Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enric Naval (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 6 May 2008 (→May 2008: NPOV and unsourced warnings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coat of arms of Catalonia

I don't understand your reverting my modifications to the page Coat of arms of Catalonia. I beg you to explain that, because I don't like editing wars. --Jotamar (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Contestaré a tu mensaje en castellano, espero que nadie nos llame la atención.

• Primero de todo, yo no he añadido ninguna bandera de los estados papales, tendrías que explicarme a qué te refieres exactamente.
• El ejemplo que pones de Blas Piñar suena bastante exagerado, la verdad. Y en todo caso me parece que en el bando catalán también debe haber algún Blas Piñar que otro.
• Respecto a la fecha de 1159, seguramente es un error, yo lo que había oído es un sello de Alfonso II de 1167. Este sello que yo sepa es aceptado por todo el mundo, por lo tanto es la primera undisputed evidence, si tienes claro lo que significa undisputed.
• Pero vamos al grano: mis modificaciones que has revertido. Como había comentado en mi modificación lo que a mí me interesa es el "Neutral point of view", y si digo que hay quien duda del sello de Ramon Berenguer IV de 1150 (rey de Aragón de facto, aunque no de iure), eso es objetivamente cierto, y la referencia externa lo prueba. Yo no digo lo que es cierto y lo que no, sólo expongo que hay distintas opiniones, ahí está el NPOV.
• En definitiva, la manera de mejorar la Misplaced Pages no es borrar lo que no te gusta, por muy seguro que estés de su invalidez. Hay que matizar, poner en contexto, y sobre todo documentar, pero no andar borrando por ahí por las buenas.

Dicho esto, espero que recuperes lo que yo añadí al artículo, añadiendo tus propias matizaciones. Si quieres, pásame el texto que consideres más exacto (y respetando el NPOV) en castellano y yo lo traduciré. Saludos --Jotamar (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are very stubborn, Sclua, and you don't seem to have any interest in either consensus or the neutral point of view. If you expect me to just get tired and forget about this whole issue, you can't be more misguided. Just for starters, it's hight time you read this :

Misplaced Pages: Punt de vista neutral

I expect you to do something about Coat of arms of Catalonia. For the moment I'm following Misplaced Pages's guidelines that recommend to be patient with inexperienced users like you. --Jotamar (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sclua, I made some changes to the article, to let Jotamar re-write his version there without stepping into your version. This should hopefully avoid edit wars, and make a better article --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts on Senyera

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Senyera, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you worry for having sourced material on their articles, you are just performing wide stroke removals of material and replacing it with other unsourced material without providing no sources for this change, neither for why the removed material is false, nor why the added material is correct. I'm referring to this diff and this other diff, where you simply reverted without apparently noticing that I had changed some of the sentences and added "fact" tags to some of the sentences you were changing.

However, the bigger problem I can see is your change of a quote from the Enciclopedia Aragonesa. That sentence is sourced, it's according to what the source says, and it's attributed to the source so the reader where the material comes from and that it might have a POV. Like Jotamar says above, you should really read WP:POV the wikipedia policy about using a Neutral Point of View and try to follow what it says, since it's a non-negotiable policy of wikipedia and you *will* be blocked if you break it consistently --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

your comment on House of Aragon

With regard to your comments on House of Aragon: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the exact relevant sentence is "the huge amount of lies and falsities that wrote Enric Naval on 2006 that made shut up john k. All, supercheries from the aragonese nationalism.". If you think that those were lies and falsities, then you should center on disproofing the presented evidence. Calling the evidence I posted "lies", "falsities" and "supercheries" is not helpful. I'm afraid that this sort of comments does not help on a collaborative project, so please try to avoid them. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

same for this sentence refering to Gennarus. "There's Middle Ages documents enough to call the lineage of the kings as house of Barcelona so i would beg Gennarous do not edit if he has not read enough to do it. thanks.". You should present the relevant documents instead of suggesting that other editors have not read enought and should not edit. It would be better if you shared knowledge of those documents with other editors to see if they merit inclusion on the article as sources. The sources you presented don't ever mention "house of barcelona", so they were relevant to what dinasty was considered at the time, but not to the name given to the dinasty at that time.

You are also making interpretations of primary sources. The Pedro el Ceremonionoso talks about not having make descendant, but does not appear to mention any dinasty. I suggest that you foid secondary reliable sources backing those statements, at least on that document. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a proposal on House of Aragon to split the article , summarized more concisely on my next comment . Do you agree to this solution as a consensus to avoid further edit wars? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard comment

Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's "crown" not "kingdom". You should find a reliable source stating wich document is it (probably the acts of the "Cortes de Monsó"), and that it actually states that with that wording, so we can put it on the article as first appeareance of the Crown name.

Saying "do not try to clear the sources you do not like" is an assumption of bad faith, even if you use "please", in front of it. As you can see, I wasn't trying to do that, I was just trying to clear the reliability of a site that I found of dubious reliance. And it looks clear that the site makes use of at least one term that is not used by any reliable historical source that I know of, and is not even very used on the internet. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I quote from WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". I thinking that "being aragonese" qualifies as a mainstream affiliation that you are using as a mean to discredit my views. I have also warned you yesterday already for personal attacks, so you should have been more careful on commenting other editors.

I suggest that from now on you make a serious effort to concentrate on commenting on content and on the edits being done, and that you seriously refrain from commenting on the other editors. WP:CIVIL has advice on the subject that you might find useful, and a list of behaviours to avoid. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I AM NOT SO BAD TO DESERVE THIS USER TALK PAGE! --Sclua (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Crown of Aragon

Please don't remove sources as you did here. I sourced some of the info, and added the conquer of Sicily and some more stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Senyera. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On this edit you remove sourced information, and disregard my advice on the talk page of using the "fact" tag instead of deleting in order to give other editors time to find sources for the facts. I also see that you discarded all and every one of my edits, including addition of new sourced information. On a paragraph with no sources, you remove a ref that I added to partially source an unsourced paragraph and you remove the "fact" tag of it. More over, you give no explanation for these changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Senyera. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On , you reintroduce POV affirmations that are not backed by its sources like "but it's disputed by nationalist aragonese only". You also use the Enciclopedia Aragonesa to make that claim, but remove a paragraph sourced by it. You also removed the "fact" tag from the paragraph relating to the catalan legend and removed the aragonese source that I provided. You already had all of these mattes explained at length at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia#both_version_are_POV --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have introduced the same POV observation again "Disputed only by aragoneses nationalists", and you also chosen to undo all edits by Jotamar despite my proposal to leave a place for Jotamar to add his version of the article without edit warring. I just noticed that you never answered to the proposal or showed your disagreement and have chosen instead to revert to previous versions without leaving an edit summary to explain why or making any comment on the talk page.

Also, on this edit you are claiming that Senyera is full of lies and you are pointing to Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia, an article that bears a version that you wrote mainly yourself and that I already told you that was POV and would have to be reworked, and you did so right after reverting the article to your version, thus undoing my edits and the edits of another editor. You also say that a picture of a flag is "proof" of something that is backed up with a reliable source from Government of Aragon, and you use all that to tag Senyera with accuracy and cleanup tags (I think that you don't understand what the cleanup tag means, btw). This is POV-pushing, and you must stop doing it. Use reliable sources to back your claims, don't change sourced paragraphs without checking sources first and stop trying to introduce your personal view of history. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Crown_of_Aragon.
Any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

~You have removed the same source again and also removed a reference to Roussillon that was on both of the sources used on the paragraph, and used a wording that is not on any of the sources. One of the sources is a paper book, but the other one was an online chapter of a book and you could have easily checked that Roussillon is mentioned on the source before removing actually, you didn't bother to check the sources at all, or you would have noticed that the url was pointing to the wrong chapter (chapter 16 instead of 6) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)