puppet, then by all means, I will agree with his permanent blockage, and the blockage -or at least a constant verification- of the IP address(es) he might be using, no matter how polite his most recent edit might be. However, I do have a problem when you assign political motivations to debates where there are none, and then use those as a reason to block a user withouth opening an investigation in the first place. I am terribly sorry to have wasted your time. I am also terribly sorry that you misinterpreted my petition.

--the Dúnadan 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Dúnadan, it's none of your buisness. You are not an admin on English Misplaced Pages. If you wish to question my admin actions, you may do so, but I will ask myself why you are questioning them (just as I do, incidentally, with Mountolive and Maurice27). If you wish to open an investigation, there are lots of ways that you can do it. However, I shall continue to act in a way which I think has the support of other en: admins and of the en: Arbitration Committee, for so long as I believe that such actions still retain their support, whatever you yourself feel. Are you seriously suggesting I should act otherwise? Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words/suggestions in my mouth, and please read what I write. As a concerned user, it is my business and my right to question the actions of any administrator, as it is the business and right of any user in this community called Misplaced Pages. Instead of opening a case for what I considered an inappropriate administrative action, and assuming good faith of you (but you failed to see it), I opted for the first option therein suggested: talk to the administrator so that s/he could explain her/his actions. Of course you could ask why I was questioning, and I have responded to all your questions, though you misinterpreted my answers, until I was clear enough.

Quite frankly I am frustrated and disappointed at the lack of success in using this friendly venue and with the implicit/explicit direct unconstructive criticism from your part (e.g. you are afraid of what it may prove) and phrases than instead of assuaging the debate, kindle the animosity. I am sorry to see that you cannot handle constructive criticism, neither coming from a normal user nor coming from a fellow administrator (I resent your comments on this and other debates concerning my "weird ideas" about adminship). I have never, in anyway, being aggressive, neither have I resorted to sarcasm nor to direct ad hominem attacks in addressing this issue. Whether it was out of sarcasm or out of a real concern when you asked: "are you seriously suggesting that I act otherwise?", I will offer my suggestion: be open to constructive criticism even in what you think has the support of your fellow administrators in this Misplaced Pages. They might give you their full support, but you might have learned, even if little, from the opinions of others who might disagree with your actions.

--the Dúnadan 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Man has such a predilection for abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic" - Fyodor Dostoyevsky --Maurice27 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why mediation? What happened? Who's shirt is this? Why am I naked?

Hi Psych, what are we mediating at Catalonia and VC? I can't work it out from talk pages. Boynamedsue 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Errm, that's actually a great part of the problem! Thank-you for putting it so succinctly! My allegation (and for the moment it is only that, as it is before ArbCom) is that a certain group of editors are preventing others from editing these articles, unjustly and by means which might not really be described as WP-compatible. If ArbCom decides to take the case, it will have to try to decide whether or not I'm right (I don't envy them, but then that's why I've never put myself up for ArbCom). Why the problem has gone to ArbCom is a long story which I'm not really willing to discuss at the moment. (by the way, nice pecs...) Physchim62 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given his at times kinda reckless behaviour, it must be Maurice's shirt...what were you doing? why didn't you call me?? Mountolive

If it has a 2:3 Valencian flag in a promenant position, it is probably Maurice's shirt. I should wrap it around your waist to avoid getting arrested for indecent exposure. I'm sure Maurice won't mind, given the circumstances of your nakedness... Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The flag must at all times be treated with "dignity and respect". Regulations Regarding the Flying of the Valencian Flag, indicates the rules for the display of the flag. Official regulation states that the flag must never touch the ground or floor, be used as a table cloth or draped in front of a platform, cover a statue, plaque, cornerstone etc. at unveiling or similar ceremonies, start or finish any competition, race or similar event, be manufactured or used as underclothes, bath and floor mats or any similar demeaning application, or be used for any commercial advertising in a manner that will distort or show disrespect to the flag. This said, I won't mind too much, promise! --Maurice27 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mallorca vs Majorca

(I posted this to Majorca talk, with no response.) Whether the "Requested move" being discussed is from Majorca to Mallorca or from Mallorca to Majorca isn't clear, but based on the remark under "Move done" that the move is fait accompli, the dispute seems to have been settled in favor of the -J form ("Majorca"). I strongly object to "Majorca" being used as the spelling of the primary listing. The assertion, below, that "In English the island's name is Majorca", isn't substantiated, and countervailing evidence such as an earlier observation based on Google hits isn't rebutted. Argument based on unqualified assertion, without evidence, is insulting, and presages a dim future for Misplaced Pages if accepted. The experience of Stemonitis suggests the J form ; mine suggests the LL form . A few lines later, another user implicitly argues that Robert Graves preferred the "Majorca" spelling, which is relevant but not compelling by itself. Perhaps the J spelling is a British preference, rather than a widely Anglophone preponderance? Here's a short listing, somewhat random, of preferred spelling broken down by publishers and online sources: LL form: Rand McNally, Getty Thesaurus of Geographical Names, Alexandria Digital Library UCSB (University of California Santa Barbara), Google Maps, Mapquest, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide, Google hits (needs interpretation, but seems between 3:1 and 5:1 in favor of LL) J form: Meriam-Webster, Microsoft World Wide Media Exchange, Robert Graves Equivocal/unclear (depending on the meaning of the terms Standard and Conventional): United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN): Mallorca — "Standard (Spanish)"; Majorca — "Conventional (English)" Paulownia5 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Additionally, as mentioned by at least one other user, there's a question of phonetic representation ... if "Majorca" is used, but assuming a normal Spanish (approx. "Y") pronunciation, then German (!) phonetics/orthography are really being borrowed ... (unless one goes even farther afield to reach for an e.g. Argentine "DJ"/LL). If this is still in a state of acrimony, is there a precedent for posting both forms (Majorca and Mallorca), cross-linked so as not to imply a preference? Paulownia5 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true, I only considered UK usage. There are plenty of uneducated soles in Great Britain who even pronounce it with a hard "j" sound! I think the route of the spelling come from the era of the Napoleonic Wars—the name is spelt with a "j" in French as well. I'll have another look at it in the light of suggestions that there might be different spellings in different forms of English. Physchim62 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting about the French «J», the full form being «Majorque» ... thankfully not an English J/dj but more of a zh and a similarly softened /que/ ... or is it spelled J and pronounced LL ?. Paulownia5 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Capellades (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capellades (escut).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point this out...

I was reading all the requests and explanations from "the other side" in the Request for arbitration and I found these so cynical and hypocrite statements, apart all the shit they are throwing to both of us of course, from Dunadan here: (), where he says:

• "that the administrator Physchim62 names as "culprits" three users who have never engaged in edit wars and who have never resorted to insults (unlike Maurice27); in fact, none of us have been blocked for disruptive behavior or for violating WP:3RR."
• Physchim62 claims that we act as a group

This was the point when I started rolling on the floor laughing!!! Take a look at this section from April in Casaforra's ca-wiki talk-page:()

• "El problema és que amb usuaris tan tossuts com ell, no assolirem res de productiu si no ens unim. A la viqui en anglès existeix una política que prohibeix que cap usuari reverteixi un article més de tres vegades (en:WP:3RR) o serà bloquejat. (De fet, Physchim62 ja m'ha amenaçat, però no va amenaçar Maurice27... que sí que ha violat la regla). Però, si dos o més usuaris reverteixen les edicions d'un sol usuari tossut que no justifica les seves edicions, llavors només aquest usuari seria bloquejat. Si estàs d'acord amb la meva proposta, et demano que escriguis la teva opinió a la pàgina de discussió i que també reverteixis els canvis que faci Maurice27. Així, si ell no comença a debatre d'una manera civilitzada, com nosaltres, ell podria ser bloquejat per violar la regla de 3RR. --Dúnadan 00:59, 9 abr 2007 (CEST)"

Man, I'm about to call my job to see if they can hire Dunadan as a teamwork benefactor!!! ROFL. How can he have the cold blood to still deny their work as a team?

And... About this:

• "és normal que Physchim62 no s'hi vulga ficar en tot aixo perquè ja ha mantingut a ratlla Maurice27 durant un temps, l'ha bloquejat, i ha debatut amb ell públicament a les pagines de discussió. Així que qualsevol acció que hi prenga en contra pot ser malentesa com a animadversió personal"

I would like to say this: "The sinning is the best part of repentance. - Arabian Proverb" --Maurice27 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maurice, behave yourself! There are some comments which should not be replied to. They are the wiki equivalent of rhetorical questions, the answer is already in the comment. Personal attacks made on Catalan wikipedia are a subject for their admins (I am, of course a user on Catalan Misplaced Pages). Physchim62 (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned here I'd like to point out that previous Maurice27 post in Mountolive's talk page :

"I have finally been uncensored by the "Mighty Force". Fortunetly, I had another trip this week, so it didn't bother much. After reading your present position in the Valencia (autonomous community) talk page, I would like you to send me your e-mail (if willing) to maurice27_wiki (at) hotmail (dot) com. I feel that sometimes it is hard to communicate ideas in the talk pages without disturbing other users and without filling with text these talk pages. I hope this will give us some privacy to use longer paragraphs in our future colaborations improving articles. I would also ask you to erase the mail as soon as possible from first sight to prevent "unwelcome visits" (even if it is obviously not my formal e-mail). Adeu Maurice27 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

Who's been working as a team?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my reply above. Physchim62 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial matters for the Request for arbitration

I have created a page where we can all expose our controversial matters in each of the articles filled in the request for arbitration. You are invited to contribute in it in order to explain our POVs to the comittee in a clear way. --Maurice27 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Joanot's outing is quite some news!!! innit? This is getting interrrrrrrrrrrresting!!!

--Mountolive | Talk 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Outing and working hard... Do you know his last one? He modifies other users reports to admins!!! --Maurice27 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bandera de Valencia

OK, entiendo, y estoy entiero acuerdo con tu analisi, peró ¿por qué está utilizada (en algunas veces) una bandera de proporciones 1:2? Se feria una historia interesante para Misplaced Pages, ¿no? Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when the senyera is used together with the other two flags, Spain and the EU, it's 2:3 because of reeference #3. If Valencian senyera can't be more bigger than the Spanish flag, so the height of senyera should be more little than the Spanish flag, and both should have the same width, respecting ratio 1:2. But as the Senyera neither can't be more little than "other" flags, such with the EU flag, the height should be extended at the same size of European flag, but the width is maintained. And the result it can't be 1:2 but 2:3, it means, a mimecking. But, when the Valencian senyera is hoisted alone, it's always 1:2. It's another reason why 1:2 is more representative. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, Joanot keeps reverting and reverting... You have read yourself that 5 other users (Ignaciogavira, Banderas, FayssallF, Valentinian and yourself), agree that 2:3 proportions are, at least, the ones with more chances to be the ones. I have made some changes following this user's advices to give more importance to the 1:2 flag; I've explained it is commonly used... Joanot keeps changing saying that it is a "Civil and state flag and civil ensign", which is flagrantly false, that "it's being used de facto" which I almost certain he doesn't even understand what it means, or that the 2:3 is used "because of mimetism with the ratio of the flags of Spain and the European Union", which is also false.

Isn't it proved enough, by the sources, by the users, by the false statements by Joanot that his edits aren't the good ones? Isn't it necessary that Joanot to be, at least, warned because of his behaviour? You told me to "leave things to ArbCom". I respected that, but meanwhile, the article is constantly reverted with false facts completely invented by Joanot.

I wait for your opinion. Cheers. --Maurice27 09:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Capellades (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capellades (escut).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Turnthewheel!

Hi there, was there some reason apart from the edit to the Evolution talk page for this block? It seems very harsh for what appears to be a single offense. Tim Vickers 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The username hardly suggests an editor who is committed to the advancement of Misplaced Pages. All the same, I'll go and have a cigarette to reconsider. Physchim62 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Block reduced to 24 hours for simple vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, after all, they might become a productive editor - although I've always found that argument unconvincing myself! Tim Vickers 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Images again

Physchim, someone erased two record covers from Radio Futura on the grounds of the fair use bla bla. I thought that it was clear, with the tagging you helped me doing back in the day, that they are ok images. Actually, it doesn't make sense at all, since they have left in place one other record cover, which is tagged under the very same rationale.

What should I do to get them restored? --Mountolive | Talk 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

No. You get consensus before making major changes, not after adding them against considerable opposition and protecting the template in an attempt to keep them there.

The matter of the impact of the URAA on the US copyright of these images needs to be cleared up. We have multiple editors with conflicting interpretations of the sources that they've been able to get their hands on, and you've been far from willing to explain your interpretation in any depth or with much clarity. I've already suggested that we promptly contact either the foundation's legal counsel or the Australian Copyright Council to clarify this point, which would perhaps be a more useful means of resolution than your inflammatory conduct so far.

As to the template itself, your actions here were simply incompetent. You added a template claiming that thousands of images that were indisputably public domain were not because you were either too ignorant or lazy to create a seperate template for the images you actually wanted to apply it to. The fact that you continually reverted that back in after this was explained, and even protected the page to keep it on that version, boggles the mind. Rebecca 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, either:

1. revert your edits to Template:PD-Australia and restore the protection so that a consensus can be reached; or
2. suggest another route for dispute resolution.

In either of these cases, you should stop your personal attacks, on me and on other editors who happen to have a different perspective from your own. I am certain that you are acting in good faith in believing that your edits are correct, but your conduct makes it impossible to convince you otherwise. My edits were not "incompetant", nor "a blatant abuse of admin powers", nor "ignorant", nor "lazy". It is you who feels that you have the right to change a copyright tag after two days "consultation", in which views contradictary to your own were expressed. The template is not, and never shall be, the property of WP:AWNB. Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(response copied to User talk:Rebecca)

Your gall is breathtaking. You changed the copyright tag, which has been in its current version for many months, after universal opposition from an array of editors, at least one of whom openly challenged your interpretation of the respective law after doing some research. You then, in a sheer abuse of admin powers, protected the page to keep it on that version - and broke every single Australian public domain image in the process. I reverted it so that we didn't lose every single such image due to your laziness or incompetence (why you have such a problem with creating a template for the images you actually want to tag, or even explaining your position, god only knows).

Can you realise that the one thing we want here is to work out exactly where we stand on this matter, without acting pre-emptively and losing a lot of good material potentially unnecessarily? You've created an amazing amount of bad blood due to your attitude here - had you a) created a template for the images you actually wanted to tag, rather than repeatedly breaking the existing one even after being warned of the consequences, and b) actually explained your position, I doubt you'd have been met with a hostile response at all. Rebecca 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unwilling to debate with a person who shows such breathtaking bad-faith and lack of simple manners. I suggest that you take a wikibreak before one is forced upon you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to you why the addition of the current tag to that template would have widespread unwanted negative consequences even if you are correct on the 1946-1955 copyright matter. Moreover, I have suggested several times that we seek legal advice to settle that once and for all. All I've heard in response is insistent demands that I re-add the template, despite a solid lack of consensus for its inclusion and the stated issues with the current form of the template regardless of the fate of the 1946-1955 images, and repeated personal attacks on me. I would much rather we sort this out amicably, but if the only response you can manage is along the above lines, then we have little other alternative but to take it further. Rebecca 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've made some progress on the template talk page, so I've responded there. Hopefully we can indeed take this to an amicable solution. Rebecca 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have had a chance earlier to explain further, if only you had assumed good faith. Ho hum, at least we seem to be in a phase of dispute resolution, which is the most important thing! I have replied to you interesting suggestion on the template talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Hi Physchim62, I removed the warning template here. I hope that this was okay, undo it if not. Fred ☻ 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't quite understand your edit summary, but never mind. I've just logged on and seen the above message, so I shall calm down before taking further action. Although further action I shall take! Physchim62 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, even Australians do not understand me. I assume from this diff, that the message was received and that you had replied (with a link) for that user. Very droll, by the way. The 'warning' here became redundant and possibly disruptive, so I was bold. Your response would seem to indicate that it was unhelpful. Cheers, Fred ☻ 12:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, did you decide whether you were going to take action on this? I want to take you off my watchlist if it is going no further. Thanks, Fred ☻ 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given User:Rebecca one more last chance to act reasonably and responsably before taking this further. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Not who I meant, my action was this. I did not think it was helping discussion, but it was a bold action on part. Again, I hope this was okay. I happen to think Rebecca has behaved, er, with responsibility. Just my opinion and sorry for any confusion. Hope it works out. Fred ☻ 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

• Note: Copied from User talk:Kylu

I'd have been grateful if you'd have contacted me on my talk page before unprotecting Template:PD-Australia: if you wish to take sides with Rebecca, that's your business, but it shouldn't prevent you from following normal admin etiquette. Physchim62 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Physchim62. We haven't chatted much, but I'd have thought you'd know me just well enough to know I wouldn't "take sides" like that against you. Rebecca mentioned that something in the template didn't transclude correctly and asked for it to be unprotected, so I obliged. Sadly, that's just me assuming that since she was the one asking, it'd have been uncontroversial. You have my apologies. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your graceful apologies are willingly accepted! At least you had the sense to say that you were doing it on behalf of Beck, otherwise I'd have been really mad at you ;) (see above) Still, as Rebecca and I seem to be entering a dispute resolution phase, there's no harm done. Cheers for now, Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Hi, just a note to tell you I responded at my talk page. --Rifleman 82 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check

Physchim62, thank you very much for your diligent work related to Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check. I am not as active lately on Misplaced Pages, otherwise I would have helped out. But by the time I examined the page today, you had checked the copyright status of most of the images!

I notice, however, that you have not processed the incorrectly-tagged images. (Which is to be expected – it is a large number of images.) I would love to help out, where I can. Do you have a plan for speeding up processing? My thoughts of a (ideal) process are as follows: Tag the images as non-free, leave a note of justification, notify the uploader (with a custom message, probably), leave a list for the Australian noticeboard, then wait a week (or so) and start nominating images for deletion if it is necessary.

Also, we need to work out a compromise warning to Template:PD-Australia to try to curb any further inappropriate image uploads. Once all of the inappropriately-tagged are dealt with, we can perhaps leave a warning that says, "If the image meets any of the following criteria, please upload as a "non-free" image."

Another thing: it would be very nice if we could keep a bulleted list of which images, at the end of this examination, appear to be correctly tagged; then, we could compare the list to a list of images using Template:PD-Australia at a later date, and check the images not on the list.

Also, for further relevant discussions which you may or may not be aware of, see User talk:Lupo#Template:PD-Australia and commons:Template talk:PD-Australia.

Again, thank you very much for your efforts, Iamunknown 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The master plan is as follows:

1. Check all the "simple" images, those whose date appears on the ID page. Done
2. Check the more complicated cases, and update the ID pages as appropriate. In progress
3. Compile lists of copyright images and unsourced images (see User:Physchim62/German images for an example). In progress (best to leave this to me, otherwise we will be duplicating efforts)
4. Notify uploaders and post at WP:AWNB
5. After a reasonable period of time (I would suggest two weeks), tag images for deletion and renotify uploaders: the images go into the normal "mistagged" procedure (ie, there will be another seven-day delay before anything is actually deleted)
6. It would be useful if involved admins actually do any necessary deletions, to save passing the work on to other image-check admins who have enough to do as it is!

I think it's important to try and get the uploaders involved in writing fair-use rationales etc, where possible. I don't expect them to be head-over-heels-happy, but it's more polite to do it that way than to send a big batch of images straight on the road to deletion. As I mentioned on Template talk:PD-Australia, the decision to not change the tags for the moment is quite deliberate, and stems from my knowledge of the habits of certain of my admin colleagues! On the other hand, I am leaving a text note on the ID page of copyright images during stage 2: this also gives me a chance to second check them for copyright compliance. You can see examples in the section "1–9" of the list, the only one for which stage 2 has been completed so far.

Once we get to stage 4, I will move the bulleted list to an archive file where it can stay for future reference. The wording of {{PD-Australia}} would be changed as part of stage 5.

I'm aware of the discussion at commons, and there is a list of commons images at commons:Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check. The commons category is almost exactly the same size as the one here, and probably in a similar state with regards to mistagged images, but, for obvious reasons, I haven't done anything to it yet!

Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Move

Hi Physchim. Thanks for checking the transwiki article. I am still finding my way. Regards, Fred ☻ 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I did most of the formating on Title 17, United States Code, so I guessed I would be as good as person as any to do the last bits on your tidy up! Physchim62 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work too. Do you have any advice for an eighteenth century text I'm working on? I think I'm making it too complicated. There seems to be some latitude regarding format, but as little as possible seems best. I want to get it right before I start on two centuries of material. Fred ☻ 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are few strict guidelines for wikisource formatting, it's really pretty much a matter of common sense. My advice would be:

1. try to respect the original structure of the work, but
2. remember that you are creating a text to be used in the 21st century, not a facsimile edition; hence HTML headers and wikilinks are to be encouraged.

Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Decfill

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Chick Bowen afd close issues

How can an admin close an article at 14 keep / 11 delete at consensus: "delete"? In any event, please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of parties to international copyright treaties

Thanks for the TRIPS reference addition. Terry Carroll 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed. Maurice27 is banned for 30 days, and the parties to the underlying content disputes are encouraged to continue with the normal consensus-building process to produce high-quality articles. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

...but equivalent exists , , . M0RD00R 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

and BTW glad to see a new face coming out of blue (or maybe out of IRC?) into this debate. M0RD00R 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandraki Shuffle

I've redeleted this because none of the three references apply to the subject of the article. They refer to a racehorse, a pub and a confectionery item, not to the cocktail. Surely for references to assert notability they must apply to the subject of the article, or you might as well put references at random?

If you disagree with the above viewpoint and consider that the references given do assert notability of the namespace topic, why not restore and list at AfD, since there is a difference of opinion here, and the notability is in question even if the references are acceptable? Jimfbleak 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the deletion is hasty, at least as it is a cocktail of which I have heard ( and tasted). A PROD might have been better, but the end result will be the same anyway: ie, AfD if restored. I shall continue to see what I can find in the way of references — of course, not all of the world's knowledge is accessible by Internet! Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are braver than me, it sounds revolting! Jimfbleak 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

your comment on my talk page

"the food sample is dissolved in water and about a sample is added to the reagent" <-- I attempted to fix an obvious error in Misplaced Pages with a good faith edit. My edit was reverted as if it was vandalism, returning an obvious error to Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that I suggested User:Rifleman 82 should revert a destructive edit. I can't understand the purpose of your edit. Are you defending the reversion of a good faith edit in order to return an obvious error to a Misplaced Pages page? --JWSchmidt 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1,000 Places to See Before You Die

I see that you speedily deleted 1,000 Places to See Before You Die on September 15. This was a best-seller, with tons of newspaper/magazine reviews, so I don't think a speedy was the best course of action. It should have at least gone to AFD. Just my opinion, Zagalejo 04:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving RfAs

Please don't move RfAs that have failed. There's no reason to do so. If you're going to get involved in closing RfAs, please follow the instructions on doing so; I had to remove it from the main RfA page, which should have had it removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did try to follow the instructions at WP:CRAT, which state "For unsuccessful administrator nominations, move the listing...". As for remove the listing at the main RFA page, I thought I had done so, although my edit doesn't show up in the history so was obviously not processed properly. Thank you for your advice, might I suggest that you keep your eye out for such obvious trolling of RfA so that other admins don't have to do your job for you. Physchim62 (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. The "move the listing" is talking about the transclusion line (the {{ }} bit), not the actual page. No harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, just gotta ask, since it's been bugging me since I initially ignored it yesterday: what exactly do you mean by the "so that other admins don't have to do your job for you" bit? I'm neither a bureaucrat nor omni-present (though I'm working on both of those), and can't/shouldn't/won't be held accountable for RfAs that are posted while I'm not at my computer. I'm curious as to what exactly you were hoping to say with that statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we were both hasty with our initial responses. I think that the removal of admin requests such as this one (I would qualify it as trolling, as it was so obviously doomed to failure and was so obviously taking the piss) is the responsability of any admin who sees it. I saw it, I asked on IRC how to go about the removal, and I misunderstood the instructions :P You didn't see it, you complained that I'd maid a mess of things when I removed it, amd then you saw why I could have misunderstood the instructions. I would say that the matter is closed. I hope there are no hard feelings on your part; dispite my frustrated outburst, I hold no hard feelings towards you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Question regarding foreign language sources in WP:V

Thank you for your reply to this thread; could I ask you to look at it again, and perhaps join the main discussion? I am afraid that n this case, the quotation is being pushed to avoid NPOV/UNDUE/FRINGE.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

Sadi hasn't edited since October 10, and hasn't even requested to be unblocked yet. I think your action to unblock him is impetuous. Could you possibly strike out the accusation of "witch hunt", unless you are able to present evidence that those involved have an axe to grind? It's very rude to allege bad faith without evidence. Please, let's not set a bad example for others who may be watching the discussion. Additionally, if you are willing to mentor Sadi Carnot and monitor his behavior, I will support your unblock, but I recommend that we secure his agreement first. Thanks. - Jehochman 16:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Impetuous is such a benign word. It will take months of effort to undo the damage that Sadi Carnot has intentionally inflicted upon multiple wiki projects. Why risk more?Kww 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)