User talk:Scolaire/Archive 12

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#Personal attacks not subsiding

I don't know if you were aware of this but Asilah1981 has been at ANI several times for the same sort of behavior you've seen at Catalan Countries. In fact, the behavior is depressingly familiar. It may be worth contacting Irondome who tried to mentor this user. WCM_email 14:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, WCM. I was aware of this. As I recall, Irondome stepped away from mentoring Asilah at an early stage, so I can't see any point in contacting him. I'm wondering why you're feeding me this information on my talk page rather than intervening at Catalan Countries or its talk page? Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

TBH I didn't want to get involved again, its a sink of limited editing time dealing with this guy. WCM_email 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that! Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a little help with translation (awards section)

Hi,
Currently, I am working on a draft about an american actress. As of now, she doesnt have an article on enwiki, but she has an article on spanish wiki (es.wiki). I got stuck only on awards section. Here are the words that I need to be translated:

"Año", "Ceremonia", "Resultado", "Premio", "Trabajo".

Kindly note that these words are the headings of the award sections. Upon using google translate I am getting odd results. Any help would be appriciated a lot. Kindly ping me when replying. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how you found me, or who you think I am, but I'm not Spanish, and I have only a basic knowledge of the language. I'm also not a big fan of articles an porn actresses. Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard complaint

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. - Wwallacee (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, Wwallacee was blocked as a result of the ANI discussion. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Civility

I'm sure you don't need reminding about WP:CIVIL. Your recent behaviour towards me is bad faith and strewn with personal attacks from false ad hominem remarks and insinuations. As is obvious I am now responding in kind however will hit the nail on the head and strike out my remarks if you do likewise. Your responses were totally uncalled for and as you can clearly see I keep reinterating that Apollo might be innocent and that due process should be followed. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I said that you have very strong views. Of course you do. If you didn't you wouldn't have got into all those battles with Apollo and Gob Lofa. There's no negative connotation to that. Name any politician you admire and tell me they do not have strong views. I am insinuating nothing. I do, however, think it is dishonest to say that due process should be followed, and then leave out mitigating evidence that you were aware of. And I don't need you to strike out anything. If you're happy for the editors and admins on that page to see you in that light then so am I. Scolaire (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Battles with Apollo because of strong views? You must be having a laugh. Disagreeing about blatant POV pushing from an openly republican editor who admits they don't believe republicans committed murder only justified killings and accidental deaths is hardly because one must have a strong view. Even extreme neutrals would baulk and argue about such POV driven edits. To be honest you've been more uncivil than I have in response so you must be happy to show yourself like that especially when making false ad hominem comments and personal attacks in whatever your trying to prove. P.S. I don't admire any politician and I left out no evidence and thus was not dishonest. I can hardly make a comment on something I know nothing about and something that only you at the time knew. And on that I found a flaw in your evidence for Alfie (stated at the SPI) so maybe its just as flimsy as you claim mine is... Mabuska ^(talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You're just being peevish now. You're determined to make strong views a synonym for political extremism (I think that's what you're saying), but it's not. It means believing something (e.g. that an edit is blatant POV pushing"), and believing it strongly. See What does it mean to have strong views?. It was never my intention to attack you or anybody else, only to defend and editor from an unjust block and a (in my view) badly-thought-out SPI. This is the end of this conversation. If you post anything more I will delete it, unless it's to say "yes, you're right; I'm sorry". Scolaire (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

Thank you for your obvious "contributions" to Wikipedia. 87.254.90.32 (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was irony. While I thought this was a little bit disingenuous, I have no problem with this. I thank you (without irony) for your contributions. Scolaire (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide alternative non-disingenuous phrasing. 87.254.90.32 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? Scolaire (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you provide alternative phrasing of that part of my comment which you found disingenuous that you find non-disingenuous? 87.254.90.32 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've already said that I have no problem with your latest edit. The phrasing is fine. Hopefully somebody will clarify for you. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your issues

Please keep your personal peeves at bay. There was enough just grounds to file that SPI on Apollo, its not my fault you wasted all that time clearing him only for him to show you how grateful he was. Whether he was a sock or not, he was still guilty of other things. Your reminding me a bit of that infamous lawyer Larry L. Archie poster. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mabuska: actually I was grateful, the only reason I never thanked him for it was because I remember him telling you that he didnt want thanks. I also got the impression that he didnt like me and wouldnt care either way. So there.201.249.75.13 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

On another note you two remind me of a bickering old couple who are at each other's throats one minute and havin a cup a tv watching telly the next. It's bizarre.201.249.75.13 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mabuska: I agree that you had good grounds for filing the SPI and, as Apollo says, I was happy to see him indef blocked for his continued disruption. But I don't think it helps anyone to perpetuate the myth that Apollo was Gob Lofa. It wasn't you who first suggested it on the EWNB, but you were quick to agree with the editor who did. This isn't a personal peeve; I just want to keep the record straight. Now, when are you coming over for a cup of tea? Scolaire (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Countries

Check this out: This is when you can remove a tag from an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removalSonrisas1 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on the talk page is Change name to Catalan-speaking territories. The tag says "This article may present fringe theories". SPECIFICALLY mentioning the article has WP:FRINGE issues does not turn a requested move discussion into a fringe theory discussion. In any case, WP:Fringe does not apply, and it wouldn't hurt you to read the guideline: "Jointly [the governing policies] say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately." The view that "Catalan Countries" is a Catalan nationalist construct is well represented in the article, and the view that it is a "tangible reality", as you put it, or a constitutional or legal entity is not presented at all. The tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sneering Scolaire, but your editing on this topic is extremely POV. You were actively involved in the AfD questioning the validity of sources to the death which you did not even understand neither the content nor the context nor who the authors were. It is hard not to assume bad faith. I would not be so active questioning sources written in Tagalog or Chinese for example. It just implies an agenda based on preconceived notions. As someone said on the RfC, I am not going to convince the convinced. You have a clear view on this topic and no source or argument is going to change it. I just wish you weren't so active on wikipedia defending it. It damages the project. I make mistakes but at least I recognize when I am wrong about something. Every conflict/ issue is nuanced. If you accept that there are alternative views to your own, we would get on just fine and work collaboratively. It is not a propaganda war. Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The opposite is the case, Sonrisas. It is you who is pushing a POV: that "Catalan Countries" only exist as a political project by evil Catalan nationalists (supremacists? racists?) to subjugate other territories within an independent Catalan Republic. The opposite POV would be that unification of the Catalan Countries is a moral imperative, or alternatively that nobody ever said they should be unified. I'm not saying either of those things. I am arguing that the article should deal with all this in a neutral way. Every conflict/issue is nuanced, but you don't see the nuances; you just reject it all as "fringe views" and shout down everybody who disagrees with you. It is a propaganda war for you. Of course I accept that you have an alternative view, but it hasn't made you collaborative. As to the AfD, you say here, "I do also see now Catalan supremacism had POV/SYNTH issues". Why do you attack me now because I was one of the people who pointed it out? I read your sources, and checked who the authors were, and called you out on POV and SYNTH. You haven't learned from that AfD. You still think that hectoring other users is the way to make your point. You should try to calm down, forget about other people's motivations, and make factual, policy based statements instead of trying to dominate the discussion with long opinionated posts. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Catalan countries IS a fringe view in Spain. Not only that, it is politically incorrect - more so that Catalan supremacism (which may be annoying to remember but was a historical reality). I accept the political concept of Catalan countries exists, I also accept that the article content is more or less fine its current form. But it is being defined as something which is, with defined borders, not an aspiration of a tiny minority. What bothers me is the first two sentences of the LEDE. If we fix that, there is nothing left to do here. I attack you over the AfD because your arguments were not valid and from your arguing style you gave the impression that you knew they weren't. Other people did made valid arguments which convinced me immediately. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You have stated your view once again. That's fine. We can go back to the article talk page and discuss it. My arguments at the AfD were valid, and I never suggested that I didn't think they were. Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'll chill out about this and we will try to get along. Let's give it a break and both discuss in a civil manner and constructively from now on. I'll assume good faith. For now Ill take a wikibreak of 48 hours or so. I apologize for being patronizing over the language thing. Please do let me know how to close the RfC. As I said Im following your talk page so I'll see it here. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Sonrisas, and I look forward to a constructive discussion (and I welcome the break).

To close the RfC, you do the following:

1. Immediately below the section heading, you delete {{rfc|hist|rfcid=A417B3E}} and replace it with {{closed rfc top|1= }}. "1=" should be followed by a note stating the outcome. You could say something like "Closed to allow a more focussed discussion below."
2. At the bottom of the discussion, you add {{closed rfc bottom}}.

Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Might I also suggest that you not format the new discussion as an RfC? The achievement of consensus and a collaborative approach is easier in a free discussion than in a format that requires editors to take up "support" or "oppose" positions. An RfC is sometimes useful down the line to gauge whether a consensus exists, but if used as a starting point it can get bogged down very quickly. Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have that familiar feeling

Does the recent edits on Catalan countries remind you of someone? WCM_email 15:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Their point of view is very similar and their language is very similar, but then I've read the same stuff in the same kind of language on so many Spanish and pro-Madrid Catalan and Valencian news sites (including the grammatical peculiarities that inevitably come with using Google Translate) that it doesn't surprise me to see multiple users express the same view in the same way. I have found the new guy much more conciliatory than the old guy (see above). The new guy is from Catalonia, where the old guy was from North Africa. The new guy is also genuinely clueless regarding things like how to open a discussion, how to close a discussion etc. The old guy wasn't. He also seems to have been completely unaware of the RfC that resulted in the old guy getting topic-banned. I wouldn't recommend doing an SPI. Scolaire (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi Scolaire. I was wondering, could you teach me how to link articles across different language wikipedias? Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

To link to an article in a different language, you just put the language code and a colon before the article title e.g. [[es:España]] (es:España) or [[ca:Catalunya]] (ca:Catalunya). There's a full list of language codes at List of ISO 639-1 codes. In discussions, I often use a pipe (|) to display something other than the article title, e.g. [[es:Independentismo catalán|the Spanish Wikipedia article]] (the Spanish Wikipedia article).

While I'm teaching you things, can I ask you when you're adding content to expand your refs. You do this by putting one square bracket on either side, and adding a space after the url followed by a title. So for instance, instead of this, you would type

• <ref>[https://elpais.com/cultura/2017/10/03/actualidad/1507027197_928598.html Boadella: "El problema de Cataluña se solucionaría cerrando dos meses TV3"]</ref> (Boadella: "El problema de Cataluña se solucionaría cerrando dos meses TV3").

Better still if you could add information after the closing bracket and before the </ref>, e.g.

• <ref>[https://elpais.com/cultura/2017/10/03/actualidad/1507027197_928598.html Boadella: "El problema de Cataluña se solucionaría cerrando dos meses TV3"], ''El País'', 4 October 2017</ref> (Boadella: "El problema de Cataluña se solucionaría cerrando dos meses TV3", El País, 4 October 2017).

It makes the ref much easier to understand. Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for both Scolaire!! I will do so from now on.Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sonrisas1, Even better still is to use one of the {{citation}} group of templates, which will organize your params and output everything in the right order, and with correct style, for example, here it is using {{cite web}}: <ref name="elpais-2017">{{cite web |last1=García |first1=Rocío |agency= |date=October 4, 2017 |title=Boadella: "El problema de Cataluña se solucionaría cerrando dos meses TV3 |trans-title=Boadella: "We could solve the Catalonia problem by shutting down TV3 for two months" |url=https://elpais.com/cultura/2017/10/03/actualidad/1507027197_928598.html |dead-url=no |language=Spanish |work=[[El Pais]] |issn=0213-4608 |publisher= |location=[[Madrid]] |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date=November 23, 2017 |quote= }}</ref> generates this footnote. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Pings on deletion discussion for Catalan Racism

Just a heads up: I stumbled across this deletion discussion by coincidence, I didn't receive your ping. It may not have reached other users either. It looks like you may have signed with 5 tildes instead of 4, which (according to this) can cause notifications to fail. You might want to re-ping those other editors. Nblund ^talk 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted! Thank you. I've re-pinged. Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On deleting drafts

Scolaire I don't understand the rationale behind deleting a draft. Shouldn't a draft be fixed rather than deleted? I understand deleting from mainspace, but not a draft. Seems a bit drastic. Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

An article can be fixed just as a draft can. If all the issues are addressed before the discussion ends, then the consensus can be reversed and the article/draft kept, as happened at WP:Articles for deletion/Political prisoners in Spain If the draft is deleted, another draft can be written. It's unusual for a draft to be nominated for deletion, but the nominator stated his reasons at the top of the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So you also find it odd... What does a draft mean? Is it something that has been submitted for review? I assume something in my sandbox is not a draft...Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A new user, as this one was, or unregistered users cannot create an article. They must create a draft and submit it for review. The draft is in "draft namespace", and an experienced reviewer will at some stage either move it into "mainspace", i.e. make it into an actual article, or reject it with a policy-based explanation. I said it's unusual for a draft to be nominated for deletion, but in this case the person who came to review the draft saw that it was the same as a recently deleted article, so he (reasonably, in my opinion) nominated it for deletion instead of a double process of creating the article and then nominating the article for deletion. So no, I don't find it odd.

Technically, your sandbox as it is now is a draft, although it is in "user namespace" rather than "draft namespace". There is a button on the top that says, "Submit your draft for review!" If Draft:Catalan Racism is deleted as a result of the current discussion, I would recommend you to blank your sandbox. If you do, you will still be able to access the content through the page history, but if it's nominated for deletion and there's a consensus to delete, the page history will be deleted as well. Scolaire (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok that is very odd. Thanks for your answer. Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Btw, Peter, this was published today. Worth reading. https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/11/19/opinion/1511113430_741459.html#?ref=rss&format=simple&link=link&utm_content=buffera083e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have no interest in El País anti-Catalanist propaganda. I am happy to advise you on the technicalities of Wikipedia, but my user talk page is not for political discussion. Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Apologies. Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia

I Might email you, where? --Flamenc (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now allowed email (I usually don't), so you can email me by clicking "Email this user" on the top left of this page. Scolaire (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. I was wrong to convince myself you were not POV warriors. Sad, Scolaire. I really thought it was ok to have a cordial friendly relationship with a wikipedian with different views. Disagreeing/debating is fine, but editing and arguing in good faith. This is not good faith. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have talked to Flamenc on-wiki about the possibility of nominating the Spanish Wiki article for deletion, since I don't have the language skills to do it and I thought a Spanish Wiki editor might be able to advise me. We have never talked about POV-warring anywhere. He hasn't emailed me yet, so I don't know why he asked me about email. I have never plotted with anybody off-wiki and I never will. Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Flamenc has already starting vandalizing that article with ridiculous edits about horses. He hasn't started well on the Spanish wikipedia and editors are already alert there. I'm telling you its a waste of time.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

And to be honest, the Flemish far-right is not particularly popular at the moment among Spanish speakers. An editor from that background obsessed with the Catalonia question is unlikely to be well-received.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So you accept that I'm not a POV-warrior? Scolaire (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, Scolaire, I don't know. Your dismissal of sources is off-hand and way over the top. Sure, you can argue that Caja has an axe to grind on the basis of his politics. But his book was well researched, even if one can fairly argue that his conclusions were extreme. Hoyos has no such allegiance and his book is thoroughly researched, his conclusions are more moderate. I have clear political views (I don't deny them) but I am an inclusionist. I don't try to get academia erased from wikipedia because it runs against my views. Say I'm Spanish, I won't go around articles looking for books which makes Spanish nationalism look bad or racist and try to get them deleted. Racism in Spanish nationalism is on my to-do list. This is what made me angry with you. You called Hoyos' book a biased "rant". On what basis? That is not fair and made it hard for me to keep assuming good faith.Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply, his views are the same as yours, so when you read his book you find it reasonable. I am neutral (yes I am, I have reverted pro-Catalanist edits on several occasions), and when I read your translation of that chapter I see a rant. I could say something nicer like "less than totally neutral", but I say what I feel. That doesn't make me an anything warrior, just honest. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No Scolaire, you are overall sympathetic to the Catalan cause, you have just reverted some of the most illogical crazy things - just as I have reverted illogical crazy anti-catalan things. Which is fine. It is fine to have an opinion - I don't care about someone having an opinion - in fact you being here is what would keep me in check if I do something which is unfair, or vice-versa. Its how wikipedia works. But look I'll give you my personal opinion so you know how I feel. You have no idea the degree of radicalization and post-truth we are facing from Catalan nationalism these days on a daily basis. It is not normal levels of political bickering we always have in Spain. I have always been left-leaning and critical of the Spanish government (particularly the PP) but this level of fantasy is beyond Trumpian. The entire country is shocked into silence because we were not aware (were in denial) about the level of radicalization which was been fostered by the Catalan elites - because this is very much a problem of the elites, there is a direct negative correlation between personal wealth and support for independence in Catalonia. I never thought a modern, western European country would face such levels of collective mental disease in 2017. As a Spaniard I can tell you what I think happened: As a reaction to Francoism, Spain became democratic, anti-nationalistic and left-leaning to the degree that throughout my youth, even displaying a Spanish flag was seen as suspect. As Spanish identity has folded in the post-franco era, more sinister forces have filled the vacuum, particularly in certain regions, using the banner of "anti-francoism" to justify what is now overt fascism. And now we are stuck in this situation, with a region which was always looked-up to by the rest of Spain. We need to understand and explain why this has happened. Now Catalan kids are raised to believe that the Spanish civil war was a war between fascist Spain and democratic Catalonia, that Catalonia was the most oppressed region (it was actually the least oppressed, both in terms of people killed and in terms of how Francoism economically benefited Catalonia and starved the rest of the country), that Catalan language was banned (it actually wasn't) and they are totally unaware that pretty much all of Catalonia's current pro-independence elite were very cosy with the dictatorship. And then we listen to the radio and hear pro-independence kids on Catalan radio-stations express outrage at the idea of donating their organs to non-catalans, shit like that on a daily basis. Frankly, I believe that if you spoke Spanish (or Catalan) and were exposed to this, you would have very different views - as do most Anglo journalists I know how are fluent in Spanish and know the country well. Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sharing all that with me. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Always considered it to be more productive to be honest and open about one's views than to keep up pretense of being the paradigm of neutrality about a given topic. It actually avoids irritation and confrontation with other editors.Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

Scolaire, apologies for getting worked up a couple of weeks ago. You know its a sensitive topic for all of us Spaniards. I'll try not losing my cool from now on.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Sonrisas. Things have calmed down generally, and hopefully they won't get hostile again after the election next month. By the way, you might want to re-read the On deleting drafts section, above. I still recommend blanking your sandbox. The article is obviously never going to be created in anything like its present form; it would need to be started over from scratch. And nobody wants another drama on Miscellany for deletion. Good luck. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire. I'm not planning on creating it in its present form, but has material which may be useful down the line. Just using sandbox to keep stuff I find useful. Not a structured planned article. Sonrisas1 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The closing discussion thing

Is that normal? It seems strange to forbid other editors from participating. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing the Catalan independence movement article, and the discussion had digressed into an exchange of views about the relative merits of different polling organisations and the general theory of polling. There was no possibility of it leading to a change in the article, since you said (twice) that you were not looking to change it. Discussions like that have a tendency to continue for days or weeks just because the participants are enjoying it, and that disrupts the talk page, so I took the liberty of marking the discussion closed.

Since you're here, though, I'll explain how two questions that look similar can give very different results. Here is a CIS poll from 1996. It asked (Question 27) about alternative formulas of territorial organization of the State in Spain, and 20.9% said they wanted the Spanish state to allow regions to have the right to self-determination. But it also asked (Question 33) whether people would favour Catalonia being independent, and 33.6% said yes. You might find it hard to understand why there's a difference, but there is a difference, and it's huge! If the difference was the same in the survey you linked, you would see 44% wanting the Spanish state to allow regions to have the right to self-determination, and 70.7% wanting independence for Catalonia. So yes, it matters what question you ask.

I don't have any problem talking about things like this. I just don't want it to take up space on the article talk page. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the explanation. Im taking a wikibreak anyhow. Massive source of procrastination for me, not good for end of quarter. Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I really ought to do the same. Scolaire (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI

In Spain/Catalonia everyone has been going ape shit over this Tabarnia thing over the last 48 hours. Its kind of sad you don't speak Spanish, you would really enjoy our squabbling. :-)

Coincidentally it exploded one day before the Spanish April's fools day, which we call the day of the Innocent Saints. The day of the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod. Innocent in Spanish also means naive, hence it being chosen as a day to make jokes - often with fake news on the press. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You erased my paragraph

But the rest of your conversation with Sonrisas1 shows that you're about as harsh to him or her (or rather what they're trying to do) as I am, if not more. It appears as though we essentially agree on this. Where's the "personal attack", pray tell? CodeInconnu (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. My arguments against Sonrisas focussed on the content of the Catalan independence movement article, although it was necessary for me to address his attitude (and on one occasion, his past behaviour) in order to give context to my arguments. You made no contribution whatever to the content discussion, just made a truckload of accusations against him. That's the difference. Scolaire (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"although it was necessary for me to address his attitude (and on one occasion, his past behaviour) in order to give context to my arguments" precisely what I was doing. I wasn't calling him names--unlike him, calling me "completely bonkers or editing in bad faith (sic)".

but it's true, my paragraph was not a direct contribution to the article itself. It was rather indirect: a panoramic of the big picture. Sooner or later you'll see it too. Cheers. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You've been an editor for four months. You think that you see the big picture and I don't? The big picture is that Wikipedia was not created to give angry men or women a place to have endless slagging matches. Some day (maybe) you'll see that too. Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the anger was only his, that's what I was trying to impress upon you but you seem to dissociate and suddenly forget your endless brawls with him now.

I promise I'll work hard to get the picture I still don't have, but from now it'll be you having the monopoly of trying to "address his attitude and/or past behavior" or give him any "context" in endless interchanges, I'm through trying to make my point clear in that Talk Page. If he persists with the edit warring I'll go directly to the pertinent place and I'll use both Talk Pages (Citizens and Catalan Independence Movement) as part of my argument. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, then everything should be fine. Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)